Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 18:40, 22 June 2010

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.

"Imagine a world in which every single person on the planet is given free access to the sum of all human knowledge, and in which anyone has unlimited opportunity to try to destroy that knowledge every day, wasting hundreds of hours of our contributors' time by making them serve as janitors, instead of allowing those contributors to add to the sum of human knowledge. That's what we're doing!" - What Jim Wales would say if he ever told himself the truth about what his precious dream has really become! 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. If you're new, and I've reverted you, please don't revert me without at least talking to me first. I've been around a while, and I know how WP works. If I reverted you, it was for a good reason, and you need to ask me what that reason was. I usually give a short edit summary explaining my reason, but often there are other policy-related issues that are related. But if you do leave me a message, please be civil. 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, which you may define as "public scolding", but is in reality wiki-lynching. My key points to remember about editing Misplaced Pages Telepathy doesn't work over the internet. Please use edit summaries. Unexplained edits may be indistiguishable from vandalism. Please use edit summaries. Anoyone can claim to be anyone on WP. Use Reliable, verifiable published sources. "Assume Good Faith" applies to motive, not content. I correct mistakes or errors when I see them, regardless of who made them - AGF means I don't warn for vandalism unless it's quite obvious that it was vandalism. "Don't bite the Newbies" does't mean it's OK to "eat the oldies"! Don't treat me worse than you would treat vandal if, in your opinion, you think I may have bit a newbie. I'm not the bad guy here either, and I won't be treated like one. I will fight back. Wikipeida is supposed to be an encyclopeida, not a social club. While treating people with fairness and respect is important, it's not the only factor. Let's keep the "main thing" the "main thing", and protect the content as well as the contributors.

This user talk page might be watched by friendly talk page stalkers, which means that someone other than me might reply to your query. Their input is welcome and their help with messages that I cannot reply to quickly is appreciated.

Archives

Archive 1 - October 2006 - March 2007 Archive 2 - April - May 2007 Archive 3 - May - June 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 Archive 13 - July 2009 - Dec 2009 Archive 14 - Jan 2010 -

This page has archives. Sections older than 30 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 5 sections are present.

NOTES

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Thanks.

• Title Case May Be Used in Headings on This Page

• Me, myself, and I use serial commas.

Military Historian of the Year - 2009

Puss in socks

Bill, this, this & this will tickle you pink. Night~! --Dave 21:11, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your perserverance on this matter; it is much appreciated. Btw, I am a Caucasian of mostly Irish and Scots descent - complete with the easily sunburned very fair skin - I'm already pink! :) - BilCat (talk) 23:04, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

• Get ready your cool, dry and pink socks, he's just been told to go for a One-week-all-expense-paid-for-vacation with socks thrown in. --Dave 06:29, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, all that happened about the time I got back online for the evening. Anyway, I'm still concerned about Wisp's editwarring, which has not been dealt with by the admins, and was the catalyst to all this. Also, he began this copy-cat stuff when I reverted him on the 737 page with a mild warning in the edit summary to not edit war. That unwarranated response is why I gave him a templated 3RR warning at his next revert; I believe a templated warning is recommended, if not required, before an admin will block for 3RR. Anyway, his uncivilness with me occurred before my first templated warning to him, but he'd already been borderline-uncivil on the 737 talk page with other users, esp. his use of "fanboyism" to describe anyone opposing the Airbus mention. When he gets off of his one week block (assuming it doesn't get increased), we'll see what happens. I'm going to try to head to bed now, so take care. - BilCat (talk) 07:06, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

• You take care too, Bill. Or maybe I should award myself the anti-flame barnstar... because his flame on me didn't work and was turned against him! (read point number 18 & 48 of → WP:OWB ←) *lol* G'night~! --Dave 07:19, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

I took a look at our friend's user page, and it is quite interesting. And quite biased, in spitie of his owbn protestations otherwise. Particullary, I found ] to be quite ionteresting.

