User talk:Steelpillow/Archive 2016-17

 |  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 ·

Thank you for your Support of the AME ! gretly appreciated!

Please have a look at the talk pages for the canadian AME and user "Hunt", I have added references for substantiating work and sources...

Thank you!

CanadianAME (talk) 21:01, 5 February 2016 (UTC) Canadian AME

re wording "AME vs Licensed AME"...

With regard to the comment: "should the present content of this article be better homed at Aircraft Maintenance Engineer or Licensed Aircraft Maintenance Engineer?"

There can only be one source and that needs to be "AME"

The reason being is that - with reference to the Parliament orders re the RE an the RFC, that they come from a common root "Engineers"

The AME Without License is still an "AME" within the terminology of the "British System that the UK and Commonwealth derived their language. They were and are the "Mechanics Who Perform Elementary Work, servicing and Maintenance".. Whilst an AME may be certified by the State as "Competent to accomplish Maintenance", only a person who has undergone additional regulatory compliance and inspection / critique training as well as receiving a detailed course of education as to the precie nature of all interration and systems of an aircraft is a recognised as being a "Licensed AME" who can then accomplish the "requisite inspections for conformance to the regulations" and sign the Certificate of Maintenance Release as a "delegated representative of the State / Nation" under which the aircraft is registered.

In the UK, Australia and New Zealand (and Hong Kong) the correct use of the 2 "AME" licenses is used and adhered to, however in Canada, and in particular with reference to the information in my editorial for the AME-Canada page, there are significant issues in how the French speakers interpret the "Legal Wording" of the British legal documents.

The legal documents are "Technical Documentation" and as such are of a significantly higher level of speech and nature than that of the average person. Considering that most French speakers in Canada do not have a satisfactory understanding of every-day spoken English this is a noted point of contension. In particular the fact that the majority of the civil service in Canada are Quebecois, and most have not got a fluency in the every-day "Spoken English" they cannot be expected to effectivly understand or comprehend the English commonisms and colloquilisms that are used in parliamentary or high level cabinet documents - This is a signifigant fact to consider when noting that the information pertaining to the "Aircraft Maintenance Engineer" on the Canadian Government's "Official Translation" web site is inaccurate.. The English "translation" clearly identifies the Mechanic as well as the Licensed AME (although poorly defined) while the French side specifies only the memchanic / technician on the "Fench Side...

Select the "mini magnifying glasses" to see the root source references for the "sources / definitions" on both french and english wording (Spanish as well)

All of the french references are the result of an interpretation made by Madame Louise Claude, * Bureau de la traduction * Services linguistiques......

while the 2 English sources are:

Glossary of aeronautical and astronautical terms, British Standards Institution London : British Standards Institution, 1969 & Air navigation orders, Canada. Civil Aviation Branch Ottawa : The Branch, 1968 .....

The fact that the base AME "Without License" who is a NON signing person is a "TRADES person" required to accomplish work on aircraft (Elementary, Servicing and Maintenance) in a prescribed manner and to a defined standard of workmanship, while a "Licensed AME" is a person who holds a Government issued authorisation to accompish the Inspection and certification of the "Maintenance Work Accomplished" on behalf of the Minister as a function of "Public Safety" has been either lost in translation or otherwise ignored by the Canadian parliament and government officials. .... and as a result there are numerous AMEs trained or apprenticed in Canada under the original "British System" who realise that the recognition of the Canadian AME will be tarnished / diminished / demeaned / degraded and we will be left out in the cold in comparison to our kindred / bretheren AMEs in the rest of the Commonwealth.

CanadianAME (talk) 22:40, 5 February 2016 (UTC) Canadian AME

Correct terminolgy for use when speaking of the "Canadian AME"

File:AME terms and definitions chart .pdf

Accurate Chart defining the people accomplishing and certifying aircraft maintenance in Canada

CanadianAME (talk) 22:59, 5 February 2016 (UTC) Canadian AME

@Avmech: added as a linked person to this page — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 13:54, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

Differences between the United States A&P with I.A, the Canadian AME and education in Canada

The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) Inspection Authorization (IA) system allows qualified mechanics the privilege of performing certain inspections. The attainment of an IA and performance of the duties of that certificate greatly enhance the privileges and responsibilities of the aircraft mechanic.

The Transport Canada AME licensing system allows qualified persons (does not specify mechanics) the privilege of performing certain inspections. The attainment of an AME License in Canada and performance of the duties of that License greatly enhance the privileges and responsibilities of the aircraft mechanic.

Applicants for the FAA I.A certificate must meet FAR Part 65.91 requirements, which include: 1 having been licenced as a trades person by possessing a FAA A&P rating for (3) three years, and being actively engaged in maintaining aircraft for 2 years prior to the date of the application to obtain an I.A. 2 Having a fixed base of operation (not an AMO, but an office to work from). 3 Having the equipment, facilities, and inspection data available to properly perform their Inspection Authorization (IA) duties and functions. (Again, not an AMO, but a proper place to perform their work)

Before 1998, ICAO Annex 1 categorized AME licences, and made clear distinction between: Type 1 licences: which were really about the “Qualifications of trades-persons performing “Maintenance, Repair and Overhaul” of aeronautical products.

and,

Type 2 Licences: which were really about the Qualifications of persons performing “Condition and Conformity Inspections for accomplishing release to service” functions during and after the “Maintenance, Repair and Overhaul” of said aeronautical products.

the UK-CAA AME-LWTR issued under BCARs was a Type 1 Licence the UK-CAA L-AME issued under BCARs was a Type 2 Licence

The US-FAA A&P is a Type 1 Licence The US-FAA A&P with I.A is a Type 2 Licence

England and the USA use a graduated training process that initially trains people as trades persons to a clearly defined standard. Trades persons in the USA and UK / EU must undertake Oral, written and practical examinations AFTER their apprenticeships have been completed in order to obtain certificates of competence to "Perform Work" as aircraft mechanics. Canada no longer has this requirement.

Subsequent to obtaining a competency certificate as a "Trades Person" accomplishing aircraft maintenance in the UK or the US, these trades persons who wish to become inspectors / certifiers holding a license to sign a "Certificate of Maintenance Release" for an aircraft type (i.e wishing to obtain Aircraft Certifying Authority) must subsequently provide prrof of knowledge, experieince and training and take additional specialist training on the critique of materials and workmanship, regulatory standards, law and other classes and then pass stringent regulatory licencing exams to hold the added qualifications of the Type 2 Licence. Canada no longer requires the licensed AME examinations to be invigilated at a Government facility, only the regulatory examinations..

Canada - or more correctly, the "Canadian Politician and Public" has now wound up with a mis-understanding of the term “AME” which had the intent of combining the two UK licence terms but that now fails to adequately train and licence “AMEs” to either the Type 1 standard as a "trades person" or to the Type 2 standard as an" inspector and certifier" of the trades person's work….

I Canada, there is no defined "train the trainer" program within the TCCA set of standards for the requirement that certified technicians or for AME holders designated as apprentice supervisors / mentors must meet a defined standard as mentpors in order to provide the apprentice's supervisor/mentor with suitable training and instruction so that they can then provide suitable education and oversight to the apprentices under their direction.

Mechanic and Inspection / certification Apprentices often learn more from trainers who are experienced and who have pursued further / higher levels of education to learn to become better at their jobs.

This, in turn, translates to more successful and knowledgeable AMEs, allowing them to build up businesses on their reputations as skilled, helpful, and competent persons.

As the profession of the AME is institutionalised and closely regulated by TCCA, there should be a requisite form of Mentor training for both the maintenance performing and inspecion / certifying AMEs as well.

Teachers, for example, must complete College programs in education and pass certification exams to demonstrate that they are not only competent in their subjects, but they must also be skilled at teaching it. Why no similar standard for the AME?

Train the trainer programs provide additional education and certification for people who may not be required to be certified to teach their trade, but who can benefit from acquiring those skills at such a course so they can mentor their apprentices.

In today’s technological world and litigious climate, persons "who perform aircraft maintenance" and "persons who accomplish CRS functions as Licensed AMEs" in Canada must be provided with or otherwise have additional skills beyond that of turning a wrench or signing their name. They should be required to hold a journey person’s trade certificate (Competency) as a technician and then follow the UK and US style of evolution in order to obtain their AME Licence as a competent inspector / certifier.

In today’s world, the Technician performing maintenance and the AME Certifying the maintenance require more than a rudimentary level of education and that includes education in Logic, Process Flow, using computer technology and programs such as: MS Excel MS Word MS Paint MS Access

In addition, as delegated representatives of the Minister of Transport they should also be educated with professional concepts and an understanding of their role as Crown servants (yes Dave Dueck, I know you hate this idea, but the government actually defines it in the Treasurey instructions - Treasury define the job because they pay the wages out): Morals Ethics Criminal Code and Justice system Canada Labour Code Time Management and Organizational Skills Clear and concise Technical Writing & Managing Executive Correspondence

Traditionally, British / European AMEs accomplishing maintenance only have been selected and/or nominated for elevation to "Licensed status" on the basis of their technical competence. The best work performing AME technician being nominated to L-AME and subsequently the best inspecting and certifying L-AME being nominated to head the Engineering - Maintenance Department.

