User talk:BillCJ

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).

NOTE: Most comments will be deleted by me after one week. Critical comments are welcome, but ones containing highly-offensive or profane material will be deleted immediately, and the overall content ignored.

If you want me to take your opinions and edits seriously, you ought to REGISTER!

Also, if you are discussing an article, I would prefer to use that article's talk page. Please limit this page to discussions not related to any particular article, those covering a wide range of articles/topics, or personal comments. Thanks.

AND PLEASE SIGN YOUR POSTS!!!!

Title Case May Be Used in Headings on This Page

Me, myself, and I use serial commas.

Contents

[edit] Flags of Countries

How can I insert flag Temps. I would like to input as many Flag "users" on Aircraft artcls. unless you its think not a good idealANigg 07:58, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Pics Needed for Articles

These pics must be GNFL, Public Domain, or Fair Use. A link to the Image file on Wiki placed here is fine, or you may post pic here or to the article.

  • Bell 214
    • Bell 214 A or 214C - Iranian
    • Bell 214ST - preferably wheeled, or some of wheeled and skid
  • Bell 222
    • Bell 222/222B - wheeled (retracted in-flight preferred)
    • Bell 230 - any
    • Bell 430 - any
  • Bell 427/429
    • Bell 427 - any
    • Bell 400 TwinRanger - any
    • Bell 440 TwinRanger - any (probably only drawings/artist concepts/mock-ups)
  • Sikorsky S-69
    • Any pics, preferably color, but BW will suffice, as article has NO pics
  • Sikorsky S-72
    • Pre-X-wing pics, with rotor and wings
    • Pre-X-wing pics, with rotor but without wings
    • Pre-X-wing pics, with wings but without rotor

[edit] ARH-70

Seen this?[1] --Born2flie 12:46, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Sounds like LOH all over again, only Bell's the one's trouble this time. It's interesting they mention the EC 145/UH-72, as it was not even invovled in the competition. I don't think Boeing/MDH would like that solution at all. I know Bell's been having trouble with backlogs lately, and supposedly that's why the cancelled the 417 (and also to concentrate on the ARH, since it's the same airframe. Is this reaction extreme on the Army's part, are they justified, or are they trying to light a fire under Bell to get things done? And wouldn't switching airframes delay the program just as long or longer than it's been pushed back already? - BillCJ 15:38, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
Switching aircraft could serve several purposes. It could give the Army an airframe already in production in the same class with an MGW that is even greater than the 407/417 and conceivably even more truly COTS than the 417. It removes distraction from Bell's other military commitments. It allows the Army to field an aircraft with the common sensor suite without contest. And, conceivably, it could open the issue back up for the Boeing/MDHI bid (God, I hope not). If the named airframe in that article is chosen, it solidifies American Eurocopter as a player in the American market for EADS North America. Speaking of which, Eurocopter reportedly did put together an initial proposal for an armed EC 135 variant for the ARH program, but it didn't make the cut for consideration. --Born2flie 17:46, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Gotcha. Does the 145 being twin-engined make any real difference to the mission, other than enabling the greater MGW, and the obvious redundancy factor?

As an aside, I take it you weren't impressed with the MELB offered for ARH? Just curious, say as much as you want to say or feel you can say. (A "No" would suffice, but I'd still be currious.) - BillCJ 18:04, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

There are quality of handling issues with the MELB as well as other "features" that I would not find desirable for Armed Reconnaissance.
The two-engine redundancy as well as other survivability features of a modern aircraft would play a desirable role in selection of the 145. The MGW means that a sufficient payload would still remain after adding pilots, sensor package, and armament provisions to carry an adquate amount of fuel and ammo for the mission.
Anyways, the EC 145 thing will probably not happen. Bell has been given 30 days and will most likely come up with a plan that the Army will have to take a look at for 30 more days to determine if it is acceptable. We're looking for at least 60 days before we hear anything substantive on this. --Born2flie 20:27, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

OK.Thanks for explaining it all. I guess we'll see how it goes. Oh, what's your take on the HH-47 CSAR deal? WHat exactly is going on there, from your perspective? I haven't had a chance to delve into it from an aviation perspective as yet, wondered if you had. - BillCJ 22:44, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

