User talk:BilCat/archive19

Rolls-Royce Dart
Wow, that's brilliant ! Removing a part in an article and probably without checked it, well done i guest. For your information, in couple of seconds go check some pictures on Google images, only that says it all. There is no official bureau citation about it for god sakes. Next time just check it twice before............ — Preceding unsigned comment added by User:Phylyp (talk)


 * Quite frankly I nearly removed it, as it's unsourced and almost unintelligible. I tried to correct the bad grammar, but even so part of it is contradictory (B-17F or G?). Since you've admitted you have no reliable source, I'm going to remove it. - BilCat (talk) 18:14, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

Blue Angels
Nothing in the entire history section of the article is sourced. Unchallenged unsourced material is becoming a huge problem on Wikipedia. I merely tried to make a very dubious claim more palatable without causing a fuss if I deleted it. Another thing that is becoming a problem here is way to liberal use of source needed and it's especially a problem here as the entire part of the page is unsourced. My Dad flew Wildcats, Hellcats and AD-1s. I have photos he took of Cougars parked on the same deck as his Skyraider aboard the Hancock in 1953. He claimed to have seen a Blue Angles Pilot fly a Hellcat (or Bearcat) under the Fishinger Rd bridge over the Scioto river when checking out the airspace around Columbus Ohio before a show. Sounds like an insane tall tale but he said he saw it from the air because the "Black Cat" Hellcat night fighter squadron he was in was asked to fly over the city like the do to advertise an upcoming show. When we were stationed at Kingsville NAS when he was an instructor our next door neighbor Chief Stu Sheldon had a son right about the time we left in 57. That son grew up to actually be IN the Blue Angles. I'd noticed the Sheldon name when I'd seen them at NAS Moffit in about 82 or so. I called my Dad and told him and he dug up Stu and confirmed it was his son and when the Angles came to Columbus later that summer (Rickenbauker) my dad got VIP treatment and got to meet him. I recall now seeing them twice near Columbus, 3 times at NAS Moffit and once out of nowhere while on vacation in San Francisco. So this page means more than nothing to me. So I didn't like it when I read that part, and some others frankly, that are pretty obvious attempts to glorify what is glorious at face value. Two of the sources just added do not verify the claim at all, and the third on Blueangles.org, which could hardly be considered an independent source. I've run some calculations based on the pilots claim that he saw 400 kts indicated air speed (I thought that plane would have shown CAS not IAS)when he ejected and run them with both his altitude claim and that of his wingman. First off he claims to have had the speed brake on in a craft that was not a supersonic craft which argues against mach 1 but more importantly because the numbers don't add up based on their claim he was going between 680 and 780 mph TAS. I ran the numbers through some online calculations and they don't line up. There's another problem. There are many good sources, including a Wikipedia page, that claim the first supersonic ejection survivor was Franklin Smith ejecting from an F-100 in February 26, 1955. Like you originally said, if there is doubt about supersonic it's not important enough to be there. I think you'd agree that people who read these articles should be able to use what they find and not have people roll there eyes when they say they read it on Wikipedia. Jackhammer111 (talk) 01:59, 10 April 2016 (UTC)


 * I agree the sources aren't the best, and said so in my summary. The only one I could read was the Blue Angels source, as I don't have access to the others. As to the Cougar being subsonic, that's in level flight. Several jets of that era, including the F-86, were capable of breaking the sound barrier in a dive, but not in level flight. Do you know for certain that it wasn't capable of going supersonic in a dive, even in extreme circumstances? The Blue Angels source did state the plane was diving at the time of the ejection, so that part seemed credible to me. Granted, it's based on a contemporary report, and the claim may well have later been disprove. For now, we can tag the sources and claim as dubious, and give others a chance to try to verify the claims, including someone who may have access to the printed books. - BilCat (talk) 16:17, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure the issue of whether a plane is supersonic isn't based on it's ability to achieve it in level flight. It's about it being able to be sustain supersonic regardless of attitude and not go out of control. There's a transition area called transonic where craft not properly designed will be unstable or lose flight control responses and lose control or buffet themselves to pieces. That's why supersonic was hard to reach in the first place. Lot's of WWII planes killed their pilots when the got too close to Mach 1 in dives. Propeller speeds had problems near mach 1 too. Remember, Yeager was the first one to sustain Mach 1+ and he didn't need to dive to get there because the craft had plenty of power. That's why the early jets, including the F-9F had air brakes, and the pilot we're talking about said his were deployed. They could have put a powerful engine in a F-9-F to push it to transonic but the air frame wasn't designed to handle it. It would have had all the problems associated with transonic flight, compression, compressible flow, shock waves, The aerodynamics of supersonic flight are completely different than subsonic. It was called the sound barrier partly because there's a sudden increase of drag and buffet at transonic speeds unless the craft, the wing and tail surfaces in particular are designed to it. IE, thin wings. If you recall it was Yeager's idea to make the entire elevator movable instead of just the trailing edges that proved to be the key to getting the X-1 past the transonic zone. The flyable tail I think they called it. Once past it it was smooth sailing. But if it was easy to get past that zone someone would have done it long before.

The Blue Angles pilot in question said the "jet nosed downward despite his efforts to pull out of the dive .At 35O he popped his air breaks in an attempt to freak (sic) the screaming dive, went into a vertical attitude, then inverted." It's impossible to tell what the attitude was when he ejected.

Personally, I think there's far to much use of tags here. The rules are clear, if something isn't properly sourced it's original research on it's face and doesn't belong here. On the page in question the entire "history" section is unsourced. I've seen needs source tags remain for years and the original research just sits out there for everyone to read. What do we do to stay true to the mission of Wikipedia? I just glanced at the page on supersonic flight. It's absurd.

In this case I think at minimum the 2 sourced that don't corroborate Mach 1 should go and the blueangles.org source remain with the dubious tag you mentioned. But still, since there the well documented claim that the F-100 pilot I mentioned was the first one. (his name was George Franklin Smith, not Franklin Smith) It's sourcing is much much better from local reporting to military history records, and their can't be two firsts. I think the passage should go. It's not needed to prove how great the Blue Angles were/are.

To me this is a minor example of a major problem and I'm glad to be able to discuss it with someone with as much experience editing here as you do. Jackhammer111 (talk) 22:50, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

BTW, since you are interested in flight there's another thing I came across about the space shuttle and Indicated Air Speed on reentry I'd love to be able add to Wikipedia but I'm having trouble sourcing it. If what I think I came across is true it would be what to me seems like a staggeringly brilliant bit of engineering that relates all the way back to the x-plane days, especially the x-15 flights. I'll explain if you are interested. Jackhammer111 (talk) 22:50, 14 April 2016 (UTC)


 * I found it quite by accident, as I was looking for something else in the book. The F9F Cougar (doesn't specify -6 or -8) is capable of Mach 1.2 in a dive. It's on page 139 of Brad Elward's Grumman F9F Panther/Cougar. (North Branch, Minnesota: Specialty Press, 2010. ISBN 978-1-58007-145-1.) However, there was no mention of a supersonic ejection in the very short chapter on the Blue Angels' usage of the F9F. - BilCat (talk) 09:54, 16 April 2016 (UTC)

Boeing 720 revert
I don't understand this revert. You reverted added citations among ce changes. Why? - Denimadept (talk) 05:55, 11 April 2016 (UTC)


 * I reverted too far, so I restored the Operator entry. The rest is unnecessary details or changes, especially the addition in the Lead. - BilCat (talk) 06:09, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

WAGA live news
WAGA-TV live newscasts at these include time: Weekdays: 3:30-10am, 12-1pm, 5-7pm & 10pm-Midnight. Saturday: 3:30-4:30am, 6-9am & 10-11pm. Sunday: 6-8:30am, 6-7pm & 10-11:30pm. Now, you can compute it. How many hours? Dung247 (talk) 13:06, 12 April 2016 (UTC)


 * What you need to do is to provide a source for the change, which you did not do. Wikipedia does not do its own research, we summarize what reliable sources have said.  Scr ★ pIron IV 13:12, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

You can see at this link: http://waga.titantv.com/apg/ttv.aspx?siteid=52682 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24hrnewsweathertraffic (talk • contribs) 15:00, 20 April 2016 (UTC)


 * Then cite your sources in the article when you add them, or you risk being blocked just like the previous user. - BilCat (talk) 15:07, 20 April 2016 (UTC)


 * Milb, thanks, probable cold feet :) - BilCat (talk) 19:21, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

GTF
read the (wiki)links or understand the engine. please answer before revert. 217.250.184.27 (talk) 20:28, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
 * The content added was confusing in both grammar and construction, and was unsourced. English Wikipedia likes sources.  It also likes english.  Scr ★ pIron IV 20:52, 13 April 2016 (UTC)


 * Exactly!! - BilCat (talk) 21:01, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

McDonnell Douglas AV-8B Harrier II
Talk:AV-8B Harrier II/Archive 1 and Talk:McDonnell Douglas AV-8B Harrier II/Archive 1 are different archives of the talk page. Earlier archive was created before the page rename. --76.14.40.2 (talk) 19:05, 14 April 2016 (UTC)


 * Ok, thanks. It would probably be better to merge the archives. - BilCat (talk) 19:17, 14 April 2016 (UTC)


 * I moved Talk:McDonnell Douglas AV-8B Harrier II/Archive 1 to Talk:McDonnell Douglas AV-8B Harrier II/Archive 2. I have the Archvie 1 page tag for deletion to make room for moving Talk:AV-8B Harrier II/Archive 1 there. -Fnlayson (talk) 23:08, 15 April 2016 (UTC)


 * Thanks Jeff! - BilCat (talk) 23:25, 15 April 2016 (UTC)


 * You're welcome BC, and thanks for finishing that move. -Fnlayson (talk) 05:24, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

 * Thanks very much. You're also doing a good job with the F-9 Cougar article. Writing and citing copy from sources isn't one of my strengths, as I'm a slow writer and a bad paraphraser. I can do it when necessary, but the process takes me so long that that I don't do it very often. A lot of our aircraft articles are in need of expansion, so it's nice to see a relatively new user help out with that. Thanks! If you need any help with formatting or other problems, feel free to ask me, or at the WP Aircraft Project talk page. - BilCat (talk) 08:16, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

Infobox company
Hi, I actully meant to change this information. The Finmeccanica company has undergone a restructuring process by the end of last year. AgustaWestland no longer exists, and is now a division of Finmeccanica. What is the best way to set this information into the infobox company? Thx — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bepito34 (talk • contribs) 11:59, 19 April 2016 (UTC)


 * The company is still is a transition period, and is still using the separate brands. We'll see what happens. In the meantime, don't remove ownership information from the Infoboxes, as that will stay the same even if AW, etc become totally defunct. - BilCat (talk) 18:30, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

Creative Screenwriters
Hello. The user Buzzers1 has been active for about three years, and as far as I can tell, almost every single edit has been either to add content from Creative Screenwriting, or has been to add other sources written by Chris McKittrick (who also writes for and is listed as the US editor for Creative Screenwriting). Since this isn't just one site, and is over a longer time period, I think this is pretty clearly an involved editor. I could take this to a noticeboard, but it seems clear enough, and since the the editor has 'thanked' me for the COI notice, I was thinking that would be premature. The site appears reliable to me as well, but the quantity of material being drawn from it is disproportionate and seems more about promoting the prestige of the writer than adding useful information. I apologize for reverting instead of taking this to a talk page. Having to explain this multiple times is making my frustration with this promotional behavior worse, but that's no excuse for incivility on my part. Grayfell (talk) 03:18, 20 April 2016 (UTC)


 * No problem. I prefer "revert discussing" at times, and I've cut it back some. I kept a quote I thought was relevant to what the sequel might deal with. I also looked at their contributions, and you may well be correct. If you're having to explain it multiple times, perhaps you could raise the issue on the Film project talk page. The editors there have probably dealt with such issues before. - BilCat (talk) 03:24, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

INS Vikramaditya (reference INS Vikrant page)
BilCat,

In due courteousness, I have provided a detailed explanation to user "Nicky Matthew" regarding the conversion of INS Vikramaditya, in an attempt to clearly differentiate between re-fitting and re-building. Please reference the same and update/revert the article "Vikrant-class aircraft carrier" for the change you undid earlier. Kindly also note that most media reports ignore this difference as the average reporter isn't trained for the shipbuilding industry.

