User talk:BilCat/archive13

"Vomit Comet"

Hi, please discuss: Talk:Vomit_Comet#title_-_Reduced_gravity_aircraft_vs._Vomit_Comet. -- Flipote (talk) 21:42, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

API Blowback controversy

I have been very sick for two days, and I'm not going to deal with this right now - OK? Thanks. - BillCJ (talk) 15:40, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Sorry. Hope you feel better soon, Bill. Take care. -Fnlayson (talk) 15:16, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks much! - BillCJ (talk) 15:40, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Tennessee Titans

Question for you or other interested parties at Talk:Tennessee Titans — Bdb484 (talk) 21:03, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

New user name?

Hi Bill! I see you have a new user name? Did you wear out the old one? - Ahunt (talk) 23:10, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Yes, a certain "highly intelligent" user from Italy kept confusing me with User:BillC, and I want to save BillC from any embarrasment. ;) - BilCat (talk) 05:02, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Oh yeah, I know him: Nice guy, gets along with everyone, makes smart edits? Well no sweat, the rest of us know you! Happy editing. - Ahunt (talk) 11:22, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

And he speaks excellent English! ;) - BilCat (talk) 16:43, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm going to change my name to Bi1cat now. --Nukes4Tots (talk) 12:55, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Fine with me - I don't care if he insults you! The resulting row would be fun to watch! :) - BilCat (talk) 17:12, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Some guy ANI

I have started an ANI discussion on Some guy: WP:ANI#Some guy You may want to comment there. Thank you. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 05:08, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Nomination.

Hello,

I was looking to nominate you for adminship through RFA. When I first started on Wikipedia you helped me through a tight spot with the Joseph Armand Bombardier article. Looking through all of your edits I contently see a constructive editor who knows the policies of Wikipedia and what to do in every situation. How would you feel about that? Thanks and keep up the great work!--Gordonrox24 | ^Talk 13:41, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks you very much for thinking of me! However, my temperment is not really suited to being the type of admin that the "community" seems to want: I "suffer fools badly", I have a quick temper, I think newbie bad behaivior is actually bad, I extend the benefit of the doubt to experienced users who seem to be having a bad day, rather than jump on them with both feet and ignore their "tormentors" (as has often happened to me), and I actually think protecting the product of WP is more important than protecting the feeling of people, especially vandals, POV warriors, and tenditious editors. I say that somewhat tongue in cheek, but look at User talk:John for a recent example of a good admin being thrown under the bus by the wiki-elite for similar qualities. Personally, I not really at a point where I can handle the added responsibilities - and grief! - of being an admin,and I doubt that will change in the near future. In fairness to others, I do tend to edit more contentiously that desired by many, and that would weigh in against me too. I'm quick to revert - I find that gets a quicker response in most cases, especially when dealing with IPs, but they usually resent it, accuse me of ownership, and so on. So again, while I do genuinely appreciate your offer in good faith, I must decline. Thanks! - BilCat (talk) 18:23, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

No Problem!--Gordonrox24 | ^Talk 18:34, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Merger for Redistribution

I made comments on the talk Talk: Redistribution SADADS (talk) 22:47, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

DST

Based on your userboxes, you might like {{User:Bwilkins/Userboxes/screwdst}} this one (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 09:55, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Actually, I'd rather go back to Local Time! :) - BilCat (talk) 13:23, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Y-9 Status...

FYI, Y-9 project is in fact stuck. Here are some links on its most up-to-date status:

http://www.shanfei.com/xwzx/new/20090713,1.html

The page is in Chinese, and the gist is that Y-9 project experienced repeated delays, and Shanfei (the developer) is reshuffling the management structure in order to jump start the program. The document cites unbalanced department workload, lack of research capability, project planning, funding, in addition to a shortage of parts, limited parts assembly lines and final assembly, and limited test flight capabilities as the primary reasons for the slow progress. There were also technology limitations, frequent accidents due to low safety standards, poor quality control, undefined procedures and poor production work flows that led to a serious delay of the project, etc...

The reason I removed Y-9 from the airbus article is because I found it difficult to keep it there as it has not even made a maiden flight yet. I understand the airbus project is also experiencing difficulties, but the development is almost done. So I think on balance it'd be too much of a boast to keep Y-9 in the article. By78 (talk) 23:10, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

By that reasoning we should remove the A400M from all pages of aircraft that have flown. While I understand your point, you need to keep WP:AIR/PC's guidelines in mind: Comparable aircraft: are those of similar role, era, and capability to this one. This will always be somewhat subjective, of course, but try to keep this as tight as possible. Again, some aircraft will be one-of-a-kind and this line will be inappropriate. It's not rocket science, it's just a list of similar aircraft. - BilCat (talk) 05:06, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

I suppose you are right, but man, it just doesn't feel right ;) Y-9 is not even an aircraft yet, much less a similar aircraft to the airbus. Sigh, I got your point. Will keep Y-9 listed.By78 (talk) 23:17, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Give it some time, and if it turns out it's been totally cancelled, then we could remove it. Anyway, it's an attempt by the Chinese, and the failed attempts speak just as loud as the successes about a country's capabilities - or lack of them! Why do think you have so much difficulty with the premature additions of the projects from India? When you've had no real successes, even the attempts are worth celebrating - to them, anyway! - BilCat (talk) 01:25, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Well said, and cheers ;) By78 (talk) 01:48, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Lycoming O-360

Dear Bill: Thanks for your note. Yes you are quite right Lycoming and Continental both produced different engines (the Lycoming is a four cylinder and the Continental is a six) with the same O-360 designation. Otherwise there is no relationship between the engines. I see the changes User:Tcligon made and will have a look and sort it out. I'll also review List of Lycoming O-360 variants and see if that is all correct as well. - Ahunt (talk) 12:36, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

I checked it over and he was right - those were Continental O-360s on the Lycoming page. I am pretty sure I introduced that mistake some months ago, so I am glad he caught it! I have moved the sections to the right article. - Ahunt (talk) 13:20, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Glad that looks helpful - I am still working on expanding the Continental IO-360 article. Also - yup he is working hard on that aim, I think. - Ahunt (talk) 17:00, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Future templates

Regarding this edit: Do you have any suggestions where I should advertise the guidelines? I've already started a request for comment on them, but didn't get a lot of comments. So since you seem to disagree with the guidelines, I'd be curious why you do so. :) --Conti|✉ 18:08, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Because the guidelines go against common sense and common usage. People use them because they feel they are needed - and reguluar editors in good standing too, not just newbies. If you don't want them to be used, then put them up for TFD. Otherwise, just leave them alone - they aren't hurting anyone by being used. Also, not all of our users are bright enough or see well enough to see the little itty-bitty "Disclaimer" link at the bottom of the page, and realize there is a page that supposedly says what the template does (though it not as specific as the template, which is why people use it). As to how to notify people, could a small notice be placed in each template about the RFC? It make sense, so there's probably a guidleine against it too :) - BilCat (talk) 18:26, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Regarding the latter, I'm not sure if there's a guideline against it, but I would assume that people would complain about it if a request for comment would appear in a template that is used on articles (which are for our readers, and not for our editors). I might be wrong on that, tho.

Anyhow, to the issue itself. Quite honestly, I have the impression that people use these templates because they can, and not because they feel a need to use them. I'm almost perfectly sure that people would use a "This article is about a person who has recently been married." template, too, if it would exist, but that does not mean that such a template would be a good idea. :)

Mostly I'm disputing the use of a future template on an article that makes it already quite obvious that it is indeed about a future thing/event/product. All the consequences of that (information may change, information may not be final, not all information may not be available yet) are, in my opinion, common sense, and there is no need to inform our readers that. In that sense I think these templates do hurt our credibility when we try to inform our readers of the obvious. --Conti|✉ 18:55, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Super, Super dooper Sabre

Yup, Pace mentions that it was an illogical yet commonplace nickname for the F-107. FWiW, I recall reading it in the magazine article and it sounded dopey but what the heck? Bzuk (talk) 18:45, 30 July 2009 (UTC). I had the wrong page number, but corrected it now. The actual quote is: "those working on it (the YF-107A) had already unofficially dubbed it SUPER Super Saber." (note the spelling variations. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 21:21, 30 July 2009 (UTC).