HH-47? Seems the other companies have a problem with how an HH-47 won the contract. If you look at the history, though, bigger is better for CSAR. The HH-43 Huskie gave way to the HH-3E Jolly Green Giant, which gave way to the HH-53B Super Jolly Green. The keys are speed, range, and high/hot capability. If you look at the competitors (Sikorsky S-92 & AgustaWestland EH101), I'm not sure that anything beats the 47 in all-around performance. --Born2flie 01:27, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] City of Everett

This looks like a candidate for a merge. I've no problem with articles on individual aircraft, when warranted, but this seems hardly justified. What thinkest thou? (sorry for the KJ English!) Akradecki 03:23, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

No problem, though we're supposed to be neutral on Wiki (meaning we can't favor conservative Christians in any way, including presenting their views fairly, but on the other hand we can't call people who blow themseleves up to kill others terrorists. GO figure!). Just say it was Shakespearean! I was raised on the KJV (still use it), and have no problem understanding the KJV dialect. Yea, verily. I ought to find a user box which says I'm fluent in KJ English. Do you know of one?
As to the article, I agree. I beleive the pics are on the 747 commons page already, but I'm not sure. THe text should go onto the main 747 page (most of the text is probably already there in some form

The 367-80 is different case, because it's both a prototype and a separate model from the KC-135 and the 737. I don't know of any other significant Boeing protoytpes. Some of the content which does not fit contextually in the 747 page should go in the Museum of Flight article, which is barely longer than this page, and only has one pic (not of this airplane). THere is a pic of the protoytpe on the 747 page, so I think we could put one of the others on the museum page. That page also only has one line on the plane; it could reasonably go to 3 lines, since it is a significant display (the Concorde has over one line, so we have to balance it out). :) - BillCJ 03:48, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

My mom read KJV to us, but when I went to Moody Bible Institute I got hooked on NAS. I like the idea of the user box...I'll keep my eyes open. Thanks for the suggstions on the merge targets...I think I'll tag the article for a few days so I don't step on anyone's toes. The one individual aircraft I've been thinking could use its own article is the ex-NASA Convair 990, since it had such a rich flight test history (and, I'm biased...it sits at the entrance to MHV and I see the old gal every morning). Akradecki 03:57, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Ah, MBI! We visted there once on my high school senoir trip. We also have a Moody station in our city, so I am very familiar with Moody. Use the NKJV mostly myself, but KJV in church. The merge tag sounds good for a few days. the Museum article could certainly use the expansion of content and pics. - BillCJ 04:08, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] BE-90 image

As luck would have it, I was sitting out on the tug next to the hangar, enjoying the beautiful spring day and waiting for the new Northrop-Grumman radar testbed to take off when a nice-looking E-90 landed and taxiied by. I'll post the pics when I get home.... Akradecki 19:46, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Well, amen. I'll look for it later. WHat's type the NG testbed? DId you get one of it too? - BillCJ 19:54, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
It's a highly-modified GII to flight test the radar systems for its BAMS UAV contender. It never did take off, just did engine runs and taxi tests. On my way home now...talk at ya later. Akradecki 20:41, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
Just saw your comments on the two pics on the other WIkis. Looks like we solved the 90 problem. I think it would work on the PT6 page, it's definitely a good shot of the engine. I'll try to get them posted to the English Wiki side today or tomorrow; the licensing is clear, so that should not be an issue in posting the image. - BillCJ 20:10, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Bill, as promised:



A private T-38 that was flying the pattern rather low today!

The R-44 article doesn't have any good flying pics...what do you think about this one?

I had to throw this one in...this is my "baby", coming back after a mission this morning (some dude shot a nail gun through his safety goggles and into his eye!)