You can find the details here on Nicky's talk page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Nicky_mathew#INS_Vikramaditya_.28reference_INS_Vikrant_page.29

Greetings and regards,

Anuj
 * Anuj, please note that the only consensus in that discussion is that you need to provide sources for the specific wording that you wish to use. You are welcome to do so. We are not obligated to make your desired edits for you, but we are obligated to verify any edits that you make per WP:V. I would suggest you read it.  Scr ★ pIron IV 13:13, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for the restore
I accidentally delete the whole paragraph while editing the page.. — Preceding unsigned comment added by FDHLWP (talk • contribs) 15:31, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

That sockpuppet report
Since you added your report to the original after the original was closed, the right thing technically would have been to go to WP:SPI and start a new report for dung. However, no harm done and the second sock was blocked quickly thanks to your report (just 14 minutes after). Good job! btw if you want help with such procedures in the future, please feel free to ask. Jeh (talk) 04:46, 22 April 2016 (UTC)


 * I used Twinkle to file it, so if it did it wrong, I have no idea why, or how to fix it. It was the first time I've tried to file a sock report, as it's too complicated a procedure to follow. And still is. I'll contact you next time since you offered, and there will likely be a next time! User's like this one tend to be obsessive in one area, and not open to really learning to WP, or even able to learn it, for any of several reasons, often Autism spectrum disorders. Thanks again. - BilCat (talk) 05:04, 22 April 2016 (UTC)


 * Probably Twinkle would have been fine if there wasn't already a report for that sockmaster, a report that was already closed. But the manual procedure is really not that bad. You should see what it takes to properly merge an article with another! If that's an "8" on a 1-to-10 difficulty scale then submitting a SP report is a 3 at worst. Actually compiling the evidence (as I did) is by far the larger part of the work; not difficult but annoying and tedious. Jeh (talk) 05:41, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

Question on clarifying "interjections"
I see you reverted my edit on the F-22A page on having "Lockheed Martin" as an interjection. I'm not questioning your revert, but I am wondering the why it is not considered an interjection? Just asking to further my grammar knowledge :) Thanks for all you do! --Bassmadrigal (talk) 21:38, 25 April 2016 (UTC)


 * I think you mean an "apositive" - an "interjection" is something else, at least in English grammar. In this case, "Prime contactor" is modifying "Lockheed Martin", so it doesn't take commas. If it said "The prime contractor, Lockheed Martin, built most of the F-22's...", then commas would be used. At least I think that's right. :) - BilCat (talk) 23:02, 25 April 2016 (UTC)


 * It seems my elementary school teacher who taught me about "interjections" (oh so many years ago) used the wrong word and should've used apposition. It always made sense to me because you were "interjecting" something into an otherwise complete sentence. So, thanks for the correction/info on that! As to the apposition, I was actually tempted to add "The" in front of the sentence. It still doesn't sound right to me without having the commas in there, because Prime contractor and Lockheed Martin are two different descriptors of the same entity, each of which could be used on their own. But, I will defer to your judgement on the matter. --Bassmadrigal (talk) 13:27, 26 April 2016 (UTC)


 * Adding "the" and a comma is fine with me, if you think it reads better. - BilCat (talk) 13:34, 26 April 2016 (UTC)


 * Thanks. I'll change it now. --Bassmadrigal (talk) 01:28, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

HELP!!!!
Please stop blocking my account too much right now! You never give me a chance. I want my new account as long as your account. If you could, would you stop blocking my other account because I can't edit, so I need to create a new account, but my old account can't be deleted permanently. That's why u see my multiple account. In other says, please help me!!!!!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by User:AllNewsKCBS (talk • contribs)


 * I am not an Administrator on Wikipedia, so I can neither block nor unblock any of your accounts.


 * Your first account (that I know of) was User:Dung247. You were only blocked for a short time at first, 31 hours, and you actually created the second account after the block was lifted. But you kept adding mostly unsourced information that was considered inappropriate for Wikipedia with the new account, just as you did with the old one.Therefore the decision was made by an administrator (which I am not) to block the new account indefinitely. At that point, creating new accounts is considered block evasion, and that's why all your new accounts are being blocked. Because you keep making the same types of edits to the same articles, it is easy to figure out who you are, and block you.


 * If you want to edit again, you must do several things:
 * You must not create anymore new accounts on Wikipedia.
 * You must go back to your original account, User:Dung247, and request that it be unblocked. Because of the reasons I gave you, I think I can help explain what happened, and perhaps you will be unblocked. But you must do one more thing:
 * You must listen to the other editors when they try to help you understand what you should and should not add to Wikipedia articles, and follow their advice, not simply promise to follow it. If you go right back to adding the same things you added before, you'll just be blocked again.


 * I hope that helps. - BilCat (talk) 12:37, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

Rocket M31
Message en français, j'écris depuis mon téléphone.

Bonsoir, j'allais écrire la référence lors de votre intervention. Il s'agit d'un dossier PDF de l'armée de terre française qui a un tableau a la page 15, j'indique le lien direct depuis mon PC demain matin. 84 km est la portée efficace des roquettes M31A1 utilisé par notre artillerie. Je signale une référence mise dans l'article du Wikipedia de l'armée allemande annonçant une portée maximale de 90 km mais la précision est aléatoire. L&#39;amateur d&#39;aéroplanes (talk) 01:36, 1 May 2016 (UTC)


 * Sorry, I don't speak French. Please cite reliable sources. - BilCat (talk) 01:37, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

For 90 km of range in Germany, référence no 17. Transfert of PDF file impossible depuis my phone. L&#39;amateur d&#39;aéroplanes (talk) 01:43, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

I write from my phone at 3am. This is a basic model, I could not go on a translation website and copied the text. The source that I put is more than reliable, it is one of the regulations to be followed by French officers for aerial fire support, naval and artillery. And as the German state a maximum range of the rocket about 90 km according to the reference No. 17. For the PDF file, see page 15 : http://www.cicde.defense.gouv.fr/IMG/pdf/20150608_np_cicde_pia-3-2-4-1-dloc.pdf L&#39;amateur d&#39;aéroplanes (talk) 06:23, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

Marine Raider heritage
Dear BilCat,

I am new to editing things on wikipedia so I am unsure how to correspond with you so thank you for your patience in advance.

I recently edited the Marine Raider wikipedia stating:

However, it is important to note that the Marine Special Operations units currently known as Marine Raider Regiment's were created when the marine corps converted it's elite companies of special operations capable marines known as Force Reconnaissance Companies into the Marine Special Operations Battalion's. While the Marine Special Operations Command, (MARSOC) has been gifted the title of Marine Raider, the true lineage lies with the Reconnaissance units in the Marine Corps. For they are the gap between the Marine Raider's of past and the current "title-holders" of Marine Raiders. Many traditions that the Marine Special Operations have were brought with the small group of operators whom were arbitrarily converted from Force Reconnaissance Marines to Critical Skill Operators. It can be reasoned that one could call both the Marine Special Operators and the Force Reconnaissance Marines "Marine Raiders".

I am an 0321 Reconnaissance Marine and I was in the Marine Corps when the Force Reconnaissance Companies were turned into 1st and 2nd Marine Special Operations Battalions.

As the legacy is passed on so is the story of our predecessors from generation to generation of current and former Reconnaissance Marines.

I understand that this may not appear scholarly, however, I am of the opinion that credit is due where credit is due. The majority of the Officers in charge of these units are not themselves Special Operators and they are unaware of the true lineage. I am unsure what your experience within the Marine Reconnaissance, Marine Raider Regiments is, however, I do feel the need to discuss this as people deserve to know the truth. Freedom of information is key to a free society and you may feel that the information is unsubstantiated but this is my life, this is the career that I chose, and this is the lineage of the original Marine Raiders.

From the very fact that the force reconnaissance companies were converted to the Marine Special Operations Battalions can logically lead to the conclusion that the true lineage of MSOB is Force Reconnaissance, and the true lineage of Force Reconnaissance is the Marine Raiders.

The private traditions that the Marine Special Operations Battalions hold close to their heart, was brought to MSOB when the Force Recon Companies were converted to MSOB.

I don't know what kind of substantiation you require, however, there are many Reconnaissance men and Critical Skills Operators whom will support the statements I have made.

If you would like to continue the conversation, my email address is ryan.beseke0321@gmail.com and I would love to discuss this. For now I am going to undo your undo and once we have finished our civil discourse then perhaps you will agree. And to be honest, if you do not agree that is ok, because I am not arguing opinion, I as a member of the Marine Reconnaissance community am defending the lineage of the warfighters in my community.

I am not saying that the Raider Lineage does not belong to the new Marine Raider Regiment, I am simply arguing that the original poster forgot about a major bridge in the gap between the "original raiders" and the "current raiders".

Thank you for your time.

-Ryan Beseke RECONRAIDER4LIFE — Preceding unsigned comment added by RECONRAIDER4LIFE (talk • contribs) 22:51, 4 May 2016 (UTC)


 * First, thank you for your service. One of the reasons I edit military-related articles on Wikipedia, especially of the US Armed Forces, is that I have a great respect for the role that the military and the people who serve perform.


 * As to your edits, they were removed because it was written more as an essay than part of an encyclopedia, and because there were no sources. Wikipedia uses material from reliable published sources per its Verifiability policy. Since your edit, an IP user (I'm assuming it's not you, but perhaps it was) has added a source from the Marine Corps Times which backs up much of the information you added. While it still needs more editing, we should be able to keep most of what you added now. - BilCat (talk) 07:01, 5 May 2016 (UTC)


 * Also, if you'd like to be more more involved in Wikipedia, especially on military articles, I'd encourage you to take a look at WP:MILHIST, the WikiProject for Military history. It is probably the best organized project on Wikipedia. Many of the project members are or were serving military personnel from various armed forces around the world, along with people who haven't served (like myself), but have an interest in military history and affairs, including the modern military, not just historical. If you're really interested in participating in Wikipedia, MILHIST is probably the best place to start. - BilCat (talk) 07:41, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

Sorry for being rude to user: Denniss. I got regrets immediately and undid the change. After that I saw your warning. Valid and understood. Tram2 (talk) 14:49, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

Hi, just opened your letter/note?
I got the info on "Tinny Tim rocket" from old books and direct measurement of museum examples. I can not at this time site the exact title of the books, but the AF museum at Write Pat has some neat stuff if you look around. The bit about the drill pipe and size is part of the official history of the USAF, but outside of going back to Write-pat later this summer on my annual pilgrimage, I have no idea how to find or copy data from there to here. I really am an amateur at this sort of thing. On the other hand a little research on the part of an expert like yourself could go a long ways to improving the content of many wiki articles. Sincerely, Stewart. PS. I do have a registered sign on, I just can not remember how to sign on at the time I find such obvious defects as the missing bit of history. My e-mail address is neoconshooter@live.com — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:558:6033:1A4:5545:ABDB:2BB8:ED7 (talk) 22:28, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

Pratt & Whitney Canada PT6
I added the "applications" column in the Pratt & Whitney Canada PT6 section (from PWC website) I just removed the redundancies in the #applications : no info is lost --Marc Lacoste (talk) 16:59, 29 April 2016 (UTC)


 * Except the ability to run quickly through an alphabetical list of the applications to see if one is missing, etc. Maybe that's not important to you, but it is to me. Hence my request that you get a consensus first so we're not edit warring or arguing between ourselves somewhere else other than the article's talk page, like here. - BilCat (talk) 17:04, 29 April 2016 (UTC)


 * OK, I wasn't seeing the interest of an alphabetical list (I just Ctrl+F in a page) --Marc Lacoste (talk) 17:14, 29 April 2016 (UTC)


 * Mo No worries. - BilCat (talk) 19:23, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

Report user for repeated incorrect edits and insulting language
Hello BilCat,

About this person reediting the S-400 (missile) and MIM-104 Patriot pages, he's also insulting me with bad words. Do you know how to report him ? - AHMED XIV (talk) 10:22, 11 May 2016 (UTC)


 * You can report him/her at WP:ANI. - BilCat (talk) 10:25, 11 May 2016 (UTC)
 * This looks like our old friend, Fonte de regaz - master of puppets, and grand insulter in broken english.  Scr ★ pIron IV 14:18, 11 May 2016 (UTC)


 * Ay yay yay! I forgot to check the IPs location. Fart de Rogaine must be out again, since we haven't noticed him for awhile. I'll let  know. - BilCat (talk) 18:28, 11 May 2016 (UTC)


 * Seems to have gone away? MilborneOne (talk) 14:45, 13 May 2016 (UTC)

Antonov An-225 Mriya
Hi Bill. Could you please review this edit to see if you think this information should be included or not. I removed it once but another editor put it back in. My contention is that the flight was routine and not notable and we don't list every flight the 225 has ever made. See what you think. - Ahunt (talk) 12:00, 16 May 2016 (UTC)


