Misplaced Pages

User talk:BilCat: Difference between revisions

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
Browse history interactively← Previous editNext edit →Content deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 01:36, 9 January 2008 editTomPhan (talk | contribs)33 edits Nomination← Previous edit Revision as of 02:33, 9 January 2008 edit undoBilCat (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Page movers, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers215,835 edits Undid revision 183085991 by TomPhan (talk) - uh, noNext edit →
Line 483: Line 483:


:Thanks. More of the Joys of Open Editing religion of Jimboism. Enjoy! - ] (]) 01:08, 9 January 2008 (UTC) :Thanks. More of the Joys of Open Editing religion of Jimboism. Enjoy! - ] (]) 01:08, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

== RfA ==
You have been niminated for hard work.] (]) 01:36, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Revision as of 02:33, 9 January 2008

Template:Edit-first-section

BilCat is suffering from physical health issues. This may affect his ability to work on Misplaced Pages. Consequently, he may not be able to respond to talk-page messages or e-mails in a timely manner. Your patience is greatly appreciated.


NOTE: 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 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.

If you want me to take your opinions and edits seriously, you ought to Register!

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!

If you initiated a conversation here, I will most likely respond to your comments here, rather than on your talk page (except for certain people from Alberta!) Also, if you are discussing an article, I would prefer to use that article's talk page, unless you'd prefer not to use that page for some reason, such as commenting on a particular user's edits in semi-privacy. Please limit this page to discussions not related to any particular article, those covering a wide range of articles/topics, or personal comments.

If you wish to keep a matter confidential, you may use the "E-mail" feature (now activated!). I will respond in kind unless otherwise requested.

NOTE: If you wish to discuss my actions regarding trolls and other Wiki-pests, follow your own favorite rule that you would be quoting to me, and DON'T FEED THE TROLLS! Such matters are better discussed privately. If you prefer keeping all converstions on Misplaced Pages, that's your choice, and I respect that. Just realize we WON'T be discussing such matters openly, so just move on and bother someone who actually is damaging Wikipeida policy, and not an disregarding an ESSAY!

Thanks.

AND PLEASE SIGN YOUR POSTS!!!!

Title Case May Be Used in Headings on This Page

Me, myself, and I use serial commas.

Archiving icon
Archives

Comments

United States Navy

Can you please explain why you've done this reversion with the edit summary 'POV comments'? I don't see the slightest bit of POV in calling the Es and Fs 'heavier' and 'slower' than the As/Ds as, according to the numbers at F/A-18 Hornet#Specifications (F/A-18C/D) and F/A-18E/F Super Hornet#Specifications (F/A-18E/F), both of those are true. Am I missing something? Maralia 19:06, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Sure: Becuase it's unnecessary info that doesn't need to be there. It was more than likely added by an F-14 proponent who dislikes the SUper Hornet, but even if I'm wrong on that, it just doesn't need to be there. That sort of detail belongs in the aircraft articles, not an oveview page on the USN in general. - BillCJ 19:30, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
Beyond that, it's OR analysis. It's not quoting a source that says that, it's an editor looking at the different numbers and coming to conclusions. WP:OR makes it clear that it is not our job to analyze unrelated source information and come up with our own conclusions and judgements, it's our job to report what others are reporting. AKRadecki 19:36, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
Bill, I agree with you that it's not really relevant and doesn't need to be there. I was really only wondering why you'd call it 'POV', which you've answered. Thanks.
Akra - I respectfully disagree on principle here; we are allowed to use common sense, and I can't fathom calling it 'analysis' or 'judgement' or 'OR' to compare two very straightforward numbers provided by the same source. Heavier and slower are very clearly defined words; we're not saying 'clunkier' or 'worse' or something obviously judgmental. That being said, though, I imagine there's probably a fair amount of fans trying to push peacock language for their favorite aircraft (or the opposite about other aircraft), so maybe you're overstating your case out of the irritation of cleaning up blatant peacockery? In any case, I didn't mean to start some great debate, and I truly don't care about this instance, although I'm now curious about your views on OR :) Maralia 15:46, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

User:Areskaratepe

Thanks for the heads-up. I've taken a look and will spend some time trying to bring him around. Cheers --Rlandmann 19:46, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks much. - BillCJ 19:48, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Translation

Cavour can operate as LPH, with 2 eliassault from 6 EH-101 each can land all marines.
A very bad translation. I was barely capable to understand the sense, but we are lucky and it seems it is the it.wiki article weird translation. There it is written:
"La nave è predisposta per lanciare in 2 eliassalti, condotti da 6 EH-101 ASH/TTH, le truppe anfibie che può alloggiare"
that means:
Cavour can operate as LPH, being capable to deploy all her 416 marines crew, sending all of them in two consecutive attacks taken by her 6 EH101 helicopters fleet.
The "two consecutive attacks" concept could be better translated with "sorties" which is an aviation term or "... her 416 marines crew by means of two subsequent air attacks made with her 6 EH101 helicopters fleet.". Also the "marines" concept could be improved by writing "...to deploy all her San Marco naval infantry ...". Hoping you have now a better situation awareness, I am very interested in seeing how you will make plain the paragraph . --EH101 04:11, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

"Air attack" may be the literal translation intending "air assault". Assault=attack in English, although militarily they have a different connotation. In the current U.S. Army vernacular, it would be one air assault with two lifts; each lift comprising 6 chalks (aircraft). Sorry for butting in. --Born2flie 08:19, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
You are right. Different countries and even different armed forces use particular words depending on their doctrine books and terminology. Assault(a), lifts(b) and chalks(c) are typical "airborne" words, mostly the last one. The best could be to listen to a U.S. Marine member due to the specific equivalent environment. I guess he will suggest Assault(a), ship to shore deployment(b) and platoons or companies(c) as translation. Things are becoming more and more interesting to me. Let’see. --EH101 14:04, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Strange aircraft

Last night walking back to my room, I heard an aircraft approaching from the west. At first, I thought it was an Apache, but it did not go anywhere on the airfield I expected it to go. It slowed and made an approach to a different location and then my mind clicked and I thought that this might actually be a different aircraft with different capabilities. Three guesses. --Born2flie 08:37, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