Akradecki 00:25, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

WOW!! Thanks a lot! Nailgun, eye, EWWWW! I bet that hurt! - BillCJ 00:33, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
yeah, he looked like he wasn't having a very good time when they were loading him up. I heard one of the paramedics say it was a 2 1/2 inch nail at 120 psi!! Anyway, I can't share the pics of the N-G GII yet, don't want to release them to GFDL until a see if AvWeek or FI will pick it up. Akradecki 00:40, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
No prob on the NG pic. One question, is there a boneyard thre, or are all those planes (the airliners in the backgound) there for some kind of work? - BillCJ 01:03, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
Oh, good job getting the windows on that BE-90! ;) - BillCJ 01:04, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] A better place

No, not really. Rather sad, but such is life. Feel free to e-mail me if you have any other questions.--chris.lawson 02:50, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

OK, thanks. I do understand your frustrations, as the essay on my user page should illustrate. I know what just happend to you in brief, and I'm that wasn't easy to take. I have encountered many editors in WP:AIR who act brashly and rude at times, and you were never one of them. When information is your product, and you allow others to damage in continually, your product is going to be weakened.

But, competition is the great equalizer, and sooner or later, someone is going to do Wiki better. When that happens, WIki will have to adapt, or soon they won't have the financial support to keep going. I just hope it happens soon than later. I do know of a more CONSERVAtive wikiPEDIA-type site, but they cater to one small group; if your not in the group, it won't appeal to you. We need one that goes after the world! - BillCJ 03:16, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Braves

John Malone may not be a familiar name, but he is the head of Liberty Media and is slated to gain managing interest in the team if his corporation successfully purchases the franchise. Check out [2] to see for yourself.

I did check the Wiki article on him, and I saw where it said he was Interim CEO. I missed the other parts, sorry. THanks for the link. I had not heard his name in what I have read so far on the purchase, which is why I questioned the name's addition. If he is to have the managing intersts, then his name should be listed as Owner. Sorry for the contentiousness, but the Braves page atrracts a lot of sneaky vandalism. If it isn't sourced, or at least has an explanation in the summary, I question it, as Attribution is policy. - BillCJ 05:27, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] YAL-1

Expanded the article, could use a copy edit if you have time. This has been flying around here lately...looks really cool through the binocs, but hasn't come close enough to get a good clear photo with my 300mm lens. I've got a pic of the plane on the ground at EDW from overhead which I'll post in a bit, and I think I've got one of the nose of the Air India 747 sticking out of the building. Akradecki 01:56, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

OK, will do. Thanks for your support on the name. - BillCJ 02:36, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] AF1 pop culture AFD

Thank you for your kind words. SeizureDog's claim that failure to remove trivial additions to "in popular culture" sections is due to laziness is out of line. Even a cursory check of the edit histories of articles will show that "in popular culture" sections on high-traffic articles are frequently added to, even up to 5 times a day by different users. As you have noted, simply reverting such additions is problematic as it can skirt 3RR and may also discourage new users who edited in good faith (and I believe most such additions are made in good faith). Perhaps a hidden comment of the sort, "please do not add any entries to this section that are unsourced or do not specify the significance of the addition", will deter such additions.

The addition of "in popular culture" trivia is a problem, but so is the hurried nomination of such articles for deletion. I fully agree with you: it could not have caused any harm (and would, in fact, have been courteous) to note the issue on some article talk page or to contact the article's creator, especially since your first edit summary clearly indicates that the article is a split from another. After all, those editors working on Air Force One and Boeing VC-25 are the ones who will have to deal with the result of this article being deleted. Cheers, Black Falcon 04:34, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

You're welcome. We actually do have hidden in-text comments in the most cruft-prone articles, some even have two (top and bottom of edit section)! It may help some, but have the time they just delete the notes and add anyway. But at least in those cases, we can refer back to the notes in the edit summaries of the reversions. - BillCJ 04:45, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
Unfortunately, I can't think of any suggestions for the list for now. I will look for a source on the subject of "AF1 in pop culture/fiction" in the next couple of days. If I find something, I will get back to you or edit the article itself. -- Black Falcon 02:37, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] BUFF?