 * I almost deleted it myself! It seems it may be hard to keep that one out, as it claims to be the first flights to both India and Australia, given that there are other firsts and notable flights in that section. As an aviation oddity and specialist in outsized cargo, the An-225 is going to attract attention every time it does something that is published in the news. However, we certainly don't need to be documenting every flight it makes! I'd definitely recommend changing the heading to a less inclusive title, but that should probably be discussed on the article's talk page,perhaps with a note at WT:AIR about it. (Feel free to copy this to the An-225 talk if you want.) - BilCat (talk) 12:13, 16 May 2016 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your thoughts on this. Okay I'll start a general discussion on the talk page and perhaps we can figure out there what should be "in" or "out". - Ahunt (talk) 12:17, 16 May 2016 (UTC)


 * ✅ here - Ahunt (talk) 12:30, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

Dreamliner
Hi Bilcat, I restored the material you removed from Dreamliner here:. The contributor had given a source (The Economist) so I tracked down the article. Friendly regards, Springnuts (talk) 19:08, 15 May 2016 (UTC)


 * That wasn't the only issue. It was written more as a news item, and stuck in its own section, giving it undue weight. - BilCat (talk) 19:10, 15 May 2016 (UTC)


 * Honestly, it's still undue weight in the Lead like that, and not terribly neutral or well written, your genuine efforts to clean it up notwithstanding. - BilCat (talk) 19:18, 15 May 2016 (UTC)


 * The delay was already covered in the lead and did not need to be repeated. I moved the cost text and ref to a costs section and kept the project cost in the Lead. (For future reference.) -Fnlayson (talk) 12:42, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

Embraer
BilCat, I didn't understand this reversion in article. The phrase in source "Ozires Silva, que capitaneou o projeto" means "Ozires Silva, who captained (or led) the project." Regards. PauloMSimoes (talk) 12:49, 18 May 2016 (UTC)


 * Using 'captained' is somewhat vague there, but led is clearer. Also, the whole sentence tries to cover both the company and Silva. Maybe rewrite or split it up. -Fnlayson (talk) 12:38, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

HMS Defender
Can you look at the recent edits to HMS Defender. User GaryDee seems to use weak or not-reputable sources to claim the ship is searching for the Egpyt Airline crash. I have told him so but he keeps adding it back. Can you assist?Cantab1985 (talk) 12:54, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

why does my edit wrong?
it is properly shown in NATOPS Flight Manual(performance manual) A1-F18EA-NFM-200. did you actually see about it? source like another company's brochure is not important.(which says 578 rounds) do you think that operating manual is baseless than blog stuff and brochures? Annr1223 (talk) 16:05, 20 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Hi, WP:TALKSTALK here: After looking at the edit I believe the issue is with WP:CITE, there was no proper citations of the brochure or manual. Go to the WP:CITE link which should help you with proper citations for that source. Hope that helps! Garchy (talk) 16:08, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

Reliable sources
Hello. You revert my edit of Constant speed drive page, because i don't provide reliable sources. But RC on the subject russian airplanes aggregates (GP IGD etc.) there are on russian language, for example — [GP21 maitenance manual]. Tupolev Tu-22M maitenance manual is top secret... I can specify it as the RC? Vivan755 (talk) 10:06, 22 May 2016 (UTC)
 * We in Russia say: silence — assent :) Vivan755 (talk) 10:18, 24 May 2016 (UTC)


 * You have to site reliable, verifiable published sources. Something that is top secret is hardly verifiable by most readers on Wikipedia, so no, that's not usable here. - BilCat (talk) 14:28, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

Edits on C-17
dude how long are we going to keep playing this game about aircraft units????? The edit I just made on the C-17 was returning it to its original version (done by someone else} and one you finally agreed was correct. ENOUGH ALREADY!!!!!Bob80q (talk) 02:38, 26 May 2016 (UTC)


 * Until you follow the existing style format, and stop bolding in the wrong places, etc. It's not that difficult to do, as you have done it elsewhere. But I'm cleaning it up for you. - BilCat (talk) 02:45, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

USN
Per http://www.ita.doc.gov/ita_sec/Address%20and%20Salutation.htm, the POTUS is given this title. If we are to have "The Honorable" for Mr. Carter, then Obama should have it as well. TJH2018 talk  03:47, 26 May 2016 (UTC)


 * I've already removed them too, per WP:HONORIFIC. - BilCat (talk) 03:49, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

Regarding your baseless edits
Why do you keep spamming my talk page? Why are you engaging in an edit war with me for no reason? What is the reason for this, I have provided references for the very minor edit I have made to the template, and you have provided no valid reason to vandalise the template and remove my constructive edit for no reason whatsoever. Etonmessisthebest (talk) 03:07, 27 May 2016 (UTC)


 * I gave valid reasons, including those on your talk page. As another editor also pointed out, the deal has not been approved or completed yet, and as such Gett should not be included in the navbox. Thanks. - BilCat (talk) 06:00, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

billcat -

not sure if i'm doing this right but you reached out to me to find out why i deleted info from Powerless (tv show) page. it had jon beckerman and rob burnett as co-creators and developers of the show which was incorrect. I couldn't figure out how to delete it any other way. - Clock238 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Clock328 (talk • contribs) 18:39, 28 May 2016 (UTC)

Douglas SBD Dauntless
Hi BilCat: I just noticed your message regarding deletion of my correction to the Dauntless page. Please bear with me: I've been a steady Wiki contributor for many years but sometime in 2015 I was unable to log on or even to register anew. Finally gave up trying. My IT consultant explained it: "Stuff happens." Only he didn't say "stuff." Because I'm unable to discern what my correction was, I cannot comment on your deletion. Am plenty willing to do so and to provide additional sources. FWIW: I've written two books about the SBD, and in the 70s my family restored and flew the only airworthy example. Hence my abiding interest in the subject.

Over to you, B Tillman72.223.111.15 (talk) 22:47, 29 May 2016 (UTC)


 * I've read a few of your books, including two novels (Hope they'll be on Ebook someday so I can re-read them! My old eyes can't read small print well anymore.) but not the ones on the SBD. As to your edit here, you deleted cited information without giving a reason why. We get that kind of stuff a lot here, where people delete things without an explanation. If you can provide a reason and new source if the circumstances are changed, I'll work on it re-adding it.


 * As to your account, it sounds like it might have been caught in an autoblock or something where they block a range of IPs. Have you tried to log in from an outside network or computer? If you can log in, then it's probably a range block of some kind, and there are steps to take to clear that for your account. - BilCat (talk) 23:30, 29 May 2016 (UTC)

Response to my very minor edit to the History of the Houston Oilers https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_Houston_Oilers
Hi BilCat! My edit simply removed a single word. The old wording was "...overly micromanaged..." which I changed to just "...micromanaged..." That's all I did was remove that one word.

Darrenfulton (talk) 18:25, 31 May 2016 (UTC)


 * The only edit you made under your username was this, in which you restored unsourced and unattributed material that I removed from the article. It had nothing to do with the removal of a word. If you made this edit, I actually agree with it. On reading the rest of the paragraph, I saw that it was unsourced and highly biased against Adams without attribution, so I removed all such claims and comments. The article has been tagged as needing additional citations since January 2012, so that is perfectly acceptable. I hope that explains it. - BilCat (talk) 18:35, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

—
 * Howdy Bilcat. Yes, that was me.  I wasn't logged in.  Yeah, I just removed that one word and when I saw your response to that, those significant changes, I reverted your change.

Darrenfulton (talk) 18:44, 31 May 2016 (UTC)


 * Ok, I'll remove the warning, as my edits were confusing. - BilCat (talk) 18:46, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

Your talk page tag
I hope you are doing okay there? Best wishes to you in this tough time. - Ahunt (talk) 00:40, 9 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Seconded from the heart. I went through a similar journey three years and a season ago. I lost my mother, who was my only immediate family left and a wonderful soul, and still is. I will not say "be strong", just be you. You are not alone and your feelings are part of what makes us all human. G d bless, or just peace to you if you are not religious. All is as it is meant to be. The Book of Job helped me through. Here if you ever need to drop a word. Simon. Irondome (talk) 01:06, 9 June 2016 (UTC)


 * Thank you both. I appreciate it very much. God bless you too. - BilCat (talk) 02:38, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

Georgia DAB
Hi BilCat. I saw that you just undid my edit to Georgia (U.S. state) where I removed the (disambiguation) link as Georgia is currently a disambiguation page. You cited the WP:MOS as justification for your revert could you point out to me where in the guidelines this is stated? Ebonelm (talk) 17:46, 14 June 2016 (UTC)


 * Ebonelm: Per WP:Intentional disambiguation:
 * "In order to find and fix those errors, disambiguators generate a wide array of reports of links needing to be checked and fixed. Because these reports can not distinguish instances where an editor has made such a link with the intent to point to the disambiguation page, the community has adopted the procedure of rerouting all intentional disambiguation links in mainspace through "Foo (disambiguation)" redirects. This makes it clear that such links are intended to point to the disambiguation page...." (Emphasis mine)


 * In a hatnote:
 * Incorrect:
 * Correct:, or


 * Hope that explains it. - BilCat (talk) 18:19, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
 * , thank you BilCat, I hadn't seen that before. I will remember that in future. Ebonelm (talk) 11:08, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

Re:Soccer matches
I don't think the addition or the removal of soccer matches on stadium articles has been discussed anywhere but it should. I 100% support the removal of the matches from articles.  GoPurple  'n  Gold24   09:03, 18 June 2016 (UTC)

Thanks
Thanks for catching my error on https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Fairchild_Republic_A-10_Thunderbolt_II&oldid=727215112 Sario528 (talk) 13:16, 27 June 2016 (UTC)


 * No worries, I make plenty of mistakes myself that others catch. - BilCat (talk) 13:19, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

Oshkosh
Hi there,

I'm not 100% sure I'd agree those captions were too wordy, but my view is that life is too short to argue about such things. What I have done though, and I thought I'd explain it as I get issues with this in my 'day job' a lot..., is to return the capital letters to product names the original blocked editor removed. For example, Palletized Load System (PLS) is the name of the truck. Not an adventurous name I agree, but name it is... The Ram in Dodge Ram gets a capital, so Palletized Load System in Oshkosh Palletized Load System does as well. Thought a quick explain worthwhile as if it's not your field, it looks like a descriptor (and marketing/pr stunt) and not a name! Also tried to make the captions a little more alike.--Wolpat (talk) 07:15, 30 June 2016 (UTC)


 * Understood, and no problem that I can see with these changes. - BilCat (talk) 07:19, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

B-29 Superfortress
My point in editing the B-29 page was the fact that I am a B-29 historian who has 1,000's of photos of the B-29 during Lemay's tenure as head of the 21st Bomber Command. The turrets on his B-29's were NOT REMOVED as stated in your wiki page. This is incorrect and the proof is in the photos of any of his Bomb Groups. Any of his Bomb Group's that were given the new B-29B or the Silverplate B-29's did in fact only have the tail gunner weaponry installed.. but these were done at the factory and designed as such. There were no B-29's that had field mods to remove their turrets or their turret's mechanism. Just google B-29 and you will see 1,000's of B-29 photos flying up until the last days of WWII that had their turrets installed and fully functional. What proof do you need other than the photos with dates on them indicating they were during Lemay's tenure as head of the 21st? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.253.53.132 (talk)


 * Photos are not generally considered reliable sources themselves, as they are open to interpretation. You need to cite verifiable, reliable, published sources, which as a historian should be easy for you to find. Since the information you are deleting is already sourced, your sources need to be of equal or higher quality, and added to the existing information, not just replace it. Further discussion of this is best done on the B-29 talk page, where we can get into how exactly to do all this there, and where other users can participate in the discussions. Thanks. - BilCat (talk) 16:36, 30 June 2016 (UTC)


 * Here is one [] Here is another [] Here is another [] No turrets appear to be in evidence. You sound familiar B.T.W. Irondome (talk) 16:45, 30 June 2016 (UTC)


 * I misread your comment, and I apologise for that. You are stating that all turretless B-29's were factory modified and were not modified in the field. Ok, but a source would be good. Irondome (talk) 20:21, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

UTC)

Hi!
Hello, I'm MegaMan1988. I wanted to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions to List of Space Shuttle missions has been undone because it did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks. MegaMan1988 (talk) 03:39, 1 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Whoops! Sorry about that! Didn't read your edit summary. MegaMan1988 (talk) 04:29, 1 July 2016 (UTC)

TeeTylerToe
RE: Assault rifle page edits. I believe TeeTylerToe is a troll. His talk page edits follow the profile. He asks question for which the answers are obvious. He asks multiple often repetitive question. He refuses to listen to the answers. He demands to know who decides which answers are correct, then repeats the questions. He provides nonsense examples and long draw-out often rambling comments, including 10 or more questions. He has done this not only on the Assault rifle talk page but every talk page that he edits. Now, I have added a "Do Not Feed the Trolls" gif to the Assault rifle talk page. Is there anything else we can do?--RAF910 (talk) 22:56, 30 June 2016 (UTC)


 * Yeah, did the same thing at Talk:Fairchild Republic A-10 Thunderbolt II yesterday. I'm not sure I'd call it trolling just yet, but if he keeps it up, ANI might be necessary. - BilCat (talk) 01:37, 1 July 2016 (UTC)

Roger--RAF910 (talk) 02:04, 1 July 2016 (UTC)

After his latest tirade on the A10 talk page, I think an ANI is now appropriate.--RAF910 (talk) 01:24, 2 July 2016 (UTC)


 * Yeah. His response to not posting walls of questions was to keep doing it. Sheesh. - BilCat (talk) 01:48, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

Update... I have added the following information to User talk:Thomas.W. Perhaps this will be helpful.

