User talk:BilCat/archive25

Redundant article about Argentine Army Aviation

Happy 2023! Sorry just saw the note in my user page that you left on 03-Dec-2021. The article "Army Aviation Command (Argentina)" is newer and was created probably without checking that the older "Argentine Army Aviation" article existed and covered the same topic more extensively. IMHO, any useful content from the newer article should be merged into "Argentine Army Aviation", and then the newer can remain as a redirect to the older. Hope you're ok with the suggested approach; happy to do the changes myself. Please let me know your thoughts. Regards, DPdH (talk) 05:04, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

Don't give them any ideas

[1] My generation will one day be in charge of the military, and I could honestly see them naming a 7th generation stealth fighter the F-🥷. - ZLEA _T\^C 00:46, 2 February 2023 (UTC)

Sorry, the symbol after "F-" doesn't show on my browser/tablet, so I have no idea what it is. (I'll look on my laptop later.) I've always loved aircraft designation systems, but whoever is running the designations office in the Air Force of late evidently has no clue what a system is! "3" comes after "2", not "21"! In the past, they honored past aircraft types by adding a "II" after the name. Now they add a "K" after the last used designation, A-1J. Stupid. Supposedly they wanted to honor the A-1 and O-1. They should have named it the "SkyDog" then, not play games with designations! BilCat (talk) 01:03, 2 February 2023 (UTC)

At least the Navy knows what they're doing with the recent addition of the T-54. If only the Air Force could count. - ZLEA _T\^C 01:13, 2 February 2023 (UTC)

Yup. And don't get me started on the "T-6 Texan II"! BilCat (talk) 01:17, 2 February 2023 (UTC)

Good to see your datestamp

Happy to see we're both still alive and kicking. BusterD (talk) 02:19, 2 February 2023 (UTC)

Same to you! BilCat (talk) 02:22, 2 February 2023 (UTC)

Flight 191 (disambiguation)

Hi, This is a redirect. Could you tell me what the point to link to this page instead of the target Flight 191? Thanks, Yann (talk) 08:21, 3 February 2023 (UTC)

Sorry, I meant to remove the whole link. It's already linked in the hatnote at the top of the page. BilCat (talk) 08:57, 3 February 2023 (UTC)

And for [2]? Yann (talk) 10:40, 3 February 2023 (UTC)

Intentional DAB links. BilCat (talk) 15:14, 3 February 2023 (UTC)

Mercedes-Benz Stadium

Hi there.There have been a few single-purpose editors lately adding upcoming concert listings to various stadiums. I've been removing them, per WP:NOTPROMO, without any pushback yet. WP:CRYSTAL does permit listing upcoming "notable" events, but a single concert is not notable. I'd start a discussion at Wikipedia:WikiProject Event Venues/Sports task force, where an easy fix would be a guideline suggesting that only past concerts be listed, but the project is inactive. Cheers! Magnolia677 (talk) 11:00, 14 February 2023 (UTC)

I'd love to get rid of all the concert cruft. Most of them are run-of-the-mill, and thus not notable. But like pop-culture appearances, it's something that's easy for anyone to add, and hard to get rid of. I'll keep an eye out for more of these future events being added. BilCat (talk) 18:32, 14 February 2023 (UTC)

Sorry

I am sorry if I got too inquisitive in the talk page for the Nimitz class carrier's, I just got curious about the variations in their dimensions.--The Space Enthusiast (talk) 06:27, 19 February 2023 (UTC)

Ship numbers

Sorry about that, I'd already copied it over to the other page. - wolf 22:16, 23 February 2023 (UTC)

Please don't move my comments again like that. You don't, and didn't, have my permission to edit my comments, or to move them. BilCat (talk) 23:12, 23 February 2023 (UTC)

You're right of course, hence the apology and explanation. Next time I will ask first. Have a good day - wolf 23:14, 23 February 2023 (UTC)

Beat you to it

I think you can cross this one off your list. - ZLEA _T\^C 22:45, 25 February 2023 (UTC)

Thanks! BilCat (talk) 00:50, 26 February 2023 (UTC)

Heads up

It seems an old friend of yours is at it again. I've reported them to WP:AIV, but we should keep an eye out for any sockpuppets which may pop up. - ZLEA _T\^C 17:26, 4 March 2023 (UTC)

I didn't think it possible, but he's getting worse! BilCat (talk) 18:53, 4 March 2023 (UTC)

My favorite line: "I wanna say I stopped the conspiracy, by calling it out, like a mad man." (Emphasis added.) Uh huh. BilCat (talk) 19:16, 4 March 2023 (UTC)

Reads like this or a good approximation. - Ahunt (talk) 19:17, 4 March 2023 (UTC)

The AIV request was turned down, but another admin discovered an old defamatory comment in the user's userpage talk history, and deleted it and blocked the user. BilCat (talk) 20:10, 4 March 2023 (UTC)

So that got the job done at least. - Ahunt (talk) 20:37, 4 March 2023 (UTC)

I was a bit surprised at Bbb23's response, as I specifically reported Eyob83 as an "evidently vandalism-only account". Luckily, we didn't have to wait for more disruption to act again. - ZLEA _T\^C 21:22, 4 March 2023 (UTC)

I understand by Bbb23 declined, but looking at the account's history it appeared to me that they were better off not editing Wikipedia. The less said the better. Acroterion (talk) 21:27, 4 March 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for the block. I did see the comment on the user page, so I'm glad you deleted it. BilCat (talk) 22:27, 4 March 2023 (UTC)

Your draft article, Draft:Advancing Blade Concept

Hello, BilCat. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or draft page you started, "Advancing Blade Concept".

In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been nominated for deletion. If you plan on working on it further, or editing it to address the issues raised if it was declined, simply and remove the {{db-afc}}, {{db-draft}}, or {{db-g13}} code.

If your submission has already been deleted by the time you get there, and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion by following the instructions at this link. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia! Hey man im josh (talk) 13:32, 6 March 2023 (UTC)

@Hey man im josh: Uh, thanks. I got you message at 9:43 AM EST. The draft was deleted at 9:43 AM EST. This is ridiculous. From now on, I'm going to keep my drafts in userspace. I've been keeping them in draftspace to let others work on them if they want to, but most of the time that doesn't happen anyway. Can you please restore the draft to my userspace? Thanks. BilCat (talk) 14:51, 6 March 2023 (UTC)

Hey @BilCat: I'm sorry but I'm not an administrator so I cannot complete this request for you. You'll have to head over to WP:REFUND. Please be aware that if you do add the AfC submission template to drafts in user space they will still be eligible for G13 deletion. Hey man im josh (talk) 14:59, 6 March 2023 (UTC)

I'm an experienced article creator, and my drafts don't need to be reviewed, as I'm competent enough to make that judgement myself. I'm sorry you're not an admin in this case, as you're now making more work for me. Thanks for nothing! BilCat (talk) 15:04, 6 March 2023 (UTC)

@BilCat: I agree your drafts don't need to be reviewed, it's part of why you have the autopatrolled user permission. I'm sorry you feel like I'm creating more work for you but had I not procedurally tagged the page then the article still would have been deleted at some point today (most likely by Liz) due to having not been edited in 6 months and existing in the draft namespace. I mentioned the submission template not because I think your articles need to be reviewed, but because it's clear you don't want your drafts deleted. Hey man im josh (talk) 15:26, 6 March 2023 (UTC)

Thanks. I'm just irritated at the current draft system, and that's not your fault. My apologies. BilCat (talk) 15:29, 6 March 2023 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) I'm having some difficulty with the draft system too... I tried in vain to recreate the draft and move it to your userspace, BilCat. But, anyway, I've recreated it as a draft and removed the speedy template. You'd better move it yourself, as soon as possible, before it has another, uh, accident. Bishonen | tålk 15:37, 6 March 2023 (UTC).