The individual selected has usually been someone who is technically competent as a work performer and also highly competent in the L-AMEs main function as an Inspector and Certifier and also someone who is familiar with all aspects of their organisation as a whole; someone who “knows the industry” and has “come up through the ranks”.

In Europe these persons receive extensive training both to perform work as well as to certify it, and on how to manage their team members.

However, within Canada there has been little if any emphasis on the general organisational or people management competencies for either the work performerming trades persons (AMEs) or the work Certifiers (L-AMEs). Regardless of the level of license and function, Canadian AMEs are usually seen as "Technicians Only" by Flight-Ops and other department / managerial staff within aviation entities.

The technical “Work Performers” AMEs are required to have in-depth knowledge and ability of how to repair machinery. But they typically have been given no training or foundational skills in their basic education of thru their careers on how to “create productive workplaces” where all employees are intrinsically motivated to take ownership and to be accountable for results.

This aspect of “Doing the job” has not been a required competency for “Work Performers” as the traditional airline / air operator management style has typically followed 4 principles: to control the way people perform work; to control exactly what they do, to control exactly how they do it, and to control every other aspect of their work.

Control of “Work” has traditionally been the primary function of “the manager”.

Many aviation “Managers” fail to understand that the Minister’s delegate, be they DAR, DE or AME, are required to comply with Laws that are outside of the “Manager’s” ability to control or influence.

Traditional Management styles and managers often fail to recognise that “Doing the job” as a Minister’s Delegate requires the Delegate to follow and adhere to LAWs that: Specify the way the Delegate performs work; Specify exactly what the Delegate must do, Specify the exactly how the Delegate must do it, and control every other aspect of their work as a Delegate.

This traditional management view of the AME as a “Minister’s Delegate” is still, unfortunately, prevalent in many organizations - especially the Canadian Government...

There is wide recognition within the aviation community that the only real and sustainable competitive advantage left to business is in human productivity and creating an organizational climate that supports and enhances it.

Airlines and AMO’s need employees who take ownership of their work, who can problem solve, and who display initiative and creativity.

Management’s primary responsibility today, therefore, must be to create and sustain this type of culture within the business.

This management style is boldly democratic in that it mandates different organisational structures and processes.

As a result of the international market we operate within in today’s world, our work performers, work certifiers and managers require more than just “technical competence”.

This is equally true of the line technician as it is of the chief executive officer.

In order for our self directed work force to compete globally, there should be a requirement for additional desired competencies for “Work Performers and Work Certifiers” performing their duties within the scope of the company’s work policies and in accordance with regulatory compliance such as: • Impact and Influence • Achievement Orientation • Teamwork and Cooperation • Analytical Thinking • Initiative • Developing Others • Self-confidence • Directness / Assertiveness • Information Seeking • Team Leadership • Conceptual Thinking • Communication techniques • Performance counselling and coaching • Change management • Conflict resolution/negotiation • Strategic planning/thinking • Business analysis • Creative problem solving • Team building • Results-based action • Staff motivation These are primarily competencies for managing people and the overall organization of the work being accomplished; they are not “technical” competencies.

Licensed AME’s must also be skilled and capable managers and administrators, as such they must be capable of: Providing leadership to other staff, Designing and implementing change, Improving productivity, and Setting high standards of performance among the rest of the staff.

In Today's world, having these competencies greatly improves organisational effectiveness.

Yet subjects in these skills and competencies are rarely if ever taught in most of the AME schools. Most AMEs are currently not taught anything about business and business administration let alone how to manage people..

AME training should / must include at least the basic concepts / precepts in the practical areas of: accounting, marketing, management information systems, business law, economics, organizational effectiveness, human resources management productive management practices, and the literature regarding these practices.

While these subjects may be electives available at an AME college, they are not part of the required core curriculum for a mechanic performing maintenance or for an AME who inspects and certifies - this is a flaw of the industry that views the AME / ACA as a behind the scenes “Worker” only.

It should be noted that many "Managerial and People Skills" courses are taught by academics with little or no actual work experience in comparison to the people they train - who then attempt to manage a business.…

most of the best courses available that teach up to date management competencies are available through extension programs in community colleges - by real world educators in continuing education programs, not PhD's at University levels who frequently have no understanding of the world outside the confines of their black-board.

Most of these courses, however, were never offered and are still not offered as part of the Canadian AME (Trades Person) and L-AME (Insp. and Certify) training programs...

CanadianAME (talk) 23:38, 5 February 2016 (UTC) Canadian AME

CanadianAME (talk) 15:36, 6 February 2016 (UTC)Avmech

Any ability to obtain an editors credentials?

Hi Steelpillow,

has anyone ever asked for credentials from persons posting data into the AME pages?

I am curious to know just what licenses in aviation are held by some contributors...I personally hold 4 Canadian AME licenses, held a UK-CAA "A and C" - "AME with Type Rating" licenses issued under BCAR (no longer used) as well as other foreign licenses and FAA A&P approval. I have spent the better part of half (of my nearly 30 year career) working outside of Canada and for foreign governments (France, Ukraine / Russian aircraft registry) - including extensive work in the UK Overseas territories (under UK-AN(OT)-O, as ammended) and have either repaired, built / rebuilt or otherwise maintained aircraft dating from 1915 (Sopwith) all the way to current build Boeing and Airbus wide-body jetliners...including Russian Antonov types...

What does AHunt hold by way of AME licenses?

Re their comment about "Reads Like a Book" - it does "read like a book" because in many cases it is the exact details / words from the source document which are the "quotes I was trying to add" from those original source documents.. and as I indicated I needed time to get the actual reference links into the page... and depending on if they speak American English or the Queen's English there would be spelling errors...

Thanks again for your help,

Greatly appreciated!

CanadianAME (talk) 00:21, 6 February 2016 (UTC) Canadian AME

Reply

Hi there. I am on a bit of a Wikibreak at the moment so I will not be able to look into these articles properly for some time. But here are my immediate thoughts following a brief look at recent activity:

Ahunt (talk · contribs) is a reasonable and conscientious soul. If he reverts an edit rather than cleaning it up, he will have a good reason.

Whether another user is a subject-matter expert, such as an experienced AME, is not relevant. Wikipedia draws its content from published reliable sources (see WP:RS) and no individual editor, however illustrious, is a reliable source in their own right. (The exception is if the editor's writings have been independently peer-reviewed and published in a reliable journal, in which case the published text is cited in the usual way).

Reasons for reversion may include (among others):

• Lack of citation to reliable sources, so the reader cannot follow them up to verify how much is actually true. If a particular source will be hard for the reader to track down, sometimes adding a quotation in the cite will help, something like this:

  <ref>Details of Source, Section 17.3.1, "Relevant quotation".</ref>

• Excessive detail which is not really encyclopedic.
• A lot of opinion-based analysis of the facts presented.
• Poor presentation, whether through poor grammar, poor wiki skills, thoughtless haste or over-enthusiasm.

A small amount of these things can usually be corrected or trimmed by an experienced editor, so an edit should only be reverted if such flaws overwhelm the content.

You have done the right thing in posting material on the talk pages so that colleagues such as myself and Ahunt can review it and bring it up to standard. I will try to find time when I can. but please do not hold your breath.

Oh, and one other thing. You have signed yourself here as CanadianAME (talk · contribs). An anonymous (IP) editor made some changes to the Canadian AME article on 6 December, adding material similar to yours. Another account, Avmech (talk · contribs), posted to some users' talk pages supporting those changes. A suspicious reviewer might wonder if some of these were the same person using different identities. Wikipedia is very picky about not pretending to be somebody else (See WP:SOCKPUPPET), so it is best if you can clear this up now. Can you confirm whether or not you made any of these other edits or posts? — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 10:59, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

re AME - going back well before the Royal Navy got involved. One can hardly expect a "worldwide view" on something that originated in Britain and only ever expanded to the Commonwealth countries

Hello Steel Pillow.

The full discipline of the Aircraft Mechanic and the AME were defined fully by the British - the US copied the regulations... and not until the US Dept of Commerce got involved in abt 1927 did "Type Certificated begin to be issued and design standards adhered to - or even be recognised - in the USA.

the United states entered WW1 in 1917 and did not operate any ot their own aircraft.. they flew aircraft designed by other nations while their own nation scrambled to come up with similar machines.

The united states government carted off volumes of data and manuals that were readily available and freely obtainable without license at the time and in particular they (US Forces) were given this information in an effort to get them into the air war faster! and after the War they just held on to it and used it for themselves...

England needed help and the US was a ready source of mass manufacturing and only needed the drawings and back ground data to get the ball rolling, the same thing happened in WW2 and is why the US got the A-Bomb and Radar and the Jet engine.. the Brits were desperate for help and so they gave up their secrets in return for men and material to help fight the wars....

