Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 02:09, 18 October 2008

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.

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

NOTES

• If you initiated a conversation here, I will most likely respond to your comments here, rather than on your talk page (except for certain people from Alberta or Australia!)

• If you are discussing an article, I would prefer to use that article's talk page, unless you'd prefer not to use that page for some reason, such as commenting on a particular user's edits in semi-privacy. Please limit this page to discussions not related to any particular article, those covering a wide range of articles/topics, or personal comments.

• Due to the misbehavior of a few IPs, IPs are 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.

Regarding the Eurocopter Tiger article

I'm sorry if you took what I entered as vandalism but, what i origionaly typed was in fact factual information from the telivision program "Noticias con Joaqin Lopez Doriga" a well respected Mexican news program, i simply could not find this shows quote on the information on the internet but I did find this article from a french web site about it although it is not as thourogh as the information on the news program was and if you simply follow the Source that I provided with my latest edit (in which i deleted the things I could not prove) you will see that it is not vandalism and I only added the statement that Mexico had signed a contract with Eurocopter for various eurocopter models including the Tiger. This is not vandalism at all and it is even backed up by a source. Sorry to here your sick I am too actualy hope you get better.

Power Jets

Hi am still learning - tried to reference the item placed to Flight Magasine (UK) April 1951 - this did not happen correctly - hense your action. I am happy to take your advice on this matter - I consider the item relevant to the history of Power Jets Best Regards(slmvbs)

Lockheed TriStar (RAF)

Hi! I had wondered whether to leave my "white finish" tanker pic on the article or whether to start a Gallery for wrong-colour-scheme pics of the TriStar. In the end I decided to remove it entirely. However, I'm quite happy with its restoration. (What do you think of the idea of using Galleries to keep historical views of aircraft on their respective articles?) Best Wishes - Adrian Pingstone (talk) 18:01, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Air specifications

Working on it. Rich Farmbrough 10:15 3 September 2008 (UTC).

Thanks. Apoplogy on your page! - BillCJ (talk) 10:27, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Ah, I see you insert these blank lines, they are not project standard. I have been looking at putting comments in, see for example Curtiss P-40. What do you think? Rich Farmbrough, 10:44 3 September 2008 (GMT).

The comments look good, and should help a lot. As to the blank lines, I assume you mean in both the Specs template and {{aircontent}}. I also assume that by "project standard" you mean Misplaced Pages. I have been editing WP for two years now, and those lines have always been used in these two templates since at least that time. I know that there have been alot of MOS changes recently, so I guess the removal of these lines is one of them. However, MOS is not policy, so whatever the reasons for now deleting these lines, I believe the specific nature and use of the {{aircontent}} template in particular necessitates the lines remaining, per WP:IAR. I'm not trying to argue my case with you, just to state it. I'm perfectly willing to take the issue to a relevant discussion page, provided the editors there are not the ones who used the word "elitist" along with other insults that they hurled at me and others on the MOSNUM talk pages. Those people aren't interested in anyone else's views, and I won't waste my time with them. It's too bad they are allowed to treat people that way with impunity - I can't even insult a genuine vandal or troll without 4 admins jumping on my case - but as in life, WP is all about who you know now, and they must know the right people! - BillCJ (talk) 07:52, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Mosnum is a hard place to be... but no, I meant Misplaced Pages: Project aerospace or whatever it is called. I also saw useful - in terms of improving maintainability - comments on an aircontent template. MoS has little to say on the wikicode of the articles. We dcould do much better I think with the way we extract information from templates, and also how we capture it, but that is quite a wide debate. Rich Farmbrough, 19:18 5 September 2008 (GMT).

Me-109 "Further reading"... (Sub)Section?

Hi Bill, wish your health is improving. Just a question about the ammendment you did to the section Further reading that I've created today in the Messerschmitt Bf 109 article (see the Revision as of 2008-09-04T02:55:27), where you've "demoted" it to a sub-section. Before doing that, I gave a look at the relevant Misplaced Pages policies/guidelines (especially Misplaced Pages:Citing sources#Further reading) and it seemed that it should be a section. Moreover, the beforementioned policy has "Further reading" as a section (not a sub-section).
I'd appreciate if you can please explain if within the relevant WikiProjects is there a diffferent guideline that recommends this as a sub-section. This is not a key issue, I'm just trying to follow a standarized recommended format.
Many thanks & kind regards, DPdH (talk) 07:39, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

