User talk:BilCat/archive20

Hi, I really appreciate your reversion of the false accusation of vandalism by Snowdawg. What may have caused that? Regards, DPdH (talk) 13:21, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

This user got some notices from User:DPL bot on User talk:Snowdawg. Maybe some confusion between you and DPL bot. Or possibly some overlap in ship or gun articles. -Fnlayson (talk) 16:43, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

I hope they'll stop there after being told the right way to create an article for newbies. I've submitted an WP:RPP, so that may solve their 'unconstructive' editing. For now. Thanks! Nicnote • ask me a question • contributions 09:04, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

Oh and MatSci has blocked both. Two birds with one stone? Thanks again for your diligence (whilst I was sleeping) :) Nicnote • ask me a question • contributions 09:08, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

No problem. That article has already been deleted twice under two other titles by 2 now-blocked users. The reason the title is in Burmese script is because the English name, Si Thu Moe Min, is salted. This is either the player attempting to promote himself, and/or young relatives or fans trying to put up an article about him. Too many people don't understand the difference between WP and Facebook. - BilCat (talk) 09:13, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

And I've always thought that a mandatory induction course would be useful... Nicnote • ask me a question • contributions 09:15, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

Me too, along with mandatory registration. An age and IQ limit and English test would also go a long way to eliminating perennial problems. Unfortunately, The Foundation emphasizes participation over actual content, and that's not likely to change under the current Foundation leadership. - BilCat (talk) 09:20, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

Oh wow! How interesting... Nicnote • ask me a question • contributions 14:54, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

Hey fellow Darthsandroids reader! I disagree with your G4 tagging of the above article, the previous deletion discussion is from 2013, and there were some keep and merge !votes. The author is also protesting at deletion review log for today. As G4 says "recent discussion", I have removed your G4 Tag. Would you like me to nominate instead? L3X1 (distant write) 19:35, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

Thanks. That was my intended next step. - BilCat (talk) 19:38, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

It is up: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alaska Airlines Flight 779 (2nd nomination) L3X1 (distant write) 20:08, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

Hi, I'm somewhat at a loss, what do you mean by "sock"? And why exactly did you do this, considering the fact that no other article in the wikipedia that lists either or both the United Kingdom and the United States (and any other similarly named nation), why do you inted to keep that as "United" USA article, State state article, and United UK article, State state article?

On the other note, I salute your flairs (or badges, or notes, I don't know what would one call it in the Wikipedia really), you and I share very similar views, I'm also a Christian reactionary who opposes the moral decay of modern society, communism, militant atheism, and sodomistic marriage so forth. For that, cheers! Keep up the good fight.

Edit: Aha, I actually noticed only now that you did not really revert my edit, you in fact removed Britain and the US from the list, so the problem was not with the formulation of those, but rather the presence of those countries amongst the others. Well indeed, I must say: I was not the one who added those there, I merely changed the way they were placed, and whilst I did, I did raise an eyebrow thinking "Why would Britain and US use the Mp40?", but that is a matter I decided to leave since I'm no expert in that field. Kaiserlicher Ritter (talk) 17:02, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

@Kaiserlicher Ritter: Sorry, the sock is another user, a persistent IP hopper that continually adds unsourced operator claims to weapons articles. I only reverted your edit so that I could revert the sock IP's edit in one revert. You did absolutely nothing wrong in your edits. Thanks. - BilCat (talk) 21:05, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

Ah, thanks for the reply. By the way, I'm "new" to the Wikipedia (been here for years editing slightly things I find broken or so, but never really got into its technical part deeply) and I went a little crazy after seeing your nice page and I didn't really know how to add these userboxes and I made a mess of mine hahahaha, do you have any tips on how to organise that mess? 22:50, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

@Kaiserlicher Ritter: I'll take a look at your page soon. By the way, you don't have to Ping a user on their own talk page, as they are usually notified automatically. - BilCat (talk) 23:05, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

Living and learning it seems, I didn't know that. Thanks! Eager to hear your feedback on it. Kaiserlicher Ritter (talk) 23:18, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

How is [this] incorrect? Sario528 (talk) 11:31, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) The letter "N" is pronounced "en" when spoken. Because the sound begins with a vowel, the article "a" becomes "an" in english. So, "an NH90" is correct. Scr★pIron^IV 13:36, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

Exactly. Thanks, Scrap! - BilCat (talk) 13:45, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

Xx236 (talk) 10:20, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

I beg your pardon. We're having a little debate on the talk page of the aforementioned in the section Inland North. Do you think you can help out? Thank you.LakeKayak (talk) 00:31, 6 May 2017 (UTC)

Sorry, I don't know enough about the issue to really participate. - BilCat (talk) 00:35, 6 May 2017 (UTC)

Thanks, anyway.LakeKayak (talk) 21:38, 6 May 2017 (UTC)

Why did you revert my edit and thereby reinstate an error, viz: "Cite error: The named reference ... was invoked but never defined"?

Tullyvallin (talk) 05:00, 7 May 2017 (UTC)Tullyvallin

As stated in my edit summary, you made "unexplained deletions". Use an edit summary next time, as not all reasons are obvious to others. Better yet, try and find out why the error has occurred instead of removing the sources outright. - BilCat (talk) 05:05, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

Hey BilCat, I need some help. I'm trying to move Langley Field to Langley Air Force Base, which has been proposed by an unregistered user, but Langley Air Force Base already exists as a redirect page with its separate talk page. How should I do this to ensure that all data is preserved? thanks! Garuda28 (talk) 23:40, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

Admins and page movers (I am a Page Mover) can more the page, but I'd rather get a consensus first. The best way is to hold a move discussion per WP:RM#CM. Thanks. - BilCat (talk) 23:56, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

I try to have a citation for every sentence since a sentence unsupported can be challenged by another editor, or another differently supported sentence can be introduced in between. To avoid overcite I try to make long sentences supported only once but they're often cumbersome. Supporting a whole paragraph is ok when there is only 1 author, but on wikipedia... It's currently discussed in Wikipedia_talk:Citation_overkill#Citations--Marc Lacoste (talk) 07:09, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

You had two sentences run together with no period, which was partly why I rewrote it. Technically, the Lead shouldn't need citations, as it isn't supposed to introduce new material. In a small article like that one, however, it's probably fine for now, but does need to be addressed eventually. While I understand your point about more than one author, it isn't policy yet to cite every sentence, even with hidden notes. That is unnecessary clutter in my opinion, but ultimately the wonks will decide on that. They always do, even if it makes things more difficult on the rest of us. - BilCat (talk)

Works on paper, not in a wiki. A lead is when a summary is needed for a long article, in Citation Mustang it's just the second paragraph of five. Hidden notes are currently permitted. If it enhance verifiability, it's better.--Marc Lacoste (talk) 08:05, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

I have open an discussion about GE9X as seprate article I agree that we should put GE9X as split article please feel free to comments here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:General_Electric_GE90#Split_GE9X_as_separate_article_instead_of_one_chapter_as_GE90

--Aaa830 (talk) 06:05, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

The AK, plain-ol'-no-M alias AK47 seems to keep leaving the article, possibly because the usual suspect seems to make some changes to accurate stuff along with the junk. Is there anything else getting caught in the crossfire here? Anmccaff (talk) 07:17, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

I've glanced at the AK-47's history, but I'm not sure who you mean. Is it the Italian pork meat, or another user? If not, can you give me a diff? Thanks. - BilCat (talk) 08:08, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

My apologies for missing this and not responding earlier, the Weapons of the Vietnam War aeticle. One of the IP guy's moves. Anmccaff (talk) 14:35, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

I see that you have reverted my edit where I inserted "Airbus" into the title of the infobox so that it read "Airbus A318". Now it reads "A318".

I looked at other articles and featured articles 747, 757, 767, all show the form like "Boeing 747" or "Boeing 767". However, Airbus articles simply show "A300", "A380", etc. I didn't see where Wikipedia doesn't want "Airbus". Please explain. I want to know the best answer, not just insist on my way. Thank you. Vanguard10 (talk) 05:30, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

@Vanguard10: I did give the answer in my edit summary, but I'll explain it here for you: Per WP:AIR/SG#Introduction, under Infobox in that section:

For the most part, as there is an appropriate field in the infobox itself, including the manufacturer in the "name" field is not necessary. Some exceptions exist, such as aircraft which only have model numbers.

Thus the reason that "Boeing" is used, and Airbus is not, is that A318 starts with the letter "A", but 737 only has a number. The majority of aircraft on Wikipedia have designations that start with a letter, especially military designations, or with a name. Boeing is the exception (the British/European tendency to call them the B-737, etc. notwithstanding, as that isn't the company's own style). You're not the first person to see this as an inconsistency, but thanks for asking before reverting. - BilCat (talk) 06:11, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) It's kinda interesting you mention that, because in GATES, an Air Force system used for handling cargo and passengers on AMC aircraft, they've always had Boeing planes listed with B747, B767, etc. I never really thought anything of it before, but I wonder if their system requires a letter for the aircraft type. Thanks for the information! --Bassmadrigal (talk) 11:52, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

You're welcome. I've seen the B7x7 and B-7x7 formats in American sources too, but generally it's just the 7x7 format. - BilCat (talk) 16:30, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for your informative explanation! It suits me fine. However, it is not crystal clear. For example, it doesn't prohibit use of the manufacturer, such as "Airbus A380". Furthermore, the model number of the A380 is "A380". True, there is a letter but "A380" is still a model number, not a name. In addition, use of the manufacturer's name is common. "This is an Airbus A380". With cars, people say "Honda Accord" just as they do "BMW 530i".

The really big exception is Concorde. People say just the model name, "Concorde", not BAC Sud Concorde or BAe Aerospatiale Concorde.