I personally posess a 1920 copy of the Kings regulations for the Air Force and Air Council instructions issued by the UK that came from the US Navy library!!

I have also identified historical references from the Langly Flight Research (Formerly Langly Field - US Army Air Corps) historical archive dated 1920-21 that specifically looks at the Air-Worthiness Requirements for British Aircraft (Service and Civilian) as specified in the 1919 ANR issued by 1st Lord of the Admiralty (Hmmm Admiralty Orders.... LAW... UK Legal Precedent ...hmmm) Secretary of State for War and Air and Member of Parliament Sir Winston Spencer Churchill...

The specifications that the Royal Engineers developed for aircraft at Farnborough were summarised in assorted handbooks ( the mechanics handbook of AN / MS hardware as en exanple)

Subsequently, they evolved into what is now AN/ MS /NAS standards and the structural strengh and materials sections became the MIL-HBK for structural specification and design MPD-5

the Original AN standards were BRITISH and refered to the fact that the RE had data on and were creating common standards for the British Army aircraft (the RE Baloon and Air Battalions - and this is why the Canadian AME has Baloons on their license>>> the RE were involved in Baloon work PRIOR to box kites and "Powered Kites" .. .ever heard the term "Pranged their Kite"???) and the British Navy (RNAS) Aircraft

This reference document is now held at the NASA archive

A good review of the fact that NACA and the US government had shared information from the UK and were well aware of the research is to be found here

Also, the "un-named" editor you sometimes see adding things is quite oftenme.. adding data from a computer other than my home computer ... which holds all my research notes, but which has been broken for some months now-- hence why I was not able to "add references"

CanadianAME (talk) 14:27, 6 February 2016 (UTC) Canadian AME

A suspicious reviewer might wonder...

Oh, and one other thing. You have signed yourself here as CanadianAME (talk · contribs). An anonymous (IP) editor made some changes to the Canadian AME article on 6 December, adding material similar to yours. Another account, Avmech (talk · contribs), posted to some users' talk pages supporting those changes. A suspicious reviewer might wonder if some of these were the same person using different identities. Wikipedia is very picky about not pretending to be somebody else (See WP:SOCKPUPPET), so it is best if you can clear this up now. Can you confirm whether or not you made any of these other edits or posts? — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 10:59, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

With regard to me "Canadian AME" and "Avmech".. we are not the same person.. the IP addresses can be used to co-relate this in fact. I suspect that this person is another AME who, like myself has grave concern over what is being fed to the general public thru wikipedia.

However, more to the point, ALL the wikipedia pages pertaining to AMEs are being watched by actual AMEs world-wide and there is a growing animosity to the details and data that we, as "Persons with license" KNOW because we have been there in person and have direct point of view details and data - in fact a part of our license requirements are to record "Evidence" in case of a legal case - we are the recorders of history - legal history being spoken of re "Aircraft Maintenance and Inspection / Certification" in the AME discussions. By Kings order, and under the notes re Judicial review and the Gazetting of the acts / orders etc, this is not information that WE need to tell you, it is information that WE know and SO should YOU, or at least you should be looking it up and doing your homework as editors when we state the regulation and the refernece - NO source needed !!!

The wikipedia page links are also being posted on facebook and via the AME chat boards outside wikipedia.. and people are taking notice that some persons who may not actually be AMEs are removing details and data - in fact I would not be surprised that unless the pages be controlled and the editors state their references that the main wikipedia editors may be petitioned to lock the pages down and to mandate the requirement that our "Viewpoint" actuallly be recorded - especially significant in the light that people read wikipedia and what they take away is their perception of what we do.

And that oerception is in many cases a dumbing down of our trade and profession ... that point needs to be kept in mind.. the AME faces LEGAL challenges at work and for as long as they live once they sign any document in any aircraft or component record.. and that document becoms a part of the legal history of that aircraft and component..

So, what is portrayed to the general public must relfect the entire picture and be a proper encyclopedia entry.. Details, Data, history, evolution, key players, accident - everything and that includes the struggles faced by us in the world-scale to keep our credentials and licenses.

Calling us "Mechanics" and specifying that we are equal to the A&P is what has, in part, resulted in the AME recognition issues in Canada by way of confusing persons with less "Common Knowledge" as to our origin and unique regulatory function.

By not having as much detail and data in wikipedia as possible, the persons in Wikipedia who delete the data or dis-allow our viewpoint are causing the trade and the profession of the AME great harm..

I strongly caution all woi think otherwise to remember : You as Wikipedia editors owe the AME a "Duty of Care" with regard to how we are portrayed in the public eye.. what is written here is what becomes the public opinion.. but often it is not the correct viewpoint to take because the general public frequently have no concept of the laws and requirements we work to or how our trade and orofession came about..and in court, when called to account for aourselves, that viewpoint can and will be used to our detriment by the un-educated who read wikipedia and at the moment, do NOT get the true picture of the AME - in ANY nation...

Have you ever stopped to wonder why the history books frequently romanticise flying anf the pilots, but no one ever has delved deeply enuf intot he history of the men and women that put them there..??

And, in fact the original "Pilots" of the RFC - predating the RAF - were the officers of the Royal Engineers!

Today's AME was borne out of an “originating event” and evolved through the “shared history” of an "organization". That originating "organisation" was the Corps of Royal Engineers of the British Army. The RE's involvement in aviation and "Flying Machines" dates back to the early 1800's with the "Balloon Battalion > Air Battalion" and who in fact were the original "Military Officers and staff involved in "Flying" (The evolution of aviation engineering subsequently greatly influenced by various Royal Orders, Edicts and Parliamentary Acts) and similar to Todays' Military REME, the Civilian AME "Culture" as "Trades persons" performing maintenance, "Inspectors and Certifiers" of the maintenance performed, and persons involved in Engineering design specification for modification / major repair share a unique history evolved from a direct military linneage and centred on the “competency of engineering”. Aviation Engineering competencies are inter-related and are comprised of 3 distinct areas which apply equally to "Service" as well as "Civilian" aviation engineering activities: 1) Accomplishing "aircraft maintenance activities" - i.e servicing / elementary work and maintenance - undertaken on aircraft / aircraft components by "Trades people" known as Technicians / Mechanics who are trained to "Perform maintenance activities" and who are certified under regulation / legislation as being competent to "accomplish the maintenance activities performed" (AME without License to certify release to service) 2) the Inspection by a "Licensed AME" trained and certified under regulation as being competent to "accomplish the inspection of aircraft maintenance activities" that was undertaken by Technicians / Mechanics and to subsequently issue the Certificate of Release to Service (Maintenance Release) of the aircraft / component that was "Maintained". (AME with License to certify release to service) and 3) Engineering support provided by Aerospace Engineering staff (either CAA or under a CAA issued design organisation license) for support of the aircraft being maintained. (P.Eng with CAA authority to develop or authorise structural design changes, which must subsequently be certified by an AME upon embodyment).

the document that enabled "Civilian" aviation to happen in the United Kingdom and the Commonwealth post WW1... the document was issued by "Order" of Winston Churchil, His Majesty's principle Secretary of War and Secretary for Air. The wording in this document is unique in that it bridges Military Law into Civilian Law.. British Military law is contained in the "Army Act", supplemented by the "Rules of Procedure" (made under the authority of the King and the Parliament) and by the King's Regulations, and by Army Orders. Until a civilian "Air Ministry" evolved, the UK Department of Defence (War Office / M.O.D) governed Service and Civillian aviation in the UK and the Commonwealth. The Crown published a document called "The Kings' Regulations for the Air Force, and Air Council Instructions" - this is a FACT (I have a copy from 1920) and it is why anyone apprenticed under an old AME from the 50's / 60's would have been working under a person who was "Licensed by the RCAF / RAF / RNZAF" etc...

For the Canadian AME, this is extremely important!!!

It is why the term "Engineer" cannnot be taken away from us - no matter how hard the P.Eng associations in Canada try - because the terminology in the Air Nav Regulation 1919 and other related documents "Published under Authority" (or simply Under Authority) means that the document was "Judicially Reviewed" and, once published in the London Gazette - which is the "Official Public record" by the way and to the law makers and military the term is "Gazetted" an example of an order to publish an Order:

Once Gazetted, the order was considered LAW and COMMON knowledge..

When the P.Eng association of Quebec filed suit against Transport Canada in the mid 1980's it allowed the court to recognize and accept the existence of the fact we had a "precedent for being called "Engineers" as it was supposed to be "commonly known by persons of average intelligence without establishing its existence by admitting evidence in a civil or criminal court" ... the P.Eng association chose to ignore the "Public Record of the pertinent Lagislation".

According to the British Manual of Military law - section on Historic knowledge, "The Army Act is part of the Statute Law of England, and, with the considerable difference that it is administered by military courts and not by civil judges, is construed in the same manner and carried into effect under the same conditions as to evidence and otherwise, as the ordinary criminal law of England".

the Canadian Dept of Justice terminology section on Judicial Review and Judicial Notice.