Fighter aircraft article

Hi, I've made some revisions to the fighter aircraft article and I don't think other editors will let them stay, I'd appreciate it if you could take a look and give your opinion on the talk page. Thanks! Hj108 (talk) 20:41, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Some suggestions for the Chattanooga article

I was wondering if someone could create a map of Chattanooga's location within Hamilton County, like many other cities have a map of their location within their respective counties. That would be informative. Jay (talk) 23:34, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

I was also wondering if someone could do something about this. You see, I was rereading Chattanooga's history section and I realized that there was no information about Chattanooga's incorporation or anything of Chattanooga's early history beyond the American Indians affair. I and others would like to know more about Chattanooga's history before the War Between the States. Many other cities have that kind of information; why not Chattanooga, too? Jay (talk) 23:37, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

On the map, it would have to be a public-domain image it someone did not create it themself. I don't have the ability to do it, so we'd have to find someone who could. On the hisotry, it's just a matter of finding sources with the info, and citing them. Again, it's jsut a matter of someone doing it. I would think one of the Chattanooga area libraries would hve some books on the early history of the city. I live out of state (but still in the area), and I don't currently have the ability to spend a few hours in a library. Perhaps there is some info from a reliable source somewhere online. - BilCat (talk) 04:35, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

V redirects

I saw your undoing of redirects by Dalbacour on all V articles. He may not have any idea about the series that started it all. Good call. --Eaglestorm (talk) 01:57, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, It took me a bit to figure out what the problem was, but I think you have the right idea. I left him a hopefully-nice note on his talk page about it. We'll see what he does next. - BilCat (talk) 03:09, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Talk:Unmanned aerial vehicle

Discussion currently underway regarding the "civilian deaths" section in this article. Thought you might have something to add here. ViperNerd (talk) 12:55, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm going to sit this one out. HC and his suddenly-appearing friends aren't worth it for me to try to argue with. I've already un-watch-listed many articles that HC edits, as his GAO-loving comments and POV edits are more than I want to deal with right now. If he keeps his crap up, I'll probably leave WP soon. This is not what I joined WP for. - BilCat (talk) 19:32, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Well, I can't say that I totally disagree with you regarding HC's edit style, but in this case he's actually making the same argument that you and I are, that having a section dealing with civilian deaths in the general UAV article is giving the issue undue weight. MilbourneOne has shown up making statements along the same lines. If you were to briefly give your opinion, it might help lead toward some sort of consensus. Thanks. ViperNerd (talk) 22:44, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

OK, I'll take a look. I still feel it's NPOV, as these fringe anti-war groups only protest one side of the wars - Have you ever seen one of these groups complaining how many civilians IEDs kill? I dare say not! That's because their real issue isn't anti-weapons, or even anti-war - it's anti-Western government and lifestyle. In there world view, these terrorist groups only exest because the West is EEEVIILL. Hence anythign from these protest groups is inherently POV. - BilCat (talk) 00:20, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

I made that exact analogy on the Talk page. About how if this section is allowed to remain in the UAV article, then I guess we can add a similar section in the Explosive material article dealing with civilian deaths due to suicide bombings, IEDs, etc. ViperNerd (talk) 01:49, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

F-14 background

Bill, do you have any sources that give some detail on the VFX competition that led to the F-14? The sources I have basically only say Grumman did some preliminary studies for the Navy starting in 1966, then VFX started in late 1967 or '68. Grumman and McDonnell Douglas were selected as finalists in 1968 and finally Grumman was picked in 1969. I was hoping for a little more detail at F-14 Tomcat#VFX and History of the F-14 Tomcat. Thanks. -Fnlayson (talk) 21:22, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

There is some more detail in The Great Book of Modern Fighters, IIRC. I'll try to check later this week. - BilCat (talk) 21:58, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. I'm going to add that above to the articles at least for starters. -Fnlayson (talk) 22:08, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

I got the F-14 volume from the Modern Fighting Aircraft series (ISBN 0-668-06406-4) to help. These were combined to form The Great Book of Modern Warplanes, 1987 edition [which I believe you have]. -Fnlayson (talk) 19:48, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

OK, good. - BilCat (talk) 20:01, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

• You had said a while back the 1987 Great Book had more detail on the B-1 than the 2000 Great Book. So I'm essentially getting the parts of the 1987 Book. Good suggestion Bill. I'll stop here in case I'm bugging you. Take care. -Fnlayson (talk) 17:26, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Red links on dab pages

On this edit's summary, you said "Oops! that was a redlink - I'm not sure if redlinks count or not, so I'll leave the second link for now". The guideline is that each dab entry have exactly one blue link. If there's an article for the entry, then that's the link. If there's not, then the entry either starts with no link or a red link, and the blue link appears in the description, so that the disambiguation page can serve its function of directing readers to articles. See Wikipedia:Manual of Style (disambiguation pages)#Red links. And thanks for the self-rv. :-) Cheers! -- JHunterJ (talk) 14:03, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. I finally found the DAB page MOS page fter my revert, and saw that. - BilCat (talk) 14:09, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Jetspecs

Did it work Bill, be useful if it did. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 23:05, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

It appears to have worked. See Eurojet EJ200 to see if it dispalys correctly for your system. - BilCat (talk) 23:19, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Yep, seems to work though I am seeing a duplicated source message at the botom of the specs, perhaps that was there before? Hope you get good with these parser function thingies as I am having problems with the av project banner coding. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 23:25, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for spotting that - I meant to remove it after the ref tag worked, but forgot to. It looks like it functions correctly, so feel free to add it to any other articles using Jetspecs. I have not checked out the Piston template yet, but I will try to do so later tonight or tomorrow. Btw, all I did was copy the ref coding from the Aircraft specs template - I was actually surprised it worked! - BilCat (talk) 23:34, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

OK, I looked at the RR merlin page, and the ref tags do work in the Pistonspecs template - BilCat (talk) 23:36, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Probably too late now as I have been doing it 'manually'. It was in the pistonspecs already or was that the aircraft specs template? Useful for new ones anyway. Been on here all day due to very wet weather, must give up in a bit. Cheers Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 23:42, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

I got it from the Aircraft specs template, but it is also in the Pistonspecs template.

Hi Bill, I'm seeing an extra line space now in the articles that use 'jetspecs', I wonder if the ref code is in the right place? The line gap is between the manually inserted cite and the top of the table, can be seen in de Havilland Gyron Junior. Nothing's ever easy here! Cheers Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 10:42, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Another Story

Hi Bill. I haven't chatted with you and Arendecki for a long time. Hope you are well. I'd like to send you another Blackbird story that I think you will like. I've lost your email address, so can you send it to me again please at my email: dpdemp@comcast.net. Thanks. Your Habu friend.

David Dempster (talk) 16:39, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

NATO names in bold.

Hi, regarding your valid correction to my edit on Tupolev Tu-160 regarding NATO names and WP:AIR consensus. Please forgive my confusion, since Tupolev Tu-142, Tupolev Tu-16, Tupolev Tu-22, Tupolev Tu-85, Tupolev Tu-95 and Tupolev Tu-98 all use bold NATO names, which seems to indicate a different de facto standard in operation. Hohum (talk) 00:46, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

No, someone jusr isn't following the existing standard. - BilCat (talk) 01:02, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Rolls-Royce?

Hi Bill, we have lost the RR navbox in all the RR articles after your move, you could insert the new template name in them or revert the move to fix it. I see you took out 'lawn dart' from the '104' nicknames, Bashow calls it that in his book and the para was cited, not the most common nickname but an actual one I suppose. Cheers Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 08:35, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

I see a bot has fixed a double redirect now. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 10:39, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

There is a Name field in the Template, and I forgot to change it. Fixed now, thanks! As to lawn dart, the specific line it what on had a cite, and did not state that info. I know it's a common name, but it isn't really unuque to the 104. I won't object to adding it back if the cite is clear, as it wasn't before, IIRC. - BilCat (talk) 15:15, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Imagine my surprise when I woke up to find the beautiful template gone! No worries. Shouldn't the Rolls-Royce Corp. be in the title as well? I believe we have been trying to shorten the titles of navboxes recently, I know it's tricky with this one, I wonder if it would be better to unlink the title completely so it's back to 'Rolls-Royce aero engines' as all the incarnations of the company are linked in the boxes on the left when it's opened? Afraid the '104' is just one of those articles that needs a cite after every word and I've given up on it apart from watching for the usual IP 'additions'. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 19:16, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

FYI

B, you seen this? flame-out FWiW Bzuk (talk) 01:29, 7 August 2009 (UTC).

Yes, he left an essay about it here, of which I can sympathize. Unfortunatly, using socks in an unforgivable offense for non-vandals and non-trolls. I rather liked him, and the fact that he regularly challenged the often-inane edits oand self-aggrandizing edit summaries of User:Hcobb, and his reliance of sources of dubious quality such as the GAO. Oh well, such is WP today - the good oes leave, and the bad ones (Daveg, stephie) just keep on making problems! I can't tell you how close I was last week to leaving WP myself, but I'm still here, enduring whining on Wikiquette aterts notwithstanding! - BilCat (talk) 01:12, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Air Canada incident

Hi, I saw you reverted my edit saying it was not notable, the reason I put it there is I believe it was notable as the Candian authorities investigated the incident and made a statement and report saying it was down to fault locking systems. I believe it is notable as it involved a serious injury regarding Air Canada and one of their planes. Regards, Zaps93 (talk) 00:07, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

It's more than likely an airport/airstair problem, not one related to the airline or aircraft itself. When the report is relaeased, will have a better idea of it's notability. Minor freeak accidents happen, and most of them are not notable in an encylopedic sense. At this point, it is only news, which WP is not. - BilCat (talk) 00:45, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

A-ha, thanks for clearing that up Bil! Thanks, Zaps93 (talk) 11:07, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Ayres LM200 Loadmaster

Yes, FedEx Feeder (The FedEx Feeder division was established right before this occurred, previous small aircraft operations were handled by Federal Express mainline) was to have been the launch customer for the Ayres LM200:

In November 1996, FedEx signed a letter of intent for 50 LM200s and options for an additional 200 aircraft. In February 1997, Ayres Corp’s then-CEO, Fred Ayres, announced that FedEx had converted the letter of intent, placing orders for 50 LM200s and taking 200 options. In May 1999, FedEx converted 25 of its options on LM200s into orders. In late 1999, FedEx took options on an additional 100 LM200s, giving it a total of 275 options.

