User talk:BilCat/archive17

Barelinks
Hi, I thought a bot or automated tool editors come along and fix - so worth it. I'm fixing up DABs so I often drive-by without time. The danger being more bare refs get added without the tag. I shall leave for you to do the quick fix. Widefox ; talk 11:22, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

Issues with F-35 recent revert?
Hi BilCat. I was wondering about your thinking behind the reversion. It was reliably sourced, and was in the problems section. I had not been aware of that issue. You say alarmist. Damn right to be alarmed if it is going to be "The Free worlds" 21st century replacement for the F-16 (as I see its place anyway) It merely adds to the growing and well-sourced raft of issues she seems to have. Happy to support a reversion back if you have any compelling thoughts? Cheers! Irondome (talk) 22:41, 30 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Who says it's an "issue"? The blog merely reports what some test pilots said. We've no context for it. The comparison to the Hornet in that post implys it's normal and not unexpected. Besides, and typical for an HCobb edit, the blog doesn't attribute the issue to high drag, as does HC. - BilCat (talk) 23:58, 30 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Umm. I take on board the point about high drag, but the source does indicate no less than 3 aerobatic manoevres required to achieve Mach 1.6 while creating a huge fuel consumption. I must say, that is the most worrying thing about 35 performance or tech issues I have seen. It sounds bizarre. Cheers Irondome (talk) 00:13, 31 August 2013 (UTC)


 * I agree it sounds bizarre, but we don't have enough info to make a judgement against it. WP is Not News, or even a blog - we don't report everything that's reported just because it's been reported, contrary to what HCobb does. - BilCat (talk) 00:19, 31 August 2013 (UTC)
 * So what do we do? Tag it dubious? There must be a tag which covers it without totally removing it, pending consensus? Its your call. Cheers Irondome (talk) 00:27, 31 August 2013 (UTC)


 * HC has opened a discussion on the article's talk page, so we can respond there, and see what the consensus ends up being. - BilCat (talk) 00:37, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

http://www.defensenews.com/article/20120118/DEFREG02/301180013/F-35-May-Miss-Acceleration-Goal The F-35 Lightning II’s transonic acceleration may not meet the requirements originally set forth for the program, a top Lockheed Martin official said. “Based on the original spec, all three of the airplanes are challenged by that spec,” said Tom Burbage, Lockheed’s program manager for the F-35. “The cross-sectional area of the airplane with the internal weapons bays is quite a bit bigger than the airplanes we’re replacing.” The sharp rise in wave drag at speeds between Mach 0.8 and Mach 1.2 is one of the most challenging areas for engineers to conquer. And the F-35’s relatively large cross-sectional area means, that as a simple matter of physics, the jet can’t quite match its predecessors.


 * Here's the point about the drag. Hcobb (talk) 00:46, 31 August 2013 (UTC)
 * So its aerodynamically "too fat"? Is it a power or an aerodynamic design issue? Or both? I just want to get my head around this conceptually first. Irondome (talk) 00:50, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

Please take this discussion back to the F-35 talk page, where others can see it and participate there. Thanks. - BilCat (talk) 01:00, 31 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Bill... Don't you hate it when the "Corny One" comes uninvited? -- Dave ♠♣♥♦™№1185©♪♫® 15:39, 31 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Actually, Irondome invited him here. I'll give Henry a pass on that one, as he knew better than to post his lipstick/fat pig comment here! In any case, the real fat pig is the F-35 article, and we all know who's been feeding it! - BilCat (talk) 16:05, 31 August 2013 (UTC)
 * oops. Irondome (talk) 16:13, 31 August 2013 (UTC)


 * No problem, Irondome. You didn't know! That's why I simply asked for the conversation to be continued at the F-35 talk page, which it has. Several other editors have supported my position there. - BilCat (talk) 16:21, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

OK then...
If you're going to delete the section I added on WHERE the SSGNs are home ported (See Ohio class article's External Links), then please add that info back in in a more appropriate location. LP-mn (talk) 06:19, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

About those Robinsons
It's now hit ANI! - The Bushranger One ping only 03:54, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

Your accidental revert on my talk page
I managed to do this a few days ago using my PC, so I feel your pain for the nook accident! Regards, Nick-D (talk) 02:34, 13 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Oh dear! Yes, odd things do sometimes happen on WP. It would be nice if they could make confirmation optional on rollbacks, or else a lot of editors may have to give up rollback rights because of their tablets and phones. - BilCat (talk) 02:58, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

Splitting up

 * Looking at the Specs' section of both Boeing F/A-18E/F Super Hornet and McDonnell Douglas F/A-18 Hornet is giving me a headache... I'm not sure what GLCM is trying to do but the Harpoon/SLAM/SLAMER article pages (well, not the Harpoon page anyway) gives me an even bigger headache. Sometimes, I really wonder why I keep coming online just to run into this kind of mess on WP. ... -- Dave ♠♣♥♦™№1185©♪♫® 06:55, 14 September 2013 (UTC)


 * FYI, my alarm bell is going off after reading the Sub-heading 1 section on Talk:AC. -- Dave ♠♣♥♦™№1185©♪♫® 07:15, 14 September 2013 (UTC)


 * As in someone's feet might be cold due to... Well, you know, or something else? As to GLCM, I guess an old ground-launched cruise missile is now editing WP. Be on the look-out for Apple's Siri to start editing soon! - BilCat (talk) 07:41, 14 September 2013 (UTC)


 * My side just split~! -- Dave ♠♣♥♦™№1185©♪♫® 11:00, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

Georgia Flag
Hi, BilCat. Regarding the nickname of the Georgia flag. I honestly wasn't thinking of "established" usage here at Wikipedia when I left that note. I intended to say that the real world nickname, here in Georgia, has never been "Georgian" Stars & Bars. I don't think that your average Georgian uses "Georgian" to refer to anything other than people from the state, or (to a much lesser degree, and then only if they have a degree from Georgia Tech, and not UGA) that era of British history from 1714-1830. You are quite correct to point out the fact that Wikipedia has used the wrong term for well over a year. But I hope precedent doesn't trump reality. btw, like your work!!! Gulbenk (talk) 07:51, 15 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Ah, got it. Either way, it should probably be cited to a reliable source somewhere. Although it's an obvious nickname, that doesn't in and of itself make the nickname common. I've n ever heard it used. - BilCat (talk) 08:00, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

AIM-7
Can you show a source that says the 13% figure for the E2 is for 1972 only? The books referenced only say 13%, no year is specified. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Z07x10 (talk • contribs) 12:32, 15 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Please use edit summaries whe making such changes. We have no way of knowing why you make changes without an explanation, aside from obvious stuff like vandalism, and it'll be easier do just do that in your first edit. Thanks. - BilCat (talk) 12:40, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

WikiProject Military history coordinator election
Greetings from WikiProject Military history! As a member of the project, you are invited to take part in our annual project coordinator election, which will determine our coordinators for the next twelve months. If you wish to cast a vote, please do so on the election page by 23:59 (UTC) on 28 September! Kirill [talk] 16:21, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

Carriers - where to from here?
Hi Bill, our friend has just made another rant again (8.5k this time) on the aircraft carrier talk page. I find his whole approach exasperating and am wondering just exactly whare do we go from here? Do we list the issue at DRN, or should the matter be taken to AN/I? I am finding his increasingly shrill posting to be very disturbing, to say the least. - Nick Thorne  talk  05:17, 19 September 2013 (UTC)


 * I don't know. I hate getting involved with WP:TEND-type editors in the first place. The never use a sentence where six paragraphs will do, and they never admit wrong doing on their own part. It usually takes years tom get rid of them, as with Mick MacNee Wolfkeeper, and Tenmei. Perhaps not commenting on his behavior from this point on would be the best, no matter what he says. I know you're more than capable of taking the high road than he is. - BilCat (talk) 06:11, 19 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Yeah, you're right. I'll just have to suck it up.  Thanks, mate. -  Nick Thorne  talk  07:05, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

Yes, I know, but hypocrisy just pushes my buttons. - Nick Thorne  talk  07:59, 19 September 2013 (UTC)


 * We're trying to give him some WP:ROPE. - BilCat (talk) 08:16, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

Gridiron
I appreciate your concern in relation to the definition of "gridiron" found in Gridiron football. Ironically, the original meaning of "grid" and "gridiron" has appeared from time to time in this article—I have a copy of this article from 2008 that provides such information with an accompanying photograph of the Syracuse University football stadium—but always seems to disappear.

I evidently took too long to add footnotes and/or references to both the text and illustration—my bad—an oversight that I will correct in the near future.

I have several published sources from the early 1900s that provide diagrams of the original football field design (showing actual square grids) and written descriptions of the grid pattern, including measurements—one written by Fielding Yost of Michigan—and other published sources that make it clear that "grid" and "gridiron" refers to a pattern of squares, like a checkerboard, as opposed to a series of parallel lines. The published evidence suggest that the latter definition is a relatively recent backformation derived from the modern football field design of parallel yard lines. PlaysInPeoria (talk) 00:01, 27 September 2013 (UTC)


 * The reason that the claims from the 2008 version always disappeared was because it was not reliably sourced, if I recall correctly. Someone searched for reliable sources, and that's why the current sources are in the article. You still have to be careful with changing existing reliable sources, even when you think they are wrong. Your conclusion that "published evidence suggest that the latter definition..." is basically synthesis, and is to be avoided. - BilCat (talk) 09:01, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

Robinson R44
Hello. Your edit summary says that you removed a table, but actually that's not all you reverted. Also, if you have an issue with a table in the article, then YOU too could take that to the talk page...  Socrates2008 ( Talk )  08:43, 28 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Except that's not how WP:BRD works. You boldly added the table, he reverted it, now the next step is for you to discuss why the table should be included, not to re-add the table and then discuss why it should be removed. - The Bushranger One ping only 09:06, 28 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Thanks BR. - BilCat (talk) 12:35, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

Helicopter Rotor & Helicopter Controls
Hi BilCat, thank you for the message regarding the external links. You tagged the links as spam. I inserted the links because they covered the topic with an overview, photos, in-depth video presentation and more links. The website itself was public, non-profit education website specifically aimed at educating the public on the subject of helicopters. Perhaps you could go into a bit more detail of why you thought the links were spam? J 9/29/13 JB77UK


 * Because it appeared to be a violation of the Spam guideline, particularly the section reading "It has text at this video page that would lead readers to a specific commercial site. For example, "book available at xyzBooks dot net"." I recommend that you read the entire page, particularly the section on How not to be a spammer. In addition, if you are Jay Bunning, as your username implies, then I highly suggest that you read the essay at User:Durova/The dark side, which warns of some dangers involved in self-promotion that you or your website might not have considered.