THanks for your well wishes on my health. Yes, look at WP:AIR/PC. The WP:AIR project uses three main sections at the end of the article on most of the aircraft articles: "See also", "References", and "External links" (there are some that have still not been updated yet.) Within the "References" section, there is sometimes two subheadings: "Notes", with the {{reflist}} tag, and "Bibliography". Within that format, I believe the ususal "Further reading" info is combined with the sources used in the Notes section. User:BZuk, who in his other life is a meek librarian, was the one who lead the implementation of that format, and he can probably beter explain this to you. I'll abide by whatever the two of you can work out on this. I hope that helps. - BillCJ (talk) 07:52, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Helps a lot! As always, fast and precise responses. Will give a look at that guideline, and do my best to follow it. Regards, DPdH (talk) 08:19, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Well, you got a fast response because I'm still awake when I should be sleeping! (It's 4:30 am here, but I'm up this late most nights because of my health.) One thing to remember is, despite all the reverts I tend to do on guideline-related things, they are still just guidelines! There's no real harm trying out new or different ideas first, as long as you realize they'll probably get reverted at some point. However, you've not let that discourage you so far, so it shouldn't be a problem for you. If you have a better way, or something you think is more workable, on any issue, feel free to speak up. There's a lot of that kind of dicsussion all the time at WT:AIR, the main talk page for the WP Aircraft Project, alongs with a few other talk pages. Feel free to jump in! - BillCJ (talk) 08:31, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Dassault Ouragan

Hi Bill,

Hope your health improves. I had submitted the article on Dassault Ouragan for a assessment feedback to Wiki Project Aviation. In the mean time I noticed that you had done several changes for it to comply with established policies. Are you planning on working further on this article ? If so I will wait to incorporate the review feedback by Trevor MacInnis.

I also noticed that you removed the Citation 'fact' markers added by Trevor for my benefit. Can you please restore those or provide those citations as needed ? perseus71 (talk) 18:53, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. No, I did not "remove" the fact tags - Trevor added them while I had the {{inuse}} tag on the article, and I accidently overwrote them when I saved my changes, but I didn't realize what happaned until now. That's the sort of the inuse tag is supposed to help avoid. I don't have time to restore them right now, but I'll try to get to them later. Feel free to add them back in the meantime if you want to. - BillCJ (talk) 20:25, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

My apologies. Yes I noticed that too. Well, I am not going to interrupt your work. I'll start working on those citations once you are done. Of Course I can refer to history. I'd rather have your changes completed instead of having to restore those tags. Let me know perseus71 (talk) 20:31, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Gulfstream history

Hi Bill- I haven't gone through to compare every addition to the Gulfstream page, just the diff that you pointed me to. As far as I can see, it really borrows nothing but its underlying structure from the Gulfstream site. Are there some particular passages that you can point me to where the wording is identical or near-identical? --Rlandmann (talk) 21:52, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

IP edits

Thanks for looking out for me though! — BQZip01 —  02:27, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Just remember to say who you are in your summaries - that would help! - BillCJ (talk) 09:23, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Note to "disruptive" IP

To the "disruptive IP: Don't waste your time posting here or responding to this - it will be removed. I can easily add dozens of fact tags to the A-7 Corsair II article. But other editors would object to the "clutter", and replace it with an article tag! Rather than spending your time tying to "disrupt" WP to prove whatever point you're trying to make, you could actually spend some time improving the actualy content of an article, such as adding actual inline citations to the A-7. I know that's not as much fun as being "disruptive", but please remember WP is still an encyclopedia - for now, anyway! Thanks. - BillCJ (talk) 09:23, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

"Tag spam" ;) I feel like using that with tags like these at top. ;)

F-22

Thanks you revised the F-22 article. I was very dissatisfied with the old one. Yours seems to be quite right. Basilicum (talk) 01:24, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Good speedy update on KC-45!