Thanks, and moved. I'm not sure why you couldn't move it by I could, un!ess we edit-conflicted. BilCat (talk) 15:39, 6 March 2023 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Oh.. I see you have moved it to Draft:User:User:BilCat/Advancing Blade Concept. Hmm. Not ideal. Bishonen | tålk 15:40, 6 March 2023 (UTC).

Very likely a result of you and me doing stuff simultaneously! I see you've got it in the right place now. Bishonen | tålk 15:45, 6 March 2023 (UTC).

No, I just wasn't paying enough attention, and didn't get enough sleep either! BilCat (talk) 15:50, 6 March 2023 (UTC)

Would you mind...

Hi there. Would you mind having a look at these edits. There's lot of them, and I'm not sure they are an improvement. Thanks! Magnolia677 (talk) 19:55, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

Sorry, that's more than I want to get into. I usually ignore coordinates anyway, as it's something certain types of people can get all worked up over, but in the end it's really useless information, in my opinion. As to the rest, adding the town crap seems totally useless. Is there a project somewhere that deals with that? It might also be a MOS violation. BilCat (talk) 20:34, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

None of the projects are very active. I contact an admin and the edits were reverted. Cheers! Magnolia677 (talk) 22:44, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

Ok, good. BilCat (talk) 22:47, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

User talk:Anna Frodesiak

Thanks for reverting the edit on Anna's page. Your revert turned up on my watchlist, so I was able to block and revdel quickly. Bishonen | tålk 11:50, 15 March 2023 (UTC).

No problem. Thanks for the block and revdel. That was certainly creepy. BilCat (talk) 17:57, 15 March 2023 (UTC)

For welcoming a new user. Thanks!

		The Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar
		message Burk2022 (talk) 19:20, 15 March 2023 (UTC)

You're most welcome! BilCat (talk) 00:25, 17 March 2023 (UTC)

Concert Reverting

I don't understand why the concerts are being reverted since they are confirmed for this year. There's references to the 2026 World Cup on the same page and the 2025 College Championship. So can't we fill out what's happening this year? I don't want to cause trouble, just want to complete the page.

Remember the fighter "generations" debate

It was all "should we acknowledge the existence of 'fighter generations' when no one agrees and it is just 'marketing crap' anyway?" Finally we said, "well, since there are sources, I guess..." And where did that decision lead us to? This. - Ahunt (talk) 11:53, 21 March 2023 (UTC)

A Passing Remark from a Vaguely Interested Bystander.

Er. `This' to which you link is about light aircraft - nothing at all to do with military aviation - and is in any case just an advert for an aircraft made with a proprietary manufacturing technology (not to mention being grotesquely wrong here and there). So: neither relevant to the matter in hand, nor a WP:RS even if it were.

Not that I wish to get involved in a discussion of 'fighter generations'. But: it does strike me that I've read plenty of stuff on the subject indicating that some informed people do agree (even if agreement is far from unanimous), so suggesting otherwise isn't very sensible.

After all, there are clear 'generational' distinctions between, e.g., wood and wire biplanes, (mostly) metal cantilever monoplanes, early gun armed jet powered kit, more advanced weapon system types of jet powered kit. And so on.

Michael F 1967 (talk) 20:37, 21 March 2023 (UTC)

They have main battle tank generations too. BilCat (talk) 20:43, 21 March 2023 (UTC)

User:Michael F 1967: You missed my point. I was not trying to show that link as some sort of RS, but rather as evidence that now that we have accepted the "fighter generations" marketing claims, we are seeing more marketing claims in other areas of aviation and beyond. We opened Pandora's box there. Next I expect to see "fifth generation chewing gum". - Ahunt (talk) 20:55, 21 March 2023 (UTC)

Yup. I prefer that third-gen gum though. BilCat (talk) 21:06, 21 March 2023 (UTC)

My main point was that not all such claims are down to marketing, and the ones which are down to marketing are easy to spot and discount.

Marketing people will always exploit anything they can, so why worry about it?

Another point is that accepting considered remarks about the development of technology from informed, disinterested writers (where the notion of 'fighter generations' came from, as I understand it) has no effect on anything beyond the development of language.

Anyway: some things matter while others don't, much.

Michael F 1967 (talk) 21:20, 21 March 2023 (UTC)

Jamaican Patois

Sorry BilCat but you're wrong. First of all, yes, Jamaicans refer to the language as "Patois" or "Patwa(h)", but that's a name, and patois is not that. The very awkward "also used as a lower-case noun as a catch-all description" already indicates that the term you wiki-linked is NOT the language called Jamaican Patois: "patois" is not "Patois", and Patois is not a patois.

Moreover, saying "as the text states "patois" can include creoles" really doesn't help. First, Wikipedia is not a reliable source for Wikipedia, as you know, and second, the history of the article shows that the reference (Vellupillai 481) did not always verify both the "patois" bit and the statement about prestige. In fact, the history shows, as in this version, that there were three references for all the material before the "prestige" sentence. I don't know when that paragraph was shortened and the clumsy "as a lower-case noun" was introduced, but it conflates the difference between the proper name of the language and the term "patois". Let's face it: if "Patois" in "Jamaicans refer to their language as Patois" links to anything, it should link to Jamaican Patois. And I also don't know when "a catch-all description of pidgins, creoles, dialects, and vernaculars worldwide" was introduced, but reading the history it seems clear that it was added long after the Vellupillai 481 reference was there, and it is not found elsewhere in the article--in other words, it's original research. Sorry, but I strongly disagree with that edit. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 15:39, 21 March 2023 (UTC)

This is better discussed on the article's talk page, or even at Talk:Patois, so others can participate. BilCat (talk) 20:41, 21 March 2023 (UTC)

TF X Phot Change

Dude I change TF X Photo because Prototype photo exist? Why you changed again? Prove: https://twitter.com/IsmailDemirSSB/status/1636779762973655063 There is man our Defence Industry President???? Prove: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Defence_Industry_Agency (In List of Presidents) And I changed our country name Turkey to Türkiye. Because we changed our country name too? Prove: https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2023/jan/05/us-turkey-spelling-turkiye-country Snappy275 (talk) 03:59, 22 March 2023 (UTC)

All photos posted to commons have to be properly licensed, either copyright free or a compatible licence. We cannot assume photos are not copyrighted. That's a legal issue. As to "Turkey", Wikipedia uses the most common name in English. When and if the article on Turkey is moved to Türkiye, then English Wikipedia will start to use that spelling, but not before. BilCat (talk) 04:11, 22 March 2023 (UTC)

Concert listings

You and I have discussed concert listings at User talk:BilCat/archive25#Mercedes-Benz Stadium. There is a discussion about this at Talk:SoFi Stadium#user @Magnolia677 removing concerts. Cheers. Magnolia677 (talk) 09:58, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

Bombardier Challenger 300

Hey, @BilCat, thanks! I don't know airplane articles at all and was hoping someone watching the page would know whether that was an actual helpful addition. :) Valereee (talk) 11:30, 26 March 2023 (UTC)

Rochester Airfield naming

Dear, allow me to welcome your thoughts about the naming of Rochester Airfield; I added a comment on the relevant talk page Talk:Rochester Airport (Kent) and was looking forward to your chiming in. Jan olieslagers (talk) 18:17, 29 March 2023 (UTC)]

Replied there. BilCat (talk) 21:03, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

You've got mail

Hello, BilCat. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template. Martianman64 (talk) 04:32, 22 March 2023 (UTC)

Hello! I have sent you an email regarding the Republic of the Rio Grande flag. I have found a primary source which I think is much more authoritative than the dissertation I originally cited.