 * Finally, I heartily suggest that you remove the links you've added immediately as a gesture of good faith. Then, once you have thoroughly reviewed the pages as I've suggested, you still believe that the links are useful, especially if you're associated with the website in any way, you can seek opinions from others about whether or not the links are useful to WP readers. Since you've posted links to more than one article, the best place to seek such advice would probably be the Aircraft Project talk page. Thanks. - BilCat (talk) 03:53, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

OK fair enough, thank you. JB — Preceding unsigned comment added by JB77UK (talk • contribs) 17:56, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

Rollbacker
I have removed your "rollbacker" rights as requested with the summary "user request due to platform issues - no prejudice against re-assignment". I would ask any admin to restore the right on request by the user, thanks. MilborneOne (talk) 19:30, 3 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Thank you. - BilCat (talk) 19:34, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

Re: Aircraft carrier
Thanks for your message on my talk, User_talk:Techhead7890. However, as far as I have seen Talk:Aircraft_carrier mostly contains a debate over classification and definition, as I believe you and Nick Thorne note above, and I cannot find any formalised project or proposals to restructure the page as a whole. I don't feel that my edits are of a similar nature to this debate; in my opinion they are of an general nature to carriers and apart from the "Structure" section, consisted mainly of copyediting and shuffling paragraphs from summaries to related pages. I also acknowledge that this page has been in some quite dire need of more general information - previous editors who have attempted to work on the page since its GA delisting have noted this as well. In any case, although I will stop editing for the meantime, I am unable to establish the contradiction my edits and the talk, and if you could clarify this for me, I would be grateful. Thanks, Techhead7890 (talk) 07:28, 5 October 2013 (UTC)
 * I should probably also note that I have reverted your revert to the body sections; I have instead replaced it with a version only reverting the introduction as per Steelpillow's version several days ago. I felt that this was the best immediate compromise or refinement as per Revert_only_when_necessary, and I trust this is not unhelpful or contrary to reaching a settlement on the way to proceed with the article. As noted above, if you feel that the Structure section is unhelpful at the current time, please feel free to remove it as well. Techhead7890 (talk) 07:33, 5 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Alright - as I've noted, I am not planning to work further on the article, so you may continue your discussion as planned without interference. I however don't see the formal planning or schedule of such work, or even a notice that it is undergoing revision on the talk due to its disorganised nature - at the very least, a heading notice would be nice. As I just stated, I do not plan to further work on the article and I do not care much if they are reverted or reworked during your revisal.
 * Seeing as though you are interested in discussion, to get some closure on this, if you could please explain more specifically which of these edits (and which of these are "structural changes") are most controversial: the edits I made to the article were over a variety of sections and areas.
 * Finally, as per the second message, I trust that the article in its intermediary form is not drastically changing to your restructuring - could you confirm this for me? Thanks, Techhead7890 (talk) 07:43, 5 October 2013 (UTC)
 * As interesting as the subject is, there are a number of other pages that I am interested in; and to be honest my diplomacy, debate and rhetoric is not what I'm interested in practising on Wikipedia! As for the discussion itself - although I have made edits, as I've stated these are generalised edits and not reflective of any plan or indeed, tailored vision of the page. I also find it relatively hard to find exactly what is the topic-at-debate or what exactly is contentious, and so find it hard to comment further. That all being said I do wish you the best luck in attempting to establish a forward consensus, I know Wikipedia isn't always the nicest of debategrounds out there! Techhead7890 (talk) 08:03, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

Black Cat (B-24)
Hi Bill, I moved the article to fit in with the vast majority of named aircraft articles (that I have come across), which use the name in italics, followed by the aircraft type in parentheses. I know there is no laid down strict policy, but if there is a majority of similar articles named this way, does that not count as concensus?--Petebutt (talk) 11:22, 19 October 2013 (UTC)


 * The vast majority of named aircraft articles don't use a disambiguator at all, as it's not needed. In Category:Individual aircraft, 16 articles with disambiguators use aircraft, airship, or helicopter, etc, while 4 use the type. In Category:Individual aircraft of World War II, 9 articles with disambiguators use aircraft, airship, or helicopter, etc, while 14 use the type. (I've not included Black Cat in the totals here.) That's 25 using aircraft, etc, and 18 using the type. Not a vast majority either way, but using type is in the minority. It does appear we need to address the issue to get a clear consensus one way or another. I'll start a discussion (or you can start it if you beat me to it!) at WT:AIR/NC, with notices about the discussion at WT:AIR and WT:AVIATION. - BilCat (talk) 14:43, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

Co-nom for FAC
Hi BilCat, since you have contributed extensively to AV-8B, are you willing to be co-nom for its upcoming FAC? --Sp33dyphil ©hatontributions 08:56, 20 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the offer, but FACs are beyond my area of expertise on WP. Good luck in your effort to improve the article to FAC status. - BilCat (talk) 12:35, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

Georgia
I have raised this at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Disambiguation. 183.89.118.75 (talk) 20:33, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

Are you working on the College Football Wiki Project? How can I help? Myself and other classmates are studying wiki projects at the University of Washington, but we are all first time users. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.135.6.65 (talk) 01:11, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

OV-10
Remember this? Wel, I found this on youtube and thought you might be interested. Also, I got a URL (http://www.airvectors.net/avbronco.html) for you to check out if you're still keen. Cheers~! -- Dave ♠♣♥♦™№1185©♪♫® 17:27, 10 November 2013 (UTC)


 * I just saw that post the other day. We can't use much from Airvectors, as it's self-published, but it can help me know where to start. Thanks. - BilCat (talk) 17:35, 10 November 2013 (UTC)


 * I didn't see any mention of carrier capability in the Airvectors piece, but he does have a photo of a Bronco on an LHA. We have one too, I think. ;) - BilCat (talk) 17:44, 10 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Actually, it's the same exact photo! :) - BilCat (talk) 17:50, 10 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Yup! I saw that, not surprising since it is DOD-PD material. :) -- Dave ♠♣♥♦™№1185©♪♫® 17:55, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

Hello! There is a DR/N request you may have interest in.
This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult for editors. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help find a resolution. The thread is "Flight Deck". Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you! EarwigBot   operator  /  talk 21:01, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

Apologies for my absence
Hey Bill, how's it going? Sorry for being MIA for over 2 months, been very busy with the family matters as well as MI's 737 MAX program. Anything I missed? :) -- <i style="font-family:Rage Italic; font-size:large; color:green;">Dave</i> ♠♣♥♦™№1185©♪♫® 06:15, 4 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Hey Dave, welcome back! Always interesting stuff going on. You can check my archives, see if you find anything you like. ;) - BilCat (talk) 06:21, 4 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Remember the "lost due to navigational error" fracas on the SR-71 page a few years ago? Check out Space Shuttle's history for the new version, by a presumably unrelated, though about as smart, user! - BilCat (talk) 06:28, 4 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Again?!?! Wow... more than 60 days I was away and here I am, back to the same shit. Well, it is quite clear that someone's (or a lot of someone) been watching too much of afternoon reruns. Thunderbirds are go~! :) -- <i style="font-family:Rage Italic; font-size:large; color:green;">Dave</i> ♠♣♥♦™№1185©♪♫® 18:04, 4 November 2013 (UTC)


 * On a sidenote, wonder why and how these clowns got so much free time to harrass people like us? -- <i style="font-family:Rage Italic; font-size:large; color:green;">Dave</i> ♠♣♥♦™№1185©♪♫® 09:08, 6 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Asylum residents have lots of free time. And after-school-care delinquents. ;) - BilCat (talk) 09:11, 6 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Oh yeah, and those wannabe-hackers too. Nothing more than hormonal imbalance freaks at their most hilarious, eh? But, nothing surprises me these days. -- <i style="font-family:Rage Italic; font-size:large; color:green;">Dave</i> ♠♣♥♦™№1185©♪♫® 16:01, 6 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Meow. It's amazing how long this person can nurse a grudge. I am sorry for the original angry outburst six/seven years ago that triggered all this, and I hope Vasily/Vladimir can find the strength to forgive and move on. If not, they will reap what they sow. And that's a promise from Someone far greater than me. - BilCat (talk) 21:09, 8 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Better tell them to go read up on Proverbs 26:11 because from what we're seeing here, that pooch really likes to return to his vomit. But, I guess that's how predictable and no fun he has become over the years, eh? -- <i style="font-family:Rage Italic; font-size:large; color:green;">Dave</i> ♠♣♥♦™№1185©♪♫® 16:32, 10 November 2013 (UTC)


 * That OWB is a reminder of the Master's admonishment to love those who hate us, and to− pray for those who despitefully abuse us. It's sobering advice, and not easy to do. - BilCat (talk) 18:32, 10 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Repeat after me: "I forgive them~!" -- <i style="font-family:Rage Italic; font-size:large; color:green;">Dave</i> ♠♣♥♦™№1185©♪♫® 20:44, 10 November 2013 (UTC)


 * I already have, and extended the offer to reciprocate. You saw the response. You know I had my issues with User:MickMacNee, but I'll give him this: He has not, to my knowledge, broken his ban. He well could have chosen the cowardly route and harassed his detractors by hiding behind socks and IPs, but he moved on, and that is to his credit. - BilCat (talk) 20:58, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

November 2013
Please do not attack other editors, as you did on User talk:Nick Thorne. Comment on content, not on contributors. Personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you. regarding this edit -  thewolfchild   06:50, 12 November 2013 (UTC)
 * ...which is, you know, nowhere near a "personal attack". - The Bushranger One ping only 07:40, 12 November 2013 (UTC)


 * I shouldn't have left Wolf out of his name, but I was angry. I'll not do that again. However, he's been asked not to post on my page before, except for ANI- and ARBCOM-type notices, which this is not. - BilCat (talk) 08:14, 12 November 2013 (UTC)


 * I consider it poor form to modify one's own comments after they have been seen - what's done is done. It's also in poor form to modify the comments of others. It’s in that context that I reverted TWC's changes to my comments on Nick T's page. But per TWC's request, I've removed the perceived insult. Please STOP hounding me. - BilCat (talk) 13:02, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

ANI
There is a discussion at ANI where you have been named regarding the behavior of. The discussion can be found here. Toddst1 (talk) 13:05, 12 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Thank you. - BilCat (talk) 13:17, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

Flight Deck
Matter referred to Dispute Resolution notice board Solicitr (talk) 21:00, 10 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Would you care to comment on my proposed edit here: Talk:Flight_deck. Thanks.Damwiki1 (talk) 18:48, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

Americans, trying for a fresh and friendly discussion
N2e (talk) 01:08, 19 November 2013 (UTC)


 * OK, thanks. - BilCat (talk) 03:49, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

POV tag in Braves stadium page
Hey, I saw you added the POV tag to the section I created yesterday. What do you suggest for how to improve the neutrality? Personally, I think it's fair to say that local organizations constitute "public reaction"—i.e., not the government and not the team. A public poll isn't the only measure of public reaction. -- Jprg1966  (talk)  16:48, 20 November 2013 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure what wording to use either, but to me it is misleading and non-neutral. A lot of these groups have their own political agendas. This might be better discussed on the article's talk page. - BilCat (talk) 16:58, 20 November 2013 (UTC)
 * OK, I will create a new section. -- Jprg1966  (talk)  17:04, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

Robinson R-22
BilCat, you reverted an edit I made to the Robinson R-22 helicopter Wiki page. This edit, although "un-sourced," is based on my own personal experience since I'm the person who sold the R-22 to WSYR in November, 1980, and put the a/c on-air the next year. (The station paid for my flight training.) I thought it was relevant since broadcast operations were mentioned and I think "firsts" are noteworthy. Broadcastair (talk) 21:41, 20 November 2013 (UTC)BroadcastAir


 * Quite simply original research, such as "personal experience" is not permitted on Wikipedia, all substantive text added must be referenced to reliable sources so it can be verified. - Ahunt (talk) 01:24, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

Playground
Flies hovering around dog vomit...No idea why but WP seems to be a rife playground for these wanderers and there's a little something in the pre-xmas pingle to you this year. Cheers~! -- <i style="font-family:Rage Italic; font-size:large; color:green;">Dave</i> ♠♣♥♦™№1185©♪♫® 18:01, 18 November 2013 (UTC)


 * ! I get the message: You're picking on my edits again! ;) - BilCat (talk) 19:09, 18 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Yeah, I was picking on your edit again but that's because you made an error by listing Portugal instead of the Switzerland. Truth be told, apart from France and India, the other major users was indeed South Africa and Swiss Air Force with 120+ and 80+ respectively, while Portugal took delivery of only 54 machines, hardly enough to qualifiy in the top three. The claim of 160 machines in the Portuguese section was made without any verifiable source to back up the rubbish claim. True or true? -- <i style="font-family:Rage Italic; font-size:large; color:green;">Dave</i> ♠♣♥♦™№1185©♪♫® 02:50, 19 November 2013 (UTC)