My three guesses:
  1. An A380 - everyone knows this is the most important aircraft in history, because it wasn't designed by Boeing, or built in the USA.
  2. The latest Iranian aircraft built HESA, the 209-5 Teheran rotary-wing Mach 3 stealth attack fighter that looks like a cross between a F-5 and an AH-1J, but was soley designed and built in Iran and only resembles the US aircrafts, or is a simple upgrade of old F-5s and AH-1s - we're not sure which.
  3. A V-22 - but it might have been hard for your to tell if it didn't crash while autorotating, wasn't shot down from the front or side, and didn't have Bell-Boeing PR people running around instisting that it actually can fly. (No intent to make fun of crashes or shoot-downs here, as this may be sensitive issue over there.) - BillCJ 09:12, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
LMAO! I knew you'd enjoy hearing about it. :) --Born2flie 09:49, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Kelowna Flightcraft

Copyedit from my page:"Bill, I was following the Kelowna Flightcraft link from the Convair CV-240, and saw it redirected to Kelowna Flightcraft Air Charter, which is set up (correctly) as an airliner page. There seems to be a little info on Kelowna Flightcraft's other activities there, but not much, and nothing whatsoever on their being the Convair type certificate holder, their CV5800 conversions and similar activities. Would you be interested in setting up a dedicated page for the parent company that covers a braoder range of its activities? I figure you probably have some first-hand knowledge on the company to work from, and better access to local sources. If you can't, just say so, and I'll try to throw a stub togother in a few days. Thanks. - BillCJ 19:30, 2 December 2007 (UTC)"

Hi Bill, I actually have my offices in a buliding owned by Flightcraft Maintenance Services, an offshoot of Kelowna Flightcraft. I'll do some quick research and see what I can do. They are an interesting concern with a number of projects that are sited in my part of the world. FWIW Bzuk 19:51, 2 December 2007 (UTC).
Hi Bill, I'm having an odd discussion with the editor who redirected the original article who obliquely insinuates that my information is wrong. Oh well, I think the easiest thing to do is rewrite the original article into a Kelowna Flightcraft Company piece and then provide some sub-articles to entities like the Kelowna Flightcraft Air Charter, Allied Wings and their various maintenance and support operations. FWIW, I may need an admin to allow the article to have the redirect's name. Bzuk (talk) 08:10, 11 December 2007 (UTC).
As long as you have reliable sources attesting to the notability of the main company, we shouldn't have any problem keeping the article. The original page was not AFDed or protected as far as I can tell, so I can't see that he has any authority to stop you from putting in the new article where the old one was. That doesn't mean he won't protect it now anyway. You should probably talk to Alan or John, and get their take on this. As to daughter articles, we can probaly cover everything on the main page, except for the Air Charter division which certainly seems notable on its own. (And it already exists, meaning we don't have to create it!) As for Allied WIngs, if you find enough sources to put something together at the same time as the main article, then it would make sense to split it off them. Otherwise, it can probably survive as a section on the main page for now. Hope that helps. - BillCJ (talk) 08:24, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
I agree about the name being Kelowna Flightcraft and I only referred to the company because I was using a company template in my sandbox article. I had styled it loosely after other company articles I had written or edited. I'll keep working on the article(s) till they are ready to go then get some advice as to how to make the changes. FWIW, I found some interesting tidbits about Kelowna Flightcraft and their role in supplying aircraft for the short-lived Greyhound Air (an offshoot of the Greyhound Bus company) Bzuk (talk) 14:26, 11 December 2007 (UTC).

Curious and curiouser

Bill, I trust your antenna and radar is more finely tuned than mine; whatdoyathink about the pattern here: ? Seems suspiciously like a friend of ours? FWIW Bzuk 00:00, 3 December 2007 (UTC).

The IP is registered in NJ, and his pattern seems different. I think it's just a teen and/or Russian immigrant trying to "improve" Russian-related aircraft aritlces, but who either doesn't understand RS, doesn't care, or is adding false info on purpose. Still, who knows!! - BillCJ 01:03, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks

...for the latest heads-up. Sigh. --Rlandmann (talk) 05:56, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

And again. Don't ya just love Whack-a-Mole? :) --Rlandmann 20:01, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

MRJ

RE:your health tag. I hope it's ok! About the MRJ, "However, backlog for all medium sized jet makers including Airbus A320's , Boeing 737s, and Embraer E-Jets are over 4 years, with my expanding airlines eager to get their hands on any new aircraft.". I'm not sure it's true. If so, orders of CRJ1000 should be higher than they are. I started the article and thought "I don't think I'd wrote that, especially with no citation." Looking at the history, it's confirmed. I didn't! Archtransit 21:54, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. I have a long-term chronic, though not life-threatening, illness, so some days are better than others. I usually try not to be more specific in an open forum, esp as I have a vindictive wiki-stalker that doesn't respect people's privacy.
As to the MRJ, I checked the cited article for the item in question, and it really doesn't bear out the conclusion, tho a hint of it is there. It's possible the user added the thought from another source, or it may just be OR conjecture. I left the VS tag in to give others a chance to look at it.
I know what you mean about seeing things in articles we wrote or heavily expanded, and going, "Did I write that?" :) Sometimes I actually DID write it!
Btw, the MRJ article is good for one about an aircraft that has just been launched. It is amazing to me how many companies are entering the RJ market right now. I've thought for years that the Boeing-Airbus duopoly wouldn't last as long as some, esp Airbus, seem to think it would. With Bombardier, Embraer, and others now trying to break the 100-seat limit, this is being borne out on the low end. I do think this will have a great influence on the natures of the Boeing 737RS/Y1 and AIrbus NSA, to the point where they might not even try for the 100-seat end, and go more for the 130-200 range. Of course, as these other manufactures learning curve for airliners grows, I think we'll see them take cances with larger aircraft in the next 10-20 years, and be willing to be more innovative. Personally, I think Boeing can handle the competition, but Airbus at this point seems to treat Boeing as the the only one to beat. An analogy would be a sports team designed solely to beat a rival: They usually have one or two good years, and ofetn to best there rival, but soon another team with a different style of play and personnel comes along, and they aren't ready for the challenge. I guess we'll see what happens! - BillCJ 00:50, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Downmight10

