User talk:Steelpillow/Archive 2015

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 ·

Your submission at Articles for creation: Negative Energy has been accepted

Negative Energy, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.
The article has been assessed as Start-Class, which is recorded on the article's talk page. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

You are more than welcome to continue making quality contributions to Wikipedia. Note that because you are a logged-in user, you can create articles yourself, and don't have to post a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for Creation if you prefer.

If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk.
If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider leaving us some feedback.

Thank you for helping improve Wikipedia!

78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 15:11, 5 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Barnstar

		The Guidance Barnstar
		For protecting and guiding a newbie through a minefield of conflict.

I have now requested a conduct evaluation, citing a few of the comments made towards us. Please feel to join in if there's anything you wish to add. Burninthruthesky (talk) 14:01, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks for your generosity. Fingers crossed that the worst at least is now over. I'll still be keeping an eye out. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 16:22, 28 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I'm sure it is. At this point, I'm going to take a break from it and leave things in the capable hands of the community. Thanks again. Burninthruthesky (talk) 09:26, 29 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

And another

Despite the suggestion I made at ANI, I do appreciate your attempts to placate our other combatant. I see there are now more vague, unsubstantiated allegations of our ignorance. If you have the time and energy to deal with him, please don't feel you should stop on my account. Burninthruthesky (talk) 08:13, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I do not intend to let the discussion reopen. One thing not to do is to get drawn in to answering back. On that basis it can go any of three ways: 1) the guy presently gets fed up and goes away, 2) he dribbles on slowly and we just mop it up each time, 3) he gets all fired up and active and we get the Admins to block the IP range. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 12:41, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Trying of learn english, be of more patient toward me please

Please be more patient, I learning english by doing edit of good faith, and learn new language is of no easy. I is not doing any vandelism of edit, I trying to learn many new stuff and of make many mistake in learn of said language. Me trying to study abroad so of practice english is being of the much more importance. Thank you.Johnfromchina2015 (talk) 20:14, 8 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Zapletal

Who or what is Zapletal? You appeared to be addressing an unregistered editor as Zapletal. Is that a name associated with IP addresses? (It does not appear to be a registered editor. If it were, the IPs might be sockpuppets.) It appears that we have tendentious talk-page conduct again about what should be a complex technical topic, Lift. I am not sure that WP:ANI will be able to handle the dispute if it spills over; it appears that it may wind up going to ArbCom. I will warn the editors that they don't want discretionary sanctions. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:31, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, thank you very much for looking in, I appreciate it. "Zapletal" is the name with which a certain IP editor signs their posts. I do not think it is a sock, the behaviour does not match. Rather, the main problem with the IP is excessive abuse, and ANI should be able to agree temporary semi-protection of the article and talk page. The registered editor is the more difficult issue. Am I right to assume that ArbCom are even busier than the Admins who frequent ANI, such as yourself, and that ANI should be my first port of call? — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 22:18, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I am not an admin. Like you, I am an experienced editor. By the way, right now, ArbCom doesn't have any cases. As to the IP, I am not saying whose sockpuppet it is, but it is too knowledgeable about Wikipedia policy to be a newbie editor. I see disruptive and tendentious editing on both "sides". (You are the only frequent editor here who actually appears to be neutral and reasonable.) For instance, the attempt to impose a "voluntary" topic-ban on the registered editor who is a published authority was handling about as badly as it possibly could have been handled. There was no reason why it needed to be an obvious railroad job, but it was an obvious railroad job. I would suggest that WP:ANI is the next port of call if the ugliness continues. ANI will probably not handle it, but topic areas that ANI does not handle successfully are those that typically go to ArbCom. Please let me know when you next think that I need to post a caution about abuse, sockpuppetry, and tendentious editing, reminding the editors that those who are on the two "sides" will probably be topic-banned if ArbCom has to take the case. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:57, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Momentum transfer

Take the example of a 10keV x-ray photon heading towards a crystal. The momentum of the photon is a vector; its magnitude is 5e-24 kg m/s, and its direction is the direction that the photon is heading. Of course the photon doesn't have an exactly definite direction -- there is no such thing as a beam of light that is simultaneously perfectly collimated and finite width (Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle). But if the beam width is much larger than the wavelength (which is true in practice), then the X-ray photon can be collimated (i.e. have a definite propagation direction) to very very high accuracy, a tiny fraction of a degree.

Now our x-ray photon diffracts off a crystal. Let's say for simplicity that we orient the crystal and the beam so that there is just one strong diffracted direction. Then, after entering then exiting the crystal, the photon is (with high probability) now moving in a new direction. So it has a different momentum than it had before interacting with the crystal. Again, you can complain that it is not exactly "a direction" because of the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle. That's technically true, but if the crystal is macroscopically large, and has no defects, the diffracted beam is collimated to the same degree as the incoming beam. So the outgoing direction has an uncertainty of a tiny fraction of a degree, but it may be 80 degrees different than the direction it started in.

