Steelpillow

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Loyal wingman, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page HAL.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:03, 16 April 2023 (UTC)Reply

My parameter deletions from an arXiv citation template were undone because the URL was perfectly good. Achmad Rachmani (talk) 12:59, 19 June 2023 (UTC)Reply

It's fine now, so I probably owe you an apology. When I checked it out before I got an error message (and I checked again to be sure); it seems that must have been a system hiccup or glitch, and not a mistake by you, these things do happen. Anyway, thank you for coming here to ask. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 13:08, 19 June 2023 (UTC)Reply

Hi Steelpillow,

I added a section to the mediawiki2latex documentation

https://de.wikibooks.org/wiki/Benutzer:Dirk_H%C3%BCnniger/wb2pdf/install#General_Remarks_for_all_Operating_Systems

Could please check if the language is in order an correct it in case it isn't

Thanks in advance

Dirk Hünniger (talk) 11:56, 22 July 2023 (UTC)Reply

Thanks a lot Dirk Hünniger (talk) 12:50, 22 July 2023 (UTC)Reply

Hi Dirk, I have just had a go at some more of the page, hope it still looks OK to you? — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 12:57, 22 July 2023 (UTC)Reply

Yeah everthing looks fine. Thanks again Dirk Hünniger (talk) 13:33, 22 July 2023 (UTC)Reply

  There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Fringe theories/Noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. —DIYeditor (talk) 08:57, 29 September 2023 (UTC)Reply

  You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:Village pump (policy) § RfC on the "Airlines and destinations" tables in airport articles. I saw that you participated in a discussion on a similar topic. Sunnya343 (talk) 18:12, 8 October 2023 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for taking on a difficult discussion. Sorry to do this to you, but I'd like to challenge it.

The main takeaway from your closing statement is There is consensus that the policy on WP:COI should be widened to include off-wiki paid advising for promotional purposes, but litle else.. I think there are some problems here.

1) Scope of the RfC. There is no dispute that exchanging money creates a COI in the basic sense of a conflict of interest. The COI policy however, is only concerned with edits to Wikipedia. Your finding would radically change what what that policy means -- a much, much bigger finding than the RfC asks, and something that most people did not even directly speak to. This proposal was to modify WP:Paid-contribution disclosure, not WP:COI. COI is all about what happens on-wiki, and what someone should do to mitigate it. The finding of this RfC, however, is no consensus to require a COI disclosure, so what would even go into the policy based on this discussion?

2) How do you (or more importantly, how did participants) distinguish "promotional purposes"? Every company paying someone for advice is looking to promote themselves, so isn't it all promotional? Further, how would anyone distinguish between them? How can you tell when someone provided good advice but the company didn't follow it from someone providing bad advice? It is uncontroversial to say "Wikipedians shouldn't tell companies how to subvert our policies and guidelines". Is that all "promotional" means in this case? The controversial things are how to tell someone is doing that, how to distinguish company promotion that disregards good advice from company promotion based on bad advice, whether to assume that everyone advising is acting in bad faith, whether someone already acting in bad faith would simply ignore the disclosure requirement, whether conversations and relationships we have off-wiki must always be disclosed even if they don't result in on-wiki edits, etc.

In short, your closure seems to find no consensus for the RfC while at the same time finding consensus for something much, much bigger -- a change to a policy that wasn't even part of the proposal, and which most people didn't address directly. I have trouble seeing consensus for any change to the COI policy coming out of this discussion. If someone is found to be providing advice on subverting our policies, they should be blocked per our basic policies like WP:NOT. Transforming the COI policy from a policy regarding on-wiki activities into something dealing with off-wiki dealings is not a reasonable outcome here. It's possible there's some modification to e.g. WP:PAID to say "don't tell them how to break the rules", but even that would be pointless: consensus is against required disclosure on a "just in case" basis, someone violating those rules would likewise just ignore the disclosure anyway, and there's no way for the community to know what conversations are being had off-wiki. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 16:50, 17 November 2023 (UTC)Reply

