User talk:Burninthruthesky/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Lift (force)

Hi,

I wouldn't worry too much about what Doug McLean says now, his attacks on standard sources have pretty much sidelined him from any say in the article content, per WP:COI, WP:POV, WP:BIAS, WP:UNDUE, etc. etc. I am only keeping an eye out now for the sake of poor newly-befuddled Mr. Swordfish. I think you can feel safe in moving on to the rest of the article. If McLean still dogs your heels, we can deal with that as a disruption issue.

Meanwhile, please accept this purple barnstar for staying the course:

		The Purple Barnstar
		For sticking with reality through an epic tidal wash of hog wash.

and of course,

Happy Yuletides!

Merry Yuletides to you! (And a happy new year!)

— Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 14:10, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

Many thanks for your knowledgeable help and moral support. I'm sure there are sufficient resources to prevent a reign of confusion from taking hold.

I see sources are now being added to say that Newton was wrong about the shape of the lift curve. ISTR the same guy came up with that idea about conservation of momentum .

Happy Christmas! Burninthruthesky (talk) 10:05, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

[Update] Just to explain my comment on reopening the ANI discussion. Admins are volunteers like us, there are not enough of them and they get run off their feet with all kinds of vandal attacks, devious vendettas and so forth. In a relatively contained dispute they often allow the various combatants to have their say before stepping in, and if the issue is not immediate then it may have to wait in the queue for gaps in the firefighting. Doug appears to be as inexperienced as yourself with Wikipedia's ways, and two such tenacious individuals locked in untrained combat is never going to be a picnic. From my experience, I would say that both of you acted overall with remarkable restraint, and I should also like to thank you for your part in that. As I progressively came down heavier on Doug, he did take it in and did pull back. My own hope was that it would not be necessary to call on the hardworking admins to get involved, and while I sympathise with you and was prepared to support you in your ANI discussion, I hoped that Doug would accept voluntary self-restraint once the picture became clearer to him. That seems to be happening. If we re-open the ANI discussion, he may become soured and that is always dangerous. So I hope you will forgive me for accepting the admin's judgement that it is time to move on. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 11:19, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

Thank you. Your help and guidance was, and still is, greatly appreciated. I agree with all you say above. I certainly wouldn't want things to be soured, and I've no doubt Doug's future contributions can be valuable. Burninthruthesky (talk) 11:37, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

Are you the person deleting my posts?

(Zapletal)101.171.42.166 (talk) 00:24, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

You'll see some reasons why people keep removing your messages if you have a look in the page revision history. Burninthruthesky (talk) 08:59, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

Waste of Community's Time

For wasting the community's time not only with a WP:ANI filing, a common mistake by editors who have become impatient and haven't first asked for enough advice from the community, but then setting yourself up by asking for quick closure and getting it, and then appealing the closing to WP:AN, I was going to award the TROUT, but for finally accepting that what you did was a silly waste of time, I am shrinking the trout.

Whack! You've been whacked with a wet trout. Don't take this too seriously. Someone just wants to let you know you did something silly.

Robert McClenon (talk) 22:01, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

Only yesterday you agreed with me that, "a hostile environment is bad for editor retention". Now you're saying that filing a complaint about user conduct at WP:ANI is, "a silly waste of time". I won't waste my time writing a serious response. Burninthruthesky (talk) 10:51, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

Lift RFC

Hi,

Just to thank you for supporting me against the abuse on some of the user talk discussions. The recent attack on yourself is equally hollow - I can post some policy comments to refute it if you like, so drop me a line if you ever feel the need of moral support. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 11:31, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

You're welcome. I thought just maybe some independent advice might have an effect, but apparently not. Yes, if you have specific policies in mind, I'd be interested in seeing them. Thanks. Burninthruthesky (talk) 12:28, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

WP:COMPETENCE should do nicely. For example, 'It does not mean we should label people as incompetent. For example, we do not say "You are incompetent because you don't know anything about the subject of this article."' and 'It does not mean that Wikipedia's civility policy does not apply'. Enjoy. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 13:03, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

Yes, that's a good start. I've already seen that quote interpreted as, "incompetence must be allowed", so I suppose the same person alleging that I have misread the physics sources has to be taken in that context. Thanks, that has made me feel better. Burninthruthesky (talk) 13:57, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

Recent edits to Lift (force)