He's a sock of a guy named Roadcrusher who has been uploading non-free images onto Misplaced Pages for over two months now (see Misplaced Pages:Requests for checkuser/Case/Roadcrusher. Got repeatedly blocked for copyvio so now uses socks. Started to pick up his scent about a month ago and sadly now he's kind of the Jean Valjean to my Javert. I knew it was him but decided to see what would happen if I tagged the vios and fixed the legit FUs (not the first time, mind you), but he's back to his old tricks so I reported it to WP:AIV. Kelvinc 02:57, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Good to know that he is a sock, so I don't have to worry about 3RR (or at list a block sticking for long). THanks for your help in this. - BillCJ 03:03, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Merge template

Hi! I were who removed the merge template, because the two article title were same. If they weren't same, what was the difference between the titles? Nbuda (talk) 18:53, 5 December 2007 (UTC) Please answer to my talk page. Nbuda (talk) 18:53, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

USN Commander Crowley

FYI: The only "Commander Crowley" I can find with internet searches was a Lt Commander John D. Crowley of the USS Flier (SS-250) during WWII. USS Flier on Navy.mil omits the Lieutenant part. In any event, looks like the youngest Commander Jim Crowley (USS Cavalla) thing is probably fiction.-Fnlayson (talk) 00:46, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, you saved me a search! I kinda figured that was the case, esp since he was 23 in the first three posts yesterday! - BillCJ 00:45, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Dark Blue World Spitfires

What was your problem with noting the different Spifire marks used in Dark Blue World, or were you just having a bad day? BomberJoe (talk) 06:15, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

My problem is that it is commentary, and as such doesn't belong in an encyclopdia article. Find a reliable source which gives that info, and cite it, and write it in a formal style. And, no, this is one of my good days :) - BillCJ 06:28, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Mike Post

More info there now, for those who are unfamiliar with "blue" as a synonym for police. Baseball Bugs 21:30, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Why?

Why can't a link be made to a section in a Talk? LanceBarber (talk) 06:13, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

(Edit in question)
I only said I didn't think we're allowed to do it, but I can't cite a policy or guideline on it. The main reason for me tho would be that it isn't a content page, but a talk page. It should either go on the main page or in a separate page. Tags can link to talk pages for discussions on moves and such, but I've never seen an link in the text to contnet placed on the talk page. I'm going to ask a few admins, and see if they know of a guideline or policy explicitly forbidding it. - BillCJ (talk) 08:01, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
I can't immediately find a policy which forbids it but rather than unhelpfully cite common sense, I suppose a link to talk fails WP:RS; a talk page can be edited by anybody and is intended for discussion about improving the article. It is not for linking to from mainspace with certain exceptions that you mention. Sorry I cannot be more helpful at the moment, but obviously I agree with you on the issue. --John (talk) 08:21, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Since we try to limit or discourage trivias and popular culture sections and sub articles, creating a section in the Talk seems to be a viable solution. The B-52 or various automobiles is one of a hundred plus aritcles that have this situation. We do not want all the uncited crap that we have dealt with, but there is a lot of pieces of information is an integral part of our society... way of life... language and slang... all part of documented history. I'm try to find a common ground for all of us, and this seems to be a solution.... not the perfect solution, but viable. Lets find a viable solution here, and get it into our Wiki projects as guidelines. Thank you. LanceBarber (talk) 16:04, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

I honestly don't think it is a viable solution, and there is probably a rule against it somewhere. I admire you for trying tho. This one really needs to be discussed at the Wikipedi-wide level, such as at Village Pump, if you really want to try to make this a viable option.

- BillCJ (talk) 16:12, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Hey guys. One of the big reasons for no cross-namespace linking is the fact that Misplaced Pages is mirrored and forked all across the Internet, and many mirrors only copy the mainspace, so such links would be broken. See also Misplaced Pages:Self-references to avoid. In addition, the reasons for keeping trivia out of articles apply equally well to putting the trivia on the talk page and linking to it. It's not that there's something special about the mainspace that needs to be kept trivia free. We don't want trivia sections on Misplaced Pages, period. TomTheHand (talk) 17:48, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
I'd also cite Misplaced Pages:Layout, which governs the See also section, and which says that this section "provides an additional list of internal links to other articles in Misplaced Pages" (emphasis added). This is a very narrow range of what's appropriate in an SA section. AKRadecki 20:05, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
Another problem is that by linking to the talk page, we give validity to the list of trivia that is on the page, but lose any control over the content of that list. Talk pages don't have the same restrictions for verifiability, notability, and such that we have in the article space. --Ckatzspy 20:22, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

This is been an excellant learning session, thank you for everyone's input and references. I've created a few Talk links, and will go back and unlink them. Should an update to Misplaced Pages:Self-references to avoid with an explicit note to include in its examples? LanceBarber (talk) 03:36, 9 December 2007 (UTC)


sorry for noseing in but wouldn't the link be redundent?--ANOMALY-117 (talk) 22:50, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Invincible class photo

Hey Bill, I've noticed the back-and-forth you're having with Kurt Leyman on Invincible class aircraft carrier. I warned him about violating the three revert rule; you haven't made three reverts yet, but I'd ask that you kick off the dialogue on the talk page instead of reverting him again. I'd rather not get involved in the issue one way or the other because I'd like to retain my ability to act as an admin if necessary. TomTheHand (talk) 22:29, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Your revert on USS Illinois (BB-65)

I'm sure there is some significance/relevance pertaining to the three being retained and disposed at the same time. But, until either myself or User:TomStar81, who I'm collaborating with can cite it, I guess it is best to leave the note out of the article. Hopefully when we finish our finals and implement the suggestions from the FAC, we'll be able to cite something. -MBK004 01:03, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

