User talk:BilCat

Unified login: BilCat is the unique login of this user for all public Wikimedia projects.

Welcome to BilCat's user page on Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia that anyone can vandalize! And that they do!

Your proposition may be good But let's have one thing understood Whatever it is, I'm against it! And even when you've changed it or condensed it I'm against it! --Groucho Marx in Horse Feathers [1]

This user is one of the 400 most active English Wikipedians of all time.

NOTES

• Due to the misbehavior of a few IPs, IPs are sometimes prevented from editing this page. If you need to discuss an article, see the previous note. If you need to discuss something else with me, register, and come back in four days. If it's urgent, use the e-mail feature; it won't work if it's been abused lately. If you chose to whine on an admin complaint board somewhere, I'll probably hear about it. And ignore you. ;) PS. if you posted the type of comments on my page that you would post on an admin alert board, they would have been ignored and removed anyway!

• Most comments will be archived about once a month. Critical comments are welcome, but those containing highly-offensive or profane material will be deleted immediately, and the overall content ignored.

• NO BOTS ALLOWED!! You'll have post here yourself!

• Also, talk to me like a normal person, and don't just quote Wiki guidelines to me - I'm NOT a newbie . (Policies are somewhat different). I consider it rude, and will likely just delete your comments, and ignore the point, as guidleines can be ignored. If you do it anyway, and turn out to be wrong, an apology would be the considerate thing to make, though you probably won't since it's not policy to apologize for your mistakes. (If Jimbo wnated people to apologize for their mistakes, he'd have made it a policy, right?!)

• If you want me to take your opinions and edits seriously, you ought to Register!. Otherwise one never knows who really made the edits, especially in the case of dynamic IP addresses.

• If I mistakenly called your edits as vandalism when I reverted them, it was probably because you did not leave an edit summary. Please realize that, in many cases, unexplained edits are indistinguishable from vandalism! This also applies to Rollbacks.

• I reserve the right to clean up this page in any manner I chose, including the use of Rollbacks for non-vandalism, and especially if you made more than one edit. Please do NOT repost what I've removed, unless you are an admin issuing a formal warning, though I'll probably still remove it!

• If you wish to keep a matter confidential,such as disscussing personal and/or confidential information, you may use the "E-mail" feature (usually activated!). I will respond in kind unless otherwise requested. This is not for discussing routine matters regarding editing on pages - use the article talk pages for that.

Thanks.

• Title Case May Be Used in Headings on This Page

• Me, myself, and I use serial commas.

Military Historian of the Year - 2009

[Moved to user page]

I posting better discussion here (Delta ≠ 368)

Hello, BilCat. You have new messages at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Airlines.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Best wishes

Hope you are back in "the land of the living" soon! - Ahunt (talk) 00:27, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. I'm feeling a little better today. - BilCat (talk) 00:09, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

That is great to hear! Glad you recovered so quickly. It is amazing what a day or two away from Wikistress can accomplish! - Ahunt (talk) 00:18, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Good to see you back at it. :) -fnlayson (talk) 04:13, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Just in time too! See the lastest new poster at WT:AV#An incident I don't think we have. If he continues to interact, it might be fun to watch MMN go at him foll bore! Btw, I still have the same genreal health issues before, but add to it a chronic bronchitis or something similar, which acted up to the point that I I needed the short break this weekend. - BilCat (talk) 04:20, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Well hopefully now you are in a position to take a deep breath! - Ahunt (talk) 12:08, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

If he continues to interact, it might be fun to watch MMN go at him foll bore! - Now, that I'd like to see! Mjroots (talk) 20:25, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

I meant "full bore" btw! A few well-placed words could probably arrange the encounter, provided Jim is still watching, as MMN is quite predictable in what he'll react to. :) - BilCat (talk)

I knew what you meant, but thought it would be rude to make such a blatant correction, which is why I did a c&p with the typo included. Mjroots (talk) 10:21, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

It wasn't necessary in the end. See WP:ANI#MickMacNee. Mjroots (talk) 05:13, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