Hi there, no problem - if I messed up it needs to be outed. The RfC is just a part of a much wider discussion; most of my summary concerns that wider discussion. This is why most of my findings are outside the scope of the RFC proposal. Hence my closure, as you put it, "seems to find no consensus for the RfC while at the same time finding consensus for something much, much bigger". I suggested that the details, of how that wider change might crystallise, might be thrashed out in a subsequent RfC, including any changes to WP:COI or what the "promotional" meme expressed by participants might mean. If you wish to argue that there really is no consensus for tightening up the wording on the need to declare a COI, I am sure you know better than I how to pursue that. But you might like to bear in mind that another uninvolved editor has endorsed my closure, and one or two others involved have sent their thanks. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 17:50, 17 November 2023 (UTC)Reply

We use RfCs to ensure big decisions get a lot of outside input and to structure discussion. If your closure indeed was based "most" on discussions that were outside the RfC (preceding said outside input and preceding said structuring), it was not an appropriate way to close the RfC. This wasn't a case of finding some small nuance in external discussions to contextualize the RfC, but of rejecting the proposal of the RfC and imposing an outcome that was never proposed, that most people didn't address, that concerns a different policy, and which radically changes that policy. That's a hugely problematic thing for an RfC closing statement to do and a poor way to construct policy. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 18:02, 17 November 2023 (UTC)Reply

The brief closure discussion at the end is structured as a subtopic of the main discussion and not of the RfC. I therefore closed the main discussion. I "closed the RfC" in only one of my findings, viz. that there was no consensus (i.e. over the proposed wording); I do not regard that as an outright "rejection", but what do I know? If you feel this was an improper way to close the RfC that is as may be, but it does not imply it was an improper closure of the wider discussion, which was the main remit. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 18:28, 17 November 2023 (UTC)Reply

I agree with Rhododendrites, I'm afraid; I think you put more in the close than is present in the discussion. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 18:42, 17 November 2023 (UTC)Reply

That is possible, or at least I can see how it might appear that way. I could certainly water down my "recommendation" to a "suggestion" and move it outside the findings, more as an afterthought. The only positive finding is that "There is a consensus [for paid advisers] to declare a COI." I stand by that. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 18:56, 17 November 2023 (UTC)Reply

I'm also in agreement that the issue of COI wasn't presented to the community in the RfC and should not have been mentioned as having received consensus in the close. If that had been presented, I would have addressed it. But I did not know it needed to be addressed. Wehwalt (talk) 20:01, 17 November 2023 (UTC)Reply

Heads up: I think this might be my first formal closure challenge. Sorry to do this to you, but I think this is a really problematic outcome: Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard#Close_challenge:_Required_disclosure_for_admin_paid_advising. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 19:26, 17 November 2023 (UTC)Reply

• Just dropped in to say thanks for taking it on, even though there was objection to your closure. Valereee (talk) 09:53, 19 November 2023 (UTC)Reply

Thanks to all for your advice, support and civility. To be honest, I was quite pleased that only one part of it was questioned. My purpose was as much to move things forward and clarify people's thoughts, as it was stagnating. But even now, with a blanket "no consensus" advocated and the significance of the issue highlighted, nobody else has yet stepped up, which disappoints me. I don't think it would be wise for me to engage further, though. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 11:09, 19 November 2023 (UTC)Reply

Hello Steelpillow,

I wanted to let you know that I just tagged Reduced take-off and landing for deletion, because it's a redirect from an article title to a namespace that's not for articles.

If you don't want Reduced take-off and landing to be deleted, you can contest this deletion, but don't remove the speedy deletion tag from the top.

You can leave a note on my talk page if you have questions. Thanks!

Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.

-MPGuy2824 (talk) 09:39, 5 December 2023 (UTC)Reply

Hi Steelpillow, mediawiki2latex now works many times faster due to http2 multiplexing and compression when downloading images an related information. You may try it online https://mediawiki2latex.wmflabs.org/ or install the Docker image see b:de:Benutzer:Dirk_Hünniger/wb2pdf/install#Using_Docker which works on any operating system. Yours Dirk Hünniger (talk) 10:07, 5 January 2024 (UTC)Reply

Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#planecrashinfo.com Avgeekamfot (talk) 18:58, 8 January 2024 (UTC)Reply

You keep translating Swedish definitive viggen (the thunderbolt, the tufted duck) into indefinite forms. These are specifically translation errors. Blockhaj (talk) 21:45, 29 February 2024 (UTC)Reply