 * The numbers aren't listed under operators (though they probably should be) so it was hard to guess who was right.I do seem torecall similar claims for Portugal on othet articles, but I'm not surprised they were wrong. Portugal seems to attract the same sort of fan boys as Mexico and the Philippines, it seems. - BilCat (talk) 08:03, 19 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Damnit~! FWIW, I went to dig through my past collection of Jane's All the World's Aircraft before cross-checking it with SIPRI's arms-transfer online database. Guess what I found? Big discrepancies with the Portuguese entry, seems that they did placed an order for a huge number of SA-316Bs twice, which were finalised and delivered in two batches (80 a/c delivered 1963-70 and 99 a/c delivered 1970-75). Time to amend the data? (PS: FOX 52 was the joker who removed all the figures!) -- <i style="font-family:Rage Italic; font-size:large; color:green;">Dave</i> ♠♣♥♦™№1185©♪♫® 15:34, 19 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Didn't used to be bolded? And a little bigger? Odd. - BilCat (talk) 19:21, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

Someone messed with the template for some reason. Wee Curry Monster talk 19:38, 18 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Figures! - BilCat (talk) 19:46, 18 November 2013 (UTC)


 * BTW for information, someone once asked me how defending myself againts false allegations from critics was working for me. It was the cluestick I needed to realise ignoring idiots was more satisfying than replying to them and its actually worked really well for me since.   was another of my silly templates that people seem to like and its good advice.  Wee Curry Monster talk 19:52, 18 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Cute! Yeah, that bolding is needed to make it stand out from the rest of the text. That's how I realized it had been changed. - BilCat (talk) 20:14, 18 November 2013 (UTC)


 * ... -- <i style="font-family:Rage Italic; font-size:large; color:green;">Dave</i> ♠♣♥♦™№1185©♪♫® 02:57, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

Dave, he's at it again. Try to play nice ;) - BilCat (talk) 04:57, 19 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Ok, don't play nice. ;) - BilCat (talk) 08:03, 19 November 2013 (UTC)


 * ... -- <i style="font-family:Rage Italic; font-size:large; color:green;">Dave</i> ♠♣♥♦™№1185©♪♫® 15:04, 19 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Remember that time when we got together to decide on whether F-16 should be named as General Dynamics F-16 Fighting Falcon or Lockheed Martin stable? Should we mention that in MDD F-15E Strike Eagle discussion? -- <i style="font-family:Rage Italic; font-size:large; color:green;">Dave</i> ♠♣♥♦™№1185©♪♫® 18:09, 30 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Yeah, I remembered. Anyway, his proposals were closed with no consensus to move, so that's good. You didn't even respond to my "canvassing" for the T-45 move, and it still lost. :)

And remember User:B767-500? They want to be unblocked now, as they took an online English-language course this year. - BilCat (talk) 22:35, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

777X - thanks
BilCat, thanks for your work on the 777X article. It went from a mess to a real article. I probably should have changed my redirect vote to a support one. Even though it was made redirect, it should come back in a few months or so. -Fnlayson (talk) 19:19, 25 November 2013 (UTC)
 * No problem. I'll keep an eye on the 777X section in the 777 article,and propose a split when it it expands some more. The main problem was that the person who created the new article didn't link to it in the main 777 article, and so I didn't find out it existed until 3 or 4 days into the AFD. - BilCat (talk) 19:30, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

Proposed move
It has been proposed that Ottawa RedBlacks be renamed and moved to Ottawa Redblacks at Talk:Ottawa_RedBlacks. As you have commented on this article's name before, you may be interested in voting on the proposal. Regards, Ground Zero | t 13:47, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

Unsure why... guidance please?
Hi BillCat, I've noticed that you've Undid revision 586627207 in the America-class amphibious assault ship article, reason "not a class or lead ship". I obviously didn't follow some guideline in the use of the "Distinguish" template... can you please point me to that guideline, so I avoid this kind of mistake again? Thanks, DPdH (talk) 13:12, 18 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Just that the article is about a ship class, not an individual ship with the USS prefix. The USS America (LHA-6) article itself just links to the main USS America list page. As to a specific guideline, I haven't checked to see if one applies or not. - BilCat (talk) 13:24, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

Good Tidings and all that ...
FWiW Bzuk (talk) 19:38, 23 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Thanks! Merry Christmas to you also. - BilCat (talk) 19:45, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

Lockheed Martin
I thought the vandalism was associated with the page. My apologies. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.218.59.209 (talk) 03:16, 24 December 2013 (UTC)


 * No worries! And my apologies too! It took me a while to figure out what your issue was, as I hadn't looked at the whole page at first, just the edit screen. But it's fixed now, so thanks for trying.

Joseph Stowell
Thanks for correcting my "unsourced" to "refimprove." I knew there was a word besides "unsourced" that was more accurate. I just couldn't think of the word. Canihaveacookie Talk, 1:13 (UTC-6), December 30, 2013


 * You're welcome. No worries. - BilCat (talk) 21:08, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

Hello
Read your edit comment here: the naval Tejas first flew in April 2012. See news of first flight. Happy new year! :) Anir1uph &#124; talk &#124; contrib 04:10, 3 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Thanks. I misremembered. - BilCat (talk) 04:20, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

Edits to Textron page
Dear BilCat:

Assuming that Textron is on your watchlist, I will be making significant edits to this page this week adding factual information about the company and re-writing some of the segments. Please be patient as this page is updated. If there are items that you feel should be edited or cited in a different manner, please advise me before it is done. Again, this is purely to list factual information about the company and not for solicitation or marketing purposes. For any questions, please feel free to contact me directly.

Thanks, Saabin23 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Saabin23 (talk • contribs) 20:03, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

Reply
BillCat,

Thanks for your reply. I am having trouble understanding why I am being warned about the Textron page when the majority of content is completely incorrect. I am placing factual information that is timely, relevant and speaks to all of it's business units that fall under the umbrella. Many of the businesses that you had reverted back to aren't included, nor are listed correctly. In addition, each article either has a Wikipedia article associated with it, or a relevant source. I also find it discouraging that there was no evidence of promotional materials being added to this article. If you could point those out to me as stated before, I would appreciate it.

If Wikipedia is a "free encyclopedia", why are users turned away from putting factual data and text that is relevant and true information instead of outdated, not factual content?

In addition, I am uncertain as to why you sanctioning a block ban on multiple users editing this page? This to me doesn't make sense? If you could provide some insight, detailed next steps that can be taken, I would appreciate it. I don't believe that setting a "block ban" will really help in your efforts. You could simply point out what is wrong with what article in detail. Any information you could provide would be greatly beneficial. Thanks, Saabin. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Saabin23 (talk • contribs) 02:20, 7 January 2014 (UTC)


 * This specific issues are best discussed on the Talk:Textron page, where you can present the material you wish to add, and allow editors who do not work for Textron nr its agents to add the material in a way that is encyclopedic and non-promotional. Thanks. - BilCat (talk) 02:29, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

Bell 212
Billcat,here is the picture of Serbian Bell 212 https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Bell_212_of_Serbian_MUP.JPG so check it out and reply --Weljash (talk) 14:29, 8 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Sorry but photos cannot be used as references as interpreting them is WP:OR, you need to cite a proper reference and stop edit-warring or you will be blocked. - Ahunt (talk) 19:30, 8 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Exactly. Thanks, Ahunt. - BilCat (talk) 19:38, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

Textron
Sorry Bill, I'm drawing a blank. Old age I guess. I'm working my way through a bunch of air defence articles, do you want to collaborate on a re-write next week perhaps? Maury Markowitz (talk) 15:58, 11 January 2014 (UTC)


 * No problem, I understand. You probably got it from Textron's website, assuming they had one, and had their history on it. I assume you mean collaborate on the Textron page? Yes, that's fine with me. - BilCat (talk) 04:06, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

Eurocopter ---> Airbus Helicopters?
Hello BilCat, I see that you undo my previous change? the topic is the same a EADS for Airbus Group. Eurocopter change is name to Airbus Helicopters so what the pb? Carefull, it is not a new company it just a renaming/rebranding I check the change after moving the page with new title and i don't see mistakes... why you undo my modification?AlexGyss (talk) 16:42, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

Hello BilCat, if you have time to undo all my modif ;-), could you take more time to update all the page with Eurocopter to Airbus Helicopters? AlexGyss (talk) 11:10, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

Molly Qerim
Thanks, I type it a different way my bad thanks again for the correction. 96.59.136.148 (talk) 07:24, 4 February 2014 (UTC)


 * No problem. Thanks for your additions. - BilCat (talk) 07:55, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

Pilatus
If you read the stuff published in http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/01/29/amelia-rose-earhart-flying-across-world_n_4690107.html that substantiates rather well the notability of this flight, perhaps more for female pilots then male, never the less it is still rather notable. I think, as a pilot myself that this is more then qualified to be a part of the companies wiki page, why do you not agree?--WPPilot 21:09, 8 February 2014 (UTC) (talk)


 * I just noticed this, http://finance.yahoo.com/news/amelia-rose-earhart-takes-flight-120000168.html I will use these two links to ref the short note I put in the story, but perhaps you would not mind restoring it, as its clearly notable to the company now. WPPilot 21:27, 8 February 2014 (UTC) (talk)


 * At this point it's just a news story, and WP isn't a news source. Once the attempt h as been made, successful or not, it could probably be added to the PC-12 aircraft page, but it's still not relevant to the company itself, as they're not the ones flying the plane, and it's not a purpose-built aircraft either. - BilCat (talk) 21:40, 8 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Agreed; this is in fact utterly unnotable to the company itself. - The Bushranger One ping only 21:44, 8 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Fair enough, thanks for chiming in...--WPPilot 21:52, 8 February 2014 (UTC)(talk)

I see you've also created Amelia Rose Earhart. It looks good at first glance, with several secondary reliable sources, but could use some work to wikify it, and some rewording in places to be more encyclopedic. I've added it to WP:AIRNEW, a list of new aviation-related articles. However, I have a feeling it will be taken to AFD soon, as her notability is borderline, but don't let that discourage you too much. - BilCat (talk) 22:05, 8 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Yes I saw your review, thanks. She does have a ton of legitimate ref's and has even had a parody done on her by Ellen D. : http://www.ellentv.com/2014/02/06/amelia-rose-earhart-from-her-plane/ WPPilot 22:19, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

Aircraft livery revert?
Hi, please give me your reason for this revert. Thanks, Aliwal2012 (talk) 22:00, 8 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Because we don't generally put photo indicators in the text itself. - BilCat (talk) 22:05, 8 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Oh dear! I just wanted to avoid confusion in labeling the pics. Aliwal2012 (talk) 22:11, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

As a courtesy to other contributors could you please explain controversial or complicated edits on the talk page -- not in your edit summary?
As a courtesy to other contributors could you please explain controversial or complicated edits on the talk page -- not in your edit summary? You failed to do so with this edit.

We all have limited stores of good faith, and it is simply not responsible to call upon other contributors to expend from their store of good faith, unnecessarily, when a little effort spent explaining ourselves would make that unnecssary. Geo Swan (talk) 05:37, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
 * There's nothing needing explaining - there is still no consensus for the WP:POV term "troubled" to be used. - The Bushranger One ping only 05:45, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

Talkback
Also, on another subject and for your info, I have requested a formal close on the Talk:Airbus Group discussion we both weighed in on a few weeks ago. N2e (talk) 13:12, 10 February 2014 (UTC) N2e (talk) 13:12, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

EADS ---> Airbus Group?
As you know from previous contact you've had with me on it, the old EADS article appears to have been (prematurely, in my opinion) Moved to Airbus Group. I've reverted the changes on the EADS article page, twice, and am encouraging discussion on the Talk page. (However, do note, since the MOVE has not (yet) been reversed during the BRD discussion, the article name is currently wrong (and is Airbus Group). This is all being discussed over on the article Talk page.  Please weigh in if you have a viewpoint.  Cheers. N2e (talk) 21:27, 23 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Thanks, I'm watching the discussions,and I'll probably weigh in soon. And thanks for speaking up on behalf of the original split. - BilCat (talk) 00:33, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

No consensus, but a bit of a confusing result
Since the "edits/move/BRD/leaving the article in the BOLDly-edited-state-while-more-discussion-occured since the move and all was so complex/discussion of whether that was a proper move" discussion over there was a bit of a muddle. I requested a formal closing of the Talk page discussion a couple of weeks ago on the Administrator's board for such purposes.