Kamov Ka-50

RE: Your "Removal of unneeded(?) note/detail". BilCat, who are you to pass such judgment!? In my, and opinion of many other Ka-50 enthusiasts, the note is/was very significant and as such is going back where it belongs! Furthermore, I would appreciate if you provide more info for your "edits", as per Wikipedia policy. Ltr,ftw (talk) 10:43, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Re: your edit of 29 September 2010, FWIW, "rebels" in the Russian media are normally referred to as "bandits". So the editor was factually correct in his terminology, although politically incorrect in WP. It's also much more satisfying to read about actions against "bandits" than against "rebels", especially in the original language! Santamoly (talk) 06:09, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

• @Santamoly: Bandits vs Rebels, Great patriotic war vs Eastern front... all these reminds me of old imperial Russia and Soviet styled propaganda machinery. FYI, Wikipedia (WP) operates along the guidelines of WP:NPOV, meaning we are politically neutral hence your argument/assumption that WP is politically incorrect is in itself fundamentally flawed. No offence to you but please take note, thank you and best. --Dave ^{♠♣♥♦™№1185©♪♫®} 11:15, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

I don't believe I was using expressions like Great patriotic war vs Eastern front! But thanks for spicing up the dialogue. I was just observing that the meaning of the text was changed for no apparent reason other than "political correctness". The term "bandits" is still a term used daily in the media, usually applied to common armed thieves and criminals. It's entirely possible that they were not rebels, just plain mafia-type bandits. No proof was offered that they were actually politicized "rebels", and not common bandits. Santamoly (talk) 06:18, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

• Nobody said you were, but that's beside the point which you didn't quite catch. Anyway, shall we move on to other things? We're done here, you know? --Dave ^{♠♣♥♦™№1185©♪♫®} 07:09, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Santamoly, you said "'rebels' in the Russian media are normally referred to as 'bandits'" in your fisrt post, but in the second post you're claiming that "rebels" and "bandits" means something diffterent (policitl rebels vs. criminal/thieves. There is often no difference between reblas and bandits (meaning they are both), which is what your first post implied was the case with the Russian media. So which is it?? Is there any proof they were common bandits, not politicized "rebels"? The text in the Kamaov article does give us a clue: "Ka-50 used live weapons against a real enemy for the first time." Usually that's not a statement made of mere criminals or thievs! - BilCat (talk) 08:17, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

I guess we'd have to interview the originating journalist to sort this one out. I simply commented on changing terms for political correctness alone. Russia is depressing enough without having to be PC towards legitimate targets. God bless all here! Santamoly (talk) 07:52, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Goodbye socker!

• Bill, do you remember the guy who got my rollback rights revoked? Well, I was correct in guessing that he was a sock of a banned user, which has been confirmed by a checkuser yesterday and... I got the rollback rights restored just a while back. Isn't it a great day today? --Dave ^{♠♣♥♦™№1185©♪♫®} 06:57, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

• That being said, I will quote Abraham Lincoln: "You can fool some of the people all of the time, you can fool all of the people some of the time but you cannot fool all of the people all of the time."; the time will eventually come for M to leave too. But I reckoned you knew that already, eh? Best. --Dave ^{♠♣♥♦™№1185©♪♫®} 07:04, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

If these admins would just listen to us the first time, it would save them a lot of work! :) Btw, do you have a link to the blocked user and his sock? I don't recall who it was, but I want to brush up on his tactics. Finally, it might be good for us to keep a dedicated master list of the blocked/banned users and socks we have "encountered for future reference. - BilCat (talk) 18:59, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

• You've got mail~! --Dave ^{♠♣♥♦™№1185©♪♫®} 19:30, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

• M has been blocked indef, told you his time would come eventually, didn't I? --Dave ^{♠♣♥♦™№1185©♪♫®} 13:46, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

• Oops, I missed that one because you didn't spell out his full name, Nick-Nack Knee. :) All I can say is this wonderful phrase common in the Appalacian hills (And possibly elsewhere: "Good riddance to bad rubbish!" Of course, he has yet to understand why,m and I doubt he ever will. I look forward to spotting his socks and getting them blocked, as someone of his ilk is unlikely to go away quietly! On the other hand, he's been successful overturning blocks before, so I won't cvelebrate too much. He's propably looking for another admin to service right now! :O - BilCat (talk) 19:32, 30 October 2010 (UTC)- BilCat (talk)