No. These are differences in the way the two languages are constructed. Translation may be "literal", exactly following the constructs of the source language, or it may instead seek to follow its own rules of grammar and syntax. Literal translation is seldom used, because it becomes unreadable. This is the real mistake here, to insist on bad English. Wikipedia is written in readable English. You also misunderstand when, where and how we do or do not use the term "bolt" as an abbreviation of "thunderbolt", and so on. You really need to step back and let native English speakers edit the text, and not try to second-guess our language for us. I should warn you now, that if you persist in your edit warring, sanctions may be taken against your user account here. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 09:30, 1 March 2024 (UTC)Reply

Your argument doesn't work. In what way does literal translation become unreadable? In what world is inflection seen as bad English? This is not Simple English Wikipedia. Bolt here is also the preferred translation of Viggen when referring to thunderbolt (sv: åskvigg), as it is missing the first element "åsk". The English word is likewise made up of two elements: thunder-bolt, and can be found in abbreviated form as "bolt", see for example Bolt (2008 film). I acknowledge that bolt is not a common abbreviation in the English language (beside use in phrases like "bolt of lightning"), but neither is vigg in Swedish. Blockhaj (talk) 22:34, 7 March 2024 (UTC)Reply

I have replied at Talk:Saab 210#Meaning of "Draken". If you don't like it, take me to WP:ANI, but you may wish you hadn't. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 11:16, 8 March 2024 (UTC)Reply

Bréguet or Breguet? There is certainly a case for Breguet however a lot of French language publications write it as Bréguet particularly when dealing with WW1 and the 1920s some examples:

https://heritage.medialibrary.safran-group.com/Heritage/media/21839

https://heritage.medialibrary.safran-group.com/Heritage/media/72186

Stivushka (talk) 06:18, 10 March 2024 (UTC)Reply

"A lot"? Really? The French sometimes make spelling mistakes too, you know. See for example https://www.breguet.com/en/classic-tour/paris which explains "Rue Bréguet, that carries by mistake an acute accent that does not feature in the family name." Evidently a common mistake, but a mistake nonetheless (and quite likely popularised by that very street name). Just google say "breguet alize" and you will soon see which generally gets an accent and which does not. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 11:16, 10 March 2024 (UTC)Reply

Yes, a lot … including Jane’s Fighting Aircraft of WW1.

That said, there are also plenty books that spell it Breguet.

Either way is fine by me but I can see a lot of back and forward edits Stivushka (talk) 13:17, 10 March 2024 (UTC)Reply

Updated the Renault 12F and 12Fe pages.

For me the best argument in favour of spelling it Breguet is that this is the way it’s spelled in the Breguet 14 manual.

https://commons.m.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Breguet_14_Aircraft_Manual.pdf

The manual does use accents. Not using them in the manufacturers name is clearly a deliberate choice. Stivushka (talk) 15:52, 27 March 2024 (UTC)Reply

I'm a new editor here on Wikipedia, but an old hand otherwise. I have, within the last few minutes, come across 'Eastern Aircraft' as a manufacturer of what I have always known as the GRUMMAN Wildcat. When did that happen? Digging further, imagine my horror to find the Smithsonian heading a page with "Eastern Division FM-1 (Grumman F4F-4) Wildcat" ^[1]

If it helps, the full name of this manufacturer of several Grumman designs is General Motors - Eastern Aircraft Division, which I found elsewhere because there is no mention of them here on Wikipedia, except indirectly in the Grumman articles.

Whilst it may technically correct, nobody that I know of has ever referred to any F4F Wildcat as 'Eastern Division'. The Wikipedia InfoBox for the Grumman F4F states it was Manufactured by 'Grumman', and Built by... General Motors (i.e. alone), whereas deeper in the article we find that whilst GM built 5,280, Grumman themselves built 2,600.

Likewise, the Ford Motor Company assembled either 4,600 or 8,685(°) Consolidated B-24 Liberators. The Wiki article mentions 'Ford' no less than 25 times in that article, giving them full credit where it is genuinely due, but do tell me if you have ever heard of a Ford B-24 Liberator? No, I haven't either.