You scooped CNN! When I saw your update with the press release that the program had been cancelled, I checked CNN -- and they are not carrying the news yet. How'd you beat them? A More Perfect Onion (talk) 17:49, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

An anon posted it on the KC-45 talkpage, and I Googled it, and found reports on AFP and Yahoo. Even WP's IPs are good! - BillCJ (talk) 17:55, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

• Thanks BillCJ. I used your text and reference for the KC-767 article. Looks like they specifically canceled the bidding process since the AF will ask for future money for KC-X. At least going by the last paragraph in the DoD release. -Fnlayson (talk) 18:08, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

No prob on the clarification. While I cited it from the horse's mouth, I didn't actually read the DOD release! I read the AFP realease instead, which didn't have the clarifications. Thanks! - BillCJ (talk) 18:12, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

• I read a couple articles and was not sure what was next until reading that DoD press release. They will do a new RFP by next spring I think/hope. -Fnlayson (talk) 18:24, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Atlanta Braves

Obviously that IP's comment was uncited, but I think it's true that Eddie Mathews is the only big leaguer to play for the same organization (i.e. ball club) in 3 different cities. Baseball Bugs 18:40, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Opps, I missed the "more than" part - I thought he said "two" cities! Anyway, if he'd added what you just wrote, I would have just added a fact tag, as what you wrote is "qualified" - his was not. - BillCJ (talk) 18:48, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

He did say it in kind of a weird way, although it was clear to me what he meant. However, that's a bit off the subject anyway, it's more of an Eddie Mathews fact. Similar to the fact that Casey Stengel was involved in some way with all four New York clubs of the 20th Century (though not the Brooklyn Federals). Baseball Bugs 19:11, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

The Mathews article already mentions that he played in all 3 cities as a Brave, and the current Braves article basically restates that. The only other team to have played in 3 cities within the normal span of a player's career would be the A's, who moved to Kansas City in 1955 and to Oakland in 1968. The Braves were a pretty strong team in the 1950s, but the A's were the dregs for their entire stay in KC, and anybody who was any good got sent to the Yankees, so it's highly unlikely a player from the 1954 Philadelphia A's would have also played on the 1968 Oakland A's as well as the KC years in between. That's OR, though. :) Baseball Bugs 19:29, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

• Not on a talk page. ;) -Fnlayson (talk) 13:17, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

• I meant in the article, ya silly. :) Yeh, I can speculate all I want to, in the talk page. Think outside the box. (Batter's, pitcher's, coach's, etc.) Baseball Bugs 14:49, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Talk Page Protected

Because your page is protected against IPs one of them has started a thread at Misplaced Pages:Editor assistance/Requests#Editor's discussion page BLOCKED for IPs?. Thought you might be interested. MilborneOne (talk) 19:59, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

My note is for User:Fancy-cats-are-happy-cats, no one else. I would have hidden it, but some genius decided it made sense to take away all the shortcuts off the edit page, and substitute a drop-down-box that I can't access for some reason. Rather than go hunting for the code, I left it in the open. Regarding the complaint, this was the IP's initial edit at V bomber - would you mind following up on this for me? I'm not going to waste my time with this guy, and I don't believe he's that new. How many "newbies" are familar with BITE and OWN? For the record, this page is blocked because of harassment by trolls and stalkers. Rlandmann is aware of the problems, and he blocked the page, on his own inititive. - BillCJ (talk) 20:35, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Understood - the German IP had only started editing in the last few hours! MilborneOne (talk) 21:05, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Milb1, I looked at his second post on the page you linked to. Something about this guy's writing style is very familiar, especially the part about "Since I want to preserve my privacy, it's too late to log in now (this would link my username to my IP)." Curiouser and curiouser! - BillCJ (talk) 00:58, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

P38 Lightning

I removed the "conversion tool" because that code produced the following for the reader of the article: Template:Convert/LoffAyesDbSoff/s, instead of producing a rate of fire. I'm pretty sure readers want to see the rate of fire, not some meaningless code. It is always a good idea, when using something like the "conversion tool", to check the results by reading the actual article.

The Oracle of Podunk 07:57, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

It's also a good idea to use an edit summary! :p - BillCJ (talk) 13:04, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

RfC

As I understand it, since you're named in the RfC, your signature should be under "certify" rather than "endorse". Askari Mark (Talk) 03:04, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

As I understood the explanation in the RFC itself, I did not try to resolve the issues and fail, I was just involved in the issues. The wording is quite different from the ARBCOM I've participated in, where I would be a primary party in this type of case. If I misunderstood this, I'll be happy to change it. - BillCJ (talk) 04:52, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm just going on what Rlandmann told me. It's my first time at RfC, so I'm no expert. Askari Mark (Talk) 05:02, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Harry Hillaker

Was it an intentional edit to remove the Designer entry? Askari Mark (Talk) 03:47, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Absolutely intentional. I apologize for not being specific about it in the edit summary. See WT:AIR#Designer field in Infobox Aircraft for a discussion on the issue that I began a few days ago. - BillCJ (talk) 04:45, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Ah, I had missed that. Actually, though, Hillaker did perform most of the basic preliminary design, but it macht's nichts to me as far as keeping it. Askari Mark (Talk) 05:05, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