• And another one bites the dust, see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Doc Quintana. Reminiscent of a scene from the Godfather: "he sleeps with the fishes now", eh? --Dave ^{♠♣♥♦™№1185©♪♫®} 17:03, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

Ah, noW this edit makes sense! It's part of one of Docquin's POV pushing campaigns that did earn him a short-termblock for edit warring. It's a bit strange that a user would voluntarily "retire", then come back as socks to make controversial edits, but I'm not surprised in his case. Now tha;ts he's earned a one-week block, if he continues to use socks to edit, he can be blocked for a longer term - hopefully an indefinite one! :) - BilCat (talk) 19:18, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

Persistance award

Thought you may be interested Lancer (Helicopter) has just been created! MilborneOne (talk) 13:11, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

AFD then? - BilCat (talk) 14:12, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

I redirected it to Aérospatiale SA 315B Lama. - Ahunt (talk) 17:48, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

OK, thanks. We probably need to check the sources he added, and see if we can use them to add some info on the Lancer to the Lama page. That mught keep him from trying to recreate it again! - BilCat (talk) 18:57, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, BilCat. You have new messages at Moonriddengirl's talk page.
Message added 18:42, 1 November 2010 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Told you so~! Dave ^{♠♣♥♦™№1185©♪♫®} 18:42, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

Give 'em enough rope, and they'll hang themselves

• Bill, I really don't want to sound philosophical here but as some administrator always say, give 'em enough rope, and they'll hang themselves. Also, you once told me that should the situation escalates out of our control, we are all entitled to back off and disengage. Honestly, I don't want to lose a friend here the next time when your medical condition acts up, ya'know? You do remember the story behind the development of the Blackburn Buccaneer, right? Keyword here is "non-linear approach/solution". Best. --Dave ^{♠♣♥♦™№1185©♪♫®} 15:26, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

What exaclty are you referring to? Email me. Thanks. - BilCat (talk) 15:30, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Break

Hope to see you back whenever you are ready. - Ahunt (talk) 17:56, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Hope your break was good, it is nice to have you back! - Ahunt (talk) 14:20, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

I'm just popping in. I'm still not sure what I'm going to do yet, but backing off enough to let the Wikistress settle down. - BilCat (talk) 14:40, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Good idea, stress can be a killer (believe me, I know!) - Ahunt (talk) 14:43, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Qantas Flight 32/A380 incident

Bill, I did not go into the article history. I noticed that there was no mention of the incident in the article, and decided that as the aircraft was so high-profile it would probably be better to raise the issue for discussion first. Doing so is not a criticism of your editing the article, which I was unaware of at the time I raised the issue. As I said, I believe the incident is serious enough for inclusion, but not serious enough to justify an article. Mjroots (talk) 06:06, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

No problem. I was jst explaning what had happened for anyone h=who had noticed tht it had disapered! Anyway, I agree with you it should not have it's own article, (so much for "aviation porn!") and that is should go in the A380 and Quatas pages. - BilCat (talk) 06:08, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

I don't know where Thewinchester got his ideas from. However, a look at his user page reveals an "ornery meter". I've seen that word used by someone else we are familiar with. Mjroots (talk) 07:25, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

LOL. As long as he Winchester doesn't edit while seriously drunk! - BilCat (talk) 07:28, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

I'm not making light of his situation either. If editing while drunk as much of a problem for him as it appears to be, he needs help. Hard to give that over the internet though. - BilCat (talk) 07:35, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Well, all that Wikidrama could have been avoided if he'd said "Sorry, I was drunk when I nominated the article, and now wish to withdraw that nomination". Sure, anyone can make a mistake, even a big one; but admitting you've done so gets you more respect than trying to bluster it out. Mjroots (talk) 07:52, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

So true. But it does make me wonder how often that has occured before, and I'm genuinely concerned if it has been often, for his own sake as much as WP's. - BilCat (talk) 07:56, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

• Bill, while I did say that SIA won't be grounding the A380 fleet due to this incident, I was half-expecting either Airbus or Rolls-Royce to advice SIA to conduct a more thorough precautionary checks for safety measures (per the usual SOP) before taking off but not both! Something is amiss here and my source is not telling me... --Dave ^{♠♣♥♦™№1185©♪♫®} 16:53, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