It looks like FedEx took more 208s and ATRs to fill the gap of not having all of these aircraft.

Source (and lots of info about the aircraft): http://www.forecastinternational.com/Archive/ca/ca12553.htm Spikydan1 (talk) 02:57, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Bonanza

hi! shouldn't this be closed by now? it's just one guy defending the "non-merging"...--camr ^nag 17:40, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

so? what do you think? who closes these things?--camr ^nag 20:50, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Piper aircraft

Bill I had added a some information on projects and prototypes in List of Piper models which has now disapeared in you redirect, any plans to add this list of missing PA numbers elsewhere? MilborneOne (talk) 17:48, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Sorry! I'll try to get to those later today. - BilCat (talk) 17:57, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

No problem I dont have an issue with the redirect I just didnt want to loose the info on the missing PA numbers. They should really be on the Piper template but only some of them are significant for an article of their own. Perhaps we need a Piper prototypes and projects (probably in the Piper article) for these odd PA numbers to link to. Thinking aloud perhaps we need some way of handling unbuilt or unsignificant projects that are listed in the aircraft templates because they have an allocated manufacturer number and with only one or mainly none built. MilborneOne (talk) 18:05, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Jane's

If you shoot me your email, I can send some PDF's your way. SidewinderX (talk) 23:14, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

OK, thanks! - BilCat (talk) 23:25, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

So a quick search didn't find anything on the two projects you're working on in Jane's... however I did find a bunch of AIAA papers on the 578-DX, including "Testing of the 578-DX Propfan Propulsion System" and a gem called "The Forgotten Allison Engines". I'll send them to you when I get a chance. - SidewinderX (talk) 12:01, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

OK, thanks. Something on the 578-DX would be good. I think we now have enough info on the Tiara series, once I've added the info I have in books to the sandbox article. - BilCat (talk) 17:18, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Bummer

Hey Bill, would you by any chance heard of a certain "Take-Off" magazine by Eaglemoss Publications? Let me know, thanks! --Dave1185 (talk) 10:41, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Mo, I sure haven't. Sorry! - BilCat (talk) 17:18, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Is that a Russian magazine, as in Take-Off.ru ? -Fnlayson (talk) 19:23, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

• Nope, its an old aerospace magazine from Eaglemoss Publications which was based in the UK. Honestly, I have no lingusitic knowledge of a Russian so unless Eaglemoss has gone to Russia to restart their old idea into that of an online magazine, then I'd say no it isn't the same one. Aside from Jane's "All the Aircraft of the world" with its somewhat accurate details, specs and facts, this particular publication puts the human side back into the world of aviation magazine, that's all I can tell. Sadly, I can't seem to locate all my old copies now... damned house movers! --Dave1185 (talk) 20:13, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Jet Engine / Aeolipile <- Described first by: Vitruvius vs Hero of Alexandria

I think you reverted http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Jet_engine&diff=308219614&oldid=308216921 without checking http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aeolipile

Well, hopefully you'll use an edit summary next time. Remember, unexplained edits may be indistinguishable from vandalism. Explaining what you are doing and why is a courtesy most good editors practice, and it saves a lot of confusion. I'll check the page you mentioned, and consider what to do. - BilCat (talk) 01:21, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

May I respectfully ask why you deleted my external link to my serial number project on the F-84 Thunderjet and F-84F Thunderstreak pages? My site is totally 100% not-for-profit (zero adds, promise) and I only seek to create a database for serial numbers and operational histories. I'm not making a penny off this, in fact it has cost me a fortune in research costs over the last two years, so I do not feel I fall into the category of "spam". And may I ask why you deleted my external link, but not the other link, to a site that does essentially the same thing but in a much smaller way? I am seriously trying to create a database that everyone can use, and I've had numerous people find my site and contribute to it via wikipedia. Again, not trying to be harsh, but what can I do to keep that link active? Nmdecke (talk) 12:48, 16 August 2009 (UTC)Nate

• Nate, let me answer you in place of Bill, please read Conflict of Interest & Neutral point of view, the answer to all your questions can be found there. --Dave1185 (talk) 15:59, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Modeling the F-101 Voodoo

Hi Bill! hanks for seconding the PROD. I figured it was time to get someone with the refs to either fix this article or delete it! - Ahunt (talk) 13:02, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

afd warning templates

I saw you warned an editor for removing the afd template at 2009 Hudson River mid-air collision. I just thought I'd point out that there is a separate warning for that: Template:uw-afd1. It's possible that the editor removed the template out of carelessness, not any desire to commit vandalism, so it might be better suited. Hope it helps. Cmprince (talk) 16:42, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. I did try to find it, but it wasn't somewhere easy to find. However, I felt his edit summary, which stated "POV", was a false statement, and therefore the vandalism warning was justified. - BilCat (talk) 17:23, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Spitfire

Ehi, man, calm down!! Who are you to delete other's contributs... by the way you deleted even some of the informations that were already there before my contributs... drink a tisana and think twice... DONT DELETE REFERENCED CONTRIBUTS OR I WILL ASK AN ADMIN TO CENSORE YOU --Gian piero milanetti (talk) 15:37, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm an editor - I EDIT. And of course I deleted content that was already there before you added it - it shouldn't have been there either! Did you even read my summary? Of course not - you just ignore them - you don't read English very well is your usual excuse. Perhaps someday they'll create an Italian WP, then you'll be able to contribute in your native language, and understand the comments of others! - BilCat (talk) 15:47, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Turks and Caicos Islands dialect

I added a reference to Turks and Caicos Islands dialect. You may want to revisit Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Turks and Caicos Islands dialect. -- Eastmain (talk) 21:20, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

OH-58 Kiowa

Bill,

I disagree that the manufacturer as part of the designation is the proper lead for this article or any military designated aircraft. At one time, either WP:MOSBOLD or WP:LEAD described, or seemed to imply, that unless the article name was awkward, or more descriptive than actually naming the subject, it should be used explicitly as-is in the first sentence. The problem I see with the way you have edited the lead is the tendency of other well-meaning editors to wikilink the manufacturer, which is contrary to the guideline (or at least has been in the past) when it is included in the bolding of the first instance of the article title in the lead paragraph. This is why, when I write the article leads for certain military rotorcraft, I make sure that the manufacturer is prominently named in the first or second sentence, however it fits in. This is just a style disagreement and I have no problem leaving it alone unless some editors begin to make an issue, thinking it just has to be linked. --Born2flie (talk) 19:22, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

That format is standard on almost all WPAIR articles about US military aircraft- I'm just following the majority example . I'm not sure if it is laid out on WP:AIR/PC or not. It seems to be a concession to those who would prefer to have the manufacturer name in the title of US mil aircraft articles, as do most other aircraft articles. Yes, linking the manufacturer can be problematic, but it's easy to just de-link it when it happens. - BilCat (talk) 19:38, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

The Introduction section in WP:Air/PC seems to indicate the manufacturer should be included in the bolded part. Although that could just the examples shown are not US military designations. -Fnlayson (talk) 11:53, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Piper PA-40 Arapaho

Bill: Thanks for your note! I agree on this article, there is very little in the way of refs that I can find and it is a mere footnote to the Twin Commanche story, really. I really think it should become a section within Piper PA-30 Twin Comanche, although at least a ref needs to be found. About the best ref is Airliners.net, which is pretty sparse, almost everything else is a copy of the Wikipedia article. - Ahunt (talk) 12:24, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Excuse me but just to note I have revised the Arapaho article, or more accurately re-written it to the reference I have. See what you think. MilborneOne (talk) 12:51, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

I was just going to leave a note for Bill that you fixed it up and it looks a bunch better now! - Ahunt (talk) 13:00, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Modeling the F-101 Voodoo

Hi Bill: Thanks for removing the links to this now deleted article from F-101 Voodoo and CF-101 Voodoo. Removing them was on my list for this morning, but you beat me to it! - Ahunt (talk) 12:19, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Achtung, Spitfeuer!