Noticed you reverted my edit. This is not trivia. As a former BUFF mechanic, I can tell you that half the maintainers didn't know what a "Stratofortress" was. They were all BUFF's, always had been, always would be. I believe this transcends trivia as it is, indeed, a way of life. I'll cite the article on the A-10 Thunderbolt II which I currently work on. Not a SINGLE person in my 17-year career has EVER used the term "Thunderbolt II" to describe the aircraft. They're always "Hogs" or "Warthogs". The nickname is used there. I can also cite the article UH-1 Iroquois and I'll refrain from the others. Please discuss this in the BUFF article. --Asams10 06:22, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Habu Stories

Bill, thanks for your comment, re. Blackbird stories. Do you have an email I can reach you at outside of your discussion page here? David Dempster 06:35, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] B-52B citation

Bill, you pounced on me pretty darn quickly, within minutes of my entry, for being lazy on my citation. I had a phone call and the ref-format was not at the tip of my brain, and working a ten-hour day working on a F-111 and sundry of other shop duties, one is not 'sharp as a tack', please wait a day before being so critical. For being in Wiki-land for less that 30 days I've learned a lot. As for asking questions, and trying to get help.... I am still waiting for help on another article... and also noticed other editors asking questions (in Talk B-52) and not getting any answers from any one! Please have a little patience, thank you, LanceBarber 08:30, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Sorry for that. I meant the the citation was lazy, not you in particular. There is one editor in particular who refuses to cite properly, and I am afraid I let that affect my attitude toward you. You are right, I did pounce quickly, and for that I apologize. Refs aren't my strong suit, but I'll be happy to answer the basics. As to the unanswered questions on the B-52 Talk page, I believe most of the recent ones have been dealt with. I don't usually answer questions older than a few months, unless they seem particularly relevant to the article now, at least from the point at which I add an article on my watchlist. One final thing: while it may seem harsh, I have found that reverting tends to get people's attention fairly quickly, and does help to get the issue solved faster. At least, that method seemed to work best when I was new myself, only 7 months ago. I try to be discerning about how I go about that, but I do make misjudgments, as your case is an exampke of. Again, I apologize, and if I can help in any way, do let me know. - BillCJ 13:43, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
Thank you. I do have a question... in a few "Reference" sections I've noticed a reflist line, how or why is it there? It is the B-52 Ref section. LanceBarber 16:55, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
That's the code that makes the automatic footnotes work. It automatically formats the reference numbers for each individual reference, and also add the little letters every time the same reference is cited. If there are 2 existing references numbered 1 and 2, and a third one is added between the two, it renumbers them properly. the "reflist" just tells the wiki software where to put the list.
Check out Wikipedia:Footnotes for more info on how to use the footnote system. I don't quite understand it all yet myself enough to write a reference from memory, so I usually just copy someone else's reference in the same article (or another one if there aren't any there), and change it to fit my source. If I'm citing a book, I use another book reference, and if it's a web page, I use a web reference. THat at least let's me get by when I do need to add sources, which is not very often right now. - BillCJ 17:57, 25 March 2007 (UTC) ...... Thank you. LB
Bill, I always have these handy to refer to: {{cite web}}, {{cite book}}, and {{cite journal}}. Use these templates as prescribed from within the <ref> and </ref> tags

e.g. <ref name="name">{{cite web|url=http://www.url.com|title=Web page name}}</ref>

to get your inline references to appear in the references section. If I don't have time, I always at least try to put the external link as a reference

e.g. [http://www.wikipedia.org]

which shows as:[3] --Born2flie 19:11, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Gripen and King Air

JAS 39 Gripen entry is updated with operators and potential operators lists. Unfortunately I have no exact data about operators of different versions of King Airs. --Piotr Mikołajski 12:17, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

OK, thanks. I will check other sources, and see what I can find. - BillCJ 14:07, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] IAI Kfir

Blackfalcon, could you look at the Talk:IAI Kfir page, and give me your opinion on the LTTE issue discussed there? It was very contensious several weeks ago, but has died down completely sunce just after I requested the page be protected. I proposed a solution 5 days ago, but have received no response whatsoever. Since you have been dealing with the issue in other areas, I would like your opinion on how to keep this as neutral as possible. Then I can request that the page be unprotected, and make the necessary changes. Thanks again. (POsting here to avoid re-escalating the issue by anyone involved in the issue elsewhere who may visit your page.) - BillCJ 14:07, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

