Jump to content

User talk:BilCat

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 79.88.183.116 (talk) at 18:56, 26 November 2011 (→Combat history of AGM-114 Hellfire: no consensus). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

HEMI-DEMI-SEMI-RETIRED
This user is still pretty active on Wikipedia, but there may be periods in which I am not active due to life issues.



Sock???

He's definitely getting annoying with all the photo changes, but I haven't trawled through his other edits to check for the same style of POV. FA does seem familiar, though, and might be worth a checkuser to determine if they aren't another banned user. - 09:17, 5 October 2011 (UTC)
From a cursory glance at their user contributions, they do seem to be an experienced WP user, despite the user account being created in July 2011, though most of their edits seem to be aditions/subtractions of photos. - BilCat (talk) 09:23, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I don't generally deal with the Checkuser admins at all, so that's your call - I have no clue! You might check Chanakya's contributions to see if he had a similar editing style on photos, and if he does, then a checkuser might be actionable. I'm trying to go to bed at the moment, but not having ,uch luck, but I hope to be asleep soon! - BilCat (talk) 09:35, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Have not got time to check at the moment but the flikr account http://www.flickr.com/photos/42955882@N02/with/4000393484/ the naval images are from has been used before by other editors with similar interests. Clear case of flikr washing as I am sure some of those images have been uploaded and deleted as copyvios before. MilborneOne (talk) 12:15, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I see you've come across the same editor I did. He's uploaded a lot of images claiming as a FUR that they're released for promotional reasons. Checking the originating website this isn't the case, with the copyright statement stating all rights reserved. I ran this by User:Moonriddengirl and the FUR is invalid. Wee Curry Monster talk 19:44, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
User:Growingnuerons has pooped up to claim it is Chanakyathegreat, not User:Taurgo. Morons. - BilCat (talk) 18:56, 8 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I couldn't have said it better myself! ;) Anyway, we've learned to trust our guts when sock-huning, and we're right more than we're wrong. Never mess with the A-T.E.A.M.! - BilCat (talk) 19:27, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Remember me asking you about User:Touchtheskywithglory? Well, he's been blocked for being a likely sock of Chanakyathe-not-so-great. The nose knows! - BilCat (talk) 05:02, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I was definitely suspicious of the user name, as it implies a strong pro-Indian POV. There's no place for that sort of bias on WP, and Chanka was full of that. And full of it! ;)- BilCat (talk) 14:47, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've noticed that the Indian and Chinese aircraft articles tend to attract the fanboys in droves and they almost always wind up in a "My aircraft's bigger than yours!" match. Speaking of which, I'm soon going to see about removing a bit of "mine's badder" from a couple of Chinese aircraft articles, if they get me for it, it was nice knowing y'all! - The Bushranger One ping only 22:07, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The quacking is indeed strong in this one! SPI time? - The Bushranger One ping only 03:19, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Facepalm Facepalm Chanka-the-not-so-great has been quite busy. I always thought his was a patriotic POVer, but this is ridiculous. He never earned my respect anyway, but it's nice to have it proven how much of a Indo-patriotic jerk he actually was, and that our instincts were right all along. The nose knows! :) - BilCat (talk) 21:02, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Bill. IMO, the guy was obviously abused when young, kicked around from Islamabad to New Dehli and maybe back again. Anyway, I wouldn't be too surprised to know that the guy was trying to instigate something here or changing the world's opinion, despite after the dust has settled and history was written down by actual historians. Sad wanker, really. --Dave ♠♣♥♦™№1185©♪♫® 07:55, 23 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Curious indeed

I was expecting it, likely to be one User:Alex79818, currently blocked for sock puppetry. One to watch. Wee Curry Monster talk 19:50, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

And blocked for username violation. Wee Curry Monster talk 16:14, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Saw your post

Get well soon! Best, Markvs88 (talk) 00:24, 11 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! - BilCat (talk) 00:38, 11 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It wasn't unconstructive

This really irritates me. There is no cite for that incident. It didn't happen, so far as I can tell. So I remove it. And people like you don't take the time to look at what I actually did. Screw you 86.176.108.87 (talk) 17:15, 18 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You obviously know how to use edit summaries. Use descriptive and polite summaries when you edit articles next time, as WP has a block on mind-reading. "uhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh" is typical of vandals, and really not helpful in anyway to let people know you are making a serious edit. - BilCat (talk) 17:28, 18 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
In fact [1] the incident did occur, although a cite is still needed to give the full details.Nigel Ish (talk) 18:22, 18 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, Nigel - I'm not surprised it actually happened. - BilCat (talk) 18:35, 18 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I've read about this incident before - but it's been years so I have no idea whatsoever where I read of it. :( - The Bushranger One ping only 20:40, 18 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Things pop up in odd places...