Ok... I hold hands up... delete what you want... I saw that yo have a lot of medals and barnstar while I am an humble and italian contributor in the page of a myth of allied history... to tell the truth I wonder that you people of the aviation project in wikipedia english did not delete more... I appreciate that... greetings from Roma... --Gian piero milanetti (talk) 13:38, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Invitation

I invite you to here and here to discuss the dispute. SkyBon^{Talk/Contributions} 14:08, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for helping with this stuff on Concorde article, Bill. You gave a good, well explained edit summary. I like the most recent edit summary there about Point. ;) -Fnlayson (talk) 22:36, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

No problem. I actually discovered his like edits on another article, SSC Aero‎, where Milb1 has also weighed in on the talk page discussion. This user has a userbox on his user page that makes it clear he dislikes USCI units - he should tread lightly on this subject. I actually think it could go either way on the Concorde page, but it certainly needed to be discussed first, espcially since I linked to your discussion with AWolf in my first edit summary. Of course, Wolf has his own issues where opinions differ from his! - BilCat (talk) 22:44, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

AEW&C move war

I'm not going to take a stance on the merits. Both of you editors seem to have logical reasons for your positions, but I'm a bit disappointed you didn't respond in talk before your second reversion of the day. Please discuss your position. BusterD (talk) 16:50, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

I didn't see the discussion until after my revert. I have a long watchlist. - BilCat (talk) 17:00, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Tell me about it. No big deal, you're both adults. But technically you're at three reversions in the last 24 hours, based on page history. Thought I'd encourage discussion. Love your work! BusterD (talk) 17:08, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Westinghouse J30

Nice work on the Westinghouse J30 article. I wrote the Westinghouse J34 article last summer as make-up work for my turbine engines class, and at the time there was no article for this engine. Kudos! --DOHC Holiday (talk) 22:37, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. I used the J34 article as a pattern! I usually do that when I create an article, as it saves time finding the templates, and so on. - BilCat (talk) 01:48, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Black project working group now live

You indicated during the proposal phase that you may be interest in a black project working group, this message is being left to inform you that the group has been officially created, and is located here if you would like to join. TomStar81 (Talk) 05:59, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, I'll take a look. - BilCat (talk) 06:54, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

airbus-330

the image i placed that u contested, is one of an airbus 310, but the airframe of the 310 and the 330 has no major difference. most of the difference is in the avionics, the picture is of an airbus 330 and 310 are pretty much the same.—Preceding unsigned comment added by [[User:|User:]] ([[User talk:|talk]] • contribs)

No, not really. See your talk page. - BilCat (talk) 04:15, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Stallion

Your suggestion that my recent edit of the Sea Stallion article constituted vandalism is unfair. The CH-57 crews that I have worked with appear to share this belief, and it seems like a not unreasonable assumption. I suspect this was not the "official" reason given, but I have no trouble believing that this was part of the inspiration behind the name. Yjink about it - and remember that not all US aircrew are blushing maidens.

Unexplained non-productive edits ae indistinguishable from vandalism. Wikipedia gets hundreds of edits a day just like that one, and without an edit summary, we can't guess what was menat for for good or bad. I'll remove the vandalism warning.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Contributions/ ([[User talk:|talk]])

However, there are problems with your additions, and I was right to remove it. Without sources, it constitutes original researh. If I recall correctly, we have have several edits over the year the the CH-53 oftens has anotehr colorful nickname in references to it's habit of leaking oiler, the nice term for which is "crapper"! As you no doubt know, military crews are well adept at inventing colorful names, and they probaly number in the dozens. We cannot list them all, and we must also have reliable verifiable sources to confirm any claims. This rules out most of them. A notable, well-documented nickname would be "BUFF" for the B-52. Finally the probe can't be the source of the nickname, as the CH-53A was first named the Stallion in the in the early 60s, well before the first probes were fitted to the Super Jolly Green Giants in the mid-to-late 60s, and later to the CH-53E in the 80s. Does the probe make the "Stallion" name apt? Probably so, but I doubt it's notable enough for an encyclopedia. Hope that helps. - BilCat (talk) 04:15, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

• CH-57? What's that? --Dave1185 (talk) 10:00, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

• A typo of CH-53. I make plenty of typos myslfe! - BilCat (talk) 14:23, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Boeing 787

I see you undid my revision with a remark "not needed". As I see it is very relevant, more so than the comparison with other and older aircrafts. Airbus 380 is the newest airliner from Airbus and is the natural aircraft to compare the newest airliner from Boeing with. Prillen (talk) 10:10, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

The A380 part was uncited. The A380 and 787 are not competing airliners. They are in 2 different size classes. So comparing them is just a 'mine is better than yours' thing. -Fnlayson (talk) 18:45, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Concur with Fnlayson on this. Thanks. - BilCat (talk) 23:32, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

The A380 is cited at the A380 article and I thought it got cluttered with another cite, but can of cause add it. And the 787 citations do not say what aircraft the compare with. Anyway, I disagree – the size is in favor of the 787 (it's easier to make a small vessel pressurized than a large one). What is more relevant is when the aircraft was designed/entered into service. And if you disagree with that we can compare with the A350 – to be pressurized as 6000ft or below. Prillen (talk) 12:25, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

It's still just a "mine is better than yours" thing, and still not needed. Boeing and AIrbus airliner articles have far too much of that anyway as it is. If you need to discuss this further, please take it up at the 787 page, not here. - BilCat (talk) 14:30, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

"Explain to me why?"

Hi, please explain to me why you removed my addition to the M88 recovery vehicle. I had added the information about the vehicle pulling down the statue. As a employee of the army depot that refurbishes several models of tracked vehicles to include the M88, I can verify the fact that this is very important and interesting information that is also very much true. If you do not like the wording is there anyway that you can reword this information and repost it. Thanks. - AaronPa (talk) 15:53, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

First, you should place new comments at the bottom of talk pages. Secondly, I have not seen the edits Bill made that you are asking about, and you have not provided a link to the article and I am disinclined to go searching for it, but in any case the answer to your questions based on what you say above is almost certainly because your edits are original research and not verifiable. - Nick Thorne ^talk 21:20, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

I apologize for placing my comments in the wrong position I am new to the wikipedia talk. Here is the link to my edits. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=M88_Recovery_Vehicle&oldid=307816875 The FACTS that I posted made the news world wide. They were not opinions nor were they unverifiable. They were not unpublished facts, arguments, speculation, nor ideas; and they were definitely not my own opinions, experiences, arguments, nor conclusions.

However, I do see that I have not cited a source, for this I also apologize, but in my defense this is the first addition I have ever made to wikipedia, and I only tried to follow the order of how everyone else had editted in the past. If you wanted to research this topic it is quite an easy topic to find. All you have to do is google "Saddam Hussein statue pulled down." But here is a Link on this topic http://news.bbc.co.uk/onthisday/hi/dates/stories/april/9/newsid_3502000/3502633.stm

I don't mean to be a nuisance but I am just learning. As matter of fact I only got registered for Wikipedia because I felt that this topic should be covered here.

Anyone over that was of age during the beginning of Iraqi Freedom should remember April 9, 2003, the day that the statue of Saddam Hussein was pulled down by the American M88 Recovery Vehicle. But it should be easily ascessed by the children of the futur.

Any help that you can offer to make my addition fit the wikipedia standards is greatly appreciated.

Thanks. - AaronPa (talk) 13:53, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

• My friend, please do not use such tones to converse with other editors here on Wikipedia, it might get you BANNED for the wrong reason. Second of all, I would like to extend a warm welcome to you and a piece of welcome message on your user talk page for you to acquainted with the inner workings of Wikipedia. Lastly, have fun editing but don't get into shouting match with your fellow editors here on Wikipedia, do observe proper etiquette, treat others with respect as you would of others for you. --Dave1185 (talk) 19:23, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

New Userbox for you

This editor is a Veteran Editor IV and is entitled to display this Gold Editor Star.

Put this up on your user page, or I can do so for you. =) --Dave1185 (talk) 11:30, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, Dave! Unfortunately, I'm not at 3 and a half years of service yet, as that is in February. I am qualified for the 16,000 edit/3-year award, so I'll add that. Thanks! - BilCat (talk) 17:58, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

• Whoops! Didn't see that... =) --Dave1185 (talk) 18:34, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Finally, a kind note!