With military aircraft, the manufacturer's name is less common. "JAS39 Gripen" or "F-22" is more common than "Saab JAS39 Gripen" or "Lockheed F-22". Vanguard10 (talk) 04:01, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

That guideline actually precedes my time on Wikipedia (over 10 years), but I have had enough discussions about it that what I told you is how it means. As it's written, it doesn't make an exception for A3xx. The only exception is for numbers (read as "numerals" if that makes it more clear to you). You're welcome to bring those points up on the guideline's talk page, and see if you can build a consensus to change or modify the guideline. It's been long enough now since that was written that you may well get it changed. - BilCat (talk) 04:18, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

I plan to leave it alone for now. Maybe in the future, I might discuss it but, for now, I will assume it's a fairly esoteric point. Thank you for your explanation Vanguard10 (talk) 04:24, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

You're welcome. - BilCat (talk) 04:27, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

I think a made a mistake. What I'm trying to do is turn the AR-15 page into a redirect to the Colt AR-15 page and add the info on this page to the AR-15 (disambiguation) page. It was working perfectly. But, you reverted it, calling it a "cut and paste" and left a note and instructions on my talk page. I followed them and now it seems as if I want to rename the AR-15 page "Colt AR-15" and delete the Colt AR-15 page. Which is not what I want to do at all. I don't know how to fix this.--Limpscash (talk) 06:58, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

I had an archive misfire. Posts on the current talk page would be archived to the old name. This removal was posted here. I corrected the auto-archiving to work for the current setup with this. My actions should not be conceived as an endorsement in the move discussion, I'm only trying to get things to work at the present. I'm going to step back and let editors sort this out. Move archived threads as needed. Cheers,
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 11:07, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

I photographed the last surviving Skyshark which is (or at least when I photographed it) at the San Diego Air & Space Museum annex. I uploaded many of them. Any worth adding to the page? I noticed that you have edited it a number of times. So, I thought I would ask you rather than tooting my own horn. c:Category:Douglas A2D Skyshark at the San Diego Air & Space Museum Cheers Jim1138 (talk) 10:27, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

Talk page passer-by: That image could be added to the Museum page, which seems to have plenty of room for it, while the Skyshark page does not. Just a thought. -Fnlayson (talk) 13:44, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up,

Was trying to find a draft of the film, glad there's already one in place. Will continue to add to that particular draft as you suggested. Also, for every guideline to articles, where do I find a specific guideline? RegardsAlroy656 (talk) 16:31, 24 May 2017 (UTC)Alroy656

Thanks for uploading File:Piasecki 16h-1A-1.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 19:28, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for uploading File:Piasecki 16h1-a.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 19:28, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

Hi, should the caption be changed from "Former Qantas 707-138B owned by John Travolta at the 2007 Paris Air Show" to "Former Qantas 707-138B at the time owned by John Travolta at the 2007 Paris Air Show" ? Thanks, trainsandtech (talk) 07:37, 27 May 2017 (UTC)

I haven't seen a reliable published source about this. Also, it's better to state "then-owner". - BilCat (talk) 07:47, 27 May 2017 (UTC)

Okay, I will add "then-owner" to the caption. Also, you can find the statement about the plane's donation on the news section of John Travolta's website. trainsandtech (talk) 02:59, 28 May 2017 (UTC)

Hi Bill, There was quite a lot of debate over the decision to acquire the Canberra class ships in the 2000s. For instance, and from memory, the opposition Labor Party advocated for purchasing four smaller LPDs. Hugh White, who's a major figure in Australian defence debates (former deputy secretary of the Department of Defence and now a leading academic and commentator) has always been sceptical of their value. This debate has largely dried up since the ships were ordered, but remains worth covering. I've added a little bit of historical material to provide context to White's views and will look to expand this. Regards, Nick-D (talk) 01:12, 28 May 2017 (UTC)

I understand, but some concerns remain. For one, the section heading is a bit grandiose (and in title case - I prefer that personally, but the MOS wonks don't, so that's what we use) and too obtuse. Further, controversy/criticism sections aren't recommended per WP:UNDUE and other guidelines. I'm not quite sure how best to integrate it into the rest of the article, but perhaps you can figure it out, along with some sourced way of indicating the criticism has "largely dried up". - BilCat (talk) 01:20, 28 May 2017 (UTC)

That's a good point: I've merged this into the 'Planning and selection' section. I'll look to flesh this out a bit, as it's a significant part of the ships' history (for instance, White has argued that the entire concept behind the ships is mistaken given that there are few situations in which landing only a single battalion quickly from LHDs is a good idea - as such a force will either be inadequate in a major war or overkill in the lower-level contingencies which the Australian military is much more likely to undertake). Nick-D (talk) 01:27, 28 May 2017 (UTC)

Thanks, and for helping with the well-meaning IP also. Hopefully it won't require extreme measures to stop. - BilCat (talk) 01:36, 28 May 2017 (UTC)

Again, I mean! They're just coming off the longest in a series of blocks. Sigh. - BilCat (talk) 01:44, 28 May 2017 (UTC)

There's some silly commentary in the Australian media at the moment about the ships being lemons due to the fault with their propulsion system. The Navy and various experts are pointing out that this kind of issue is common in new ships, and it appears to have been caused by mistakes in operating the propulsion pods (wrong kinds of lubricating oils, etc). Nick-D (talk) 02:04, 28 May 2017 (UTC)

Hi, BilCat. I recently stumbled on your userbox User:BillCJ/UBX/atheism Is Harmful (no longer on your userpage, but appearing on several other editors'), and spent some time mulling over whether to nominate it for deletion. I read your note in the documentation, and read the September 2010 MfD on it and its corresponding antitheist template. I realized that I didn't see a problem with the antitheist template but did see a problem with the antiätheist template. Given that I am myself a theist, I was surprised by my own reaction, but ultimately I figured out the difference that was bothering me: Religion refers to a social phenomenon, whereas atheism refers to a philosophical/theological view. I don't think the "religion is harmful" box is problematic, but I think a "theism is harmful" box would be. Because there is a difference between seeing a box that criticizes a group/movement/phenomenon/etc. of which you are a part and seeing a box that criticizes a value that you personally hold. The former is a basic part of expressing any sort of ideological view, and—as I'm sure you'd agree—if an editor can't handle seeing that, then this isn't the place for them. The latter, however, is far less integral to reasoned discourse, and risks making editors feel unwelcome and contributing to senses of division and ill-will. For that reason, and given that your stated goal with this userbox was to provide a counterweight to the "religion is harmful" box, I was wondering if you would consider changing it to read "... that irreligion is harmful ..." or "... that the atheist movement is harmful ...". That, I think, would be a more logical response to the idea that religion is harmful.

(A note: While looking into this, I did find one userbox—User:Crazysane/Userboxes/Evolution—that explicitly criticizes theism as opposed to religion. Its creator has been inactive for three and a half years, so I thought I'd talk to you first before seeing if I can rouse him from his slumber. I'll be leaving him a talkpage note presently, but I doubt he'll respond, so I'll just take it to MfD after a week or so has passed.) — PinkAmpers&^{(Je vous invite à me parler)} 16:28, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

I honestly don't see that hair as worth splitting. If others who are currently using my box are happy with it, that's fine with me. If it gets taken to MFD and they want to defend it, that's up to them. - BilCat (talk) 17:27, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

Thankyou for helping to split and correct my mistake on spliting the GE9X article I'm still junior on wikipedia for splitting and merging article. I'm appreciate your help in this article,thank you very much :D I wish you could help me to complete this article at future --Aaa830 (talk) 17:45, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

I thought the pic was fair use?--Marc Lacoste (talk) 18:38, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

@Marc Lacoste: Not since it's been rolled out, at least that's my understanding. I'm not an expert on US fair-use law, or any law for that matter, so feel free to ask someone else, or to challenge the deletion on Commons. I won't contest it. - BilCat (talk) 19:37, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

no of course you're perfectly right i forgot about the rollout :) --Marc Lacoste (talk) 10:30, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

Thanks. Fair-use gives me a.headache :) - BilCat (talk) 10:46, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

That particular IP seems to have a long history of removing legitimate third party sources from articles and then leaving tags all over the place because they have no refs. Clearly WP:NOTHERE and WP:VANDTYPES. This is not a content dispute, I have warned him that this is vandalism and will be treated as such. Further help on that article would be appreciated. - Ahunt (talk) 00:34, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

I've had a run-in with the IP before. Obviously not a new user, and probably a blocked one at some point, given their tendency to edit war. I'm not sure I can be much help on this one, but if they keep edit warring, semi-protection may be an option. - BilCat (talk) 00:41, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

  - Ahunt (talk) 01:07, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

He just isn't giving up. His latest is to tag it with a fake AfD. I have asked MilborneOne to semi it for a while. - Ahunt (talk) 17:39, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

That's another thanks I'm far from sure was thankworthy, TBH, especially since I think I've made the same mistake on the 207 twice, now... (Not to say I don't appreciate the occasional thank, but...maybe save 'em for what's really worth it? :D ) Forrest Gump ^{ooh, chocolates!} 02:43, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

The thanks was for catching your own mistake. We all make them, but sometimes we're worse at admitting them. But in your defense, it is a confusing development history. - BilCat (talk) 03:14, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for yor appreciation. It has gone quiet, but just in case, you might wish to make your view clear with an Oppose comment JMcC (talk) 20:04, 16 June 2017 (UTC)

@Jmcc150: Thanks. I really hadn't decided yet, as I was waiting to see if the OP could respond with adequate proof the sport isn't the primary topic. He doesn't even appear to understand what a primary topic is, much less what's required to prove or disprove it. I've commented accordingly. - BilCat (talk) 23:46, 16 June 2017 (UTC)

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Haitian Standard French. Since you had some involvement with the Haitian Standard French redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. Savvyjack23 (talk) 19:48, 17 June 2017 (UTC)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Goodyear_Blimp

You removed a reference to a movie The Junkman that the blimp was part of the movie. The movie title was highlighted and the blimp reference is in the plot description on the movie page.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Caryeastwood (talk • contribs)

@Caryeastwood: Please read and follow WP:IPC. - BilCat (talk) 07:01, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

I understand that there is no evidence that the NEGEV and TAVOR are acronyms but IWI themselves named the two weapons as the "TAVOR" and "NEGEV". So I presumed that it should be named after the company's given name. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gun Lover (talk • contribs) 07:54, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

How are these two super-earths not relevant for inclusion into the list of discovered and relevant super-earths? 2001:2002:51E3:8007:B66D:83FF:FE0E:C298 (talk) 18:01, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

For one, you didn't cite reliable sources. That, along with the bad writing/grammar, gave the appearance of vandalism. Please cite your sources, as Wikipedia can't be used to source itself. Thanks. - BilCat (talk)

1. "era is primary decade of development/initial production" : can you provide a reference? I thought active at the same time will be a good definition of "same era" 2. "MTOW isn't the only measure of capability". of course not (eg, I didn't compare civil derivatives with really different airfield requirements and loading config), but it's nearly the best. --Marc Lacoste (talk) 20:40, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

That's the way it's been used in practice as a way of keeping the lists manageable. Also, you're adding Y-8 and Y-9 indiscriminately, sometimes when they're already listed as related. One is a development of the other, so both really are not needed. Also, adding MTOWs, spelt out or not, just adds clutter. Also, I don't think it's helpful to mix four-engine and twins, props and fans, tactical.and strategic types, etc. - BilCat (talk) 20:49, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

An habit isn't a rule, there are many counter examples. Y-8 and Y-9 have each their article, like the C-130 and C-130J, so can be linked separately, especially if a design is in between their time of development. At first I wasn't adding MTOW other than in comments, but I thought it would be better for the reader to understand why a design is comparable, but I can revert to putting it in comments. Configuration isn't listed in similarities : Role, Era, and Capability. I avoid mixing tactical and strategic types.--Marc Lacoste (talk) 21:53, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

The output states "Aircraft of comparable role, configuration and era". And I'm not talking about a habit only - we (WPAIR members) have had discussions on several different talk pages over the years about what belongs in the "Comparable" field. I can't hope to find them all, but the archives at WT:AIR and the the style guide would probably have most of them if you want to get a feel for what's been discussed. - BilCat (talk) 22:37, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

oOoO I knew I had read something like that! I'll amend the template:aircontent and WP:Air/PC.--Marc Lacoste (talk) 07:26, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

• Changes to WP:Air/PC requires consensus, and the notes in the template need to match. --Finlayson (talk) 23:15, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

The Jetsons need protection. It's an outrage!! I guess Astro is getting older and just isn't able to take care of the family the way he used to. Thanks for filing the RFPP report and for all your efforts here at the 'pedia. MarnetteD|Talk 20:10, 8 July 2017 (UTC)

No problem. Yeah, it's kinda odd, possibly some sort of COI. Best to handle as vandalism, especially without any sources. - BilCat (talk) 21:33, 8 July 2017 (UTC)

I'm apologizing for my bad behaviour. My contributions weren't rational and exemplary. --Sheldonium (talk) 10:58, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

What is a reliable source because i use images of countries using weapons as a reliable source and editors revert it and they say that is not a reliable source. Wikihistory (talk) 08:07, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

@Wikihistory: Please read this guideline page, which explains what it means. As far as photos go, an image doesn't prove the country is an official operator of a weapon, only that someone was photographed with a weapon. Feel free to ask me any questions after you've read the linked guideline page. - BilCat (talk) 12:15, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

I am having a few problems with an enthusiastic but at times very dogmatic editorial colleague on the Fokker Scourge article. If fact, things have reached a pass where some second opinions might be useful. The specific question he is hammering at the moment is that we shouldn't ever say "No. 1 Squadron RAF" (in spite of that being the usual way of putting it) but "1 Squadron" (on the grounds that the "No." is redundant). I wouldn't object to an occasional omission of the "No.", if only for elegant variation, but he has been going right through the article wiping every instance and claiming that "Wikipedia is not a source" (which is true enough, but nothing to do with the case). The gentleman concerned has been making dozens of other (mostly very pettifogging) changes to the article - a few have been genuine improvements, and most at least acceptable alternatives but some of which have made clear text obscure, even meaningless. I have let everything he has done that is at all acceptable stand, but the really bad ones I've had to change - usually with a new version rather than a provocative revert.