Surely these are just emergency production runs, in wartime, by sub-contractors at 'shadow factories', a uniquely British term I now discover. On the other hand I'm going up against The Smithsonian, so what do I know?

In my support, even GM are reticent about their contribution in WWII. From their website.

• GM’s Eastern Aircraft Division was founded on January 21, 1942 to build the Grumman Wildcat and Avenger torpedo bomber planes at five plants along the East Coast.^[2]

Notice GM's exact wording; they were building Grumman Wildcat and Avenger...

Two questions (for now); 1) How do I search for any earlier discussions on this topic? Surely I cannot be the first person to have raised this issue. 2) I'm not sure my mentor is taking any interest in any of his/her charges. Can you suggest somebody else, preferably with an interest in aviation (like yourself perhaps) ? and 3) I'm beginning to feel this is all waaay beyond my novice capabilities, so is there a task-force I can join to thrash this out?

(°) Yes, wiki's B-24 article is another on my ever-increasing to-do list, for that inconsistency alone. WendlingCrusader (talk) 20:17, 19 March 2024 (UTC)Reply

Hi, not sure how/why you got hold of me, but hi anyway. The best place to start is our article on the Grumman F4F Wildcat. It covers some of the issues you raise. If you feel that some fact in an article needs challenging, you can edit it to add just after it; {{citation needed|date=[current month <space> year]|reason=[text string of choice]. Alternatively, you can start a new discussion on the article talk page (as you just did on mine). Our community is a real mix of wise greybeards and sneaky nutters with wild points of view, so we rely heavily on citing reliable sources (see WP:RS) to forge consensus on what we should say. Welcome to the maelstrom. Feel free to keep asking here. There are also WikiProjects where you can post on their talk pages; here that would be Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Aircraft. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 19:10, 20 March 2024 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for your reply. I approached you because I kept seeing your ID on the talk pages of article after article that I have been stumbling across (plus you seem to be one of the good guys, a 'gentle editor' did I read somewhere ?)

The lack of any input from a mentor has left me struggling to find my own way around, and I'm almost certainly missing a few (obvious) tricks. I could say a lot more, but I don't wish to burden you with my woes, so I'll leave it at that now.

In time I'm sure it will all become clear, and meanwhile I will just carry on making mistaks. WendlingCrusader (talk) 09:47, 21 March 2024 (UTC)Reply

Indeed, making mistakes is a great way to learn. I have practised it all my life! By all means drop the odd woe on me and I will see what I can do, but I do not spend as much time here as I used to, so not too many at a time, please! — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 16:58, 21 March 2024 (UTC)Reply

  Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. Regarding your edits to Breguet 14, please use the preview button before you save your edit; this helps you find any errors you have made and prevents clogging up recent changes and the page history, as well as helping prevent edit conflicts. Below the edit box is a Show preview button. Pressing this will show you what the page will look like without actually saving it.

 

It is strongly recommended that you use this before saving. If you have any questions, contact the help desk for assistance. Thank you. - Sumanuil. _{(talk to me)} 20:56, 24 March 2024 (UTC)Reply

You should disclose you have a conflict of interest on J. W. Dunne. You have been editing the page since 2014 [1], practically the entire article was written by you. You own a website that defends Dunne and I see you have just published a 560 page book on Dunne "The Man Who Dreamed Tomorrow: The Life of J W Dunne".

I have a major interest in vegetarianism, and I have disclosed it for years. I have no issue with any of your edits but I think it can be misleading to new users if you do not disclose your extensive life-time work into Dunne on your userpage. Psychologist Guy (talk) 15:38, 28 March 2024 (UTC)Reply

Thank you for the nudge. I did declare it in the odd talk page comment, but it does need to be much clearer now that I have published. But it is not a life-time's work. I lived sixty years with no knowledge of him at all. Still, I am flattered that you see ten years' part-time effort as a lifetime's worth of accomplishment! — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 18:34, 28 March 2024 (UTC)Reply

Now added to my main user page. Hope it's OK now. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 18:55, 28 March 2024 (UTC)Reply

I appreciate that. I know you have put a lot of research into Dunne, you have made significant improvements to his article. I used to own all of Dunne's books, I picked them up on Ebay. Unfortunately I couldn't understand his theory and had to sell his books in the end. You might be interested in trying to get hold of a copy of Donald Eaton Carr's book "The Eternal Return". It was published in 1968, it is long out of print but he put forward an obscure theory of time and immortality. I found the book easier to read than Dunne's theory. Psychologist Guy (talk) 21:00, 28 March 2024 (UTC)Reply

