User talk:Plxd

Welcome!

Welcome to Wikipedia, Plxd! Thank you for your contributions. I am Swarm and have been editing Wikipedia for quite some time, so if you have any questions feel free to leave me a message on my talk page. You can also check out Wikipedia:Questions or type {{helpme}} at the bottom of this page. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

Also, when you post on talk pages you should sign your name using four tildes (~~~~); that will automatically produce your username and the date. I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian!

Swarm 19:55, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of List of pusher aircraft by configuration

The article List of pusher aircraft by configuration has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

A list that is nicely done as the result of much effort on the creator's part, but has rather abritrary inclusion criteria, nebulous subdivision criteria, and given the sheer size of the list were it to/when it include(s) all the aircraft of this configuration, fails WP:INDISCRIMINATE, while duplicating Category:Pusher aircraft.

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 21:57, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of List of pusher aircraft by configuration for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article List of pusher aircraft by configuration 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/List of pusher aircraft by configuration until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on good 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 template from the top of the article. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 21:00, 8 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Pusher aircraft

I DO appreciate your work in editing my new version of the above (in spite of my reversing a lot of it) - in particular the bit about props all creating forward thrust really had to go back in rather than being buried in a note - we have had so many people (I suspect high school physics students) who jump violently on the idea that a "pusher doesn't really push" and who DON'T (alas) read notes. I have left your most important change - the move of the "Farman layout" paragraph to the history section. It DOES seem to go better there. Any ideas about the obvious need to take an axe to the remaining section, and what you'd like to see go? (or feel strongly should stay).

Answer this on the discussion page for the topic, please, rather than my page - and thank you again for your help. --Soundofmusicals (talk) 12:03, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Stabilizer (Aircraft) help

Plxd could you assist in patrolling Stabilizer (Aircraft)? We have a problem with an editor aggressively inserting his own theories into this and several related articles. I suspect that the problems will be obvious to you. The editor believes that canards and horizontal stabilizers are direct equivalents. If you go to the history page and difference Steelpillows edits with the prior versions you can see the pattern. Simple reverts are all that is usually required. The editor does not seem to be sophisticated enough to read and understand the literature. You can delete this message after reading. --Amphorus (talk) 15:57, 8 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Plxd, happy to discuss this issue - the more people involved in this discussion the better. Couple of points in reply to the above allegations:

Firstly, Amphorus is a brand new user whom I strongly suspect to be a sockpuppet of Stodieck (Talk). Stodieck has been censured many times for bad behaviour - see for example this old version of User talk:Stodieck before it was recently cleaned out (shortly before Amphorus posted above, in fact).

Secondly the facts above are all wrong. I differ from Amphorus/Stodieck only in the attributable use of language - whether there is adequate evidence that the foreplane of a statically stable canard type is sometimes referred to as a "horizontal stabilizer". Of course, not all foreplanes serve this purpose, but that does not mean that none do. Several other editors besides me have endorsed this usage and found references to support it. Stodieck - and now Amphorus - flatly denies this terminology and derides any reference supporting it, all the while apparently unable to grasp that this is the only technical issue between us. I can provide some more detailed links given time, but the discussion has ranged across Talk:Stabilizer (aircraft),Talk:Wing configuration and Talk:Canard (aeronautics).

— Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 18:58, 8 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:52, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]