I was wondering, if you have a moment, if you'd like to have a little look at the Fokker Scourge talk page (go straight to the bottom if you like) and tell me, either here, on my talk page, or even on the talk page of the article if you want to actually buy into the discussion, if I'm being totally unreasonable and should just give up. This is (for a WWI aviation article) quite a high traffic one - and I'd like to leave it in reasonable shape. At least readable, and plain in meaning (two things I value far above brevity for its own sake). --Soundofmusicals (talk) 00:52, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

That user can be tendentious at times, though not always. I'd personally rather stay out of that one. You can raise the issue at WT:AIR and see if anyone else would like yo weigh in. - BilCat (talk) 01:29, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for the suggestion about WT:AIR - can't blame you for not wanting to buy into the argument - mainly mentioned it as I was worried it was ME being an idiot rather than you know who. Of course the article is one I extensively re-wrote some years ago and I hate it being emasculated. Worst possible reason for getting all possessive - which I have tried to avoid. Best wishes anyway! --Soundofmusicals (talk) 01:45, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

No problem. - BilCat (talk) 02:12, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

Rgr — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.239.208.108 (talk) 04:34, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

Not interested in edit wars for these things.)You are right.Benniejets (talk) 18:22, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

I've been having browser issues, & I can't seem to get into my email account just now, so... I have a sense you don't want it said on a talk page where there's a record. What you might try is going here & PM PHX1138 (that's me); I can get my PMs there with no trouble. (IDK if you can PM without signing up, tho...) TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 18:54, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

Trekphiler, I can't at the moment. I know it's hard with this one, but just be careful and don't get yourself trapped in a situation that might get you blocked. That's all I want to say in the open. - BilCat (talk) 19:08, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

Thx, but I may already be in one... I can simply take the page off my watchlist, 'cause it's not like it's a subject I'm deeply invested in. I did post a question with User:Parsecboy on it, so maybe he's got something. TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 19:13, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

Trekphiler, I understand. If you can, don't respond in kind to the trolling there. It's not worth it. - BilCat (talk) 19:20, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

Unfortunately, I'm terrible about not taking troll bait... If I do get slapped, so be it. TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 19:27, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

Trekphiler, I'm know, I'm not either, but sometimes it helps to have a friend whispering in your ear. I know it helps me. :) Just know others are watching and understand what's going on. - BilCat (talk) 19:33, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

I'm not sure it'll keep me from doing something stupid, but knowing somebody gets my side is always good to hear. FYI, he's now weighed in on another page, SdKfz 234, where somebody's been changing Germany to Nazi Germany... (Have a look at the history & see why that is an issue...). That one will not come off my watchlist; I created the page, I'm damned if I'll stop watching it because of a trill. (Also FYI, delay in reply's because I've been trying to say away entire for awhile.) TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 21:29 & 21:30, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

No problem. - BilCat (talk) 21:32, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

I took the Arrow off my watchlist before your message. I'm done with that sinkhole for now. TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 00:28, 30 July 2017 (UTC)

Ok good :) - BilCat (talk) 00:33, 30 July 2017 (UTC)

Thx for the heads up, tho. And the "thank"s. (Sorry to say, tho, now you've replied, you're off the watchlist, too. :( ) TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 00:37, 30 July 2017 (UTC)

FYI, Andy's bought himself a warning for hounding...& I've gotten away with some stupid stuff I should never have done. My karma must be in amazing shape today. :) TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 22:58, 30 July 2017 (UTC)

I'm not surprised, and it's long overdue. Hopefully he's not WP:EUI. That's never a good idea. One highly contentious user used to do that regularly, and was finally banned after years of causing grief. I don't miss him at all. - BilCat (talk)

If he is, he's astoundingly coherent at it. (After yesterday, I almost wish I had that excuse. That was all down to lack of sleep, I think.) I've run into Andy on a dispute once before, over this, & to this day, I do not understand his reasoning. If he gets banned, tho, it'd be a loss in general; I've seen him do good editing, & he seems to know steam engines real well. He just needs an attitude adjustment. TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 23:46, 30 July 2017 (UTC)

I understand. - BilCat (talk) 23:49, 30 July 2017 (UTC)

User:Benniejets (I see you have left warnings for edit-warring on his talk page) is now repeatedly removing reliably sourced material from the Blue-water navy article. He has me marked as "anti-italian" for whatever reason and thinks my edits are "propaganda" against his country I suppose (his words). So I don't think he is going to listen to me, regardless of whether Spain and Brazil are listed as Rank 3 in the reliable sources or no. Cheers Antiochus the Great (talk) 22:09, 30 July 2017 (UTC)

«Unwelcome comments by»Benniejets (talk) 22:12, 30 July 2017 (UTC)«removed»

Reliable sources are per Wikipedia's guidelines. Mine or your opinions are quite irrelevant in that regard. Antiochus the Great (talk) 22:24, 30 July 2017 (UTC)

I'd just removed the page from my watchlist about an hour ago, and probably won't go back. :) Benniejets, don't follow other users who ask for help onto my talk page like that just to continue your arguments. You already attempted to make your case on the talk page, so leave your arguments there. Also, once a user starts making anti-"their country" attacks against good, long-term editors, they have invalidated themselves as a serious editor in my opinion. Any further comments by you in this conversation will be removed unread. - BilCat (talk) 22:39, 30 July 2017 (UTC)

I'm not exactly sure why but grazie for the thank you anyway! Dinah In Wonderland 23:36, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

Dinah Kirkland: For giving a good answer on User talk:Oshwah, and saying what I'd wished I said to that user. - BilCat (talk) 23:41, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

Aww 😄 that's sweet of you to say! I gave another awnser, that I hope was as good, but I'm glad that this is coming from an experienced editor ^-^. You just made my day. Dinah In Wonderland 23:45, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

You're most welcome. - BilCat (talk) 23:47, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

Totally adding you to my watchlist 👍. A hint of warning; you'll be seeing me on a lot of talk pages with things like that now that I know what I can say and still seen nice. Dinah In Wonderland 23:49, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

@Dinah Kirkland: Is you're Italian better than Benniejets English? :) - BilCat (talk) 09:36, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

Oh my god I talk exactly like that.... Dinah In Wonderland 13:49, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

Well... I used to... when I didn't care about how I spoke. however: Buon spettacolo bello. Ma vedo che lei potrebbe non aver letto il mio Babele. Per ora; I jitkellem bil-Malti u kemm lil oħrajn. Dinah In Wonderland 14:04, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

Really not good italian)Benniejets (talk) 16:16, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

@Benniejets: I hope that wasn't a shot at my Italian bello ^-^ Dinah In Wonderland 16:21, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

Bello in italian means beautiful it's male;bella is female (it's also plural of bellum-i)..In latin bello is the ablative of bellum-i (war) .Si vis pacem para bellum (If you want the peace prepare the war).Sometimes i use bad english because i write in a hurry.I speak italian,french,english,german,latin and i read russian realizing great part of it(nnot difficult if you studied greek,it derives from it).I like your humor Wonderland).I thanked BilCat because he was honest to admit that Cavour could be deleted from light carriers list.Benniejets (talk) 16:25, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

Cool. Even though bello means Handsome ;). You can see what I speak on my User page because I'm to lazy to type it over here. And Grazie bella/bello. I didn't know I was, Humorous. Dinah In Wonderland 16:31, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

I'm from the true Italy,the area where is born Renaissance and today western minding.)Benniejets (talk) 16:33, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

I'm from the Southern Half, and the old Italian Country of Malta (referring to the fact that it was once owned by Italy.) Dinah In Wonderland 16:35, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

Andy's filed an AN/I against me, base on "trolling" at the Lotus 12 page earlier today, which I'm fairly sure would be uninteresting to you, except he mentions you, too. (No accusation yet.) So, if you've anything interesting to contribute there... TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 06:13, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads-up. He did lie about me saying he's "just a drunk", but whatever. It's not the first time he's lied about me. My comment was just a throwaway to mention the user who did admit to editing while drunk. I don't generally watchlist ANI discussions, but feel free to ping me if there's something I should see or respond to. - BilCat (talk) 06:41, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

Trekphiler, you'll probably end up with a mutual interaction ban, which honestly might be a good thing for you. - BilCat (talk) 06:52, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I'd be happy never to deal with him again. (We cross so rarely already.) I'll keep you apprised if there's anything that looks attached to you. FYI, it looks like he's quoting directly from this page; watchlisted, I suspect. (I didn't check the diff he used.) That's how he picked up the remark. TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 07:01, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

I've suspected that he either watchlists my talk page, or periodically checks it, and apparently has for years now. It's nothing new. - BilCat (talk) 07:17, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

Huh. And here I thought I had a scoop. :( I'd say something about that kind of behavior, but...it doesn't (quite) rise to the level of objectionable. Usually. TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 07:36, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

Wow, it's amazing how people can take poorly-worded comments to mean things one never intended to say, and then outright lie about what I did say. It's probably best I just shut up about this from now on. It looks like a case of "Anything you might say has already been taken down in evidence against you." - BilCat (talk) 09:30, 3 August 2017 (UTC

I feel like I've suffered a transporter accident & wound up with a bearded Spock... You're right about "poorly-worded comment" (mine). The rest was, as I should have been clearer, about friend Andy... TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 11:21, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

I was specifically referring to my own poorly worded comments, but if you feel that also applies to you too, I understand. Part of this may be transatlantic cultural differences coming into play. We all speak the same language, but we don't always mean the same things. :) - BilCat (talk) 11:36, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

I didn't find it poorly worded or unclear in the slightest. I, OTOH, could have been talking about anybody...so it's good to know it's not a transporter accident, it's just the pilot. TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 11:44, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

Wow. I hate witch hunts. Ps, was I not right? "Unparliamentary language" indeed. Of course, you do have a parliament up north, but we don't. We're stuck with a "Congress". - BilCat (talk)

Oh no! I just realized I called him a "Puritan witch hunter". And I don't even know if that is a bad thing in Britain today. Help me, Obi-wan, you're my only hope! - BilCat (talk) 07:15, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

If I was getting a fair hearing on the issue as raised, I would have no worries & no complaints. By appearances, the issue raised isn't even going to be discussed...&, as you may have noticed, my frustration over that fact has not been carefully concealled. However, to borrow a phrase, "I take what comes". I've said some unpleasant & stupid things, no question. I would be willing to accept a smack for saying them. What appears to be coming, however, is Admins as a group effectively becoming complicit in the next time this happens--because I have no doubt it will. TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 07:41, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

I wish I could help out more directly, but I can't for personal reasons unrelated to WP. (Sorry I can't be more specific in an open forum.) Given the discussions on his talk page, is Parsecboy directly aware of the ANI? - BilCat (talk) 07:53, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

Hey, you do what you can do. No worries. As for Parsecboy, I've actually not even considered advising him of this til now. (Haven't seen him post at the ANI, so...) Not sure it'll help...but I guess it can't hurt. TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 08:42, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

My bad. I forget to remove flag. ; - ) Wikihistory (talk) 05:53, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

@Wikihistory: No worries. Wikipedia has a fairly steep learning curve, but it can be a very rewarding experience here. - BilCat (talk) 05:55, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

@BilCat:

Should this edit be reverted?