The following is TeeTylerToe block log and it should be noted that he was indefinitely blocked and that block was lifted when User:Hasteur agreed to mentor him. Said user has recently retired and is therefore no longer mentoring him. This may explain his refusal to listen to other editors and his insistence that he is right and everyone else is wrong. Perhaps it would be best to reinstate the block and be done with it.

Please See this acceptance of conditions Mentorship Proposal section at the bottom, which I believe he is currently violating.

08:33, 10 January 2013 Bjelleklang (talk | contribs) unblocked TeeTylerToe (talk | contribs) (User has agreed to be mentored by User:Hasteur. See this acceptance of conditions and debate [[Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#TeeTylerToe...)

21:54, 19 September 2012 Foxj (talk | contribs) changed block settings for TeeTylerToe (talk | contribs) with an expiration time of indefinite (account creation blocked) (Allowing talkpage access for another unblock appeal given UTRS is a bit iffy and user seems apologetic on IRC)

--RAF910 (talk) 15:46, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

10:09, 30 July 2012 Nick-D (talk | contribs) changed block settings for TeeTylerToe (talk | contribs) with an expiration time of indefinite (account creation blocked, cannot edit own talk page) (Edit warring continuing to abuse other editors while blocked)

09:48, 30 July 2012 Nick-D (talk | contribs) changed block settings for TeeTylerToe (talk | contribs) with an expiration time of indefinite (account creation blocked) (Edit warring abusing editors while blocked\)

08:31, 28 July 2012 Nick-D (talk | contribs) blocked TeeTylerToe (talk | contribs) with an expiration time of 1 week (account creation blocked) (Edit warring)

18:05, 24 July 2012 Magog the Ogre (talk | contribs) blocked TeeTylerToe (talk | contribs) with an expiration time of 31 hours (account creation blocked) (Violation of the three-revert rule: Sikorsky S-76)

--RAF910 (talk) 15:47, 3 July 2016 (UTC)


 * I well remember those, as I was involved in the S-76 discussions! Not a fun time that. - BilCat (talk) 15:54, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

Infobox aircraft updates
Oh hey! Sorry, I may be adding pages to this category faster than you are fixing them, since perhaps I brought this (general issue) to your attention! I'll refresh pages to make sure you already haven't, before adding the category. Thanks! Skybunny (talk) 04:07, 8 July 2016 (UTC)


 * No, I fixed it because you'd added the tag. I keep forgetting to go back and fix those, so thanks for doing that. I think you could have the category added automatically by adding it to the navbox itself, but I'm not sure exactly how to do it, except that an admin will have to make the edit, as the navbox page is fully protected. - BilCat (talk) 04:12, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

Still around?
Yes, and getting rounder by the day. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 17:18, 9 July 2016 (UTC)


 * LOL! That's better than being asquare. :) - BilCat (talk) 17:51, 9 July 2016 (UTC)

regarding move of Bharat Dynamics Limited
'Limited' (that means Public Limited), 'Private Limited' etc are terms that qualify the status of a company and are not really part of the company name as per Indian Company Act. Here. I trust it was okay the way it was earlier itself but didn't revert your change as yours was a good faith edit. Please check and take suitable action yourself as you see fit. Devopam (talk) 05:49, 20 July 2016 (UTC)


 * As far as I could tell, "Bharat Dynamics Limited" is how the company refers to itself, and how other sources refer to it also. Per WP:NCCORP, "Legal status may be included, even when disambiguation is not needed, for companies that are commonly known by acronyms such as British Overseas Airways Corporation (BOAC)." "Limited" is a key part of the company's name on its website, as evidenced by its abbreviation, "BDL". I hope that explains it. - BilCat (talk) 08:29, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

Cessna M2/CitationJet merge proposed
see Talk:Cessna_Citation_M2 and Talk:Cessna_CitationJet --Marc Lacoste (talk) 10:33, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

Matt Kemp
It is now okay to list the Braves in Matt Kemp's infobox, but when you were adding it, it was not okay because Kemp had not yet appeared in a game for the Braves. As I said in my edit summary, it is WikiProject Baseball standard practice to only list a team in the infobox once the player actually appears in a game for the team. It does not get listed when the player has simply been added to the 25-man roster without appearing in a game yet. I did not appreciate you saying that I was being "intractable" when I was simply following the WikiProject's consensus. --A guy saved by Jesus (talk) 23:31, 2 August 2016 (UTC)


 * My apologies, you are correct that insisting on following an apparently unwritten consensus 30 minutes before the game starts isn't being intractable. It's being ANAL! :p - BilCat (talk) 23:39, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

Lockheed Martin F-35 Lightning II‎
Lightning may not redirect to the article but searches from outside Wikipedia on Lightning + aircraft lead to this article. A simple redirection to the English Electric Lightning would be of some aid to those looking for the British plane.  Velella  Velella Talk 23:33, 2 August 2016 (UTC)


 * Take it up on the article's talk page, and perhaps you'll get a consensus for it. But I am curious why you didn't add P-38 also, as it's a Lockheed Lightning too. - BilCat (talk) 23:43, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

Concerning Martini-henry correction
I felt it was necessary because the troops didn't successfully defend themselves with the rifle. If you see my correction as pedantic then I submit that adding "successfully defended themselves" adds no more to the discussion and should just be changed to "was used by the british". Thank you for your time. I read the newest change and it specifies that they fought at Isandlwana but successfully defended themselves at Rorke's Drift which is accurate. That correction is superior so I have no further complaint. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.231.209.107 (talk) 17:18, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

portability of bazookas

 * Please stop reverting "human-portability" to "man-portability." Usage of the word "man" should ideally only be used when referring to male-gendered humans, as opposed to a generic term for humankind (of which mankind is only one gender).  While the word "man" has often historically and even legally been used to refer to humans of more than one gender, such usage should be avoided.  Conflating "man" with "human" can also be problematic for English-as-a-second-language readers and for automated translation of Wikipedia.  If you have a specific citation with an official usage of "man-portability" versus "human-portability" (such as in a USA Army manual), then the term "man-portability" should be wikilinked to its own entry on Wikipedia to explain the term, and why it is used in that context.  Nicole Sharp (talk) 16:36, 9 August 2016 (UTC)
 * See Man-portable anti-tank systems for starters, which I've already linked to in the article. Take up any further discussion on the article's talk page. - BilCat (talk) 16:51, 9 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes, I was just reading those articles actually: MANPADS and MANPATS. Obviously the term "man-portable" is well-established.  The question is whether it is still currently an officially-used term, particularly in militaries that have soldiers of multiple genders and not just men.  If it is an officially-used term, then I think creating a new Wikipedia article on "man-portability" that explains the historical and current military usage of the term would be helpful to Wikipedia readers who might otherwise find the term antiquated and sexist when used as a general descriptor of military hardware.  Nicole Sharp (talk) 17:06, 9 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Wouldn't that be overdoing it a bit? I've never heard of anyone having problems with the term "man-portable" in the military, so don't create problems when there are none. As for the latest fad of changing all instances of "man-made" and "man-portable" in articles here to "human-made" and "human-portable", "man" has always referred to both mankind and male Homo Sapiens, and the vast majority of all English-speakers are capable of understanding which of the two meanings that a term refers to, based on context, just like with all other words with more than one meaning, so there's no need to invent new "gender neutral" terms for everything. Thomas.W talk 18:05, 9 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Regarding bazookas, "man portable" seems appropriate as they were only used in the era before women were allowed to serve in combat roles. It would be worth evaluating whether the term "man portable" is still widely used in regards to weapons, but I suspect that it is - Nicole, please bear in mind that the discriminatory restrictions against women serving in military roles were they might use such weapons have only recently been removed in most countries. The fact that number of militaries are only now changing their job titles to be gender-neutral indicates that there's a long way to go. Nick-D (talk) 08:48, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

Bobby Cox
You added a missing information header here. I have tried to add season-by-season records before. WikiProject Baseball had considered the table excessive. So, I proposed a smaller managerial record here. It's better to have something rather than nothing. If you would like to propose a season-by-season record table, then maybe you should go here. Kingjeff (talk) 18:40, 9 August 2016 (UTC)


 * Thanks. I had added the tag primarily to stop the deletion of the section by a persistent IP, who has seemed to relent at that point. - BilCat (talk) 18:54, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

Knight Rider
First that is not a minor edit, second that website does not exist, you are adding a reference to a website that is no longer valid.Chris &#34;WarMachineWildThing&#34; (talk) 02:40, 17 August 2016 (UTC)


 * http://web.archive.org/web/20100217160142/http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/hr/content_display/television/news/e3ia9c51f5ef29150aa83bf8dab9a5cb9de


 * It works for me. You did check it after the link was updated by Fnlayson, didn't you? Also, removing a source used in several places in the article isn't a good idea, as you leave unsourced claims in the article., and someone else has to go back into the article later to source them. That's why using a dead link tag is better than removing the source outright without providing a replacement first. - BilCat (talk) 02:47, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

Article has been removed from the site this is the site I get when I click it. http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/hr/content_display/television/news/e3ia9c51f5ef29150aa83bf8dab9a5cb9de, there are sources out there, which I was doing until I continually got reverted. I was going to resource them myself, but as usual editors got revert happy. The article is suffering from WP:link rot which needs corrected. Before you ask no I couldn't add the new sources when i removed the old as I'm on my phone right now and it locks up with multiple pages open. 30 min was all I needed and they would have been back with fresh references. Chris &#34;WarMachineWildThing&#34; (talk) 03:05, 17 August 2016 (UTC)


 * Perhaps the archive link isn't working on your phone, but again, that's no reason to remove it now. - BilCat (talk) 03:16, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

Everett IP
Is it worth asking for a range block to stop this editor disrupting Wikipedia? Mjroots2 (talk) 07:34, 17 August 2016 (UTC)


 * We can always ask, the worst they can say is No. They've been willing to do it with IPv6 ranges in the past, but he's also used some IPv4 ranges too, so it might not work. - BilCat (talk) 07:38, 17 August 2016 (UTC)


 * Oh, I just realized you're an admin on your alt account, as the 2 in your name threw me. Do you think it's doable? I haven't kept track of all the different addresses he's used, but I know the main articles he frequents, and it shouldn't be too hard to put together a list if it's needed. Thanks. - BilCat (talk) 07:50, 17 August 2016 (UTC)


 * Hi Bil, back on main account. Have fairly major computer problems atm as my PC died on me. I've been using my late father's Kindle, but can't log in to this account from it as there are several diacritics in my password. Alt account password is less secure, but it doesn't need to be as secure as this one. Currently logged in on mum's laptop but I log off after each session.
 * We can either go for a rangeblock or long-term semi protection of individual articles if that would produce less fallout. Am prepared to support either option. Mjroots (talk) 08:49, 17 August 2016 (UTC)


 * It's quite a long list of articles he's active on,and newv ones show up all the time. A range block might make things difficult on him for awhile, so we might could try that first. I generally use a Kindle Fire for editing, and it can use diacritics of several letters by long-pressing the key, but perhaps not all of what you need. My mom passed about 2 months ago, and it's still quite fresh for us. - BilCat (talk) 09:27, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

Defence
I made a good contributions to military articles (which you help to revert or edit) and now they want to delete my account. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Jeneral28#Suspected_sockpuppets

I am not that person please assist thanks.