My "very long threads" from August 2008

Hello BillCJ: Just wondering why my letter to you entitled "My Edits and Contributions" has been removed from your archives of August of 2008? Not really an issue as it can still be retrieved in history, but I wanted it to be accessable for those who may be interested in this type of history. Not a real problem however! Take care! I did want "Tom the hand" to have a chance to veiw it but it looks like he has taken a leave of absense. One other thing, you have a typo on the date for the last set of archives (that u mistakenly) dated 3008. So long. But the information I sent you was completely legit so I was hoping that It could be accessed without much difficulty by those who may want to do so. Thanks for your reply --Middim13 (talk) 21:42, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

If you want easy access to the material, I suggest you retrieve it, and place a copy on your own userspace - it's far more info than I want to host. - BillCJ (talk) 04:51, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

MD-80, Midwest Airlines

Hi, Bill. Thank you for your earlier help on the Beechcraft 1900 page and your hard work on the King Air pages. We chatted about two years ago; your help was invaluable.

While I did not make the original edit on the MD-80 website changing Midwest Airlines' cities served, I saw your reversion, and understood where it came from.

Whoever made the edit stating that the MD-80 flights originated in Milwaukee was correct. The Kansas City Business Journal article refers to the termination of service, but didn't explicitly state which hub was most affected in that respect.

I reverted your edit to again state that the flights originated in Milwaukee. I provided further explanation on the MD-80 talk page. I can't cite a news source; I just flew the planes on those routes.

I will check back here and at the MD-80 talk page if have an objection or otherwise wish to respond. As always, thank you for your service to Wiki.

Mikepurves (talk) 02:30, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

P-3 Orion

I re-added the crew complement section, with some references this time. I also left it fairly brief, without some of the detail that perhaps drew the vandals in - does this new section work for you? PalawanOz (talk) 21:46, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Yes, it looks great! Thanks. - BillCJ (talk) 21:57, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Me 163

Hi BillCJ - sorry it's taken so long to get back to you- my attention's been elsewhere.

Everything that you've proposed with regard to this article seems reasonable to me - it desperately needs restructuring. To respond to a couple of specific points:

• Concur that the "surviving aircraft" section needs attention due to WP:WEIGHT concerns - and some that's not even particularly relevant to describing the Komet. My suggestion would be to trim it for now, and if someone comes along with some properly-sourced history for these examples, then maybe a separate article would be a good idea. Most of these aircraft are in high-profile institutions that would meet the threshold that we've been kicking around for the notability of these things.
• I've had a look for the material that you're raising as a potential copyvio, but haven't been able to spot exactly what you mean - could you please point it out to me? I agree that a separate "Design" section could probably be supported.
• Variants - there's an interesting issue here, since despite the designation, the Me 163A was an entirely different aircraft from the Me 163B - with nothing in common between them. Eventually, maybe a split along the lines of the FJ Fury split may be desirable; but for now, we "prima facie" take the RLM's word that these are just different versions of the same thing! While the 163C and 163D were radically different from the 163B, they still shared many components with the earlier model (and indeed the 163D began life as a 163B). Speaking of which - at some point, someone has inserted a note about the 163D now being thought not to have existed as a separate version designation. I'm not sure where that idea comes from, but it needs to be sourced or removed. I wonder if it's from Ransom and Cammann's 2 volume book (currently the most comprehensive on the Komet). Unfortunately, I haven't got around to purchasing this yet (though I've been salivating for 5 years!)

Hope there's something useful in that lot! --Rlandmann (talk) 23:51, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

A Barnstar of Diligence, y'all

		The Barnstar of Diligence
		To BillCJ for keeping such a careful watch on Chattanooga. -- Flowanda | Talk 21:57, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Error with 737 pic

Please see your reply at my Talk Page. Regards - Adrian Pingstone (talk) 22:56, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

navbox

Hey, thanks for your note. It did come after I was finished adding Template:PresidentialCallsigns to the articles it links to. I was simply doing that: adding the navbox, and I figured that while I was at it, I might as well remove what seemed to be an overly broad navbox. I didn't realize there was a policy on it, and I'm not really invested enought to contest it. On the other hand, I don't appreciate you undoing those edits, because that undo removed the navbox I did add, and was completely relevant to the articles. bahamut0013♠♣ 18:43, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Chill out and relax....

