Misplaced Pages

User talk:BilCat

Article snapshot taken from[REDACTED] with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by BilCat (talk | contribs) at 04:52, 8 March 2007 (Reverted immature vandalism by Opuscalgary). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Revision as of 04:52, 8 March 2007 by BilCat (talk | contribs) (Reverted immature vandalism by Opuscalgary)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)

NOTE: Most comments will be deleted by me after one week. Critical comments are welcome, but ones containing highly-offensive or profane material will be deleted immediately, and the overall content ignored.

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

Also, if you are discussing an article, I would prefer to use that article's talk page. Please limit this page to discussions not related to any particular article, those covering a wide range of articles/topics, or personal comments. Thanks.

AND PLEASE SIGN YOUR POSTS!!!!

Title Case May Be Used in Headings on This Page

Me, myself, and I use serial commas.

Pics Needed for Articles

These pics must be GNFL, Public Domain, or Fair Use. A link to the Image file on Wiki placed here is fine, or you may post pic here or to the article.

  • Bell 214
    • Bell 214 A or 214C - Iranian
    • Bell 214ST - preferably wheeled, or some of wheeled and skid
  • Bell 222
    • Bell 222/222B - wheeled (retracted in-flight preferred)
    • Bell 230 - any
    • Bell 430 - any
  • Bell 427/429
    • Bell 427 - any
    • Bell 400 TwinRanger - any
    • Bell 440 TwinRanger - any (probably only drawings/artist concepts/mock-ups)
  • Sikorsky S-69
    • Any pics, preferably color, but BW will suffice, as article has NO pics
  • Sikorsky S-72
    • Pre-X-wing pics, with rotor and wings
    • Pre-X-wing pics, with rotor but without wings
    • Pre-X-wing pics, with wings but without rotor

Merge input requested

Bill, I'm proposing a merge of Adam M-309 CarbonAero into Adam A500. Comments are invited at Talk:Adam A500. Akradecki 03:21, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Canadian Leopards to Afghanistan

As far as I know the first two tanks (1 Leopard and 1 Taurus) left Edmonton by AN-124 on Sept 29 2006 for Kyzkyzstan. They arrived from Kyzkyzstan to Kandahar by C-17 on October 6th 2006. Hudicourt 16:48, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Sorry: the C-17 Globemaster III, the your Jan 28 2007 update Hudicourt 17:12, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Heads up

Our favorite P-51 image reverter is back online today...I've already be at it with him over another article...see the history of Women Airforce Service Pilots. Akradecki 17:16, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

I've noticed. I'm surprised he's even discussing it with you like an adult should. But his "it's notable, you look it up!" argument is about as good as his "it's a dark BW pic, it goes in the lead" argument (see the P-47 and P-38!). I going to wait and see if Karl does something about the P-51, as he's an administrator, and he won't like this being reverted again. Good luck! - BillCJ 17:30, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

YiA

Yeah, I've noticed that, too, and reverted a bunch this morning. I went and read the background material, and there's been a ton of debate on the issue, but it's very divided, and thus no consensus. MOS allows for it, one of the "help" pages, which isn't posted as either policy or guideline, speaks against it, but with lots of debate. As there's no consensus, I don't see what justification the bot handler has. If you posted on the project, I'll certainly support keeping the YiA links. Akradecki 18:01, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

More on P-51

It's started, so I've added a vandalism warning to his page. I'm strongly inclined to open an RfC on him, but it needs at least two editors to proceed. Would you support such a move? I've got to go do compressor washes on my helicopter, will be back at next break. Akradecki 18:22, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Definitely! But I want to see how Karl Dickman handles this first, as it would be good to have an admin involved, even leading whatever action is taken. Also, I do believe he's passed the 3rr of the lead pic. - BillCJ 18:27, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
Sounds good. He hasn't done anything since I added the formal warnings to his talk page, but if he does I think I'll also take it to WP:AIV. Akradecki 20:23, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
Sounds good. On the P-51, I think you reverted someone else's attempt at some text clean-up, but I haven't gone through it line by line to see if the result is worth putting back in. - BillCJ 21:31, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Documenting the evidence

I'm starting to compile info in case we need it later...you might want to review the bottom of User:Akradecki/Sandbox. Akradecki 02:41, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

F-104C loss to Chinese

I noted your revert and seem to recall that there was a F-104 that strayed too close to Hainan Island and was gunned by a Chinese fighter:

SYNOPSIS: On September 20, 1965 an American pilot named Capt. Phillip E. Smith was shot down over the Chinese island of Hai Nan Tao. The case of Capt. Smith ultimately became entwined with those of other American pilots lost in North Vietnam the following month. Capt. Smith was flying an Air Force F104C and his loss over Hai Nan island is perplexing.