That discussion, or that final part of the discussion, is now (appropriately) closed by an uninvolved editor. Cool. Exactly the process that should be followed, methinks. And it was closed as "no consensus", which I think is right. There was, indeed, no consensus for that move to have occurred.

However, that "no consensus" closing still leaves a bit of a confusing result. Since there is no consensus for the move, does that mean that the original move should go back? Or does it mean that the current state (moved article, and total loss of the article on the notable company EADS which existed for over a decade)—which never had a valid consensus to move, and was challenged right away, but yet stayed in the "moved" state while the more thoughtful and longer discussion occured—has no consensus to move back? I'm confused, and I don't want to get into trouble with the policy and edit warring beagles on this.

What do you think? N2e (talk) 14:02, 13 February 2014 (UTC)


 * I don't know either, but you could ask the closing admin for clarification on what he meant. Beyond that, you could come b ack in a couple of months and propose a split into two articles. I'd support it. - BilCat (talk) 15:29, 13 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the thought. I will ask the closing admin.  N2e (talk) 17:31, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

61.220.97.93
61.220.97.93 is a very sore and frustrated POV pushing IP. Lately he has been using proxies (his IP jumping from country to country) and harassing and stalking articles where I have made contributions. For some reason he has decided to edit war at the Fleet Air Arm page. See this discussion I have been having with an administrator about the situation (User talk:The Bushranger/Archive24).

I have also requested for semi-page protection here (Requests for page protection). Antiochus the Great (talk) 22:12, 9 February 2014 (UTC)


 * I know. I've asked BR for semi-p also. Oh the joys of open editing. - BilCat (talk) 22:15, 9 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Protected the page and blocked the disruptive IP to boot. - The Bushranger One ping only 22:18, 9 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Thanks, as always! - BilCat (talk) 22:20, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

Names for United States citizens
WP:V says “Attribute all quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged to a reliable, published source using an inline citation.” I have challenged the material, so it needs sourced. 76.107.171.90 (talk) 10:45, 12 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Adding a citation needed tag is sufficient to challenge the material. There's no need to remove it unless it makes dubious claims, which as far as I can tell it does not. - BilCat (talk) 11:38, 12 February 2014 (UTC)
 * As noted, cn is the "challenge". If a source isn't provided in a reasonable amount of time (usually ~3-6mo) it can be removed then. - The Bushranger One ping only 11:41, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

Concorde primary users
Hello,

Why putting Air France and British Airways is the alphabetical order is non-consensual? The alphabetical order is a default way to organise things, that’s why I think it normal to put BAC before Sud Aviation… In fact, it is putting British Airways before Air France which is non-consensual.

--Monsieur W (talk) 15:35, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

PZL W-3 Sokół
Can you keep an eye here, trying to avoid an edit war - between Eroscramsgfo (talk) and 41.109.95.35 (talk) I'm pinned in a corner. I'm under the suspicion there are Sock puppets at work here (several pushing the Philippine Air force) - many thanks FOX 52 (talk) 04:44, 15 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Yeah, I've been having trouble with similar Algerian IPs on other aircraft pages too. See Sockpuppet investigations/Fornslsateve for further info. - BilCat (talk) 06:59, 15 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Ok I see that, thanks - FOX 52 (talk) 18:21, 15 February 2014 (UTC)


 * The sockpuppet investigation for Fornslsateve/Gbgfbgfbgfb led to these users receiving blocks. And no disruptive edits on the W-3 page since. :) -Fnlayson (talk) 16:04, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

The Muppet Show Theme
Thanks for your edits at The Muppet Show Theme.

I was probably a bit hasty in nominating the article for deletion rather than considering other options. As it stood, it was probably not so much WP:PROMO as WP:UNDUE, since the band certainly seems notable (although they don't seem to release things on 78 r.p.m. which is probably why I have never heard of them :)). I think on balance it is better to merge the content (including the reference to the OK Go cover) into a new section at The Muppet Show.

This is no attempt to WP:CANVASS, just a polite (I hope) notification that I have just said the same at the AfD.

Best wishes Si Trew (talk) 08:52, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

You have been mentioned in despatches
Hi Bill, our anonymous editor on the Liaoning page has mentioned you in this edit. You may wish to respond. - Nick Thorne  <sup style="color:darkblue;">talk  05:22, 26 February 2014 (UTC)


 * My sock alert is going off on this user, but I'm not sure who it is yet. He's too familiar with wiki-speak to be a newbie, and may well be a blocked/banned user. I'm going to stay back a bit and see if someone else recognizes him first. Btw, note the change of "pretext" in his edits, and the context. That might help with recognition, as there's a seeming POV involved in that change that one of my watchers might recognize. Thanks. - BilCat (talk) 05:41, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

Goodyear GZ-20
Thank you for the "thank you". I chose to use a press release as a source, though I could've used a newspaper article (one was published in the Akron Beacon Journal but I didn't cite it because somehow it didn't end up online, and I'd rather have a link to something though it's not mandatory). Mapsax (talk) 18:07, 27 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Your welcome. - BilCat (talk) 18:25, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

The chapayev class
A WWII-era cruiser cannot be preceded by a missile-armed cruiser.thx. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Viril2000 (talk • contribs) 12:08, 1 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Ah! I didnt realize the previous version had battlecruiser, not cruiser. I've fixed it now so the template works correctly. - BilCat (talk) 12:16, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

Man of Steel
How was it correct before when it directs to the current in production sequel to man of steel when it says it was abandoned in the early 2000s?-- Will C  11:16, 3 March 2014 (UTC)


 * I don't really understand what you're trying to say, but the sections you tried to link to aren't even in those articles. And the Batman one was formatted incorrectly so that the link was broken. I checked both links carefully before I reverted you, snd unless I missed something, both are now correct. - BilCat (talk) 11:32, 3 March 2014 (UTC)
 * The article currently states this: "Batman vs. Superman" redirects here. For the abandoned project in the early 2000s, see Batman in film#Untitled Man of Steel sequel and Superman_in_film#Sequel.
 * My point is the above is wrong. The abandoned project was Batman vs. Superman from 2002, not the Man of Steel sequel which is what is linked. The Man of Steel sequel is very much planned and in production and certainly not abandoned so it should not be linked as being abandoned from the 2000s.-- Will C  11:46, 3 March 2014 (UTC)


 * So is my version correct? I'm still not quite following your point. - BilCat (talk) 11:50, 3 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Sorry, I got you now. I've only had an hourcand a half of sleep, and my brain is still fuzzy. I fixed the link that was broken in your version, so everything should be correct now. Anyway it's silly to info on the abandoned project in two separate articles instead of a standalone article, but WPFILM's idiotic opposition to articles about unfilmed projects is the main obstacle here. There's more than enough reliable sources on the abandoned project for it to meet WP:GNG. Oh well, that's an argument for another day! - BilCat (talk) 12:13, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

I understand. I've been up writing a paper over Machiavelli. Hard to think some times.-- Will C  13:00, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

Talkback
Thanks for your suggestion Ochiwar (talk) 08:47, 4 March 2014 (UTC)
 * You're welcome. - BilCat (talk) 20:58, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

Pilatus
The inflight photo is better, but the one I posted is a much newer aircraft, a 2013 E model with many changes that have evolved over that time. Why do you not feel the two perspectives and version are worthy of display? Take a look at the wings on the two pictures, that is enough to allow the two shots to remain on the page. WPPilot (talk)-- 20:47, 4 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Because the company produces other aircraft types that don't have images in the article. I'm not promoting filling up the article with images. Howver, Pilatus notable for producing several types of military trainers, and oddly did not even have a photo of one of them. - BilCat (talk) 20:58, 4 March 2014 (UTC)


 * The PU 12 is bay far its most popular design, there is a 2 year wait for a new one, and used PU 12's are in high demand. While I am aware of the military planes it made years ago, the only other plane now is the unreleased PU 24 jet. The Homeland Security plane that is posted, is 13 years old, & an A type. I have never seen any of the other models anywhere, but the fact that right now we have 7 PU 12's on the ramp at KSNA says to me that is a popular plane, and perhaps we might want to consider elaborating on the changes over the last 13 years sinch the DHS plane in the photo was taken? You also can clearly see the PU 12 NG on the wing tip, plus the plane is in a gear down configuration that details another perspective. I would be grateful if you would restore the photo and perhaps we can work on it to refine the page, model updates over time and bring it, up to date. Regarding the military trainers it is not easy to obtain photos of airplanes that fly in general aviation, much less planes that are Military only. Access to these can be difficult if not in some places impossible. WPPilot (talk)-- 21:13, 4 March 2014 (UTC)


 * One, WP isn't a blog or company page, so it's not our responsibility to have up-to-date images on a company's products, especially when those products have their own WP articles. The WP article is about the company as a whole, and its history, and we usually try to include a sample of its range of products over its history, not try to promote its most current product. Two, Pilatus has sold over 700 military trainers, and the PC-21 is currently in production. The PC-7, whose image I added, sold over 450. The total is over half of the 1200+ PC-12s that have been sold, so that's not an insignificant number. They are military aircraft, however, so one is not likely to see five lined up at a local civilian airport unless it's for an airshow or similar. That said, there are dozens of photos of the PC-7 and PC -9 available on Commons, and I have no issue with someone adding one of those in place of the one I added if they think it's a better image.


 * Finally, I don't have an issue with adding one's own photos to articles per se, especially if they are images of something that isn't already in an article. However, you seem to be having a lot of discussions lately over photos that you took yourself, and that seems somewhat self-promotional. If your photos are good, and available/easy to find on Commons, then in my experience other editors will find them and use them in WP articles. - BilCat (talk) 21:57, 4 March 2014 (UTC)
 * I noticed the detailed paces on each model after I had posted, hence I removed the comment as it was moot the page for the PU 12 has plenty of pics. I will go back to SpaceShipOne :) WPPilot (talk)--


 * Sorry, I had some edit conflicts trying to reply, and didn't realize you had redacted much of your last comments. The is a photo similar to yours in the PC-12 article, almost the exact same view, but it has a hangar in the background. I actually considered replacing it with yours, but that image has more direct sunlight on the aircraft and the angle is slightly higher. That one is a 2006 model. - BilCat (talk) 22:29, 4 March 2014 (UTC)


 * NP its all in good fun! You still might want to use the 2013, that is the current version of the craft, and it has some major mods that are visible on the wings. What I noticed after I posted the pic was the wing tip with the model on it. WPPilot (talk)-- 22:43, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

Airbus Group Inc. to Airbus Group, Inc.
Hi, Just to explain I thought "Airbus Group Inc." looked neater, but I think your version is better. (Had a looked through MOS but didn't find anything relevant). Mark83 (talk) 13:54, 8 March 2014 (UTC)


 * OK, thanks. I just went with what they had on their website, but it could well change in time. Good to see you still acttive on WP after all these years! - BilCat (talk) 17:36, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

CATOBAR
Let's resolve this issue peacefully. You want the info to remain that the QE class were, at one point, planned to use CATOBAR. My issues with the text as it stood are:
 * It is not especially clear that this is no longer the case. A year is given from when the plans included CATOBAR, but no "end year" for when this no longer applies is given. This leaves the tense ("were") as the only clue.
 * What is the relevance for this article? We cannot and should not include every design that at one point contemplated the technology but which in the end did not incorporate it. The info belongs on the QE class page in my opinion.

