User talk:BilCat

Concert Reverting

I don't understand why the concerts are being reverted since they are confirmed for this year. There's references to the 2026 World Cup on the same page and the 2025 College Championship. So can't we fill out what's happening this year? I don't want to cause trouble, just want to complete the page.

Remember the fighter "generations" debate

It was all "should we acknowledge the existence of 'fighter generations' when no one agrees and it is just 'marketing crap' anyway?" Finally we said, "well, since there are sources, I guess..." And where did that decision lead us to? This. - Ahunt (talk) 11:53, 21 March 2023 (UTC)

A Passing Remark from a Vaguely Interested Bystander.

Er. `This' to which you link is about light aircraft - nothing at all to do with military aviation - and is in any case just an advert for an aircraft made with a proprietary manufacturing technology (not to mention being grotesquely wrong here and there). So: neither relevant to the matter in hand, nor a WP:RS even if it were.

Not that I wish to get involved in a discussion of 'fighter generations'. But: it does strike me that I've read plenty of stuff on the subject indicating that some informed people do agree (even if agreement is far from unanimous), so suggesting otherwise isn't very sensible.

After all, there are clear 'generational' distinctions between, e.g., wood and wire biplanes, (mostly) metal cantilever monoplanes, early gun armed jet powered kit, more advanced weapon system types of jet powered kit. And so on.

Michael F 1967 (talk) 20:37, 21 March 2023 (UTC)

They have main battle tank generations too. BilCat (talk) 20:43, 21 March 2023 (UTC)

User:Michael F 1967: You missed my point. I was not trying to show that link as some sort of RS, but rather as evidence that now that we have accepted the "fighter generations" marketing claims, we are seeing more marketing claims in other areas of aviation and beyond. We opened Pandora's box there. Next I expect to see "fifth generation chewing gum". - Ahunt (talk) 20:55, 21 March 2023 (UTC)

Yup. I prefer that third-gen gum though. BilCat (talk) 21:06, 21 March 2023 (UTC)

My main point was that not all such claims are down to marketing, and the ones which are down to marketing are easy to spot and discount.

Marketing people will always exploit anything they can, so why worry about it?

Another point is that accepting considered remarks about the development of technology from informed, disinterested writers (where the notion of 'fighter generations' came from, as I understand it) has no effect on anything beyond the development of language.

Anyway: some things matter while others don't, much.

Michael F 1967 (talk) 21:20, 21 March 2023 (UTC)

Jamaican Patois

Sorry BilCat but you're wrong. First of all, yes, Jamaicans refer to the language as "Patois" or "Patwa(h)", but that's a name, and patois is not that. The very awkward "also used as a lower-case noun as a catch-all description" already indicates that the term you wiki-linked is NOT the language called Jamaican Patois: "patois" is not "Patois", and Patois is not a patois.

Moreover, saying "as the text states "patois" can include creoles" really doesn't help. First, Wikipedia is not a reliable source for Wikipedia, as you know, and second, the history of the article shows that the reference (Vellupillai 481) did not always verify both the "patois" bit and the statement about prestige. In fact, the history shows, as in this version, that there were three references for all the material before the "prestige" sentence. I don't know when that paragraph was shortened and the clumsy "as a lower-case noun" was introduced, but it conflates the difference between the proper name of the language and the term "patois". Let's face it: if "Patois" in "Jamaicans refer to their language as Patois" links to anything, it should link to Jamaican Patois. And I also don't know when "a catch-all description of pidgins, creoles, dialects, and vernaculars worldwide" was introduced, but reading the history it seems clear that it was added long after the Vellupillai 481 reference was there, and it is not found elsewhere in the article--in other words, it's original research. Sorry, but I strongly disagree with that edit. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 15:39, 21 March 2023 (UTC)

This is better discussed on the article's talk page, or even at Talk:Patois, so others can participate. BilCat (talk) 20:41, 21 March 2023 (UTC)

TF X Phot Change

Dude I change TF X Photo because Prototype photo exist? Why you changed again? Prove: https://twitter.com/IsmailDemirSSB/status/1636779762973655063 There is man our Defence Industry President???? Prove: https://wiki.alquds.edu/?query=Defence_Industry_Agency (In List of Presidents) And I changed our country name Turkey to Türkiye. Because we changed our country name too? Prove: https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2023/jan/05/us-turkey-spelling-turkiye-country Snappy275 (talk) 03:59, 22 March 2023 (UTC)

All photos posted to commons have to be properly licensed, either copyright free or a compatible licence. We cannot assume photos are not copyrighted. That's a legal issue. As to "Turkey", Wikipedia uses the most common name in English. When and if the article on Turkey is moved to Türkiye, then English Wikipedia will start to use that spelling, but not before. BilCat (talk) 04:11, 22 March 2023 (UTC)

You've got mail

Hello, BilCat. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.Martianman64 (talk) 04:32, 22 March 2023 (UTC)

Hello! I have sent you an email regarding the Republic of the Rio Grande flag. I have found a primary source which I think is much more authoritative than the dissertation I originally cited.

I sent you a reply on the Canberra entry. Here is the source. I thought I had put On Target Aviation as the source for this: "On 24th February 1972 WT333 returned to Pershore and for further development work, she was fitted with the cockpit of Canberra B.2 WK135 by RRE technicians. This work resulted in the loss of the B(I)8s distinctive offset fighter style cockpit canopy, along with a much longer nose being grafted on." Anyone who knows Canberras knows that the cockpit of the B(I)8 and B.2 are entirely different. This B(I)8's cockpit was replaced by a B.2 cockpit. https://on-target-aviation.com/heritage/canberra-wt333-history/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.162.94.16 (talk) 16:19, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

Concert listings

You and I have discussed concert listings at User talk:BilCat/archive25#Mercedes-Benz Stadium. There is a discussion about this at Talk:SoFi Stadium#user @Magnolia677 removing concerts. Cheers. Magnolia677 (talk) 09:58, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

Bombardier Challenger 300

Hey, @BilCat, thanks! I don't know airplane articles at all and was hoping someone watching the page would know whether that was an actual helpful addition. :) Valereee (talk) 11:30, 26 March 2023 (UTC)

Maresal edit reverting

Hi, can I ask what your problem is? Why do you keep reverting my (pretty minor) Maresal edit? The two very vague and questionable reasons you gave were:

"Unsourced, possible POV" -As I explained, my edit consisted of three words which clearly didn't need citations to verify a Czech machine gun is Czech. Not POV either.

"still.not needed here" -Who are you to decide what is needed and what isn't, this is a free encyclopedia where everyone is free to contribute information relevant to the topic. The section was talking about the Czech machine guns with no mention of them being Czech, I added the relevant information that the machine gun is Czech and you're removing it with no real explanation. Either stop being annoying, or give an actual explanation as to why I can't mention that a Czech machine gun is Czech. Victory799 (talk) 00:27, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

I'm an editor here like everyone else. Please stop adding minor, useless info. If you disagree, per WP:BRD, raise it on the article's talk page and convince others it's important. BilCat (talk) 00:36, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

Rochester Airfield naming

Dear, allow me to welcome your thoughts about the naming of Rochester Airfield; I added a comment on the relevant talk page Talk:Rochester Airport (Kent) and was looking forward to your chiming in. Jan olieslagers (talk) 18:17, 29 March 2023 (UTC)]

Replied there. BilCat (talk) 21:03, 29 March 2023 (UTC)