As an impartial observer, it might be a good idea for some WP:TEA, or perhaps a short voluntary cooling-off period, eh? Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 23:46, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Three powerful words

Since the advent of the internet and AOL bought Netscape... "You've got mail!"; you need to check and clear your email more often, since spider webs can be built overnight. =) --Dave1185 (talk) 10:59, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks! - BilCat (talk) 11:01, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Advanced Tactical Fighter

Bill, please look over Advanced Tactical Fighter when you get can. I've expanded in a good bit over the last several days. I think things are covered alright now. I did gloss over the flight testing because that's hard to summarize without going too far and my more detailed sources have more text on the YF-22, since they're F-22 books. Thanks. -Fnlayson (talk) 02:31, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Well spotted

I was a bit eager to get the article up and forgot to remove the header! Mjroots (talk) 14:30, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Figured that - I've done similar thisngs myself when going live with a sandbox article! No worries! - BilCat (talk) 14:33, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

G200

I can't understand why did you remove the source I provide for the desgin of GS250 in Israel. You have deleted hugh chunks all in once and I can't follow your reason. Please consider it again. Regards, --Gilisa (talk) 17:32, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

I didn't. - BilCat (talk) 17:39, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

• Indeed, this is a very pointy reply and user-indication in the back end. =) --Dave1185 (talk) 18:48, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

LOL. For the record, it was an inadvertant edit stomp on my part (it happens sometimes - a glitch in the the Wikimedia software or something prevents an Edit Conflict warning screen from showing.) - BilCat (talk) 18:53, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

• And in the end, we can always have a good laugh, eh? =) --Dave1185 (talk) 19:01, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Yes, just as the easiest way to find a needle in a haystack is in the End! Anyway, the short terse comment was in response to the user's accusatory tones, and the fact he stomped my edits to get his back! Thankfully, Jeff spotted the problems and merged the ifno he added with my changes. - BilCat (talk) 19:09, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

• Oh btw, the guy who keeps making a fool of himself at EADS-CASA is back. Doesn't like to read, doesn't like to check... and keeps adding that cropped image of EuroTyphoon back until I added the hidden comment. Sheesh... talk about being shameless, someone sure have it thick in their hide. --Dave1185 (talk) 21:07, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Please see my last reply to you on the article talk page.--Gilisa (talk) 17:50, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

As for the Yak 48-this source [1] imply that the G200 is not it.

It neither affirms nor denies it. - BilCat (talk) 18:49, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

After a second look on the article, your'e right on that.--Gilisa (talk) 19:37, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Just another thing that I want to pay youir attention to: the co-author of "Yakovlev Aircraft since 1924" is Yefim Gordon, he is not mentioned in any of this book citations I saw in wikipedia. It increase my doubts about the statments it was used to support in.--Gilisa (talk) 11:08, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Williams F121

Thanks for adding the company designation! Not too much out there about this engine... I just saw it in a list as a red link and figured I could solve that! -SidewinderX (talk) 19:13, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

No prob. There was a paragraph about it in the Williams chapter in the Leyes book I used as a source. I'll check the book again later and see if any more info cn be added. - BilCat (talk) 20:58, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Helicopter revisited.

I guess there may actually be such a Greek word as helikoeides.[2] The helicoid was a geometric discovery in 1776, which was proven by a Frenchman in 1842, to be, along with the plane (geometry), the only minimal surfaces (whatever that means) in Geometry. This Greek word, whether ever actually used by Greek speakers or known only to scientists and mathematicians, would likely have been familiar to D'Amecourt, who, if as studied as those who argued against me on the origin of helicopter claim him to be, would more aptly choose the helicoid to describe the flight of the rotor blade wing, even if reducing it to the spiral heliko. --Born2flie (talk) 05:10, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Just reread that discussion... helikoeides is not the word I was arguing for. So, DUH on me! Still have not been able to lay hold of the Liberatore volume, so I haven't been able to establish that the actual word quoted is elikoeioas from Liberatore. Of course, I can go and review to see if Leishman has modified his text to a different word, which would highlight him as the problem in modifying the word to something unrecognized. I WILL get to the bottom of this...eventually! :D --Born2flie (talk) 00:48, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

F6F Hellcat

As to the references, Jean-Pierre DeCock, Jean-Pierre DeCock is an actual author and surprisingly, at one time, I had actually checked on the other listed author Kit Mister as it sounds off to a non-françaphone. Rest assured the bibliographical record is correct. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 13:43, 30 September 2009 (UTC).

Philippine Commonwealth

There are some sources that specifically use the short form "Philippine Commonwealth" like this one [http://avalon.law.yale.edu/20th_century/decade19.asp A Decade of American Foreign Policy 1941-1949 Interim Meeting of Foreign Ministers, Moscow], for example. --ᜊᜓᜅ ᜅ᜔ ᜑᜎᜋᜅ᜔ ᜋᜑᜒᜏᜄ (ᜂᜐᜉ)^Baybayin 04:31, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

That's not the point. You need to make your case for moving the article on its talk page, and gain a consensus to move it. - BilCat (talk) 12:14, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Referring to [3]

I see your point. However, please take note of the horrible quality of that particular image. At 300 px one can barely see the aircrat's front view, and the top and side are not much better. 450 isn't perfect, too (we'd simply need a new image), but at least you can make head and tail out of it. Sir Wolf (talk) 16:14, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

EADS CASA

I have protected the article EADS CASA from editing due to the editing conflict, I would appreciate if you have an interest to make any comments on the article talk page. Thank you. MilborneOne (talk) 12:18, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

• And Bill, you might wanna check your E-mail anytime from now on since my email might be sitting there waiting for you! =/ --Dave1185 (talk) 13:03, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Aeronca

Thanks for the note, Bill. Let me see what I can contribute to that discussion! - Ahunt (talk) 12:20, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Bell/Augusta BA609

Have you read this? Thoughts? --Dave1185 (talk) 01:57, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Interesting, but probably a bit too optimistic, esp since it's already about 10 years behing the original projected in-service date. - BilCat (talk) 06:11, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

G250

Hi Bilicat,

Happily, the G 250 was inaugurated today as can be seen in this movie: [4]. Unfortunately, there are no subtitles in English-but large parts are in english as the vice president of Gulfstream is also being interviewed in this video. On another issue, did you already verify the citation of Gunston?
Cheers, --Gilisa (talk) 20:28, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Thank you

For your intervention here. --John (talk) 05:19, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

No problem. I try not to interfere too often, but legal threats are a different matter. At least the user recanted, FWIW. - BilCat (talk) 05:24, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

I make edit, which now I am sorry abbout it:

• http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3ABoeing_747_Large_Cargo_Freighter&action=historysubmit&diff=319007807&oldid=319003922

You say something in summary text: "Removed trollish comments not related to actually improving the article". I think be guilty act like a child, but I didn't understand 'trollish'. I try to learning, so thanks! --B767-500 (talk) 06:30, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Bil was right and his removal of your statement was a slap on the wrist, because if it was me, I would have warned you for treating discussion page as forum page, you can do that only on Facebook, Friendster and Twitter. Btw, you just got a welcome section (courtesy of moi) read through it to avoid getting into the same situation again. Out. --Dave1185 (talk) 08:05, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Per What is a Troll: "Trolling is any deliberate and intentional attempt to disrupt the usability of Wikipedia for its editors, administrators, developers, and other people who work to create content for and help run Wikipedia. Trolling is a violation of the implicit rules of Internet social spaces and is often done to inflame or invite conflict." (Emphasis mine.)

By "trollish", I meant that the comments were imflammatory, whether that was truly your intention or not. Calling a plane ugly is like calling someone's baby "ugly": The relatives won't appreciate it, and it won't end well. Rember that in aircraft design, especially modifications of existing designs, form generally follows function. Looks is unimportant, especially in aircraft that aren't for sale anyway. Btw, the Aero Spacelines Pregnant Guppy wasn't known for its looks either, hence the nickname "Pregnant Guppy"! - BilCat (talk) 15:27, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

EADS CASA

Hey Bill~! Milborne protected the page and initiated a discussion on it, care to voice your concern there? Mind you, that Spanish guys is still getting on my nerve for his comments. Cheers~! --Dave1185 (talk) 15:38, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

AfD nomination of List of fixed-wing aircraft without flaps

An article that you have been involved in editing, List of fixed-wing aircraft without flaps, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of fixed-wing aircraft without flaps. Thank you.

Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. - Ahunt (talk) 23:26, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

?

Bill, why the delete notion? --Dave1185 (talk) 00:06, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Because I agree with the nominator's reasons. I can't really add any more to that. - BilCat (talk) 00:20, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Cart then Horse  ;)

WP:Air/PC was updated to use "Notable appearances in media" in the section label after your changes to some articles. Does the "Pop culture" wording in the section at WP:Air/PC needs to adjusted or not as well? -Fnlayson (talk) 21:33, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Horse? The cart is supoosed to use a horse? :) Thanks, and probably so. - BilCat (talk) 21:37, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Flag next to Bombardier Inc.

Was unaware it violates MOS, interpreted the undo as vandalism, thanks for the correction. --209.148.156.146 (talk) 05:54, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

No problem - I should have left an edit summary, and I thought I had! Oh well. - BilCat (talk) 05:56, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Plip!