If you say that a photon's momentum cannot change during diffraction, that's the same as saying "Diffraction cannot change the direction that light is moving." Well, this is obviously not the case. What else is diffraction, if it's not changing the direction light is moving?? Just spend a minute looking around a room through a transmissive diffraction grating. :-D --Steve (talk) 18:02, 18 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Looks like I have been a sucker for Crookes' original theory on how his radiometer worked: reflection involves similar momentum changes through radiation pressure. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 19:50, 18 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Edit warring at electromagnetic induction

I have just blocked User:Aasarsak for edit warring at Electromagnetic induction. In all conscience, I can't do that without also warning you that you are also edit warring and could similarly face a block if you continue. By rights I should be blocking you too. By rights I should have warned you at the same time as Aasarak. I was kind of hoping you would have had more sense and I wouldn't have to do this. As a long standing editor, and one who has been on the wrong end of admins in the past over edit warring you should have known better. I know you are claiming consensus on the article talk page, but that is a very slim argument: one other editor has supported you, and then not very strongly. SpinningSpark 17:28, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I suppose I was a bit hasty. The trouble is, life gets so short. Thank you for pulling me up before I do anything even dumber. At least I did not breach 3RR <whew!>. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 18:26, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Formal mediation has been requested

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

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

A cup of tea for you. You have to provide the milk if thats how you take it, i'm afraid.

Thanks for your sensible (i.e. acting like the dutiul card-carrying member of the anti- Ion Nemes cabal that you are) contribution to the ANI. I do admit to not being as polite as I could have been, but there are limits to my patience! TheLongTone (talk) 14:55, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

>slurrp!< — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 16:25, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Request for mediation accepted

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

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

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

Flow around an airfoil

Hi Steelpillow! It looks like progress is being made at Wikipedia talk:Requests for mediation/Lift (force). I commend you on the constructive role you are taking.

As a minor point of clarification, I can make a brief comment about something you wrote on 2 April: ... Bernoulli, whose analysis showed that the air above speeded up and that created a drop in pressure. (See your diff.)

Bernoulli's principle doesn’t have any relevance to the observation that air travels faster over one side of an airfoil than over the other side. The relevant principle when explaining this asymmetry of velocity is one attributed to German mathematician Martin Kutta – the Kutta condition. The Kutta condition is the key to explaining the flow pattern around any body with a sharp edge, such as an airfoil with its characteristic sharp trailing edge.

Once we are aware that there is an asymmetry in the speed of flow around the two sides of an airfoil, Bernoulli's principle is relevant as it explains the asymmetry in static pressure in the flow on the two sides. Regards. Dolphin (t) 11:57, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Strictly, Bernoulli's principle describes a relationship between velocity and pressure, it does not ascribe cause-and-effect. In practice it is intimately related to the width of the stream-tubes, even in say a symmetrical aerofoil at zero AoA. Circulation is not a necessary ingredient of pressure drop, Bernoulli is. There is also a difference between explaining the effect of a given principle and explaining the principle underlying a given observation - I was not really considering which of these I was doing. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 19:14, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Acknowledged. Dolphin (t) 22:02, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Move review for Carbon (fiber)

An editor has asked for a Move review of Carbon (fiber). Because you participated in the move discussion for this page, you might want to participate in the move review. Srnec (talk) 22:41, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Help

Hi. Please your completion fill out this Articles The volleyball team and other players. Development volleyball in wikipedia Are waiting you. Good luck.Jacilason (talk) 10:43, 19 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:List of aircraft of the Swiss Air Force

Hello Steelpillow

Some time ago you helped me to create the List of aircraft of the Swiss Air Force Since a few days there is a disagreement about the use of pictures and a few times aircraft who are used by the swiss air Force where deleted out. So i had now written down my point of view on the talk page. Pherhaps youcan have a look at this and say your opinion. Thank you FFA P-16 (talk) 08:17, 4 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:List of aircraft of the Pakistan Air Force

All edits and removal of images done without consensus on article talk page. I have reverted back to User:GraemeLeggett 19:49, 7 July 2015. Consensus must be reached for such an edit. Faraz (talk) 00:52, 15 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Royal Australian Air Force

I don't see consensus for main article to remove images, just the list page(s) and more specifically images inside tables - FOX 52 (talk) 17:48, 18 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please raise this in one of the other places it is already being discussed. I have a watchlist. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 19:10, 18 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

List of currently active Russian military aircraft

Fellow wikipedia editor,

Regarding your edit on the List of currently active Russian military aircraft page,made on the fifth of August,there appears to be a problem.

The removing of pictures has caused a problem in the design of the page,making it at least less readable,if not totally unreadable.The columns are too short in length,so the names of the aircraft,their versions and origin appear in two rows,which worsened the quality of the article.Also,the comment section is too long.

I am sorry if I made any grammatical errors in my post,English is not my mother tongue.

I am currently busy,and I hope you will be able to edit the article again.

I have read the WikiProject Aviation talk page,and I understand why you removed the pictures,however,the pictures will have to stay unless we find a solution to make this article readable again.And I hope we will.

Best regards! RussianBear158 (talk) 10:42, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Everybody has different screens with different widths, especially desktop PCs vs. mobile devices. We should not code for one special width, because it will force other users' displays to look even worse. If you disagree, please raise the issue at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Aviation. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 21:39, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

True,I just checked with my phone (HTC Desire 500. 800x480 if I am correct),but the article is still worse than before.Take a look at this page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_active_aircraft_of_the_Turkish_Air_Force .It is easily readable,however after your edit on the Russian page,the column width appears to have changed,and now instead ,for example, MiG-29 being in one row,it goes like this: Mig-

29,and so on.It would be nice if we could resolve this somehow. RussianBear158 (talk) 11:36, 9 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