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:MobileDiff/789733125

Wikihistory (talk) 06:13, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

@Wikihistory: I'd say so, yes. - BilCat (talk) 06:31, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

Hello, BilCat! 2013AtlantaBraves (talk) 15:11, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

Please point me to the MoS or consensus that says that there should be an Operators section for aircraft that never entered operation. As I said, its not there for TSR-2. Mztourist (talk) 06:46, 6 August 2017 (UTC)

I can't quote chapter and verse, but a lot of aircraft that never entered service have that section, with the understanding that those are intended operators. Even aircraft built only for research or testing of some sort usually have such a section, such as Hawker Siddeley P.1127. Usually, but not always,the service listed did participate in testing the aircraft. The TSR-2 is an odd exception, but a lot in that article is odd, as it gets a lot of attention from editors outside the aircraft project. - BilCat (talk) 06:57, 6 August 2017 (UTC)

The P.1127 has a logic to it as it was evaluated by various different countries, but the CF-105 was being developed for one operator who never took delivery, so it seems completely superfluous to have a section that says "Royal Canadian Air Force – Arrow was cancelled before entering service" which is blindingly obvious from all that precedes it. Mztourist (talk) 08:47, 6 August 2017 (UTC)

Key word "all that precedes it." For those suffering from TLDNR, the section is useful. - BilCat (talk) 20:28, 6 August 2017 (UTC)

I disagree and will raise it on the aircraft project page. Mztourist (talk) 10:06, 7 August 2017 (UTC)

@Mztourist: No problem. Feel free to copy over this discussion if you feel it'll help. - BilCat (talk) 10:11, 7 August 2017 (UTC)

See Bangalore has So many nicknames including silicon valley of India,garden city of India, fashion capital of India,and pub city of India etc,,,, if you have any misunderstanding please check the Bangalore Pete Wikipedia page you can find answers there, I respect you for concern. Suryavamsha 18:30, 7 August 2017 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Suryavamsha (talk • contribs)

Please cite reliable sources that these nicknames are noteworthy. Thanks. - BilCat (talk) 19:02, 7 August 2017 (UTC)

A tag has been placed on Category:Airbus Group requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the category has been empty for seven days or more and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, a featured topics category, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. —swpb^T 19:56, 7 August 2017 (UTC)

Is this legit? It looked distinctly under-explained on is page, someone seems to have created a new and less useful category. Anmccaff (talk) 20:06, 7 August 2017 (UTC)

@Swpb and Anmccaff: I don't generally deal with categories, but I assume this is related to the ill-advised merger of the Airbus and Airbus Group articles. It's probably best to raise any questions you have on this with the user making the changes, or at Talk:Airbus. - BilCat (talk) 23:27, 7 August 2017 (UTC)

I have no involvement in the article merge; all I know is that empty categories are speediable. If there's a use for this category, whoever is responsible for it needs to populate it, or soft redirect it to whatever equivalent category is populated. —swpb^T 12:45, 8 August 2017 (UTC)

... but I fear you thanked me too soon. :( --Colin Douglas Howell (talk) 08:12, 9 August 2017 (UTC)

Hi, I have reverted the 407 to before over the comment of the increase in window size as it is not really that relevant to the article.

On the AW109SP Grand New that I work on we have a larger fuselage than the previous "E" model and the next version up was the "S" which weighed 300KGs more than the "E" and had the increased fuselage - worthy of mention, just like the SP then being produced and the fuselage now being made with carbon fibre to reduce weight further for all the new avionics being added on after the "S" version.

All that to me seems worthy but the subject of one third larger windows seems a bit of unnecessary padding out of an already quite good article.

I welcome your input on this.

Regards

Pam-javelin (talk) 15:01, 9 August 2017 (UTC)

@Pam-javelin: You've already made up your mind that it's superfluous, or you wouldn't have reverted, so I don't see what difference my opinion makes at this point. Thankfully, another user has restored it. - BilCat (talk) 23:31, 9 August 2017 (UTC)

Hi, If two others disagree then I am not going to go against that!

Regards

Pam-javelin (talk) 13:11, 10 August 2017 (UTC)

Hey there, Bil!

You recently undid an edit to the article on the Flag of the Bahamas in which a new editor added some information about the Bahamas being located in the North Atlantic rather than the Caribbean. Your reasoning was that the information was not relevant for an article about the flag— I am not disagreeing with you. My concern is that the person who made the edit, an edit I encouraged her to make following an OTRS ticket request to fix the article— felt stomped on. I know, I know that you can't be expected to monitor the background of every editor whose edit you may undo, and I am not asking for that. I am only contacting you to say that I think she could be a really good Wikipedia editor some day if we give her a chance to get situated, and that I think we both agree that WP:DONTBITETHENEWCOMERS is super important for the long term prospects of the project. I don't think you meant to bite! I only mean she felt bit, and that matters, too. I have probably done the exact same thing myself more than once but was never told. That's all. KDS4444 (talk) 06:24, 12 August 2017 (UTC)

@KDS4444: Uh, thanks for letting me know, but I would have done the exact same edit if I had known beforehand. Yeah, I would have also given a explanation had I known, but how was that to happen? Perhaps you need to do a little more investigating of a user's issues before giving out advice that might lead to them getting "bit". At the least, some explanation of the issue and the OTRS ticket on the talk page might have been helpful in advance. Otherwise, I don't know what else I would done in this situation, as I stand be my solution of simply eliminating the contentious statements. - BilCat (talk) 07:47, 12 August 2017 (UTC)

Yeah, that's what I figured. Well, thanks anyway! KDS4444 (talk) 09:06, 12 August 2017 (UTC)

I read through all of those posts and was wondering how does one participate in the conversations at SPI? Dinah In Wonderland 17:50, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

@Dinah Kirkland: You can make comments in the section called Comments by other users. - BilCat (talk) 17:55, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

Also this IP https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/80.182.181.119 does infact appear to be a Sock puppet but is everyone waiting until the case is closed to block it? Or just doing some research? Dinah In Wonderland 17:55, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

And thanks Dinah In Wonderland 17:56, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

@Dinah Kirkland: You're welcome. There's usually a backlog on SPIs, so sometimes it takes a while for an admin to look at them. More than likely, his block will be extended to indefinite, but it depends on the admin. - BilCat (talk) 18:03, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

Sad that this happened. I was beginning to like them (despite the comment on my Italian). I suspected something was wrong when they asked me to put a warning on a Users page for vandalizing. I believe the admin will extend the block with this sock puppeting. Dinah In Wonderland 18:07, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

@Dinah Kirkland: We actually see such self-destruction quite often. Usually it's a relatively young user, but not always. The language barrier doesn't help, but English Wikipedia seems to be more attractive to many users than their own language WPs. And sometimes they've already been blocked there! - BilCat (talk) 18:23, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

True. And I think this was a young user. Their second launaguges was terrible and the way they typed doesn't suggest "that's how they type when in a hurry" Dinah In Wonderland 18:27, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

Well it's been decided case closed... I have no further questions, thanks for your help. Dinah In Wonderland 19:18, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

Completely up to you. I used the company page since the title was about the former title of the company. I have no objection either way. --CNMall41 (talk) 21:25, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

@CNMall41: Actually, Sherman Fairchild is a biography page, or at least it used to be/is supposed to be one. :) Since Hiller was an aircraft company, I felt the Aircraft company page would be more appropriate. - BilCat (talk) 21:31, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

Makes sense. I just knew it shouldn't be a stand-alone page. Thank for the ping! --CNMall41 (talk) 21:35, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

BilCat, people are going crazy trying to edit these articles faster than I can roll them back. Any suggestions?Garuda28 (talk) 06:29, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

Garuda28, That's not unusual in a situation like this, and it can be very frustrating. Right now it's in the news, and getting lot's of attention, as anything Trump-related does these days. Sometimes I just let it go for a few hours, and then revert, but often I'll just leave it be, or add a note that, in this case, would say it's still pending. If it gets to be a serious problem, you can ask for page protection at RFPP or by contacting an admin directly. - BilCat (talk) 06:37, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

thanks BilCat, much appreciated! Garuda28 (talk) 06:39, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

You've removed an informative table in the Gepárd Rifle article 4 months ago.

Your excuses are invalid; do not attempt to further desecrate the article, or there will be consequences.

Revert the edit, or you'll be reported for removal of information out of bias/butthurt. Honved2018 (talk) 20:33, 27 August 2017 (UTC)

"removal of information out of ... butthurt"?? Yeah, good luck with that one! - BilCat (talk) 20:50, 27 August 2017 (UTC)

And no, I won't restore it. It's still "Original Research/synthesis - text is unsourced, and gives no cited basis for a comparison." - BilCat (talk) 22:06, 27 August 2017 (UTC)

219.122.170.236 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) has been doing rapid-fire vandalism for several days at least. As the IP returns quickly under a new guise after blocking, I think Zzuuzz is just reverting to more easily keep an in on the IP. Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Rapid-fire vandalism apparently on proxies Cheers Jim1138 (talk) 08:42, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

Yes, I'm aware of the issue. Thanks. - BilCat (talk) 08:44, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

You are reverting faster than I can! Jim1138 (talk) 08:48, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

Rollbacks, but Zzuuzz is even faster. - BilCat (talk) 08:49, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

Zzuuzz just blocked this IP. - BilCat (talk)

Hi, Bil, I see you undid my edit to H. L. Hunley (submarine) in which I had added the word "the" to the various mentions of the ship's name in the article. It looks like the MOS article you referenced states that "the" should not be used in the lead sentence (unless part of the ship's actual name)— fair enough, and I was unaware of that. How do you feel about subsequent usage of "the", however? The vessel's name appears to consistently have "the" before it in a number of reliable published sources, including the most recent scientific investigation as to how it went down. I am thinking we should have "the" added to the ship's name everywhere except the first mention in the lead. You? KDS4444 ^(talk) [Note: This user has admitted participating in paid editing,— trust but verify.] 10:48, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

You need to raise this on the article's talk page so other contributors can participate there. Thanks. - BilCat (talk) 16:54, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

Done. KDS4444 ^(talk) 17:56, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

Hi BilCat. User:Picuslor, claims to be British, yet his command of the English language says otherwise. Roughly the same editing interests as Bennie, however I wouldn't have spotted him if it wasn't for this edit, where he restores some irrelevant gibberish first added Benniejets. Also, his spelling of "bad feith" here is exactly how Benniejets used to.