See:

Still, the edit didn't reference a source. I only knew of instance from reading a book by the pilot years ago. Not sure I still have it. As I recall, he was in and out of clouds and strayed too close and then got tagged.

Cheers, HJ —The preceding unsigned comment was added by HJ32 (talk • contribs) 06:51, 31 January 2007 (UTC).

There is also a note on the Air Combat Information Group's database of Chinese Air-to-Air Victories, but I can't find anything to reference it being the first 104 shot down, nor a close range record. -Dawson 07:05, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

B-52, http://www.af.mil/factsheets/factsheet.asp?id=83

If you're going to re-add a cn tag for something that's general knowledge, could at least look at the primary source first, and then add that into the article if you think it's necessary. The source was already present in the "External Links" section. - MSTCrow 01:09, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

See reply in my user talk to your post. - MSTCrow 02:19, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

You might want to check this out

Misplaced Pages:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Signaleer_--_disruptive_editing_and_sockpuppetry —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Akradecki (talk • contribs) 06:24, 1 February 2007 (UTC). Wow...HagermanBot is fast! (note me signing this time!) Akradecki 06:26, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

C-12 Huron

Hi Bill, I was looking through my DoD pub on aircraft and realized that there are a whole lot of C-12 variants that aren't yet included in the article. Including them, and talking about them will involve some restructuring of the overall article, and since you've done a bunch of editing there, I thought I'd check with you to make sure it was ok before I started hacking away.

BTW, our "friend" seems to be on a personal attack campaign, and additionally has blanked his talk page, removing all the warnings. I'm debating whether to approach an admin and ask for a block...advice? Akradecki 17:52, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Rewrite done, at least for now...a copyedit would be appreciated! Akradecki 23:00, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Need help with a UAV aricle

I could use help with an issue with a UAV article. There's a new article that's been created on a UAV, Dominator UAV. As I've been working on the UAV section for quite sometime, I tried moving this article to Aeronautics Dominator to conform it to Misplaced Pages:Naming conventions (aircraft), but the article's author, User:Headphonos insisted on moving it back (I get the impression that he's a newbie with attitude), asking for a "vote" before moving. We don't have "B-52 Bomber" or "Mustang Fighter" or "Globemaster Cargoplane", so why should a UAV article be an exception? When I asked the author, his response was "Don't care, the issue is the name, which is correct as per many articles under the +cat, pls don't contact me any further on the matter." Actually, when you look at the cat, most other UAV aricles conform to the standard naming convention (the exceptions being the ones we haven't upgraded yet), and I didn't see the need for a "vote" to comply with guidelines, but since that's what he wants, I'll go that route. So, rename to Aeronautics Defender, or leave alone? If you care to weigh in, pleas reply at Talk:Dominator UAV. Thanks! Akradecki 16:10, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Every time I look at these Redirect pages that we don't want to use, they seem to mess up, and are only able to be moved there by an admin after that. Anyway, maybe that'll slow him down some. Joseph went ahead and moved it on his own before this. If "the creator" wants it moved now, he'll have to apply to have it moved to Dominator UAV, and I don't think he'll win enough votes to do it. Of course, he may just find another variation of his chosen name, but those might accidently get broke too. - BillCJ 17:49, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Atlanta Braves

Done. -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 21:01, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

C-12 complaint

An ip user filed a complaint about the Guardrail merge on the C-12's talk page. I've gone into depth in responding, but you might want to take a look and respond there, too. A baseless complaint, in my view, but for the record, needed to be answered and justified anyway. Akradecki 01:47, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