What browser are you using? My Firefox jumps from say Ilyushin IL‑70 all on one line to Ilyushin
IL-70 quite happily. I never see Ilyushin IL-
20. If this is a real issue then there is a "non-breaking hyphen" character, HTML ‑ or Unicode U+2011, which you can use and is this one inside here: [ ‑ ] and can in practice be copy-pasted to hold the IL‑20 together as a single word. Does this help? — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 21:27, 9 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I totally forgot to answer you here,sorry!I`m using Google Chrome on both PC and Android.I tried using your solution,though I don`t think it worked,I might have been using it wrong.Also,would it be possible to keep Sukhoi and Su-27 (for example) in one line?I am not good at editing (I am new to wikipedia,but I always try to help :) ).Would be glad if you could check the article,I think you will see the issues.The comment section is too long,while the versions aren`t long enough for them to be in one line.RussianBear158 (talk) 17:18, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I have just tried it on my Android/Chrome. I see the problem is there. It is definitely a problem with Chrome because Firefox on the same tablet displays it OK. I tried using the non-breaking hyphen and it fixes the display but breaks the link to the article title. One solution is to code each entry like this:

[[Ilyushin Il-76|Ilyushin Il‑76]] which looks like this: Ilyushin Il‑76

But really, that is horrible code. I think it better if you just leave it for Chrome to mess up, and go install Firefox on your PC and Android, grin. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 19:35, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Alright,so it was not your edit that broke the page,it appears that Chrome itself has some problems.I`ll surely try to check out Firefox once again,and I`ll tell you if anything changes.At least,I`ll keep trying to find a solution to this problem.Most of people use Chrome as far as I know,it would be nice if we could find something to fix this.Is there a wikipedia forum (or something similar to that) where we could post this question? — Preceding unsigned comment added by RussianBear158 (talk • contribs) 19:50, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Your latest edit.......fixed it all!Now it fully works man!Thanks!RussianBear158 (talk) 20:20, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A good reason not to write long Notes. Glad to help. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 20:24, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Queenhill

Moved to Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Worcestershire#Merging_some_small_pages

Thanks!

	Thanks!
	For salvaging an oversized white elephant of an article about an oversized white elephant... Andrew Gray (talk) 17:32, 17 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

— Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 18:30, 17 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Not even Flags???

Hello..You just clean shaved List of active Indian military aircraft !! FYI: Consensus or no consensus.. List looks horrible now. *cry intensely* Reegards—☮JAaron95 ^Talk 13:47, 19 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

PLease see the Project discussion here. If you wish to argue for flags, images or special styling in lists of aircraft, please respond there. Otherwise, if you dislike the default Wikitable styling, take it up with the the code manitainers. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 13:56, 19 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Not against removing (knew about the discussion once the images were removed). Please continue shaving, I'll continue crying. *cries intensely* Regards—☮JAaron95 ^Talk 14:06, 19 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for making contact - ref: RAF biogs

Hi Steelpillow, many thanks for making contact, I have joined the group as invited, thank you. I have received useful comments from Kudpung who has again been encouraging. I have several articles lined up as I mentioned to him, there are a couple more in the "Great Escapers" series, plus one on F/L JA McCairns, DFC & 2 Bars, MM, the Spitfire pilot who flew with Bader, escaped from German POW camp and later flew Special Duties Lysanders into France dropping off and recovering SOE agents and finally flying Tempests in combat over Germany 1945, also another one on an SOE agent killed after capture in 1944. I am reluctant to load them incase another Hollywood based editor with specialist knowledge of lace adorned furniture and pink sea shells, nominates these for deletion for not being "notable" or decides that some of my text is unnecessary. Can I load them at some time when they are more likely to be picked up by somebody who has some concept of what these guys went through ? Hope you don't mind me asking but can I reload the 2 or 3 lines of useful stuff on Ted Thorn's article mentioning his father's service and death in WW1 (similar has apparently been passed as OK on my William Henry Franklin article). Can I replace the 2 standard paragraphs ref death removed from my Sandy Gunn article so that it matches the other 16 which have been passed OK (as far as I know). Your advice and help is appreciated. R44 Researcher1944 (talk) 18:12, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Have you found the "View History" tab yet? From these pages you can recover anything and everything that has been deleted from the article. The basic technique is:

In the article, click the "View History" tab.
Click through likely-looking "Prev" links until you find the edit that deleted your stuff.
Click the "Edit" link for the version with your text in it.
In the editing pane, copy the lost text.
Open the article Talk page, start a new section and say something like, "This text of mine was deleted from the article: [paste it in here]. I think it should be restored because [wax eloquent here]. What do others think? ~~~~"
Come to a suitable WikiProject Talk page and start a new section, saying something like, "Could do with some help at [[Talk:Article title#Section title]], my text is being reverted. ~~~~"

Also, if you know of a knowledgeable and sympathetic editor, you can drop a similar note on their user talk page.

With luck, somebody will come and lead a sensible discussion and outcome, and you can begin to get the hang of it.