The document used in the United Kingdom and all Commonwealth nations... clearly defines the original 5 license types. A / B / C / D / X that were issued to AMEs aka "Ground Engineers" within the conditions specified in the United Kingdom Air Navigation Regulations (for the time being in force).

I will link the person who is "Avmech" in so that they can also be a part of this conversation..

CanadianAME (talk) 15:34, 6 February 2016 (UTC) Avmech CanadianAME (talk) 15:34, 6 February 2016 (UTC) Canadian AME

AME - help and calling in others for support

Thank you!

As always your help is greatly appreciated and the end result of all the effort everyone give to this should be a well rounded and well written entry!

CanadianAME (talk) 15:50, 6 February 2016 (UTC) Canadian AME

Reply to recent comments

Thank you.

One difficulty we have here as Wikipedians is that the crucial link - tying the capitalised AME title to the evolution of British aircraft maintenance - is missing in your accounts. At what point did the title "Aircraft Maintenance Engineer" become recognised, as opposed say to an RE qualified to maintain aeroplanes? (When and why did some John Smith stop writing "John Smith, RE" and start writing "John Smith, AME"?) Without firmly establishing that connection, none of the early British material is directly relevant to the topic of AMEs, though I hope to use some of it in Draft:Aircraft maintenance personnel in Britain if I can find time.

Your explanation of AME and Licensed AME is useful, but again, where is a source which verifies this distinction in the applicability of the specific titles? It is not enough to verify the duties of the two roles, we also need to connect those roles to their specific titles.

Where too is a source which discusses the Canadian muddle sufficiently to verify your claims? Wikipedia is rather strict about this. One can say that organization X said this and organization Y said that, but unless a source commenting on the contradiction can be found, it is original research to claim that they contradict each other and WP:OR forbids us to make such unsupported claims. This can be very frustrating, but it is how Wikipedia works.

It all comes back to verifying claims by citing reliable sources. Books, specialist magazines and major news journals (whether in print or online) are the best sources if they can be found. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 14:24, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

When and how was the capitalised title of Aircraft Maintenance Engineer created? (You have cited its use in the EU since 2007 but that is all you have cited)

Sie,

I have given reference to the origin - in the 1919 ANR published London Gazette 29 April 1919. that is the source document for "Civilian" aviation aircraft maintenance regulation .. and "Engineer was capitalised.

Further, I continue to try to educate you and others as to the root and principle of the English origin.. which evolved with the development of Steam Engines.. Engineer in the english language has it's root in the word "Engine"... however people contiinually delete the references I add because they feel that they are not relevant..

Please stand back, stop focusing on the specific wording and look ad the wider world and the nature of the issue.. and where I am going with this.

to do otherwise begs the question:

Are many people who edit wikipedia so closed minded that they cannot comprehend the underlying events that took place in history and so now choose to ignore them?

Hence why I wanted to kow the qualifications in aviation maintenance that persons have - because a subject matter expert on the trade and the profession will have completely different point of view than an accedemic who only looks at the "reference" but fails to actually delve into the document and read it.

If you would like, I can provide e-mail addresses for myself and others who would kindly take the discussion out of wikipedia so that a closer look and discussion can be held - without redaction of details that are crucial to the comprehension of the issues. CanadianAME (talk) 19:47, 11 February 2016 (UTC) Canadian AME

OK, so, could you quote the part from the 1919 ANR, published London Gazette 29 April 1919, which defines the term "Aircraft Maintenance Engineer"? The page number would also be useful.

If I have redacted useful references, I offer my apologies. By all means reinstate them and explain what is useful in them, just be sure not to reinstate any exhortations to lobby on Canadian law.

Wikipedia very firmly takes the academic view that references are more important than expert personal opinion. Please do read our policies on WP:RS and WP:VERIFY.

There is no point in taking this discussion off-wiki, it needs to be visible to all interested parties.

Your other points have been answered already. Wikipedia is not ideal for your purposes, but if you wish to see it improved as best we can manage, you need to accept how we work, not rail against us. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 20:47, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

Styling of tables

I have used the data-sort-value="Yes" style="background: #DFD; vertical-align: middle; text-align: center; " class="table-yes2" | and data-sort-value="No" style="background: #FFE3E3; vertical-align: middle; text-align: center; " class="table-no2" | styles on List of STOL aircraft similar to previous work at List of Japanese military equipment of World War II

The styling allows easy sorting by relevance for the rapid search of the current-production models. Why do you have problems with it? --Trurle (talk) 12:07, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

Please see WP:AVILIST. This was agreed by Aviation WikiProject consensus, while your Mil-page styling was not. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 12:11, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

In particular, production status should have a separate column from general notes. There are also prototype status and mere project (un-flown) status to be distinguished. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 12:13, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

Well, no real objections. Just a huge heap of work to do (unnecessarily, i.m.h.o.). Would you re-format for additional columns?--Trurle (talk) 12:27, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

I was working on that when our edits conflicted. I'll have to start again now. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 12:32, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

Also, have you mixed up types which were never in production with those that were once in production but are not any more? These need separating out before reformatting or the red status information will be lost. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 12:48, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

Ok, i will left re-formatting for you. As i remember, there was few prototype-only aircraft in the list, all marked with production start year equal to the production end year. Best way may be to classify production status as 2 columns. 1st coulumn would be "currently produced" (with possible values "yes" or "no") - just use my style tags for it. 2nd column would be "production number" (numerical values) - it will precisely indicate difference between plans (0), prototypes (small numbers) and serial production (large numbers). Just left it empty for now, i will fill data later.--Trurle (talk) 13:11, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

Production numbers and end dates are not usually included in these lists. I see no reason for STOL types to be an exception. The standard columns of Date and Status (with "Discontinued" allowed) will meet all the encyclopedic needs without the use of in-table styling. Such styling also goes against the wider Wikipedia style guidance, because it can affect user agents one never thought of in unexpected and bad ways. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 13:17, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

Aviostart

G'day from Oz; I share your bemusement at the relisting of the debate, I reckon the justifications for keeping articles put forward sometimes are breathtaking in their interpretation of WP policies etc. Sometimes they make no sense at all; I recently A7 speedied a one-paragraph article about an airline operating PA-31s for three years in the early '80s within Texas. The speedy was declined on the basis that it costs a lot of money to run an airline. Presumably there is therefore an assertion of importance of the subject. Cheers YSSYguy (talk) 21:54, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

Indeed and hi there. What most bemuses me is how somebody who can't see BS for what it is can nevertheless still make it to Admin. These decisions are supposed to be based on the quality of the arguments put forward, not the quantity. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 22:32, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for March 17

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited An Experiment with Time, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Lórien and James Hilton. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:27, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

Reference errors on 26 March

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

• On the List of carrier-based aircraft page, your edit caused a cite error (help). (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:22, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

(List of) space program(s)

Notifying you because you participated in the Space program discussion at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2016 March 21.

Perhaps you've seen that SimonTrew has nominated List of space programs for deletion at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2016 March 27. The rationale is basically a proposal to enforce the decision for Space program on the list title, but because discussion on Space program partly depends on the list (two of us saying "don't delete SP when we have List of SP", someone else saying "delete both", and the rest not addressing the list), the situation seems rather awkward. Would you object if I were to close both discussions and list them together as a new RFD? Nyttend (talk) 04:27, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 6

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Manifold, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Immersion. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:59, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

Visa policy Russia

You have cancelled changes in Article Visa policy of Russia. The contents of article have been grouped as in articles Visa policy of the USA, Visa policy of China. You consider it incorrectly. I look forward your changes in articles about the USA and China. They, according to your opinion, are wrong. And article Visa policy of Russia is correct. The moderator has to possess diplomacy and desire of search of a compromise. You don't possess it. You shouldn't cancel changes in articles which you on understand.

OK, I see what you mean. I think they all need changing but I cannot engage in that wider debate right now so I will see if I can accept your changes after all. Thank you for your politeness. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 13:13, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

Thanks. I didn't want to offend you. Sorry, if you have apprehended it as an insult. I for search of a compromise and reciprocal concessions. Search of balance of interests.

No problem. I hope that I have demonstrated a degree of "diplomacy and desire of search of a compromise" after all. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 17:22, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

Equipment of the Indonesian Air Force

I was wondering why do you delete all the image file in this article. Thank you. Calvin Wisanto (talk) 12:57, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

Please see the style guide for lists of aircraft at WP:AVILIST. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 13:01, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

What rings can you have polytopes over?