• For that, you get a minnow~! Haha... --Dave1185 ^talk 06:04, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

A few early AiResearch details

Hi Bill, I'm in Los Angeles and came across a few more documents referring to AiResearch history. Actually my dad has a closet-full of notebooks (lab books), pictures, his patents, and other materials. There's no way I can digest it. I did find a handy issue of "AiReporter" (the internal AiResearch newspaper) from October 1969, on the 30-year history of AiResearch and based on this added a few details to WP on the very early history of the company. (I'm afraid that all of this material will in the near future be lost -- much if it is my dad's own notes, design materials, and the like, from his 30 years of employment at Garrett (both in L.A. and Phoenix).) I also found an Allied Signal article about the closing of the Sepulveda plant and move to Torrance, CA, and added some detail in a footnote concerning the conflict between the City and Cliff Garrett when the City wanted to take over the property that Garrett had originally purchased it in 1941 when it was still farmland. --Mack2 (talk) 00:11, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Sounds like a treasure trove! I would think there ought to be an aviation history museum in the LA area, or somewhere else in the US, that would be happy to take much of the material. Some of it might even be suitable for publication, but I don't have a clue how to go about that. - BilCat (talk) 00:17, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

I found this site, Aircraft Engine Historical Society, Inc. One of their stated objectives is to "Obtain, archive, and disseminate historical material related to aircraft engine development, manufacture, and use." They might be interested in your dad's material. - BilCat (talk) 00:25, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks a lot. I am going to have to figure out which of his materials perhaps even today might contain proprietary information, so it's a bit tricky. BTW/ I am also discovering some other useful info on Garrett AiResearch history and have added it to that article. I was surprised to learn -- right here on WP -- that Garrett is credited with inventing the first complete microprocessor when it designed the Central Air Data Computer for the F16 Tomcat. And Garrett led the way to getting turbochargers into auto racing, as well as in production trucks and cars. I added Garrett AiResearch to the Wikiproject Automobiles. But the Garrett AiResearch article barely touches on this (I added a couple of paras quoted from Honeywell website), and the main WP article on Turbochargers essentially omits any mention of Garrett. I think somebody with more knowledge of that industry might add usefully to both the Garrett AiResearch history section and the Turbocharger article. Perhaps even a list of Garrett turbochargers could be developed.--Mack2 (talk) 14:19, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks Bill

I hate getting vandalism warnings from vandals! - Ahunt (talk) 16:00, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Barnstar

[Moved to user page]

Thanks much! I know how much time I spend on the task, but I wonder if anyone has ever figured out how much of a load vandalism and its removal puts on the WIki-servers? Perhaps this is a way to force the Big Jimbo to finally rethink his "non-negotiable" stance on open editing. - BilCat (talk) 02:22, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

V

A review from the magazine Slate noted that journalists and bloggers have seen V as an anti-Obama allegory.[14] In response, executive producer Scott Peters maintained, "We are not looking to put any sort of agenda onto the table."

I thought that this was a very fair edit, considering your declared biases. Kudos.

Thanks. That's what neutrality is articles is supposed to mean. Sometimes it takes some wrangling to achieve, but that is one of the benifits of coopertive editing. - BilCat (talk) 04:14, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Not that it did any good! Other than the words in the script, the Visitors are still very much like those in the originals with Fascist tendencies. Perhaps those trying to contrive a controversy need to analyze why a fascist regime reminds them so much of Obama! ANyway, all this is based on one episode, whose script was written some time ago. The other scripts were still written eariler this year, and we have yet to see how thay play out. A police state is being set up in the story, and the parallels to the Bush Administration's anti-terrorism policies ware wide open. Will these same critics protest if such parallels can be drawn? Somehow, I greatly doubt it! Of couse, if the show depicts schoolchildren singing "Anna, Anna, Anna! Hmmm, hmmm, hmmm!" then I'll admit the show is clearly going after Obama! - BilCat (talk) 19:42, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Anyway, I'm done there. It's sad when people don't even recognize there own biases, but are so intent at pointing oout the biases of others. For persoanl rasons, I don't have the time or energy to fight with page owners today. - BilCat (talk) 20:14, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Yea, the head is not good at damaging walls. Hope you feel better soon, Bill. -Fnlayson (talk) 01:50, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks! - BilCat (talk) 02:06, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Silhouettes

Evening BilCat. A little while ago you left me a note on silhouettes, suggesting they should not be thumbs, but sized at 300px. 300px is fine, but how to do this with a caption? I could use thumb with a forced 300px, or (I think) frame with 300px. Is there a preference or alternative? Certainly Image:xxxx.jpg|right|300px|Caption does not produce the caption. A caption is often vital with the silhouette in the specs section, for the latter may specify a Foo Mk.XX, whereas the silhouette is a Mk. XVI. Any thoughts?TSRL (talk) 17:47, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Break

Hope you are feeling better soon! - Ahunt (talk) 22:51, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, Adam. I'm feeling a little better. However, I'm fed up with WP - too much like herding cats! - BilCat (talk) 19:22, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

I can understand that sentiment! - Ahunt (talk) 23:01, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Nice to see you are back, even in a limited capacity! - Ahunt (talk) 13:57, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. Let me know if you need help with something. -Fnlayson (talk) 17:39, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks much! I'm feeling better, and the wiki-withdrawals were too high! I hd to delete my watchlist to enforce my break, but I lost my backup list. Would y'all mind sending me your raw watchlists (plain text)? Feel free to edit out anything you don't want me to see, but it would help me get caught back up on most of the WP:AIR pages I watch. Thanks. - BilCat (talk) 18:29, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

OK, here are most of my watchlist (hidden text):

Delete this when done, I guess. -Fnlayson (talk) 19:13, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks! - BilCat (talk) 19:14, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

I imagine you have a good watchlist built up by now. Let me know if you need help with articles or such. -Fnlayson (talk) 18:03, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. I'm back over 6000 now, with about 2000 left to recover from my contributions list. Alss, I've just about cleaned out all your rock band articles from my list! ;) Thanks to both of you for the head-start. - BilCat (talk) 18:09, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

hi BilCat hope all is well and i was wondering if you would help me with my wiki if so you can email me at mobius.6492@gmail.com

my wiki page is all about Aircraft its called Aircraft Wiki here is the url http://kscanlon.adal.info/wiki/index.php?title=Main_Page thanks Mobius.6492

A330

I agree with the sentiment of not changing between versions of English in Airbus A330. Not sure whether this was a british/international thing I went to the BBC website and searched for an airline story. They use singular for an article about Emirates Airline - http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/south_asia/7175527.stm. I'll leave up to you but think the BBC is a pretty good guide as to what's normal in british english.

removal of sourced addition to Sleeping while on duty

Why is it that you think that the recent addition to Sleeping while on duty should be removed? Please discuss it thoroughly before removing. Hellno2 (talk) 23:26, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

It's just WP:TRIVIA - I'm sure the meetings are recorded anyway, in case he missed an important discussion. See Talk:Sleeping while on duty#Trivia. - BilCat (talk) 23:59, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

A380 origins

Not discussing this here, per my above notes. My edits are in line with the Template:Infobox Aircraft Type guidelines. See WP:MOSFLAG for the general guidelines against flags. If you have specific issues withthe infobox itself, then take them up on the template's talk page. For specifics on using it on the A380 page, it's talk page would be best. Thanks. - BilCat (talk) 03:28, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Sikorsky S-52

Bill, judging by the shape Sikorsky S-52 is in now, you may want to switch User:BilCat/Sandbox/Sikorsky S-52 to something else or delete. Just a thought. Take care. -Fnlayson (talk) 15:38, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

• I added info to the article using the sandbox. Think I got about all the facts out of those sources. -Fnlayson (talk) 02:04, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

F-22 Raptor image

Why can't I change the lead image on that article to a ACTUAL image? -Brainiack16

Cause you are making a mess, and because it is an actual image. - BilCat (talk) 02:34, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Point made

You have made your point, but you would have done better to have brought it up on my talk page. -- allen四names 03:09, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

It would not have been printable! - BilCat (talk) 03:14, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Infobox title lines

Noticed your recent changes on infobox title - Interestingly I have always assumed that model numbers meant anything that didnt have a name like Douglas DC-3 would be shown as Douglas DC-3 and not DC-3, but the Bloggs F-22 Foofighter would just be Foofighter. Obvious more that one meaning to model numbers! No big deal but if it is not clear perhaps we need to get a new consensus. Also need to add the bit about more users for current types being based on fleet size not national pride, refer Douglas DC-10 edits today! MilborneOne (talk) 23:02, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

The previous discussions should make clear what was meant by "model number". The notes should be clarified to make it clear. I'm fine with new duscussions on the issue, as I'll raise allowing the manufactuer'sname in almost all cases. - BilCat (talk) 23:06, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

I dont see why it cant be the same as the article title but sometimes the article title is a common name and a fuller designation could exist. I dont have a problem with manufacturers name in the infobox title. Its time to log off this side of the atlantic now so I might raise it at wp:aircaft if you havent done so when I come back on tomorrow. MilborneOne (talk) 23:32, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Speedy deletion declined: Electric Boat

Hello BilCat, and thanks for your work patrolling new changes. I am just informing you that I declined the speedy deletion of Electric Boat - a page you tagged - because: There's a (minimal) discussion on the talk page about moving to GD electric boat. This request can't be uncontroversial therefore. Gain consensus for the move first. Please review the criteria for speedy deletion before tagging further pages. If you have any questions or problems, please let me know. GedUK  19:03, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

I figured that, but wanted to try anyway. Thanks. - BilCat (talk) 19:06, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

INS Viraat

Bill, just looking at Indian Navy and as allways pretty suspicious of any images from India/Pakistan being copy vios. Not an expert on ships but this looks like a copyvio File:Vizagstrategic.jpg, it is I believe INS Viraat but I cant find the original. Looks like an official Indian or US Navy shot. If you come across it then please let me know. Thanks. MilborneOne (talk) 19:50, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

OK, thanks. If it's a USN photo, it's most likely PD, but that has to be proven, of course. - BilCat (talk) 19:52, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

F-16 Fighting Falcon

Thanks for tweaking the wording. Long words with specific meanings are great, as long as the meaning is actually appropriate. SeanWillard (talk) 04:12, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Bristol Fairchild Bolingbroke edits

The Bolingbroke Mk IV did mount a different turret with twin Browning machine guns in some of the production run, so the edits have to be somewhat adjusted. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 19:33, 9 December 2009 (UTC).