Another thing you can do when you create an article is to drop the Project a line and ask for a quick look-over, like I recently did at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Aviation#Flexible wing. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 18:26, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Steelpillow, I just loaded a new article on Jim McCairns and appreciate any assistance with tidying up etc. I have put the "thing" on the talk page for the article that I was shown to use, is that right ? thanks R44 Researcher1944 (talk) 09:30, 14 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I tidied a couple of things. There is probably too much detail in the early biography but I'll just keep an eye for a while that nothing important gets lost. The "thing" is fine either way. Good to see you settling in. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 11:26, 14 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Steelpillow, I just put another article in there, one of the "Great Escapers" Tony Hayter that'll be me quiet for a day or so while I finish the next one. Your help is appreciated. R44 Researcher1944 (talk) 11:54, 14 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I've put a few more into the system Edgar Humphreys and Gordon Kidder who were "Great Escapers" and Arthur Steele (SOE agent) and one on AVM James Rowland Scarlett-Streatfeild - the spelling of his name is correct although it looks wrong. Any support would be greatly appreciated. thanks R44 Researcher1944 (talk) 12:35, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I have put them on my watchlist (have you found out about that yet? Mine is the most-used favourite in my web browser!) — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 12:44, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I just investigated it Steelpillow, and can see it being very useful, in fact it just high-lit some more of my mistakes which I've now been able to correct - from when I'd copied over the "thingy" (talk page banner) from other articles and forgotten to amend the name, all done now I think ! I finally got my act together on URL's and I've been back through all of my articles sorting them out on all articles where kind Editors hadn't already done for me. As I said IT stuff is alien to me but I'll learn enough to get by. Thanks R44 Researcher1944 (talk) 13:05, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If you got a minute

Hey Steel if you got a minute can you make sure I applied this properly, something looks wrong - cheers FOX 52 (talk) 23:05, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I am no expert but I think that's right - the big piece of code had me fooled until I realised it is a notice for us to copy-paste into appropriate pages. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 09:14, 19 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I pasted it into the main author's and the Aircraft Wikiproject's talk pages and it seems to have worked too. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 09:22, 19 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks much appreciated FOX 52 (talk) 16:42, 19 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

John Grigson

Hi Steelpillow I just completed work on "improving" the biog of John Grigson and I'd appreciate a hand because I cant get the photo of the DH.9 to appear where I want. Any assistance in arrangement would be very welcome. Thanks R44 Researcher1944 (talk) 17:46, 19 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see a DH.9 photo in the article, just a Wapiti and a Harvard. Which image are you thinking of and where do you want it to go? — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 17:56, 19 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks SP, I had a laptop problem so hadn't been on-line till a few minutes ago. I think I've worked out how to sort out the DH.9 picture. That pic looks OK now, is the arrangement of the other pics OK ? thanks R44 Researcher1944 (talk) 12:39, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Just moved one so it will display more neatly in a wider range of browsers - the first thing in the appropriate section is always a good place. Also, images usually need captions, so I just put in a couple of placeholders for better captions. Going well. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 12:44, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

many thanksResearcher1944 (talk) 17:58, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

ASL Viking

Out of interest, who did design it? W. O. Manning? The article in Flight refers to it "having sprung from the fertile brain" of Barber. Your edit summary says something about a link, but I couldn't see it.TheLongTone (talk) 11:54, 29 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The link is to the manufacturer, the Aeronautical Syndicate Ltd. There it explains that although Barber was the main investor, the company's Chief Designer was William Manning, and Howard Wright was the third co-founder. Barber did have ideas of his own but the main source I have available, Brown's book, does not discuss which bits of the machines were whose idea. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 12:05, 29 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Aha! Missed this needed new article, congrats & all that. Barber is a curiously shadowy figure. As indeed Howard T. Wright (User:TheLongTone/Howard T. Wright)TheLongTone (talk) 20:39, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. Wright and Manning had already built aircraft under Wright's name. Wright probably deserves his own article but I doubt if I'll have the time to research him for a long while yet. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 08:38, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A kitten for you!

Thanks for fixing the page !

RussianBear158 (talk) 12:54, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Why, thank you. I appreciate it. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 14:30, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Your Opinion,please.

Hello Steelpillow. I would like to hear your opinion, because i have disagreement with a other user.

One is that on the Swiss Air Force page by Planned acquisitions and projects. its planned that the swiss air Force buy 2-3 Transport Aircraft, one of the candidats was the C-17..so it is listet up there. But because such things like buying an aircraft for the swiss air force took, because of politics, years the production lines of the C-17 are closed down and only one aircraft is not yet sold. so it is no more one oof the candidats. So i deletet it out. The Baner was against this, with a point i can agree, he said all original candidats have to be there. OK well, but he is also against to write that the C-17 is no more a candiidat for the swiss air force because it run out of production. I think without this reader can get the impression that the C-17 still is in the run.

The Secoond thing is that he delet out in the Dübendorf Air Base (a swiss air Base) in the History part, the first visit of the Zero-G Aircraft and the first ZeroG flight with start from swiss soil. he says it is noothing special, but if you have a look at Zero-G

2.1.1 NASA's Reduced Gravity Aircraft
2.1.2 European Space Agency A300 Zero-G
2.1.3 Others

You can see that only a handfull of aircraft exist for this (Fuelsystem has to be modified) an that in Europa usualy this flights are made from the 2,3 same Airports. So thank you if you let us knew your opinion FFA P-16 (talk) 09:41, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I have edited the articles accordingly. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 11:03, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please Don't Angry With Me

This User:Riduan Has Been Create An Equipment_of_the_Royal_Malaysian_Air_Force.So Please,Understand What I said Thank you.Malaysian Cyber Security 14:24, 15 October 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Malaysian Armed Forces Modernizarion Act (talk • contribs) [reply]