The real, complex, and quaternionic polytopes are pretty well-known (even if the complex and quaternionic ones need some care in sanity-checking one's language and are more like configurations). What else can you generalise polytopes to? Can you have polytopes over finite fields? Or perhaps over Qⁿ? (I imagine not Oⁿ.) Double sharp (talk) 12:55, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

It depends entirely on how you define a "polytope". There are several current and incompatible definitions used in different fields. The situation with "polyhedron" is even worse. Nothing surprises me any more. The best modern effort is to describe an abstract polytope in terms of a certain kind of partial ordering of elements, as a set-theoretical construct, and then apply that construct wherever it fits. One could perfectly well have a polytope over the apocryphal tables, chairs and beer mugs. I don't know much about advanced mathematics, but the amplituhedron article and those linked from it give some clues as to how polytopes appear in other mathematical "spaces". — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 14:15, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

Thomson Airways edits

Thomson Airways still fly to Dublin Airport. I'm just wondering why you keep changing it on the article to say that they don't anymore? st170e^talk 21:23, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

My apologies. The edit got caught up in a problem at the moment with an IP editor who constantly jumps IP to avoid blocking and seems to have nothing else to do all day but edit war. I'll try to respect it in future, though I seem to recall that another editor has reverted it on occasion too. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 06:11, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

No worries! I did see another person removing it and it's why I reverted to an earlier edition of the article. st170e^talk 13:30, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

Airlander 10

Hi Steelpillow, please can you remove the additional 'Airlander 10' from the Hybrid Air Vehicles HAV-3 page as they are different aircraft and I just created a new page to remove doubt. (There are lots of citations for your to confirm against). Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Philbobagshot (talk • contribs) 13:57, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

Hi again - just for clarification, this is the company page Hybrid Air Vehicles and the other two (Hybrid Air Vehicles HAV-3 and Hybrid Air Vehicles Airlander 10)refer to two separate aircraft within the aircraft naming convention parameters - much like Boeing comes before their aircraft names. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Philbobagshot (talk • contribs) 14:06, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

First, please do not top-post. If you use the New section tab this will create your discussion in the right place.

Second, please sign your comments with four tildes thus: ~~~~ as this will sign and datestamp your comment.

You appear to be what we call as single-purpose account or SPA. Such users often have a conflict of interest in editing Wikipedia and need to exercise special care in maintaining a neutral point of view in articles. It is always best to come clean, for example by creating your own user page at User:Philbobagshot and explaining your involvement.

You have well messes up the page set that I reorganised. For example you actually reintroduced the HAV 3 boxout into the Hybrid Air Vehicles HAV 304 Airlander 10 article, not as you appear to have thought into the Hybrid Air Vehicles HAV-3 page which is now a redirect. Now I have to unpick the mess all over again. Please do not interfere again without asking first - either here or the article talk page is a good place to ask.

There is a welcome message at the top of your user talk page which links to pages explaining all this and more about how to behave on Wikipedia. I would strongly advise you to follow the policy links posted both here and there, and take things cautiously until you have learned the ropes here. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 15:45, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

Hi again, thanks for the Wikipedia tips, I have taken them on board. I sense your frustration and you can sense mine too. It is incredibly annoying to have someone redirect a page you spend hours creating with a plethora or sources only to find that it has been redirected without explanation (much like your annoyance at me - why didn't you message me before you made such a big change?). You have gathered I am a long-term Wikipedia user but new to creating pages. Is there an area we can discuss both our arguments for the existence of the pages with other moderators? It seems we are both agreeing to disagree at the moment and I'd like some further input. Philbobagshot (talk) 16:07, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

I had started a discussion on the main article talk page, Talk:Hybrid Air Vehicles and posted a link to it from the (then) HAV-3/304/Airlander talk page. I did not contact you directly because you had hardly touched the article I was thinking of moving. In future you can use the watchlist feature to keep an eye on pages of concern to you. If you do not take such basic steps, you may well find that you are sidelined from conversations that go on.

BY the way, if you added significant new material to your Hybrid Air Vehicles Airlander 10 parallel article, that content may still be accessed via the page's history. But be aware that material must not only be cited but it must also be of significant encyclopedic interest or it might still get deleted. Yes, if you jump in too deep too soon you will find it frustrating. Take it easy is my advice, check out a few other airship articles to see how they tend to be treated and then make small edits so you get feedback as you go until you have got the hang of things. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 16:23, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for May 14

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited John William Dunne, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page James Hilton. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:32, 14 May 2016 (UTC)

Seth Abramson

Gonna need some explanation on this. You removed citations about the subject's writing that describe it as highly unusual (i.e. worth talking about) by New York Magazine, The Washington Post, The New York Post, Rush Limbaugh, Jonathan Chait, David Wiegel, and others of note on a page that criticises some bad "remix" poem because it was mentioned on a couple blogs? And a page that discusses a single fanboy article on Star Wars because it was mentioned by Film School Rejects? What is your standard for inclusion here? Blog chatter about a bad poem very very important, major media discussion of unusual national political commentary not important? You need to explain your edits.14:01, 22 June 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by SanFran55 (talk • contribs)

I'm not trying to "edit war," whatever that is. You haven't talked to me here, you haven't talked to me on the article's talk page, I explained myself there, so I made the edits. What is going on here? I'm trying to add noncontroversial, well sourced content and corrected a few typos I saw and this feels like the third degree.15:25, 22 June 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by SanFran55 (talk • contribs)

I was busy replying to you on the article talk page when you posted this, gimme a break. I added a link there to explain what edit warring is. Please do not post here any more unless it is outside the topic of discussion there. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 15:28, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

Help with Millennium Space Systems

Thank you for your assistance with my article, if you have any more edits/suggestions, feel free to help make the article more proactive! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vaw22 (talk • contribs) 16:19, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

Aircraft Maintenance Engineers

If you send me your email or a one-shot email that is not personal, I would be more than happy to share VOLUMES of data on the subject that I am unable to load on wikipedia - belive me I have tried, but people keep deleting it..

I posess ORIGINAL hard copy documentation from the UK War Office, RAF, Air Ministry, ARB, CAA, members / fellows of the RaES, and NACA/ NASA from 1919 to 1968 pertinent to the subject.. which I have labouriously scanned and compiled into PDF format and can burn to disc and mail to you for review.

I provide data on Aircraft Ground Engineers / Aircraft Miantenance Engineers / AIR Engineers to the CAHS museum in Australia which has documented the AME's and their work and I am currently sourcing / researching data in support of a paper being written on the subject by a former Airworthiness Superintendent with Transport Canada - Headquarters Branch, with whom I have corresponded for many years.

I also provide historical references to a Canadian lecturer on the Canadian Air Regulations and the roles / responsibilites of AMEs within the Canadian Aviation legislation framework. This gentleman has been a witness in some 5000 aviation tribunals in support of AMEs being investigated / charged - and has yet to lose a case.

CanadianAME (talk) 08:01, 6 August 2016 (UTC)

Hi, I saw some of your new material but it was very detailed and difficult to pick out the key points. Sources are there to be cited in the small print, not to provide the basis of a legal argument.

As we left it last time, I had moved some material to Draft:Aircraft maintenance personnel in Britain, where it still exists. One approach might be for you to post your proposed text either there or on its associated talk page at Draft talk:Aircraft maintenance personnel in Britain. This should avoid the immediate deletions you are experiencing, and I can then take a look at it, ask other editors to do so too, and we can see if it can be tidied to make it acceptable.

It would also help if you could greatly condense it along the lines of, as a hypothetical example:

in 1925 Canada adopted the British Whatever Engineer qualification, which for the first time provided a single qualification allowing ground staff to maintain engines as well as airframes.<ref>Another Canadian Regulation, 1925, Page 127; ''"Henceforth to be known as British Whatever Engineer (BWE) and with the following duties: maintain airframes, maintain aero engines, brew and serve tea to Empire standard.''"</ref>

When you save it, it will look something like this:

in 1925 Canada adopted the British Whatever Engineer qualification, which for the first time provided a single qualification allowing ground staff to maintain engines as well as airframes. References

This kind of presentation, with the detailed formatting of the <ref> and </ref> container tags, is very important and your lack of it is a big reason your material is being deleted.

I am very busy elsewhere now and have little time for Wikipedia. But if that approach fails then you might want to give Wikipedia an email contact address so we can get in touch that way and, once we have each other's email addresses, you can email me pdfs. For how to set it up, see Wikipedia:Emailing users. But I cannot promise to act swiftly, as I am just so busy. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 08:57, 6 August 2016 (UTC)

Hello, Steelpillow. Please check your email; you've got mail! The subject is Aircraft Maintenance Engineer.
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

CanadianAME (talk) 20:08, 6 August 2016 (UTC)

Notification of nomination for deletion of A.I.R Engineer

This is to inform you that this article has been nominated for deletion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/A.I.R Engineer. - Ahunt (talk) 20:35, 6 August 2016 (UTC)

how to move an article ???

Steelpillow, you are correct, I have no idea on how to do this.. one person cannot possibly know everything - about everything. I am an expert on the AME... not wikipedia :( Your assistance would be greatly appreciated. Thank you!