Whats your opinion? Antiochus the Great (talk) 17:40, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

@Antiochus the Great: If I had any doubt (I didn't), his mostly unintelligible comment I just removed from here would have convinced me. Have you filed on his SPI page yet? - BilCat (talk) 17:57, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

@Adamgerber80: What do you think? - BilCat (talk) 18:01, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

@NPguy: Also had similar observations about other users(User:AlfaRocket,User:Ivankazz) editing the Italian nuclear weapons program page. Same bad English, history of editing the some subset of the pages as Bennie and a strong pro Italy POV. Adamgerber80 (talk) 18:17, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

Link to Bennie's SPI page. Sario528 (talk) 18:38, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

The more I see of Bennie's comments and edit summaries, the more I revise my assessment of his age (physical or mental) downwards. I don't think it's not just a language barrier issue. - BilCat (talk) 20:30, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

I remember this case. Surprised that it's still happening. Their edit summaries and comments are... very similar. ♠Dinah♠ 🎤 20:35, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

The only difference between them really is the places of the commas. And I honestly don't think it is about language. I really think it is about age. ♠Dinah♠ 🎤 20:41, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

Yes, he seems very young. That's not always an issue, but often can be. - BilCat (talk) 20:43, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

Of course sometimes the young ones can be rehabilitated into making useful contributions... - Ahunt (talk) 20:45, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

Yes true. I mean I should know right? I do know one case that involved this... However the young one ended up leaving to join the Wikia... ♠Dinah♠ 🎤 20:49, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

Even that is positive, as they may be back once they have gained some maturity. As long as they don't go and join ISIS. - Ahunt (talk) 21:08, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

Heh... ♠Dinah♠ 🎤 21:24, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

So i made this new page called WikiTiger And was wondering if you could look it over. I was told I could make a humor page and noticed there were no WikiTiger pages ♠Dinah♠ 🎤 23:24, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

Hey Bill just a heads up, the current image in the F-15E Strike Eagle article is flawed. Looks like someone had tweaked the image per this comment. For some reason it has been manipulated (gun port and antenna(s) are on the wrong side) - refueling receptacle belongs on the port side as seen here, here, & here. So the main image should be change to reflect the correct layout - FOX 52 (talk) 08:10, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

@FOX 52: Fine, I've reverted it back. But I don't think replacement image is really the best one out there. You really need to discuss main image changes on the article's talk page first, especially for high-traffic articles. - BilCat (talk) 10:27, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

Not my favorite either, but I'll look out for a better one - FOX 52 (talk) 15:06, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

Can you please explain to me why the information I added to Curtis Lazar is inappropriate? When I looked at the article's edit history, the user who removed GoFlamesGo's edit stated "not appropriate for the intro", and I moved it to the Personal Life section.

Thank you! MarkGiordano5 (talk) 02:57, 3 September 2017 (UTC)MarkGiordano5 MarkGiordano5 (talk) 02:57, 3 September 2017 (UTC)

@MarkGiordano5: It's trivial, no matter where it is. Please use the article's talk page, and build a consensus for this information if you believe it's critical to the article. Thanks. - BilCat (talk) 03:02, 3 September 2017 (UTC)

I was looking through my watchlist and because I am so tired I thought: "who the fuck is that?" When I saw your name XD. On another account of an actual page before I go to bed how do i attract more editors to the Wikipedia:WikiTiger so that we receive more people who had the UserBox to their userpage? I feel as if my new page is missing something... ♠Dinah♠ 🎤 03:15, 3 September 2017 (UTC)

Lol. On WikiTiger, I really don't know, as I spend most of my non-article time at the talk pages of WP:AIR or WP:MILHIST. You might consider creating a WikiTiger welcome notice for new users, or an invitation for regular users who you think might fit that editing style. - BilCat (talk) 03:46, 3 September 2017 (UTC)

Alright thanks. I guess I should do that now since it looks like I'm not going to sleep -_-. I'm to stubborn apparently. I'll give you a little review of it when I am finished (geez almost made a pun out of that) ♠Dinah♠ 🎤 03:51, 3 September 2017 (UTC)

Hi,

You reverted my edit. Could you take a look at the article's talk? 85.193.199.86 (talk) 04:16, 3 September 2017 (UTC)

Thanks so much! It's always nice to be appreciated. - BilCat (talk) 19:42, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

I mean just a bit of concern with this user that's bothering you; what happened anyway if you don't mind me asking? ♠Dinah♠ 🎤 11:39, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

Yeah, just a little peeved off about it, and sleep deprived. Thanks for asking. :) - BilCat (talk) 11:42, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

No problem and sleep deprived preach to the choir(have no clue where that is from)! I haven't slept right since the dispute solving... (more like since I got a Wikipedia account) ♠Dinah♠ 🎤 11:52, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

I understand. You mean "preach to the choir"? It's a church reference. I can explain more if you want. - BilCat (talk) 15:34, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

I attempted to move the page as was stated in the talk page. If this is the improper format to move the page (which has 1 for an no opposition for a few months) can you please teach me the people way to move it or move it yourself? Thanks! Garuda28 (talk) 18:44, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

@Garuda28: The new article already has an extensive history. An admin will have to make the move, probably with a history merge. - BilCat (talk) 18:47, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Requests for history merge. - BilCat (talk) 18:50, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

As always thanks! I really appreciate the help. Garuda28 (talk) 19:03, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Tracked. Since you had some involvement with the Tracked redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. Steel1943 (talk) 20:14, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

Hey BilCat, there's currently a user engaged in an edit war on Template:United States federal service academies, seeking to change the short descriptor for United States Military Academy at West Point to just West Point while ignoring a consensis against it. He claims that listing it as "Military Academy (West Point)" is original research, while it's just a short name in reality. Can you please weigh in on the topic on the talk page? He's also making the claim that I'm talking to myself, which I strongly protest, since I'm not on a private network. Thanks!Garuda28 (talk) 15:17, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

You should probably raise the issue at WT:MILHIST. Don't revert him any more, as that will put you over 3RR. - BilCat (talk) 15:46, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

I need some more of your professional advice: if a user not only violates the 3RR, but also does it inspite of an active discussion on the topic do I have any methods of recourse? I really appreciate your guidance in this manner. Garuda28 (talk) 20:24, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) If the user is clearly going against established consensus and has violated 3RR, you may want to consider bringing the issue to WP:ANI. Sario528 (talk) 20:33, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

@Sario528: Thanks, Sario, that's what I'd advise also.

@Garuda28: For edit warring, WP:AN3 is more appropriate than ANI. But beware the boomerang, even if you've only made 3 reverts, as you may get blocked also if the reviewing admin feels it's warranted. Edit warring is a tricky thing, and it's best to avoid it except in clear cases of vandalism, which this is not. - BilCat (talk) 23:27, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

@Sario528:@Garuda28: thanks, I really appreciate your guidance on this topic, and as the newer guy I appreciate being able to reach out to experienced users for advice. I posted at WP:MILHIST and would appreciate if you guys would be willing to give your professional opinions on the matter.Garuda28 (talk) 23:38, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

Inserting himself in a content dispute over Hindenburg...which the page history says Andy hasn't edited, at all, going back to 2014... I'm not sure this rises to stalking, or just pain in the ass... Thoughts? Also, similar dispute here, which I know you're already (vaguely) aware of. Maybe you can have more success getting the point across than me. TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 13:52, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

I'd like to thank you for showing your thanks to some of my AWB edits, and since I notice from your edit history that you've made a couple MOS fixes as well, I figure the program would help you too. Details about the program and how to request access can be found at WP:AWB. Thanks again, and enjoy using it if you decide to go for it.   jd22292 (Jalen D. Folf) (talk) 19:16, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

@Jd22292: Thanks for the suggestion. I usually use an older Chrome-based browser on a tablet, and from AWB page, it doesn't look like that is compatible. I do use Twinkle, which is compatible, and very helpful in rollbacks and issuing warnings, among other useful functions. Someone did suggest that I use Twinkle, so I so appreciate suggestions. - BilCat (talk) 19:24, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

Somewhat new to this, but saw your edit or revert for vandalism from my post. Thanks for catching that and correcting it. User Purplebackpack89 made two revisions including changing the ownership of the venue to University of Texas at Austin. I was trying to have a little fun by poking back at them, but I understand that is not a proper use of the forum. I would also ask for your help on how we could better manage this page. I am the Director of Events for the LA Memorial Coliseum and employed by USC to manage the venue. If possible, we would like to update some images, our logo, as well as prevent users like Purplebackpack89 from editing content and have it go viral. Appreciate any feedback and I hope this is the correct forum to discuss this. Thanks. Kevind6368 (talk) 20:00, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

@Kevind6368: Hi, Kevin. Thanks for using Wikipedia. Actually, Purplebackpack89 is a good editor, and made constructive edits. The user who changed the ownership information was an IP user, as shown here. Editing Wikipedia takes some getting use to, and I realize that. However, we do take a dim view of jokes and vandalism in the articles. It's best not to respond to vandalism in that way, but if you must, use the edit summary for such comments. See here for an example that I did on the Atlanta Falcons page.

Unfortunately, vandalism is a part of life on Wikipedia, but we do everything we can to revert it when it happens. If vandalism occurs regularly on an article, it can be protected by an administrator (which I'm not), but this is only done rarely.

As far as images and logos, that's very complicated due to copyright issues. Any appropriate photos that are in the public domain can be uploaded to Wikimedia Commons, and then used here. For example, you can just take some photos at the stadium on your own phone or camera, and release them as public domain or under a Creative Commons license that is compatible with Wikipedia and Wikimedia Commons. Photos taken be professional photographers are of course generally copyrighted. If the stadium or university owns the copyrights to photos, they can be used with written permission. Logos are generally copyrighted, and used under fair use. Copyrights and fair use aren't my area of expertise, but I can help you to find the information you need to follow up on that.

I'm going to post a message on your talk page with more information on photos and copyrights with links to relevant help page. I'm also going to post some information on managing conflicts of interest, as you're employed by the stadium. As long as you're open to guidance, it shouldn't be a problem.

Thanks again for your interest in using Wikipedia, and I hope you have a rewarding experience. - BilCat (talk) 20:20, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

@BilCat: Thanks for the links and references and clearing the record for Purplebackpack89. I hope to keep working on this and get more involved. It's more intense than I could have imagined. A definite appreciation for the community here. Kevind6368 (talk) 17:42, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

@Kevind6368: (You don't have to Ping me here, as the software automatically notifies users of post on their own talk page.) Thanks for being understanding. Wikipedia does have a steep learning curve. You might want to consider watchlisting Wikipedia talk:WikiProject College football. It's a project for editors interested in college football, and many of the participants are experienced in dealing with the issues you'll experience with the stadium article. It's a good place to go when you have editing or other questions. - BilCat (talk) 18:25, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

Pedantic people go on at length about different types of Science Fiction. Some science fiction that uses science and technology directly as a core element of the story is called hard science fiction. Other sources that focus on using futuristic settings as decoration to tell stories about people and somewhat derisively described as space opera suggesting they are little more than soap opera with decorations.