Hi,

My thoughts on the issue you raise with Robert McClenon. This kind of blanket edit does happen from time to time and can be very frustrating to those whose own improvements have just been undone. One has to step back and ask, well it may be discourteous but has it really done more harm than good to the article? Would a challenge really stand up? Wikipedia exists for the benefit of its readers not for its editors, however frustrated, and sometimes the most practical solution is simply to repair step-by-step the improvements that have been undone. I can guess how unsatisfactory this must seem to you, but I made a brief comparison of the old vs. new versions and I saw nothing contentious in the new version. If you have spotted something, please do raise it at Talk:Lift (force). — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 11:24, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

Come to think of it, I am unhappy about the removal of the discussion tag for the momentum theorem. And now I think that there is another incorrect addition. I'll raise it there myself. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 18:50, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

Thanks. I could provide diffs of unheard objections, but I don't have time at the moment, and I'm not sure the article talk page is the right place. I wonder if you've noticed the lack of consistency in the criticism about 'upwash'? Burninthruthesky (talk) 11:46, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

There is so much smoke-and-mirrors that it is hard to say which inconsistencies I have or have not consciously noticed. Seems to me there are three issues here: upwash, downwash and eyewash. ;-) — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 13:27, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

. And the latter fills the whole atmosphere. .

mediation

Hi, just in case you need a nudge (and apologies if you don't): I think Robert is asking for a definitive accept/reject for the proposal to ask for formal mediation at Talk:Lift (force). — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 19:53, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

Formal mediation has been requested

The Mediation Committee has received a request for formal mediation of the dispute relating to "Lift (force)". As an editor concerned in this dispute, you are invited to participate in the mediation. Mediation is a voluntary process which resolves a dispute over article content by facilitation, consensus-building, and compromise among the involved editors. After reviewing the request page, the formal mediation policy, and the guide to formal mediation, please indicate in the "party agreement" section whether you agree to participate. Because requests must be responded to by the Mediation Committee within seven days, please respond to the request by 31 March 2015.

Discussion relating to the mediation request is welcome at the case talk page. Thank you.
Message delivered by MediationBot (talk) on behalf of the Mediation Committee. 03:15, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

Request for mediation accepted

The request for formal mediation of the dispute concerning Lift (force), in which you were listed as a party, has been accepted by the Mediation Committee. The case will be assigned to an active mediator within two weeks, and mediation proceedings should begin shortly thereafter. Proceedings will begin at the case information page, Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Lift (force), so please add this to your watchlist. Formal mediation is governed by the Mediation Committee and its Policy. The Policy, and especially the first two sections of the "Mediation" section, should be read if you have never participated in formal mediation. For a short guide to accepted cases, see the "Accepted requests" section of the Guide to formal mediation. You may also want to familiarise yourself with the internal Procedures of the Committee.

As mediation proceedings begin, be aware that formal mediation can only be successful if every participant approaches discussion in a professional and civil way, and is completely prepared to compromise. Please contact the Committee if anything is unclear.

For the Mediation Committee, TransporterMan (TALK) 14:36, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
(Delivered by MediationBot, on behalf of the Mediation Committee.)

Sorry ...

... for my mistake. It was purely my fault, and not yours. You explained what you meant perfectly well, but I wasn't thinking clearly. I think I have corrected it now, but please let me know if I still haven't got it right. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 12:42, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

Yes, it's all sorted now. In future I'll take more care to check I'm logged in before saving. Thanks again for your help. Burninthruthesky (talk) 14:33, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

It's an easy mistake to make. I've done it a few times. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 19:06, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

Your request for help

I have done what you asked. I have done the same thing as you a number of times - it's very easy to do. Most probably, it wouldn't matter at all, but it's better to make sure, to be safe. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 15:25, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

... and another one

I have deleted the sockpuppet investigation page. For future reference, if there is any page which you have created, and nobody else has edited it, you can request deletion of the page by putting {{Db-author}} on it. (Actually, you can do it even if others have edited the page, as long as their edits are not substantial, but that means that an administrator will make a judgement as to what is "substantial", whereas if nobody else has edited it at all it should be automatic.) Also, a couple of points about the CheckUser request. (1) There was nothing at all to stop you just reverting your edit that asked for a CheckUser. (2) There was, in fact, no point in requesting a CheckUser, because for confidentiality reasons CheckUsers will never announce a connection between an account and an IP address. Some editors don't like to have their IP address known, you may be interested to learn. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 16:53, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

Sorry. My suspicion turned out to be wrong. I guess it was a mistake for me to link to a diff of an innocent logged-out user reclaiming their post. Perhaps its for the best the page was deleted, otherwise that revision might require deletion as well. Burninthruthesky (talk) 07:13, 31 January 2015 (UTC)