...the India vs Pakistan "mine's bigger" thing spilled over to KAI T-50 Golden Eagle today, where Tejas was removed from the "see also" in favor of the JF-17... Facepalm Facepalm - The Bushranger One ping only 03:27, 20 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

And now apparently it is the great crusade to remove the JF-17 Thunder from the Advanced Medium Combat Aircraft's see-also section...on the basis the JF-17 is a "Third Generation Aircraft"...aaargh. - The Bushranger One ping only 20:04, 23 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

Hi, Thanks for making those reverts to my talk page. Jamiebijania is starting to get annoying. --JetBlast (talk) 21:50, 21 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome. He'll get blocked at the next such feat, per Milb's talk page. - BilCat (talk) 21:52, 21 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
He's currently blocked. - BilCat (talk) 05:26, 22 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
And socking. - The Bushranger One ping only 05:28, 22 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Facepalm Facepalm So I see. - BilCat (talk) 05:35, 22 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Assuming his userpage is correct (which I don't!), he's only 15 - it might be easier to see if Dave can make a call to Raffles. ;) - BilCat (talk) 08:07, 22 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Heh! (Also might be a good idea to keep an eye out for new Chelsea FC-related articles in case he socks again.) - The Bushranger One ping only 08:18, 22 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'm the wrong person to watch for new Chelsea FC-related articles - the only football I know about in played by the NFL! :) - BilCat (talk) 08:36, 22 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Alenia C27

For what it is worth: you have my full support for your recent revert in "Alenia_C-27J_Spartan" - as you've had on several earlier occasions. Keep up the good work! Jan olieslagers (talk) 18:12, 22 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I appreciate the support. - BilCat (talk) 18:30, 22 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Combat history of AGM-114 Hellfire: no consensus

Hello BilCat,
I recognize that there is a lack on consensus on this section. But why not to keep the referenced facts (that were on the page for a long time) in the section up to reach a consensus? Doing the other way around (i.e. removing facts and wait - indefinitely ?- for a consensus) is a convenient way to censor facts.
79.89.15.71 (talk) 20:45, 22 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"Doing it the other way around" is how WP works, like it or not. If you really interested in working within that system, you'll be patient. But if you think your "facts" are so important that you don't need to follow the rules, then of course you think you're being censored! That's noy my problem. - BilCat (talk) 21:31, 22 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Do you really mean that if I do not like some facts I should remove them? I hope WP does not works like this...
79.89.15.71 (talk) 21:54, 22 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
If "facts" are not supported by an inline citation to a reliable source, they are subject to removal from the article at any time. Tagging them with {{citation needed}} for a time first is preferred, of course. - The Bushranger One ping only 00:01, 23 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
See above, and also see User:Nickpullar's comments at Talk:AGM-114 Hellfire#Combat history: keeping facts and removing political issues, if you haven't already. :) - BilCat (talk) 03:53, 23 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
To The Bushranger: I was, indeed, talking about facts referenced with reliable sources (otherwise, I would not have raised any issue). To BilCat: is it WP policy to allow users to remove (properly) referenced facts and then say they will discuss later and do not do it? I thought WP policy was more like "discussion first, changes later"...
147.99.222.244 (talk) 08:07, 23 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The info was discussed in depth last year, and also this month. WP is an encyclopedia, not a exhaustive compendium of all information on all topics. At some point, you have to accept that consensus to include in-depth coverage on uses in certain locations in an articel that is a summary on a missle isn't appropriate. It's far too much information for that tht type of article. There are already articles about the actions of Isreali forces, and there may even be articles on these specific events. If you can find them, then linking to these articels in that section might be appropriate. Add them to the talk page. - BilCat (talk) 17:52, 23 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, the discussion was long. But, as you mentioned just before, no consensus was found. And now, you are writing I should accept the consensus... A bit confusing, isn't it?
Recently, the erased facts were removed because they were about civilians, and, "as everybody knows weapons kill civilians too"... I do not see any issue related to Israel or whatever country. Many articles are much longer than "this type of article" (whatever it means), so I do not see how keeping those facts (just a few lines long) out of the article helps improving it.
Also, considering all the anonymous attempts to remove these facts, it looks like the reason to keep them out of the article may be discomfort with history.
79.89.15.71 (talk) 20:42, 23 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Please see WP:UNDUE. - The Bushranger One ping only 21:18, 23 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The problem is that weapons killing civilians isn't an unusual thing, not are protests against such killings. A single event is not generally notable unless the person killed is notable. Unknown 12-year-old and 16-year-old boys aren't notable to an ecyclopedia. A leader of a coutriy or political faction is to a degre, and that's why the event was mentioned, but not in detail. - BilCat (talk) 22:29, 23 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hello.
Thank you The Bushranger for pointing me to the WP:UNDUE. This rule (as many rules of WP) is mostly common sense (also having them written is very useful). Indeed, this section specifically mentions that the prevalence of a viewpoint among Wikipedia editors is not a good criteria. So, reasons like "it is against Israel (or whatever country)" or "I feel like keeping civilians' deaths out" are not to be considered in the decision (I mention this point because the discussion page of the article is full of such kind of "reasons").
To BilCat: thank you for clarifying your position. I agree with you that, in general, prominent persons should deserve more space than anonymous. But if the case of the ambulance should not be mentioned, why does the case of the Cessna 152 aircraft should deserve a full paragraph? To me, this paragraph looks more like a anecdote (or even a commercial for the manufacturer). However, at least at current stage in the development of the article, I do not think it should be removed (see last paragraph of this post).
The sentence "As with all weapon systems, attacks of this type have also resulted in civilian deaths" hides the fact that the civilians' deaths were not only passers-by. This was previously exemplified by the case of the ambulance. But since this fact has been removed ("waiting for a consensus" ;-) ), who will know the Hellfire was used directly against civilians? And how to get a consensus on a subject if part of the data are hidden? This may be a bad commercial for the company or a specific country (Israel in this case), but I guess you will agree with me WP contributors should not be concerned about it.
Finally, many WP articles start small, improve progressively, and, when considered too long, may be divided into several articles. The present article is rated of C quality (which I would translate into "poor quality"). If we deliberately keep information out, how could we have an article of good quality, or even, one day, a full article dedicated to the combat history of Hellfire weapon? This is one on my main reasons to think that, at the current stage, facts should be keep in the section (whatever the country, etc.;) - as long as reliable references are included, of course.
79.88.183.116 (talk) 18:56, 26 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Zealot in action