My apologies for not paying attention to who added the items. I do try to give regular editors the benefit of the doubt most of the time. I've reverted so much jusk today that I just assumed this was more of it. I'd rather leave it out, but if someone else adds it back in as-was, I won't revert it. Also, unless the item is related specifiaclly to the Illinois, it would probably be better in the class article to cover the Kentucky also. Of course, it depends on what the sources say, and the context for the whole item. - BillCJ (talk) 01:35, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
No worries at all. I've been in that situation as well. I imagine after finals we'll find a place for the information to reside. I could also be totally forgetting about an article where this is already documented (not likely as it isn't mentioned except for a line or two in the class articles and individual ship articles). The one thing I'm sure about is that sources exist, they just have to be found. -MBK004 02:22, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Re: ADF questions

Hi Bill. The new Labor government has said that it will keep all the contracts which the previous government signed, so the Canberra class ships and Super Hornets will go ahead (though the decision making process which which led to the Super Hornet purchase will be reviewed). Labor is also committed to maintaining the 3% annual real increase in defence expenditure, so there probably won't be much change in the ADF's size, structure and procurement program in the short run. In the longer run, the new government is going to commission a new Defence white paper, which should lead to some changes. Labor will probably take a more disiplined approach to defence procurement than the previous government did, so things like the sudden purchase of Abrams tanks, C-17 Globemasters and Super Hornets aren't going to happen again any time soon. --Nick Dowling (talk) 04:02, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

US

You may not be aware that there is some discussion about the use of US and U.S. on the discussion page for "F-4 phantom operators". The current consensus view is that U.S. is being used. You are welcome to contribute to the discussion there, and perhaps you can influence the consensus. There may be a simple explanation, but I am puzzled by your comments in the edit summaries. Snowman (talk) 21:36, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Helicopter...look...please...

Hands. Cramping. Fingers. Tired. Can't type. Look. Article. Helicopter. Tell. What fix? --Born2flie (talk) 23:31, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Spelling

Copyedit from my talk page: "Bill, what is the Canadian spelling of manoeuvre/maneuver? Thanks - BillCJ (talk) 18:05, 10 December 2007 (UTC)"

You could already guess that Canajans (formerly know as the colonials) are typically psychophrenic and use both Amerispeak and Brittalk. Generally speaking, both terms are in vogue but most often "manoeuvre" is used in the Canadian Forces (notice we are no longer the Canadian Armed Forces, they took our guns away...) but get this: "The Canadian Manoeuvre Training Centre (CMTC) is the premier Army training experience for all soldiers that will occur at the Canadian Maneuver Training Centre (CMTC)" which is a direct quote from a Canadian Army document. I did say psychophrenic, I should have probably added "dopey." FWIW, go with "manoeuvre" in an official Canadian document and "maneuver" everywhere else, especially in publications such as newspapers. Bzuk (talk) 18:57, 10 December 2007 (UTC).
  • Those are spelled different but pronounced the same, right? Good one on the guns part. Call it Canadian Forces. ;) For that matter the US Dept. of Defense is not really accurate either. But we're all used to it... -Fnlayson (talk) 00:08, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
Well, we're not unique in calling it the Dept. (or Ministry) of Defense either, even if the spelling is peculiar to the US. But at least we ARE armed! For a nation that so much wants to be out from the US's shadow, they'd up crap creek if they were invaded and the US didn't come to their aid! The USMC is over twice as big as the entire CF, btw. After all, what good is spending so much on healthcare and other social spending if there's no one left to spend it on? But I guess if I lived in a neighborhood where the guy beside me is armed to the teeth, I really wouldn't need to own a gun. Of course, I wouldn't be egging his house every chance I got either! :) - BillCJ (talk) 00:33, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
Hey USe guys, stop making fun of us, it's not in the best interests of U.S. (remember, we own all the ice up north and when Global Warning really hits ) and youse guys come to us for a drink o' water, then we'll see whose laughin' at us or US? I'm getting really confUSed here?! FWIW Bzuk (talk) 04:02, 11 December 2007 (UTC).

Renaming

Having a discussion about renaming of article on aircraft nicknames - Goto the Category:World War II notable aircraft you will see numerous examples of "Aircraft Name" with a subset added afterwards - need to standardise these articles. The best way is to identify the aircraft name "Enola Gay" then type aircraft (B-29). There was several Memphis Belle (B-17) & (B-52) as an example. Another point being, a name such as Enola Gay (Aircraft) tells you nothing about the article Enola Gay (B-29) tells you not only this specific article but might also direct you to the B-29 article.Davegnz (talk) 18:54, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Good points, Dave, why not bring them to the project group as they may be of interest to others. Bzuk (talk) 23:57, 10 December 2007 (UTC).

AC-130 protection

Hi Bill - I would love to help out here, but feel that semi-protection would unfortunately be against protection policy, specifically that semi-protection should not be used

"In a content dispute between registered users and anonymous users, with the intention to lock out the anonymous users. "

How would you feel about temporary full protection to see if some kind of consensus position can be reached? --Rlandmann (talk) 03:41, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm fine with full protection, but I think it's a bit extreme for the case. As far as this being a content dispute, I have to disagree. The IPs seems to be random crufters from different IP groups, and who don't seem to care that there is/has been discussion ongoing. As I said, they even remove the warnings at times, which to me makes this more a case of vandalism. They are of course free to engage in discussion, and a few have, but for the most part this is just drive-by editing. I really don't see why we should punish regular editors for the actions of a few random IPs who don't care a wit about the rest of the article, or even about discussing it. However, I asked that you do what you feel is best, and I can accept that. If this is your interpretation of the policy, I'll abide by it. I asked you for help, so I won't try to bypass you by going to someone else at this point. Thanks again, and I do men that sincerely. - BillCJ (talk) 03:56, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

RfA

I also just realised that you've already had your wiki-birthday while I was away. How do you feel about that long-overdue RfA now? --Rlandmann (talk) 03:53, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Sent you an enmail. Hope it got through. - BillCJ (talk) 04:33, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
Hey, don't turn down a lynch mob, jest kiddin' (FWIW, {:¬∆) Bzuk (talk) 05:17, 11 December 2007 (UTC).

Carrier Kuznetsov.