I've been thinking about the Boeing/Airbus issue for some time, and make take differs somewhat from his. As I see it, it was Airbus itself that created the Boeing "monopoly" (as if Airbus is not a monopoly in Western Europe!). The US had two vibrant airline manufacturers, oeing and McDD, and several other smaller ones (including Lockheed, which has made only 2 airliners post war: L-188 Electra and L-1011). Form what I've read on the founding of Airbus, thier intent was to take on the US as a whole, not to wittle down the number of US companies. However, the law of uninteded consequences meant that they actually killed off all of Boeing's prime competitors. Wispanows comments show the typically European mindset that misunderstands the US economy, and the federal government's (pre-Obama) role in it. In point, Airbus would never have survied to become as strong as it did without direct goverment subsidies. American companies have never had that advantage, but conversely have had large defense contracts (not subsidies in any way) to buy actual products. Grante, this wasn't )and still isn't) very feasible in Europe, as nationalism always seems to get in the way of such projects (especially French nationalism). Futher, Airbus probably would have never been founded if it weren't a primarily French idea.

Another factor I don't think Airbus understands fully is that Boeing, and the US, are not it's only competitors. I noticed this about 10-15 years ago with the regional jets form Bombardier and Emraer, and thought it would not be too long before both started to enter the over-100 seat market. That is in the process of happening now, with Embraer building a lartger military crgo jet (KC-390), which is probably a good step towards a mid-size jet. (Note that the KC-390 is a project to develop an actual aircraft, not a goverment subsidy to develop a new airline. Ironically, the French may buy the KC-390! In addition, the Russians and Chinese are preparing to tackle the mainline airliner market. As to how feasible these efforts are, I don't know. (you probably have a better sense on these than I do.) But if either one produces a good product, it's likely to be cheaper than the Boeings and Airbuses, and will undercut the markets for both of them, especially in the single-isle range, and in third-world countries, especially those leary of the US, where Airbus has thrived.

Finally to the 737RS/A320E: Airbus is publiclly advising Boeing that a reengining for 737 the is best option, as that is probably what they'll do. (John Leahy seems to think, at least in public, that Boeing is stupid, as he has regulary "advised" Boeing on their best course of action! Actually, it's a PR move designed to undercut what ever Boeing does decide to do in any given situation.) However, both Boeing and AIrbus know that the 737 is a 50-year-old design, and that the A320 is only about 30 years old. So while it might make sense for Airbus to go the re-engining route for the A320, it probably isn't the best choice for Boeing, especially since the 737 is so close to the ground that a complex redesign is probably necessary for new engines. Flightglobal had a story this weekend that Boeing is seriously considering a new single-isle design to replace the 737. How do I think Airbus will respond? I suspect they will take the 787/A350 route: Leahy will critize Boeing for developing a new design, but once Boeing starts to rack up orders, you'll probably see see Airbus trot out a new design as well! Time will tell! - BilCat (talk) 07:59, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Boeing's CEO McNerney recently said if an 'efficient 737 replacement' can be produced by 2020, it will go that route. If that'll take until after 2025, it will do 737 re-engining according to Heraldnet article. Not sure how much efficiency improvement that's required over the 737NG though. Maybe 15-20% like the 787 (??). -Fnlayson (talk) 21:24, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Archiving ?

Bill, this page is getting a bit long. What about archiving sections over a 2-3 months old? I could set up the archive bot to do that if you want... -Fnlayson (talk) 15:37, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

• Yes, thanks. I think I have Procrastinators Syndrome, but I keep putting off the exam. ;) If you can, please set it to archive every month, leaving one month's posts. - BilCat (talk) 15:40, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

• I set it up. But I doubt it will work with the nobots template in place. -Fnlayson (talk) 15:49, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

• OK, I moved 3 awards from here to your user page so they aren't archived. Revert/modify if needed. -Fnlayson (talk) 15:59, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