Cantab1985 (talk) 03:13, 18 August 2016 (UTC)


 * I've responded on your talk page so that others editors can see the advice you've been given in one place. Thanks. - BilCat (talk) 06:12, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

didn't realize i was editing a redirect
I think you see what I did, but it's fixed now. Thanks for the help!--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 23:50, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

A kitten for you!
Didn't think of anything else.

Jak474 (talk) 02:40, 20 August 2016 (UTC) 

About reverting my edits on the AK page
I beleive you wrongfully reverted my edits. The name of the rifle has been heavily discussed on the talk page, and a conclusion was made that AK is the correct name. I replaced all mentions of AK-47 with AK (those that don't break links/images), and you reverted that edit. Please undo your edit, as I can't do it and it'd take a very long time to do it manually again. Thank you.


 * You need to discuss this on the article's talk page. As I understood the discussions, there is no consensus to change the name to AK. You're welcome to disagree, but not to make disruptive edits as you did. - BilCat (talk) 12:45, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

About reverting my Enterprise edits
Apoligies for my error there. I neglected to realize that was a DAB. Thanks. Aleding (talk) 00:34, 24 August 2016 (UTC)


 * No worries. - BilCat (talk) 00:35, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

AR-15
Can you help me out with a header message telling people to see the Colt AR-15 page? Basically the Armalite AR-15 is a military weapon, not the civilian semi auto clone and I think well-meaning people are getting confused. Thanks!--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 20:39, 26 August 2016 (UTC)


 * Done. There might be a better hatnote available, but that one works. - BilCat (talk) 20:51, 26 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Good man! Thanks!--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 20:51, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

Kiev Politechnical University
Here is an announcement from the KPI official site and two from newspapers,  --Tohaomg (talk) 02:43, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

August 2016
I noticed that you have posted comments to the page Talk:Scots language in a language other than English. At the English-language Wikipedia, we try to use English for all comments. Posting all comments in English makes it easier for other editors to join the conversation and help you. If you cannot avoid using another language, then please provide a translation into English, if you can. For more details, see Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines. (Yes, I warned myself!) BilCat (talk) 12:55, 31 August 2016 (UTC)


 * What are you warning yourself before someone else can? ;) -Fnlayson (talk) 17:34, 1 September 2016 (UTC)


 * Yes, just in case this edit backfired, and if someone thought I being hypocritical, after I had already done this. :) - BilCat (talk) 17:45, 1 September 2016 (UTC)


 * Got you, thx. -Fnlayson (talk) 18:16, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

Mini-14
I filed an ANI on the Mini-14 edit warrior sock--RAF910 (talk) 19:30, 4 September 2016 (UTC)


 * Thanks. That sockmaster has a long history, per User:Guliolopez/Draft. You might want to include a note about that in your report. - BilCat (talk) 19:39, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

Firearm Receiver
Either you or DHeyward has objection to the section I added on 80 percent receivers. They are widely available from many sources, and I think it is worth including in the article that they ARE available and the conditions under which a firearm might be built around one. Please see the article talk page. If between the two or three of us we can come up with a suitably worded section with acceptable references, I think we could all benefit. Thank you. 66.103.35.72 (talk) 21:01, 4 September 2016 (UTC)


 * I gave an explanation in my edit summary for why I made the revert. Nothing you've said on that article's talk page addresses those reasons. Instead, you mention people with agendas and late next night phone calls! I don't think any conversations between us will be productive. Bye. - BilCat (talk) 19:38, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

Help with Honeywell
Hey BilCat, thanks for catching that irrelevant addition to the Honeywell article. If you've got the time, would you mind taking a look at the changes I proposed on the talk page? I'd appreciate any help I can get.--FacultiesIntact (talk) 23:13, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

CETME
I think we should just start a new article called "CETME rifle" by copy/pasting the main body of this article. --RAF910 (talk) 17:05, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

I'm working on a draft right now. But, I'm on my way out and I don't think that I'm going to finish before I have to leave. If you want to go for it, be my guest. I can copy edit yours your version.--RAF910 (talk) 17:22, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

Good job...that exactly what I was thinking. I made some changes, additions + references & deleted the tags as they are no longer needed--RAF910 (talk) 22:21, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

Can you make two redirect to the CETME rifle page. One for the CETME Model 58 and one for the CETME Model C.--RAF910 (talk) 21:18, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

Thank You--RAF910 (talk) 20:00, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

Reverting my edit
Why did you revert my edit? It isn't a redirect class article? Iazyges (talk) 22:33, 14 September 2016 (UTC)


 * Because it appeared that your edit broke the template, it looked like a test edit, and you didn't use an edit summary. - BilCat (talk) 22:36, 14 September 2016 (UTC)


 * The root of the problem is an over-aggressive user who moved the article without bothering to move the talk page. Perhaps a histmerge can be performed to fix it. - BilCat (talk) 22:39, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

English language
Good day. Strange that German and Dutch are not mentioned in the long lead of English language. Could you please mention these languages somehow? TheLusatian (talk) 16:32, 15 September 2016 (UTC)


 * Why? They aren't variants of English. - BilCat (talk) 16:33, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

because for example: French lead..... French le français or la langue française is a Romance language of the Indo-European family. It descended from the Vulgar Latin of the Roman Empire, as did languages such as Italian, Portuguese, Spanish, Romanian, Catalan and others.

German lead...... German Deutsch is a West Germanic language that is mainly spoken in Central Europe........Major languages which are most similar to German include other members of the West Germanic language branch, such as Afrikaans, Dutch, and English. It is the second most widely spoken Germanic language, after English.

Dutch lead ...........Dutch is one of the closest relatives of both German and English and is said to be roughly in between them. Dutch, like English, has not undergone the High German consonant shift, does not use Germanic umlaut as a grammatical marker, has largely abandoned the use of the subjunctive, and has levelled much of its morphology, including the case system.[n 7] Features shared with German include the survival of three grammatical genders

Czech lead ........Czech's closest relative is Slovak, with which it is mutually intelligible. It is closely related to other West Slavic languages, such as Silesian and Polish. Although most Czech vocabulary is based on shared roots with Slavic, Romance, and Germanic languages, many loanwords (most associated with high culture) have been adopted in recent years. TheLusatian (talk) 16:49, 15 September 2016 (UTC)


 * The first section, Classification, deals with all that in detail. It seems sufficient to me, but you're welcome to discuss it more on the article's talk page to get wider input. The reason I removed the sentence you added was because it was a complete sentence on Dutch and German inserted after the first sentence, where it was a distracting digression. - BilCat (talk) 17:03, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

ok but i wonder why it is not actually one of the most important facts to which other languages a language is most closely related. Actually that is the most interesting fact after the language branch and the countries in which it is spoken. TheLusatian (talk) 17:18, 15 September 2016 (UTC)


 * Again, that's better discussed on the article's talk page. - BilCat (talk) 17:47, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

Air Operations in the Korean War
Hello. I'm sorry if this comes at a bad time, but I would like your help in creating an article titled Air Operations in the Korean War.

Thanks, Jak474 (talk) 19:58, 23 September 2016 (UTC)


 * Sorry, but that's somewhat out of my area of expertise, which is more towards the hardware side. - BilCat (talk) 20:03, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

Doc
Excellent. Especially as I didn't know it was going to fly! I have tagged it for clarification on it's role as a target tug. I can find no reference for this. Could it be that someone has confused drone carrier / drone director as target tug? In any case it would be one hell of a target to need a B-29 to tow it!!!!--Petebutt (talk) 05:36, 26 September 2016 (UTC)


 * Thanks, I had help, especially from Milb1. On the target tug, I'm not sure where that came from, as Milb1 added it, but didn't supply a source. You can ask on the talk page, and he'll probably respond there. - BilCat (talk) 05:52, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

Edit warring warning for asking member to get consensus
Recently received a warning for asking a member to get consensus before making changes, as no other editors had felt a change was necessary or dubious in the past.

Was on the subject of the SR-71 being Kelly Johnson's greatest achievement. Which is almost exclusively the only aircraft mentioned as his greatest achievement. Cant find a single source which refers to anything else as a greater achievement.

It held many world absolute records for decades, which none of his other designs had achieved.

Not sure why I would be given the warning for simply asking the other member to get consensus before changing something that is apparently very clear to every source I can find on the subject.

I notice that the other member was not given any sort of warning, despite even being asked to come to a consensus first. And no sources agreeing with his objection.

DbivansMCMLXXXVI (talk) 08:44, 26 September 2016 (UTC)


 * I warned you for edit warring, something you've been blocked for in the past. It doesn't matter if you think you're right, it's still edit warring. - BilCat (talk) 09:03, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

Page mover granted
Hello, BilCat. Your account has been [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3ALog&type=rights&user=&page=User%3ABilCat granted] the "extendedmover" user right, either following a request for it or demonstrating familiarity with working with article names and moving pages. You are now able to rename pages without leaving behind a redirect, and move subpages when moving the parent page(s).

Please take a moment to review Page mover for more information on this user right, especially the criteria for moving pages without leaving redirect. Please remember to follow post-move cleanup procedures and make link corrections where necessary, including broken double-redirects when  is used. This can be done using Special:WhatLinksHere. It is also very important that no one else be allowed to access your account, so you should consider taking a few moments to secure your password. As with all user rights, be aware that if abused, or used in controversial ways without consensus, your page mover status can be revoked.

Useful links:
 * Requested moves
 * Category:Articles to be moved, for article renaming requests awaiting action.

If you do not want the page mover right anymore, post here, or just let me know. Thank you, and happy editing! ~ Rob 13 Talk 22:03, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

Merging of the various Yer articles.
The yer variant article content comes from the yer-2 page, so if you think they should be gone, tag them for deletion. Iazyges  Consermonor   Opus meum  21:03, 3 October 2016 (UTC)


 * That isn't necessary, unless you intend to restore them against a consensus to merge. - BilCat (talk) 02:27, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for your comment
Thanks for your comment on my edit to the AIM-97 Seekbat article. I'm trying to find other resources than Parsch's site to fill in the gaps but I have a suspicion that most of it is classified or offline.

I'm trying to get editors interested in overhauling it, but with little success so far. If you do want to help, please join in.

Graham1973 (talk) 03:40, 22 September 2016 (UTC)

I'm sorry if I caused some problems with the Flag icons, I thought they would look more tidy and neat. Any reason why the Flag icons shouldn't be displayed? DoomeyAhn (talk) 18:26, 12 October 2016 (UTC)

Yer-2/AM-37
Yer-2/AM-37 wasnt changed to a redirect to Yer-2, was this intentional or should I change it? Iazyges  Consermonor   Opus meum  01:07, 12 October 2016 (UTC)


 * I proposed the merges, so I didn't think I should be the one to make the redirects. You're welcome to do so if you wish. Also, I hope you don't take the merges personally, as knowing when split off articles takes experience. In most cases, it's better to ask first, either on the article's talk page or at the Aircraft Project talk page, especially if there is very little content to be split off to the new articles. Thanks. - BilCat (talk) 08:24, 13 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Nah it's fine, the only one I think has potential to expand into a proper article is the Yer-2/AM-37, because it's pretty different from the Yer-2, while the other ones are just the Yer-2 with new guns or better engine. Iazyges   Consermonor   Opus meum  12:00, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

Delete redirect 34th Red Bull Infantry Division?
I have cleaned up the erroneous contributions of the editor who incorrectly moved the 34th Infantry page to 34th Red Bull Infantry Division. I think the last step is to delete the redirects (article and talk space) that were left behind when you moved the pages back. They are not valid article titles, so they should not remain active. Can you do that, or request it from an admin? Thanks. – Jonesey95 (talk) 04:42, 13 October 2016 (UTC)


 * I could have deleted them when I moved them, but I can't delete them now, as only an admin can do it after the move. The reason I didn't delete them is that "34th Red Bull Infantry Division" is an alternative title, per the division's web page, and thus a valid redirect, as it is something a reader could search for. - BilCat (talk) 04:51, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

Silly
Why does it look silly exactly, it takes makes less space. Is it some guideline that actually says thats how is should be?&#42;Treker (talk) 20:20, 14 October 2016 (UTC)


 * Why is white space a bad thing? Not everyone uses large widescreen computers, and long links will sometimes take up 2 or 3 lines when used in columns. Btw, it's down to 2 links now, and there is a guideline about repeating links already used in the article. Per WP:NOTSEEALSO: "As a general rule, the "See also" section should not repeat links that appear in the article's body or its navigation boxes." I know everyone makes mistakes, especially me, but did you even check the article for these links first? - BilCat (talk) 20:27, 14 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Pretty much all of those links were already there when I started eating the article. I don't like white space because it looks empty. Sorry is I made a mistake but I didn't know that having colums were bad if someone dindn't have a widescreen computer.&#42;Treker (talk) 20:31, 14 October 2016 (UTC)


 * You did add Marines, but as that was indirectly linked in the Lead, so that's understandable. Columns are recommended for lengthy lists, but I hardly think 4 items is lengthy. I'll leave the portal barv alone, even though it's mostly whitespace. :) - BilCat (talk) 20:38, 14 October 2016 (UTC)
 * I already removed the portal bar now since I noticed that it made more white space without the columns. Well well.&#42;Treker (talk) 20:46, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

Nakajima B5N
See. 218.33.247.117 (talk) 16:13, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

re Gama Goat
Hi Bilcat,

Query per your summary and edit:
 * "Added DMY date tag, as articles on modern US military topics use DMY dates per MOS:DATETIES"

You didn't actually mean MDY dates did you?

