User talk:BilCat

SEMI-RETIRED

This user is no longer very active on Wikipedia.

Good to see you back

For however long it may be. - ZLEA _T\^C 01:13, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I'm not sure how long it'll be either. We'll see. BilCat (talk) 01:21, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

whichever - it is good to see you here... JarrahTree 01:25, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I missed all those poor attempts at insulting me by the sock from down your way. Hilarious. It's nice to know I live free in his head. BilCat (talk) 01:34, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with JarrahTree. Welcome, be it a short or long stay. -- Euryalus (talk) 01:33, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! BilCat (talk) 01:36, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, glad to see you back. Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 16:33, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I've slowed down a little the past couple weeks, but we'll see how it goes for the next few. BilCat (talk) 00:11, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oi. Too funny. Yah, we are all here. Still beny (talk) 05:19, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes! You were one of my Wiki mentors! Glade to see you! Tfdavisatsnetnet (talk) 03:14, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

whatever - here there or whereever!!! JarrahTree 11:50, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome semi-back.Acroterion (talk) 13:20, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sikorsky S-72

If it’s not proper to link the Sikorsky S-72’s emergency extraction system to ejection seat, a brief explanation of the difference on the page would be nice. RickyCourtney (talk) 03:50, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oh this is rather good ...

So nicely put! Cheers DBaK (talk) 10:56, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Know-it-all IPs rub me the wrong way. BilCat (talk) 00:01, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Happy First Edit Day!

Royal Canadian Air Force

Looks like that IP has been blocked. BTW, thanks for the thanks, and welcome back. Hope you can stay. BC _{talk to me} 22:31, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. I'm still mostly retired, but I'm watchlisting close to a thousand pages. I had nearly 30,000 when I retired last year. BilCat (talk) 09:26, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for anything you can do BilCat! -Fnlayson (talk) 19:33, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Invitation to participate in a research

Hello,

The Wikimedia Foundation is conducting a survey of Wikipedians to better understand what draws administrators to contribute to Wikipedia, and what affects administrator retention. We will use this research to improve experiences for Wikipedians, and address common problems and needs. We have identified you as a good candidate for this research, and would greatly appreciate your participation in this anonymous survey.

You do not have to be an Administrator to participate.

The survey should take around 10-15 minutes to complete. You may read more about the study on its Meta page and view its privacy statement .

Please find our contact on the project Meta page if you have any questions or concerns.

Kind Regards,

WMF Research Team

BGerdemann (WMF) (talk) 19:28, 23 October 2024 (UTC) [reply]

B-2 Spirit

I could not find a source that called it the "Stealth Bomber" instead of the B-2 Spirit as a name, rather than a descriptor.

Do you know what source referred to it as such, especially capitalized? FinnSoThin (talk) 23:34, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I searched for "B-2 stealth bomber", and found many mentions, both capitalized and not, from a wide variety of sources. But this is better discussed on the article's talk page so that others can participate. BilCat (talk) 00:18, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"Redirected here"

Hey Bill - just noting that ~~its Northrop Grumman Model 400 that redirects to T-X program, not Scaled Composites Model 400 Swift which, as an aircraft that was actually built and flown, really should have its own page already! - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 08:20, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

HUh, how did I miss that the latter did redirect? Bah, I need more caffiene! - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 08:21, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Because I just created it, and tagged it as a Redirect with Possibilities. I wish we could still link those, but that seems to be the way things are done now. Red links are no longer considered a good thing like they used to be, at least in practice. BilCat (talk) 08:40, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

And yeah, we should have an article on it, but I'm not sure it would survive an AFD. That's the was things go now too. Wikipedia's been around long enough, and is many people's first stop for info. I think it high time we relaxed notability to include local only sources. BilCat (talk) 08:46, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm pretty sure it would, if only I had the time to scratch up the sources. It does seem a lot of grognards have too much time on their hands and consider GNG to be less "general" and more "strict" though! - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 08:49, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yup. I'm mostly active again on American aircraft articles, but still semi-retired on the rest of Wikipedia. Still too many stupid things going on Wikipedia for me to unretire completely. BilCat (talk) 08:54, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

hey bil glad to see your semi back best regards, Paytonisboss (talk) 06:28, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A kitten for you!

hi i didn't think a barn-star was needed for this but i wanted to say thanks for helping me during my time on Wikipedia

best regards, Paytonisboss (talk) 04:21, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

