User talk:Steelpillow

 |  Home  |  Aircraft  |  Wikipedia Books  |  Wiki tips  |  Pages created  |  Awards  |  Commons  |  Commons watchlist  | 

Talk archives (Please do not edit archive pages! All posts should go on my current talk page.)
 · 2006-10 · 2011-12 · 2013-14 · 2015 · 2016-17 · 2018-19 · 2020-22 ·

Thanks for all the work on Reusable launch system

I noticed you've been changing a lot on that page recently. I was impressed by the improvement to the page since I last read it.

Thanks for all the work!

Rmvandijk (talk) 09:02, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

You're welcome. There's still a massive amount of improvement to be done. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 09:44, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

A page you started (Hans Amtmann) has been reviewed!

Thanks for creating Hans Amtmann, Steelpillow!

Wikipedia editor Enwebb just reviewed your page, and wrote this note for you:

Nice work!

To reply, leave a comment on Enwebb's talk page.

Learn more about page curation.

Enwebb (talk) 21:24, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

Wikiwings

		Wikiwings
		For amazing dedicated work creating, fixing and combining List of air display teams. - Ahunt (talk) 16:37, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

Thank you, much appreciated. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 17:20, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

The recognition is well-deserved, you did a lot of great work making that merger happen! - Ahunt (talk) 17:25, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

Negative Energy edit

Hi there!

I apologize for my wrong way of editing, I am new here and I should have been informed before the edit!My bad! I will do better! I will open a discussion on the topic soon as I consult it! Thank you! PapAngelos (talk) 10:36, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

Coptic Polygon?

I realize this edit is from 11 years ago, but do you happen to remember what your source was for, in this edit, the sentence "Branko Grünbaum calls these coptic, though this term does not seem to be widely used"? In the papers I've seen by him, the term he uses is "nonacoptic", and then only in reference to polyhedra. -Apocheir (talk) 23:53, 27 June 2018 (UTC)

Hi, it may have been in private discussion. He had introduced "acoptic" so it would seem the obvious root to describe what he later preferred to call "non-acoptic". It probably needs either deleting as insignificant or, if other authors have adopted "non-acoptic" (as opposed to mere namechecking), in which case it should be updated and referenced. As far as polygons vs. polyhedra are concerned, that is not significant - any such descriptive term applies to any appropriate polytope and there is no need to source every possible combination. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 07:18, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

Villagepump

I just wanted to say thanx for your efforts on ideas for doing a better job dealing with rude behavior. You still have my support. Let me know when things get posted wherever they are going and I will say so--maybe actually stay on topic. :-) Jenhawk777 (talk) 20:21, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

Thank you, I will let you know as things shape up. By the way, I notice that you copy-pasted most of Template:Gentle editor into your home page. Why not use the usual transclusion code, simply {{Gentle editor}}? This would also list you in Category:Gentle editor, which is in the bit you did not copy-paste. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 07:41, 29 June 2018 (UTC)

Your initiative

Very interested in your initiative here.

You might like to see mine at User:Andrewa/gentle editor and User:Andrewa/A personal plea. Andrewa (talk) 01:02, 29 June 2018 (UTC)

Thank you. Being me, the first thing I did was to adopt your userbox and then to start working up a change to its content. That sparked something in my mind so I went looking and found the loosely related Kindness Campaign, which looks to have a very large membership. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 07:43, 29 June 2018 (UTC)

The kindness campaign has lots of members but there seems little recent activity. It's one of many initiatives over the years. Maybe I should compile a list of them.

I'm wary of diluting the template, which all of your changes do. Firstly, I wanted to focus on NPA, rather than involve civility. It's often observed that civility is in the eyes of the beholder. NPA on the other hand has relatively little wiggle-room. But in my experience NPA discussions often get sidetracked into discussions of civility, and that I see as part of the problem. It's easy to be civil while also being highly and deliberately disparaging.

Similarly, abide strictly by both the letter and spirit is a lot stronger than your rewording. However I have no objection to removing the last two lines if you think that helps significantly. I can't see a problem either way. Removing that clause again weakens the commitment, but not significantly IMO, and it does get it down to three lines.

But there's no point in recruiting people to a campaign which gives back all the wiggle-room! Andrewa (talk) 23:46, 29 June 2018 (UTC)

Yes, maybe a review of such campaigns would be a good way to promote the fact that this issue is never going to lie down.

I take your point about watering-down the template and I will see if I can do better there. But I don't think that all my changes do that. WP:CIVIL includes a statement on NPA, so I see its inclusion as making the template stronger by adding all the other aspects of civility as well. To me, it is rather limiting to imply that a "gentle editor" is concerned only with avoiding personal attacks but does not rule out being uncivil in other ways. The "seeks to" bit keeps pushing the text length onto a fourth line. How about "honours" in place of "respects" or "seeks to abide by":

GEThis user is a gentle editor who honours the letter and spirit of Civility and NPA.

— Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 12:11, 30 June 2018 (UTC)

In my bitter experience, civility is a common and unproductive distraction. That's why I want to focus on NPA. Allow NPA discussion to wander off into questions of civility, and there will be further discussion of wp:notcensored, differing social environments... a perfect storm. Civility is a dead duck IMO. NPA is the radical Wikipedia answer to that. It gives no wiggle room. And it used to work well, while the civility policy never has had and, in my opinion, never will have any effect on user behaviour. Andrewa (talk) 02:15, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

Fair enough. How about this then:

GEThis user is a gentle editor who honours the letter and spirit of NPA. Slips may be noted on their talk page.

Squeezing the second sentence into one line is hard, is it too awkward now? — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 06:10, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

Quite happy to drop the last clause if you think that improves it. Andrewa (talk) 13:50, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

Now that's behaving strangely. When I posted it, it fitted into three lines. Now it is taking up four. Somebody or something must have updated a style sheet or a master template somewhere, but how, where and why is something we will probably never know. Yes, I do think that three lines is a significant limit for userboxes, it doesn't matter if it drops back to two. Can we treat the following as final?

GEThis user is a gentle editor who honours the letter and spirit of NPA.

— Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 14:08, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

Ah, I see you have already done exactly that, except for the bold text. That's a stylistic option some user templates adopt and others don't, I'm happy to leave it up to you. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 14:21, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

Ways to improve Cruciform wing

Hi, I'm Onel5969. Steelpillow, thanks for creating Cruciform wing!

I've just tagged the page, using our page curation tools, as having some issues to fix. Nicely done article, could use some more footnotes in the first section.

The tags can be removed by you or another editor once the issues they mention are addressed. If you have questions, you can leave a comment on my talk page. Or, for more editing help, talk to the volunteers at the Teahouse.

Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:01, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

Notice of noticeboard discussion

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Thryduulf (talk) 11:45, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

• I strongly recommend reverting your close. That is the classy move here. It's not at all straightforward, and there will be a shitstorm either way. Several of us know quite a bit about UK railway history, and your close is objectively wrong on that basis, but that is irrelevant: the only valid NAC here would be "no consensus". There si no shame in putting your hands up to a good-faith error. Rather the opposite in fact. I have you on my "RFA one day" list, this is a test :-) Guy (Help!) 19:09, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

  Thanks for the advice, it is appreciated. I was pretty much going the road you advise, though I would have clarified my close as a "no consensus to split from MOS" rather than ask someone else to do that. Frankly, I have been pleasantly surprised at the mildness of the shitstorm to date. Anyway, it looks like someone else has moved in now, so it is not my problem any more. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 21:17, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Booklink

Template:Booklink has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 08:55, 17 August 2018 (UTC)