I've heard Star Trek referred to as space opera but it is varies from benign to malign, but in any case your edit to The Orville was perfectly correct and there is no reason as all to mention space opera, it is not relevant. -- 109.76.196.129 (talk) 00:42, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

Pedantic people go on at length about different types of Science Fiction. Some science fiction that uses science and technology directly as a core element of the story is called hard science fiction. Other sources that focus on using futuristic settings as decoration to tell stories about people and somewhat derisively described as space opera suggesting they are little more than soap opera with decorations.

I've heard Star Trek referred to as space opera but it is varies from benign to malign, but in any case your edit to The Orville was perfectly correct and there is no reason as all to mention space opera, it is not relevant. -- 109.76.196.129 (talk) 00:42, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

Hey Bill just wondering was there a particular reason this post got the boot? And no I have zero problem with you checking up on my space (its most welcome). Not sure if user:Hawkeye is a bit of a nuisance or something. - FOX 52 (talk) 09:11, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

@FOX 52: Sorry, I mixed you up in my mind with User:ScrapIronIV, who filed at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Fonte de regaz against Hawkeye. If you want to assume good faith with Hawkeye until the SPI is finished, I understand. - BilCat (talk) 09:19, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

No worries, thanks for the heads up on the SPI had no idea this was going on - cheers FOX 52 (talk) 20:52, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

This one is very likely the IP troll (171.6/7 and 49.237 ) doing very similar edits to gun related articles in July 2017. Do you know someone who may have a quick look into this or how to open a sock investigation ? --Denniss (talk) 08:31, 23 September 2017 (UTC)

@Denniss:.Yup, that's probably he same troll. Berean Hunter, an admin, has dealt with it before. See User talk:Berean Hunter/Archive 9#Rifle articles sock farm 3. Thanks. - BilCat (talk) 09:34, 23 September 2017 (UTC)

Indeffed. Thank you for letting me know.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 12:28, 23 September 2017 (UTC)

Agree that it is confusing. User:67.159.155.202 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) deleted that sentence on Guyana with an es of The Indians did not "intermix" with anyone." Miscegenation did not occur, as the Indian community (most of whom are from South India) retain a totally different ethnic and cultural identity from Guyanese Blacks, Indigenous tribes, and other ethnicities.. Interracial marriage with Chinese (the horrors!) is discussed in Indo-Guyanese#History I haven't checked this source, but a number of the IPs edits are in conflict with the sources. Seems to be in denial things. Also, adds mostly unsourced content and doesn't seem to be interested in citing. Cheers Jim1138 (talk) 18:09, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

In ref your del the WP Rocketry tag from the Me-263 talk page, why not? Out of scope? (I pondered rv'g, but since I figure you know what you're doing, it made more sense just to ask. :) ) TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 02:45, 25 September 2017 (UTC) (P.S. No need to ping me; this page is still watchlisted.)

Sometimes I do know what I'm doing, but forget why afterwards. Other, times, I just mess up. I'm not sure which is the case here. Technically, it's a rocket-powered interceptor aircraft, not a rocket, and I'm not sure the drive-by IP who tagged it knows the difference. Do what you think is best here. - BilCat (talk)

Hey, I've done both, too, welcome to the club. :D I'm going to go ahead & rv (rocket-propelled), & see if somebody calls it out of scope. Thx for the reply. TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 06:20, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

My main issue is that WP:AIR and WP:ROCKETRY have largely incompatible styles, which a drive-by IP is probably totaly unaware of. In addition, some members of WP:ROCKETRY have been openly hostile to WPAIR memebers. I don't want to invite a turf, as I firmly see the Me 263 as a manned aircraft, though rocket-powered. Oddly, the Talk:Walter HWK 509 page doesn't have ROCKETRY tag. - BilCat (talk) 06:36, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

I hadn't thought about that. I'm happy to have the least-contentious form, whichever it is, so if you want to rv again, I'll leave it. TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 03:35, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

Hi there. I noticed you reverted the edit of a suspected sock here. Would you have a moment to look at this editor's history at Country. If I revert again I'll get tagged with edit warring. Thanks. Magnolia677 (talk) 09:19, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

@Magnolia677: There's enough evidence that this is a banned/blocked user that you shouldn't be charged with edit warring. However, that's a decision you need to make for yourself, as there is a risk that some admin might disagree. User:Guliolopez has a lot of experience with this sock farm, which is likely Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/MFIreland. - BilCat (talk) 14:58, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

Thanks. Magnolia677 (talk) 18:06, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

yo are sysop? UserUSA (talk) 06:08, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

@UserUSA: No sorry, I'm not a sysop. Do you need help with something? - BilCat (talk) 06:18, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

Report this vandal: Thatace UserUSA (talk) 06:19, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

@UserUSA: I've issued a vandalism warning on the user's talk page, which is something that any user can do. If they continue to vandalize articles, more warnings can be issued, and eventually they may be blocked. - BilCat (talk) 06:28, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

I often wonder where you get your notions to revert useful edits. Case in point: Viktor Tolmachev is widely acknowledged as the "Lead Designer" or "Chief Designer" of the An-124 (and the An-225), and he is documented as such by reliable sources. The owners of the type certificate acknowledge him as such, and there doesn't appear to be any disagreement. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Santamoly (talk • contribs)

@Santamoly: Usually from the MOS or other guidelines. In this case, see Template:Infobox aircraft type/doc#Parameters: "designer: The person who designed the aircraft. Only appropriate for one-person designers, not project leaders or chief designers." Please note that I didn't remove it from the main text were you added it, and that was purposeful too. - BilCat (talk) 05:13, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

I saw it a while back, but I just lost the will to live. glad you fixed it BC. B.T.W that user name is a bit worrisome. Or maybe i'm being over-sensitive. Simon. Irondome (talk) 01:46, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

It's probably worth keeping an eye on, and see what they do. - BilCat (talk) 01:58, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

Copy that BC. See you around. Si. Irondome (talk) 02:00, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

Bill is fine. - BilCat (talk) 02:01, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

Glad we have clarified that after a mere 5 and-something years of good interaction Bill! :)

Simon. Irondome (talk) 02:06, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

Lol, Simon. Btw, if you need a good laugh, or just an eye roll, see this intelligent edit. - BilCat (talk) 02:15, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

Is that for real? I laugh when i'm hurting! LOL!! Simon. Irondome (talk) 02:24, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

I have NO idea what it is! - BilCat (talk) 02:29, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

I hope it doesn't mean that Wikipedia is now being used to set up "dates". The Feds might shut WP down!- BilCat (talk) 02:32, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

100 bucks? Accommodate? It must be code. We have stumbled on serious stuff here. Best we disappear. Hit-person stuff? I'm afraid now :) Edgar. (they will never find me if I change my name) Irondome (talk) 02:45, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

100 bucks is cheap for a hit. Must be to knock off a Klingon. Thanks Edgar, I'm Joshua (Sounds like a safe choice.) - BilCat (talk) 03:30, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

I thought you were done for the night otherwise I would have asked you before filing on WP:AIV Cheers Jim1138 (talk) 06:46, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

Forgot to mention strange editing on Byway (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Jim1138 (talk) 06:47, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

@Jim1138: I should have been done, but can't sleep yet. :) What he's doing isn't vandalism as far as I can tell, just an (apparently) new editor not doing a very good job of listening. He is skirting 3RR though. - BilCat (talk) 06:53, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

He definitely doesn't understand WP:N or BLP, nor 3RR either. - BilCat (talk) 07:00, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

I have to hand it to you. You have patience. I guess that's why you are an admin and I spend most of my time on huggle. Shall I remove that AIV posting? Cheers Jim1138 (talk) 07:15, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

Sorry, I'm not an admin, and not usually patient either! I have informed an admin, and requested they step in with some advice to Joe. We'll see if it helps. - BilCat (talk) 07:18, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

Well... FYI: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:Joe_V reported by User:Jim1138 (Result: ) Jim1138 (talk) 08:21, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

@Jim1138: I see he's been blocked now. Hopefully he'll start to listen, and become a productive editor. - BilCat (talk) 08:41, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

Time will tell. Cheers Jim1138 (talk) 23:40, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

...SKS, usual faked cites, tied to some unlikely (but barely possible) assertions. Anmccaff (talk) 16:54, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

@Anmccaff: @Berean Hunter: knows about this sock farm, and assuming he gets this ping soon, he should be able to take care of it. - BilCat (talk) 18:22, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

Thanks. Anmccaff (talk) 18:24, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

I blocked his range for three months. He may pop up in another that he frequented before though.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 20:51, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

Thanks, BH! - BilCat (talk) 02:05, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

"Hello, I'm BilCat. I wanted to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions to Tennessee Titans have been undone because they did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you think a mistake was made, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks. BilCat (talk) 17:44, 22 October 2017 (UTC)"

Sorry, BilCat; I've never edited anything on Wikipedia, I don't follow football, and I did it wouldn't be the Titans--I'm an East Tennessean so it's Vols, Dawgs, or Crimson Tide over here! No idea why my IP comes up for this edit.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.221.181.36 (talk)

It came up because someone else used the same IP at an earlier time than you. Your ISP evidently reuses IP addresses every few days. There was a note in italics just below my message that said the same thing in different words. If you didn't do it, feel free to ignore the message. Odds are the next time you use Wikipedia, you'll have another IP. Thanks. - BilCat (talk) 23:35, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

Hi, I think the images look best beside the TOC and both images fit well. The top picture is blocking the opening paragraph the way you want to do it. Thanks IQ125 (talk) 20:26, 29 October 2017 (UTC)

@IQ125: That is the way it's done on almost all articles, and it is recommended by WP:LEADORDER. If you believe there is a specific reason that it needs to be done differently on this article, you need to discuss that on the talk page and build a consensus to support your change first. As far as images fitting well, how the images fit will depend on an individual reader's settings, browser, screen size, etc. - BilCat (talk) 20:42, 29 October 2017 (UTC)

The order of 11 Su-35s for Indonesian Air Force was officially confirmed according to the reliable sources I provided in the article. The WP:AIROPS says nothing about that only signed orders should be placed in the "Operators" section, it says only "confirmed orders with likelihood of near-term production" what the Indonesian one obviously is. Therefore there's no reason why this deal shouldn't be mentioned in the "Operators" section.

When you look for example at the F-35 operators it contains many orders that are still in the phase "planned" i.e. weren't until now officially signed and no one see it as inappropriate there. BlackFlanker (talk) 18:25, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

(talk page stalker)

WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not a valid argument. "Future Operators" is a violation of WP:CRYSTAL. The text you need to apply from WP:AIROPS is:

• "Do not place potential operators in this section, only confirmed orders with likelihood of near-term production. Potential orders and interest by governments should be covered in the main text, either under "Development" or "Operational history", as fits best in the article."