I sent you a reply on the Canberra entry. Here is the source. I thought I had put On Target Aviation as the source for this: "On 24th February 1972 WT333 returned to Pershore and for further development work, she was fitted with the cockpit of Canberra B.2 WK135 by RRE technicians. This work resulted in the loss of the B(I)8s distinctive offset fighter style cockpit canopy, along with a much longer nose being grafted on." Anyone who knows Canberras knows that the cockpit of the B(I)8 and B.2 are entirely different. This B(I)8's cockpit was replaced by a B.2 cockpit. https://on-target-aviation.com/heritage/canberra-wt333-history/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.162.94.16 (talk) 16:19, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

Maresal edit reverting

Hi, can I ask what your problem is? Why do you keep reverting my (pretty minor) Maresal edit? The two very vague and questionable reasons you gave were:

"Unsourced, possible POV" -As I explained, my edit consisted of three words which clearly didn't need citations to verify a Czech machine gun is Czech. Not POV either.

"still.not needed here" -Who are you to decide what is needed and what isn't, this is a free encyclopedia where everyone is free to contribute information relevant to the topic. The section was talking about the Czech machine guns with no mention of them being Czech, I added the relevant information that the machine gun is Czech and you're removing it with no real explanation. Either stop being annoying, or give an actual explanation as to why I can't mention that a Czech machine gun is Czech. Victory799 (talk) 00:27, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

I'm an editor here like everyone else. Please stop adding minor, useless info. If you disagree, per WP:BRD, raise it on the article's talk page and convince others it's important. BilCat (talk) 00:36, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

It makes absolutely no sense that you remove blatantly true information from an online encyclopedia, first justifying it with "it's unsourced, so probably false", then when you realise that won't work, you switch to "well it is 'useless' information so I must remove it 3 times". You could literally argue any information is useless. This is an encyclopedia; any information relevant to content in the article, no matter how small of a detail, should be welcome, not removed instantly! To me, it seems like you really don't want this information in the article; why else would you get rid of extra information 3 times unless you have some reason to not want anyone else to hear about it? If you truly thought it is just 'minor details', you would either have left it on there or just reverted it once. Victory799 (talk) 19:37, 1 April 2023 (UTC)

WP:INDISCRIMINATE outlines why this isn't always the case. As just one other example, 'criminal use' sections are also avoided except under specific circumstances, which should help to demonstrate that something being verifiable does not always equate to it being a necessary addition to an article. Loafiewa (talk) 19:57, 1 April 2023 (UTC)

Exactly. BilCat (talk) 21:10, 1 April 2023 (UTC)

Revdel requests

Hi,

Thanks for tagging the copvios for revdel. I noticed that your starting revision on 3 of the 4 that I handled just now were off by one. These were one revision too early. I know some editors use a script to help fill the revdel template. If you do, there might be a bug in it. -- Whpq (talk) 01:53, 4 April 2023 (UTC)

Can you tell me which one was correct? (See your talk page for my comments, and reply to wherever is more convinient for you.) BilCat (talk) 01:58, 4 April 2023 (UTC)

R-13/F404

Hi Bilcat, Just check the power of those engines by yourself, the original and the final after upgrade, and the reliability, we are speaking about parallel at 99% (I suppose they did some kind og copy-paste, or call it "reversal engineering", from captured untis/partners) (it is so marked, that you can call them even the original 44 power). It's something you can check yourself, if you want to keep the info (at least curous, who copy first,... do it) --80.108.129.55 (talk) 10:08, 4 April 2023 (UTC)

Are you trying to claim that the F404, a turbofan, is a copy of the R13, a turbojet? You'll definitely need a reliable source for that claim. BilCat (talk) 18:58, 4 April 2023 (UTC)

Bullpup

Hi there! Yes, you're mistaken. I had linked to the German language page of the firearm in question. In fact, English wikipedia is the only major language that lacks the page for M.SS41. — Preceding unsigned comment added by HomoRedditus (talk • contribs) 09:43, 12 April 2023 (UTC)

Barnstar

{{subst:The Working Wikipedian's Barnstar|1= Hello, it seems your edits on Wikipedia are very civil and have helped control vandalism! BillClinternet (talk) 21:59, 17 April 2023 (UTC)}}

Whoops! -

{{subst:The Working Wikipedian's Barnstar|1=message Your contributions on wikipedia have been civil and have helped control vandalism. |2= -}}

BillClinternet (talk) 22:01, 17 April 2023 (UTC)

I don't know what's going on. Sorry, I will fix this later. BillClinternet (talk) 22:02, 17 April 2023 (UTC)

I am SINCERELY sorry for that mishap.

{{subst:The Barnstar of Diligence|1= You have done an amazing job with editing and this award is being given to you for your anti-vandalism actions. BillClinternet (talk) 22:07, 17 April 2023 (UTC)}}

{{subst:The Barnstar of Diligence|1= You have done an amazing job with editing and this award is being given to you for your anti-vandalism actions.}}

I am actually sorry,

BillClinternet (talk) 22:08, 17 April 2023 (UTC)

I am sorry for this all, I have tried to many times to do this and it keeps failing.

Thank you for your actions in anti-vandalism.

Truly sorry,

BillClinternet (talk) 22:10, 17 April 2023 (UTC)

Need a hand with that? How about: - Ahunt (talk) 22:16, 17 April 2023 (UTC)

		The Barnstar of Diligence
		You have done an amazing job with editing and this award is being given to you for your anti-vandalism actions.

IWI Tavor TAR

I've re-read the whole discussion regarding the name for the IWI Tavor TAR and no one has provided a definitive proof as to why this rifle shouldn't be named 'IWI Tavor TAR'. The rebuttal mentioned about Hebrew blog posts is about the IDF and their designation of the rifle. Blog posts are not always accurate. Name of firearms should always be named after on how their manufacture names them, and not by blog posts made by a third party source. AA Quantum already tried to move this page before and I agree with him.

If you take a look at iwi.net and iwi.us both websites refers to it the Tavor TAR. The Tavor TAR is like the G36 for example. G36 being the standard rifle, then it spawned other variants such as the 'G36K, G36C, MG36'. As for this rifle, Tavor TAR is the standard rifle and other variants that came out of it are 'Tavor CTAR, Tavor GTAR, Tavor STAR, Tavor SAR'. Later on other derivatives were made such as the 'Tavor X95, Tavor-7'. As you can see leaving it as 'IWI Tavor' is ambiguous and is incorrect.

I strongly urge you to revert the name of the article mentioned, back to the name 'IWI Tavor TAR' Guns & Glory (talk) 13:48, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) @Guns & Glory I strongly urge you to open a proper WP:RM#CM discussion. a!rado🦈 (C✙T) 14:19, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

I open a new topic regarding the move request on its talk page. But I still don't know how to use those commands yet. Can you help me out? If you go to the IWI's website you would agree that calling it as 'IWI Tavor' is wrong. I don't understand why you're being hard on this issue. There's already another editor that agrees with me with this. I don't understand why there still need to be a discussion. It's not like YOU are the one who made this rifle, that you can dictate what the name should be. IWI calls it as Tavor TAR. Guns & Glory (talk) 15:15, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

My main objection to your move is procedural, but also because other names have been suggested for the article in the previous discussions. I can help you set up a proper RM. BilCat (talk) 16:56, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

Looks like User:Arado Ar 196 took care of the RM stuff. Thanks Arado! BilCat (talk) 17:52, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

T-6 Texan LTA

Hi Bil, a few hours ago I made a report on AIV regarding the T-6 Texan LTA, but was asked to give further information. Would you happen to know the name of the sockpuppetry/LTA casepage for this person? Cheers. Loafiewa (talk) 17:45, 29 April 2023 (UTC)

I never created an SPA or LTA casepage for this LTA, and to my knowledge, there aren't any. (Paperwork has never been my strong suit, even without paper!) I usually go directly to User:Ponyo if they hit an article more than twice over a few days, and she handles any page protection as necessary (except on weekends when she's usually offline). This LTA almost never uses the same IP more than twice, so page protection is generally the only way to handle it. There's not much else that can be done except to hope they eventually get bored, or actually take a college-level English course and realize English is a complex language with many legitimate varieties, and that the so-called "rules" don't always fit real-world usage. BilCat (talk) 18:02, 29 April 2023 (UTC)

Alright, thanks. If they never use it more than twice, then I guess AIV wasn't even necessary to begin with. Loafiewa (talk) 20:05, 29 April 2023 (UTC)

Not generally, but sometimes they do every once in a while. Such is their game of Whac-a-Mole. BilCat (talk) 20:07, 29 April 2023 (UTC)

Concern regarding Draft:Navy Air Combat Fighter

Hello, BilCat. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:Navy Air Combat Fighter, a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Drafts that have not been edited for six months may be deleted, so if you wish to retain the page, please edit it again or request that it be moved to your userspace.