I believe your proposed wording is neutral and also a reasonable compromise. "Rebel" is primarily a descriptive term that doesn't carry as many emotional connotations (in academic literature, it carries no such connotations) as "terrorist". Ideally, I think the section should only address the SLAF's Kfir fleet: e.g., "The SLAF's fleet currently includes # Kfirs" or "The SLAF operates # Kfirs". However, I have been unable to find sources for such precise figures, so your proposed wording is the best alternative. Most importantly, I agree with your point the article should be about the aircraft without reference to the political intricacies of various conflicts. I will reply to your other comment, on the future direction of the AF1 in pop culture article, after I've had some time to consider it. Black Falcon 17:36, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Spam templates

the spam templatse are {{spam}} through {{spam4}}. After a final "spam" warning they can be taken to WP:AIV. Hope that helps, as for the links, i cant view the site from where I currently am so I cannot make that decision. -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 18:45, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

THanks, and no problem. - BillCJ 18:47, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] CF questions

Bill, I have some questions for you to satisfy my curiosity, not of high importance, so don't research a book-level answer). An off-the-cuff answer is fine, or maybe a point in the right direction for a more detailed answer.

First, it's apparent from photos and literature that the CF was called the "Canadian Armed Forces" when it was formed in 1968. When did the name become "Canadian Forces"? 1975? It's not clear in the Wiki article when this occured or was CAF just an informal name?

Second, I know the unifed CAF used a single Army-style rank and ratings structure from 1968-1975. I know the Navy ranks were restored, but Air Command did not return to RAF style ranks. Do you know why the RAF ranks weren't used? and did the fact that USAF uses Army ranks play any part in this decision?

Just curious. Thanks. - BillCJ 23:18, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Still curious. :) - BillCJ 14:10, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Hi BillCJ, Sorry I didn't get back to you earlier because I was tied up in the running of an aviation convention in Winnipeg, but here is the background on the Canadian Forces. Prior to 1968, the Royal Canadian Air Force (RCAF) was a separate air force utilizing the RAF rank structure: Aircraftman/Aircraftwoman, Leading Aircraftman/Aircraftwoman, Corporal, Sergeant, Flight Sergeant, Warrant Officer 2nd Class, Warrant Officer 1st Class, Flight Cadet, Pilot Officer, Flying Officer, Flight Lieutenant, Squadron Leader, Wing Commander, Group Captain, Air Commodore, Air Vice Marshal, Air Marshal, Air Chief Marshal and Marshal of the RCAF.
On 1 February 1968, the armed forces of Canada were "unified" and all the forces came under the umbrella of the "Canadian Armed Forces" utilizing Army ranks (except for Canada's "senior service" which steadfastly refused to give up their rank structure and continued to use their original ranks surripticiously and continue to do so to this day with only Lieutenant (N) and Captain (N) being differentiated from other ranks by the use of the N designation).
On 1 April 1975, the Canadian Armed Forces became "disarmed" to become the "Canadian Forces" with the air force allowed to retain their original individual identity, although the Army rank structure was maintained, with a slight variance: Private, Master Corporal (a new rank), Warrant Officer, Master Warrant Officer, Chief Warrant Officer, Officer Cadet, 2nd Lieutenant, Lieutenant, Captain, Major, Lieutenant Colonel, Colonel, Brigadier-General, Major-General, Lieutenant-General and General (no equivalency for Marshal of the RCAF).
Somewhere in 1990s, the term, "Canada's Air Force" began to be used, although unofficially, by members of the air force. Apparently, the Protocol Officer for the Air Command began to use the designation on documents and gradually, the practice caught on. Now, even on the official Canadian Forces web site, Canada's Air Force appears, along with a curious variation, the "Canadian Air Force" (which originated in 1918 and continued in use until 1924). As to why the air force retained Army ranks has a lot to do with the close collaboration of the Canadian air force with the USAF in NATO and especially NORAD combined units. As the influence of the British Commonwealth also began to wane in the 1960s, it was also inevitable that American military conventions would predominate. Anyway, I hope this answers your questions. Bzuk 23:29, 26 March 2007 (UTC).
Thanks. Most of the history I was somewhat aware of, but really hadn't heard an explanation of why there wasn't a return to the Commonwealth-style air force ranks. For the most part, the rest of the NATO air forces also use the army ranks of their respective services, but I agree the USAF was probably the biggest influence. - BillCJ 03:27, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] American and British English spelling differences