A question about United Kingdom military aircraft serials

Hello, Some belive that the part "Aircraft serial numbering" on the Swiss Air Force page is too much going into the details. So my Idea is before I stard with something new ( create a own page about this) is to ask for your opinion about something simelar.. do you think this is notable and not to detailed? United Kingdom military aircraft serials.FFA P-16 (talk) 15:49, 28 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, there are many books which discuss British military aircraft serials, the material covered is certainly notable. And I also think the level of detail is about right. Will your description for the Swiss Air Force be as long? If it turns out a lot shorter, it would be better to add it to the main article. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 16:01, 28 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I was thinking of taking out what's now in the main article, but it would be not much bigger than it is now in the main article... So I think, after your replay, i will let everything as it is. Thank you for your opinion. FFA P-16 (talk) 17:14, 28 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

SR22 discussion

Hullo! Many thanks for discussing and acting positively in the Cirrus SR22 discussion. Should you be interested, the importance of the CAPS can be judged from the discussion at http://www.euroga.org/forums/hangar-talk/4915-why-has-the-sr22-been-such-a-success?page=1 ( a long read, though ) , several participants being pilots/owners of such a craft. The CAPS seems to be a strong argument in getting partners agree to acquiring a private plane! Very kindly yours, Jan olieslagers (talk) 22:47, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

SR22

I might have guessed you wouldn't rise to it. Glad the refs got sorted. Burninthruthesky (talk) 13:11, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for November 5

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited An Experiment with Time, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Flying Scotsman. 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) 11:37, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This in particular...

North American XB-70 Valkyrie#WS-110A Maury Markowitz (talk) 14:52, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough but that was for a preceding design before the B-70 designation was given. Re. M-wing, there needs to be a simple statement not a lop-sided analysis of "this effect in detail and others in passing". Please discuss any proposed changes on the article talk page. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 15:45, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Barnstar

		The Purple Barnstar
		For consistently refusing to nail jelly to the wall. Burninthruthesky (talk) 15:43, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Can you help with a picture please ?

Hi SP, I am trying to improve the presentation of my RAF Bomber Command Aircrew of World War II but am struggling with sizing the image of the Lancaster which I have top right beneath the info box, it is currently a THUMB but I want it about 6 times bigger to fill some of that empty space created by the TOC. I've tried several options but failed. Please can you help me. many thanks R44Researcher1944 (talk) 09:31, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Done. I followed the infobox template trail to check out its width units and it uses px too, so things should sync nicely in different browsers, devices, etc. I also put the |right| after the |thumb| but that is just what I find clearer, the exact position does not affect function. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 10:00, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Very many thanks.Researcher1944 (talk) 13:46, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Taking advantage of protection to further your side of an argument

I'm hereby formally warning you over this edit. Using the semi-protection as a device in an ongoing dispute (thankfully, you made it very clear that you did this) is not a good way to proceed, and should not happen again. Thanks in advance for your understanding and compliance. Samsara 15:58, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

OK, thanks for the tip-off. Could you link to where it explains what I did wrong? I never heard that one before, but I am always willing to learn. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 17:18, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

(ec) When you type out "making the point" in an edit summary, you should expect that someone will remind you of Wikipedia:Do not disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point. Anyway, it seems that the other party has essentially agreed to "keep the peace", so I'm hoping this will be the last we'll ever have to talk about this dispute. Regards, Samsara 17:38, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 17:47, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Also, my apologies for any upset you might have felt at my blanking your subsequent discussion with another editor on my talk page, but it was not really the right place for that discussion. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 17:29, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia etiquette holds that you can edit your own talk page to your own satisfaction, as long as you do not substantially misrepresent other people's contributions to it. Regards, Samsara 17:38, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I just didn't want you to feel I was messing you around for the sake of it. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 17:47, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I see, and saw, no reason to object, but it's good that you explained. Cheerio. Samsara 17:52, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Early greetings

Thank you, yet again, for your endless patience and good grace. I have learned a great deal from you, but have decided I now need a break.

In case we don't meet before, have a peaceful holiday and a happy new year!
Burninthruthesky (talk) 08:20, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

What I'd like to do

I really would like to lower the level of protection on Skyfall. Betty Logan last night gave me her promise not to engage in further editing w.r.t. box office figures (just pinging you for transparency, Betty - no need to reply!). Given that some other editors are currently blocked, I'm hoping that if you can also tell me you will abstain from editing that part of the article, then lowering protection will be a safe thing to do, and nobody else will get "hurt". Will you agree to this? Samsara 17:18, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I am happy to stay away from the entire article. My involvement has been aimed at moving the discussion forward. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 17:30, 19 November 2015 (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) 16:06, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

About The Banner

Enough said for now. What can be said that is useful has been said. If either of you has trouble with the other one again, feel free to start a new topic here. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 21:16, 10 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

I usualy work only on Swiss Militay and aviatic topics (only minor things in other aviatc topics. Iknow I had a disagreement today again with the Banner..