If the page has already been deleted, you can request it be undeleted so you can continue working on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. FireflyBot (talk) 11:48, 2 May 2023 (UTC)

Worry not, I have reset the clock. USS Cola!rado🇺🇸 (C⭐T) 12:10, 2 May 2023 (UTC)

Concern regarding Draft:TsAGI 1-EA

Hello, BilCat. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:TsAGI 1-EA, a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Drafts that have not been edited for six months may be deleted, so if you wish to retain the page, please edit it again or request that it be moved to your userspace.

If the page has already been deleted, you can request it be undeleted so you can continue working on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. FireflyBot (talk) 18:02, 2 May 2023 (UTC)

Apology

I apologize for my unkind comment in reverting your reversion of my unsourced change. I should have made the source of the change clear. 16052022m (talk) 23:16, 3 May 2023 (UTC)

Thanks, I appreciate the apology. I felt it was blunt, but not rude or unkind. (And I hadn't seen it yet either!) And yes, it is best to make your source clear in such cases. I'm fairly strict on such reverts, usually reverting without checking the source, even when it's available online. My reasoning is that the editor can always revert me if they did check the source, as you did. I do sometimes check the sources first, but in most cases, especially with IPs, the claim isn't in the cited source. (When it's not available online, I usually revert without reservation, as I assume the user more than likely doesn't have access to the source either.) BilCat (talk) 00:15, 4 May 2023 (UTC)

Link to baseball steak in baseball See also section

Hi, @BilCat.

Why "unrelated?"

The steak is named after the baseball, and, as far I understand MOS:SEEALSO, it's an appropriate thing. Evilfreethinker (talk) 21:50, 8 May 2023 (UTC)

It's not a sport or something directly related to baseball. I've moved it to Baseball (disambiguation) instead. BilCat (talk) 21:53, 8 May 2023 (UTC)

Okay, thanks. Evilfreethinker (talk) 22:10, 8 May 2023 (UTC)

You're welcome. BilCat (talk) 22:16, 8 May 2023 (UTC)

UPS Airlines move

How do I provide a source for a move? SurferSquall (talk) 23:42, 12 May 2023 (UTC)

You provide a.source for the name in the article somewhere. However, since the move has been contested, you also need to cite a source for the name change im your RM proposal on the talk page. As far as I can tell, UPS Air Cargo is the brand of UPS's air cargo business, not the name of the airline. BilCat (talk) 23:48, 12 May 2023 (UTC)

Happy Vay-cay

Dude, you should just switch off for the whole week and chillax, if you can (jmho). Either way, have a nice time! (btw- my tshirt size of XL.) Cheers - wolf 05:04, 8 May 2023 (UTC)

Thanks. I'm just visiting my sister in a small-midsize city. No special t-shirts there, sorry. BilCat (talk) 05:24, 8 May 2023 (UTC)

I should have taken your advice. My opinion clearly wasn't needed anyway! BilCat (talk) 06:12, 14 May 2023 (UTC)

British Airways fleet

Any chance you can take a look at this article? I'm banging my head against a brick wall with plane spotters and frankly I'm not going to fight and go 3RR. Perhaps you could take a look and intervene with a sensible solution? 10mmsocket (talk) 19:30, 22 May 2023 (UTC)

Violeta Zü

Something odd going on with the edits, that you recently rolled back, by Violeta Zü (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). All three of them were to templated parameter values near the top of the article. Should we report it, maybe as a suspected bot?

As an aside, why do I get the feeling that AI propaganda bots will soon be invading our editorial community in volume? "The encyclopedia that any AI can edit"?

— Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 06:51, 23 May 2023 (UTC)

I just thought it was some kind of test/vandalism. You can ask at WP:AN and see if others have seen edits like that. BilCat (talk) 07:05, 23 May 2023 (UTC)

X-65 CRANE

DARPA announced the assignment of the X-65 designation to the CRANE program on May 15th of this year. Sources [3] and [4]. Should I include link in the edit summary next time? MestskyVlk (talk) 20:09, 25 May 2023 (UTC)

Yes please. BilCat (talk) 20:35, 25 May 2023 (UTC)

@MestskyVlk, if, by chance, you want to write X-65 CRANE article, I have uploaded a picture of her (it was tweeted by DARPA, so it's in public domain). Comrade a!rado🇷🇺 (C🪆T) 06:50, 26 May 2023 (UTC)

Nice! We can all collaborate on a draft article, if y'all're interested. I'm not sure it meets WP:GNG yet, but most likely will as more information is forthcoming. BilCat (talk) 18:51, 26 May 2023 (UTC)

Precious anniversary

Precious

Four years!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:28, 31 May 2023 (UTC)

Recent edit

about my edit that you recently reverted:

Is the tale in question a made up sarcasm (as in the concept)? In retrospect it could be, however it is phrased as an actual story (as does sometimes get adopted onto wp's guidelines, e.g. don't beat a dead horse, etc). What do you think? 209.6.123.10 (talk) 21:20, 1 June 2023 (UTC)

That's probably best asked on that talk page. Howeever, I don't think it matters, as the point is what is important here. BilCat (talk) 21:39, 1 June 2023 (UTC)

Royal Australian Navy article

Aussie information editor has re-reverted their change to insert figures that fail a reference check. He appears to not understand WP:SYNTH. I have left an edit warring warning on their talk page but have not re-reverted as I am up against 3RR, the spirit although not the letter of the law. - Nick Thorne ^talk 05:50, 5 June 2023 (UTC)

User:Czello reverted per WP:BRD. If they revert again, that should be actionable at WP:AN3.