The archive settings have not been working. Will try adjusting the archive page size. I manually archived the 2009 sections, assuming you would not mind. Take care. -Fnlayson (talk) 15:13, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Finally got things set-up properly for the bot to archive. :) -Fnlayson (talk) 15:55, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

BilCat, thanks for everything

This might be the last entry for me here in Misplaced Pages, due what happen at U-2 page, which I felt frustrated and I withdrew all my inputs on that article for the last 8 months or so. After I did that, I found out the number of references dropped from 53 down to 32, guess I cited too many sources/references to keep away the reference needed tags. Maybe I have a fear of that tag, among other things here in Wiki. Anyway, I was going to suggest to add GPS cord. for those U-2 on display, plus on discussion page I did asked if it's better to create a Aircraft Losses section about a week ago, but got no respond. Well, that is, until Fnlayson did his editing/reverting. Guess I won't able try out neither idea after all. Thanks for all your help. Best wishes.Bryan TMF (talk) 00:28, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Article title proposal

Bill, did you manage to move this on to a proposal or is it still on your very long to do list! MilborneOne (talk) 19:54, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

It's still on my very long to-do list! Once the bronchitis is over in the next week or so (I hope!), I plan to submit it. If you want to help out (it's at User:BilCat/Template:Proposal or sumbit it, you're welcom to. Thanks for the reminder. - BilCat (talk) 22:56, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

DYK for Boeing Phantom Ray

On May 27, 2010, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Boeing Phantom Ray, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check ) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

The DYK project (nominate) 12:04, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Yay!!!!!!!! My fist DYK, and only in about 4 years! I'm happy. :) - BilCat (talk) 12:08, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Now, how do I add this to my user page? - BilCat (talk) 14:25, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

• It'd probably have to be copied like a wikiwings award. Bushranger has them in a show/hide template on his user page. But maybe there is a user box or template? -Fnlayson (talk) 19:51, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

The hanging process

I half suspected this would happen after reading through his edits. I can't say I'm disappointed though... Vedant (talk) 22:20, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

I can understand not wanting to wait 2 weeks or a month but I never thought someone would be willing to risk an extension of a previous block especially when it was just 31 hours... That being said, User:SH9002's previous edits lend credence to the theory that our friend and him are not one in the same as they appear to have differing editing styles. I do however, find it an AWFULLY BIG co-incidence that this other account starts editing the day after someone got a block. I could request a Check User block which would definitely clear the air regarding this. Thoughts?? Vedant (talk) 03:21, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

Hmm... I think I'm adding another user (User:NoBiasPlease) to my watchlist. He/she appears to have an interesting contribution log don't you think? Vedant (talk) 02:29, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Re: Edit warning

Hello,

First of all, thank you for the link towards the Wipedia Unit rule which I did not know. Speaking of that rule, how/where would one be able to request a vote to change this rule in order to homogenize the units throughout wikiepdia.

Secondly, it seems you did not notice I did not undo the "undo" of the previous user but in fact continued my edition throughout the whole article. To be more precise, as soon as I started reading through the rest of the article, it seemed clear it needed to be edited. Hence my modification. You can check that by comparing versions. To be honest, I did not even know my edition had be undone. Therefore, would you mind removing my "edit warning" as I was absolutely not trying to engage in a edit war. Xionbox (talk) 19:14, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Sure, I'll be there in a few minutes. As to where to go to change things, try the talk page of WP:UNITS to start with, and ask there. The users who watch the talk pge should be able to give an answer of some type. - BilCat (talk) 19:18, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Requests for comment/May 2010 skin change/Bug reports

Bill: In thinking about your comments and our short discussion at User_talk:Fnlayson#Revert_tools_and_Vector from the above article it looks like many people have been having trouble with the new Vector layout. If you are still experiencing that previously mentioned problem, perhaps you will want to report it there? - Ahunt (talk) 12:41, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks! I did find the solution there, which involves copying the Monobook css and js pages to the vector ones. - BilCat (talk) 01:37, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