In my preceding edit I added the only fully dated refs to that page and deliberately used 'US style' Month-Day-Year dates.. Regards, 220  of  Borg 15:03, 18 October 2016 (UTC).


 * I meant DMY, but I wasn't able to make the changes myself. My glasses prescription is old, and after a long day, I was having trouble seeing the tablet. Per MOS:DATETIES, "In some topic areas the customary format differs from the usual national one: for example, articles on the modern U.S. military, including U.S. military biographical articles, use day-before-month, in accordance with U.S. military usage." - BilCat (talk) 21:10, 18 October 2016 (UTC)


 * Ok, DMY in military BLPs etc, that's something I didn't know! I've taken care of the dates on Gama Goat.
 * Tablet editing can be a pain! When my laptop died previously I used an 8 inch Android tablet for all WP editing for about 8 months. My laptop died again about 7½ weeks ago, then my tablet also died 2½ weeks ago. So I bought a 10" Win'10 tablet, with a detachable keyboard. (AUD $200) Apart from the fact that it keeps downloading updates without my permission, it seem to work OK. 220  of  Borg 13:54, 19 October 2016 (UTC)


 * No problem. I actually like my tablet, it's a 8.9 inch Fire HDX. I wouldn't mind getting a 2-in-1 at some point though. - BilCat (talk) 20:05, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

Just to let you know
This "account", whom you correctly reverted yesterday, is now a CU confirmed sock. Thought you might be interested. Bests - LouisAragon (talk) 16:33, 1 November 2016 (UTC)


 * I thought it was a sock when I reverted it. Thanks for letting me know. - BilCat (talk) 20:24, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

2K12 Kub
Hello BilCat or talk page watchers, please could you take a look at this edit to 2K12 Kub? It was closely followed by another edit from a different editor, which you reverted. But I am wondering if there may actually have been problems with both edits. Thank you. MPS1992 (talk) 18:21, 2 November 2016 (UTC)


 * That edit on Nov. 1 apparently included sources. The source for the first paragraph had an OK source, but the second one used a forum page as a source (tagged it).  I suggest asking at Talk:2K12 Kub and maybe WT:MILHIST for more help. -Fnlayson (talk) 16:31, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

Cessna 182 Skylane
The Royal Canadian Air Cadets operate six 182s, so it is true, but far too small a fleet to make it worth mentioning. - Ahunt (talk) 12:53, 9 November 2016 (UTC)


 * That's what I thought the situation might be. Thanks. - BilCat (talk) 13:00, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

caravan
Come on, you're a little heavy with the revert button :) --Marc Lacoste (talk) 12:29, 13 November 2016 (UTC)


 * Seriously? The Aircraft Project prefers to use the templates over tables, major airliners being the general exception. Please discuss it first. - BilCat (talk) 12:31, 13 November 2016 (UTC)

IP sock puppet back at mini-14 article.
Just an FYI Springee (talk) 20:14, 20 November 2016 (UTC)

Numbers of AIP Submarines
BilCat, I'm the one that added the numbers of each submarine type to the table on the AIP Submarines page. I think that information is helpful because most of those platforms only offer AIP as an option and so I find the number using AIP helpful separate from the total number of each submarine type produced (AIP + non-AIP) that is listed on each submarine's main page. There is also the distinction between those submarines that were designed for AIP from the start, and those that were retrofit, and the notes help disambiguate which submarines were retrofit. If you disagree with the format or citations let me know and I'll address them, but please don't roll back the information. It was all pulled from the information on the main wikipedia page for each submarine type. Thanks! -Tom — Preceding unsigned comment added by TBMilnes (talk • contribs) 20:38, 21 November 2016 (UTC)


 * WP articles cannot be used to source other articles. Cite reliable sources. - BilCat (talk) 20:41, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

Okay I will add sources. Please don't re-roll the page back while I'm working on it. -Tom — Preceding unsigned comment added by TBMilnes (talk • contribs) 20:48, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

Okay, I have about half of them. I will keep working on this tonight and over the next couple of days. Thanks! --TBMilnes (talk) 21:36, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

Antonov An-132
Hi BilCat,

I think that it's time to start dedicated article for An-132, first demonstrator in final build line and maiden fligth scheduled to end of 2016. An-132 have new nose, new glass as well as first section, so, basically it's new plane.

--Jin (talk) 09:57, 23 November 2016 (UTC)


 * Please raise the issue on the An-32 talk page. Thanks. - BilCat (talk) 10:36, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

Quebecor
I'm not here to encourage an edit war ( - - ), but the Quebecor article does say that "in May 2012 shareholders voted to add the acute accent, Québecor, in French only." Since this is the English language encyclopedia, it would seem your edit is correct. I'm unable to make a change to the Vegas Golden Knights article, but just thought I'd weigh in on the merits of your edit. 32.218.40.52 (talk) 00:55, 24 November 2016 (UTC)


 * Yes, thanks. - BilCat (talk) 01:31, 24 November 2016 (UTC)

Harrier Jump Jet edit warring
User:Ahahahahahahahahaha to assume as much good faith as possible seems to have some difficulty understanding the implications of the phrasing of the Harrier Jump Jet lede. I've reported him to WP:ANEW for violating 3RR. He has a history of ignoring and deleting warnings on his talk page. DIY Editor (talk) 16:22, 1 December 2016 (UTC)


 * Thanks, he's been blocked now. To be honest, he seems to have knowledge beyond his limited time on Wikipedia. - BilCat (talk) 21:46, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

My Atlanta Falcons post
My edit on the Atlanta Falcons post was not vandalism, it was a colloquialism known to long time locals of the Atlanta area. Not everything has a source that can be documented. For example, who was the first documented person to say something was "cool"? Don't be so ridiculous. Pineapplejoe27 (talk) 22:40, 2 December 2016 (UTC)
 * If the nicknames you have added are not published in any reliable source, they will not be added. See verifiability.  This is a core principle of WIkipedia, not ridiculous at all.  General Ization   Talk   22:52, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

Wilipedia
Thanks for fixing my mistake from davef123 Davef123 (talk) 04:28, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

RA Dickey Number 19
RA Dickey was officially introduced in an Atlanta Braves press conference on November 18. He held up an put on a Braves #19 jersey. He actually explained why he chose to wear number 19 since his regular number 43 was already taken by Braves manager Brian Snitker. He chose number 19 because it was the number he wore in high school. I actually put an explanation in the notes of the edit the first time I made the edit on November 18. I've re-edited it back several times after having it changed by editors who obviously don't read the notes in the edit history.

From my experience, I've noticed that the Braves are very slow about updating their roster and jersey numbers on the Braves website. I've actually seen players come into regular season games with a different jersey number from what it listed at Braves.com. I take pride in helping keep the Wikipedia roster more up-to-date than the team's official site. I'm not one of these clowns that get on just to make edits to make edits, making up numbers, fabricating roster moves, etc. Each time I make an edit, I put an explanation in the notes part of the edit and usually where I got the info. If I'm re-doing an edit someone has undone, I may not make a note since obviously whoever changed it the first time didn't read the notes before reverting it.

Thanks for what you do wanting to keep Wikipedia as accurate as possible. I want the same thing. Just know my edits are legit and when I originally make an edit, I put an explanation in the notes.

Sorry if I don't sign this right. I don't usually respond on talk pages. -BravesInsider13 BravesInsider13 (talk) 00:03, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

Is a picture posted online from the press conference introducing Dickey taken from someone who covers the Braves for Atlanta radio station not enough either? If not, I guess I've wasted my last 6 years as an editor and might as well quit and let those who like to make vandalizing edits take over. I don't make edits I can't back up. Reference to pic below

BravesInsider13 (talk) 01:21, 9 December 2016 (UTC)


 * I wasn't accusing you of making it up, but WP requires reliable published sources. That's been true for all of my 10 years on WP, and I can't imagine it's the first time you've heard of that policy. If a photo like that is posted on a reliable source, then you can link to it in your edit summary. However, the Baseball project may be more strict. I'll try to find out. - BilCat (talk) 01:33, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

Regarding Anonymous Edits to I-153 Article
I just thought you might like to know that the edits that you reverted on the Polikarpov I-153 article were likely done by someone who plays either the game World of Warplanes or War Thunder. The inclusion of the word "stalinium" in one of the edits is a term that many players jokingly use to describe the durability of Soviet planes in the game. Furthermore, World of Warplanes has a jet powered I-15 as referred to in another of the edits.

As the popularity of these games continues to increase I think we need to be on the lookout for these type of editors. Anyway, good job catching what you did. –Noha307 (talk) 06:38, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

A Barnstar for you

 * Thanks. Humor is usually the best response to that sort of thing. - BilCat (talk) 23:55, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

Lockheed Corporation Wikipedia entry
BilCat:

As i noted on the above-referenced page, certain extensive edits to incorrect information shall be made, but i will refrain from making them as an on-going process. No single person engaged in such a task can perform all the necessary work and provide references to entirely satisfy certain individuals who are in the employ of Wikimedia, Wikipedia, and/or have little or nothing better to do than "rapidly police" others & accuse them of vandalism. While i'm not upset with you personally and realize that you had no involvement with previous "run-ins" of the type mentioned, i am indeed quite upset after receiving your email and for good reason. Others, especially those who have experienced similar circumstances, should see this in its entirety, so i trust that this entry/communique' will not be refused, edited, or truncated.

Wikipedia's entries are notoriously inaccurate; i now understand why so many in professional & technical fields avoid it. Therefore, i intend to use my expertise to correct certain errors in Wikipedia entries when i see them & have time to make corrections. Individuals (possibly including yourself) with "enforcement authority" to revise entries and/or reverse corrections also have no direct experience with content over which they exercise control. The foregoing is unacceptable, especially for an entity that claims to be a factual encyclopedia.

Would a current concern with which i have experience, such as Ford Motor Company, employ an outside contractor who is a technical writer & "fact-checker" with no experience at Ford nor with vehicles to write and publish Vehicle Operating Manuals and Technical Service Bulletins simply because he could write and provide related references? Ford absolutely would not!

I am working on several projects pertaining to the former Lockheed Aircraft Corporation (LAC) & Lockheed Corporation. I have had the pleasure of interviewing certain retired LAC corporate officers as well as working with others for years.

Does the original author of the Wikipedia entry for "Lockheed Corporation" have any experience working with LAC and/or its corporate officers? The answer to that question is most certainly "No."

Regardless that prior similar-sounding companies are mentioned, the current Wikipedia entry for "Lockheed Corporation" contains multiple errors that shall be corrected. As i noted, there is no legal connection between Lockheed Martin and any company preceeding the Lockheed Aircraft Corporation. In addition, the Lockheed Corporation was not founded in 1912, was not originally known as the Loughead Aircraft Manufacturing Company, and was not only an aerospace concern.

The primary reference for my corrections to certain LAC-related Wikipedia entries is "A History Of Lockheed" as published in Issue Twelve of "Lockheed Horizons" in June 1983, and endorsed by the signatures of the then-Chairman and then-President of Lockheed Corporation. Interviews with retired corporate officers will be cited when used instead of the company publication.

