Jump to content

User talk:BilCat

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Peterchiapperino (talk | contribs) at 22:47, 21 January 2016 (childishness). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

NOT RETIRED

This user is somewhat active on Wikipedia, and limits his activities to a small range of pages and mostly non-contentious discussions. There may be periods in which the user is not active due to life issues.
Unified login: BilCat is the unique login of this user for all public Wikimedia projects.

Template:NoBracketBot


Rafales for Qatar

Hi, I see that you restored the Qatar order to the Dassault Rafale article, on the basis that once a firm order is made the user becomes noteworthy (even though no examples have yet been delivered, never mind worked up to operational status). I assume you know what you are doing, but would you feel able to point me to the guideline for that? — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 19:51, 26 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, and while I am here:

Season's greetings

All the best for the festive season and new year.
— Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 18:31, 24 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page stalker)As a complete aside I'm still utterly baffled at how after the wild success of the Mirage family Dassault has made such an utter hash of marketing Rafale... - The Bushranger One ping only 21:02, 26 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Waning French national influence in the EU era? — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 11:24, 27 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Back on topic, I have now started a discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Aircraft#Infobox and primary users. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 11:24, 27 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I had a busy Saturday due to a family Christmas dinner. I've responded at WTAIR. As to BR's Rafale. question,there's probably not an easy answer. Part of it is the French habit of insisting its aircraft designs be selected in many European military competitions or development efforts, notably in the Fiat G.91 program. The French pulled out of the Eurofighter program primarily because Dassault's design was passed over in favor of basing the Eurofighter on the British Aerospace EAP. Partly, this was because the French Navy wanted a carrier-capable fighter design, and didn't want to buy a US design such as the F/A-18. So, in making the Rafale design able talk be adapted for carrier use, the Rafale is more expensive than the Typhoon, which puts Dassault at a disadvantage. The Mirages were relatively inexpensive and uncomplicated, which made them attractive to smaller nations, and comparative with Soviet fighters for the Third World market. I'm sure there are other factors too, but price is probably the big one.
No problems. Funnily enough I too was busy with dinner on Christmas day. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 12:23, 27 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
At risk of outstaying my welcome, in an off-wiki conversation it was pointed out to me that the Saab JAS 39 Gripen is, like the Mirage, single-engined. This makes it a lot cheaper even than Typhoon, never mind Rafale. It is also doing better in its export sales. Sounds a bit closer to the Mirage market. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 18:14, 27 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, the single engine is part of what made the Mirages relatively inexpensive and less complicated, and certainly applies to the Gripen also. - BilCat (talk) 19:45, 27 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]


Savvyjack23 (talk) — is wishing you a Happy New Year! This greeting (and season) promotes WikiLove and hopefully this note has made your day a little better. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Happy New Year, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Happy New Year!

Spread the New Year cheer by adding {{subst:New Year 1}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

Savvyjack23 (talk) 07:45, 1 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Qaher-313

Actually there is preciously little evidence development ever started. - Ahunt (talk) 01:41, 9 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I know, as with most projects announced by Iran. Have you seen my parody on Iran's tendency to label "improvements" of American aircraft as new developments, and then deny that they made unlicensed upgrades? - BilCat (talk) 01:46, 9 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
"Aircrafts"... - Ahunt (talk) 01:52, 9 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It's a "direct quote". - BilCat (talk) 01:55, 9 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Of course it is. It has that scent of authenticity to it! - Ahunt (talk) 03:03, 9 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It does indeed seem that the Q313 will go down in history as notable, but only for the dog-and-pony show surrounding it! - The Bushranger One ping only 03:36, 9 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
True. My satire/parody was written about 8 years ago, but still fits the pattern quite well, as the Q-313 was revealed in 2013. I just need to "borrow" a few quotes to add "authenticity". - BilCat (talk) 03:44, 9 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Well that does show that they are becoming far too predictable. - Ahunt (talk) 13:16, 9 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Maiden flight R-4

Hello BilCat, about the date of the first flight of the R-4.

The official Sikorsky archives pages state that the first flight took place on January 14th, not 13th. http://www.sikorskyarchives.com/S-47.php

So do various other rotary flight history pages. Example: http://www.aviastar.org/helicopters_eng/sik_r-4.php

Or the Smithonian news desk, http://newsdesk.si.edu/snapshot/sikorsky-xr-4-helicopter (The actual machine sits there in the Smithonian)

What is Your source for the 13th?

Best

prolaroid— Preceding unsigned comment added by Prolaroid (talk • contribs)

I've found and added published reliable sources for the 14 January 1942 date. In the future, you need to actually cite your sources when making changes. - BilCat (talk) 19:47, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I will keep that in mind. Thank You.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Prolaroid (talk • contribs)
Also, Aviastar isn't considered a reliable source, as it uses copyvio material and I'm not certain the Sikorsky Archives are considered reliable either, though it may be. - BilCat (talk) 19:47, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
(talk page stalker)I'd say that the Sikorsky Archives are probably "RS for factual statements, not for notability/qualatitive statements" akin to a primary source. As for the other matter, WP:AVIASTAR explains it. - The Bushranger One ping only 22:15, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Draft infobox for 'Thirteen Colonies'

Dear BilCat,
I hope you are feeling better today. I have now created the subject infobox, as discussed a few days ago, and left you a message—and a link to the infobox—at the article's talk page (section: Incorrect British Flag). Thank you.
With kind regards;
Patrick. ツ Pdebee.(talk)(guestbook) 11:52, 16 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sikorsky R-4

I had another go here [1] - see what you think. If unhappy please suggest something better. Regards, Springnuts (talk) 18:49, 17 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:General Electric

Hello,

I deleted your comments on Talk:General Electric because the entire section is off-topic and does not belong on a Wikipedia Talk page. To read more about what Wikipedia is NOT please check this out WP:NOT. This would specifically be under WP:FORUM - as to why the whole discussion was removed, read here WP:TPO. Garchy (talk) 18:52, 18 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I am NOT newbie to be lectured to. I made a judgment to respond to the comments in the way I did, rather than to delete them outright. I don't appreciate your interference, and I will restore the section as it was. - BilCat (talk) 19:11, 18 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I've added a note to the OP regarding Forum to the section. I hope that addresses your concerns (and they are legitimate) adequately. Thanks. - BilCat (talk) 19:33, 18 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
In all honestly I think it would be best to have the entire section collapsed (the sources/links the OP left are really not helpful to the article and are a distraction) - but I do understand the sensitivity around working with others Talk page comments so I'll leave it be. Just remember, even me at 9+ years - I still considering myself a "newbie" in some respects, as we all should :) Thanks, Garchy (talk) 19:37, 18 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not a newbie. :) I can be prickly, petulant, and impulsive, but not a newbie. I can also be thoughtful and considerate. :) - BilCat (talk) 19:42, 18 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, the many users of Wikipedia - We ARE great aren't we :) Happy editing! Garchy (talk) 19:43, 18 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Somehow it all works! - BilCat (talk) 19:45, 18 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

User:SundayRequiem

I am a bit of noob when it comes to dealing with people who misbehave on Wikipedia. User:SundayRequiem had updated Emma_Hewitt with an all rights reserved photo. I have undid the revision, but I wanted to give you a heads up about him. Photocyclone (talk) 22:46, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:BilCat&oldid=701006744"