Well, if we look at the past over 12 months, The Banner is every day very active on wikipedia (nothing wrong with this), but usualy he is not acvtive in aviatic topics. In this more than 12 Months timeframe:

He "worked" only on 3 Airports, Amsterdam (probably because he is from the netherlands) , Dublin (probably because he live in Ireland) he doesn't worked on any other Airport article of the whole world.. except of deleting out informations of Zürich Airport (the biggest Airport of SWITZERLAND) and being very unfriendly to user Zurich00swiss.
The only Air Force Base he was "working" on was the Dübendorf Air Base (an Air Force Base of SWITZERLAND) trying to delet out informations about the Zero-G flight and other stuff. He doesn't worked on any other Air Force Base article of the whole world.. and BTW Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dübendorf Air Base The only Air Base he want have deleted was an Air Base from SWITZERLAND. No oter tiny dusty airfiled somewere...
The only aircraft project he want have deleted was not for e.g. the Bartini A-57, Lockheed L-2000 or Belyayev Babochkano, he wantet the Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/ALR Piranha from SWITZERLAND do be deleted.
The only aircraft (build) aircraft page he nominatet for deletion from was the Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/KZD-85 from SWITZERLAND.
The only page about an Aircraft Type he was deleting out Informations is the Pilatus PC-24 from SWITZERLAND, interestingly what is "not-notable for ihm there

not bother him on any other page like Fairey Delta 1, Avro Ashton, Hawker P.1052.

From all Modern aerobatic teams and Disbanded military teams his only interest is to suppress Informations of all 4 Teams of the Air Force of SWITZERLAND, on no other Modern aerobatic team or Disbanded military team was touched from Banner. Things which he can not stand in any relation to the 4 Teams of the Air Force of SWITZERLAND not bother him on any other page even with a hint he doesent touched the Dutch Solo Display Team or F-16 Demo Team.
The only Air Force page who he tryes to "clean " is the one from SWITZERLAND.. Even if ther is an update or change in some projects (for eg. That the C-17 is no more a candidat as Cargoplane for the Swiss Air Force he does not want to admit.
The only userpage he attacked in this timeframe is my one. Inn my eyes he has also much not notable stuff on his userpage.. but I would never touch it.

So he is usualy not active in Aviatic topics most of the time with total differend topics , like Restraurants, Beautycontests,... But if it is something about swiss aivatic, and if had creadet the page or just add a few words, all hell breaks loose. I have the feeling this is Wikihounding, and Racist action against Swiss aviation topics.FFA P-16 (talk) 20:04, 2 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I had warned you to stop with your false accusations and personal attacks. But I see here that you persist in them. Good. You know what is coming. The Banner talk 20:31, 2 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That are not false accusations, that are facts, I have given all evidences, and ther is no need to say moreFFA P-16 (talk) 20:40, 2 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I see no personal attack as such, just some concerns by a not very experienced (but very determined) editor, a suspicion about what underlies them, and coming here to seek advice on how to deal with it all. FFA P-16 has in the past responded well to reason when I have answered their concerns carefully, and I am sure the same could - and certainly should - be given the chance to apply here. It may be that The Banner is responding to limited editing skills rather than to nationality, and misplaced suspicions can easily come across as false accusations (I recently had to ride something similar myself, I know just how such a thing would make The Banner feel). I'd rather see if you guys can reach amicable agreement on the current editing dispute first, but if you can't wait to work out your personal differences, I'll hang around for that too. It's my bedtime now, I'll try and take a look at the contended material tomorrow. Please don't eat each other until I have had a good night's sleep. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 21:45, 2 December 2015 (UTC) [Updated 21:54, 2 December 2015 (UTC)][reply]

Och, nl:Overleg gebruiker:FFA P-16/blockmsg The Banner talk 17:57, 7 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I am not really interested in past behaviour, only in future content. There is such a thing as learning from one's mistakes - I do it all the time (grin) and I hope you two are not above such things too.

@FFA P-16:: I have not checked any other language wikis besides this one and nl, but if you can demonstrate a good period of self-control and sensible behaviour everywhere (and you have already run a full year since your last block here), that should in due course create a basis for appeal against the nl block. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 21:53, 7 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

An appeal against disruptive editing, vandalism, block evasion and sockpuppetry? No hope. If I remember correctly he was just as incompetent in using the Dutch language as he is in the English language.

But true, miracles exist. Perhaps he learns how to distinguish between minor, non-notable facts and major, notable facts. The Banner talk 23:08, 7 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

For me it is till not logical why The Banner in aviatic topics jump on swiss aviatic articels to delet them to delet informations out. I have given exampels above and shown simelar articels who are not relatet to swiss aivatic.. It can only see that he not all treated equally. And that it is very straing that his only work in aviatic topics is only indeleting out parts of swiss aviatic... never seen that he does this in russian, english, etc. aviatic pages. I don't care what he is doing in other topics , but it looks not right what he is doing here. Fighting against every word about a Swiss Air Force Team but not care on the same circumstances about the Greec Solodisplay? I try to present informations about swiss aviatic topics to everyone who is interested but (if you look at the list i have given here before about the pages of the last 12 months) it really feels as if he wants to chase me. How can it bee in the worldwide english wikipedia that in aviatic topics only my work is wrong? I can not belive this.FFA P-16 (talk) 10:28, 8 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