I welcome you to rewrite the information in such a way that these issues are resolved, rather than just trying to preserve status quo. Best, CapnZapp (talk) 13:35, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

PS. If you're wondering why I'm writing this here instead of on the CATOBAR talk page, it's because I'm addressing you personally. Thank you for your understanding. CapnZapp (talk) 13:35, 9 March 2014 (UTC)


 * I believe that since CATOBAR carriers are quite rare in modern times outside the USN, it's worth mentioning the once-planned use on the QEs, especially since only 3 other navies currently have them. I agree that the paragraph needs work to clarify that this i s not the current configuration for the QE. Also, I believe that they are still reconfigurable to CATOBAR configuration if the need should arise, (obviously as a majot refit), so that should be mentiond too. - BilCat (talk) 14:00, 9 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Great to hear you agree the paragraph needs work. I'm removing the paragraph I find unworkable (again) but feel free to rephrase the information back in. CapnZapp (talk) 14:51, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

I see you have done so. Good day. CapnZapp (talk) 14:53, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

Edit warring complaint
Please see Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring. You may respond there if you wish. Since the submitter didn't notify you, I'm doing so now. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 19:36, 16 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Thanks. I've made an admin, User:The Bushranger, aware of the situation involving the other user's 3rr and PA vios. I'm not going to get involved more directly at this point. - BilCat (talk) 19:43, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

Don't do that!
I realize the Undo button is very easy to use, but that is precisely why it should be used with caution. You're rollback of the LEAD is arguably fine, but it also took out an edit later in the body that was fully supported in the sources. Please add that back. Maury Markowitz (talk) 15:46, 30 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Calm down. I didn't use rollbacks, but we crossed edits midstream. - BilCat (talk) 16:05, 30 April 2014 (UTC)


 * I didn't add it back. That edit added new material in front of an existing source. Is that source where you got the info from? If not, you need to add your source. - BilCat (talk) 16:07, 30 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Must be another secret! -- <i style="font-family:Rage Italic; font-size:large; color:green;">Dave</i> ♠♣♥♦™№1185©♪♫® 19:51, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

Clarity
This is true but I find it hard to tell from that weather or not its still standing which it does.--Saehrimnir (talk) 13:37, 7 May 2014 (UTC)


 * It's simple English grammar: "has stood" (Present perfect) means it stood in the past and continues to stand. "had stood" (Past perfect or Pluperfect) would mean it stood in the past but stands no longer. I'm not sure how to make it more clear without being unnecessarily wordy. - BilCat (talk) 14:03, 7 May 2014 (UTC)


 * From reading Present perfect, it appears that the present perfect tense is not used in German, which according to your user page is your first language. That may be why it was difficult for you to understand exactly what it meant. Perhaps there is an article on the German WP that can explain it better for you, but there's not one listed in the interwiki section of the Present perfect article. - BilCat (talk) 14:12, 7 May 2014 (UTC)
 * But then the Present perfect article need an overhaul to, because it states in the third paragraph "In this case the action is not necessarily complete" at no point it says that it is necessarily incomplete. Regards --Saehrimnir (talk) 14:28, 7 May 2014 (UTC)


 * I don't really understand your point, sorry. The "has stood" wording is still the best tense to use. Also note that the opening phrase "Since 1897" is included in setting the tense. It could be rewritten as "A full-scale replica of the Athenian Parthenon has stood in Nashville since 1897." Is that any clearer to you? - BilCat (talk) 14:41, 7 May 2014 (UTC)
 * I am just pointing out that for at least some non native English speakers using this tense does not covey that it is still standing.--Saehrimnir (talk) 15:44, 7 May 2014 (UTC)


 * I understand that, but it is common standard English usage. I can't think of a way to rephrase it to make it more clear without using too many words. - BilCat (talk) 16:52, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

Atlantic Conveyor
If you wouldn't mind, a sanity check of my edits and the comments on the talk page would be appreciated. Regards, WCM email 17:11, 27 May 2014 (UTC)


 * I'll take a look, but I probably won't get involved directly at this point, though I may leave some comments here. - BilCat (talk) 17:31, 27 May 2014 (UTC)


 * No worries, just wanted a trout if I was being a dick but I don't think I am. WCM email 22:07, 27 May 2014 (UTC)


 * You're definitely right about the material being OR. Looks like Nick-D and Milb1 are watching the article now, so you should be in good hands. -BilCat (talk) 23:28, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

Aircraft carrier
It's confusing to hear the US Secretary of the Navy give a number and then the introductory paragraph here to list something different. I would argue that if the CVN-78 shouldn't be mentioned in the introduction, then the size of the US fleet should be excluded entirely. Mazzid (talk) 03:27, 30 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Different parameters. We're not politicians, so we get to be honest. - BilCat (talk) 03:39, 30 May 2014 (UTC)


 * That's getting into some ambiguous territory. It has a hull and it floats in water. I would say it's a ship that belongs to the United States, regardless of the fact that it hasn't been integrated into the Navy's fleet yet. Are you opposed to removing the last two sentences from the introduction altogether? It does seem superfluous considering there is a section on US ships below. Mazzid (talk) 03:54, 30 May 2014 (UTC)


 * That's better discussed on the article's talk page. We really need more input to develop a consensus. - BilCat (talk) 06:59, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

Robert M. Bond
Hi again. I thought you might be interested in a new article I wrote from scratch. It's on an aviation topic, and rather an interesting if gruesome subject. It's at Robert M. Bond. Hope you're well. --John (talk) 19:43, 18 June 2014 (UTC)


 * Yes, "interesting if gruesome" sums it up well. Very well written, though the last quote seems a bit too irreverent and kinda snarky to end the article with. Most readers aren't about to pilot a difficult aircraft, so they really don't need the smack between the eyes that it gives. Just an observation, not a criticism per se. - BilCat (talk) 20:16, 18 June 2014 (UTC)


 * It's a helpful observation, and I've toned down the quote from the end of the article based on your feedback. Thank you. --John (talk) 21:15, 18 June 2014 (UTC)


 * That's better, thanks. - BilCat (talk) 02:19, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

Antonov 225
Your explanation for reverting information is not acceptable ! Mortyman (talk) 14:11, 23 June 2014 (UTC)


 * I'm not discussing the issue in two places. Please comment on the article's talk page, Talk:Antonov An-225 Mriya. Thanks. - BilCat (talk)

Boeing P-8A
I don't understand why you are changing the caption of the picture but let me clarify. I work at vx-20 and the picture is a P-8 with the tail number 951. P-8 951 belongs to VX-1 not VX-20. VX-20 has only one P-8 and its tail number 953 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Popsicle1107 (talk • contribs) 14:30, 24 June 2014 (UTC)


 * I've removed the squadron info. It's not really necessary, especially if you're going to contradicts the Navy's info on the photo file with out any reliable proof. - BilCat (talk) 14:53, 24 June 2014 (UTC)


 * Also, please be careful Bil! You went to 4RR on this. - The Bushranger One ping only 21:54, 24 June 2014 (UTC)


 * Point taken. - BilCat (talk) 22:10, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

Delta Air Lines
Apparently, an IP continues to add Memphis as a hub for Delta as the airline has de-hubbed the airport since September 2013. Rzxz1980 (talk) 02:24, 1 July 2014 (UTC)


 * If it keeps up, I'll contact anadmi about blocking the IP and/or semi-protecting the page. - BilCat (talk) 03:07, 1 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Apparently the IP has ceased for now. Some Delta press releases lists Boston as a hub now. Should we list it? Rzxz1980 (talk) 22:02, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

Delta Air Lines
Apparently, an IP continues to add Memphis as a hub for Delta as the airline has de-hubbed the airport since September 2013. Rzxz1980 (talk) 02:24, 1 July 2014 (UTC)


 * If it keeps up, I'll contact anadmi about blocking the IP and/or semi-protecting the page. - BilCat (talk) 03:07, 1 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Apparently the IP has ceased for now. Some Delta press releases lists Boston as a hub now. Should we list it? Rzxz1980 (talk) 22:02, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

Molly Qerim
You reverted my revert on Molly Qerim (wherein I had restored the picture that had been added), with the edit summary:
 * do an internet search on the image, it's not the user's pic; also, check the history of the article and trhe talk page - this is a vandal

I disagree. Assuming good faith, I presume that a user named Mollyqerimhyatt who is editing the Molly Qerim page is in fact Ms Qerim herself, and is attempting to update her name based on a recent marriage. However, there being no reliable sources to indicate that Ms Qerim has chosen to change her name professionally, it is appropriate to revert such changes, but I don't believe it is appropriate to assert that the user is a vandal. Also assuming good faith, I believe that when said user uploads what appears to be a camera-phone selfie to Commons, that this is a legitimate submission. The internet search appears to show that Ms Qerim posted this picture as a Twitpic. I have no idea what the copyright implications of that are, but I presume that if she chooses also to upload the picture to Commons, she is within her rights to do so. WikiDan61 ChatMe!ReadMe!! 16:53, 3 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Did you bother to read the history of the article? A vandal has been adding Hyatt to her name since 2013. You're being (willingly) duped. - BilCat (talk) 16:59, 3 July 2014 (UTC)


 * No, I didn't investigate the history that far back. WikiDan61 ChatMe!ReadMe!! 17:19, 3 July 2014 (UTC)


 * It took me a while, but I finally was able to complete the nomination of the photo for deletion on Commons. - BilCat (talk) 17:40, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

User talk:The Bushranger
Thanks for fixing that, I have no idea what happened there! - Ahunt (talk) 14:55, 17 July 2014 (UTC)


 * No problem. It looks like some sort of edit conflict or software error. Glad to help out. On the navbox TFD issue, tagging every navbox individually the way he's doing it seems very pointy to me, and makes it extremely dificult for other editors to respond. This does seem intentional on his part. I think an ANI may be the best solution at this point, as he doesn't seem inclined to stop until he's tagged every navbox individually. FWIW. - BilCat (talk) 15:06, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

Dates
Thanks for picking up that error. Occasionally my eyes serve me poorly, having to squint through to determine which of the two formats it is. Tony  (talk)  15:31, 17 July 2014 (UTC)


 * No problem, and thanks for redoing your other changes. I figured you could redo it faster with a script than I could change the dates manually. - BilCat (talk) 16:20, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

Recent Edit Revert
While the article has been since rewritten to exclude this, on the Boeing P-8 Poseidon entry I changed the term offiers with officers. You then reverted it saying it was unnecessary. Is offiers a real word or a dialect usage from British English? I was a bit confused by such a simple and seemingly obvious fix. Thanks. Ajpappal (talk) 16:20, 22 July 2014 (UTC)


 * "Officers" is the correct spelling. I mistakenly reverted your edit, intending to revert the next two edits. I fixed it on my subsequent edit here. - BilCat (talk) 16:41, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

I can't thank you enough for standing up to putinbots and other slimy propagandists on aircraft related articles. Grand Budapest (talk) 08:20, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

Aircraft carrier
Hi Bilcat. I was wondering why you reverted my edits to the Aircraft carrier article? I updated the images of HMS Queen Elizabeth. Quite vivid blur (talk) 12:16, 29 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Sorry, the captions weren't changed, so I assumed they were test edits. Be sure to update the captions when you change photos. Thanks. - BilCat (talk) 12:19, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

AV1790
Thx for the thx (tho it's a bit belated for a page that's been up so long ;p ). <font face="cursive" color="#9400D3">TREKphiler <font face="cursive" color="#008000">any time you're ready, Uhura 17:58, 29 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Well, I just ran across it again, and we didn't have the thanks function back in 2008. :) - BilCat (talk) 22:52, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

why are you reverting edits on the Mustang article?
You are stating it is POV when it is fact. Also the article is a disgrace and unstructured. 94.193.157.145 (talk) 16:17, 3 August 2014 (UTC)


 * "You wrote "fact", then what you wrote after was pure opion." Sound familiar? Anyway, WP is not about "facts", but what is written in reliable published sources. - BilCat (talk) 16:27, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

Invitation: Air Serbia – issue
Hi BilCat, I was recently caught in the discussion about Air Serbia - Jat Airways relations. Please, if you are willing so, read my whole expose about this issue here:, and give your opinion on it, so we can move forward from this stalemate. Thanks! -- AirWolf  talk  15:21, 7 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the note, but I don't usually get involved in much with airlines. - BilCat (talk) 16:27, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

