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 - June 2010 Archive 15 - June 2010 - August 2013 Archive 16 - December 2010 - August 2013 Archive 17 - August 2013 - January 2015 Archive18 - January 2015 - March 2016 Archive19 - April 2016 - present Archive20 - Archive21 -

This page has archives. Sections older than 21 days may be automatically archived by ClueBot III when more than 4 sections are present.

Template:NoBracketBot

My bad. I forget to remove flag. ; - ) Wikihistory (talk) 05:53, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Wikihistory: No worries. Wikipedia has a fairly steep learning curve, but it can be a very rewarding experience here. - BilCat (talk) 05:55, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@BilCat:

Should this edit be reverted?

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:MobileDiff/789733125

Wikihistory (talk) 06:13, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Wikihistory: I'd say so, yes. - BilCat (talk) 06:31, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

What is a reliable source because i use images of countries using weapons as a reliable source and editors revert it and they say that is not a reliable source. Wikihistory (talk) 08:07, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Wikihistory: Please read this guideline page, which explains what it means. As far as photos go, an image doesn't prove the country is an official operator of a weapon, only that someone was photographed with a weapon. Feel free to ask me any questions after you've read the linked guideline page. - BilCat (talk) 12:15, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I am having a few problems with an enthusiastic but at times very dogmatic editorial colleague on the Fokker Scourge article. If fact, things have reached a pass where some second opinions might be useful. The specific question he is hammering at the moment is that we shouldn't ever say "No. 1 Squadron RAF" (in spite of that being the usual way of putting it) but "1 Squadron" (on the grounds that the "No." is redundant). I wouldn't object to an occasional omission of the "No.", if only for elegant variation, but he has been going right through the article wiping every instance and claiming that "Wikipedia is not a source" (which is true enough, but nothing to do with the case). The gentleman concerned has been making dozens of other (mostly very pettifogging) changes to the article - a few have been genuine improvements, and most at least acceptable alternatives but some of which have made clear text obscure, even meaningless. I have let everything he has done that is at all acceptable stand, but the really bad ones I've had to change - usually with a new version rather than a provocative revert.

I was wondering, if you have a moment, if you'd like to have a little look at the Fokker Scourge talk page (go straight to the bottom if you like) and tell me, either here, on my talk page, or even on the talk page of the article if you want to actually buy into the discussion, if I'm being totally unreasonable and should just give up. This is (for a WWI aviation article) quite a high traffic one - and I'd like to leave it in reasonable shape. At least readable, and plain in meaning (two things I value far above brevity for its own sake). --Soundofmusicals (talk) 00:52, 23 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That user can be tendentious at times, though not always. I'd personally rather stay out of that one. You can raise the issue at WT:AIR and see if anyone else would like yo weigh in. - BilCat (talk) 01:29, 23 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the suggestion about WT:AIR - can't blame you for not wanting to buy into the argument - mainly mentioned it as I was worried it was ME being an idiot rather than you know who. Of course the article is one I extensively re-wrote some years ago and I hate it being emasculated. Worst possible reason for getting all possessive - which I have tried to avoid. Best wishes anyway! --Soundofmusicals (talk) 01:45, 23 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. - BilCat (talk) 02:12, 23 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Rgr — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.239.208.108 (talk) 04:34, 23 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Not interested in edit wars for these things.)You are right.Benniejets (talk) 18:22, 24 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I've been having browser issues, & I can't seem to get into my email account just now, so... I have a sense you don't want it said on a talk page where there's a record. What you might try is going here & PM PHX1138 (that's me); I can get my PMs there with no trouble. (IDK if you can PM without signing up, tho...) TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 18:54, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Trekphiler, I can't at the moment. I know it's hard with this one, but just be careful and don't get yourself trapped in a situation that might get you blocked. That's all I want to say in the open. - BilCat (talk) 19:08, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thx, but I may already be in one... I can simply take the page off my watchlist, 'cause it's not like it's a subject I'm deeply invested in. I did post a question with User:Parsecboy on it, so maybe he's got something. TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 19:13, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Trekphiler, I understand. If you can, don't respond in kind to the trolling there. It's not worth it. - BilCat (talk) 19:20, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, I'm terrible about not taking troll bait... If I do get slapped, so be it. TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 19:27, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Trekphiler, I'm know, I'm not either, but sometimes it helps to have a friend whispering in your ear. I know it helps me. :) Just know others are watching and understand what's going on. - BilCat (talk) 19:33, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure it'll keep me from doing something stupid, but knowing somebody gets my side is always good to hear. FYI, he's now weighed in on another page, SdKfz 234, where somebody's been changing Germany to Nazi Germany... (Have a look at the history & see why that is an issue...). That one will not come off my watchlist; I created the page, I'm damned if I'll stop watching it because of a trill. (Also FYI, delay in reply's because I've been trying to say away entire for awhile.) TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 21:29 & 21:30, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. - BilCat (talk) 21:32, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I took the Arrow off my watchlist before your message. I'm done with that sinkhole for now. TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 00:28, 30 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ok good :) - BilCat (talk) 00:33, 30 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thx for the heads up, tho. And the "thank"s. (Sorry to say, tho, now you've replied, you're off the watchlist, too. :( ) TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 00:37, 30 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

FYI, Andy's bought himself a warning for hounding...& I've gotten away with some stupid stuff I should never have done. My karma must be in amazing shape today. :) TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 22:58, 30 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not surprised, and it's long overdue. Hopefully he's not WP:EUI. That's never a good idea. One highly contentious user used to do that regularly, and was finally banned after years of causing grief. I don't miss him at all. - BilCat (talk)

If he is, he's astoundingly coherent at it. (After yesterday, I almost wish I had that excuse. That was all down to lack of sleep, I think.) I've run into Andy on a dispute once before, over this, & to this day, I do not understand his reasoning. If he gets banned, tho, it'd be a loss in general; I've seen him do good editing, & he seems to know steam engines real well. He just needs an attitude adjustment. TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 23:46, 30 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I understand. - BilCat (talk) 23:49, 30 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

User:Benniejets (I see you have left warnings for edit-warring on his talk page) is now repeatedly removing reliably sourced material from the Blue-water navy article. He has me marked as "anti-italian" for whatever reason and thinks my edits are "propaganda" against his country I suppose (his words). So I don't think he is going to listen to me, regardless of whether Spain and Brazil are listed as Rank 3 in the reliable sources or no. Cheers Antiochus the Great (talk) 22:09, 30 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

«Unwelcome comments by»Benniejets (talk) 22:12, 30 July 2017 (UTC)«removed»[reply]

Reliable sources are per Wikipedia's guidelines. Mine or your opinions are quite irrelevant in that regard. Antiochus the Great (talk) 22:24, 30 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'd just removed the page from my watchlist about an hour ago, and probably won't go back. :) Benniejets, don't follow other users who ask for help onto my talk page like that just to continue your arguments. You already attempted to make your case on the talk page, so leave your arguments there. Also, once a user starts making anti-"their country" attacks against good, long-term editors, they have invalidated themselves as a serious editor in my opinion. Any further comments by you in this conversation will be removed unread. - BilCat (talk) 22:39, 30 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

K3, you are scheduledBenniejets (talk) 21:36, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]