That is great as long as it worked! Now hopefully the powers that be won't change the layout again for a while! - Ahunt (talk) 11:54, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

Well, I HATE the new layout - I don't like having everything spread out in sixteen places where they used to be in one! I'm still on monobook for the time being, but I'll keep trying out the new one every week or so. Eventually I'll get used to it. - BilCat (talk) 13:47, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

I am using the new vector layout, but it takes some getting used to - like not diving to the top-left to hit the "edit" tab! I do like the cleaner look, though. - Ahunt (talk) 13:50, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

French Air Force

Looking at the sources used for the US Air force. RAF, TuAF and French Air Force it is obvious the French airforce comes in at 4th place in terms of aircraft, in NATO. Common sense is needed. I think the problem is on the French air force article it dosent say in which area the airforces are being ranked in size in. Is it number of Aircraft or number of personel? Recon.Army (talk) 12:53, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

Which ever it is, it just needs to be stated clearly. In fact,, both parameters ought to be listed if they're available. - BilCat (talk) 13:57, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

Nakajima Kikka

Mr. BilCat, Ne-20 Japanese turbojet is very epoch-making. It is important for talking about Kikka. HighSpeed-X (talk) 10:01, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Talking, yes, photo, no - it has its own article for that. - BilCat (talk) 15:15, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : LI (May 2010)

The May 2010 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 17:23, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Supper?

Whack! You've been whacked with a wet trout. Don't take this too seriously. Someone just wants to let you know that you did something silly.

Here's what you've ordered, sir! Seriously, I haven't watch the show so I really have no clue what is going on here but if you want me to help, give me a day or two so I can get something off the internet to research on before I make my comments known, what say you? More butter to taste? *grin* --Dave 16:33, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Royal Navy

Please be a tiny bit more careful. Yes the speculation sentence may not be appropriate, but the rest of the added text, including about the Strategic Defence Review, is accurate and well balanced. Cheers Buckshot06 (talk) 00:50, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

"Careful" had nothing to do with it. It's unsourced OR, true or no, and still a bit too much detail. Btw, you're way over 3RR on this. - BilCat (talk) 00:59, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

You've added a good source, so it looks OK now. Take care. - BilCat (talk) 01:45, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Avio

Hi Bill. First off, apologies for any misuse of the talk page but I am quite a newbie at this. Plus I've recently commented in the Avio page but did not get any reply, that making me think I should have notified you in some way. I have been working on the Avio page and I've noticed that the advert mark has been added. Could you help me understanding what specific parts of the article need revising? Any suggestion will be much appreciated --Estergo (talk) 10:20, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Question

Since you seem to be one of the driving forces behind Wikipedia_talk:Naming_conventions_(aircraft)#Naming_convention_proposal_2010, I thought I would ask you: what is the rationale behind adding the manufacturers to the title of an article? Is it merely for consistancy across a confusing and often contradictory variety of national naming conventions, or is there another reason? bahamut0013_deeds 20:43, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

It's primarily consistency. In the early days of WP and WPAIR (long before I arrived in Aug 2006), two-component aircraft article titles were preferred to those with trhee component, apparently because of the limitations of the Wikibrowser at that tiem, and limited or no redirect capability. Two-component title formats were Manufacturer-Designation (m-d), Manufacturer-Name (m-n), and Designation-Name (d-n). The m-d or m-n formats worked best for most of the world's aircraft types, including US civil types, in keeping with the Common name guidelines. However, for US military types, the d-n format was most common (ie, F-15 Eagle, not McDonnell Douglas Eagle or McDonnell Douglas F-15). So, the d-n format was allowed for US militray aircraft which had both a designation and nameunder the various designation systems used by the US military. By extention, the d-n format was also applied to Canadian Forces aircrft under the post-2968 designation system.