I note you've changed your !vote. For me, atm it's just below the threshold. Shoud the grounding extend to all Trent-powered A380s, then I'd say that the threshold had been exceeded. I'm still open to changing my mind though. Mjroots (talk) 19:53, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

• I tend to agree with Mjroots, Lufthansa is not grounding their Trent 970 powered A380-841s yet and unless they do then that threshold is broken. --Dave ^{♠♣♥♦™№1185©♪♫®} 20:08, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

I've changed my !vote, due to further developments such as RR issuing a directive that affects all operators. Mjroots (talk) 09:27, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

PING~!

• You've got mail~! Just some initial assessments, nothing concrete yet. --Dave ^{♠♣♥♦™№1185©♪♫®} 11:25, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks! Btw, we seem to have a lot of IPs chiming in at the AFD! It would be nice if an CKUSR admin would drop by there. ;) - BilCat (talk) 19:26, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

• Already did and for once, M is on our side. Talk about strange... --Dave ^{♠♣♥♦™№1185©♪♫®} 19:45, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

• Are you playing reverse psychology with us now? --Dave ^{♠♣♥♦™№1185©♪♫®} 20:06, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

To paraphrase, the late, great Groucho Marx: "Whatever Mick's for, I'm agaist it!" But seriously, I think this is where our AFD system falss short of perfect. WP is not a crystal ball, but WP:N we are being asked to determine "lasting notability" on the basis of initial reports, which in such events is incomplete. A "Probation" option might be something worth pursuing for AFDs for borderline notability cases. We have that defacto now when a "No consensus to delete" is the outcome, but that's very tenuous at best. As I've said before, I've developed a "gut instinct" for determining whteher or not an aviation accident/incident article is likely to be notable, and this one is definitely a borderline case. Only time will tell. - BilCat (talk) 21:28, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

EASA Emergency Airworthiness Directive issued. Mjroots (talk) 20:55, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Template:Infobox aircraft begin

Bill: I noted you removed the logo parameter on this template with the edit summary "Removed logo parameters per previous discussions". This orphaned at least one logo. I can't find any previous discussion on this at Template talk:Infobox aircraft begin, Template talk:Infobox aircraft type, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Aircraft, or even Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Aviation. Where did this discussion take place? - Ahunt (talk) 10:48, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

See Template talk:Infobox Aircraft#Logos on Infoboxes. I think this still applies. - BilCat (talk) 11:03, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Well, it looks like at least one of the logos, File:B727.svg, is being claimed under fair-use. Anyway, I've looked also, and can't find the discussion I thought I remembered! I've no problem putting this up for consesnus at WT:AIR. I see no reason we need to keep this, or to use any logos at all, especially if they are just titles. - BilCat (talk) 11:09, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

I don't have problem if we aren't going to use logos, I just want to make sure that there is agreement. On my watch list this seem to only affect Seawind 300C and it isn't the most attractive looking logo anyway. - Ahunt (talk) 11:32, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

The Seawind image is fair-use anyway. - BilCat (talk) 11:39, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Definitely, but I think if we want to it can be justified under normal fair use rules, but like I said I am not committed to keeping it as I am not sure it adds that much to the article anyway. - Ahunt (talk) 12:34, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Atlanta page

Vandalism on the Atlanta page is absurd! Please advise + assist. Thanks Get lost in Boston (talk) 18:11, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Well decks

I researched the topic a little more. It seems that the first 3 ships (LHA-6-8) will not have a well deck or vehicle hanger.[2]. The LHA-9 and at least one other ship is planned with a well deck. [3]. Marcus Qwertyus 17:13, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

List of flags of the United Kingdom

Please do not redirect this page again. All talk pages and links are associated with this page. Thanks. Op finish them (talk) 20:22, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

You're going to get yourself blocked if you don't stop. You're making a cut-and-paste move. Please LISTEN to what others are telling you, and do it the CORRECT way. - BilCat (talk) 20:24, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

