User talk:BilCat

I miss the "Orange Bar" that notified me when I had a new talk page message. Poor vision is bad.

Unified login: BilCat is the unique login of this user for all public Wikimedia projects.

A barnstar for you!

	The Anti-Vandalism Barnstar
	Thanks for reverting this vandalous edit. – Illegitimate Barrister (talk • contribs), 10:45, 10 June 2018 (UTC)

Thanks very much! - BilCat (talk) 18:44, 10 June 2018 (UTC)

Aeroflot Flight 245

Hi BilCat, I've completed an article for this accident here but I can't move it to main space because of a redirect again. I applied for Page Mover rights but was denied. Is there a way I can do this without bothering you? - Samf4u (talk) 19:18, 10 June 2018 (UTC)

I'm sorry you were denied Page Mover rights. There are only about 200 Page Movers, as the requirements are quite strict. I actually enjoy helping out as a Page Mover, so don't worry about asking me for assistance. The best alternative is to place a {{Db-move}} tag to the desired title, but that can sometimes take a few hours for an admin to respond to. - BilCat (talk) 19:29, 10 June 2018 (UTC)

Y Unless the admin is a talk page stalker and just happens to be online. MilborneOne (talk) 19:34, 10 June 2018 (UTC)

Yes, I was going to mention that one too. :) Thanks! - BilCat (talk) 19:36, 10 June 2018 (UTC)

Okay, thanks you both. - Samf4u (talk) 19:59, 10 June 2018 (UTC)

ma ego

So long as my name shows up as one of the people who worked on the space force article in the first 24 hours I'm good.

Bojackh (talk) 20:23, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

FTR he calls it the "United States Space Force". --Bojackh (talk) 20:24, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

Shouldn't you be redirecting to my article and improving it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bojackh (talk • contribs) 20:43, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

Australia (continent)

I have opened up a discussion on the talk page, Talk:Australia_(continent)#What_comprises_the_continent_of_Australia?. Can you please consider notifying others of the discussion? --2601:183:101:58D0:5D57:4B1C:A325:C74C (talk) 11:16, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

Dihydrogen monoxide

listing some of water's effects in a particularly alarming manner, such as accelerating corrosion and causing suffocation just sounded wrong to my ear - like the suffocation is an example of an "alarming manner", and the hoax involves strangling people while explaining science to them. I agree my attempted rewrite wasn't great there, but it's a slightly odd opening sentence. --Lord Belbury (talk) 17:35, 21 June 2018 (UTC)

I agree it needs to be rewritten, and will try and find a less wordy way to do that. - BilCat (talk) 17:37, 21 June 2018 (UTC)

MOS shortcuts

Please do not create "MOS:FOO" or "WP:MOSFOO" shortcuts to pages that are not MoS pages (or "advertise" such mistaken shortcuts at the non-MoS page in question), as at WP:Naming conventions (geographic names). It confuses people, and it's also a maintenance hassle. If you run across another one at another naming conventions page, please feel free to replace it with a non-"MOS" one (I did this with the several that were at that particular page).  :-)  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  23:03, 22 June 2018 (UTC)

Ok, Thanks for letting me know. I was just following the other existing examples on that page without investigating deeper, as you evidently figured out. - BilCat (talk) 23:08, 22 June 2018 (UTC)

@SMcCandlish: Should Wikipedia:MOSFALK be deleted, or perhaps redirected somewhere else? - BilCat (talk) 23:13, 22 June 2018 (UTC)

WP:RFD is reluctant to ever delete redirects; there's a "redirects are always 'cheap', no matter what" WP:FACTION in control of that process. Even utterly pointless MoS-related redirects get kept, despite strong arguments to delete them. This is one of the reasons I go out of my way to discourage creation of new ones that aren't quite on target. As for retargeting it, I don't know if we have any other place to send it. As long as it's not "advertised" at the NC page, probably no one will use it.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  23:17, 22 June 2018 (UTC)

OK, Thanks for the explanations. - BilCat (talk) 23:20, 22 June 2018 (UTC)

NP. I just checked, and zero of the MoS pages even mention the string "Falkland" [1].  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  23:24, 22 June 2018 (UTC)