In the last few years, however, the d-n system has come under assault, with several efforst to make it more consistent with the other titles. However, the M-n or m-d still weren't really feasible per Common names. As time has rolled on, the title and the redirct systems on WP have become more sophisticated, and the three-component titles, primarily Manufacture-Designation-Name (m-d-n) became feasible. But even until last year, there were many who objected to changing the system soley for US mil aircraft. There was a poll in 2009 that attempted to change the format, and in had almot no support. I was also against it then,

Since then, the thrre-component m-d-n format has become more common on newly created articles, especially as newer aircraft, particulary from the past decade, have both designations and names now, even non-US mil types (ie. 787 Dreamliner). In the past few motns there have ben several discussion on WT:AIR that signaled a shift in mood on the topic. So, seeing that the m-d-n system would be better across the board for all aircraft types (where applicable), we proposed the new conventions. SO far there have been no objections at all to changing the system.

I hope that helps to anwer. SOrry it's so long! - BilCat (talk) 21:05, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

No need to apologize, I hate when people say "TLDR". That rationale makes sense to me, and I suppose I could say that I would support it (not that you need my support, my interest in avaiation-related articles has declined lately). Thanks much for the explanation! bahamut0013_deeds 18:44, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Addendum: have you considered using a bot to clean up the disambig links? There areplenty of bots who do this, one of them has got to be able to go through the "what links here" tool and cleanup after an article is moved. bahamut0013_deeds 18:51, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Bell UH-1 Iroquois

After the recent agreed move, whatever would happen to List of UH-1 Iroquois operators? I'm asking the question to kill my curious cat (just a figure of speech!). Best. --Dave 01:47, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

HAL LCH

I requested temporary page protection for the article in question in light of the fact that some users are attemping to add and upload copyrighted images to the article without permission. Vedant (talk) 19:58, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. This is getting old. Do you have HAL's phone number? Perhaps you could call their PR department and ask if they can release some images to public domain? I don't know what else to do here, as we don't have the rights to use those images. - BilCat (talk) 20:32, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Hmm well the request got denied with the suggestion that if future violations occur, they be reported to WP:AIV. I do have HAL's phone number but not living in India it would be a long distance phone call. I don't think they would mind the images being uploaded but obviously evidence of permission is required. Their marketing e-mail is marketing@hal-india.com as per the contact details on their website. I did fire off an e-mail to their department asking if it was okay to use these photos. If you could send an e-mail as well, they expedite their response.

Also, not sure if you really want to get involved in the thick of things but could you take a look at this article and let me know what you think? It seems a certain user and a few other Chinese nationalists seem intent on altering depictions of certain things. Vedant (talk) 22:57, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

PS: I'm not too knowledgeable about US or Florida copyright law but I was wondering; since HAL is a public sector organization, are their press releases considered to be public domain? Vedant (talk) 23:00, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

It depends on India's laws. The UK and some of the other Commonwealth countries use Crown Copyrights for most government material/images/etc. It should not be too difficult to find out what the status of public sector photos in India is, if one knew who to ask. HAL's own website should say what the site's copyright status is, so I'll have a look when I can. I'll try to sednd off an eamil to thwm this weekend too. As for the J-15, post a not at WT:AIR, so other editors will know what's going on there. Having more eyes is usually helpful. - BilCat (talk) 23:40, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

As stated here: All photographs and images appearing on this website including the HAL logo and all product names are exclusive property of HAL. The updating of information in this website is done periodically and HAL is at liberty to change any of its products or services at anytime. Before relying on any information contained in this website, you may contact the concerned HAL officer.

These terms and conditions shall be governed by the laws of the Republic of India alone. Only the competent courts in Bangalore, India shall have the jurisdiction. All disputes shall be referred to arbitration in accordance with the provisions of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.