CanadianAME (talk) 16:56, 7 August 2016 (UTC)

Done. I have also moved some of your material from the AfD talk page to Talk:Aircraft maintenance engineer (Canada). — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 19:01, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Original Barnstar
	With much thanks for providing a very informative edit which enhanced understanding of the status in the Book Creator project. LaughingVulcan 05:12, 7 August 2016 (UTC)

Thank you, it is much appreciated. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 11:03, 7 August 2016 (UTC)

"Good and bad cholesterol"

I see you reverted my edits to the article on Trans_fat. The reason I removed what I did is that it is not correct to refer to HDL and LDL as "good and bad cholesterol" as they are proteins and not forms of cholesterol (which is a steroid). I realise this is a common misconception, but that doesn't make it correct. WP should be aiming higher than this. PointOfPresence (talk) 14:25, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

Hi. As I wrote in my edit comment, "don't blank, explain - the links give fuller explanations". This article is about trans fats not cholesterol, but nevertheless, given the wide popularity of the terms "good" and "bad" cholesterol, simply blanking any reference to cholesterol in the context of HDL/LDL is unhelpful. Note that the state I reverted to does not claim that HDL/LDL are types of cholesterol but only that they contain them, so that particular criticism of yours is misplaced. The text links to the appropriate HDL/LDL articles where your points are addressed in more detail. WP should rather be aiming to stamp out the exchange of condescending homilies between editors. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 15:49, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for replying. I am not trying to be condescending. Sorry if you thought that. I am just trying to be accurate. I don't think WP should be perpetuating misconceptions (however widespread). Your edit is still not really satisfactory since HDL/LDL don't contain cholesterol either. They transport it. If you read the article on LDL, for example, this is clearly explained. May I suggest that we change the wording containing so-called to often referred to as ? Thanks PointOfPresence (talk) 09:34, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

Yes, I have no objection to that. I am not sure how commonly the cholesterol inside the phospholipid is referred to as good or bad, but there is no harm in changing the wording to a form which is at least as accurate. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 12:01, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

Thanks. appreciate it. PointOfPresence (talk) 14:49, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

Torsion coefficient (topology)

Hi, you appear as the primary (sole) author of Torsion coefficient (topology). As noted on the talk page there, you seem to be working from a book written in 1934 by Siefert, which, according to google, is the only book (or article!) on planet Earth that defines what a "torsion coefficient" is. I guess that's OK -- its some archaic, obscure term, but its interesting from a historical perspective. It would be great if that article emphasized the history more. ... Anyway, the primary issue is that the article, as written, never actually defines or explains what a "torsion coefficient" is! This could be fixed, if I had access to the original primary reference -- but I don't. The book does show up on google books, but the pages that lead up to the definition are blanked, and I can't make out the intent. So I was wondering -- could you go to a scanner, and scan the missing pages -- specifically, 64, 65 and 71 72 and maybe 41 42 and maybe the earlier pages and some later pages -- and post them on the article talk page?. The problem with that book is that it uses archaic notation and archaic terminology, that does not match up with the notation and terminology used in modern books, and makes it somewhat hard to read and infer what the authors intent was. (Written in 1934, that book predates category theory, which was not invented until the 1950's, and which completely revolutionized the study of homology -- which is one of the issues that is messing things up, here.) 67.198.37.16 (talk) 20:39, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

My main source is in fact Richeson (2008). If Richeson defined the torsion coefficient more rigorously, then I would also be able to. But he doesn't so I can't. To get the article going I copied some material from other articles - for just one sentence that included the lone Seifert & Threlfall citation, which dates not from 1934 but from 1980, half a century later. I have never seen the book you mention and so I cannot help you to access its content.

To me, and perhaps in my ignorance, it seemed sensible to create a parallel article to the orientable equivalent which is Betti numbers. There is some related material at Orientability#Homology and the orientability of general manifolds but I am struggling to relate the algebra to torsion coefficients. Perhaps Seifert 1934 will provide a missing link, but I am as frustrated over its inaccessibility as you are. Or, it may be that there is in fact little more to say and the article would be better merged into say a History section in the article on orientability. But in that case I should at least like to see an explanation as to why Betti numbers are more useful. Looking at the article on category theory, that would seem to arrive at our subject through a formalism of homological algebra, so I cannot see a categorical treatment being appropriate without reference also to the latter. I am sorry I cannot be more help. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 06:25, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

Saarah Hameed Ahmed

Hi Steelpillow.

No biggy at all, just curious, re the AfD for Saarah Hameed Ahmed. I see you have repinged a few people. Three I had already pinged (did you see), and two, SusunW, Kate A. Steel, I must have missed somehow ? Where were they ?

Regards. Aoziwe (talk) 13:36, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

Hi, Sorry, I hadn't noticed that you had beaten me to it. I found the others in the article edit history - Kate A. Steel was the original creator. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 13:44, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

Thanks. I only looked at the AfD. Aoziwe (talk) 13:54, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

Quick Reaction Alert

Hello Steelpillow, I was working in the german Wikipedia at "Quick Reaction Alert". So I had a look at it on the English Wikipedia. It looks like to me that here the "Quick Reaction Alert" is focused too much on the British view. Also it should be noted that "Quick Reaction Alert" is not only used in NATO Air Forces.. Also the Swiss Air Force and Austrian AirForce (both not par of the NATO) use "Quick Reaction Alert" in the same way. As I got a lot of criticism for my English writing here, I don't change anything on Quick Reaction Alert, but drop this message here. Also the Swiss Air Force doesn't use the QRA only for Alpha scramble (Hot-Missions) but also for just Live-Missions , just checking out a State Aircraft.FFA P-16 (talk) 14:50, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

I have added a paragraph with citations to Swiss and Austrian QRA. One must first find a reliable source that explains something, then add what it mentions to the article, along with properly-formatted citations to the sources you found it in. Adding the citation inside a <ref> ... </ref> container after the paragraph is very, very important, so that other editors can easily see for themselves. The UK bias is probably because only UK based sources have been found. If sources in other NATO member native languages can be found, then perhaps more can be added about them. Remember, I had to find some sources before I could cite them! — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 15:28, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

Here just some Text about QRA in Switzerland, Germany(NATO9 and Austria, It is german, but you can finde QRA in the Text.

• Switzerland Swiss AF, Page 10 page 15, [1], Swiss Air Force Heli QRA
• Germany: [2] [3] [4]
• Austria: [5][6]

This is what I found with usthe key words QRA Luftwaffe in googel. FFA P-16 (talk) 16:53, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

I don't know if it is siutable to put a picture there... The Swiss Air Force QRA F/A-18 carry for QRA Missions (or QRA Trainingmissions) always an external Fueltank who has written with red "STBY 121.5".. the international Emer Freq.

F/A-18C J-5018 with Sidewinder, Amraam and External Fueltank with the Emercency freq 121,5 written on it.

FFA P-16 (talk) 17:53, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

Thank you. I do not have time now but I will get back to this when I can. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 18:03, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

Thank you, take it easy. Bye FFA P-16 (talk) 18:04, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

Helping change "List of military aircraft of the United States" to bullet format

I saw your post on the talk page and I agree that the table format is a big contributor to clutter. That's why I decided to help you. In fact, I've already edited a few things and I may even finish changing it to the bullet format before you do. Feel free to change anything that you think needs fixing. Thanks! Mrsupersonic8 (talk) 02:58, 1 October 2016 (UTC)

Thank you. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 11:36, 1 October 2016 (UTC)

Fix Betti Number Image Description

Please fix the description or image on the blue wireframe torus image of the Betti Number article so that a normal person can understand the difference between what is being referred to by "void" "donut" and "center". https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Betti_number&oldid=prev&diff=742053728

When I looked properly, the original was not quite right either, so I have corrected it and moved it all to where it should make more sense. The fact that a single hole through a donut is topologically two holes (one at each end) is not very intuitive, but that's the way the numbers work (a single "hole at one end" yields the projective plane). Any better yet? — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 18:18, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

Polytope

I don't understand why you reverted my recent edit of Polytope. The version that you reinstated is grammatically incorrect: "unbounded" is an adjective, not a noun, and there is no noun factored in as far as I can tell. Could you please explain your rationale? Thanks. J.P. Martin-Flatin (talk) 09:47, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

Sorry, I forgot to remove the braces around the nouns and have now done so. The qualifier "such as" or similar is needed because the list of more general objects is not exhaustive.— Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 10:56, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

OK, problem solved. J.P. Martin-Flatin (talk) 07:10, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

ENS Anwar El Sadat move page

Hello Steelpillow, could you move Egyptian ship Anwar El Sadat to ENS Anwar El Sadat like ENS Gamal Abdel Nasser per talk ?, I can't change it because it's move protected. - AHMED XIV (talk) 17:52, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

It is move-protected from me too. I have raised a request at Wikipedia:Requested moves/Technical requests#Uncontroversial technical requests. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 18:15, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

OK, thanks a lot. - AHMED XIV (talk) 20:18, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

Reapeted vandalism by IP editor

Hello again Steelpillow, This user talk is continuously making disruptive editing on both S-400 missile system and S-300 (missile system) pages. Algeria is known to operate the S-300PMU2 version, he is adding it as an operator for the S-400 and S-300VM without providing any reliable sources, the sources provided are misleading and have no relation to the content added. He defends his edits by saying " Respect the Algerian site " which I don't understand what it means. I would like you to see into this. By the way, I have sent him a level 3 warning for " Addition of unsourced or improperly cited material ", however he deleted it from his page and continues to vandalize the pages. - AHMED XIV (talk) 23:42, 14 November 2016 (UTC)

OK, I have added both pages to my watchlist. This guy has no understanding of reliable sourcing or of the English language, but does have loads of attitude, not a good basis for editing the English Wikipedia. He has been bumping up against similar issues elsewhere. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 09:10, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

Guys, I Don't mean to but I Think I looked a All of Sorces that It was True That S-400 Was ordered by Algeria. I Don't know why Ahmad XIX Is Very Unreasonable.60.50.52.67 (talk) 02:30, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

What part of "adding it as an operator for the S-400 and S-300VM without providing any reliable sources, the sources provided are misleading and have no relation to the content added." is not clear to you? — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 10:08, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

Please excuse me...