There is also J. M. E. McTaggart's work on time and immortality [2]. His Wikipedia article has always been in a bad way. An expert needs to improve it. Psychologist Guy (talk) 21:11, 28 March 2024 (UTC)Reply

There are many philosophies of Time. They are not really a specialist area of mine, sadly for McTaggart. I only studied Dunne's in depth because it was so core to his fame, literary legacy, professional archive and biography. You are in good company; many commentators have found Dunne obscure (though others found him crystal clear). Anyway, thank you for your kind words and support. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 10:25, 29 March 2024 (UTC)Reply

But I removed that article from my watchlist as soon as I saw the aggressive post by the other editor to the talk page; I'm just not in the mood to deal with that kind of attitude, sorry. Schazjmd (talk) 20:36, 28 March 2024 (UTC)Reply

No problem, I just didn't want to take your name in vain without letting you know. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 10:09, 29 March 2024 (UTC)Reply

I've encountered a user who claims that Key.Aero is copying from Wikipedia. Since you have a lot of experience identifying and dealing with problematic sources, perhaps you could help sort this out. The discussion is at Talk:Boeing–Saab T-7 Red Hawk#Specs. - ZLEA _T\^C 01:17, 5 April 2024 (UTC)Reply

Hi!

In Deltahedron, I've added an external link toward a new (I think) entry of MathWorld: «Equilateral Polyhedron», because the English Wikipedia has no «Equilateral polyhedron» article (only Equilateral triangle & Equilateral polygon).

But in this entry, the last sentence:

22 of the 75 uniform polyhedra are also equilateral.

seems «false» to me.

If you agree that this claim is «false», then a warning & a correction should be added into Deltahedron just below «my» external link; shouldn't they?

And then, I would copy-paste «my» external link followed by the warning & the correction into Chamfer (geometry) (where I'll replace «equilateral-faced» with «equilateral», many times).

In advance, thank you for your answer! — Cheers, JavBol (talk) 18:04, 30 May 2024 (UTC)Reply

You are correct, it is false. I suspect the author meant to write "the non-convex uniform dual polyhedra". The best thing to do now is simply ignore the flawed Mathworld article in all ours, so I have deleted your link at Deltahedron. There is already the more directly relevant one for the Deltahedron, so little is lost save a pile of worry. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 18:51, 30 May 2024 (UTC)Reply

Anyway, I have just emailed Mathworld to inform them of their mistake. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 19:01, 30 May 2024 (UTC)Reply

Just a random question because I'm curious: Where does the name "Steelpillow" come from? –Noha307 (talk) 01:48, 5 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

I once had a client who made inflated sheet steel garden furniture. It was the domain name he passed by and I am a fan of surrealism, so I kept it for my own use. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 20:04, 5 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

Well, that was definitely not the explanation I was expecting! Anyway, thanks. –Noha307 (talk) 01:56, 7 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

 

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

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

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished.

fgnievinski (talk) 02:53, 2 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

Hi Steelpillow. I was sorry to read that you are retiring from Wikipedia. I understand your frustrations. You have been a powerful contributor to Wikipedia over many years. I hope that one day you will feel sufficiently refreshed to return. You will certainly be most welcome. Best wishes for a rewarding retirement! Dolphin (t) 06:38, 2 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

Thank you for your kind words. I think it is as much to do with Wikipedia's natural lifecycle:

1. All enthusiasts welcome to bang stuff down, editor numbers grow and the absurd fanatics get shoved aside.
2. Time to knock it into shape, prune the crud and fill in the gaps
3. Nothing much left to dig out of RS, so the experts drift away and editor numbers fall.
4. The absurd fanatics and hobby-horse riders increasingly get the run of the place, both on the content and on the rule-making.

If a Stage 5. ever arrives, then who knows. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 20:26, 2 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

 

Category:Aircraft with counter-rotating propellers has been nominated for deletion. A discussion is taking place to decide whether it complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 02:14, 7 November 2024 (UTC)Reply