Revert of Talk:Pratt & Whitney
You whinged "reverted unexplained archive revert"—you can (once again) see why I undid my auto-archive: User:ClueBot III has a bug. -- DanielPenfield (talk) 12:35, 15 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Use edit summaries. I reverted it because the archive had already been populated. Having the same content in 2 places didn't seem like a good thing. Also, there are other archive bots that can be used if this one is problematic. - BilCat (talk) 17:43, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

PC-7
Why do you put the second surce in question? Yes it starts in german and you dont understand it. Put if you had a closer look thers a button where you can switch to english. for information this is the offical (not govermental9 page about the PC-7 Team. I don't use wikipedia as "selling platform" for the swiss air force, but ther are a bunch of people who in my eyes try to delet out to much informations about the swiss air force.FFA P-16 (talk) 20:27, 19 August 2014 (UTC)


 * And you apparently don't read English very well. From what I could find on the site it wasn't official, and quite frankly I don't trust your judgment. I tagged it for someone else to confirm it's an official site, not you. WP is an encyclopedia, which means it cannot cover every topic in detail. No one is removing info on the Swiss Air Force because they dont like the Swiss or their air force, but because the information is not encyclopedic or is too detailed. You need to get your own website if you can't follow the rules of WP. Their are free blogs out there, find one and use itfor all this crap. - BilCat (talk) 20:46, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

What is so difficult to have a look at the page scroll down and you see that is from the PC-7Team, just a minute or less and you can see this, I add also the offical page of the Air Force about the PC-7Team. Listing actual Pilots is not realy too detailed, listening all mebers of the team of the last 25 years and all aircraft with tail number would bee to much."Crap" it's not very nice from you to say this about someones work.FFA P-16 (talk) 21:00, 19 August 2014 (UTC)


 * What is so difficult about allowing a user who is fluent in both English and German to confirm that this is an actual government website? And if you don't want your work described as "crap", try listening to experienced editors when they tell you something not to add. It's OK to have a difference of opinion on what should be included in WP, and that happens all the time. What is not OK is accuse users with statements such as "please stop to pull down every page about the swiss air force". That is not what Milb1 was doing, and if you should be smart enough by now to know that. If you have that much difficulty understanding iEnglsh, the perhaps you should only edit the WP of your own language. It will cause less problems for you that way. - BilCat (talk) 21:15, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

Well how should then someone check this page when you had deletet it out of the page (talking of the goverment page) and why do you need someonewho can read german for the Pc-7 page who is in english? Look in my eyes some of you are rely fast in deleting things, or put them in question, why not slow down and have a look, then you would haven seen that this page is in english and that  below its written that it is from the PC-7Team itself. I don't think it is not wrong to say my opinien, a few times on swiss air force topics was a deleting I don't agree, so I have sayd this together with the word please... I dont see this as more unpolite as if you say my work is crap. I just say what i think, Its not that I blame some one in a bad way its just that I am not the same opinien that things sould get delet or seen as uninportent so fast. FFA P-16 (talk) 21:41, 19 August 2014 (UTC)


 * I did read the part in English on the PC-7 page, but it's inconclusive evidence, as I could nothing more specific on the English side to confirm it's a government site. As to the deletion, that was inadvertent or an edit conflict. To your point about going too fast, that's not really how English WP works. It is up to the contributor adding information to justify including it, especially if more than one editor has removed somthing you've added. You're supposed to then go to the talk page and try to convince others that the information should be included. That is what building a consensus is about. Milb1 and I are involved in editing hundreds of aircraft-related articles,and we regularly remove details that are too much detail from these articles. We don't just focus on the aircraft and air forces of one country, so we have broad experience in editing WP. Try not to take it personally every time someone removes something you added - it usually will not be because someone does not like the topic. - BilCat (talk) 22:04, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

O.K. Thanks. (in the german wiki, its no problem to listen up actual pilots of the team. its straingh for me that there are not the same here). Sometimes It need time to finde informations to justife (also here I have the feeling (may i am wrong) that in the english wiki you have to bring more proof as in the german wiki). so I usualy start in the german wiki and after this in the english. this is one reason why I add some of them later.FFA P-16 (talk) 22:23, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

I was thinking about to start a page about the Air14 (and also a few sentens about the Air94 and Air04) but, I won't spend much time for this if you think this belongs not as own article to wikipedia). What do you think about this, yes or no  for an article on wikipedia? FFA P-16 (talk) 02:38, 20 August 2014 (UTC) FFA P-16 (talk) 02:38, 20 August 2014 (UTC)


 * If you look at the articles on the high-profile air shows, they cover all the years in one article. See ILA Berlin Air Show and Farnborough Airshow for examples. I don't usually deal with air show articles, but you can ask at WT:AIR and see if some of the other editors there can help you. - BilCat (talk) 03:29, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

Thank you. I asked, because the ILA or the MAKS are regulary held (MAKS all 2 years) But in switzerland we had this 1994 for the first time, then 2004 (2days) and now 2014 (but now for 9 days at once), no one knew yet if ther will be a Air24 in 2024. Also I think if an article about it fit to the engl wikipedia, all informations are avaiable after the air show. I will ask at WT:AIR. FFA P-16 (talk) 15:01, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

Talk:Douglas A-26 Invader
Time to head off an edit/revert war. See: FWiW  Bzuk (talk) 02:18, 22 August 2014 (UTC)


 * I'd already replied when you added this. :) Btw, it's usually spelled Obi-Wan Kenobi! - BilCat (talk) 02:42, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
 * ... on your planet ;o) FWiW  Bzuk (talk) 03:24, 22 August 2014 (UTC)


 * On most planets! :) - BilCat (talk) 03:45, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

Boeing 314 problem IP edits
The IPs of all but one of the problem anonymous edits resolve to ones assigned to the Berkeley Public Library in California. The other one is a dynamically assigned IP in nearby Walnut Creek, CA. Centpacrr (talk) 00:00, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

Nomination for merging of Template:Safran
Template:Safran has been nominated for merging with Template:SMA Engines. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Thank you. Jax 0677 (talk) 11:02, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

Gaither Vocal Band
BilCat, first of all, I was very surprised to see how much experience you have as an editor because of your edits on Gaither Vocal Band. Mainly, you didn't follow WP:BRD. Although WP:REDLINK doesn't stress this, I'm of the school of thought that a red link should not be added unless the page will be created very soon. It also says, "Red links to personal names should be avoided". And, Originally, you added links to Todd Suttles but not to Adam Crabb -- which didn't make sense (another reason I reverted). You also went against WP:REPEATLINK. --Musdan77 (talk) 18:25, 10 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Actually, I didn't readd the 2014 album because of WP:BRD, so give me a little credit. Per WP:REDLINK, "Do not remove red links unless you are certain that Wikipedia should not have an article on that subject." (Emphasis in original.) That's the part of guideline I usually follow. With both singers touring with GVB this year, I do fully expect articles on them to be created soon enough. The reason I didn't initially add Adam Crabb was because an article already exists on that name, and I wasn't sure what disambiguator to use, and if I should link him to The Crabb Family instead. As for WP:REPEATLINK, I generally link in 3 places in articles; the infobox, the Lede, and the next mention is further down in an article if it's not a very short article, as in this case. (A lot of WP readers use tablets, so I do try make sure readers don't have to keep moving around in an article just to find a link, or for whom typing in a search box will be difficult on a tablet or reader. The MOS-wonks who insist on creating silly rules, like that against overlinking, don't often take this into consideration.) I hope that helps you understand that I was editing from experience, whether you agree with my choices or not. - BilCat (talk) 19:37, 10 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Fair enough. Now we both see where each of us is coming from. Thanks for the reply. --Musdan77 (talk) 03:27, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

WikiProject Military history coordinator election
Greetings from WikiProject Military history! As a member of the project, you are invited to take part in our annual project coordinator election, which will determine our coordinators for the next twelve months. If you wish to cast a vote, please do so on the election page by 23:59 (UTC) on 28 September! Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 22:06, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

Boeing P-8 Poseidon
I deleted the info on Boeing P-8 Poseidon because it is incorrect, you can refer to here Kamalzack (talk) 07:42, 24 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Given that is a blog, it's not really considered a reliable source. But please take this up on the article's talk page so other editors can contribute to the discussion. - BilCat (talk) 08:00, 24 September 2014 (UTC)


 * I'm pretty sure the Chief of Naval Operations trumps you. - The Bushranger One ping only 08:01, 24 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Given that Australian P-3s fairly regularly operate out of RMAF Butterworth to monitor shipping in the area and the RAAF maintains a permanent logistical unit at this base (with this being facilitated through some combination of bilateral agreements and the five power agreement), it's hard to see why a similar US deployment would be ruled out like the author of that blog does. Nick-D (talk) 08:02, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

Akron
I was going to ask why you reverted an edit you thanked me for, but looking to see what your edit summary was I see you've reverted back. About to add the specs!TheLongTone (talk) 14:12, 2 October 2014 (UTC)


 * Big fingers, small tablet! I accidentally hit the rollback while trying to use the Thank link. Thnaks for working on these. I was planning on doing them soon, but kept procrastinating, so I appreciate it. - BilCat (talk) 14:18, 2 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Yeah, but I bet I've been procrastining longer, it's been on my 'to do' for monthsTheLongTone (talk) 14:33, 2 October 2014 (UTC)


 * No argument here. :) - BilCat (talk) 20:19, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

Airbus Group edits
Yes, there was a complaint that the articles were now redundant. If anything, that's evidence that we don't need separate articles as the Airbus Group article is not so large as to require splitting per WP:SUMMARY.

But more importantly, it is bad editing behavior to make major changes to the scope of an article while the nature and scope of the article is the matter under discussion. Like I said in my edit summary, it biases the outcome of the discussion by changing and confusing the status quo. It is a discussion about a proposed split. It should not be split until the discussion concludes. Also, once I reverted you, it should have been left as opposed pending the discussion's outcome. This editing is pretty disruptive, actually. I'd advise you to self-revert and be patient to see the outcome. there is WP:NODEADLINE. oknazevad (talk) 23:32, 2 October 2014 (UTC)


 * It's really not a "proposed split" as the split has already taken place. And the complaint was that the restored EADS article was a copy of the Airbus Group article, which is what I was adressing. The merged version of the article is available in the article's history, while the split version is not, as it was deleted to make way for the histmerge. What I find disruptive is your own heavy-handedness in reverting others who are only attempting to make improvements to the articles. I'm not that easily bullied, but I do tend react badly when such attempts are made, such as becoming unwilling to accept compromises. Furthermore, improvements to articles are allowed, and even recommended, even in AFD discussions. In fact, I've seen articles deleted even after improvements were made which adressed the AFD concerns, because editors never even bothered to look at the improved article, but simply based their support on the noms claims. So, no, I'm not going to self-revert. Please do not reply here. - 23:54, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

Su-25
IP blocked. Nick-D (talk) 07:21, 12 October 2014 (UTC)


 * Thanks. - BilCat (talk) 07:52, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

Modern United States Navy carrier air operations
Hello. You said I could post here. For page different parts I was reading sections were talking about fighter pilots, non fighter pilots but still jets and fighter jets and surveillance jets. I changed because planes are not jets and these are clearly fighter jets not fighter planes as they have jet engines. Fighter planes are form WWII. For me I consider planes to have propellers and jets turbine jet engines. I consider them to be different and believe thats the definitions of each and that they are two different things. I get annoyed when jets are called planes. They are two different related things planes and jets along the path of aviation advancement. A future thing could be spacehsips but would we call that plane also like people do with jets. Thanks for message. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.198.20.98 (talk) 09:12, 30 September 2014 (UTC)


 * I've never heard that distinction made before, and it isn't correct. A plane is an airplane, and jet aircraft are airplanes. The US Navy certainly doesn't make that distinction. It uses the term "Plane Captain", not "Jet Captain", and you can't change that usage, as it is what it is. In addition, the Navy does have propeller aircraft on its carriers, such as the E-2 Hawkeye. It also has helicopters, which are aircraft, but not airplanes. - BilCat (talk) 14:58, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