Edits

What do you have against my Edits ? WhiteGuy1850 (talk) 23:15, 22 June 2018 (UTC)

Which edits where? I've had many edits this week, and can't remember everyone I've reverted. - BilCat (talk) 23:19, 22 June 2018 (UTC)

I can't speak for BilCat on the specifics, of course, but as an uninvolved bystander who notices that your user page is nearly at world-record level for complaints and warnings, you should probably start by reading your user page, then reading all the policies and guidelines linked in those complaints and warnings. This place does have a bit of a learning curve, and part of it is actually being willing to learn the curve and adjust to it.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  23:20, 22 June 2018 (UTC)

Airbus A380

You keep mentioning a consensus in your edits on Airbus A380 to remove European from the header. Can you please point me to this consensus, as there's no such consensus on the talk page of the aircraft or on the actual Airbus article. In fact the Airbus article states European, as do most of the other Airbus aircraft articles, so I'm not sure what consensus you're referring to. Canterbury Tail talk 01:00, 27 June 2018 (UTC)

Besides that fact that Europe is a continent, thus European is highly misleading, it's based on the discussions concerning Template:Infobox aircraft type, which advises using "multinational" instead of "EU", and Lead and infobox should be contradictory. I'll try to find the specific discussion(s), if you're still interested. - BilCat (talk) 01:29, 27 June 2018 (UTC)

Ah okay, that makes sense. Thanks. Canterbury Tail talk 10:35, 27 June 2018 (UTC)

You're welcome. - BilCat (talk) 18:35, 27 June 2018 (UTC)

Oceania edit

Hello, I noticed you reverted my edit on the redirect Oceania (continent). I though~t it's quite obvious that Oceania (continent) should refer to Oceania and not to Australia (continent), I think most people would be looking for that page and not for Australia (continent). Various models in many countries do teach that Oceania is a continent and not Australia. Care to explain your reasoning?Civciv5 (talk) 19:15, 1 July 2018 (UTC)

@Civciv5: Read my edit summaries. - BilCat (talk) 19:18, 1 July 2018 (UTC)

Not enough explanation. Oceania (continent) should quite obviously redirect to Oceania as it is the main page of the related subject. If you do not provide more arguments I will nominate Oceania (continent) for Redirects for Discussion.Civciv5 (talk) 19:33, 1 July 2018 (UTC)

If you haven't listened already, then I doubt anything else I say will persuade you. Hopefully someone else will listen. - BilCat (talk) 19:37, 1 July 2018 (UTC)

Canadian Armed Forces Senior Service

Hello, I have noticed that you decided to revert my edit on the page on the subject of the Canadian Armed Forces. I had placed the commands in order of seniority, the Royal Canadian Navy, the Canadian Army and the Royal Canadian Air Force. On other pages having to do with Commonwealth Realms military services (examples, the British, Australian and New Zealand armed / defence forces), these page places their navies first, the army second and the air force last. Therefore I do not understand why Wikipedia does not wish to respect this custom in Canada, in particular when on many pages talking about the Royal Canadian Navy, it states that it is the senior service.

I have always believed that Wikipedia has a duty to help educated its users. Therefore, placing the Royal Canadian Navy first in the listings of the Commands of the Canadian Armed Forces seems to only enforce this mission. It does not cost a thing to change, and it only shows the respect to the traditions of the Canadian Armed Forces and Commonwealth military services.

Thank you kindly. user:ctjj.Stevenson 135.19.214.6 (talk) 13:07, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

Please take the issue to the article's talk page, where other editors can participate in the discussion. Thanks. - BilCat (talk) 20:04, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

US Constitution

The user added "disastrous" in place of controversial, which is an opinion so why did you revert my undo? IWI (chat) 21:32, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

@ImprovedWikiImprovment: You've misread the original diff, and are restoring "disastrous", not removing it. It's an easy thing to do, and I've done it many times myself, as the diffs can be confusing. Please check again. Thanks. - BilCat (talk) 21:40, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

Wow. That's embarrassing. It's my eyesight lol. Sorry about that. IWI (chat) 21:41, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