USAF Thunderbirds

BilCat,

I appreciate your diligence and willingness to make WP the most accurate source of information possible. At first I was irritated that the time I took to edit the USAF Thunderbirds page was completely wasted when you removed it. However, after doing a bit of research on Wikipedia itself, and checking out your avilable information, I can appreciate why you made the changes you did. However, I think the information I added to the page regarding the roster and schedule were valuable details that readers will find useful. I was hoping we could meet in the middle. I am open to suggestions about placement, external links, or other possibilities. I hope your health problems are on the mend and that I hear from you soon.

TBirdpaTbirdpa (talk) 22:10, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Sorry! I totally forgot about this! I'll try to get to this today or tomorrow. Thanks for the kind words, as i do appreciate anyone who takes the time to examine my record. - BilCat (talk) 18:30, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

MQ-9 Reaper

I provided source material (Wing Commander article) and as an MQ-9 operator I have first-hand knowledge of the subject. Such first-hand references trump secondary sources (i.e. the "aviation media"). It doesn't get much stronger than that and, in my humble opinion, a "consensus" isn't required.

I did post in the discussion for the MQ-9 page, but I'd really appreciate if you'd stop undoing my changes. I'm adding to the subject, not taking anything away from it.

I posted my 3 cents' worth on the talk page: essentially, they're synonyms. Basically, the USAF is pushing the status quo ante - attempting to return to the term it rejected as old-fashioned - because it's actually a more accurate term. However, the USAF successfully got the whole world to accept UAV. Whether it will have similar success with restoring general usage of RPV - or predominantly fails, as with UAS - remains to be seen. Anyhow, I have posted a suggestion for discussion. Askari Mark (Talk) 04:59, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, Mark, and good point on the edit-warring - I'm too stubborn sometimes! Anyway, I sort of get the impression the return to RPV might be politically motivated - see MQ-9 Reaper#Controversy for complaints by a UN weenie about "so-called predator" (his words) killings. Just a hunch, but since the Obamunists took over, the military is doing some strange things! - BilCat (talk) 05:05, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

I have not seen the USAF use the RPV terminology, but have not been looking either. I bet it is related to putting more attention on the controllers, to help with recruiting. They have been training some non-rated pilots to be controllers for the last year or two to help fill spots. Sorry, I checked the MQ-9 talk page after posting that, btw. -Fnlayson (talk) 06:02, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Wikiquette_alerts

The IP user has tried to inform you about Wikipedia:Wikiquette_alerts#Continuous_Personal_Attacks_by_User:BilCat. MilborneOne (talk) 21:01, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. I do believe now he is engaging in trollish behavior. I note the first 2 difss he gave I said vandalism, meaning the edits, not the user, and "apparent vandalism", showing good faith. Does he emtnion that, or my mention of his incivility? Of course not! Sorry to have involved you in this. - BilCat (talk) 21:08, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

No problem not sure raising it two forums helps sort out the issues. MilborneOne (talk) 21:13, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Thankfully, a bot closed this "discussion" a couple of days ago. The wiki-troll seems to have moved on also. By the way, I've seen examples of botsadding line spaces to srticles lately, leaving two spaces between sections. So there is a way to do this without breaking the style sheets! - BilCat (talk) 15:48, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

El Salvador Language

Sorry for for stating, and writting down that English is one of El Salvadors official languages, I should of checked if there was a reference first. Sorry about that. House1090 (talk) 05:12, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

No problem. It does seem to be require in schools from at least the middle school level on, but I couldn't fine anything eles on an official status. That doesn't mean it is not an official language, but it does not appear to be primary language. - BilCat (talk) 05:27, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Yea I am looking for information on that. English is required from I believe 3 grade or something, but yea like you said, its not a primary language wide spoken like spanish. House1090 (talk) 06:12, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Engines page re-shuffle

Hi Bill, are you happy with my suggestion on task force organisation at WT:AETF? Just want to make sure that everyone is happy before I do anything, there is nothing drastic involved! Cheers Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 11:54, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Freighters at airport

Bill, I've been seeing a An-124 at the Huntsville airport lately. It was parked near the intermodal freight building there today. There's been a 747-400 there at different times also. I can't readily get a good view at either due to surrounding buildings though. -Fnlayson (talk) 03:12, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Sounds cool! Seriously. I just read tht piece on the "cut-and-shut" Chinook in Afghanistan. I kept expecting to hear the man's son had died in the crash of the helicopter, as much fuss as he was making. He seems to be reacting soley to the buzz words "cut-and-shut", and basing his reactionos on his own definition of what that term means, not reality. I've never heard the term myself, so I don't know what connotations that might have to the Brits. - BilCat (talk) 03:20, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Yea, I never did get a solid reason for complaining about that rebuilt Chinook. Seemed like a good recycling/money saving effort. The An-124 has a different look with the high wing with them sloping down slightly toward the tips. -Fnlayson (talk) 03:40, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

<lurk off>I suspect the Chinook issue is just a matter of language, cut and shut is a dodgy practice in the motor trade when crashed cars are repaired by welding two together, it is not really relevant to aircraft but to a father who has lost his son one can only imagine the need to find causes and blame for their sad loss. Some images of the accident to ZA704 are at http://www.chinook-helicopter.com/chinook/aft_pylon_removal.html so it was badly damaged but far from a complete wreck.<lurk on> MilborneOne (talk) 10:21, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

OK, thanks. We call tha "clipping" on our side of the pond. My dad is in the used auto parts buisness, and hes has had a number of wrecked cars rebuilt, and then the family drives them. Our stste requires inspection on all rebuilt cars, and they are fairly strict - all the welds are inspected, etc. If done right, it can save thousands of dollars. I've driven cars with front ends, rear ends, and sides taken from other cars, with no difficulties. If my dad and the people he contracts to do much of the body work can do a good job, I'm sure the RAF can too! The US military has does the same thing, most notably the A-12/SR-71 and FrankenProwler/-Hornets that Jeff has mentioned. It's really not that uncommon, and it does save money. That's something the UK MOZD is quite short of right now, and its said to see that a proven method of reclamation might be stopped because of a grief-stricken parent. - BilCat (talk) 15:41, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Oh, saw a An-124 and a 747-400 there at the same time right before Christmas. There was a cylindrical object in front of the 124 with its nose door up then. I did not know rebuilding cars like that was done much and had not heard of either clipping or cut & shut. Thanks. I plan to go to Ft Rucker and the Army Aviation Museum this weekend and hope to get some good pics. -Fnlayson (talk) 21:51, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

I did not realize how large the CH-37 Mojave is. Except for some rare early aircraft, most on display were common Army types, like a CH-47A, UH-1s, AH-1s, UH-60A and OH-58. Got some pics of the CH-47-derivative Model 347 on the museum's grounds. Did not see an AH-56 or RAH-66 there though. :( -Fnlayson (talk) 19:04, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Ah, the 347 would be good to have - is that the one with the wings? I think the XCH-62 is no longer on display there - IIRC, it deteriorated so badly they had to scrap it, which is sad. I also hope the museum will do what the USAF museum has done,a nd that is to have every aircraft exibited online with photos. Maybe someday! Still, I'd love to make the trip down there someday, perhaps if my health improves. - BilCat (talk) 19:18, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Yes, the 347 is a CH-47A with wings and 4-blade rotors. Seems the rotors could have been applied to later CH-47 variants. -Fnlayson (talk) 19:27, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

OK, I look forward to seeing the pics. - BilCat (talk) 19:44, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Sikorsky S-53

Just created Sikorsky S-53 but it is really the Sikorsky XHJS-1 in mil terms so should probably be moved to the mil designation. Very little info on it so any help appreciated. Thanks. MilborneOne (talk) 16:15, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

OK, I'll have a look, and check my sources later today. - BilCat (talk) 16:20, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