I just don't agree. Planes and Jets are two different things. One has propellers and the other jet engines. How can they be the same thing? How could a jet not be anything but a jet? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.198.20.98 (talk) 10:19, 13 October 2014 (UTC)


 * (Talk page stalker): Sorry to jump in here but in English a jet-powered airplane is a subset of "airplanes" or "planes" as you put it. In other words a "jet" is a "plane". Planes can be powered by any kind of powerplant, jet, piston, electric, etc. - Ahunt (talk) 11:34, 13 October 2014 (UTC)


 * Thanks, Ahunt. Further, the term "jet plane" is quite common in English, with Wikipedia having articles on Leaving on a Jet Plane, Jay Jay the Jet Plane, and Big Jet Plane, for example. - BilCat (talk) 13:23, 13 October 2014 (UTC)


 * I think it is well explained in the article Airplane. - Ahunt (talk) 13:40, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

MiG-31
what are you doing? You may not realize (as you say) that the year 1982 (no source) and the year 1981 (source). do you think there is a source of 82 BETTER ??? Nothing you can do to cancel 81 (source)

89.105.158.243 (talk) 09:12, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

I realized make the topic in discussions of the article89.105.158.243 (talk) 11:47, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

Requesting Guidance
Hello BilCat - in order for me to improve my contributions to articles I seek the protocol of editing from more experienced community members. Please explain why you classified my edits on the Honeywell article as unproductive since no content was removed - I am really confused. It is my belief our primary goal is to keep all information current. I have added citations to support my updated information. I respectfully request you to review the first paragraph to see no information was removed but rather placed in another section. Please share your thoughts on this...any feedback would be very much appreciated. Lgkkitkat (talk) 03:05, 15 October 2014 (UTC)


 * Actually, you did remove quite a bit. I've replied on the company's talk page. - BilCat (talk) 04:00, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

Flag issues
Please note Do not emphasize nationality without good reason. I haven't heard your argument as to why this guideline should be flouted. You should present it first, before breaking rules. Tony  (talk)  05:40, 15 October 2014 (UTC)
 * I think you and I come to blows SO often because you want to push your nationalism pride thing. It's not appropriate on an international site (nor is it particularly appropriate on an Amercan site). I'd like a justification of your arrogant behaviour. Tony   (talk)  05:42, 15 October 2014 (UTC)


 * I'm semi-semi-retired. And I haven't heard your arguments only removing the flags from the American and British language templates, while leaving all the others in place to break your precious guidelines. Either do them all or none. And since there were fewer to restore than to delete, I restored them. - BilCat (talk) 05:47, 15 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Err ... that's a really odd justification. How fast do you expect my fingers to move? How many must I do within 20 seconds, then? Tony   (talk)  05:48, 15 October 2014 (UTC)


 * And I restored the British flags too. And knock off the personal attacks - there's no excuse for that, and you know it. - BilCat (talk) 05:52, 15 October 2014 (UTC)


 * You had time to make 67 other edits before reverting me, and you still haven't removed the flags from the others yet. Apparently only American and British nationalism is offensive to you? Strange. - BilCat (talk) 06:02, 15 October 2014 (UTC)


 * If I were to do your dirty work for you and remove the flags from the other language templates, I'd leave myself open to being called an arrogant American by more than just you. Since I already don't respect your wonkish work pushing rules no one really wants on WP, I reverted you again, rather than upset the noble Canadians, New Zealanders, etc by removing their flags. :P - BilCat (talk) 06:15, 15 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Best I do it then, if you insist that US- and Br-related templates be left until last. If you have a problem with "rules", I suggest you challenge them on the appropriate guideline talkpages. Tony   (talk)  07:46, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

The issue of flags on the language templates was discussed at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Manual of Style/Archive 3 in May 2011, and the flags were not removed at that time, giving a de facto consensus for using the flags for over 3 years now. Rather than removing all the flags, it'd probably be best to open a new discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Manual of Style Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style to try and get a clear consensus on this specific use. - BilCat (talk) 17:15, 15 October 2014 (UTC)


 * But now you've changed your tune: your repeated argument was that I was somehow trashing whole national egos by not treating all 67 articles in a flash. I must say, your rudeness rather trumps anything I said to you: "your precious guidelines"; "knock off the personal attacks"; "strange"; "your dirty work"; "your wonkish work". Plain rude. So when I see that some rogue editor has come here writing the word "fucking" into your username, I'm sympathetic to you but not surprised. Tony   (talk)  14:17, 16 October 2014 (UTC)


 * Oh please, Tony, the vandalism of my user page was in retaliation for reverting the user's vandalism on an article, and warning them, and is par for the course for users who do constructive work that helps build the encyclopedia. I stand by my assertion that you've should have been treating all the templates equally. If one case of "emphasiz[ing] nationality without good reason" is so bad it has to be removed immediately, then aren't they all that bad, and should be removed immediately? It still would have been against a pre-existing consensus to use the flags on such templates, which could have easily been discovered if either one of us had bothered to simply read the talk pages of the US or UK templates first. Anyhow, you've more than worn out your welcome, so please stop posting here on this issue. Good day. - BilCat (talk) 18:30, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
 * I see what you mean—apologies for my assumption. Tony   (talk)  00:36, 17 October 2014 (UTC)


 * Apologies accepted. - BilCat (talk) 01:19, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

Commonwealth (United States)
Hi BilCat, though it was tagged as an SIA, Commonwealth (United States) doesn't seem to meet the definition of "a set of items of a specific type that share the same (or similar) name." With just two items of two different types of polities in the US, it seems like a classic two-item incomplete disambiguation page. Am I overlooking something? --BDD (talk) 17:38, 21 October 2014 (UTC)


 * Perhaps it's not an SIA page, but I think it's still useful as a two-item DAB page in this instance, as the info gets lost on the main DAB page for Commonwealth. in most cases, anyone comming to Commonwealth (United States) will just want one of the two listed there, not any of the others. Sending them to the main DAB page won't help them get to want they want more quickly, and that's the point of a DAB page. In this case, IAR trumps WP:INCDAB. - BilCat (talk) 17:56, 21 October 2014 (UTC)


 * An alternative might be to redirect it directly to Commonwealth, which explains the usage even further. - BilCat (talk) 18:15, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Oh, yes, I think redirecting there might be the best option. No need to send readers to a dab when there's relevant information article. I'll go ahead and do that. --BDD (talk) 14:21, 22 October 2014 (UTC)


 * Ok, thanks. I think that works well. - BilCat (talk) 14:47, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

Cannon Plurality
As you requested, I added my response to the Cannon talk page. --Trifler (talk) 23:23, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

Since you have not replied, I moved my comment here: --Trifler (talk) 00:23, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

I've moved it back. - BilCat (talk) 06:04, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

RocketMotorTwo
I was the anonymous editor that made the edit you reverted on the RocketMotorTwo page. I just created this account. Please refer to my comment on the talk page. Thanks. Rocketshinai (talk) 04:27, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

Airbus Defence and Space
Hi, BilCat. Can you take a look on this change? Thanks ! PauloMSimoes (talk) 10:34, 7 November 2014 (UTC)


 * Thanks, I've reverted it. The user went a little overboard on his crusade against "announcements". - BilCat (talk) 14:02, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

Boxer APC
Dear Bilcat i recently edited the page on the boxer APC and messed the part about the armor and weapons can you fix it please.Thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by FlankerTangoUBF (talk • contribs) 04:10, 10 November 2014 (UTC)


 * I'll take a look. - BilCat (talk) 04:14, 10 November 2014 (UTC)


 * I reverted it back to before you made changes, as I couldn't figure out what you were trying to do. The infobox has specific fields that can't be changed (the parts before the = ), or they won't show at all. What exactly were you wanting to change, and why? - BilCat (talk) 04:23, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

Meaning of Different
Is it the new meaning of "Different"? After when a reversed-engineered thing became different thing? Do you even know what Reverse engineering means? In fact, it's means copying and improving it, like an illegal upgrade, not inventing something new. P. Pajouhesh (talk) 13:59, 15 November 2014 (UTC)


 * Please use the article talk page to discuss article edits, as requested in my notes above. Thanks. - BilCat (talk) 14:05, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

Conjugating taxi
Subsequent to my edit, I discovered that 'taxies' is considered correct by some (sources differ). 'taxis', however, is widely accepted - not incorrect as your edit summary said. --1Rabid Monkey (talk) 19:58, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

Nominations for the Military history Wikiproject's Historian and Newcomer of the Year Awards are now open!
The Military history Wikiproject has opened nominations for the Military historian of the year and Military history newcomer of the year. Nominations will be accepted until 13 December at 23:59 GMT, with voting to begin at 0:00 GMT 14 December. The voting will conclude on 21 December. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 08:41, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

This message was accidentally sent using an incorrect mailing list, therefore this message is being resent using the correct list. As a result, some users may get this message twice; if so please discard. We apologize for the inconvenience.

Speedy deletion declined: User:BillCJ/UBX/My Aussie flag
Hello BilCat. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of User:BillCJ/UBX/My Aussie flag, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: '''Sorry, we can only accept db-user requests from the same account. If you don't have access to BillCJ, use PROD or MFD.''' Thank you. JohnCD (talk) 12:39, 14 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Sorry, ignore that, I see account was CHU-d, should have checked that. Page deleted. JohnCD (talk) 12:43, 14 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Thanks. - BilCat (talk) 16:48, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

Voting for the Military historian and Military newcomer of the year now open!
Nominations for the military historian of the year and military newcomer of the year have now closed, and voting for the candidates has officially opened. All project members are invited to cast there votes for the Military historian and Military newcomer of the year candidates before the elections close at 23:59 December 21st. For the coordinators,

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:33, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

Edits by User:200.118.198.249 on Time Warner Cable
Hi, Just wanted to let you know after you reverted the edits on Time Warner Cable by User:200.118.198.249 I added the 'uw-crystal' template to their talk page warning them about adding about unconfirmed or future events. Thanks. TheGoofyGolfer (talk) 11:43, 17 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Thanks! - BilCat (talk) 13:57, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

Beechcraft Model 18
What gives? Not a neophyte, but look at Beechcraft Model 18, American Aviation and Village pump. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 15:37, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

Logo editing
Hi Bilcat thank you for adding logo to Piaggio Aerospace, I'm new to Wikipedia and I'm currently facing some issues regarding logo copyright in the corresponding Italian site...I understood I cannot add the logo on commons because it is under fair use, neither add directly on it.wiki because I cannot upload file if I 've never added/modified pages...how can I use the same logo to add in the Italian corresponding page ? Pia Johns (talk) 11:12, 17 December 2014 (UTC)


 * You're welcome. I'll look into it. - BilCat (talk) 13:55, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

Thank You Bilcat. Looking forward to seeing the new logo in the corresponding Italian Wikipedia page....Pia Johns (talk) 12:49, 19 December 2014 (UTC)


 * I'm sorry, but I don't know any Italian, and so I'm not qualified to try to upload the logo. (I wish users not fluent in English would also realize their English illiteracy, and not edit WP articles, but that is apparently too much to ask! Yes, I MEAN YOU, MALAYSIA USER!!!!) You'll need ti find a user who is fluent in Italian to help you. Perhaps you could look at other compamy logos on Italian Wiki and see who uploaded them, and contact them for help. Thanks. - BilCat (talk) 18:03, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

Thank you, I'll follow your kind advice. Merry Xmas n happy new year! Pia Johns (talk) 23:53, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

Merry Merry


To you and yours FWiW Bzuk (talk) 22:07, 22 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Thanks Bill. A merry Christmas to you and yours also. - 00:27, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