BilCat (talk) 08:30, 5 June 2023 (UTC)

VSS and AS

Good day! Can I bring your attention to this article.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:AS_Val_and_VSS_Vintorez#Requested_move_3_June_2023

I'm requesting to move the page from "AS Val and VSS Vintorez" to "VSS (Vintorez) and AS (Val)". Reasons given on the talk page. Feel free to read them and give your opinion on the matter. Thanks Guns & Glory (talk) 09:41, 5 June 2023 (UTC)

Bil? got nothing to say on this matter? Guns & Glory (talk) 02:08, 8 June 2023 (UTC)

Sorry, no. I'm very up on Russian guns, and have enough discussions going on elsewhere to keep me occupied for the time being. (Apologies for not responding earlier, but I forgot to reply.) Also, beware of WP:CANVASS. BilCat (talk) 02:15, 8 June 2023 (UTC)

Just for your interest/info

Hey I thought I’d just let you know that some edits you reverted recently (Special:Diff/1158912101), were the work of users under a sockpuppet investigation, and some of them have already been blocked. Please see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/2021Porto Final. Fork99 (talk) 20:14, 7 June 2023 (UTC)

Thanks, I thought those edits seemed familiar. The title of "Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Iran Turkey war" says it all. The things people obsess about on Wikipedia always amazes me. Including my own sometimes! BilCat (talk) 20:31, 7 June 2023 (UTC)

Hispano-Suiza HS.404

Do the British also spell "anti-freeze" and "anti-biotics"? Does British spelling never change nor improve? 2603:8080:B200:5CDE:E0BD:7086:BD83:B633 (talk) 12:49, 7 June 2023 (UTC)

American and British English aren't the same, and we as Americans can't impose our view of change or improvement on British English, any more than the British should try to impose their view of change or improvement on American English. Languages and language variants evolve at their own pace. BilCat (talk) 19:15, 7 June 2023 (UTC)

Sorry, Americans, but regardless of spelling preference, hyphens (and other punctuation) improve readability of composite words. "Anti-aircraft" is pretty short, but just compare "Bisethylenediaminecopper(II)" and "Bis(ethylene-diamine) copper(II)". Comrade a!rado🇷🇺 (C🪆T) 07:16, 8 June 2023 (UTC)

Question

what is wrong with you Nigahiga69 (talk) 13:32, 13 June 2023 (UTC)

I am ill with the Scottish flu. Got to get some antibiotics to knock it out. Thanks for the concern. BilCat (talk) 13:35, 13 June 2023 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Tireless Contributor Barnstar
	17 years and 200,000+ edits! Ad Orientem (talk) 00:28, 16 June 2023 (UTC)

Thank you very much! BilCat (talk) 00:33, 16 June 2023 (UTC)

Well earned! - Ahunt (talk) 00:44, 16 June 2023 (UTC)

It's been a rough week physically, so I appreciate it. But I'm on antibiotics now, so I should be doing better soon. BilCat (talk) 01:09, 16 June 2023 (UTC)

Glad to hear it. I've been dealing with some health issues for the last six months. I think the corner has been turned. But being sick is just a miserable feeling. -Ad Orientem (talk) 02:04, 16 June 2023 (UTC)

Thanks, and yes it is. In my case, this is just a run of the mill cold/flu with added throat infection. I've had it many times before, but this one has been particularly miserable. I've had other health issues for 20 years, with many ups and downs, so I feel for you. I hope/pray it keeps going well for you. BilCat (talk) 02:08, 16 June 2023 (UTC)

Another Question

Hi, hope your getting better. I was wondering how you've kept your sanity for 208,000 edits? Then again, looking at your cat obsession, maybe you haven't. You do say it helps to be crazy. I'm at less than 20 edits and I'm frustrated, mostly from the last week and one particular edit. But, 208,000 edits - yikes! What is your secret and can you bottle it? :) Danchc (talk) 12:13, 25 June 2023 (UTC)

Lolol. Thanks, I think. I wouldn't say I'm obsessed with cats, but it's pretty close. The "Cat" in my name is actually a reference to my favorite aircraft, the "F-14 Tomcat", so it's mostly coincidental. I'd like that airplane. no matter what it was called, but "Tomcat" probably helped.

The secret to editing Wikipedia, if there is one, is to find something you enjoy about it. Some people enjoy writing, editing, creating layouts or tables, adding photos, etc. There are a lot of useful tasks that people can then do to help create and improve articles, including things behind the scenes. So find an area or areas you enjoy, and work on those areas first. If you don't enjoy something about it, you won't last, as there are a lot of frustrations. I've actually retired on several occasions, and been semi-retired for long stretches, but Wikipedia can be very addictive. A lot of our "socks" are obsessed with Wikipedia in various unhealthy ways, and it shows. Wikipedia can also be a timesink, so if it's not something you want to spend hours a week on, get out now. I used to read paper encyclopedias a lot when I was younger, so I've always loved knowledge and learning. That is still true with Wikipedia, but I get the chance to contribute to, which is enjoyable for me. When editing Wikipedia loses its joy, I have learned to back off editing, but that's not always easy.

Wikipedia also takes a lot of time to learn the system, and that can't really be speeded up. So it's best to start slow, and work on things that one already knows. One also has to take a lot of criticism, both constructive and unconstructive fair and unfair. We interact with a lot of different kinds of people from many different cultures, and we don't see things the same way. One has to learn to deal with that. Finally, I think a person can't have an "agenda" for editing Wikipedia. If they do, they do, they probably won't last long.

So, if you're frustrated after 20 edits, Wikipedia may not be the place for you. There's nothing wrong with admitting that, and moving on. But it's also worth the effort in the long run. You'll have to decide for yourself if it's worth that effort. BilCat (talk) 19:26, 25 June 2023 (UTC)

Sorry, I forgot that you'd made your first edit in 2006, the year I made my first one! Most of what I said was geared towards a new editor with 20 edits, but you can glean what's applicable in your situation. BilCat (talk) 19:52, 25 June 2023 (UTC)

I like the Tomcat aircraft, too. Not as sexy as the Buccaneer, but what is? The Tomcat was the only aircraft big enough and powerful enough to carry the Phoenix missile. It was a big, heavy, long-range and very accurate missile for it's time. Nice aircraft and missile. But still not as sexy as a Buccaneer. :)

I'm not good enough to write full pages, but I like to edit mistakes/vandalism, or add little things. Such as this last week. I added something to an all but irrelevant page and it got reverted as Original Research. In the conversations that followed the reverter didn't budge, despite my entry containing information that proved it was correct. The fact that other paragraphs above it did not also have citation proof was, apparently, irrelevant. As I told them, I know we don't want opinion edits, but what I added was fact, proven by the content. But nope. This is what frustrated me. And yet, another little addition got a thanks, and a format/grammar tweak, that didn't bother me. In fact, I am happy with - always happy to learn. As you say, you have to deal with lots of different people, and I got a stubborn one. It boggles the mind as it really was an almost irrelevant page to get finicky with.

I rooted through some boxes and found a booklet that I might try to use as a citation. It's officially printed, so maybe one more try.

Thanks for the response, and double thanks for the advice. Danchc (talk) 20:12, 25 June 2023 (UTC)

After my first edit got vigorously editted, I didn't feel confident enough to do another for 5 years. I'll stick to small things I know about. :) Danchc (talk) 20:18, 25 June 2023 (UTC)

Whatever works for you. But the Buccaneer? Sexy? Not to me, but to each their own. I do like the Buccaneer though, and it's a very overlooked plane. A neat little aircraft that did its job well, only the Brits stupidly got rid of their big carriers in the 70s, and it got relegated to land roles. The Tomcat never really reached its potential either. By the time it got the engine it needed (coincidentally, the Buc needed a new engine too, but got it in time), its production was cut for dubious reasons. The Super Bug may have replaced the Tomcat, but it will never fill its shoes. BilCat (talk) 20:26, 25 June 2023 (UTC)

What about a cute little sparrow with new missiles? They are still in development, but Mach 5 speed and 200+ km range sounds promising. a!rado🦈 (C✙T) 05:25, 26 June 2023 (UTC)

Cute? F-35s are way too fat-bodied for me. Btw, I had discovered the F-14 about three or four years before Top Gun came out. In fact, I'd even read the original article that inspired the film before it was made. But Top Gun certainly made the F-14 a star. BilCat (talk) 07:16, 26 June 2023 (UTC)

It also made the F-5 a star, but not in the way she wanted, I guess. a!rado🦈 (C✙T) 09:29, 26 June 2023 (UTC)

What is that? Some kind of manga? BilCat (talk) 18:55, 26 June 2023 (UTC)

It's Flight Highschool, Korean comics about plane-girls. Here is translator's site, if you're interested. a!rado🦈아라도 (C✙T) 07:01, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) That comic really sets a new standard. Thanks for the link, I read a bunch of them! - Ahunt (talk) 14:05, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