Royal Navy

Hi Bill, I noticed your edits with an IP about adding "British" before Royal Navy. In your edit summaries you claim that this is according to consensus. Could you please elucidate on where this consensus was established, because I can't find it. Thanks mate. - Nick Thorne ^talk 09:16, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Of course not, I made it up to try to bully the IP! :P Actually it's used in a number of articles where there needs to be some clarification as to which royal navy is being referred to. The only main discussion I found was at Talk:Aircraft carrier#Royal Navy, where you effectively shot down attempts there to use this style of clarification to aid our less-informed readers (of which WP has many, and who are generally ill-informed about "accepted international standard"). From comparing IP address information, this appears to be the same user involved then. I'm not sure the same compromise can be achived here, as the usagfe is different, but your welcome to try. - BilCat (talk) 09:51, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Anyway, I'm going to change my previous poisition which opposed renaming the Royal Navy article as the {{British Royal Navy]], so we can use the DABbed title in other articles where the context is not clear, since a simple adjective finds so much objection from both good and bad users. It may take me a few years to accomplish a move, but it will be simpler in the long run than fighting this on multiple article pages one page at a time, then having the same IP user do the same thing on another page a year later! - BilCat (talk) 10:02, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Message from Professor Storyteller

A section has been created on my talk page for us to continue the discussion we've agreed to relocate from the U.S. State discussion page. I look forward to seeing your thoughts there.Professor Storyteller (talk) 10:02, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Martin 4-O-4 or Martin 404?

How about http://www.airlinehistorymuseum.com/martin.htm http://www.calclassic.com/martin.htm http://www.marylandaviationmuseum.org/history/martin_aircraft/18_airliners.html http://www.skippyscage.com/aviation/wy/sheridan/index.php and especially http://www.plane-crazy.net/links/404_spec.pdf

The Martin engineer I spoke with a few years back said Glenn Martin himself came up with the name 4-O-4, not 4O4, not 404, not 4-0-4. Most people and organizations ignored it, using the names interchangeably. Even the FAA did it, issuing type certificates for the 2-O-2 and the 404. Glenn Martin got especially mad when Convair came out with the 440, believing it was a deliberate attempt to make their plane look more advanced than his (440 is more than 404).

When Eddie Rickenbacker was President of Eastern he also insisted on 4-O-4, bot nobody listened to him. He also hated the name "Connie" when applied to Constellations.

My dad moved from Eastern to Southern in 1969. Almost 100% of the employees referred to the aircraft as the Martin 404, the exceptions being maintenance people and pilots that came over from Eastern. JScottJ (talk) 22:04, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

This is better discussed on the articles' talk pages. None of thoses soeurces are waht WP calls Reliable published sources. - BilCat (talk) 06:18, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Pronunciation does not mean much. For example the Boeing 707 has been commonly pronounced 7-O-7, when the O really should be a zero. -fnlayson (talk) 14:34, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your help

Thanks for your help on the US State article. I had resigned myself to a month of futile discussion. What a pleasant surprise to return and find you had solved the problem! Student7 (talk) 00:41, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. "Forced a solution to come forth" might be a better description! - BilCat (talk) 01:05, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

C130-J

Hello,

You may want to add your opinion on the subject of C130-J failed deals.

Best regards. Cochonfou (talk) 12:58, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Attack vs gunship vs armed

Bill, just wanted to let you know that I regret how the conversation got somewhat heated. I have great respect for you, and let my emotions get ahead of me. Hopefully you'll see the merit in some of my points, or at least understand what I'm trying to convey. I hope we can work to improve the accuracy of these articles, and show an increased differentiation among the helicopter configurations. Best wishes. --THE FOUNDERS INTENT ^PRAISE 18:22, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

I understand, and I can get a little emotional myself when discussing topics. My goal re: this topic is to get as many reliable sources presented so we can make the best decision based on them. We'll get it sorted out eventually. I think some of the info Ahunt presented on his page will help, but it still goes to my main point that the definitions nad usage overlap. Presenting the definitions as overlapping is probably the best way to go, and we can still have 3 articles dealing with the topic. - BilCat (talk) 18:34, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Okay, well I guess I still have issues with three articles, because I'm convinced one title is redundant. I don't believe in my heart that there are three kinds of offensively armed helicopters (sources aside) but maybe I'll come around. --THE FOUNDERS INTENT ^PRAISE 18:44, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

The "Gunship" article isn't about helicopters - it's about the use of the term "gunship", which has several different meanings. It's not meant to replace the other two articles, but it's just an explanation of the various definitions of "gunship". Sure it needs work to be consistent, but we have to start with definitions from reliable sources first. WP doesn't set the standrds, we just follow accepted documented usage, even if they conflict or overlap. - BilCat (talk) 18:50, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Sigh. Okay. --THE FOUNDERS INTENT ^PRAISE 18:58, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks!

