User talk:RP459

If you leave a message here, I will respond here, unless you ask for a response on your talk page.

Wikipedia ads	file info – show another – #19

Requests for adminship and bureaucratship update

No current discussions. Recent RfAs, recent RfBs: (successful, unsuccessful)

Thanks for you offer of help.

Thanks for your comments to Psycano and offer to help newcomers. Although I frequently see inaccuracies, omissions and opportunities for improvement in articles, I rarely add anything to wikipedia any more because seems all that results is attacks and criticisms and undos. Seems like there are these vulture guys just patrolling and looking for fight. I state my point once in an article, but I am not going to go around with anyone about it.

One incident particularly stands out in my mind: an article explaining the principles of lift (as produced by a wing (bird or plane). As a student of physics, and a professional, ATR (Airline Transport Rated) pilot and a flight instructor, I know something about the matter. As I was becoming a pilot, I ran into a lot of erroneous information about basic lift. I eventually developed visual demos of the process of lift and stall using sand (for static time shot) and water for a dynamic view of lift in operation by watching the wave patterns.

The WP article gave a poor explanation of the aerodynamics and physics of lift, and was poorly edited grammatically. The author's understand of life was fuzzy: either not a pilot at all, or very low time. Basic lift is not a complicated phenomon and is easily explained. I simply corrected the article to a simple and elegant explanation of lift (subsonic lift, that is; supersonic gets complicated).

The next day I got a incensed attack on myself for changing the article (not on the science of what I changed, but against me personally) and found it all changed back exactly as it was. I stronly suspect the value of what I wrote was not even considered;  I got the impression I had violated somebody's personal turf.    

I wonder how many people are out there with good contributions to make to WP, but whom are driven off by such vulture guards. Another case I remember involved Artic Silver. The page is almost a advertising brochure for this brand name and heavily advertized CPU cooling paste. I personally tested Artic Silver against an ordinary paste (under exactly the same conditions on the same machine) and found that the Artic Silver less than 1 degree cooler (not a significant difference for a CPU, nor fo a product that costs 10 more than ordinary paste). I simply added this information in. Again, somebody went ballistic about it, bitched me out and change it back -- leaving me the suspicion that he worked for Artic Silver.

Anyway, that for the offer and thanks for work on the WP. For all its deficiencies, it is still a splendid read.

=

The Signpost: 9 June 2017

• From the editors: Signpost status: On reserve power, help wanted!

• News and notes: Global Elections

• Arbitration report: Cases closed in the Pacific and with Magioladitis

• Op-ed: Wikipedia's lead sentence problem

• Featured content: Three months in the land of the featured

• In the media: Did Wikipedia just assume Garfield's gender?

• Recent research: Wikipedia bot wars capture the imagination of the popular press

• Technology report: Tech news catch-up

• Traffic report: Film on Top: Sampling the weekly top 10

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:18, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

The Signpost: 23 June 2017

• News and notes: Departments reorganized at Wikimedia Foundation, and a month without new RfAs (so far)

• In the media: Kalanick's nipples; Episode #138 of Drama on the Hill

• Op-ed: Facto Post: a fresh take

• Featured content: Will there ever be a break? The slew of featured content continues

• Traffic report: Wonder Woman beats Batman, The Mummy, Darth Vader and the Earth

• Recent research: Utopian bubbles: Can Wikipedians create value outside of the capitalist system?

• Technology report: Improved search, and WMF data scientist tells all

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 07:31, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CXXXV, July 2017

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new featured and A-class content Book review: Nick-D looks at planning for the unthinkable Op-ed: TomStar81 on Russia's Provisional Government in World War I Timeline: This month in World War I

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 07:34, 4 July 2017 (UTC)