SR

I'm not sure EEng agrees, but thanx, - FlightTime (open channel) 23:20, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, BilCat, have you any idea what was going on here [1]? I want to be clear I'm not accusing you of anything, but the interaction is just so weird. Maybe he just wishes he were you? E Eng 00:59, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Stop, I made a mistake, I'm who I am, chill out. Leave BilCat of of it, danm. - FlightTime (open channel) 01:04, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@EEng:How in the hell do you get, "me whishing" anytghing, I'm talking to you, and I'm FlightTime. Quit trying to confuse the issue "I" brought to You UFB - FlightTime (open channel) 01:08, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry BilCat. - FlightTime (open channel) 01:11, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

GE90

I just changed some of the info to be more consistent with the Boeing 777. For instance the 777-300 was never ordered with the GE90, so that combination was never certified with the FAA. Also, the production 777F is often more specifically referred to as the 777-200LRF, in order to distinguish it from the 777-300ERSF conversion.[2] 24.206.65.142 (talk) 03:27, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Pratt & Whitney GG4 for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Pratt & Whitney GG4 is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pratt & Whitney GG4 until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished.

Tule-hog (talk) 16:14, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A cookie for you!

Thank you for catching those vandalism redirects! Significa liberdade (she/her) (talk) 06:45, 22 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. I just looked at the vandal's contributions. BilCat (talk) 06:53, 22 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

C-23

Hi BilCat, I noticed that you reversed the edits I made regarding the C-23 Sherpa. I didn’t site any sources. My edits are fact accurate. My information comes from the corporate knowledge ganged through a 27 year career flying the C-23 for the US Forest service. The information I provided specifically regarding the US Forest Service I can’t provide a source other than I am the source. Wikipedia currently states that the C-23 was (past tense) operated by the US Forestry Service. “Forestry” is not proper, Forest is. The US Forest Service currently still operate 9 C-23B+’s. I’ve personally flown all 9 of them. The US Forest Service used to operate 4 C-23A’s and the BLM used to operate 3 C-23A’s. I’ve flown all but one of those before they were auctioned off.

Wikipedia currently states that there were only 60 C-23’s produced but the accurate factual number is 62. I have record of all 62 serial numbers. This information I can site a source for. https://www.joebaugher.com/usaf_serials/usafserials.html This website will confirm that there were 18 C-23A’s, 16 C-23B’s and 28 C-23B+’s. Totaling 62 C-23’s. The military ordered:

2 C-23A’s in 1983

16 C-23A’s in 1984

6 C-23B’s in 1988

10 C-23B’s in 1990 20 C-23B+’s in 1993

8 C-23B+’s in 1994

I would be happy to site joebaugher’s website as a source reference if you instruct me how. This is my 1st and only attempt at offering my corporate knowledge to correct the inaccurate information currently displayed on Wikipedia.

I also pointed out that where it is stated the C-23B+ is a variant of the Short 360. That is partially true but C-23+’s were not new airframes produced as variants of the Short 360 but rather they were existing Short 360 airframes that were converted into the C-23B+. Part of this required the removal of the conventional tail and installing the C-23 tail with ramp door. This can be referenced or sourced by Wikipedia’s own Short 360.

I hope you would be willing to mentor me as to what I need to do to have the edit information I provided correct the current published information that is in error. Seeing the incorrect information currently published for the C-23 Sherpa makes me question the accuracy of anything else I read at Wikipedia.

Looking forward to you suggestions and advice.

Regards,

Shane Bak ‘MTFireFlyer’

(talk page stalker) Unfortunately, while no doubt you have a lot of knowledge about the C-23 from flying it, Wikipedia policy forbids using yourself as a source. Only information that has been published in reliable, third-party sources can be used for citing information added to Wikipedia. This is because, among other reasons, other editors cannot verify information that is personal knowledge. (Also, when leaving messages for someone, you should sign them by putting ~~~~ at the end of your message, which will automatically put your username and a time stamp on it.) - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 08:12, 2 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the response The Brushranger. I’m learning here. So, in my response to BilCat I sited a reliable third-party source regarding the number of aircraft produced. I cited Wikipedia itself as the third-party source for the information regarding the C-23B+ not being newly manufactured airframes rather they were existing Short 360’s converted into C-23’s.

Explain to me how I a 27 year employee of the US Forest (not Forestry) Service flying their C-23B+’s for all those years is supposed to provide a third-party source for information that isn’t published to my knowledge?

For the information I have sited third-party sources for I need help understanding how to properly or officially do that. Or can someone like yourself or BilCat do that on my behalf so Wikipedia can actually provide true and accurate information about the C-23 Sherpa?

I get that third-party sources are required. I don’t need any more people telling me that anymore. What I need is instruction how to cite them correctly in this confusing system to me.

Regards,

MTFireFlyer

MTFireFlyer (talk) 14:05, 2 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]