Bill, thanks so much for the link on Talk:The_A-Team to the article American and British English spelling differences. Not only is it comprehensive, as you stated, it's also well written, well referenced, and damn interesting! I'm always glad to be pointed to an interesting article that will increase my knowledge, so thanks again. The globetrotter 22:33, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

You're welcome. Since you liked that, be sure to check the articles under the "See also" heading at the bottom or the page. THey cover diferences other than spelling, one on grammar in particular is also intersting. Also, I moved your new additions to the Cultural effects of The A-Team page. It already has info on the reunion special, but I don't think the petion drive is there yet. - BillCJ 22:39, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
Cheers Bill, and for the move too- i'd not spotted the linked page. I did wonder if I was missing something when I didn't spot any reference to the C4 special, because it certainly recieved a fair amount of press coverage in the UK. The petition is just plain odd, but if you cast a glance over the E-petition part of the 10 Downing Street, you'll be amazed at what petitions they have given permission to- it's true democracy in action (and hence there have been many reports suggesting it'll be closed down soon!) The globetrotter 22:47, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Navy HH-1N stopped by today....

We had a freak blizzard today at Mojave (actual, real snow, 40+ winds blowing it horizonallty, really cool stuff...of course, it melted as soon as it hit the ground, but hey....), which caught a China Lake VX-11 HH-1N in our pattern, so he landed and hung out at our place till the storm passed...of course, I took the opportunity with the camera. Already added 3 images to the UH-1N article, thought you'd like to see these. Akradecki 05:28, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

In the pattern as the storm moves in, catching the helo in the last bit of sun

The HH-1N with our 412 in the background...interesting 212/412 comparison

The requisite reflection pic

storm's gone, time to go home
Thanks! THey're great. I stuck the 212/412 pic on the Bell company page, as the other articles are pretty crowded now. Thanks again! - BillCJ 05:42, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] On vacation...need you to watch something for me...

Hi Bill, I'm leaving for a few days vacation with the family, will be taking my laptop, but no guarentee that I'll be able to stop in. A fairly new user, User talk:BQZip01 has added a couple of pics to the CV-22 article and has been insisting on hard-coding the thumb sizes. I've tried explaining the system to him, and have reverted his repeated hard coding (Signaleer all over again!), but he doesn't seem to get it. Can you double check what I wrote on his talk page, to make sure I adequately explained it, and keep an eye out on the article for me while I'm gone? Thanks! Akradecki 04:18, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Sure. I've been watching him, and you've been doing fine. I dealt with him before, so if it continues to be a problem, I'll try to talk to him. I was doing the same thing he is now with the thumbs before it was explained to me why we don't do it. Have a good vacation, and God bless. - BillCJ 04:24, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
Hey Alan, just to let you know it seems to be settling down there. At least it was until that User:Akradecki guy spouted off, and it started up all over again :) Akradecki is starting to sound like that BillCJ guy that you have had to advise a couple of times to calm down a bit. But anyway, I'm glad you and I never act like that ;) - BillCJ 04:00, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
Glad to see he called you instead of some blowhard :-). I've updated my page a little, thought you might enjoy the joke at the bottom. BQZip01 04:00, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
THanks, I think! Not quite my type of joke, but definitely fits the mindset of an Aggie ;) . Btw, Alan's a good guy, tho like me, he's not an Aggie. He's usually the one asking me to calm down. Having argued with you before, I understand how he got a bit riled up this time. And having argued with you before, I was forewarned not to get riled up too much myself. You do come around, you just need a little space to do it in, like most Texans, esp Aggies! My first encounter with Alan was not a very pleasant one, but we work together pretty well now, even tho we don't always agree even now.

