User talk:Burninthruthesky

Welcome to my talk page. If you leave me a message I will usually respond here. Please watch this page for my reply.

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:01, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Arbitration enforcement 2 case closed

You are receiving this message because you are a party or offered a preliminary statement and/or evidence in the Arbitration enforcement 2 case. This is a one-time message.

The Arbitration enforcement 2 arbitration case (t) (ev / t) (w / t) (pd / t) has been closed, and the following remedies have been enacted:

1.1) The Arbitration Committee confirms the sanctions imposed on Eric Corbett as a result of the Interactions at GGTF case, but mandates that all enforcement requests relating to them be filed at arbitration enforcement and be kept open for at least 24 hours.

3) For his breaches of the standards of conduct expected of editors and administrators, Black Kite is admonished.

6) The community is reminded that discretionary sanctions have been authorised for any page relating to or any edit about: (i) the Gender Gap Task Force; (ii) the gender disparity among Wikipedians; and (iii) any process or discussion relating to these topics, all broadly construed.

For the Arbitration Committee, Kharkiv07 (T) 02:41, 25 December 2015 (UTC)

Discuss this at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard#Arbitration enforcement 2 case closed

Happy New Year, Burninthruthesky!

Happy New Year!

Burninthruthesky,
Have a prosperous, productive and enjoyable New Year, and thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:14, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

Send New Year cheer by adding {{subst:Happy New Year fireworks}} to user talk pages.

Message

Don't bother with MurderbyDeadcopy, you will only encourage his misguided and hostile behavior. I already tried helping him once, but, like you and other editors, I was marked as a bully. Just note his behavior will eventually lead to blocks, and maybe change his attitude. Best of luck.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 21:52, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

Vandalism on acoustic resonance?

Hi just a query to the so called vandalism on the wiki page titled Acoustic resonance. As a physics student myself I support the change that was made prior to you removing it. I mean no disrespect however the image for an open cylindrical tube clearly shows 2 nodes at either end which is incorrect they should instead be anti-nodes. The second diagram for the closed cylindrical tube should show an anti-node emerging from the speaker and a node at the the other end. I do hope you will take the time to investigate the matter as it would be a shame for A-level students to learn the incorrect diagram. However if I am indeed wrong which is a possibility I would like a basic explanation on how the diagrams given are correct.

--G.A.H 17:13, 11 February 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Grace.A.Hitchcock (talk • contribs)

Hello Grace,

Welcome to Wikipedia. Note the caption on the graphic says, "the horizontal axis is pressure". If it were displacement, you would be correct to say that both ends of the open pipe should be anti-nodes. Even if that were the case, it would not help to simply swap the two images, as was done in the edit I reverted. I hope this clarifies. Burninthruthesky (talk) 17:48, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

Wingtip device

Hi,
Your revert was very instructive to me. At first I thought that the noun "aircraft" is countable, therefore the phrase "for following aircraft" was incorrect, so it should have been "for a following aircraft". But suddenly I realized that "aircraft" could be also in plural, and it is in our case. "Aircrafts" in plural would have more sense, but English, like other natural languages, is far from being logical. How about "for airborne aircraft"?
Google: "for airborne aircraft" 51k, "for following aircraft" 6.3k

PS. Your profession is very impressive to me. I am a Polish computer programmer, living in Poland.
Regards :-) 85.193.217.151 (talk) 13:43, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

Thank you. Yes it is an English oddity. I don't see a problem with the grammar in your suggestion, but it slightly changes the meaning. If two aircraft are following each other, they are both "airborne", but only one is "following". That is why I made the revert. Burninthruthesky (talk) 07:52, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

Do you mean that one aircraft is following another one? I thought that the word "following" meant here just "airborne" in some weird aviation jargon ;-) Now everything is clear to me. My edition had no sense at all. But I admire your patience and politeness in our discussion :-)

PS. Aviation is something absolutely fascinating to me, especially that I couldn't be a pilot because my sense of direction is poor to the point of being ridiculous. No joke. I have problems even on earth. :-) Luckily it doesn't affect my skills as a programmer. 85.193.217.151 (talk) 11:50, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

March 2016

You are suspected of sock puppetry, which means that someone suspects you of using multiple Wikipedia accounts for prohibited purposes. Please make yourself familiar with the notes for the suspect, then respond to the evidence at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Hengistmate. Thank you. 86.153.133.193 (talk) 13:57, 1 March 2016 (UTC)