With such current events, why dont you help out & search for sources yourself. Also & try and edit 'poorly written' text, rather than deleting it.... Thats ignorance & stupidity at play... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mark.t2006 (talk • contribs)

ignorance & stupidity - good description of the text I deleted - glad you agree with me that text like that shouldn't be left in the article. - BillCJ (talk) 21:03, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

F4U Corsair

I saw your edits here-- given the length of time the material remained unsourced the deletions were appropriate. I do not think it was original research however as the points are made in a number of sources. (I was not the contributor of that material, but I do have a dozen of the listed sources in my library.) It has long been on my "to-do" list to add the appropriate references to those sources, and perhaps your edits will now give me the incentive I needed. Regards, Kablammo (talk) 16:23, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Virginia class submarine external link revert

Hi BillCJ, I saw your revert on removal of the external link to Maritime geography. I did read the article, but I still think this is a big stretch to include this as an external link to Virginia class submarine. External links should have a close relation with the main topic. Virginia class submarines have as close a tie to the maritime geography article as they do to other topics like Navy, Commonwealth of Virginia, Submarine... yes, its a somewhat related topic, but hardly so important to warrant an external link. Otherwise, you might as well make an external link section that is 10 pages long, and include Maritime geography as an external link to every ship in existence. What makes the tie between Maritime geography and Virginia-class so exceptionally important?

I'm not big on revert wars, and hardly feel strong enough to revert again, but hope you'll give the appropriateness of the external link a second consideration.

Cheers, Warthog32 (talk) 18:24, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Actually, we call a link to a page within Misplaced Pages an "internal link". "External links" are those to other websites. This is an important distinction, but one easily confused.
As to the link to Maritime geography, the Virginia class was designed explicitly for operations in "littoral waters", or green-navy type operations. The "x-water navy" terms are defined in the Maritime geography page, and as such do bear a relevence. THere may be a more-appropriate article to link to on the subject, and I'd be for changing the link if there is one. - BillCJ (talk) 18:37, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Re: Schweizer 434

Oh, it was a misunderstanding. I think you forgot to type the appropriate code so the page didn't appear as a redirect. Its content was Schweizer 333 instead of #REDIRECT Schweizer 333, thus I mistook it for a test page. My apology. @pple complain 09:50, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry to hear that you currently experience health issues. Be well soon! @pple complain 09:53, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

I've responded to your post on my talk page. Sorry for the mixup! --jonny-mt 11:13, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

F-4

I have listed the target of the F-4 redirect page for discussion at Misplaced Pages:Redirects for discussion. Snowman (talk) 21:54, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Veteran's Stadium

Great point! I did not think of the disambiguation of that. I certainly would make more sense to edit the (now) multiple links to other stadiums with that name to be a disambiguation. I'll add that to my personal to-do list. Gwguffey (talk) 06:43, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

V (The Second Generation)

Absolutely nothing worth salvaging there Bill - just a link to a YouTube video of an embarrassingly badly-made fan attempt at a trailer for the new series. Yechhh. --Rlandmann (talk) 19:21, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

No - no problem. It only counts as "re-creating" deleted material if the new article is "substantially identical to the deleted version and that any changes in the recreated page do not address the reasons for which the material was deleted." (WP:CSD G4) --Rlandmann (talk) 19:48, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

F-4 Phantom II

I see you have reverted the proposed change. That's ok with me because I seek guidance and finding out what the consensus is. The change is in the diffs for others to see and evaluate. If you have an opinion, consider placing it here http://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Aviation#Manual_of_Style_dispute

and/or

http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Misplaced Pages:Featured_article_candidates/Boeing_747&redirect=no

The WP:aviation page may be a better place for policy discussion, the 747 for FA page for evaluating how it can become a FA. Thanks. Archtransit (talk) 21:01, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

The drama is quiet for a few minutes...in that time, I'd like to say hello. I see your contribution list and there are quite a few articles that interests me. If the 747 article gets FA, then the pace of editing there may decrease and I'll find a new project to work on. Archtransit (talk) 00:53, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the Hello, and welcome! Feel free to help out in anyway - help is always appreciated. And I'm sorry tha I was a little too contentious today - it was time for my nap! Really! - BillCJ (talk) 01:59, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Bill, anyone, what happened with the F-4 redirect discussion? The F-4 still has the tag for Redirect for deletion thing, but it's not on current list there anymore (don't see archive page either). So I can't find the result. Thanks. -Fnlayson (talk) 16:59, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Jeff, here's the answer! I'll remove the tag from the F-4 page per that diff - was just waiting to see if the closer was still going to get it. - BillCJ (talk) 17:02, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Thanks! I missed the log link, but I wasn't sure of the exact date. Mtmelendez's edits of the redirect link on F-4 Phantom II reminded me about this. Have a Merry Christmas! (in case I forget later :) ) -Fnlayson (talk) 17:12, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

L-23 Seminole

G'day from Oz. I just wanted to say I appreciate what you've done with the article; it looks a whole lot better now and to be honest I hadn't even thought about moving the images across. YSSYguy (talk) 22:26, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, and no prob! That is actually the kind of improvements I enjoy doing - doesn't require much research or writing-from-scratch! Oh, feel free to update the specs to an L-23 or U-8 model if you have the sources - I did it that way just as a starter. - BillCJ (talk) 23:43, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

No worries, the L-23D was equivalent to the E50, so it should be just a matter of changing the title; I will have a look at Beechcraft and see what it says. If you have the time and the inclination, do you reckon you could look for a PD image of one of the radar-equipped RL-23s or RU-8s? I couldn't find one and I think that it would cap the whole thing off quite nicely. YSSYguy (talk) 11:45, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

SPEEDHAWK, Speed?

