User talk:Mr swordfish

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search


Invitation[edit]

Hi Mr swordfish. Thank you for your editing at Forces on sails. As discussed there, I am proposing to re-organize the article, using much of the existing material, in order to make the article more accessible. I hope that you will participate. So, I invite you to follow the sandbox page where the reorganization is being drafted. I suggest making comments on that effort at Talk:Forces on sails#Reorganization?. Sincerely, User:HopsonRoad 15:39, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

Hi Mr swordfish. I have drafted a lede and overview at Talk:Forces on sails/sandbox for your review and editorial input. Cheers, User:HopsonRoad 13:36, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
Perhaps you could look things over and give some perspective at Talk:Forces on sails#Reorganization?, before I get in too deep! Cheers, User:HopsonRoad 16:08, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

I invite you to look at the discussion at Talk:Forces on sails#Expert attention and elsewhere in the Talk page, which I have just tied to the Wikipedia:WikiProject Sailing. There are two parallel efforts, one in the main article and one in the sandbox. It appears that the two editors are unlikely to reach a consensus as to which approach is more appropriate to WP:MOS. It would help, if other editors would look at both efforts and comment at the Reorganization? section. Sincerely, User:HopsonRoad 00:42, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

Hi Mr swordfish, I note that you've been absent from Wikipedia for a little while and have some controversy to attend to elsewhere. Nonetheless, the above invitation stands and it would help, if more than the current two voices were participating! Cheers, User:HopsonRoad 17:19, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
Hi Mr swordfish, I've been absent from WP for a while, but am hoping to return to the Forces on sails article. It would help to receive your perspective (and perspectives from others) on the relative merits of the progress made in the article, versus the approach implicit in the sandbox. Cheers,User:HopsonRoad 15:54, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

Hi Mr swordfish, I have substantially rewritten and brought across new text in Forces on sails, in case you would like to improve the result. Cheers, User:HopsonRoad 21:18, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

Formal mediation has been requested[edit]

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.

Speedy deletion nomination of Beth Fertig[edit]

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.

You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

A tag has been placed on Beth Fertig requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about a person or group of people, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please read more about what is generally accepted as notable.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator. --Non-Dropframe talk 20:46, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

Nomination of Beth Fertig for deletion[edit]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Beth Fertig is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Beth Fertig until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. --Non-Dropframe talk 19:53, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open![edit]

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) 16:41, 23 November 2015 (UTC)


equal transit time list[edit]

Hi Mr Swordfish,

I offer the following for your perusal for possible inclusion in your list, first a book then a pilot's website:

"A View From The Hover" John Farley, published 2008 by Seager Publishing Limited, ISBN 978 0 95327 52 5 0 (Paperback). On page 266 the author says "Those who like to use Bernoulli to explain lift say that...the air above the wing would have a lower pressure than that below it because it had to speed up to travel the longer curved distance above the wing.."

Note that the author doesn't say this is incorrect.

He later says "...it can be demonstrated that the flow past a flat plate which has an alpha (and so is providing lift)...divides to go over the top and bottom, not at the leading edge but at a point a little way behind it on the under surface. Thus the air going over the top still has to go further to get to the trailing edge so still speeds up...."

My interpretaion of the above is that the author is putting forward the equal transit time idea to his readers as one part of the explanation for lift since he also says "..the flow round..a wing...is very complex and not totally explained by the work of either Bernoulli or Newton."

http://www.ce560xl.com/files/High_Altitude_Aerodynamics.pdf

page 3 "Wing Design" says "Air passing over the upper wing surface moves at a higher velocity than the air passing beneath the wing because of the greater distance it must travel over the upper surface." RegardsPieter1963 (talk) 02:30, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Jews for Jesus Wikipedia: Opinionated or Not Opinionated[edit]

Mr. Swordfish, I just read the policies. Are you an official editor for Wikipedia? I understand now that the sources I cited as from a not-yet published media kit are not acceptable. Will they be acceptable when the media kit is published? The media kit is a fact sheet. It is not self-promotion. But you (I assume it was you) deleted everything I posted yesterday. For example, you deleted our Jews for Jesus Statement of Faith. I checked other Wikipedia sites of religious groups and their Statements of Faith are posted. Why did you delete ours? Also, do you see how many statements from those who oppose Jews for Jesus are on this site? It dominates the entire site, which is ridiculous. So I posted letters from people who agree with our beliefs and what we do. Yes, the letters are from our website. Is that why you deleted that entire section? It seems like you are not permitting me to post any references from our website to state our positions. You also deleted our own statements about who we are, what we do, why we do it, our own statements about the controversy over our That Jew Died for You site. I'm sorry, but I have read your policies and this still seems to me like total censorship. You did not leave up a single thing I posted yesterday. Do you have the authority to do this. Please explain. Thanks.Messianicmatt (talk) 18:59, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for your response. I did not know about conflict of interest, so thank you for pointing that out. I will have to let my employer know about that. I appreciate your explanation about the fact sheet. And I understand why the Endorsement section may have not been appropriate. I am still a bit upset, however, that you deleted every single thing I had added. Did you do that due to conflict of interest? I don't think so, because I don't think you knew at that point that I worked for Jews for Jesus. So, if you didn't do it due to conflict of interest, why, for example, did you take down the Statement of Faith, which was footnoted? Why did you remove every instance under "Evangelizing" of explaining who we are and what we do, when those were also footnoted? Yes, the footnotes were to links on our website, but they were just a handful, not voluminous, which is what I believe the "Sourcing" guidelines warn against. Why did you remove the response I added to the controversy over the That Jew Died For You video, when it was also footnoted to just a single link to our explanation of why we did the video? If it was not a conflict of interest issue (which I now understand), I don't see why you felt you had to delete every single word and reference I posted.

To put it another way, if someone else (who doesn't work for Jews for Jesus) had added the Statement of Faith, the explanations under "Evangelizing," and the explanation of "That Jew Died for You," with the same footnotes I used, would you have deleted them?Messianicmatt (talk) 21:38, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

Mr. Swordfish. Murph9000 got back to me with some very helpful suggestions on how to approach this. I realize now I unintentionally just violated one of his suggestions, which was not to make any more edits until I "talked" it out with some of you editors. But if you look at the changes I made today, you will see they are all sourced from a non-Jews for Jesus website (an article in the Atlantic Monthly) and that they are relatively minor additions to the existing article. I changed the first line of the article because it spoke of "conversion" of Jewish people, which is a very loaded and controversial term, in my opinion. "Conversion," as you may know, conjures images of the Spanish Inquisition, with the alternative to "conversion" being executiion! So I used the Atlantic Monthly article as a source to describe the mission of the Jews for Jesus organization. Please let me know if these edits I made seem "kosher." If they do, then I hope I am on the right track to improving this article. Thank you! Messianicmatt (talk) 22:50, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

Linguistic prescription[edit]

Hi. At Linguistic prescription you recently reverted an edit by Curly Turkey, rightly I believe. Since then he's been a bit bullish. I don't want it to become an edit war, so if he pursues it further it would be better to take it to the talk page. But maybe you can keep an eye on it, as will I. --Doric Loon (talk) 20:04, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

Thank you, Doric Loon, for carrying the ball on this one. This is not my field of expertise, but it seemed clear to me that the material was sufficiently sourced, although the cites were in the parent article. It looks like this is on the way to a reasonable resolution. Mr. Swordfish (talk) 17:40, 14 April 2016 (UTC)