I recently posted a comment about "neither of you" even though IMO the comment was mostly aimed at someone other than you and you obviously already know our rules about sourcing. I was trying to soften an already quite pointed statement -- sort of like shouting "we all need to..." when only one person is actually causing a problem. I hope that you were not offended. --Guy Macon (talk) 01:42, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

No problem. Thanks for checking. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 09:10, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

My rv at Electromagnetic Hypersensitivity

I reverted your removal of a talk page section as sock puppetry because, based on [some secret message or other] I have reason to believe that it is a good faith attempt to gain input on proposed changes. If you feel, based on your experience at the article, that this is a returning blocked user or a sock of another active user I have no objection to you opening a SPI though. Jbh^Talk 17:52, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

It is a fringe editor trying to beat the system. Sorry, I should have made it clearer that the edit was rubbish. If he persists, I think we will want to try blocking a few of those accounts before going the heavyweight SPI route. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 17:57, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

I can not comment on the contents of the ticket or even really, ethically, give my opinion of the content of the edit. If you do go the SPI or other administrative route it would be best to contact an admin who can view OTRS tickets. Cheers. Jbh^Talk 18:27, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

Well, thank you for linking on my own talk page to a resource I am not privileged to access, then rubbing my nose in it. Go put it somewhere your admins can find it. I'm outta this madness. Please do not come back here. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 19:22, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

This should be interesting...

Regarding our friend the doctor, it will be interesting to see if the WP:CIR issues that have prevented him from formatting his comments, understanding various policies, etc., will also prevent him from taking the steps required to prove his identity to Wikipedia. I think we should both quietly watch as this plays out rather than commenting further. --Guy Macon (talk) 10:43, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

Indeed. I too doubt that he can demonstrate his identity, and the intention expressed by another admin to block any new account is not something that he would understand how to reverse either. Frankly, I feel sorry for him, he must get a tough time in real life. Oh, wait, perhaps a certain President Elect might have an ear for him - Post-truth nuclear conspiracy seems about the right mark! — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 11:30, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

Wait, was there a US presidential election? I would have thought that they would have mentioned that in the news... :) --Guy Macon (talk) 16:39, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

How about that. Looks like we are back to another round of cat-and-mouse. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 19:25, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

Lift and transit-time theory.

Hi, you deleted my example from the Lift (force) page with the comment counts as original research, sorry. - Please explain what you mean -Eio (talk) 16:51, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

Hi. Wikipedia has a policy of no original research by its editors, we have to base all our article content on existing reliable sources. Some editors might accept it if you were able to source an equal-transit-time lift equation, and sufficient data on the example type, for a very simple calculation to be made. Other editors might still argue that the simple calculation was original research and demand that you cite sources for the exact result you gave. I am not sure which would be right, but simply to state a result and make claims in the edit comment is certainly not sufficient to avoid original research. Hope this helps. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 17:08, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

I calculated it myself since it is very easy and did not find a source about it yet. I suppose such a figure might be of interest of many readers. However, writing the single steps in the article might be too much.

The steps are the following: If you open the airfoils of the ASK-21 in some graphic software like Adobe Illustrator you can easily measure the length of the upper and lower side of the airfoil. For the root (Airfoil FX 502-169, see maintenance manual) you find a upper/lower path ratio of 344/332; for the tip (Airfoil FX 60-126) a ratio of 338/330 (of course the fraction can be simplified. Those are just my measured values); in average I take 341/331. Now you can easily find out the necessary pressure difference at the two sides (mass*g/wing area = 320 Pa) and check which velocity is needed to build up this difference. The result is 326 km/h. As you see, no rocket science but a very easy calculation. However maybe too much for this section. What do you think? -Eio (talk) 17:38, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

This is far too much original research. Path ratios apply only for a given angle of attack so that must be sourced, the equation for the calculations, everything needs sourcing. Sorry. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 19:10, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

Well than you have to source the density of air and the gravity acceleration too. Don't exaggerate. It is just to have an idea of how much faster the upper streaming is. -Eio (talk) 19:25, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

That's just silly. If you are not going to believe me then I can't help you. Please do not reply on my talk page any more. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 19:47, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

A cup of coffee for you!

WP:Refactoring discussions is always hard. I never want to put an editorial slant, but also, I wanted to make clear that all of the discussions on that page were prompted by a discussion which started elsewhere. If you have a clever way to note the relationship then execute it. If you think that it is misplaced to group them in that way, then please say more. Thanks for speaking up - I did not wish to drive the conversation in a particular direction. Blue Rasberry (talk) 21:12, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

Season's greetings

Happy New Year!

Hello Steelpillow: Thanks for all of your contributions to Wikipedia, and have a great New Year! Cheers, Burninthruthesky (talk) 10:49, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

Send New Year cheer by adding {{subst:Happy New Year snowman}} to people's talk pages with a friendly message.

Merry, merry!

From the icy Canajian north; to you and yours! FWiW Bzuk (talk) 21:48, 26 December 2016 (UTC)

Electric aircraft

Any further thoughts on our conversation at Talk:Electric aircraft#Article fork needed? - Ahunt (talk) 01:26, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

Wikiwings

		Wikiwings
		For really exemplorary work in creating List of electric aircraft and all the clean-up on Electric aircraft. - Ahunt (talk) 14:26, 31 December 2016 (UTC)

List of electric aircraft: the Pipistrel G4 is NOT the heaviest

... as claimed in its "note". Its max gross of 1497 kg is eclipsed by the Solar Impulse 2's 2300 kg, even if it is not clear whether that indicates empty weight or max gross or whatever. The article is obviously still in the works so I won't go meddling with it right now, still I thought you would find the information useful. BTW my congrats on the concept of this article! Keep up the good work! Jan olieslagers (talk) 16:36, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

Thanks. There are a lot of contradictory claims in there, I think most of them need to be stripped out. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 18:24, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

Locos and caps

Thanks - I was worried you'd hate it! Cheers DBaK (talk) 11:49, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Original Barnstar
	For your great work on de Havilland DH.88 Sario528 (talk) 20:23, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

Thanks! Much appreciated. Still more to do, though. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 08:54, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

The Downs Malvern

Apologies. Not quite sure how I managed to do that but it was unintentional. I'll fix it for you. CalzGuy (talk) 12:17, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

I see you fixed it. CalzGuy (talk) 12:18, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

Sweden EHS at Electromagnetic hypersensitivity - reopened discussion

I would appreciate your comments at Talk:Electromagnetic hypersensitivity#Reopening Sweden EHS matter --papageno (talk) 04:38, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

your comment

I suggest that you strike "sneaky lying fakery" here. Jytdog (talk) 11:58, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

Thanks, you are right. Now done. But dare I say that I find it a bit "bizarre" when an experienced editor calls another one out on a word, without first checking the meaning of it? — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 12:43, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

John William Dunne

I don't have a problem with the photo per se. It would be just fine if there was a portrait of Dunne to compare and to avoid misidentification. In the pioneer aviation era shop assistants etc. often sat at the controls for portraits. The Science Museum could also be mislead or wrong if they assumed it was Dunne at the controls and did not back it up with a confirmed portrait of the man. Koplimek (talk) 20:29, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

Whether we believe the Museum to be right or wrong is not relevant. The Museum is a reliable source and that's what matters to Wikipedia. It has an enlargement of this image on the wall of its Flight Gallery, with the caption, "J W Dunne. ... " Also, Here is a copy in Getty Images which it took me about 30 seconds to google, with the title, "J.W. Dunne in D.5". It would have taken you all of 30 seconds too, and there are more examples to find out there. (What you won't find on the Internet, as it lies unpublished in the Museum's archives, is a wonderful image of Dunne's sister May sat at the controls of this same machine, replete with Edwardian wide-brimmed floral hat tied with ribbon under her chin. This does not lead me to suggest that one of them was the other character cross-dressing!) — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 07:49, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