King Air article

Bill, sorry for not responding sooner to your question about the military versions of the 90, and the general length of the article. I've been mulling it over, and I'm still not sure what would be best, but I'm wondering about splitting the article into one about the 90/100 series and another about the 200/300 series. That, to me, is where the logical split is, in a number of ways. The 200/300 (including 350), went by "Super King Air", and while there's a lot of commonality between the 90 and 100, there's much less so between the 100 and 200 (the exception would be the 90F which borrowed the 200's tail, but I wouldn't worry about that). Plus, the PT-6A engine comes in two "families", the large PT6A and the small PT6A (# of PT wheels being a big factor). The 90/100 KAs use small PT6s, the 200/300 use large PT6s, so there's a natural split there. If we split the article there, each would have a fairly decent length, and could possibly be split further down the road if they continued to grow. Just some thoughts.... Akradecki 21:42, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Bill, thanks for the reply. I've put the split tag up, copied our conversation over to the talk page there, and also put a notice on the project talk page. We'll see what happens... (saw a really nice 350 when we flew into Bakersfield today, got a pic to upload in a little bit....). Akradecki 00:53, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

F-14 Tomcat

Your revert is exactly right. Comment was not NPOV and smacks of "fanboyism". None of the F/A-18E/F transition aircrews are complaining about their new ride. Tomcat served for a record 35+ years and retired in fine form. HJ 23:05, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Bell Boeing QTR

First edition of the article is now up at Bell Boeing Quad TiltRotor, though I've got an additional source at home I have to mine. Cleanup invited. Akradecki 22:24, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Powered Lift

No, I do think that is too much. The FAA has classed it as a powered lift aircraft, not a powered lift, and that still doesn't change it from being a tiltrotor which is much more common and descriptive. --Born2flie 13:28, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Growler or Shocker

The debate has been raging on the name for the EA-18G but only within the Prowler community amongst the younger folks who are advocating Shocker and have already produced a logo and patches. As you noted, the official name sometimes gets abandoned by the power of a grassroots alternative. Cheers, HJ 02:20, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

PS Made comment on Talk Page for Growler

Thanks for your help. That's kinda what I thought. I think the user got mixed up, and assumed Shocker was the official name. As to the Tomcat being the Turkey, I believe its distant relative, the TBF Avenger, was also called the Turkey for similar reasons. And I seem to recall reading that Rhino was sometimes used for the F-4, in its case because it was so ugly. I don't think the Super Hornet quite has that problem. - BillCJ 02:19, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

All true. The Marines went nuts over calling their RF-4 the Rhino (even had an annual ice sculpture made for Tailhook in their infamous suite at Tailhook with the horn sprouting liquid refreshment). The Navy had to come up with a two syllable name that didn't include Hornet to avoid confusion at the boat for its "Ball call" hence emergence of Rhino. Shocker is the first time I've heard of a name preceding fleet introduction, but it arose after the Prowler community was surveyed last year and objected to Growler. The Super Hornet folks liken their aircraft to being big and gray and powerful like a Rhino so it isn't because they think its ugly at all as you observe. HJ 02:29, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

YUH-61

Thanks, I didn't look to see who created it or anything, so I wanted to make sure that I hadn't upset you by asking the question, because it certainly comes across differently looking from your perspective. --Born2flie 20:35, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

That's a good question. I can't remember if they mentioned the CSAR-X going to Boeing Helicopters or Boeing IDS. --Born2flie 20:54, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

During the 1980s, after several companywide reorganizations, Boeing Vertol became Boeing Helicopters Company, Boeing Helicopters Division, and finally, Boeing Defense & Space Group, Helicopters Division. Although the name changed, the company continued to perform, teaming with Sikorsky in 1991 to win the developmental competition for the U.S. Army's new armed reconnaissance helicopter, designated the RAH-66 Comanche. Boeing also began production of the MH-47E Special Operations Chinook, delivering the first of 11 aircraft in 1993. 1995 featured the rollout of the Comanche as well as the delivery of the first production V-22 fuselage. A year later, the Comanche conducted its first flight.

After completion of the merger with McDonnell Douglas in 1997, the division was renamed The Boeing Company in Philadelphia, and later Boeing Rotorcraft Systems in Philadelphia with the formation of Boeing Integrated Defense Systems in 2002. In addition to continued aircraft development and production, the turn of the century also brought with it one of the darkest periods in the organization's 65-year history.

I guess here is the answer. --Born2flie 20:57, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Beechcraft 1900

Hi, Bill.

Thank you for your comments on the Beechcraft 1900. I am still a little stumped by the format for references, but I will work on it.