In the end they blocked me because I used my workingpage to prepare the text so that someone can translate the text to NL language.. this non NL language gave the final blocking. Yes I made there a few mistakes.. Well now the NL Page about the swiss air force is now the worst/outdated Swiss Air Force page of wikipedia.FFA P-16 (talk) 10:39, 8 December 2015 (UTC) I do not want to be disrespectful but if I look what the Banner said about for example about the Zero-G flights at Dübendorf Air Base..."totally irrelevant, non-notable , irrelevant" he often use also "promo" or "Revert adding promo" well but would all this not also fit to this page? List of Michelin starred restaurants in the Netherlands Is it not promo too? Is this realy notable? I think not. But I don't go there and delet things out or nominate this page for deletion even it is in my opinion notsomething important. FFA P-16 (talk) 15:31, 8 December 2015 (UTC) Another approach? Soon I will "publish" the article about the Berijev S-13[1] in the German Wikipedia or the Tupolev Voron [2]. I have not plan to work on an English version, but as the Banner understand German working together on this together could help to understand each other better ? FFA P-16 (talk) 15:41, 8 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Like I say, I look to the future. If anybody thinks that arguing about stuff that happened years ago is still relevant, then my ears are the wrong ones to try and bend. Equally, neither of you needs to defend yourself here. If I need to find out for myself then I look at the various logs. What can be said that is useful has been said, so I think it best it I close this topic for now. If either of you has trouble with the other one again, feel free to start a new topic here. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 21:16, 10 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Thank you for the help and support

Hi Steelippow,

Thank you for the rescue of info on the AME-Canada data.

This wiki entry business is new to me although back about 2000 I had info on AMEs in Wikipedia.. however it has apparetnly been deleted or superceded so many times it is now gone..

I have put many hours of research into what an AME is.. in fact I have ancestors who were in the RFC during WW1 - which prompted me to look much closer into what they did and it led to many startling revelations ..

Everything I have is documented (1000 pages with references and source citations and many stacks of printed documents, which my wife hates since the dining room table is no onger visible!)

I have copies of the King's Regulations for the Air Force and Air Council dating bacl to the 1920's and Hansard extracts from the UK parliament and Canadian parliament going back to the very birth of aviation.

unfortunately I have had no luck or poor luck in getting source references into wikipedia so that they work and an greatlt dis-appointed when Wikipedia says "Anyone can add / edit / update" and when I have it unceromoniously gets rolled back.. without anyone even looking at what was added...

I have been an AME since 1990, apprenticed under AMEs who were in their 60's and 70's and have worked around the world.

Where I currently work there are nearly 300 AMEs who have an average 32 years in the business ( a collective of well over 9600 years of knowledge), none of us is under 45 years old and the oldest is 75 and has been an AME for 45 years.

These ladies and gentlemen have valuable information and some ( the ones who have been AMEs for over 25 years) recall their mentors as having held "RCAF issued AME" licenses for civilians since back then the Minister of Defense for Air was the person who was responsible for ALL things relating to Aircraft certification and maintenance release authorisation..

Currently there are numerous issues with regard to trades people and trades training in Canada - and AMEs not well understood as being both trades people AND public safety inspectors - hence the info to the translation bureau and the National occupation codes - which the Human Resources people in the government look at as "Official Data and definition".. and what is found on their websites is erronious and wrong.. so people need to be mande aware..

Also, the source ref and data on the European recognition of AMEs as Professionals must be read by people - as it shows the marked difference in how AMEs are seen between the EU and Canada ( Where the provincial P.Eng associations refuse to acknowledge us as "Professionals" let alone engineers..) It is a documented fact that the AME nearly became extinct in Canada and that the P.Eng assoc of Quebec took Transport Canada to Ccourt over the use of the term "Engineer" on our licenses.. The judge ruled that there was a "pre-existing precedent for these people being termed engineers" and they lost their suit... however TC bowed down in order to keep them happy and so the AME in Quebec holds a "Technician License" and not an Engineer's license as is issued in English speaking Canada ( Hence the need to put in the references to "Check the Source link buttons on the Translation Bureau" definition of the AME...

Any help that you and your fellow editors can provide would be greatly appreciated before another generations' history fades into the mists of time.

CanadianAME (talk) CanadianAME CanadianAME (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 01:56, 7 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,

Thank you for your kind words.

I have now moved the general historical material to Aircraft maintenance engineer because it is not just about Canada. That page needs capitalising as Aircraft Maintenance Engineer, which needs a bit of Admin help so I will start that process in a few days when I have time.

The gist of your Canadian information is also worth recovering. The key to keeping it is to stick to what can be verified from reliable sources (see WP:RS) and to detail the specific sources for each significant claim made in the text. My suggestion would be that you start slowly, adding one or two facts at a time to the article, together with as much detail as you can for the citation: author (if given), title, publisher, date. Put the citation inside a "ref" container like this, <ref>citation details here</ref>, at the end of the sentence. I can then see if anything needs tidying and perhaps whether it is really appropriate. Not everything may stick, but some of it surely will. It may be that we will need to research other national practices so we can compare Canadian practice with them, as a way of showing which aspects are the same or different. That way, we should be able to build up the two articles sensibly, bit by bit. I will be away for a few days now, so no hurry. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 17:03, 7 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

WP:AVILIST

Almost every aircraft page has the same old table. It's been like that for years and no one ever complained. List of active Russian military aircraft - People's Liberation Army Air Force - French Air Force - List of active United States military aircraft. OK, I agree with the table form reflecting the consensus but how about making a little change, which is putting similar aircraft together, the combat aircraft together, the trainer aircraft together. What do you think about that ? -AHMED XIV (talk) 23:46, 12 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I am not sure what you are suggesting. A sortable table can be grouped by role, simply by clicking the little icon in the Role column header, so as far as I can understand you, AVILIST already supports your suggestion. When I checked out a fair sample of aircraft pages, I found great variety in the list formats. The discussions which led to the current guidelines pretty much re-examined the whole issue from the ground up and came to the view that sortability was a key user feature: the same table can now be grouped by manufacturer, role, date, etc. etc. as the reader chooses, all at the click of an icon. Engineering such a major change, both physically and through the community, was never going to be easy, and it is being rolled out bit by bit, with improvements being made as lessons are learned. If you want to suggest an improvement, the AVILIST talk page at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Aviation/Style guide/Lists is a much better place than my own. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 10:02, 13 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Re:

If you think I was warring with anyone, that's a misunderstanding. I simply asked you if you see other aircraft or not, because I thought you didn't (and this is my own mistake before knowing the plural of aircraft). I'm sorry if I made you unpleasant for this. Howard61313 (talk) 17:56, 18 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Season's Greetings

File:Xmas Ornament.jpg

To You and Yours!