Hey Bill I'm quite sure the Speedhawk gose faster than Vne 167 mph, I don't have the magazine anymore, but they had an artcle in Rotor & Wing Dec. 2007 issue on the speed hawk & as I remember it was closer to 230 mph. I know, I know so w.t.f. just wanna to give you the heads up. If I can verify I'll up dated. By the way dose my artcle User:DREWNIGG/Copters in Pop Culture need to be in a more paragragh structure, to make it, or am I just wasting my time? Hope you feeling better - Happy X-mas/hanuka/KawanzaANigg (talk) 08:43, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

The 167 mph speed is for the SH-60B, as a comparison. When you do find sourced specs, start listing them under the X-49 heading, above the SH-60 specs. Once we get a full list of figures for the X-49, then we can add them in to the regualr specs table in place of the SH-60 specs. I hope that makes sense.
As to "Copters in Pop Culture", anything you have needs to be in prose form. Also, each appearance needs to be notable, and have a source of some type attesting to its notability. That's going to be the only way the article will be allowed to come back at all, and that will take alot of time to do. Anything less would be a waste of time, as it will just be CSDed or AFDed again. - BillCJ (talk) 09:20, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

User:Financialmodel

Hi Bill - I haven't gone through the dispute exhaustively, but given the level of animosity developing, an RfC would be in order. However, an RfC must be brought by someone who who has been involved with trying to resolve the dispute, and seconded by another. You can find the instructions here in the "General user conduct" section. If you need any help with setting it up, please let me know. You will need to show specific diffs, as well as list the policies that you feel have been violated. --Rlandmann (talk) 21:38, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Wikizilla= Downtrip

Misplaced Pages:Requests for checkuser/Case/Wikzilla

You will be interested in knowing that your suspicions on Downtrip were justified, a check user request has shown that the anon IP addresses that warred on the aircraft page were from Downtrip; more importantly the check user found Wikizilla to be the same user as Downtrip.Freepsbane (talk) 03:05, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. He does seem to want to be productive, so perhaps an olive branch with strings attatched would be worth it. Probably need to find an uninvolved admin to do it tho, as I doubt he wants to hear from us. Perhaps the admin who "told" us not to re-add stuff a user deletes from their own talk page might be willing to help out. - BillCJ (talk) 03:20, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

I agree with you indeff blocking him would only result in a new hidden sock account, however the fact remains he still is engaging in sock puppetry and edit warring. If he is to be a active editor he must halt these unsanctioned actions, not merely provide the appearance of constructive editing. Regards Freepsbane (talk) 16:49, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

At least he's not harassing me right now, following me around like a sick puppy, reverting all my constructive edits as vandalism, etc etc. You keep going at him like you are without conclusive proof (the kind even troll-loving admins can't ignore), and you'll have your very own troll folowing you around! Some things just aren't worth it - it's easier to just get the pages protected. - BillCJ (talk) 17:25, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
True, thanks for the advice.Freepsbane (talk) 17:40, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Email alert

Something in your mailbox today from that blinkety-blank Canajan fool up north in the land of ice and igloos. Bzuk (talk) 13:35, 20 December 2007 (UTC).

F-15 edit

Thanks for fixing that edit involving the 1 air-air "loss" earlier. A Japanese F-15J was lost in a training accident in 1995. Similar wording used to be there, but I removed it as that's not air-air combat. Just thought you might want to know more. -Fnlayson (talk) 16:57, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Template:Aircontent

The only way that I can see to do it would be to include an extra field called "Extra navboxes" or something - this wouldn't have to generate any text of its own; but would prevent the "See also" field from being called. I can't think of any reason not to do it, but it might be worth putting it to the project first! :) --Rlandmann (talk) 08:05, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

OK thanks. WIll try to bring it up this weekend/early next week. - BillCJ (talk) 08:11, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

UH-1 Iroquois and UH-1N Twin Huey

Bill: Thanks for reverting the deletes of Canadian units flying these two aircraft. Someone seems to dislike that info being there, even though it is carefully referenced! I already reverted the deletes once! I'll be keeping an eye on those pages, as you are too. - Ahunt (talk) 12:03, 22 December 2007 (UTC)


AH-1Z Viper

Bill I want to write an artical on the AH-1Z, since the UH-1Y Venom has its on page. Can you show me how to get past the AH-1 twin cobra redirect?ANigg (talk) 18:50, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Ok thanks I'll keep you postedANigg (talk) 23:07, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Bill when you get a chance take a look, give me your thoughts User:ANigg/AH-1Z Viper thanx DrewANigg (talk) 07:44, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Hay Mon, Irie Chrismus...

Everybody knows (sung to the tune of Chestnuts Roasting...)

When gungo cook an sorrel flow, Yu dun know seh de season brite, Gal an bwoy wid dem starlight a glow, Dem naw go waan fe sleep tonite.

Dem know seh joyride deh pon di way. Wit music rockin, rockin tru de day, An all de chicken dem a try fi spy, Fi see is which one a dem is gwine fry.

An so, we want to big up everywan. All kidz from one to ninety-two, Aldoah money dun, Have a hole heap a fun. Irie Chrismus, Irie Chrismus ... to yuuuu!!

To you and yours, the best this season. Bzuk (talk) 15:09, 23 December 2007 (UTC).

{{Aircontent}}

Your edit to undo my correcting the h3 tags interests me. I woudl be interested in your rationale.

Currently the h3 lines are 100% incorrect because the tag is opened but not closed. Misplaced Pages is amusingly tolerant of incorrect HTML, but it remains that it is incorrent.

I use this template on another wiki, and the problems this incorrect html created ion internet explorer were immense. I came back to WP and corrected it, but you reverted my edits as if they were vandalism, despite my having posted a proper edit summary.

So I am interested in your rationale.