USSF Edit War

BilCat, I've edited with you for years and have come to respect you. 3RR was just crossed and I want to ask you to restore the article to the last stable state while we wait for the RfC to conclude. Garuda28 (talk) 18:45, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

I respect you too, but I think you're wrong on this. You guys can't keep reverting to your preferred version and claim it's not edit warring. You've been doing it for months. I think you need to take a closer look at your own behavior and motivations, and perhaps read WP:LEAD too. BilCat (talk) 18:59, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 3 hours for edit warring and violating the three-revert rule. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text at the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.  Daniel Case (talk) 21:17, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

• I probably deserved a longer block, so thank you. I'll do better from now on. BilCat (talk) 21:25, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

I was shocked to see that you were blocked. You are certainly handling it gracefully. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:10, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

I'm shocked to see that you're blocked as well – I wanted to give you a heads up and specifically ensured this was not reported. I do not think it is deserved in this case. @Daniel Case:, given BilCat's history and how everything has stabilized, I'd like to ask you to reconsider the block. Garuda28 (talk) 23:15, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

Thank you both. Honestly, I'm grateful it was only 3 hours. Sometimes I get very self-righteous when I'm angry, and I need a reminder that the rules apply to me too, all the time. I apologize for what I said in anger, and there is no excuse. I took some time offline, and the block is almost over as I post this. BilCat (talk) 00:17, 28 June 2023 (UTC)

Welcome back - FlightTime (open channel) 00:21, 28 June 2023 (UTC)

It happens to the best of all of us, my friend. We're humans; it's baked into our very nature and biology that we are not perfect and that we will make mistakes. It happens... To add more onto Liz's response above - it's not what brings you to bad situations that most good people care about. They understand that it happens; again, we're not wired to be perfect. ;-) It's how you handle those bad situations, and it's your actions following the situation that they give more weight to; how you react, what you say and do, how you take responsibility for what happened, and how you learn and prevent it from repeating - those things are what truly matters when it comes to gauging someone's wisdom, competence, and their overall character. If you handle bad things well, in a year or two - nobody is going to care. Oh, and you'll have some really nice "battle scars" that you can share with others as well! ;-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 08:35, 8 July 2023 (UTC)

Thanks, I appreciate both of your comments. They're very encouraging. BilCat (talk) 21:19, 10 July 2023 (UTC)

Ahoy there!

Hi BilCat! I was looking over some old documentation on my user talk page when I ran into a conversation that you and I had there about how CIDR notation works with IP addresses. I saw your username and immediately told myself, "DAAAAMNNN..... It's been awhile since I've run into 'The BilDog' (the nickname I started referring you to in my mind years back)! I hope he's doing well!" I just wanted to leave you a message, wish you a great weekend, and let you know that I was thinking about you... :-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 08:24, 8 July 2023 (UTC)

Thanks! I forgot where that page was, and had to figure out the IPv4 on my onw, but I did figure enough out to use "xxx.x.0.0/16", and see the related IPs of a particular IP LTA. You have periods where you've been offline for days at a time, so I don't watch your talk page much anymore. I'm still glad to see you're still around, and hopefully it won't be so long till next time. BilCat (talk) 21:28, 10 July 2023 (UTC)

freevee

bilcat, do you work for amazon ? Otherwise why would you think removing what is basically an advertisement - not even the text, just the link - is not constructive ? should wikipedia be more like home shopping channel, in your opinion ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.160.80.80 (talk) 13:06, 10 July 2023 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Here you have removed smart TV internal link, claiming that it's "advertising". Your claim would be true if it was an wp:external link to some commercial website. But it's just an internal link to article that explains what smart TV is. So it's absolutely apropriate link, see MOS:UL. Articles are expected to be interconnected like that.

And editors are expected to not cast wp:aspersions. a!rado🦈 (C✙T) 13:43, 10 July 2023 (UTC)

Exactly! BilCat (talk) 21:18, 10 July 2023 (UTC)

Appropriate tittle for the ACR

Hello! Since you have more experience than me. What tittle name can you suggest for the ACR?

I wanted to remove the manufacturers name since the ACR had undergone 3 manufacturers. From Masada then to Bushmaster and Remington Arms. Remington Arms was given the rights to manufacture the select-fire variant of the ACR, whilst Bushmaster worked on the semi-automatic only variant.

The article consist of both the select-fire and semi-automatic only variants. So it's improper to only mention Remington on the title and not Bushmaster. But ACR is too ambiguous as well. Hence, I also put what the ACR stands for on the title name. What can you suggest? JTC22 (talk) 03:55, 15 July 2023 (UTC)

@JTC22:I'd suggest Adaptive Combat Rifle. However, it was moved from that title before by an (uncontested) move discussion, so it's best to have another one to move it back. I can help you format it correctly if you have difficulty with doing it. And don't worry, it takes time to learn the ins and outs of Wikipedia, especially moving. BilCat (talk) 04:15, 15 July 2023 (UTC)

I was thinking simply, ACR. Just like the FAMAS. But would it be too ambiguous? That's why I placed what the acronym stands for on my move, ACR (adaptive combat rifle). JTC22 (talk) 04:23, 15 July 2023 (UTC)

Either ACR or Bushmaster/Remington ACR are my two suggestions. The latter would then neglect that Masada was the first company who worked on the project. Hence, I would lean more towards, ACR. It doesn't contradict WP:COMMONNAME, since ACR is a common name that refers to the rifle. JTC22 (talk) 04:44, 15 July 2023 (UTC)

{{}} ACR is a disambiguation page, so it has to be at a disambiguated title. Since there are two rifles that use the acronym "ACR", the other being the Advanced Combat Rifle, ACR (rifle) is unusable. That's why I suggested "Adaptive Combat Rifle". It's simpler and more intuitive than "ACR (adaptive combat rifle)", which isn't a suitable disambiguator anyway. But you can propose any name you want on the article's talk page as a proposed move, and the consensus of the discussion will decide what the title should be. Because the article has already been moved several times, I had no choice but to revert your move and recommend a move discussion. I'm a Page Mover, so I have to follow the guidelines if I want to keep that privilege, which I do. BilCat (talk) 06:00, 15 July 2023 (UTC)

Okay, I will go with what you suggested. Can you help me open up a move discussion? To change the tittle name to Adaptive Combat Rifle. Is a move discussion still necessary if moved to that new tittle? JTC22 (talk) 10:09, 15 July 2023 (UTC)

Yes, a move discussion is required because of the discussion at Talk:Remington ACR#Requested move 19 February 2020. I'm going to be somewhat busy today, but there are instructions and a template at WP:RSPM. See if you can fill that out and place it on Talk:Remington ACR. If you mess it up, I or someone else can fix it, so don't worry too much about that. The important thing is getting your rationale stated, and your signature/timestamp. If you can't figure out the instructions because they're too confusing, just post your rationale here, and I'll set it up for you later today/tonight. BilCat (talk) 19:45, 15 July 2023 (UTC)

Much appreciated! I just opened a move discussion with the new proposed name. Take a look if there are any issues with the coding. Kindly add your input on it too, whether you support it or not. Is it also possible if you can notify WikiProject Firearms of this move discussion? Can I also bring your attention to Talk:PP-19 Vityaz#Requested move 14 July 2023? I made a move request to move the page to its correct name. I stated my rationale and provided sources. Can you also give your input on that move request? Thanks for your help! JTC22 (talk) 02:49, 16 July 2023 (UTC)