  1. Flayer (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
    1. Spike (missile) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Hmmm, actually, Dave, in this case I think he has a point - I'm pretty sure national MoDs are considered reliable sources for their own equipment, when it comes to possession at least (vs. performance!). And since the Lativan MoD itself lists "Spike anti-tank guided missile system" among its equipment, well... [2] - The Bushranger One ping only 20:42, 23 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • That I agree but I just wanted a secondary source to put a stop to other editor's query, supposedly if it happens. But the guy took it so personally and went on a ref tag stamping spree on other less controversial countries/entries, as well as whacking me with a trout on my user page when it should have landed on my discussion page instead. --Dave ♠♣♥♦™№1185©♪♫® 20:47, 23 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Stranger in the night?

  1. 67.243.55.111 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
    1. Lockheed Martin F-35 Lightning II (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Who do you think? - BilCat (talk) 20:40, 23 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Understood. - BilCat (talk) 20:52, 23 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

MILHIST Military Aviation Questionaire

Hi BilCat! As your MILHIST Military Avation Task Force coordinator, I'd like to conduct a short questionaire to give me an idea of what you would the task force to achieve and the capabilities of yours that might contribute positively to the task force. The four questions of this questionaire are:

  1. What are your strengths on Wikipedia?
  2. Which four military aviation articles would you like to see be promoted to at least GA?
  3. What detailed resources (books, journals, etc) about military aviation do you have access to? Please provide the publications' authors, titles and ISSNs/ISBNs.
  4. Which three military aviation articles are you wiling to provide assistance? This can be expansion, copyediting, reference formatting, etc.

Please reply by copying and pasting the following at User talk:Sp33dyphil#MILHIST Military Aviation questionnaire and filling it out. 

; ~~~
#My strengths
#Articles I'd like to see the task force improve
#:
#:
#:
#:
#Sources which I have
#:
#:
#Articles I'm willing to provide assistance
#:

Thank you for your assistance. Regards --Sp33dyphil © • © 09:13, 25 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Anonymous no more...

He still might actually be from Thailand or Vietnam originally/ethnically, not that it really matters beyond helping to understand an editor's POV/biases. - BilCat (talk) 14:24, 25 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
OK, gotcha now. - BilCat (talk) 00:53, 26 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Facepalm Facepalm So what's with 2 "new" users (User:Dave1195, User:Ard Ulsiin) harrassing each other? Very strange indeed! Might make for some interesting CU reports! ;) - BilCat (talk) 14:54, 26 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=User_talk:BilCat&oldid=462607141"