Links to Our Website by other Websites: We do not object to you linking directly to the information that is hosted on this Website and no prior permission is required for the same. However, we would like you to inform us about any links provided to this website so that you can be informed of any changes or updations therein. Also, we do not permit our pages to be loaded into frames on your site. Vedant (talk) 00:03, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

P-39?

Hi... please explain to me why to write in the lead of the P-39 that it was the first combat aircraft to have a tricycle land gear and an engine behind the seat is not correct? These things are very important, more or less like its use in Urss, dont You thinK? BEST WISHES--Gian piero milanetti (talk) 12:02, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Template :Military of India

I posted my reason for including Operation Woodrose in Template talk:Military of India. Also thanks for having an edit summary, I thought the reverters were just pov editors.--Profitoftruth85 (talk) 18:00, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

OK, no problem, and your welcome. - BilCat (talk) 19:23, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

DR page

Thanks for at least talking to me now. Before when I tried you just deleted my message. CashRules (talk) 06:19, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

I often refuse to answer posts, and delete them, for many reasons. There were questions about your eligibility to edit here, and that's why I removed your posts the first time. Enough time has passed now that if you were banned user, it should have been proven by now. So as show of good faith, I'm talking with you now. Don't over-stay your welcome by bringing it up at every oppurtunity! - BilCat (talk) 07:41, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

I try to show good faith everytime i edit. i'll talk to someone unless it is proven otherwise to not converse with them. well, i'll catch you on the DR page. CashRules (talk) 04:50, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

North American English

You seem to have momentarily forgotten what a text deletion looks like or what correctly a long-standing fact tag is. Rmhermen (talk) 14:32, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

I suggest that the illness mentioned above has put you off your best effort. But I will tell you that your actions are highly insulting and suggest that you get a third opinion. Rmhermen (talk) 22:38, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

I HAVE looked at it carefully. You are removing "] ] {{Fact|please give a reliable source for this assertion. How about IRISH?|date=January 2009}}", and replacing it with "]". The original output is "Scots Irish", and your output is "Irish English", so the claim that your are not changing any text is incorrect. Please look at the text carefully, and you'll see that whatever my illness, I AM still correct. I await your apology. I'll remove the vandalism warning, as I missed your earlier note today; that was my fault, as I receinved antoher post after yours, and was not able to check all of my talk page because of connection issues. - BilCat (talk) 22:54, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Internal Propulsion

An article that you have been involved in editing, Internal Propulsion, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Internal Propulsion. Thank you.

Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. andy (talk) 16:12, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

AN I

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by CashRules (talk • contribs) 22:57, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

HMS Ocean (L12)

Hi,

Thanks for the adjustments to the new HMS Ocean photo. I'm pretty new to all of this so I think I am doing most of it right, the copyright was the hardest bit! But I also have another photo of HMS Ocean's engine room I think would be good for the article, here: Image:Engine room HMS ocean.JPG would you mind awfully adding it to the page for me?

Thanks again, GB

Henry P. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Henry.pearson (talk • contribs) 22:40, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure it'll fit, but Il try. As to the licenses and copyrights, we should discuss that on the article's talk page, so the other editors can discuss this with us. Copyrights are quite tricky, and since it's a legal status, we have to get them correct. We should be able to help you out on those. - BilCat (talk) 22:53, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Hi, I just left a message on the page discussion, I think we can move to that now! I'm pretty sure I got the crown copyright stuff correct but your right always for a second pair of eyes!Henry.pearson (talk) 23:26, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

June 2010

Please do not move a page to a title that is harder to follow or move it unilaterally against naming conventions or consensus, as you did to Womens Airforce Service Pilots. This includes making page moves while a discussion remains under way. We have some guidelines to help with deciding what title is best for a subject. If you would like to experiment with page titles and moving, please use the test Misplaced Pages. Thank you. BilCat (talk) 17:03, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Please don't template me. The correct name for this organization is the Womens Air Service Pilots. There is no discussion on the talk page.Malke2010 18:40, 22 June 2010 (UTC)