- BillCJ 04:59, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

BQZip01 will, I'm sure, be horrified to know that I, too, was born in Ft. Worth and grew up in Sacramento (ok, really Carmichael). "Iron sharpens iron" wouldn't mean anything if we were all clones, eh? But, your point above is well taken! Akradecki 16:14, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] MiG-21 Lancer spelling

Hi Bill, I have some kind of edit war on Romanian Air Force article. User Eurocopter tigre insist on writing name of upgraded Romanian MiG-21 version LanceR not Lancer.

I've checked spelling on official Romanian AF site and they call it Lancer. User Eurocopter tigre claims that MoD official site support his version but didn't provided any links.

Google search shows Lancer much more often than LanceR. Lancer spelling is supported by Federal Aviation Administration, Aerostar S.A. company profile on NATO site, Defense Update online bi-monthly defense magazine published in UK or German large site about MiG-21s. Even my ultimate oracle, Jane's website shows Lancer spelling so I think this is the proper one.

Of course I can revert Eurocopter tigre's edition, but this is "edit war" and I want to avoid it. Can you be judge in this discussion? --Piotr Mikołajski 08:52, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

I'll look into it and see if I can help. I'm usually in the middle of a discussion, not arbitrating one, but if I can help, I will. Would including "LanceR" as an option (ie. the Lancer (sometimes spelled LanceR, is . . . ) be an acceptable soulution to you? If it is, let me know here, and I'll suggest it there, as he may be more accepting of an outsider's soulution. - BillCJ 15:26, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
Bill, your solution is acceptable, I'm not kind of stubborn donkey :o) --Piotr Mikołajski 17:28, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Bell 222.jpg

Whoa, I'm so sorry about that. Thanks for the heads-up; I'll be more careful next time. So everything is resolved now? -→Buchanan-Hermit™/?! 19:23, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Chattanooga

Bill, I added some information to the CHATTANOOGA page since I have lived in this city my whole life. You removed it as biased information with no source. How can you and I discuss this? If you could send me an e-mail I will reply. This wikipedia manner of "talk" is so confusing to me, it doesn't make a lot of sense to edit someone else's page as a manner of sending a message to them and then looking at your own page to see the reply. Is their a better way to communicate or could we just go to the email idea? I'm lost! axelrose1Axelrose1 02:29, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Axel, you are doing just fine. I can answer here. You have provided no source at all, and with the kind of information you posted, you have to have one. It is my opinion that your info is biased, especially since it makes conclusions as to what others are thinking, and does not present a balanced view of the issue. Keep in mind that this is an encyclopedia, not a newspaper. What goes in to an article must also be notable, and I don't thibk this issue is. Again, that's my opinion, but it is up to you to provide verifiable sources, and to prove its notability. I hope this helps. I don't give out my email to Wikipedia members until I know someone really well. Just safer that way. Thanks. - BillCJ 04:44, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
I'd like to revert your sweet cheeks BillCJ Qmax 05:02, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
Uh, not QUITE sure what that's supposed to mean. I assume you saw what I reverted, but am not sure on that either! - BillCJ 05:10, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] WP:TWINKLE

Have you ever considered using an automated vandalism reversion/warning script like WP:TWINKLE? When viewing a diff, or when looking at the list of a user's contributions, there's a quick "revert vandalism" link available to you. It also automatically opens the user's talk page, and provided a menu that automatically adds your chosen level of vandalism warning. This way it takes you only about 30 seconds to complete a reversion/warning. I've talked to you before about vandalism warnings, so I know that you doubt the usefulness of this system and feel that it is a waste of your time. However, you don't have to be the one to notice the vandalism four times. Incremental warnings from several editors, rather than a single editor devoting his or her time to watching a specific vandal, are what often lead to a user/IP block. I've also noticed that many vandals stop after a single warning. Just knowing that their vandalism will not be tolerated is enough to deter non-driven vandals. Sancho (talk) 02:35, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Help needed on Mark Levin (again...)

We have a rather strident editor insisting that labelling the subject as "ultra-right wing" and "not interested in free-exchange of ideas..." is not inherantly POV. Seems pretty cut and dried if it goes 3RR, but could use some help in reverting.

Links: [4], [5], [6], [7], [8]

NYCTommy

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../b/i/l/User_talk%7EBillCJ_4492.html"