I think 210.23.146.66 is just getting upity, but chill out and relax. They have indicated a willingness to compromise, so just go with the flow. I agree that the points made need to be included, and that the strong denial of the claims over performance are also included, but seriously dude, you can flip the coin around and say that any of the major contributors on this article are POV pushing, so just go with the flow and relax, all will be well. Deleting whole sections is vandalism right? so don't go throwing out the baby with the bathtub man, just have beer, sit back and think of a way to work with this person who is clearly stressing and not getting enough, but don't bite back, the world needs more love and kindness not harsh words. So let's look at the references thrown up, some of the non-pollies do have expertise and the point about conflict of interest is on, that, INMHO, we should also consider (reading the lateline transcript it's obvious that the journo was trying to make that point as well) that and balance it out with other industry opinions, which have been given, cited, and do generally support the notion of some concerns over the performance of the aircraft. So it's just a matter of figuring out how to best word it so as not to give undue weight. So have a beer or two, sit back, relax man, it's all good! 121.79.19.4 (talk) 06:43, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Rotary engine "hat note"

Fair enough - it was just a thought. --Soundofmusicals (talk) 02:32, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

It's a good one too, just a bit long! Those Mazda-usage brigaders seem to be a dense lot, so I'm not sure some would even know that "Wankel engines" are what the rotary-Mazdas use! - BillCJ (talk) 02:37, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

AW109

Thanks for reverting me! (Betcha never thought you'd hear someone thanking you for that!) I didn't realize that the tag should be in ELs. AKRadecki 16:06, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

It's OK. We had some MOS wonks show up just after you took your hiatus. We had to change "Related content" to "See also", and move it above the Ref and EL section. In all thet, we decided to keep the Commons links with the ELs. You might want to look over the WP:AIR/PC guidelines if you haven't as yet, as there have been some other changes. (Friendly suggestion, of course! A lot has changed in WP:AIR, most for the better!) - BillCJ (talk) 16:18, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

On the Commons link, found that out in a FA review. The other Wiki projects are considered External so links to them go in EL. This is stated in one of the MoS pages. For whatever that's worth.. -Fnlayson (talk) 18:04, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Redirect

The article you created as a redirect,J73, is currently redirecting to a non existing page. Maybe you made a typo? :) Excirial 18:56, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

No, I just forgot there wasn't an article there yet. I'm working on a template for US DOD aeroengines, and all the different designations are running together! Thanks. - BillCJ (talk) 19:00, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Rolls-Royce/Snecma Olympus 593

Seems it was there all the time, needs an infobox. Someone has 'nicked' the idea and no edit summary for the text copy/paste. Cheers Nimbus (talk) 02:30, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

I asked Wolfkeeper about me creating it, and he went and dunned it himself! Check this diff from the history. Wolf watches over the Concorde related articles, including engines, very closely, so I wanted his opinion before we started it. I guess he thought it was a good idea! He doesn't use edit summaries, so we can just put a not on the talk page about the cut/paste - that should suffice. Looks good tho. - BillCJ (talk) 02:38, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Mother-in-law passed away tonight, many tears in the Nimbus household. Nimbus (talk) 03:48, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Engine task force, great, You can call me Gary if you like! Nimbus (talk) 03:57, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

SNEB

Hello Bill, thought I drop by and say hi! Anyway, I've been busy with the above-mentioned page as well as adding it into the pages of several military aircraft. Do let me know if I've made any error(s) and feel free to contribute. Thanks and cheers! ...Dave1185 (talk) 20:11, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Have a pie!

Dave1185 (talk) has given you a pie! Pies promote the kind of hearty eating that puts a smile on your face and a sustaining meal in your stomach. Hopefully this pie has made your day better. Spread the goodness by giving someone else a pie, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Happy eating! Spread the goodness of pie by adding {{subst:Wikipie}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

Thanks for your faith & trust in me during several of my edits, so here's a pie or as the nerds would call it, pi! Cheers! ...Dave1185 (talk) 03:12, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Olympus pics

Please see my reply to you on my Talk Page - Adrian Pingstone (talk) 21:11, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

MD-80s like family car

An article today about American Airlines starting to retire its MD-80s says "The MD-80s are the equivalent of the old dependable family car: It's not flashy or the most economical to operate, but it always runs, company executives say." Interesting description. :) -Fnlayson (talk) 15:16, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Hope you're well!

