Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 01:49, 22 September 2009

If you leave a message for me: I will generally respond here. Either add this page to your watchlist or ask me to notify you of a response on your talk page. If I leave a message for you: Please respond on your talk page. I will add it to my watchlist, so you don't need to notify me, unless I don't respond when a response is expected (normally within 24 hours, unless the issue is urgent). This helps keep discussions in one place and makes them easier to read and follow. If you are discussing an article: I would prefer to use that article's talk page, unless you'd rather not to use that page for some reason, such as commenting on a particular user's edits in semi-privacy. I generally do not bother to leave messages on IP talk pages, since many IPs are dynamic, and there's no way to know the difference on the first edits. The user will more than likely never even know they received a message, so it's just a waste of time better spent on actual editing. (This is one example of how not having mandatory registration does a great disservice to IP editors. Becasue of this, IP editors really ARE second-class users, made so by Jim Wales' own non-negotiable (thus dictatorial) policies.) The main exception is vandalism warnings, which are required before most admins will block or ban for vandalism. Please limit this page to discussions not related to any particular article, those covering a wide range of articles/topics, or personal comments. Note: I reserve the right to decline or withdraw from a situation that is escalating or uncomfortable, without giving a reason, or to take further action through permissable means. (See this policy.) This may include removing your messages from my talk page. If I've done so, please DO NOT re-add the same meassage, or follow-up with another - They will be removed again, mostly likely with a edit summary about your obnoxiousness in continually hounding me. If you then follow this up wth an ANI report, you're proving that you are a real jerk, and I won't respond there either, per WP:DNFT. I may, however, file my own ANI report against your harrasment.

Archives

Archive 1 - 2006 Archive 2 - January - March 2007 Archive 3 - April - May 2007 Archive 4 - June - July 2007 Archive 5 - August - September 2007 Archive 6 - October - November 2007 Archive 7 - December 2007 - February 2008 Archive 8 - March 2008 - May 2008 Archive 9 - June 2008 - August 2008 Archive 10 - September 2008 - November 2008 Archive 11 - December 2008 - March 2009 Archive 12 - April 2009 - June 2009

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.

"Vomit Comet"

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

API Blowback controversy

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

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

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

Tennessee Titans

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

New user name?

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

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

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

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

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

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

Some guy ANI

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

Nomination.

Hello,

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

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

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

Merger for Redistribution

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

DST

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

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

Y-9 Status...

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Lycoming O-360

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

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

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

Future templates

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

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

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

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

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

Super, Super dooper Sabre

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

Fighter aircraft article

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

Some suggestions for the Chattanooga article

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

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

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

V redirects

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

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

Talk:Unmanned aerial vehicle

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

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

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

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

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

F-14 background

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

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

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

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

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

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

Red links on dab pages

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

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

Jetspecs

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Another Story

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

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

NATO names in bold.

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

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

Rolls-Royce?

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

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

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

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

FYI

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

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

Air Canada incident

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

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

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

Ayres LM200 Loadmaster

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

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

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

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

Bonanza

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

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

Piper aircraft

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

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

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

Jane's

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

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

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

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

Bummer

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Modeling the F-101 Voodoo

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

afd warning templates

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

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

Spitfire

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

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

Turks and Caicos Islands dialect

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

OH-58 Kiowa

Bill,

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

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

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

Piper PA-40 Arapaho

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

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

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

Modeling the F-101 Voodoo

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

Achtung, Spitfeuer!

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

Invitation

I invite you to here and here to discuss the dispute. SkyBon 14:08, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

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

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

AEW&C move war

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

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

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

Westinghouse J30

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

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

Black project working group now live

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

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

airbus-330

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

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

Stallion

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

Unexplained non-productive edits ae indistinguishable from vandalism. Misplaced Pages gets hundreds of edits a day just like that one, and without an edit summary, we can't guess what was menat for for good or bad. I'll remove the vandalism warning.— Preceding unsigned comment added by an unspecified IP address

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

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

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

Boeing 787

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

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

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

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

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

"Explain to me why?"

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

New Userbox for you

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

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

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

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

Finally, a kind note!

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

ANd who makes them cool off? They will just keep this up while I'm gone. - BilCat (talk) 23:48, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

This is my final word here on this unsavory subject: "Please leave me alone and go bother someone else" is hardly the most uncivil words that cn be said, and really arn't uncivil at all. My original sin here was warning an IP for vandalism when others disagreed with that. But rther than talk to me as a fellow editor, I had 4 editors pile on like I was the vandal. In truth, this is why good editors leave WP, because more good faith is extended to IPs or genuinely uncivil users than to editors in good standing. Keep pushing, guys, and soon there won't be any good editors left. I've never even heard of the guys who showed up to condemn me today, and I edit a lot of pages. Is this what they spend their time doing on WP, piling on on good editors while ignoring the bad behavior of IPs and admins? WP is an encyclopedia, not a social club. I'm not perfect, but I never use foul language, which some of my own accusers admitted to having used. I do my best, but I react badly when cornered, and I fight back. I still don't use foul language, and I do genuinely try to be civil. To me, and IP user with 3 edits on the same page on only one day, who then imediatly goes to ANI to complain, is probably not as inoccent as they are claiming to be. That, if nothing else, makes me still doubt the IP's edits were in good faith. This is all I have to say on this for now. Any unsavory responses from my harassers will be removed, probably with snide remarks. Apologies will be expempted from removal, as will comments from other users such as Cavalry who at least are trying to be neutral here. Thanks again! - BilCat (talk) 00:28, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

See here for an so-called "impartial" resolution. Meanwhine, still no sanctions against User:Who then was a gentleman? manys attacks agaisnt me. Typical. - BilCat (talk) 01:49, 22 September 2009 (UTC)