Fiddle Faddle (talk) 09:35, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

I don't usually describe vandal reversion as a "troubleshoot revert" or "troubleshooting" in three successive edit summaries. I usually call them "vandalism". That should have been a clue as to my rationale, or did you miss the summaries? :)
There were problems on several aircraft pages related to template, mainly one dealing with aircraft specifications, but the problems affected the aircontent template too. After various attempts to see if I could figure it out, I reverted your edits to see if it made a difference. The results were inconclusive.
I did ask User:Rlandmann, an admin who has experience with these templates, to look at the problem, and I believe he fixed it but they are still there. You may want to correspond with him to make sure the problems were not caused by your code changes. (Probably not, but he writes code, I don't.) Hope that helps. - BillCJ (talk) 09:49, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
No worries. But do look at the HTML you are using. <h3> must be closed with </h3>. If not then the HTML is imperfect and creates errors. Those templates are far too complex because they require experts to debug, and my advice would be to simplify substantially. I am only interested insofar as there was a problem at Plane Spotting World which was formed from lawful copies of wikipedia material and whose stated purpose is to diverge form WP as fast as possible to make a place for the plane spotting community with WP look and feel.
Do feel free to pop over. Currently the articles will be wholly familiar to you, but that ought to change over time.
Fiddle Faddle (talk) 10:21, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
I hope you don't find this either presumptious or banal and thus patronising, but W3Schools is a great tutorial site for HTML, and, even if you are knowledgable, it is a great reference point. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 14:39, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for the link - I'll try to take a look at it. I got involved with computers in the mid-80s, and only got as far as some light programming in BASIC (no COBOL or PASCAL at all). HTML came after I was on my chosen degree track, so I never got/took the oppurtunity to learn it. I can do the basics in Wiki-mark-up, but that's it.So I will take a look there, and see if I can learn anything. In my present situation I can't work, and would love to learn some more about HTML and the like, and possibly later do some work from home to have a little income. As to the PlaneSpotting site, I will keep an eye on it and see how it goes. WP is becoming far to combative and accepting of "non-productive" users, and I may not last much longer. I just haven't found a good general-content alternative yet with the same strict encyclopedic content standards as Misplaced Pages "supposedly" has. Anyway, thanks again. - BillCJ (talk) 18:51, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
I started with Algol in the seventies! If you could do Basic then HTML poses no challenges at all. It's a breeze! The point about WP and its challenging nature is well taken. It's why we started PSW. In terms of rigorous content there, that is a matter for the community that develops to decide. At present it is relaxed and waiting for simple rules to be determined. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 06:40, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

General American

Hi, I noticed that you undid my removal of 208.104.45.20's edit to Talk:General American. I would like to clarify that this user seems to have civility problems and the edit that I removed was uncivil, assumed bad faith, and seemed to have no purpose other than to disparage another editor. I would have simply left a comment to remain civil and on topic but then I noticed this edit by the anon user. It seems very much like they are trolling; removing uncivil material is a proper response suggested (albeit with caveats) by WP:CIV.
We don't need to get into a dispute over this. My intention was to remove the comment before Homely or anyone else chose to respond to it. Now that I've given you my justification, I'll let you decide whether or not to re-remove the comment. Regards! Ƶ§œš¹ 08:37, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

While I understand your point, I do disagree with its removal. Granted, it's a differnece of interpretation of the rules: I perfer to remove only blatant vandalism or blatant personal attacke. Today, I read comments (a few nmonths old) where an apparently British/English user where he stated that he "hates AmE", but they were left to stand. It seems it's OK for non-Americans to express such things, but not Americans. To be honset that user is exactly the kind of attitude that the "rant" is in reaction to. Other than his use of the word "lies", I really don't find anything objectional. He used no profanity or slurs whatsoever, unlike the diff you've pointed out. Those are the types of things in comments that I find objectionable, but I see them everywhere. I'm sorry, but I don't believe an emotional rant rises such as this one rise to the level of uncivil behavior. His post on the user page certainly does, so ding him for that one! I agree that we should not edit war over this, tho, and if you still believe it ought to be removed, you may do so. - BillCJ (talk) 09:09, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Indian navy help request?

I tried to follow your link from the MILHIST talk page, but didn't find an "Indian Navy" heading.

You raise an interesting point, which is at the heart of practicing decent open source intelligence. I'm hesitant to say the government or the "reliable source" is always better. Sometimes, the government information has individual pieces that are useful, when crosschecked even when dealing with someone who is a true conspiracy buff.

Anyway, if you can give me a working pointer, I'll try to help. Howard C. Berkowitz (talk) 19:29, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, the post is up now. It took longer than I intended to write it! - BillCJ (talk) 19:39, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

FMA IA 58 Pucará

Dammit! I'm creating articles from this list, and I thought I'd searched all the various names it may have been under, but I guess not. Thanks, I'll merge them.- Trevor MacInnis (Contribs) 08:06, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

irrelevant information

Sorry about that. I saw only the Singapore Air Force listed and figured it wasn't needed since no other military branches were named. Again, sorry for causing you the extra work. :)

Congratulations!

I see that you are among the 5 most active editors to the Boeing 747 article (#3, actually). It has just been granted featured article status! The star isn't shown yet but it's listed among the promotions. Archtransit (talk) 19:33, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

New word

Canidalism - the belief by some Canadians that the USA wants to eat their country. :) - BillCJ (talk) 19:25, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Well if they don't want to eat us up, they sure want our water to drink! LOL

Infobox missile

Hi Bill - it's easily done... but the immediate result would be that the caption (such as it is...) would disappear from every article using the infobox. Before doing that, it really ought to be discussed with whatever WikiProject oversees that template (MILHIST?) I can't imagine any objections, but it's better to avoid accidentally treading on toes if possible! --Rlandmann (talk) 11:05, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Actually, since the data is still right there adjoining the photo and since the "caption" doesn't actually add anything anyway (which is why you wanted to change it I guess!) I've gona ahead and made the change. If it causes a fuss, it's an easy revert. To make it work, an extra "caption" field has to be added to the data in the article - take a look at this example to see what needs to be done. Hope this is what you were after! --Rlandmann (talk) 19:22, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Yeah - I just meant the pipe at the end of the line; when putting it at the start of the line is so much more elegant :) --Rlandmann (talk) 19:35, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