---to one Christ follower from another (very imperfect) one, thanks again---

Mikepurves 02:28, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

No problem. Nice to meet fellow beleivers along the way. As tp the Beechcraft 1900, I'm not that proficient with cites myself. I find the cite templates recommend on the talk page by the user who added the tags to be confusing. In addition, many experienced editors don't like the cite templates. There is another editor who I work with that I will ask to help out on the cites. A lot of good work has been done to the article since its GA reveiw. Hopefully we can keep improving it. - BillCJ 02:41, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
Done, cleanup tag removed. Akradecki 00:12, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Army Aviation Branch

I would recommend that they lose the section on the "current" AAC since there are no references for the section. It seems to be a highly bastardized version of tracing the roots of aviation from the time of the creation of the USAAF and separation of the USAF as a separate service. That would explain the seeming contradictions since they are more likely misunderstandings of the facts and their sequence. --Born2flie 04:23, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

ATR 42

Hey, would you mind restoring using the ATR article instead of what used to be at ATR 42? I went through and did a bunch of cleanup on the ATR article yesterday and would prefer not to have to do it again ;) --chris.lawson 19:15, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

No problem. Theres not much on the old ATR 42 anyway, I just meant we didn't have to move anything to do it. - BillCJ 19:19, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
Don't forget to remove the inuse tag when you're done. I've got some more cleanup that I'm ready to do when you're finished with your editing, but I didn't want to step on you.--chris.lawson 18:40, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

C-26

That was totally wierd...I wasn't aware at all of the merger, just happened to be adding some info from a source I just got ahold of...total coincidence! Akradecki 05:33, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Spectrum jets

Bill, I just came across Spectrum S-33 Independence and Spectrum S-40 Freedom, two articles written by someone from the aircraft mfr (check this diff!), and written like ads. I've started cleaning up the first one, haven't had a chance to get to the second. Have a look if you have time. Akradecki 15:03, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

OH-58 Reverted edit

Bill, it absolutely was vandalism of the article. Funny thing is, I know the pilot the editor inserted into the article. Too funny! --Born2flie 05:15, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

WRONG Users for AH-1 Cobra Helicopter Please note that after exhausted research the counties of Egypt, Chile, & Argentina Do not have AH-1 Cobra Helicopters in their inventories. So there’s no vandalism going on here. FYI Egypt is getting AH-64D Apaches, Chile currently uses the MD530F& Argentina uses the A109 helicopter to fulfill their attack helicopter needs. APN. CFI — Preceding unsigned comment added by ANigg (talk • contribs)

AH-1

BillCJ, I appreciate see you engaging User:ANigg on the AH-1 Cobra questions. It is great that the Aircraft WikiProject is keeping these articles accurate and precise. — ERcheck (talk) 18:23, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Avro Arrow

Hi Mr. BillCJ, Thanks for your help on all the aircraft projects to which I have submitted my pittance of knowledge. BTW, I wonder if you could take a look at the Avro CF-105 Arrow discussion page. It seems to have degraded into a discussion over the relative merits of the decision to cancel the Arrow. However, there is an editor that has been compelled to take the discussion into a bizarre turn. He actually backs up his own opinion with comments from an unknown IP address that can be traced back to... him? I don't need anyone to intercede except for maybe an administrator but take a look and give me your opinion. Bzuk 04:39 4 March 2007 (UTC).

Bill, I've been keeping an eye on the discussions. I've thought of intervening, but given the reception he gave Maury, I don't think anything I say would be accepted either. He is definitely hung up on the General guy, and doesn't seem to accept any view that differs from his. The general is his hero, and heroes don't make mistakes. Guys like this usually beurn out after awhile. I hope someone esle can be of some real help, because I'm usually the one in need OF a mediator! Good luck with him. I do believe your are doing your best to be impartial in the whole issue, as you do with all of the pages I've seen you edit. And thanks for your compliments on the F-84F Thunderstreak split. THe Intro still needs to be reworked for the new page, but the rest is about done. - BillCJ 05:32, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Sikorsky Piasecki X-49

Thought it said, XH-49. Still, it is unreferenced, even if I got the designation incorrect. I had assumed that the "XH-49" would've been the Piasecki P-16H-1A or whichever model that the Army was evaluating about the time the Cobra came along. --Born2flie 04:08, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

essay on your user page

Very good essay....I cleaned up some minor spelling errors for you, I hope you don't mind. --rogerd 20:06, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Yea, pretty good essay. Sounds somewhat familiar, have i visted that library? -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 20:22, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for the comments and corrections. I should have run it through a spell-checker before posting it. THanks again. - BillCJ 22:43, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
User talk:BilCat Add topic