JTF17A — Preceding unsigned comment added by JTF17A (talk • contribs) 08:39, 14 December 2016 (UTC)


 * I assume Lockheed Horizons is some sort of company publication? If so, it needs to be available to readers to consult to verify content you cite, such as through a library. (Online access would of course be helpful but isn't required.) Second,if it's a company publication, it would probably be considered a primary source, and as such would have to be used carefully in accord with that policy. Company sources aren't automatically error-free simply because they're written by the company, and are sometimes very one-sided. Simply replacing one set of supposed errors with another helps no one,especially those of us left to clean up the messes. Also, unpublished interviews are considered Original Research, and are not acceptable as sources on Wikipedia.

Additionally, as I stated in my edit summary, the Lockheed Corporation article covers the history of several predecessor companies founded by the Lockheeds. Simply removing that information without at least trying to find a place for that information is very unhelpful. They don't need to have a direct legal connection to be covered in an article.

I'm happy to work with you to help improve the article, as will other editors here, but simply continuing with the sort of edits you made before without attempting to follow Wikipedia's policies and guidelines will be unproductive. Thanks. -BilCat (talk) 06:08, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

Just want to give an example.
Just an example of how behind Braves.com is when it comes to roster updates. Jenkins/Fiegl trade for Jackson became official before 8pm EST. As of 8:30pm, the Atlanta paper is already posting a story about the trade that became official close to an hour before. But yet Braves.com still has Jenkins on the roster. I'm really not trying to be a jerk about this, but just trying to show you how slow Braves are about updating Braves.com roster. I wouldn't be surprised if Braves.com posts a story about the trade before the roster is updated.

BravesInsider13 (talk) 01:36, 9 December 2016 (UTC)


 * The AJC is a reliable source, so it can be cited. - BilCat (talk) 01:39, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

Southern Unity Flag


Hi,

I noticed your Southern Unity Flag

Could you elaborate your design choices and why you designed it? I think it is a very good compromise between South State traditions and a modernization due to "racist" and "pro-slave" connotations the Stars and Bars unfortunately picked up!

Yours sincerely, --Hornsignal (talk) 18:58, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

...which, as I see now, exists in two varieties, this being the newer I thought I linked to... --Hornsignal (talk) 19:04, 15 December 2016 (UTC)


 * I like to design fictional flags, and this came out of several of those designs. I can elaborate in private if you wish, just send my account an email. I am glad you like it, and feel free to reuse it under the terms of the license, if you so desire. - BilCat (talk) 19:32, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

Request for pardon
Hello, sir/ma'am. If I have done you any wrong by adding the unsourced comment on the page Appalachian English, I apologize.LakeKayak (talk) 22:46, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

United States Military Academy at West Point
BilCat: Thank you very much for your input and dedication to making and maintaining the United States Military Academy at West Point Wikipedia Page.

PAOThomas is the official representative of United States Army Garrison West Point. You many contact PAOThomas directly by sending an email to USAGWestPoint@usma.army.mil. You may also read a short history of the Garrison and USMA at West Point at http://www.westpoint.army.mil/aboutus.html and http://www.usma.edu/wphistory/SitePages/Home.aspx. PAOThomas is the webmaster and web designer for westpoint.army.mil, the usma.edu website is controlled and edited by The United States Military Academy at West Point.

The corrections that are being made are to ensure that the United States Military Academy at West Point is represented correctly.

The correct way to refer to the United States Military Academy at West Point is to list it as stated here. There are three United States Military Academies in the United States and this one, to ensure that no other Academy is confused with it, it is to be referred as the United States Military Academy at West Point.

The United States Military Academy at West Point is not the Army, this reference is to be deleted, it is not known as the Army nor shall it be referred to as such. Cadets are not members of the US Army until after they graduate and they take the oath of office of a commissioned officer. During their time at The United States Military Academy at West Point the are referred to as Cadets, Plebes (freshman), Yearlings (sophomore), Cows (junior) or Firsties (senior.)

The United States Military Academy at West Point was founded in 1802 not 1801. Also, it is referred to being founded in 1802 on the right hand side of The United States Military Academy at West Point's Wikipedia page, to leave this would confuse the reader. Refer to http://www.westpoint.army.mil/aboutus.html and http://www.usma.edu/wphistory/SitePages/Home.aspx.

The addition of the website http://www.westpoint.army.mil ensures that all websites associated with The United States Military Academy at West Point are listed.

The website https://www.army.mil/westpoint is an online news source associated with The United States Military Academy at West Point. This webpage is fed by an Army database of news stories and is maintained by The United States Military Academy at West Point.

This information is also located on the talk page of The United States Military Academy at West Point. If you have any questions please contact PAOThomas at the email listed above. — Preceding unsigned comment added by PAOThomas (talk • contribs) 17:37, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

Shot Heard 'Round the World (baseball)
You removed my edit on the shot heard round the world. You cited the guideline that suggests adding something to an "in popular culture" section needs refrence something that had significant cultural impact. Since you didn't just delete the entire page I'm assuming you were suggesting The Godfather had no cultural impact. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ososkid (talk • contribs) 14:51, 17 December 2016 (UTC)


 * I've never seen The Godfather Saga, but I know of the Horse's Head in the Bed, "An Offer You can't Refuse", and "Leave the Gun - Take the Cannoli!" But I've never heard of any mention of the "Shot Heard 'Round the World" in The Godfather. My ignorance of it doesn't mean its mention isn't culturally significant, but you need to cite a reliable source that proves it is. - BilCat (talk) 18:30, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

Sport in the United States
Hi, please read the source I provided before reverting my edits. Thank you! Source here: Down Goes PRO - 2A02:C7D:89A3:F400:A80D:26CE:4E6B:AE9B (talk) 00:04, 21 December 2016 (UTC)


 * Please use edit summaries. - BilCat (talk) 00:14, 21 December 2016 (UTC)


 * I have read the source as you've suggested, and it doesn't say that the league has folded as yet. Surprise. - BilCat (talk) 00:20, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

Yo Ho Ho


Iryna Harpy (talk) is wishing you Seasons Greetings! Whether you celebrate your hemisphere's Solstice or Christmas, Diwali, Hogmanay, Hanukkah, Lenaia, Festivus or even the Saturnalia, this is a special time of year for almost everyone!

Spread the holiday cheer by adding to your friends' talk pages.

Merry, merry!
From the icy Canajian north; to you and yours! FWiW Bzuk (talk) 15:11, 24 December 2016 (UTC)

Non-displaying character
I'm guessing this is a character that my browser can't display. Is there a template that can generate it for better self-documentation? - Brianhe (talk) 05:58, 27 December 2016 (UTC)


 * It would probably be better to use proper ref note tags, as that should display properly. - BilCat (talk) 06:34, 27 December 2016 (UTC)


 * Either use the code from the Wiki markup toolbar below edit screen or the Refn to add explanatory footnotes. -Fnlayson (talk) 15:02, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

A320neo
Hi, I don't really know how to deal with 217.250.187.159. any insight? A message in Administrator intervention against vandalism? plus right now I must leave! --Marc Lacoste (talk) 19:14, 7 January 2017 (UTC)


 * I'm not really sure what exactly the issue is here, other than he/she doesn't like your changes to the Lead. You made many productive changes, including updating refs, and overall your changes were good. Simply claiming major changes need to be discussed is no excuse for edit warring. - BilCat (talk) 21:26, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

A kitten for you!
Because life is stressful and kittens are cute.

Sario528 (talk) 21:20, 9 January 2017 (UTC) 

Sia
Hi there What is exactly the issue? Why dis you reverted and saying it as a DAB page? Billworldwide (talk) 20:32, 11 January 2017 (UTC)


 * See Disambiguation. - BilCat (talk) 20:48, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

What are the requirements for Sia platform, to be listed under the Sia wiki? I feel like they deserve their place their as they become more reknown and activaly optimizing their storage solutions.. Billworldwide (talk) 21:00, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Hope no one minds me jumping in here - this page is currently under discussion for deletion, because the article does not cite any references or sources and does not credibly indicate the important or notability of the company. You can contribute the the discussion above, and it is my advice that you read this for help on article creation, and also familiarize yourself with this notability information to make sure that a page is warranted to begin with. If you still believe strongly an article is there to be created (and you are having issues with others) we can help you move this page to your own user page, where you can work on it with limited risk of deletion (for a short time, at least - enough time to bring it up to par). Hope this helps. Garchy (talk) 21:05, 11 January 2017 (UTC)


 * It just needs to have an article on Wikipedia, but it has to be written in a style like the other entries on that page. However, the article is up for deletion, so it's best to wait until the AFD process is completed as a Keep, if that happens. - BilCat (talk) 21:08, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

Sikorsky S-33
Hi BilCat, Thanks for fixing the mess I made at Sikorsky S-33. Samf4u (talk) 19:00, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

Ford Trimotor
Your reversion of my John Wayne entry was inappropriate:

1) What makes the 1936 Flash Gordon serial "notable", while the 1932 John Wayne serial not notable? 2) The Wayne serial "Hurricane Express" shows the Trimotor flying, landing, taxiing. It shows the cockpit and the 8-passenger compartment. 3) !932 is much more the dawn of the commercial passenger industry. 4) John Wayne (love him or hate him) is an icon of the movie industry [media!].

CatsAndDog (talk) 13:34, 20 January 2017 (UTC)


 * I have moved the whole section over to Aircraft in fiction. We have a longstanding consensus not to list pop culture stuff in aircraft type articles as explained at WP:AIRPOP as it tends to get out of control and dwarfs the aircraft information. Instead it goes at Aircraft in fiction, so I have shifted it all over there. - Ahunt (talk) 13:46, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

Join the AVC
I invite you to join the Anti-Vandalism Corps|Anti-Vandalism Corps —Preceding undated comment added 21:10, 23 January 2017 (UTC)


 * You'd probably be better off joining an already-existing group such as the Counter-Vandalism Unit. - BilCat (talk) 21:17, 23 January 2017 (UTC)


 * I searched for others like the AVC, but I could not find any. Thank you.- ZLEA 21:20, 23 January 2017 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by ZLEA (talk • contribs)

Sam Houston
I got the message saying that my edit on Sam Houston's page will be deleted. However, the date the article has him as governor of Texas is wrong. It should be from December 21, 1859 to March 16, 1861. I was right but apparently I need a source in order to be right so here: http://www.lib.utexas.edu/taro/tslac/40005/tsl-40005.html.

I suck at code so someone else will have to fix it. God&#39;sNotDead (talk) 03:52, 24 January 2017 (UTC)


 * I'll look at it a little, and add the source if it is acceptable. Thanks. - BilCat (talk) 03:58, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

YF-23
In my past career in the defense industry, both government and commercial, I do recall the YF-23's tail being referred to occasionally as a 'pelikan'. So I am curious, why would you say it's misleading to display a photo of the aircraft in the Pelikan tail article? ~Anachronist (talk) 09:16, 25 January 2017 (UTC)


 * Because, to my knowledge, it isn't a Pelikan tail as described in the article. - BilCat (talk) 14:00, 25 January 2017 (UTC)


 * OK... to my knowledge, it is. Admittedly the basis of my knowledge is just memories from professional experience (I wasn't working directly on YF-23 project; I was working for the government at the time on other stealth technology projects, in which we noted that the tail configuration of the YF-23 looked superior to that of the F-22 for stealth purposes). What is your basis?
 * The article describes it only as a "tail design for fighter jets" that "uses only two control surfaces in order to achieve control of pitch, yaw, and roll" &mdash; which I view as incomplete because this could also describe a V tail. But the tail of the YF-23 matches both those quoted descriptions in the article. ~Anachronist (talk) 18:27, 25 January 2017 (UTC)


 * Then you need to provide a reliable source that calls it a Pelikan tail. The article itself claims it wasn't used on any aircraft, though it was considered for the X-32. - BilCat (talk) 18:45, 25 January 2017 (UTC)


 * While not a reliable source, this forum post describes what a Pelikan tail is and isn't. One poster states, "the YF-23 had a butterfly tail, not a Pelikan tail." - BilCat (talk) 18:51, 25 January 2017 (UTC)


 * Well, the article does say it "has not to date been incorporated into any publicly available jets" which is still true even if the YF-23 has a Pelikan tail, because the YF-23 never went into production.
 * Reliable sources are hard to find either way, but you're probably right. this one says the YF-23 is "the closest thing to a Pelican[sic] that has been flown." One of the more useful bits of information is this forum: "The main difference between the YF-23's tail and the Pelikan Tail ... is the manner in which the Pelikan Tail uses a hinge to more effectively transfer the loads to the fuselage, as opposed to using a trunion which isn't as efficient, structurally, like the YF-23 used for mounting its tails." While differences in mounting seem like splitting hairs to me, I won't argue.
 * The article is rather vague on what, exactly, defines a Pelikan. Some additional precision would be good to have. Maybe there's a source from Pelikan himself? ~Anachronist (talk) 19:30, 25 January 2017 (UTC)