Additionally, if you do not wish to see your references refuted as blogs, then you should not use the {{cite|blogs}} template. Scr★pIron^IV

This is in contradiction with what you claim because the deal is not a matter of something unclear or unofficial without any confirmations. Representatives of the both sides (Russia, Indonesia) confirmed their mutual agreement about the deal, the official price was revealed, better said what is Russia going to get for the 11 aircraft because 50% of the price will be paid in form of the exchange trade, how many aircraft was ordered and even a year when the deliveries of the aircraft should be finished. In other words, according to the released informations, Indonesia clearly moved from the "Potential operators" to the "Future operators" of the Su-35 and therefore shouldn't be listed as a potential operator anymore. BlackFlanker (talk) 20:52, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

I removed it from the Operators section because it said "The deal should be finally signed by end of the 2017." We can add to the Operators section when we have reliable sources that say it's been fully signed. - BilCat (talk) 21:35, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

I'm not totally sure but I'm pretty sure that Aurora XV-24 LightningStrike should be Aurora XV-24A LightningStrike because that's what the plane is going to be called according to aurora.aero Thanks Bacardi379 (talk) 02:41, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

@Bacardi379: The "A" is the series letter. The main designation is XV-24, and that's what we usually use for the article titles. The only time we include the series letter is if it's a variant article such as with the McDonnell Douglas F/A-18 Hornet and the Boeing F/A-18E/F Super Hornet. Thanks for starting the article. Good job. - BilCat (talk) 02:50, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

If you can keep an eye on Mitsubishi X-2 Shinshin, an IP has a couple of times added a note that the program was terminated on Halloween. They haven't sourced it and I didn't see anything with a quick Google (although I don't read Japanese, so), but if they're going to keep adding it without sourcing we're gonna have to keep on top of it. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 22:31, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

@The Bushranger: I've not been on-Wiki much today, but I'll certainly watch for it when I am. - BilCat (talk) 06:59, 4 November 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for all the thanks. I'm trying to move back all pages, but some require admin assistance. *sigh* Very frustrating when editors go rogue like this. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 22:11, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

@Another Believer: I have Page Mover rights, so I've moved Flag of Washington, D.C. back. Let me know if there are any others that you can't move, and I'll see if I can fix them too. - BilCat (talk) 22:16, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

Thanks! ---Another Believer _(Talk) 22:20, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

We all say this, or recognize it, but the damned things are generally truncated cones. I wonder if this has some deep shrinkological significance. Anmccaff (talk) 06:48, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

@Anmccaff: It's just a trash can/waste basket to me! :) - BilCat (talk) 12:26, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

Cylinders, cones, truncated cones are all circular. ;) Some technical literature calls these shells of revolution (or solids of revolution if filled). --Finlayson (talk) 14:56, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

The revolution will be filled with Kleenex. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 20:11, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Flag of the District of Columbia.. Since you had some involvement with the Flag of the District of Columbia. redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. GeoffreyT2000 ^{(talk, contribs)} 20:33, 22 November 2017 (UTC)

Hey BilCat, I hope you are doing well! I just started a discussion on weather the title used for the commander in chief of the U.S. Armed Forces should be President or Commander-in-Chief over at the U.S. Armed Forces page and would love you input! Talk:United States Armed Forces#Infobox: President vs. Commander-in-Chief Garuda28 (talk) 18:19, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

I request you to give protection to the Mangalore article and monitor it, regarding vandalism.
No Administrator is protecting this article and it could be delisted (removed) from the list of Featured Articles.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Featured_article_review#Mangalore 223.186.38.187 (talk) 08:47, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

Can you think of anywhere that might be a good place to merge Tupolev Tu-444, since that project died quietly, other than the company page? I considered the Tu-144 page in some sort of follow-up section, but that page is a hot mess... - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 21:11, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

Given that there are no sources whatsoever, I'd send it to AFD if nothing can be found. Perhaps it merits one sourced sentence in the company article. - BilCat (talk) 05:54, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

I managed to scratch together a couple of links and addeded it to Tupolev, redirecting now. The SSBJ just keeps seeming more and more like cold fusion - always available next Monday... - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 06:11, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

Given the vandalism on this page, do you think it would be worth it to try and protect it?Garuda28 (talk) 21:56, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

Yes. @The Bushranger:. - BilCat (talk) 23:51, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

You rang? Protected for a week. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:00, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

But one ping only, Vasily Thanks very much. - BilCat (talk) 01:55, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

Hi Bil, seems we've been dealing with the same IP editor, constantly reverting in the same edits to the same USN-related pages. I keep tagging his ip talk pages with the shared-ip tag, and they are all from China. All making the same edits to the same pages. One ip has been blocked, but that hasn't stopped him. I requested (and got) page protection for USS Tripoli (LHA-7) and USS Delbert D. Black. I'm sure he'll be back trying to editwar in the same edits to the same pages with another China-based IP address. We'll have to keep an eye on this. - ^theWOLFchild 03:12, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

Hi Bill, I hope you don't mind me reverting you. While the IP's edit summary was confusing, they were correct as the RAAF has never operated the A340 and isn't going to do so in the future. Some have been chartered for troop transport duties in the past (especially between Australia in the Middle East), but they were operated by civilian companies. Whoever added this may have been confused about the plans for the new VIP aircraft, which will be one or two of the A330 tanker transports, which are being fitted with VIP interiors (but will apparently mainly operate as tankers). Regards, Nick-D (talk) 10:05, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

No problem, Nick. I probably confused it with the A330 also when I reverted it. Thanks. - BilCat (talk) 20:22, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

I noticed that you removed my edits on the M240 regarding the Barrett 240LW and 240LWS. Instead of removing that information, can we work on to improve it instead? I do believe its a piece of information that is worth noting.

Can you cite me the policy that says this? I'd be grateful if you do. My understanding is that all policy on Wikipedia follows the same standard.--NadirAli نادر علی (talk) 19:45, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

Not sure why you did this but I've undone it. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 15:02, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

@NeilN: Because it was bad-faith trolling. See here for the same edits by a closely related IP that was subsequently blocked. I didn't comment in the revert per DNFT, as I assumed it was easy to follow the IP's edits and see why. I guess I assumed wrong. :) - BilCat (talk) 17:53, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

Hmmmm. Their concerns about MP 40 are strange but their points about sourcing on 8.8 cm Raketenwerfer 43 seem to be valid. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 18:05, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 17:39, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

Thanks, and a Merry Christmas to you and yours. - BilCat (talk) 17:54, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

Thx, & the same. TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 20:36, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

...to you and yours, from the Great White North! FWiW Bzuk (talk) 16:33, 24 December 2017 (UTC)

@Bzuk: Thanks, and Merry Christmas to you and yours also,from the Great Wet South. :) - BilCat (talk) 20:24, 24 December 2017 (UTC)

Hey, I was wondering if you would be willing to take a look at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Naval Space Command. I always appreciate your analysis and views. Have a great new year! Thanks! Garuda28 (talk) 18:07, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

BilCat:

    In the past i cited 2 of Lockheed Corporation's offical company histories as sources for edits, but you fired back to the effect that "corporate publications are often just propaganda".  
   When i cited a Lockheed corp history published by a retired USAF colonel, your retort was "those are just his opinions" & unofficial, so which do you require, please?  
    To be clear, you endorse a gross error & returned the Lockheed Corp page to include that error; there were no legal or business connections between Loughead founded in 1912 and Lockheed Aircraft Corporation (1932).  
    If you're unnaturally attached to Loughead/Lockheed (1912), then i respectfully demand that you limit the extant page to that particular company's activities; LAC (1932) & Lockheed Corporation (1977) were was not its successors.  Many of the latters' retirees are insulted by being associated with a defunct business which never employed or concerned them.
   Thank you.

JTF17A (talk) 05:22, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

Please discuss major changes to an article's scope on that article's talk page. Thanks. I'm not sure what "unnaturally attached to Loughead/Lockheed (1912)" is supposed to mean, but then you claim to know the wants of the current Lockheed's retirees. Perhaps you have a COI you need to declare? - BilCat (talk) 08:19, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

When there is not a specific day or days of an event then it has to be "in" not on because "on" is not used for a whole month. No source is needed for that; only common sense.2605:E000:9143:7000:E8FB:6638:6EFA:3185 (talk) 09:23, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

My bad - I reverted the wrong edit. Thanks for catching it. It should be fixed now. - BilCat (talk) 09:29, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

Hi. You submitted an SPI request regarding a possible IP sock of MFIreland. For evidence of your suspicion, you said "Typical edits of this sock."

Since the last recorded SPI case for MFIreland was 3-1/2 years ago (30 May 2014), I believe a bit more specific detail is called for here. Could you please update the SPI (at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/MFIreland) with some specific diffs which should make the connection clear between the editing behaviour of MFIreland (including that of his previously confirmed socks) and this new IP editor?

I respect that you believe the connection here is obvious, but it will not necessarily be obvious to others (including SPI clerks) who have not been following this individual as you apparently have.

This SPI has been placed on hold pending further details from you. If no additional information is forthcoming after several days, the SPI will be closed and no action will be taken. — Richwales (no relation to Jimbo) 05:59, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

Thanks. Will do. - BilCat (talk) 06:05, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

Hi. Just a gentle reminder. — Richwales (no relation to Jimbo) 18:36, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

Could you offer some help with the Chu XP-0 article? Apparently, there is some confusion regarding whether the correct designation for the aircraft is XP-0 or X-PO. I added a note to the talk page about it, but I may have caused some problems by attempting to fix it.

I think it's X-PO because when I Google XP-O I get the wiki page and nothing more, but when I Google X-PO I get a lot of pages. - ZLEA _Talk ^Contribs 18:12, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

Also, I came across the problem while looking through the contribution history of Blockhaj. You might want to check it out given his penchant for adding poorly cited information as you noted on the de Havilland Vampire article. –Noha307 (talk) 00:53, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

Are you able to identify (and name it on the image) the engine in these pictures? Very grateful if you might do that. Eddaido (talk) 21:37, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

No, sorry. You might ask at WT:AIR. - BilCat (talk) 00:02, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

Never seen anything like it, I'm doubting it's even an engine. - ZLEA _Talk ^Contribs 18:05, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

Heh. It appears we hit the rollback/restore buttons within seconds of each other. Since I picked "restore to previous version", it didn't warn me of your instants-before rollback. Tarl N. (discuss) 21:27, 4 February 2018 (UTC)

No worries. - BilCat (talk) 21:55, 4 February 2018 (UTC)

I want to nominate you for adminship, I think you would be a great admin. Would you be willing to accept? - ZLEA _Talk\^Contribs 21:14, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

ZLEA Wow, thanks very much, but I have to decline. Seeing the abuse some admins are taking, even the nicest and most thoughtful people such as Oshwah, lets me know I don't want any of that, as I tend to suffer fools (of which WP has many) very badly. - BilCat (talk) 23:33, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

Ok, I understand, keep up the good work though. - ZLEA _Talk\^Contribs 00:06, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

(Talk page stalker): Not to mention the character assassination you have to endure in the nomination process! - Ahunt (talk) 00:09, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

Amen to that. I've enough good editors slandered by hateful users at RfA, for which the crowd is only too eager to pile on. Several even left the project because of how they were treated at RfA, and I don't blame them one bit for leaving either. - BilCat (talk) 00:51, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