XF5U

If it's not in the right series, why don't you put it where it belongs, rather than just deleting it? Lou Sander (talk) 03:39, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Because until now, the page hasn't listed Navy aircraft, and I'm not sure they ought to be there. The page is a mess right now,and has expanded far beyond its original intent, which was to list the X-series planes only. I don't have time to rework it right now, but that's no reason to intentionally make it worse. - BillCJ (talk) 03:42, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
Looks like a bit of WP:OWN has crept into this article. Other editors can't divine its original intent, or know that Navy aircraft haven't been listed. It's hard to see how adding an experimental aircraft can "make worse" an article listing experimental aircraft, especially when the added one seems to be in perfect synch with the information in the lead. Lou Sander (talk) 04:40, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
You can be bold and make a category for US Naval planes if you like, and add your entry to it. If I tried to work on it myself right now, others might think I owned the article. I intend in the next few days to bring the page up at WT:AIR to get input on how to revamp the article, as there are several ways to go with it, and I usually don't try to make those decisions by myself, esp since I'm not sure which is is the best way. However, I don't expect you to have divined all that on your own, but neither did I think I had to inform you of my every intention in improving the page. - BillCJ (talk) 05:07, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
You may get a kick out of this. I don't have any intrinsic interest in the XF5U, and I never even heard of it before today. But today I was listening to an old time radio show that mentioned it (a Hop Harrigan episode from 1947 -- I listened to Hop when I was a kid). Just out of curiosity, I looked for the XF5U on Misplaced Pages. It didn't show up, probably because I was putting dashes in the name. I finally found it, but that was after I ran across the article with the list of experimental planes. Since the XF5U was an experimental plane that wasn't on that list, and since it seemed to fit the qualifications in the lead, I felt the need to go back and add it, so I did. Lou Sander (talk) 08:39, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Talk:U-571

Um, were you planning to reply on Talk:U-571 (film), or just pretend not to notice that I've asked you very nicely to justify your mud-slinging? It'd be even better if you could justify your edit (other than with "I'm unhappy"-stuff). Cheers, JackyR | Talk 19:18, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Option 3: I missed your response totally. I was busy making more mud :) Of course, as an American, option 3 doesn't count when a non-Amercian has already made up his mind otherwise. Do what you want on the page, as I'm done fighting bruised British egos. - BillCJ (talk) 02:04, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
I was actually hoping for some input, as I was (and am) just trying to make the article clearer. But if you're fed up, don't worry about it. By the way, I too have just had a message from 70.4.227.155 on my user page, under the heading Talk:U-571. Don't know if it was from you, but doesn't seem to relate to me at all. Cheers, JackyR | Talk 19:09, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
I have wikistalkers. Sorry they got to you, but I assure you I do all my ranting :) under this account. They're cowards who have to use sockpuppets and dynamic IPs to harrass others becuase their original accounts were blocked. They're not that bright, and they think acting like this will get them reinstated! They're just a nusiance, like ants at a picnic, but I am sorry you were bothered by them. - BillCJ (talk) 19:39, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
No worries. Sorry you're having to put up with them. Cheers, JackyR | Talk 15:57, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

-200 747s

Bill, please have a look at my Talk for your 747 reply - Adrian Pingstone (talk) 22:27, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

are you aware of User talk:70.4.227.155?==

If you are, and if it's you, that is kind of OK, though that user left an unpleasant message on my talk page (which is not only not OK, it is deeply upsetting, especially because it is irrelevant to me).

If this is not you then someone is doing something to damage your reputation.

Fiddle Faddle (talk) 01:41, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

MC-130 Addition

BillCJ, I hope your health is better. I know Misplaced Pages encourages updated work, but my novice addition probably looks amature. I am well versed in MC-130 operations (eleven years); as a MC-130 weapons officer, a peer approached me about some inaccuracies with C-130 and MC-130 information. I see you have already improved my MC-130P addition in the form of better format. I am offically in training in my Misplaced Pages abilities, therefore, when I understand the code better, I will add a picture to go along with the MC-130P. BTW, I don't have the official number of aircraft, but for the Combat Spear, MC-130W, there were two aircraft as of November 2007 vice the one that is listed on the site. The 73 SOS, now stationed at Cannon AFB, operate those aircraft. --jb 08:03, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Uh oh

Well, I've decided to apply to join the dark side. As a user with whom I have interacted, I would appreciate your input on my nomination. This is not a request for support, though any support would be appreciated, but simply a request for feedback. — BQZip01 —  03:36, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Sorry about the canvassing accusations. Anyway, I shot my wad over that one, and perhaps any future admin chances of my own. I was amused by someone's commnet on your "inability to think for yourself". That's something I expect to hear from people with misconceptions of the military, and I think that's all that comment was about. If anything, you've demonstrated an ability to think for yourself "too much", not too little! Oh well, I can't say that in an RFA either though. I don't think this has much of a chance of going through, especially with the canvassing accusations. Without any consideration of how you worded it or who you contacted, some good editors seemed put off by the accusation alone. That says more about them than about you, in my opinion. If you need any support regarding fallout from this, let me know. - BillCJ (talk) 08:20, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
  • BQZip01's RfA got closed earlier today. Sorry. :( Try again later. Try not to give too much extra info in your answers in the future. People used that against you it seemed. I didn't get the canvassing thing either. We wouldn't know about it otherwise unless we stumbled across it. -Fnlayson (talk) 23:30, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Provincial constitutions?

Copyedit form my talk page: "Bill, I asked this at Talk:Provinces and territories of Canada, and I thought i'd run it by you also. Do Canadian provinces have their own constitutions? This is not covered in the Provinces and territories of Canada article, and it seems to me it should be. - BillCJ (talk) 23:36, 7 January 2008 (UTC)"

As a matter of fact, provinces and the federal government are governed by the British North America Act of 1867 and all the various incarnations that came about since confederation or our birth as a nation. So the answer is no, provinces do not have their own charters or constitutions. FWIW Bzuk (talk) 00:32, 8 January 2008 (UTC).

Re: Template:RAN amphibious warfare ships

Hi Bill, I was going to drop you a line to explain why I made those changes. The landing craft would be out of place on templates for larger navies, but given that the RAN has always been pretty small I think that they're OK. List of Royal Australian Navy ships might be a better link given that most of the ships on the template are now out of service, but there's probably material for a very good article on Amphibious warfare ships of Australia or similar which I might create in the longer run. I think that I've missed three LSTs by the way, and am trying to find their names. --Nick Dowling (talk) 09:11, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

More troll attacks

Better have a look at http://en.wikipedia.org/Special:Contributions/68.244.126.205

Someone doesn't like you and is reverting your recent changes wholesale. Loren.wilton (talk) 00:52, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. More of the Joys of Open Editing religion of Jimboism. Enjoy! - BillCJ (talk) 01:08, 9 January 2008 (UTC)