Rollback
Hello,

After reviewing some of your contributions, I have found a number of instances where you've used rollback inappropriately. For example: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10. There have also been recent instances where you have not been careful with the rollback tool: 11, 12 Rollback should only be used to remove problematic edits, such as vandalism. It should not be used in instances of good faith edits or where edit summaries should be used. Given this concern, I have removed the right from your account. When you feel that you understand its use and have demonstrated an appropriate understanding, you may re-request the user right at the request for permissions page. Best, Mike V  •  Talk  20:24, 28 December 2014 (UTC)


 * I really don't understand why you didn't speak to me about it today before removing the rollbacks. I understand there have been accidental rollbacks due the small edit screen, but I've always been clear about those, and I've reverted those almost immediately. As to the others, I haven't checked all of them just now, but in general, I only use rollbacks on what I feel is vandalism. Perhaps you thought some of those weren't vandalism, but you should have at least given me a chance to defend those edits first. In most cases, there may be issues with users that may not look like vandalism if you're not familiar with the user's edit history, especially IPs. In addition, I have always understood that rollbacks can be used as long as the edit summary is filled out, and this is much more convenient for multiple problematic edits when editing on the tablet. I would certainly like a second opinion on those edits, and a chance to at least clarify what the community feels are inappropriate edits. Then at least I'd know what edits the community feels are inappropriate to use rollbacks on. Please note that I did have the rollbacks disabled from my watchlist due to accidental rollbacks several months ago. Thanks. - BilCat (talk) 22:31, 28 December 2014 (UTC)


 * I'm also somewhat concerned by your action here, especially considering that Bill is a long-experienced editor who has had access to the rollback tool since 2008! Removing the tool from a prolific editor without any prior discussion in a non-emergency type situation clearly violates Rollback ("Administrators may revoke the rollback feature or issue a block in response to a persistent failure to explain reverts, regardless of the means used. However, they should allow the editor an opportunity to explain their use of rollback before taking any action" [emphasis added]). The condescending message you posted ("When you feel that you understand its use and have demonstrated an appropriate understanding") was ill-judged, especially considering that Bill is hardly a newbie to Wikipedia and its rules, or the rollback tool. While I agree that many of the examples you give aren't good uses of the tool (though none seems so outright awful as to justify removal of access to the tool without a discussion or warning), others are entirely fine: in Bill removed what's obviously a copyright violation image, and in  he removed vandalism concerning a living person (at best a test edit which appeared to add a proviso to a mention of a living person). I am also concerned by the last two examples you give Mike as "instances where you have not been careful with the rollback tool" - the self-reverts from Bill you give to support this claim are exactly what WP:ROLLBACK asks editors to do in these circumstances, and actually indicate responsible use of the tool. I have lots of the articles Bill passes through watchlisted, and have seen him regularly use the rollback tool correctly to remove vandalism. Mike, I think that you should restore Bill's access to the tool, and if you do not I will start a thread at WP:AN to discuss this (I'd restore it myself, but don't fancy the appearance of wheel warring). Nick-D (talk) 22:47, 28 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Thanks Nick. I didn't mind Mike's tone, as it seemed boilerplate to me, and that's OK. If there are edits that I consistently use rollbacks for that are inappropriate, I'll certainly modify my use regarding those. I'm not certain, but Indo think Mike may have spoke to me a few months ago about rollbacks, or some other admin did, so I was warned, if not today. Thanks again. - BilCat (talk) 23:12, 28 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Nick-D, These examples were only a sampling of the issues found and I only provided enough to illustrate the concern. I'm particularly disappointed by #9, which I believe an experienced user should know not to restore via rollback. I believe my removal of the permission is appropriate and in line with the rollback policy. I disagree with your assessment of the 2 links you've provided. If the image was uploaded with an improper license and removed as such, that should have been explained in an edit summary. The second diff does not appear to be obvious vandalism. While BilCat may be a longstanding contributor, the policy on when to use rollback is very clear. You're welcome to bring the issue to AN for review but I would strongly encourage you to review BilCat's past reverts first, as there are additional concerning uses of rollback. Mike V  •  Talk  23:15, 28 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Uh, nine was vandalism on the part of the IP, as that isn't his user page, and that should have been obvious. I think I accidentally restored it anyway, given the content of the comment. You still have not explained why you couldn't speak to me today before removing the rollbacks. Was I really a danger to the project that had to be stopped immediately? As to the accidental rollbacks, I understand those shouldn't happen. If I felt they were occurring far to often, I'd have asked to have the privilege removed temporarily, as I did when the watchlist rollbacks were a problem. I will ask at Village Pump or somewhere if a confirmation can be added to rollbacks, as is used with the Thanks feature. (Actually, most of the accidental rollbacks have occurred while trying to press Yes when Thanking! How ironic.) - BilCat (talk) 23:35, 28 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Nine was not vandalism by the IP. The IP was removing a personal attack from the user's page and your use of rollback restored it. I removed the user right because after looking through your edits, I felt that there was a systematic misunderstanding of how you were using the tool. I don't believe it was a mistake or two that could be corrected with minor guidance. To me, your response to #9 and the message you have posted on your talk page, "Please realize that, in many cases, unexplained edits are indistinguishable from vandalism!", shows there's some opportunity to learn further about Wikipedia's policies. (Many of our new users start out as IP editors and we should generally assume good faith with their contributions. Not all individuals are aware of how to use an edit summary and omitting one does not equate it to vandalism.) In addition, as the policy is written an admin is not required to issue a warning before removing the right. Clarification can be sought where the justification is not readily apparent, but as I mentioned before, there were too many instances of concern for this to be the case. I'll also note the rollback page states that "... editors who misuse standard rollback (for example, by using it to reverse good-faith edits in situations where an explanatory edit summary would normally be expected) may have their rollback rights removed." The page notice for the permission request page also warns that "Misuse of the feature, even if unintentional or in good faith, may give cause for it to be removed." Mike V  •  Talk  00:35, 29 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Mike, I think that you are misinterpreting the guideline: it states that admins "should" start a discussion before removing rollback rights. Obviously this isn't the same as "must", but it's a strong word and so seems to be the sensible pre-requisite in non-emergency situations such as this (especially considering a) how long Bill has had the tool for b) his many, many, correct uses of it c) his long and generally excellent history of editing and d) his responsiveness to feedback). It is concerning to me that you didn't even try to discuss this with Bill before removing the tool, as, if I read the above post correctly, you simply assumed that he would not respond to feedback. You have also not responded to my concern over your use of two examples of Bill correcting himself per the rollback guideline to justify your action (I can attest that Bill took actions to stop previous problems with rollback earlier this year as he said). I think that you acted hastily here, and I'd again strongly encourage you to restore access to the rollback tool, with this serving as a warning to Bill to take more care with it. Nick-D (talk) 00:53, 29 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Mike, number nine is not in good faith, in my educated opinion, being familiar with the users - the IP has been feuding with the registered user for some time. Yes, the original edit appears to be a personal attacks, but she is actually responding to the talk page IP's comments elsewhere, IIRC. That is what I meant about your not being familiar with user's edit histories. The statement "Please realize that, in many cases, unexplained edits are indistinguishable from vandalism!" is meant only to encourage users to use edit summaries. However, I will make every effort not to use rollbacks for questionable edits.


 * Nick, if you still want to, please restore my rollback rights. I promise not to use rollbacks except in cases of obvious vandalism or non-productive edits, and I will promptly revert any accidental rollbacks, while trying to make sure they don't occur in the fisrt place. Thanks. - BilCat (talk) 01:14, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

BilCat - Can you provide diffs that explain the context of the IP removing the personal attack? I'm still not sure why you added it back.

Nick-D: In regards to the two corrections, to me it shows there's a possibility that he's too hasty with the rollback tool. It's only supporting evidence. (Though I did find a third instance not too long ago.)

I've reviewed a number of the edits and there were many instances where rollback should not have been used. For example: 13, 14, 15, 16,17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28,29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41

As I mentioned before, if it were a couple of edits I would have discussed it with him. However, there are a number of concerning edits in just this month that a warning is insufficient. It shows a strong misunderstanding of the tool. I'd appreciate if BilCat would comment on each of the above edits. Could you provide insight as to why you used the rollback tool instead of providing an edit summary? How do you feel the above edits meet the rollback guidelines? Please note that as Nick-D stated, he won't be able to restore your rollback rights without the appearance of a wheel war. With that said, either of you are welcome to bring my actions to AN for review. Mike V •  Talk  03:12, 29 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Mike, I'm concerned that you're now asking Bill to justify himself in detail after the event - you should have had this discussion before removing the tools. More importantly, there is also an onus on you to explain how the use of the tools in each of these instances appeared to be improper - otherwise you're setting yourself up as judge and jury rather than attempting to justify and explain your action. While I agree that some of the examples you give which I've looked at aren't good uses of rollback, others are actually excellent uses of the tool. For instance:
 * was reverting blatant vandalism (removing a mistaken template which lead to a statement that "million years ago" was an operator of this helicopter! - if the IP's intention was to list Malaysia this was also blatant vandalism as Malaysia has never operated the type)
 * was the removal of blatant vandalism concerning a BLP (misconstruing the subject's statement about how she sees her national background which was accurately referenced to one of her Twitter posts)
 * involved reverting an edit which considerably changed the data in the article with no explanation (a common vandal fiddle to articles on weapons).
 * was reverting massive changes to cited figures on the strength of the Russian military, which is also a common form of vandalism to articles on these topics (almost always to exaggerate the size of the military, as was the case here)
 * Another example you give was followed immediately by Bill self-reverting himself with an apology  per the rollback guideline.
 * Can you please explain why you considered Bill's actions in these and the other instances to be improper? (especially concerning the BLP). This reinforces my view that you acted hastily, and again I ask you to restore Bill's access to rollback. Nick-D (talk) 05:49, 29 December 2014 (UTC)


 * I consider the instances above to be a misuse of rollback because it does not meet the criteria of when it should be used. The guideline supports that rollback should only be used to "revert obvious vandalism where the reason for reverting is absolutely clear". This is not the case with the vast majority of diffs I have supplied. For instance, with the BLP article BilCat should have instead used the undo button and provided an edit summary to explain that the information was sourced. (In fact, this should have occurred with the examples you've provided above as well and the explanations be put in as edit summaries.) I still stand by my belief that there was enough misuse of the tool to warrant removal. I'm willing to provide diffs from additional months if you remain unconvinced. Saying that I'm playing jury and judge is not correct, as I've stated twice before that you and Bilcat are welcome to bring this to review at AN. I've asked the questions of BilCat because I'd like to hear from him personally about his understanding of the tool and to gain insight on why he used rollback in such a fashion. Mike V  •  Talk  17:42, 29 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Mike, you've long worn out your welcome. I'm not submitting to your one-man inquisition any longer. Please leave my talk page, and go find some users who are actually doing damge to encyclopedic content. Any future posts will be removed, and if you continue to harass me, I will take appropriate action. Good bye. - BilCat (talk) 17:53, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

soko galeb edit
my brother and I are owners of two Soko Galeb G-2 aircraft in Slovenia. So please don't delete my refrence. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Daliborsky (talk • contribs) 14:07, 30 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Sorry, but per WP:AIROPS, we don't generally list privately-owned military aircraft. Also, as owners, you have a Conflict of Interest. - BilCat (talk) 14:14, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

Happy New Year!
<div style="background:orange; padding: 10px; border-top: 3px solid yellow; border-left: 3px solid yellow; border-right: 3px solid yellow; border-bottom: 3px solid yellow 8px; font-size: 110%; font-family:Tahoma; text-align: center;"> Dear, HAPPY NEW YEAR Hoping 2015 will be a great year for you! Thank you for your contributions! From a fellow editor, --FWiW Bzuk (talk)

This message promotes WikiLove. Originally created by Nahnah4 (see "invisible note").

Adding uncited content
Do you see anything wrong with this edit? Khazar (talk) 03:20, 3 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Yup, looks like number tampering. - BilCat (talk) 08:02, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

Proposal to change scope of article Americans
You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Americans. Thanks. RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 07:09, 17 January 2015 (UTC)