Can I bother you for your two pence on this topic? Sorry, trolling for consensus... Maury Markowitz (talk) 18:14, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

"Keeps his own counsel"

Hi,

I'd appreciate it if, when you have a concern regarding an edit of mine, that you take it to me rather than to other editors. In this case, the infobox was added as an example for the new User:OneShotFOGE, who had attempted the same edit but failed to get the process right. I can't see that assuming that I am keeping my plans to myself is an assumption of good faith when you hadn't actually contacted me. If you look at my talk page you'll find that I try to be as accommodating as possible regarding the concerns of others, and as this is the second time (by my count) that we'd crossed paths I'd hope that you'd consider engaging me directly if you have concerns with my edits. Thanks. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 23:36, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

I am sorry if I offended you - that wasn't my intention. RL is an admin, and knows how to keep his cool. Trust me, going to him was the better option for me. He is also the person who does the bulk of the maintenance on Infobox Aircraft, and thus the best person to address it's use. I did not mean to use "keep your own counsel" to mean you do anything in secret. For the record, what I do mean is illustrated by your responses (not initial comments) at ]. You'll note that I said you idea was a good one (and really I do believe it is), just not for the way the infobox is used on aircraft pages. Btw, WP:Ships doesn't even use names in their infoboxes at all, as there are almost always the exact same as the title. When or why that happened is from before my time in WPSHIPS. - BillCJ (talk) 01:17, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. I know that the use of such a parameter isn't universal, but very few things in Misplaced Pages are. :) Just wanted to let you know that I try to be as responsive as possible to editors' concerns on my talk page as I can, and that as we seemed to have gotten off on the wrong foot last time I'd rather be proactive in settling it this time. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 02:02, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Nuclear depth bomb

Hi, I have deleted this page under CSD G6 as requested, you should be right to go ahead with the move now. Lankiveil 11:04, 12 October 2008 (UTC).

Thanks. - BillCJ (talk) 15:16, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

CF-18 Hornet

Hey BillCJ, see the talk page, I took a too long to write out the reasoning. ThePointblank (talk) 00:34, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Actually, I think you posted to the talk page about 4 minutes before I reverted, but I was operating on a watchlist from before your post, so the post hadn't been recorded as yet. I find it helpful to put "see talk page" in my edit summaries, but sometimes I decide to write the post after my article edits, so that doesn't work! If we don't get another opinion on the talk page by this time tomorrow, I'll revert myself if it hasn't been done by then. - BillCJ (talk) 01:20, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

• Went back to Point's replacement wording. That's the most neutral and still brief way to put it. Was being a little hard-headed at first. -Fnlayson (talk) 13:19, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Qantas Flight 72

Hi! Thanks for the message regarding the speedy delete of the above article; I had searched for 'Qantas Flight 72', but nothing came up suggesting a deletion review, or a user-space copy of that page, so I began to recreate the article (noting that, the previous one was deleted before it became even more notable).

In terms of trying to work within the system, and 'poor form' to recreate a page that is in deletion review, I was acting in good faith!

Could I ask - is it possible to search for backup copies in user areas of wikipedia (e.g. of Qantas Flight 72), or to search to see if any particular page is in a deletion review? Thanks :)

PS I have blanked the page so it will be obviously deleted when an admin sees it, pending the deletion review of the original page.

Crane comment

I noticed you reverted an unsourced addition to one of the skycrane articles a day or two ago...one element of the material was that the cockpit had seating for five. I happened to be hanging around an HTSI CH-54B this afternoon, and there's no way that there's enough room for five seats in there. Standard crew seating is for 3, and I can see where you could put a folding aft-facing jumpseat, but not two. Unless someone comes up with a good hard ref, I find the figure of 5 hard to believe. Of course, all of this is blatantly OR, since it comes from my own observations, but just thought you'd be interested. AKRadecki 05:16, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps they were counting small children as the 4th and 5th persons ;) Thanks. I do wish people would learn to cite their souces, esp. would-be MOS-wonks! - BillCJ (talk) 05:31, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

ANI notice

Hello, BilCat. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding a possible topic or community ban of Middim13. The discussion is about the topic WP:ANI#Topic or community ban needed. Thank you. ---MBK₀₀₄ 02:24, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

There is another discussion at Misplaced Pages:Administrators'_noticeboard#Talk:Star_Trek_.28film.29 about your editing. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 01:12, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. I won't be responding. - BillCJ (talk) 02:09, 18 October 2008 (UTC)