Bill, thanks for policing up my signature on the task force talk page. I've been so out of practice, it's like I'm a noob all over again. --Born2flie (talk) 22:54, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

• Bill I was so tempted to revert your edits on your user page. ;D --THE FOUNDERS INTENT ^PRAISE 03:18, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Why?? They're just redlinks. - BilCat (talk) 03:20, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Just to be funny. --THE FOUNDERS INTENT ^PRAISE 03:21, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

It'd only have been funny if you'd reverted onb Born's page! :P - BilCat (talk) 03:25, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

You want me to revert something on Born's page? --THE FOUNDERS INTENT ^PRAISE 03:29, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Not unless you want to irk his ire! :O) - BilCat (talk)

Don't worry, I'll tell him you said it was okay. ;) --THE FOUNDERS INTENT ^PRAISE 03:39, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Sikorsky S-60

Hey Bill, made some subtle changes on your sandbox article, in my own inimitable style. As to a DYK, a good DYK might be the story of Igor Sikorsky and his engineering going out for a quick flight underneath the S-60, using the same principle as the sling-hoist for out-sized loads. The group of them were out in the open on improvised chairs, looking very silly. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 05:00, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. I see you removed the citations for the librarial impaired - tsk tisk! :) And if you have a cite for that anecdote, add the story in (briefly) to the article, and perhaps we can use it in the DYK. - BilCat (talk) 08:14, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Sounds like it would be a good hook indeed - I don't suppose there's a picture of Sikorsky's little jaunt to make it a lead hook? If not though, that sounds like the kind of "quirky" hook DYK loves for a "closing note". - The Bushranger _{Return fire}^{Flank speed}

So, how may I help with the DYK? If it's needed, just let me know. - The Bushranger _{Return fire}^{Flank speed} 06:49, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

Basically, if you have the time, can you take the lead on applying for DYK, and shepherding it though the process? I'll watch and learn.I just think the S-60 is unusual and not well known, and ought to have a shot at DYK, but my health's not really up to trying to learn what to do on my own, or try to push it through by myself. I've got some ideas on what to write for the DYK, but no real idea what they want, but I'll try to write something here in the next day or so. Btw, I don't think have any sources on the flying chair incident, so if we don't find one in the next few days, I'm not planning on including it. - BilCat (talk) 07:08, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

No worries, glad to help. I'll get it nommed in the morning. :) - The Bushranger _{Return fire}^{Flank speed}

• And the DYK is up. Here's the source code for adding it, BTW:

{{subst:NewDYKnom | article=Sikorsky S-60 | hook=... that before the flight test program of the '''[[Sikorsky S-60]]''' [[flying crane]] was completed, its successor was already on the drawing board? | status=new | author=BilCat | nominator=The Bushranger | image=Sikorsky S-60 crane helicopter 1959.jpg | rollover=The prototype Sikorsky S-60. |alttext=A large helicopter with a five-bladed main rotor and four-bladed tail rotor, and massive housings for the engines on either side, squats over a bus-like cabin strapped underneath its pod-and-boom fuselage..}}

- The Bushranger _{Return fire}^{Flank speed} 23:57, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

• • And it's already been approved and in the queue to go on the main page at 1am New York time tonight. Nice work! - The Bushranger _{Return fire}^{Flank speed} 20:23, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

Thank you VERY much! - BilCat (talk) 04:46, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

No problem! (Also replied to your question on my talk page). - The Bushranger _{Return fire}^{Flank speed} 05:08, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

DYK for Sikorsky S-60

Materialscientist (talk) 06:03, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

What's the betting...