@ImprovedWikiImprovment:Don't worry about it too much. As I said, it's happened to me many times, and for the exact same reason (poor eyesight), especially after a long editing session. - BilCat (talk) 21:43, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

@BilCat: Maybe its a sign for me to stop and go to bed XD IWI (chat) 21:45, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

Infobox image, Northrop Grumman EA-6B Prowler

Original

Straightened, colour adjusted, minor background cloning at corners due to straightening

As you're aware, I reverted the infobox image of Northrop Grumman EA-6B Prowler to the original image from the one with the faked background. I have tried to make a straightened version which shows the aircraft in its actual colours, without the cyan wash caused by the rear window of the tanker. I've put it in the article for now, but revert if need be. (Hohum ^@) 14:25, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

@Hohum: It might be better to find another image that doesn't need any adjustments at all. Unlike Fox, I happen to believe that showing aircraft in their natural element is a very good thing. I especially love "beauty shots" in the infobox, the kind that grabs a reader's attention and makes them say "Wow! I have to learn more about this aircraft!" That usually means a background that isn't a monotone color. Oh well. - BilCat (talk) 21:52, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

@Hohum:Can I throw in a driveby agreement? ;p The original looks better. The "decolored" version looks (to me, anyhow) like an attempt to create a phony documentary image (not to say that was the goal...), rather than capturing a real thing. It's also less visually interesting. Roger Siskel ^{everybody's a critic!} 11:32, 7 July 2018 (UTC)

I tend to agree. I've already changed the infobox image to one with natural colours. (Hohum ^@) 16:05, 7 July 2018 (UTC)

Unnecessary Edit

This edit feels unnecessary, but I'm not 100% sure about how table sorting works. Can you take a quick look? Sario528 (talk) 16:29, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

@Sario528: I'm sorry, but I literally know nothing about tables. Hopefully one of my watchers can help you out. - BilCat (talk) 21:44, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

It does not appear that adding a leading zero like that breaks the formatting. The template ({{Hs}}) only shows examples with dates like "1999-12-15". -Fnlayson (talk) 15:47, 8 July 2018 (UTC)

Thanks!

Thanks for helping me with that issue. I wasn't feeling too good about it yet did it anyway. Your clarification helped out a lot! Thanks again!--TheTexasNationalist99 (talk) 00:58, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

You're most welcome. - BilCat (talk) 01:03, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

Autocannon

Back in 2015 we had a lengthy argument about autocannons both in your talk page and on the Cannons talk page. In summary, I firmly believe that the vast majority of the world uses "autocannons" even in countries that use "cannon" as plural. At the end, you stopped reverting my edits and it has been fine for three years. It was hinted by another editor that sometimes a compromise is necessary, and that someone may have asked you to leave it be, as long as I didn't try to change cannon to cannons on the Cannon page. Unfortunately I did not save that e-mail, since I thought this was a done deal. This is really a big deal to me. Can you please just let the autocannon page be? --Trifler (talk) 03:41, 13 July 2018 (UTC)

I honestly don't remember any such agreement, though I may well have left it alone for that time. Agreements need to be in Wikispace, preferably with some notice on the talk pages involved for future reference. Feel free to re-litigate the issue on one of the article's or WPMILHIST's talk page if it's that big a deal to you, and we'll see where the current consensus lies. - BilCat (talk) 03:50, 13 July 2018 (UTC)

Attention needed (vandalism)

Greetings! Dear BilCat, as I'm not a frequent guest here, I would like to draw your attention to the following issue. Some pages related to the cars of Eastern Europe have been attacked by a vandal similar or identical to "Bandera Isuzu" who adds factually incorrect, blatantly false sentences, claiming that every car was "reverse-engineered" or "copied" from another one, despite the fact that they were built under license, in cooperation, etc. It seems he is either a sock of "Bandera Isuzu" or another notorious vandal that was blocked a dozen times for adding the same nonsense. If you can -- and you're great at protecting pages from vandals, -- please help to protect those articles from his vandalism and add them to your watchlist. Any help is much appreciated. Here are his IP and a list of attacks: [2]. 118.70.184.63 (talk) 22:26, 14 July 2018 (UTC)