 * Yes, the article is vauge about what the Pelikan tail is, but that can be remedied. Source #4 in the article has some diagarams about what it is, and should be helpful in understanding the difference between it and the YF-23's tail which is basically an all-flying butterfly tail. - BilCat (talk) 21:27, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
 * If this image: File:Tail pelikan.svg is right, then the horizontal segments below the tails are the difference from a V-tail configuration. -Fnlayson (talk) 01:15, 26 January 2017 (UTC)


 * Right, and the hinge is on the horizontal section, almost perpendicular to the fuselage length. - BilCat (talk) 01:22, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

Recent edits to Honeywell
Hey BilCat, hope you're doing well. I saw your latest edits to the Honeywell article, and while I know the reversion was in good faith, Honeywell did actually split one of their business units in two, and there are now four total. Unfortunately the editor who initially made the changes seems not to have cited anything, but I outlined everything with the appropriate refs at Talk:Honeywell. If you've got a minute, would you mind taking a look at it? (If you have two minutes, could you check out Talk:Honeywell as well?) Per usual, I'm refraining from directly editing given my COI. Thanks!--FacultiesIntact (talk) 01:33, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Hey, I saw you got tied up with that other discussion last week. Do you have the time now to check things out?--FacultiesIntact (talk) 20:45, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

Block Request
Hi, can you block my IP, this is a school IP, and many users edit with this IP, usually for vandalism 66.109.53.196 (talk) 18:26, 8 February 2017 (UTC)


 * Sorry, I'm not an administrator, so I am unable to block users. - BilCat (talk) 18:33, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

Delta Hubs
Hey BillCat, sorry if this is the wrong place for this. I recently posted on the Delta Airlines talk page about whether Cincinnati should be considered one of their hubs. I was hoping for a conversation, but no one responded, so I went ahead and removed it, based on the evidence from my post. Recently though, someone reverted my edit, without leaving an edit comment or posting on the talk page. I don't want to start an edit war, but I'm new at this and not really sure how to escalate it. I know I've seen you there before, so I thought I'd ask. Again, if this is the wrong place sorry, I just didn't really know what to do, so thought I'd ask someone with more experience. thanks, ThunderBacon (talk) 17:04, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

Hello my apologies for that. I'm just learning how to post. Thank you for you eed back.
Thanks again.

Change is always good to our world. You don't think do you think Spanish (Español) on the page would be better?

"God gave the answers to people who do not speak." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:306:CCD8:AB0:B033:6A96:230E:8012 (talk) 06:02, 12 February 2017 (UTC)


 * No. English Wikipedia is written in English, just as Spanish Wikipedia is written in Spanish. - BilCat (talk)

06:24, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

Then i must suggest that all other non English terminology indeed be removed from the article. Like you said "English is written in Engish". A lot of the contents of the article uses Español to explain certain beliefs in the southern part, then it is translated into English. Just like I was trying to do for the language part. My example: Spanish (Español). Also by definition by common name it falls into that category. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:306:CCD8:AB0:B42C:2435:769F:D9C8 (talk) 15:27, 12 February 2017 (UTC)


 * If you have constructive suggestions, then please propose them on the article's talk page, and other editors can look them over, and see if they should be removed too. - BilCat (talk) 21:34, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

oh I didn't know we could do that. I might actually do that. Question: you did say "English is written in English" so you must affirm that the rest of the article in particular in terminology needs to be in English? A lot of that is in different languages? Do you agree? .

UAC TurboTrain Reply
Hi. The TurboTrain's LAST livery (1978 to 1982) was the yellow and blue of Via Rail when VIA took over all passenger train operations in Canada from Canadian National. Sadly, Turbo had its last run on October 31, 1982 and was replaced by Bombardier's LRC. Regards   Aloha27   talk  13:18, 21 February 2017 (UTC)


 * Source? - BilCat (talk) 13:20, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
 * For which? Via taking over CN passenger train ops?   Aloha27   talk  13:32, 21 February 2017 (UTC)


 * Any of it. - BilCat (talk) 13:34, 21 February 2017 (UTC)


 * I started here with the 60-odd references at the bottom of the article and then the corporate website here. Regards   Aloha27   talk  13:53, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
 * The first link is circular logic and the second is a primary source. Each article must stand alone in sourcing, perhaps you can find some secondary sources of those 60-odd references and add them to this article to support your change.  Happy editing!  Scr ★ pIron IV 14:30, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

UAC/HAL Il-214
Do you think this needs to be moved to Ilyushin Il-214 now the Indians have been removed from the program ? MilborneOne (talk) 17:58, 25 February 2017 (UTC)


 * Probably. About the only objection would be common name. - BilCat (talk) 18:03, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

Foster mounting
Just in case you are interested (and have the time, of course) ...

I have a rewrite of the article on the Foster mounting nearing completion in my sandbox - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Soundofmusicals/sandbox which may or may not be of interest. In common with other articles I have worked on from (more or less) scratch like this I am basically writing the text first and will be adding the verifiability/links etc. later - appreciate if you could add any comments you might have, including any possible outright errors you might notice, either to my talk page or the one to my sandbox. Most welcome help of all would be usable references, anything you think I should read etc.

Thanks (and Hi!) --Soundofmusicals (talk) 04:52, 2 March 2017 (UTC)


 * I've never even heard of a "Foster mounting", so I can't help out as far as sources or content errors goes. However, I've always loved knowledge and aviation history in particular, so learning about something new is a primary reason I use Wikipedia as a reader. So I'd be happy to look it over for grammar and layout issues and so on. You're welcome. - BilCat (talk) 15:31, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

Flag of Jamaica
Sorry about that, I swore there were other flags, but I reverted myself and it appears there was some sort of edit conflict. South Nashua (talk) 06:15, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

Brahmos
Hey, I did notice your revert for 450km on Brahmos. That edit itself did not have a reference but there is an open discussion which I have opened on the Talk page with references. Any addition to that discussion would be helpful. Thanks. Adamgerber80 (talk) 02:44, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

UAS Versus UAV
Thank you for your suggestions regarding my edits on the UAV page. The distinction between UAV and UAS is very important. I fear the article misleads the public as it is currently written. An UAV is the craft itself. This can be an aircraft, seacraft, or landcraft. The UAS is the entire system encompassing the UAV, the on-board camera or sensor, the ground controller, and the method of communication between the UAV and the ground controller (http://www.uavinsider.com/what-is-the-difference-between-a-drone-a-uav-and-a-uas/). I am new to the editing community and appreciate you help making this important distinction for the Wiki community. I am a researcher at Mississippi State University and am part of the FAA ASSURE program (http://insideunmannedsystems.com/breaking-mississippi-state-to-anchor-new-faa-center-of-excellence-for-uas/). Thank you for your help and guidance. Cmzarzar (talk) 17:49, 19 March 2017 (UTC)


 * That's not 100% right. A UAV is an aircraft by definition (UAV = Unmanned Air Vehicle).  Drone is a synonymous term. -Fnlayson (talk) 10:31, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

Flying Fortress
Could you please suggest where to best place this unique public domain video from The Internet Archive? A ri gi bod (talk) 00:22, 23 March 2017 (UTC)


 * Probably the external links section at the bottom of the article. - BilCat (talk) 00:29, 23 March 2017 (UTC)


 * Thank you BilCat.A ri gi bod (talk) 02:16, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

Gulfstream V/G550 merge
if you removed the merge template, you consider the discussion as closed?--Marc Lacoste (talk) 19:25, 27 March 2017 (UTC)


 * No, I consider it to be stale, with no consensus having been reached after several months. You didn't respond to the last comment, which stated there was no clear consensus, and that consensus is not a count of votes. - BilCat (talk) 19:43, 27 March 2017 (UTC)


 * I was waiting for others input, nobody came. It's not a vote, but you didn't respond to my [13:48, 7 December 2016] comment either.--Marc Lacoste (talk) 06:40, 28 March 2017 (UTC)


 * Your comment was about content, which you should realize I disagree with, or I would have changed my view. Fnlayson's was in regards to seeking a consensus, and basically pointed out that there isn't one. That's why I called the discussion stale.


 * As you left the conversation, I understood you weren't interested anymore. I am still, as was an IP. Whatever, this isn't so important. --Marc Lacoste (talk) 07:35, 28 March 2017 (UTC)


 * On a totally unrelated matter. An IP user has created an article at Draft:Air & Cosmos, and wants it moved to mainspace. I can do that, but the user admitted at WT:AVIATION that they translated it from Air et Cosmos, presumably using an internet translator, but didn't read the French language sources. Since you are fluent in French, would you mind looking at the draft and the sources? I don't speak French, so I'm hesitant to move the article to mainspace until someone who knows the language has reviewed it. Thanks for whatever you can do. - BilCat (talk) 07:06, 28 March 2017 (UTC)


 * Yes, I saw that but forgot. Don't hesitate to put it in the mainspace, nothing is wrong with the draft, I know this publication and checked the given french refs (Le Figaro is a reliable major newspaper, the circular and difficult to check [Air&Cosmos 25 March 1963] isn't great though but supports a not so controversial paragraph). The claim "top three industry magazine" along AvWeek and Flight is bold though, it's the main french aerospace industry mag, but compared to the 2 previous is of inferior quality, less capable technically and often too Airbus fanboy. I don't read German, but Flug Revue seems to have at least a similar industry coverage. The best french aerospace publication was the swiss Interavia (translated in FR, DE, EN, SP), disappeared in the 90s. --Marc Lacoste (talk) 07:35, 28 March 2017 (UTC)


 * OK, thanks. I'll look at it again tomorrow, and probably move it then. - BilCat (talk) 07:59, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

GP7000
but customers generally aren't included, as such lists could get quite lengthy, you wrote.

Generally, this is a good practice but in the case of things with very few customers, an exception could satisfy curiosity. For example, the Mercure had one customer, Air Inter. Concorde had only two. VFW-Fokker 614 had no more than 3-4. GP7000, which is only used on one plane, seems to have only 2 non-Middle East customers and 3 Gulf states. Vanguard10 (talk) 03:26, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

Regarding page view box
I read WP:PVS but could not find anything in it nor in the MOS about the placement of template. I found the template in use on talk pages, so I thought that is where they belonged. Is a guideline for inclusion/omission and placement of these boxes that you know of? Thanks L3X1 (distant write)  18:26, 3 April 2017 (UTC)


 * I've never seen it on a talk page before, that I can remember anyway. Is there any particular reason you think it's necessary on that page? - BilCat (talk) 18:30, 3 April 2017 (UTC)


 * There's a discussion on the template's talk page at Template talk:PageViews graph, with the last comment being that it's not a good idea. - BilCat (talk) 18:36, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

Xfinity Requested Move
Hello, I noticed you want to move the page Comcast Cable to Xfinity. I would like to let you know that I have started a formal move request, and if you would like to support it, feel free to comment at Talk:Comcast Cable. 76.116.198.27 (talk) 20:00, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

Avro Arrow
You've reverted my edits twice, each being a different version, not the same re-edit. We need to discuss this.

I do not think the Avro Arrow was ever ordered, other than 5 prototypes. The RCAF never ordered the plane for use. Therefore, it is inaccurate to list Canada as an operator.

You don't want "Proposed Operator" because you say it is not the usual way.

You don't want "none" under operator, even though there was none.

Saying it was cancelled before entering service implies that there may have been a firm order which was cancelled. No, the development of the plane was cancelled, not an order from the RCAF.

When I look at other aircraft that suffered a similar fate, I don't see those treated the same way as the Avro Arrow. I looked at the XB-70, A-12 Avenger II, and Northrop F-20 Tigershark.

I hope you are not resistant to anything else except the version now shown. Let's talk! I just want to get the description completely accurate and not subject to an incorrect interpretation. Vanguard10 (talk) 03:15, 10 April 2017 (UTC)


 * This is better discussed on the article's talk page. Thanks. - BilCat (talk) 03:18, 10 April 2017 (UTC)
 * But I would like your input. If you have a very convincing explanation, then no need to bring it up there. Vanguard10 (talk) 03:29, 10 April 2017 (UTC)


 * I prefer discussing article issues on the article's talk page, where other editors can contribute, as noted in my notes at the top of this page. - BilCat (talk) 03:34, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia page on list of terror attacks
Can some one add the Sweden and Britain terror attacks to the list of terror attacks on 2017 Davef123 (talk) 00:12, 11 April 2017 (UTC)