A320

Hi BilCat, I have problems to understand your argumentation here. The image you prefer was taken with a strange angle (the plane would have to be lower to make it look better), furthermore it shows only one member of the A320 family. Isn't it better to have as many members as possible on the first picture of the article? I don't know any picture showing all four members, but this one shows at least three of them. Furthermore, the aircraft shown in the image are anything but too small, I am sorry to have to say that. I am looking forward to your clarification, Anesinan (talk) 13:12, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

They still aren't in flight, which is preferred for the Lead image. I have no problem with the image being elsewhere in the article, but I couldn't find a place for it at the time. - BilCat (talk) 15:53, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

You can look for further discussions on my talk page. Thanks, Anesinan (talk) 16:45, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

I see you've bailed on the discussion, and on WP. We never used the terms law or policy for a reason, but stsaed that a flying image is "preferred". If the consensus is to keep a non-flying image, it can be used in the Lead. However, 3 users have disagreeded with you to this point, mening the consensus now is against changing the image to a non-flying one. None of the 3 have stated that the current image can't be replaced by another in-flight image, though I do like the current one. - BilCat (talk) 18:06, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

The user's airport image is a good image for showing 3 of the main variants, but is not fitting for Infobox. Looks like the user could not have his/her way and is taking the ball and going home. -Fnlayson (talk) 22:33, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

CFM56 A-Class Review

Hey Bill-- If you have a few minutes sometime I would appreciate it if you could take a look at the CFM56 A-Class review and leave some comments. There aren't too many engine people around, and I would appreciate a knowledgeable opinion. Thanks! -SidewinderX (talk) 18:40, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Turn on the autopilot, Luke

A question about this: isn't the parent org in question singular? (I'm not deeply concerned either way; I'm just not sure enough about this to rv it.) TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 05:20, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

In this case, the parent organization was the US Army. The article is at United States Army Air Forces - it may give enough background to explain it, but I'm not sure. Thanks for sking first! - BilCat (talk) 05:31, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Thx. (As you can tell, I wasn't hanging on a reply. ;p) I know you well enough to know you wouldn't do it capriciously (somebody else, I probably wouldn't bother asking), & it wasn't a bug for me. Hope you're having a good year! TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura}

Ears?

Something interesting just came up, wanna come over and chat? --Dave ¹¹⁸⁵ 05:39, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Joke of the day

Bill, please take a look at this and then tell me the joke, if you catch it. --Dave ¹¹⁸⁵ 08:05, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Maybe the paragraph with the use of 'developed'. Using 'refilling' there seems strange as well. -Fnlayson (talk) 20:15, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure either. It looks just like a Il-76/78 (note the tail gunner's station), which is what India currently uses for Inflight refueling. Perhaps it's a re-touched image of an Indian plane. Anyway, change the location/country to India, and the piece reads just like it might in the Times of India - the "mainstream" press in both countries can be very patriotic, and vauge when it comes to military info. Mainstream American and British press treat it as a sin to be patriotic (while also being against sin as a concept!)), and often read like they were published by the old Soviet Union! It's all quite strange. How odd it must be to have media that actually like the country they live in! - BilCat (talk) 20:26, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

• I do note that the spelled the plural of "aircraft" without an "S", which is rare for Pakistani media. Even the PAF website often uses "aircrafts"! - BilCat (talk) 20:29, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Merry CHRISTmas

File:Christmas Barnstar (aviation).jpg

Merry Christmas and Happy New Year from Bzuk (talk) 20:08, 24 December 2009 (UTC).

Thanks much, and Merry Cristmas to y'all! - BilCat (talk) 20:10, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Dab redlinks

Do you have expert knowledge in taxonomy? If not, please do not mess with issues you do not understand sufficiently, and restore those redlinks. We need them to prevent non-disambiguous disambiguation names such as Erica (genus), which is what novice users will create en masse if we do not tell them otherwise. The general MoS has no bearing on this issue; the codes of biological nomenclature are mandatory for enyclopedic works such as Wikipedia and homonymy cannot be tolerated, just as some statute in the general MoS is to be disregarded if it breaks the law in some particular case.

Alternatively, please read the codes of nomenclature (4 books of some size each) so that you understand the issue and can help to clean up the thousands of articles that have wrong names already, and patrol those tens of thousands of articles that will get wrong names eventually.

If you want to do that, you're welcome to remove the redlinks; otherwise restore them please. Thanks. Dysmorodrepanis (talk) 23:14, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

I've read the WP MOS, and that's all I'm required to read. WP is self governing, and ousidie of copyright laws, nothing else applies. Sorry. - BilCat (talk) 23:42, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

As to your motive of "what novice users will create en masse if we do not tell them otherwise": How does creating a redlink on a totally unrelated article prevent the creation of one at as different title? In the Aircraft Project, we regularly find created articles that are redundant to existing articles; sometimes they only differ in punctuation or spacing in the designation. The only way to stop an article being created at a different title is to salt it to prevent it's creation. However, a creative novice user will often just create it at as similar, though more incorrect, title! What I'd recommend is watchlisting the likely titles, and then moving them to the correct titles when they are created. That's really about all that you can reasonably do on an encyclopedia that anyone can edit - and they often do! - BilCat (talk) 01:33, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

Articles of Confederation

Why would you undo my change? It was the first time in the article that the United States Constitution was mentioned, and there's no useful reason to abbreviate it.—Cleared as filed. 01:49, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

Because "United States" is already mentioned 5 times - that seemed like enough. - BilCat (talk) 02:06, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

American Airlines Flight 331 and location of the accident on oceanfront

Hi there, you reversed my correction that the aircraft came to rest oceanside, not harborside. The approach was from over the harbour, not the ocean, on RWY 12. Kindly take a gander at Google Earth or Wikimapia or just click on the coordinates link and explode the view. You will see that the RWY ends oceanside on the ILS approach, not on Kingston Harbour. The airport is peculiarly located on a strip of land that separates the Harbour from the ocean. --Mareklug ^talk 21:49, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

Have you ever been to the airport? The airplane would have had to cross a road to stop near the "ocean". I've added sources to the article from the airport's website that the airport is "adjacent to the harbour. I'll look at the maps anyway. - BilCat (talk) 23:08, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

Butterflies

Thanks - I've left a little note on his talkpage. We'll see how it goes from there. --Ser Amantio di Nicolao^{Che dicono a Signa?}_{Lo dicono a Signa.} 17:17, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

Aircraft Carrier

On the page Aircraft Carrier, you reverted my edits because "LHAs and LHDs are NOT considered aircraft carries." On the same page where it lists types of aircraft carriers one of the types listed is "Amphibious assault ship." Also, why should the Japanese helicopter destroyers be listed but not USN Amphibious assault ships? The USN Wasp class amphibious assault ship carries ten-twenty more aircraft than the Japanese helicopter destroyers do, so they obviously have enough aircraft to be counted as an aircraft carrier. It seems very illogical to not include the Wasp/Tarawa class Amphibious assault ships in the list of aircraft carriers— Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.60.201.35 (talk)

By the US Navy. - BilCat (talk) 21:03, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

Langley Flying School‎

I see you have been trying to improve this article, but it is currently locked until 03 Jan 10. I left some ideas at Talk:Langley Flying School‎ and will help out fixing it up when it becomes unlocked. - Ahunt (talk) 14:04, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

As it seems that I got you into this particular little mess (for which I apologise), I will also spend some time on fixing it, although I now think I should have gone with my initial instinct and just nominated it for deletion. YSSYguy (talk) 14:25, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

I like messes! - BilCat (talk) 17:43, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

Our Edit Wars

The usual pattern is that I'll make some outrageous edit and you'll revert it and then I'll pull out some strange ref to back it up and then you'll edit my edit to miss the entire point. So it's standard wiki-practice AFAIK.  ;-) Hcobb (talk) 17:57, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

Because your point is usually irrelevant to a general encyclopedia article. Too much news, not enough relevant info. Have you considered Wikinews? I've never edited on it, but you might find it useful. Seriously. If you like breaking news and quotes, it might be worth checking out. - BilCat (talk) 18:58, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

NORAD

Bill, Thank you for watching and cleaning up the extraneous stuff in the NORAD article. I take a few days off to visit relatives in the Nebraska panhandle and two blizzards hit!... the snow blizzard that hit the farm on Christmas Day and the 'blizard' on NORAD. Hope you had a good Christmas.I'm sure there will be much more next year. Have a Happy New Year!... Lance. LanceBarber (talk) 06:41, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

No problem. I used to watch that aticle awhile back and just gave up. After seeing the orginal section in the history that the POVers had removed/changed, They actually took out legitimate, worthwhile, and cited information to put in their crap! I decided to tackle the article again, as this sort of warped POV should not be allowed to stand. If they show up again, I'm going hunting for some admins I trust to back up WP policies. (And I'll try not to edit war first - I'm learning my lesson, Nick-D!) It's good to see you active again, at least on articles we have in common. Have a Happy New Year too. - BilCat (talk) 06:58, 28 December 2009 (UTC)