RfAs also tend to be like running for high school student council: Usually only the popular students will get voted in, and just a fraction of them are suited to the job. - BilCat (talk) 00:56, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

Back around 2007 or 08, there was a user who I had reverted on questionable or vandalistic edits. A few weeks later, much to my surprise, the user passed RfA and became an admin. Within a few days, the user was banned because he had bragged on another website that he was a long-term vandal who had become an administrator! - BilCat (talk) 01:13, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

Sounds about right to me. We need a new way to pick admins here that is less destructive. - Ahunt (talk) 02:28, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

Just so you know the information that I wrote on there is absolutely true considering a I'm a family member of one of the gold crew member and also the chief of the boat is a very close friend so the USS alabama is in the running for a third Battel E and this has been co,firmed to me by them and other officer who work on bangor Dcates63 (talk) 09:22, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

That counts as original research, which is not allowed on Wikipedia per Wikipedia:No original research. If you can reinforce your knowledge with references it would be great. - ZLEA _Talk\^Contribs 17:20, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

Hi Bill, Something that might interest you. I need to draw on your local knowledge. Please take a look at my comments on [:https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File_talk:View_near_Chattanooga_River_-_NARA_-_525017.jpg]. The title given to this image by the "National archives" is "View near Chattanooga River". I feel this image is misidentified in Wikimedia as Chattooga River, when it is in fact the river at Chatanooga, (the Tennessee River). If I'm right I'll pursue the "National Archives" people for verification, if not I'll let it go. What's your opinion? --BeckenhamBear (talk) 11:11, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

@BeckenhamBear: Sorry, I don't know. - BilCat (talk) 16:23, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

The Chattooga River is on opposite side of Georgia at the South Carolina line. It is supposed to have some of the best rapids in the Eastern US or at least that's what the rafting outfitters told us. -Finlayson (talk) 15:57, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

Hi. I'm thinking of nominating you for an RfA. You've been on Wikipedia for nine years, you are among the 400 most active Wikipedians of all time, and you have made 130,000 edits. I think you really should be an admin, given your experience and your edit count. Actually, when I visited your userpage, I was a little surprised to see that you weren't an admin. Thanks. L293D (✉) 21:38, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

Thank you very much, but see #RfA Nomination above for my previous decline. Those reasons still stand, but I do appreciate the thought. Thankfully, WP has created extended user rights such as Page Mover so that those of us with much experience, but whoese temperaments may not meet admin standards, can still exercise some of the admin tools. I'm satisfied with that at this point. - BilCat (talk) 23:24, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

Apolgoies, just a bit confused as to why you removed my edit on the Royal Marine Page. I believe it to be necessary that it’s shown that they are an “elite fighting force” as stated on the website, as well as being much more physically and mentally demanding roles than most infantry. Thank you. Moistone1 (talk) 02:03, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

I've seen that you've reversed my edition on the Cessna 408 article, in relation that the Harbin Y-12 is not comparable with the Cessna model, because they are not aircraft of the same era. Please take a look at Harbin_Y-12#Variants, because the "F" model is a recent development. Cheers Dura-Ace (talk) 10:23, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

It was not a test and I made an error in the edit. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Creeperwyd (talk • contribs) 17:16, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

That's a polite way of saying be more careful when you edit. - BilCat (talk) 18:51, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

Hey, is there any wikipedia policy against the "Badge of Honor" section at user talk:Pratikus? It seems not only contrary to the purpose of the user talk pages, but rather inflammatory and rude. Garuda28 (talk) 02:28, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

@Garuda28: Singling out users like that, especially for ridicule usually falls afoul of Wikipedia:No personal attacks and Wikipedia:Attack page. You could post at WP:ANI, or contact an admin that you trust to take you seriously, and be fair at the same time. If you don't know of such an admin, or if they seem to be offline, you could try User talk:Oshwah. He's generally very fair and helpful, and several other good admins watch his user page. You should get some good advice there. - BilCat (talk) 20:19, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

I would like to know why you removed the firearm section of the article. I have provided several sources in the article, yet you said that it requires reliable sources. Cal1407 (talk) 08:17, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for the edit, cleaning up my edit. My editing skills are weak. I just hope I did not run afoul of wiki etiquette. I just want to get my grandfather on Wiki. Because if I didn’t do it, I was afraid no one would’ve.

I see you’re an amazing editor. Thank you so much for being such a great contributor. beny (talk) 06:18, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

@Benyboy: You're very welcome. Wikipedia is a collaborative project, so we all help each other out. By the way, you need to read WP:COI, which is about how to handle a Conflict of Interest, as you're related to the person you were writing about. I didn't nsee anything that you added that violated the guidelines, but just be careful. When in doubt, post on an article's talk page, and someone should be able to help out. - BilCat (talk) 07:36, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

Yes. I should’ve read the COI first. I was “unaware of whether or how much it has influenced their(my) editing. And of course ‘talk page’ first. I thought I had mentioned on the talk page some time ago but apparently I hadn’t. Thanks. beny (talk) 08:16, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

It's unclear what you think is incorrect about linking the list of macaronic languages to the article on macaronic languages. Largoplazo (talk) 02:24, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

@Largoplazo: Per WP:BOLDAVOID, bolded titles aren't supposed to be linked. - BilCat (talk) 02:28, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

I can't figure it out and now I'm curious. What does DCNFT mean? Best wishes, Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 05:30, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

@Clayoquot: It's supposed to be DNFT. Thanks, I'll fix it. - BilCat (talk) 08:05, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

Hi!

I just want to say that I accidentally published an article, it was supposed to be in my sandbox, though. I hope you'll understand.

Thank you!

ClaydeRicochet (talk) 04:41, 22 March 2018 (UTC)ClaydeRicochet ClaydeRicochet (talk) 04:41, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

It's OK. God bless. - BilCat (talk) 07:53, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

Hello. I have reverted your CSD-tag since the redirect is there to block further undiscussed moves, because unless WP have made recent changes to their system the dummy edit I made (which technically wasn't a dummy edit since I aded a dot) would prevent ordinary users from moving the page to that name again (it has been moved twice today...). - Tom | Thomas.W ^talk 20:12, 25 March 2018 (UTC)

I was hoping he'd learned his lesson by now, but I understand your reasoning. Also, are non-admins allowed to remove CSD tags? I didn't think they were. - ~~

I've seen it done before, I also feel I had a good reason for doing it... - Tom | Thomas.W ^talk 20:25, 25 March 2018 (UTC)

Care to weigh in on https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Expeditionary_Strike_Group#Requested_move_30_March_2018? Thanks! Holy (talk) 17:32, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

@HolyT: No thanks. HRH TWC is opposed to it, so the discussion will drag on and on until he gets his way, or the discussion stalls out as no consensus. Not my idea of fun. - BilCat (talk) 20:26, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

Thanks. I understand. However, I am optimistic. I've seen many similar changes occur that he was opposed to. There are good folks out there who understand this issue and make the necessary changes. Cheers! Holy (talk) 21:08, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

No worries. Hopefully it will get moved. It just makes my life a little less stressful if I stay out of discussions where he is involved. - BilCat (talk) 21:11, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

I have filed an ANI against User:MoldyOne is you care to comment.--RAF910 (talk) 16:57, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

@RAF910: Thanks. I'm going out for a while, but I'll check on it when I get back home. - BilCat (talk)

@RAF910: Ugh!! I'll sit that one out. That's the worst case of IDHT that I've seen inlong time, and I really don't anything I can add that you haven't already said. Thanks. - BilCat (talk) 01:09, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

I'm done too. He'll get himself blocked or voted off the island soon. Please see my comments on User talk:Ian.thomson I might be wrong, who knows.--RAF910 (talk) 01:16, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

I don't think they are the same user, but the other one certainly isn't a newbie. - BilCat (talk) 01:29, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

@RAF910: User:TintedFate has been blocked as a sock of User:NecrozmaSpin. This was confirmed by checkuser, so User:MoldyOne likely is not related. - BilCat (talk) 14:08, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

I really don't anything I can add that you haven't already said -- If you had just said that on the article page, it would have indicated some kind of consensus days ago. Instead, there were only two editors on the talk page to judge consensus from (which isn't an option if they're not finding a middle ground). Then RAF910 mentions the discussion on this page (the quote in particular), which would have been relevant. But no, apparently no one here actually cares about establishing consensus on the talk page, so I'm not going to try any further. Ian.thomson (talk) 23:12, 7 April 2018 (UTC)

@Ian.thomson: Consensus isn't a vote. Please drop the stick and stop flogging me. - BilCat (talk) 23:30, 7 April 2018 (UTC)

Hey, you left me a message on my talk page (thanks!). My edit wasn't a test at all, I just thought it made more sense to present separately. It may technically be an expansion, but it's literally just uncovering the third tier, which is what my edit tried to show. If you don't think so, I'm just curious as to why. Thanks! theZcuber (talk) 03:48, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

@TheZcuber: I didn't notice that part, which is my bad. What I did see was that you somehow added "thttps://pbs.twimg.com/media/DaHa86qVAAAgrP7.jpg:largeitle" in the middle of a reference in the infobox. What that supposed to be the reference for your info, or just some stray text? It happens to the best of us sometimes, so don't worry, as we can fix it. - BilCat (talk) 05:48, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

@BilCat: Be damned if I know. I'll redo the edit without that stray bit. theZcuber (talk) 20:24, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

@TheZcuber: No problem. By the way, you don't need to ping a person on their own talk page, as the software automatically notices ma person when new messages are left on their talk page. - BilCat (talk) 02:13, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

Hey, I just wanted you to know that I really like the "not retired" banner across the top. Maybe others use it, but I haven't seen it. Don't you think you should add a "not semi-retired" one too?--Bbb23 (talk) 20:30, 15 April 2018 (UTC)

Thanks, but one is probably enough! - BilCat (talk) 20:35, 15 April 2018 (UTC)

Hi. Yes, I too noted the self-confidence of User:RAN Web Manager at Royal Australian Navy. S/he's done similar at Military history of Australia during the War in Afghanistan. I'll be watching with interest. Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 07:38, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

Been blocked, see User talk:RAN Web Manager. - Ahunt (talk) 13:21, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

Hi BilCat. I wonder could you take a look at Special:Contributions/Sadiedens? Many thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:57, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

I've been watching him. He's been around the block before, but I'm not sure who as. - BilCat (talk) 22:35, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

The complete Talk page blanking looked a tad suspicious. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:38, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

Yup. The insertion of a blank line in an unnecessary place near the top of the page is a hallmark of a prolific Ireland-based IP sockfarm, though the articles aren't his usual ones. It might be a meatpuppet or padawan of the sockmaster. - BilCat (talk) 23:31, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

Ah yes, that's near Sligo, isn't it? Martinevans123 (talk) 10:15, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

I'd like to inquire on how you find listing the Demo Team's members as not notable? There is a good percentage of people that find that information pertinent. I could agree with not listing maintenance and logistics personnel, but I do believe that the identities of the pilots and the command flight deserve to be noted. Fhsig13 (talk) 16:53, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

@Fhsig13: See the response at Talk:Snowbirds#Current Squadron Members. If you have more questions about that article, please ask there, and I'll try to address them. - BilCat (talk) 22:07, 4 May 2018 (UTC)