FWiW Bzuk (talk) 15:23, 19 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Copying within Wikipedia requires proper attribution

Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. It appears that you copied or moved text from Magnus effect into Flettner rotor. While you are welcome to re-use Wikipedia's content, here or elsewhere, Wikipedia's licensing does require that you provide attribution to the original contributor(s). When copying within Wikipedia, this is supplied at minimum in an edit summary at the page into which you've copied content. It is good practice, especially if copying is extensive, to also place a properly formatted {{copied}} template on the talk pages of the source and destination. The attribution has been provided for this situation, but if you have copied material between pages before, even if it was a long time ago, please provide attribution for that duplication. You can read more about the procedure and the reasons at Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia. Thank you. --Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 19:15, 23 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Season's Greetings

File:Xmas Ornament.jpg

To You and Yours!

Your help to this Newbie has been greatly appreciated. R44 Researcher1944 (talk) 10:01, 24 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Cheers

Happy Holidays! And all the best to you and yours in the New Year. - ^theWOLFchild 20:54, 24 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Dassault Rafale/Qatar

Hi, I made an edit on the Dassault Rafale page where I removed Qatar from Primary users since it doesn't have any Rafales in service yet although the contract was signed. My edit was reverted without giving any clear reasons for that. It would be great if you look into it. - AHMED XIV (talk) 19:15, 26 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

OK. I am not familiar with the guidelines on this, but I'll see what I can find out. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 19:52, 26 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Here is a link for the guidelines per consensus. - AHMED XIV (talk) 23:35, 26 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you in return. That doesn't tell us a lot, does it. I have now started a discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Aircraft#Infobox and primary users. Please can you reply there from now on. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 11:21, 27 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hey

Interesting read. btw - Happy New Year - ^theWOLFchild 14:04, 4 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Duh! It'll be interesting to see what the next few authors of Yet Another Big ~~picture book~~ Encyclopedia (honest) of Aircraft Carriers make of it. We can't have any locale bias in our coverage now, can we? — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 14:22, 4 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for January 11

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited List of active United States military aircraft, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Kaman. 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) 09:09, 11 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hey

Can you take a look at this picture? It looks like a toy boat to me. Like a model or perhaps an RC. It's a crummy low-rez pic so it hard to tell, but it doesn't appear to have the finer details of a life-size ship, and then there's the water - look at the size of those "waves". Anyway, I'm hoping for a second opinion from you. It's being used in 4 different articles. It's not real, should it exist? (I can't access the permission links and I don't know very much about image/file deletion). Lemme know. Thanks - ^theWOLFchild 00:54, 17 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

If it is not genuine then it is an unusually good model that has been skilfully photoshopped. Models usually betray the odd feature which is overscale, say the radio antenna or the posts supporting the handrails or the lifesaver/raft on the roof. They are also either pristine or artificially weathered. This image shows none of those flaws. Comparing it with this one many of the finer details do seem to be reproduced as faint smudges, so I think the apparent lack of fine detail is just down to the blurriness of the photograph. Then there is the sea. The large ocean swell is not really out of scale - its appearance is consistent with relatively shallow inshore waters, as it is beginning to peak before perhaps breaking on a nearby shore. The fine wrinkly texture created by the smaller waves is also characteristic but is difficult to reproduce accurately on the small scale of a model. Then there are the small sprays of foam at the bow and further back along the hull, together with a faint suggestion of a wake, consistent with dawdling along in a real sea. A model would build up a more obvious wake before anything began to break at the bow, and both would look "cruder". Although one can never rule out skilful touch-up work, all in all I'd say your fears are probably unfounded. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 10:37, 17 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

My "fears"? Yes... it was keeping me up at night. The Horror! LOL! Anyway, the analysis is appreciated and thanks for the reply. Cheers - ^theWOLFchild 10:43, 17 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Your opinion about Pilatus P 3

Hello Steelpillow, 79 Pilatus P-3 where build and used by the Swiss Airforce and the Brazil Navy. Some of this Aircraft are in Museums sme in private hands now. A few days ago I added that the P-3 flyers are a private areobatic team who use five P-3. with the reference to the Teams homepage (who is in english). But some person say this is not notable, other say it need more refs. Well I think to put the information on the P-3 page that a team exists with 5 aircraft is notable. I add on the discussionspage some links to italian language newspaper who had written about the team. Also i put there the references from the german & italinan wikipedia about the P-3 Flyers Team ( in it & de wikipedia this team has its own page [3] . and on the P-3 page its link to this wikipedia P-3 flyers page).. But now I have given all this refs and nothing is going on. ( I am afraid if I add something, some will delet it out again). Can you have a look at it? Thank you. FFA P-16 (talk) 21:54, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]