...that Sun Way Flight 4412 gets taken to AfD? Mjroots (talk) 09:10, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

If MMN is still unblocked, it's a sucker bet it's goes to AFD within 24 hours! - BilCat (talk) 09:15, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

We don't even have an airline article to merge it to, at least not that I can find! - BilCat (talk) 09:18, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Possibly the airline is San Vai (see discussion at Aviation Herald page), but Sun Way will do for now. Is "Keep, just to annoy MMN" a valid rationale? Mjroots (talk) 10:12, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

<<<<Stalker comments removed>>>> 17:33, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Looks like you've got a stalker, Bilcat! Mjroots (talk) 18:10, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Another one?? Could that be construed as baiting, since I'm not "permitted" to respond to him per the terms of my unblock. - BilCat (talk) 18:47, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Not sure, but as you've not responded to him there's no need for any admin to take any action, is there? Mjroots (talk) 19:07, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

You never know, one of his admin buddies would probably contrue my mentioning of "MMN" as baiting on my part, and block me for a week! ;) Btw, he may just be stalking you, not me! - BilCat (talk) 19:26, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Whoever it is he's "stalking", he shouldn't be doing it - just one more point for his eventual RFC/U. - BilCat (talk) 19:48, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sun Way Flight 4412 No comment... Mjroots (talk) 19:20, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

That's an awfully weak nom, in my opinion, almost a "stuff doesn't exist" argument. At this point, this "delete cabal" (for lack of a better term) seems to be nomming accidents on sight, just on "principle". I guess frivilous AFDs are no longer considered "frivilous", but the norm. Just a waste of time better spent elsewhere on WP, really. - BilCat (talk) 19:46, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

BTW, the Qantas Flight 32 incident is apparently much more serious than Qantas admitted. Apparently, the aircraft was nearly lost, with only the presence of an extra two crew able to provide assistance saving the aircraft. A report is due out this week from the ATSB. Mjroots (talk) 19:51, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, that's one of those incidents that, in hindsight, one will wonder why it was ever AFDed - and both of us were initial deletes! - BilCat (talk) 19:56, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Hindsight is a wonderful thing. It's not that often I !vote "delete" at AfD, but it appeared to me that the incident wasn't quite notable enough to sustain an article based on the initial reporting. Subsequent reporting revealed that the incident was more serious than it appeared at first, hence my change of !vote. Mjroots (talk) 20:04, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

I agree, based on intial reporting - which wasn't the whole truth, apparently - it sure appeared to be a non-event. - BilCat (talk) 20:27, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Re: Notable residents section

I was using "we" as a whole for the site; as far as I know, the consensus against notable resident sections has been in place for quite a long time, though I cannot point to the specific conversation. I know at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Tennessee, while wholesale removal of notable residents is not desired, it does seem to be the case that if someone is to be noted, any such mentions should provide evidence that the person strongly influenced that town. For a place like Nashville, this becomes increasingly difficult, compared to a notable person from a small town like Jellico (one of the examples provided in the WT:WPTN thread). I admit I was too brief in my statement in the edit summary, but I strongly disagree that either Cyrus or Kesha have strongly impacted Nashville as a whole. Yes, they are internationally popular, but that's a very different thing from the town inheriting notability *because* they are from there, which is how I interpret such sections as being meant for. — Huntster (t @ c) 01:26, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

OK. Per Wikipedia:WikiProject Cities/US Guideline#Notable people, such lists are indeed allowed to some degree, those prose is "preferred" - I don't recall ever having seen such a prose section, however. It also recomends having a "list of..." article for lengthier lists, which in this case is at List of people from Nashville, Tennessee. That's not quite the same thing as saying such lists aren't used at all. I realize yu didn't say much in the summary (which is a bad place for details anyway, theough the extra 50 characters option for summaires is useful for those of us (me!) who do often write long summaires! :) Also, the WPCITIES guidelien doesn;t limit the list to people who have only influenced the city, just "any famous or notable individuals that were born in, or have lived for a significant amount of time, in the city". I'm not arguing that the prevailing consensus you describe is wrong, jsut that you probably need to get it "codified" somewhere first, and/or have the existing guidelines modified. - BilCat (talk) 01:40, 29 November 2010 (UTC)