Getty Images captions are not to be trusted just like Wikipedia is not to be trusted without other source verification. You do know that internet sites copy verbatim what they see elsewhere in other words playing monkey-see monkey-do. I've corrected captions under GettyImages back when they were Corbis. Museums are not beyond scrutiny if the occasion so arises. If something looks out of kilter then it should be questioned. Like I said, I've had a copy of this template photo since 1979 when I bought the book by Munson and Taylor. No where does it say that it's Dunne in the controls, just that it's his D5 model tailless. Munson & Taylor are not beyond reproach either, but should have described the designer sitting at the controls of his own machine.Koplimek (talk) 13:17, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

So, go bring us RS that proves the Museum wrong. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 14:28, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

Hi Steelpillow, thanks for letting me know the research you did in IDing a photo of Mr. Dunne. An interesting character in his writings on time travel. He sometimes reminds me of Marcel Proust. Were you in direct contact with his granddaughter? All My Best. Koplimek (talk) 22:42, 7 August 2017 (UTC)

Indeed. I am working on a biography. She inherited all his papers several years ago but had no room for them. Many of them have ended up in the Science Museum archive centre. I have been corresponding with her and met her once when we both visited his home for many years at Broughton Castle, Oxfordshire. There is so much "fake news" about Dunne by authors who should know better, but Wikipedia has to peddle it faithfully until someone like me can get the truth into an RS. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 07:37, 8 August 2017 (UTC)

Update: The playwright and author J.B. Priestley was a fan of Dunne and they knew each other. He devotes a whole chapter in his book Man and Time to Dunne. He includes there a copy of this image and the caption identifies the occupant as JW Dunne. Together with the Museum's caption, that establishes a pretty solid case which would require extraordinary evidence to overturn. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 19:26, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

Wataniya Airways

You removed airlines historic destinations, why? all were referenced and in new table format, now it's just current routes in old text list style, I requested to stop vandalising historic referenced content, not remove it.139.190.254.44 (talk) 02:49, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

Because there was an edit war going on and it needed to be stopped. That was my only reason. Now that it has calmed down, the place to - politely - discuss the content of the article is at Talk:Wataniya Airways, not here. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 08:37, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

I'm not getting what you admin are up to, I created a list of former and new routes with refs in table format per wiki standards, this other chap is removing it and creating an old text style list with just new destinations, which part needs consensus and what are you people deliberating over? where is admin jetstreamer? 139.190.254.44 (talk) 01:59, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

I am not an admin, just an ordinary editor with a bit of experience. You seem unable to grasp that I intervened because of bad behaviour, I am concerned only with stopping a futile ping-pong revert war and getting two strong characters to talk over their disagreement rationally and amicably before genuine admins apply more and worse sanctions. I am not concerned with the article content and will not respond to questions about it (and especially not on my user talk page), though I will try to get other more concerned editors to respond on the appropriate article talk page, The usual answer to your last question would be User talk:jetstreamer. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 08:55, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

Destinations article.139.190.254.44 (talk) 09:27, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

If you will not discuss the issue politely on the article talk page then I cannot help you further. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 10:18, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

Fighter effectiveness RFC

You are right, I'm allowing the other guy to get to me. I started the RFC in an attempt to take the heat out of the discussion and to allow others to have a say. I have hardly posted in the RFC, but the other editor just seems to be taking it all way too personally. I particularly object to having words put in my mouth that I did not say, never mind the snide allusions to what I might or might not do or think. I cannot promise that I will not take him to AN/I if he has another go at me like his last couple of posts, but I will try to bite my tongue. - Nick Thorne ^talk 14:11, 30 July 2017 (UTC)

If he takes a seriously outrageous pop at you, fair enough. Otherwise you'd need to go through the attempt to discuss on his talk page, etc. etc. before escalating to ANI, it's the first thing they'll ask. Softly, softly catch'ee monkey, as they say. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 15:45, 30 July 2017 (UTC)

Fair enough. Thanks man. - Nick Thorne ^talk 16:14, 30 July 2017 (UTC)

Tethered balloon

Hi Steelpillow, I dont understand why you undid my revision 793707357 on the Tethered balloon article. Thx to let me know — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fallon64 (talk • contribs) 10:26, 8 August 2017 (UTC)

Hi, in my edit comment I wrote, "stay on-language". You linked to an article on the French Wikipedia. This is not appropriate to the See also section, which is meant for links within the same Wikipedia. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 11:17, 8 August 2017 (UTC)

mediawiki2latex

Hi, mediawiki2latex can handle collections now. See here http://mediawiki2latex.wmflabs.org/ and try for example with https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Book:River_martin Yours --Dirk Hünniger (talk) 10:03, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

no update of book creator so far

You announced in the template bookcreatorstatus that an update was scheduled to be rolled out on first of October. Up to now I can not see that this has happened yet. Yours Dirk Hünniger (talk) 11:54, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

Thank you. I just checked and it is still as before. All I can do is to report on current plans. According to this, the Book Creator is now to be turned off for some months - starting yesterday! — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 13:24, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

P.S. Will the new software be MediaWiki2LaTeX? — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 13:32, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

Hi, I got no information whether mediawiki2latex is going to be used in the new book creator. So I think it won't be used. Still mediawiki2latex is open source software and anybody can use it, even without contacting me. Dirk Hünniger (talk) 13:53, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

Flying wing

Hello, I would just like to know why you canceled my ad when it was actually sourced, without discussion? thanks --Otto Didakt (talk) 15:16, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

Hi. In my edit comment I wrote, "rm original research claims". "rm" is short for "remove". Your claims for Pénaud and Gauchot are not made in the source. Specifically, a) that this was the birth of the concept and b) that it included "all the characteristics of a flying wing as we know it today" both need sourcing from a reliable third party. Without such WP:RS, your claims amount to your own original research (WP:OR) which is not allowed on the English Wikipedia. Hope this helps. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 18:28, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

Clancy's Aerodynamics

Hi Steelpillow. If my memory serves me correctly, you sometimes cite Aerodynamics by L.J. Clancy in your work on Wikipedia. If you have a copy of Clancy you might feel like responding to the following request: diff. Regards, Dolphin (t) 12:17, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

Thanks. I have done so. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 13:06, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

Why was content removed (multiple time dimensions)?

Dear Steelpillow

Could you briefly elaborate why you removed my editing in the Wikipedia article about "Multiple time dimensions"?

Thx Darkch2 (talk) 22:54, 4 November 2017 (UTC)

Hi, I have just revisited your edit and I owe you a sincere and profuse apology. I misread it the first time round and misjudged it badly, I don't know what came over me. I will restore it and, perhaps, do a little tidying but will make no change of substance. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 10:13, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

Way to contact me

Dear steelpillow thank you for your work and for your message. But please, if you have just something send me informations only with the wikipedia e-mail [7] or may on some of the articles talk page (if you see in the history that "some" person was not also editing on this page). I think after the last message you left on my talk page and what happend after.. my talkplage.. you knew i am wikihoundet by some since many years. Thank you.FFA P-16 (talk) 10:40, 10 November 2017 (UTC)

Sadly, you have created a sockpuppet once too often. I will have no part in such dishonesty, the article must stand on its own two feet, or not at all. I am still working on my own draft at User:Steelpillow/test1, so perhaps it may yet return. Let us both live in hope. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 17:48, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

A cup of tea for you!

Well, it's wikitea which may explain the lack of milk. I see that you have taken on the thankless task of regularising DH names, a can of worms I lazily opened. Good for you! TheLongTone (talk) 14:41, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

Hi and thank you. However I am not sure whether I deserve it, I was just clearing up one disambig case which seemed to have a consensus solution. The DH.103 Hornet's nest runs much deeper. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 20:03, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

What's the problem with the Hornet?? (I probably don't want to know!) Ang you deserve a cup of Rosy Lee for the TLC you're giving the Comet article.TheLongTone (talk) 15:31, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

Only that it nests and you really don't want to do to that what I do to my char - stir it up. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 15:35, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

Pediapress PDF

I saw that you can upload books to pediapress but I did not see the you can get any pdf from pediapress. You can order the printed book cut it an pieces and put it through your own scanner, but this is a rather strange method of obtaining a pdf. Maybe I missed something, is it actually possible to get a pdf from pediapress. Yours Dirk Hünniger (talk) 17:11, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

Thank you, I have been finding out as I am going along. I have amended some wikipedia pages accordingly. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 18:30, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

Season's Greetings

...to you and yours, from the Great White North! FWiW Bzuk (talk) 23:38, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

Thank you. And may you also enjoy the season's celebrations. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 11:02, 24 December 2017 (UTC)

Flying wing

<snip insulting post> -Eio (talk) 23:22, 24 December 2017 (UTC)

Hi Eio, you are evidently not familiar with Wikipedia's Be Bold-Revert-Discuss community guideline. You made a bold edit, I reverted it, what you should then do is to open a civil discussion at Talk:Flying wing, not start an edit ward and come here to insult me. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 10:51, 25 December 2017 (UTC)