The move proposal looks to have been completed correctly with your last edit. I'm involved, as I reverted your initial move, and gave you advice, so I need to be just neutral and sit this one and the other one out. Just let the discussion run it's course. Also, you need to be careful about asking people to comment on a move or other procedural discussion, as that can be considered canvassing. I'm not participating anyway, so it's fine, but it's something to be aware of. BilCat (talk) 04:46, 16 July 2023 (UTC)

SVDK merge proposal

Hello BilCat! Can you help me merge the SVDK with the Kalashnikov Concern SVD? Since the SVDK is simply a variant of the SVD chambered in another calibre. WP:Firearms states that variants of other calibre should not be given its own article. I would merge it myself but since I'm new to Wikipedia, I'm afraid that I might mess something up. JTC22 (talk) 10:12, 19 July 2023 (UTC)

That is way out of my comfort zone. I've done merges for aircraft articles, but gun articles are not something I spend a lot of time on. You should probably ask at WT:FIREARMS, where there should be editors who have much more experience in this area than I have. BilCat (talk) 19:30, 19 July 2023 (UTC)

The Aurora demons

As a Canadian I would not be the one to accuse the US of being demonic. - Ahunt (talk) 11:12, 20 July 2023 (UTC)

An unfortunate autocorrect typo of demonym! BilCat (talk) 11:34, 20 July 2023 (UTC)

I rather thought it was a Freudian slip! - Ahunt (talk) 11:55, 20 July 2023 (UTC)

I didn't even know women still wore slips! BilCat (talk) 20:04, 20 July 2023 (UTC)

Demonic ones still do! . - Ahunt (talk) 20:11, 20 July 2023 (UTC)

LOL! BilCat (talk) 20:12, 20 July 2023 (UTC)

FAA type certificate data sheets

Greetings! For over a week I have been trying to access FAA TCDS on the internet but without success. The FAA says they are available on the Dynamic Regulatory System which is supposed to be at drs.faa.gov

However all I can download is a blank page. You are closer to the FAA server than me. Can you download anything? Alternatively, are you seeing anything that says this site is out of action? Thanks. Dolphin (t) 21:18, 22 July 2023 (UTC)

If you can give me the link of something that you're trying to download, I can try to see if I can download it. But honestly, I don't know much about FAA TCDSs. Perhaps User:Ahunt can answer that, as he's more familiar with them than I am. BilCat (talk) 21:45, 22 July 2023 (UTC)

TCDS are now here: https://drs.faa.gov/browse Just tried it and it is operating! - Ahunt (talk) 01:12, 23 July 2023 (UTC)

Many thanks! Your confirmation that the site is working prompted me to try a different computer, and it worked! I now think the web browser I have been using is too old, and it isn’t compatible with the DRS website. Time to upgrade my web browser! Dolphin (t) 09:04, 23 July 2023 (UTC)

Great, glad that was helpful! I'd recommend the latest version of Firefox, if you can use it on that system. I will note that new FAA system produces a lot of noise in its results that can take a while to sift through. I have found that the quickest results are gained by searching for the actual type certificate number, if you have it, rather than the aircraft type. - Ahunt (talk) 13:07, 23 July 2023 (UTC)

I agree that the quickest way is to search for the TC number. My task is often to find the TC number using nothing more than the name of the best-known manufacturer. Once I have the TC number it is a simple matter to use it on all subsequent visits to the TCDS. Dolphin (t) 13:49, 23 July 2023 (UTC)

Worth noting that some of our light aircraft articles do list the TC numbers in the refs, even if the refs are out of date! - Ahunt (talk) 13:54, 23 July 2023 (UTC)

Quick question on modern Protestant thinking

Hi! I noticed you (quite rightly) added the Too few opinions tag to Blood of Christ. You mention John MacArthur's theology on the subject as a possible source for introducing Protestant thought into the article. Do you know of any good books or other sources I could break open to plug in that information? I've noticed an uptick in writing from American Calvinist circles on the subject, but (by nature of my off-wiki interests) have only read recently published devotional books on Communion. Thanks for your hard work, as always, and thanks for lighting a fire under me to fix that unbalanced coverage. ~ Pbritti (talk) 21:56, 23 July 2023 (UTC)

Thanks very much. For the most part, I don't know of any good sources on the topic. I actually went to that article in hopes of reading more about the topic. I did find this sermon page on the Grace to You website]. BilCat (talk) 22:21, 23 July 2023 (UTC)

Hey, that's something. I'll do a little digging through WikiSource. I'll see if I can hit a couple local Protestant theological libraries, too. Thank you! ~ Pbritti (talk) 22:34, 23 July 2023 (UTC)

July 24

in'Indian army equipment'page i edited artillery section (I added D-30 artillery,with many citations but someone is blindly reediting it,even in his citations it's mentioned '5hundred of D-30 are service of indian army),but he is still undoing my edits without seeing citations, Problem - d-30 artillery is in service of indian army but he is denying and editing it's phased out' I am giving some reliable article to you,read these articles and make conclusion,(D-30 artillery is in service or all systems are retired) 1.https://www.thehindu.com/opinion/op-ed/Indian-army-weapons-artillery-Feeble-fire-in-the-big-guns/article62116525.ece (given article was published in 2014 and updated on 4 dec. 2021)

2.https://www.aviation-defence-universe.com/this-is-how-the-indian-artillery-looks-like/

3.https://raksha-anirveda.com/regiment-of-artillery-the-second-largest-arm-of-the-indian-army/

4.http://www.reddit.com/r/IndianDefense/comments/zzltsu/indian_army_122_mm_howitzer_2a18_d30_live_firing/

5.https://21stcenturyasianarmsrace.com/2020/02/05/india-makes-a-lot-of-its-own-artillery/

6.https://ssbcrackexams.com/types-of-artillery-guns-used-by-indian-army/ Dl ff (talk) 12:52, 24 July 2023 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but I barely understand what you said here. Please post on the article's talk page so others who understand you better can participate in the discussion. Thanks. BilCat (talk) 21:02, 24 July 2023 (UTC)

Involved close

Why did you decide to close Talk:Adaptive_Combat_Rifle#Requested_move_16_July_2023 after acknowledging that you were involved on your talk page? Obviously I don't disagree with the outcome, and you were just responding to someone asking for your input, but that they (the RM nom) turned out to be a sock doesn't change that you commented on any talk page in a way that has indicated a clear position on the specific move request as stated at Wikipedia:Requested_moves/Closing_instructions#Conflicts_of_interest. I assume if the request were more controversial you wouldn't have made the close, but as you acknowledged, we're supposed to follow WP:RMCI, and this did not. While perhaps not an issue in this particular case, I think we need to follow RMCI whenever there could be appearance of a conflict of interest, or faith in the RM process falls apart, and it is already battling enough issues. Mdewman6 (talk) 18:43, 31 July 2023 (UTC)

Actually I forgot about that statement. I'd thought I'd only recused myself from participating in the ivote portion, but I was wrong. As you said, it's probably not an issue in this particular case.

I'll be more careful in the future BilCat (talk) 22:33, 31 July 2023 (UTC)

Y-tail

So were you actually watching that redlink, now a redirect, or are you just psychic??? - Ahunt (talk) 23:58, 3 August 2023 (UTC)

I was watching the red link, but I have absolutely no idea why. I sometimes watchlist red links of new projects when I read about them online, but I have no idea about that one. BilCat (talk) 00:26, 4 August 2023 (UTC)

LOL. I sometimes watch redlinks I deem suspicious, like ones for article titles that probably shouldn't be created! I actually wasn't watching that one even though I redlinked it in Sonex Aircraft Sonex year ago. - Ahunt (talk) 00:34, 4 August 2023 (UTC)

2603:8080:B200:5CDE ...

