Extended-protected page

User talk:BilCat

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search

View this userbox's documentationIt is approximately 7:21 AM where this user lives (the Eastern Time Zone of the USA).Refresh the time
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.

Airbus Helicopters

I have to disagree with your recent "Corrected national origin as with most Airbus/Eurocopter products" changes as we have not had these down as multinational before and all the types are still clearly built by different parts of the company by the original manufacturers. The Puma family for example is an old Aerospatiale design built in France and has little connection with the Germany part of the company and it the same with the EC-145 helicopters built in Germany. Just thought I would raise it here first rather than revert your changes! MilborneOne (talk) 09:45, 22 January 2019 (UTC)

Just to note that the Type Certificates clearly show the German-built products as Airbus Helicopters Deutschland rather than Airbus Helicopters based in France. MilborneOne (talk) 09:50, 22 January 2019 (UTC)
While I understand your point, another user made most of these changes about a year and a half ago, and most already had Multinational at that point. My prime reasoning is that Eurocopter itself, and Airbus, is multinational, and that is generally what we have gone by, not where it is assembled. - BilCat (talk) 09:56, 22 January 2019 (UTC)
I would agree that the companies are multinational but I am not aware that the helicopter production is! We could add a footnote to indicate where they actually come from per Airbus A320 family. MilborneOne (talk) 10:02, 22 January 2019 (UTC)
I think it's just easier to use Multinational. Anything else is just too much work for little benefit. But of course your welcome to disagree with me and take to WP:AIR. I've been wanting to have a clarification on the use and meaning of "national origin" anyway, and now might be as good a time as any to discuss it. People seem to take the word "origin" too literally, and that wasn't its original intent. It basically was supposed to mean the nationality of the companies involved as the prime contractors, include changes during production, not just where it was from "originally". Cheers. - BilCat (talk) 10:07, 22 January 2019 (UTC)

Mach conversions????

You say that "at high altitude" (you don't quantify what this means) each mach number is 660 mph, and this is standard for aircraft articles. Where are you getting these ideas from? Can you point me towards the wikistyle page where this is laid out? Or is this your personal idea?

Ninjalectual (talk) 07:07, 2 February 2019 (UTC)

@Ninjalectual: See Talk:Concorde#Max speed / Mach number, particularly Khamba Tendal's reply. - BilCat (talk) 21:55, 2 February 2019 (UTC)


Hi there. Just say if/when you wish to modify the protection. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 08:43, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

Thanks! I will. - BilCat (talk) 08:44, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

Take care with rollback/twinkle

Hi. Per Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive383 please do take care not to revert any good faith edits without leaving a suitable edit summary. There is more detail at WP:ROLLBACKUSE. Thank you for your continued efforts — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 09:04, 7 February 2019 (UTC)

@MSGJ: Thanks, but I usually do leave summaries for what I believe are good faith edits, or issue warnings. If you disagree with my interpretation of good faith, that's a somewhat separate issue I'd be happy to address specifically. Otherwise I don't know what you're disagreeing with. - BilCat (talk) 10:00, 7 February 2019 (UTC)
Ah,I figured out what you were linking to, as it wasn't readily apparent. That IP had the appearance of a troll, so I handled it without trying to draw attention to the edit. I did give a summary on the second edit, and I still have reservations about the edits and IP. Dennis usually has a good reason for reverting, though he neglects leaving edit summaries more often than I'd like. Since he hasn't addressed the issue, I've left it alone for the time being, but I still have a strong feeling we're being played by this user. My gut is usually right on this. - BilCat (talk) 10:11, 7 February 2019 (UTC)