Hi Bill, I've just re-blocked this user (see their block log). On reviewing their edits again, there is a lot of good, but also stuff like this (in my edit summary I meant "improvise" as a noun). Probably not worth a mass-revert but ... yeah, interesting ... and definitely too much for one user to reasonably sort through. I've also fixed up your archive header after trying to find this thread involving them; hope you don't mind. Graham87 08:05, 10 August 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for that. I think they've had long term blocks on other IP ranges before, but don't ask me which ones. What they've done on this one more than justifies the long-term block. (Hopefully that hyphen will drive them nuts!) And yeah, the full form of "improv" is "improvisation", not "improvise". BilCat (talk) 09:28, 10 August 2023 (UTC)

LOL re the hyphen ... wow, I didn't even think of that! Graham87 11:18, 10 August 2023 (UTC)

Dassault Mirage G

May I ask why you restored the Mirage F2 link to the See also section at Dassault Mirage G? It is already linked in the main text so, per WP:NOTSEEALSO, should not be linked from there as well. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 08:07, 20 August 2023 (UTC)

Related and similar fields are exempt from that guideline. BilCat (talk) 16:33, 20 August 2023 (UTC)

Thanks. Could you be a bit more explicit? The MoS states that "As a general rule, the "See also" section should not repeat links that appear in the article's body," with a note emphasising that "The community has rejected past proposals to do away with this guidance. See, for example, this RfC." This has been challenged locally, for example here, but I see no established consensus to transgress the formal RfC lined in the guideline note. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 17:07, 20 August 2023 (UTC)

I was going to point you to Template talk:Aircontent#See also, but you already found it. That is the most recent discussion on that talk page about the issue, though there may have been some at WT:AIR since then. I'll say it has been a contentious issue, but since the MOS is a guideline, not policy, it can be ignored if warranted, that RFC notwithstanding.

Of the several fields in the aircontent template, I do enforce the guideline for the actual "See also" parameter, and usually the lists parameter also. The related and similar/comparable parameters have always included links used elsewhere in the article, dating back to when the aircontent template was not placed in the See also section but below the navboxes. There are thousands of aircraft and aircraft engine articles that continue to repeat links used in articles in this manner, not just the Mirage G article. WP:AIR has talked about alternative places in articles to place these links, but, as that discussion showed, there were no good solutions at that time.

I'd suggest you raise the issue at either the template talk page or WT:AIR, with a note at the other talk page, if you want to pursue the issue, and see if there are other alternatives than the See also section for these types of links. There may be some solutions that didn't exist then, so I think it's a discussion worth having again. BilCat (talk) 18:21, 20 August 2023 (UTC)

Thanks again. I don't want to be a killjoy for the sake of it, so I'd like to think about whether such useful lists might go better elsewhere, before I dive in any deeper. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 18:48, 20 August 2023 (UTC)

No worries. It's possible we could get rid of Template:Aircontent completely, as it's an artifact of a time when projects had much more leeway in how they did things. That would be a major undertaking, whether we replace it with something else or not. BilCat (talk) 18:54, 20 August 2023 (UTC)

Cessna Citation II deletion

Hello and good day. You reverted my addition for May 3, 2007 incident that seemed to fit the criteria for WP:Aircrash. It was sourced as well with Aviation Safety Network. Could have used the NTSB report as well as more reliable. Seemed like a credible addition to me. Have a good day.Theairportman33531 (talk) 13:43, 23 August 2023 (UTC)

I doubt the NTSB report would make a difference, per the WP:AIRCRASH. Perhaps someone else could explain it better? BilCat (talk) 17:14, 23 August 2023 (UTC)

I have reviewed the addition: May 3, 2007: a Cessna Citation 550, N22HP crashed on approach to Dillon Airport because of inflight loss of control for undetermined reasons. Both occupants were killed. It was a non-notable accident and should have been removed, especially as it was "cause: undetermined", as there were no lessons learned there. Basically there have been many, many Citation II crashes, we don't list them all. As per WP:AIRCRASH we only add them if a notable person was killed (ie one with an existing bio on Wikipedia) or unless there is some lasting effect, like a fleet grounding, mandatory modifications, an airworthiness directive or something similar, as a result of the crash. Occasionally we will keep an accident that doesn't make that criteria, just because it was unusual, like the 2022 Baltic Sea Cessna Citation crash which is still in the article and has its own stand-alone article, as well. - Ahunt (talk) 17:40, 23 August 2023 (UTC)

WP:Thumbsize

Want to let you know I am now studying this item. Thanks! Tfdavisatsnetnet (talk) 20:18, 29 August 2023 (UTC)

OK. BilCat (talk) 20:38, 29 August 2023 (UTC)

Re: Sukhoi Su-57 edit

The cited source says that the codename has not been confirmed by NATO. Regardless of reliability guidelines re: the website it was published on, how does an unconfirmed rumor support information presented authoritatively on Wikipedia? Perhaps removing it was overkill, but other options are to present it as a rumored codename or to cite a different source. It was not done in bad faith; I just investigated the cited source since the claim interested me and was surprised to find that it was not as authoritative as the article suggested. 84.251.71.133 (talk) 14:45, 31 August 2023 (UTC)

Thank you message for NCIS: Sydney

Thanks for all your help! 142.162.35.37 (talk) 10:20, 10 September 2023 (UTC)

You're most welcome. BilCat (talk) 18:35, 10 September 2023 (UTC)

Wish you hugs and chocolate! 142.162.35.37 (talk) 19:58, 10 September 2023 (UTC)

Thanks, I LOVE chocolate!!! BilCat (talk) 20:01, 10 September 2023 (UTC)

Departing the fix outbound

Hi Bill, Just to let you know that as of today I am done with editing Wikipedia, for reasons that are well explained on my talk page. It has been great working with you for almost two decades. You are one of the few people left here whom I will miss. If you feel like dropping me a line you can reach me at wikieditor07.sca9z@ncf.ca Same goes for any other Wiki friends here who are watching your page. - Ahunt (talk) 00:13, 15 September 2023 (UTC)

I totally understand. I may be joining you imminently. I'll send you a note, and hopefully we can find another venue to make fun of morons. :) BilCat (talk) 00:18, 15 September 2023 (UTC)

. - Ahunt (talk) 00:20, 15 September 2023 (UTC)

you will be both missed, the place becomes more like a haunted house full of screeching avian beings out of a surreal episode of aircraft accident investigations... The flight recorder replay is showing some very weird objects... JarrahTree 06:47, 15 September 2023 (UTC)

Thanks, but I haven't left quite yet. We'll see. BilCat (talk) 02:08, 15 September 2023 (UTC)

Edit of https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Helicopter_Interdiction_Tactical_Squadron

Hello Bill. You recently did an edit to the Coast Guard HITRON page I had edited and you stated no source stated. The problem is, the “only” source available are the actual people, such as myself, that actually built the unit up from ground zero. Their were only 10 of us, be happy to have a “second” of one of the other plank owner members back me up on any and all info I add to this page, as, not to boast, I am a subject matter expert on. Please do me the courtesy and contact me direct on this request. I anm older now annd a dinosaur when it comes to a lot of computer and Wiki protocols so please, not to excuse my lack of this knowledge, but trying the best I can do as I always do through a 32yr military career. Appreciate your time. Charlie H10Plank (talk) 02:07, 16 September 2023 (UTC)

Oops

Mixed up the before and after on the Gimli Glider edit. Mea culpa, thanks for the fix. –IagoQnsi (talk) 05:38, 20 September 2023 (UTC)

No worries. I've mixed up diffs plenty of times myself. At first I wasn't sure what had happened, but once I looked at you userpage, talk page, and recent contributions, I figured it was probably a mistake. I just made my edit as clear as possible (on then second try!), and moved on. I'm glad that you realized your mistake, and that you let me know. Take care. BilCat (talk) 07:23, 20 September 2023 (UTC)