User talk:Burninthruthesky/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Just dropping by

— Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) has given you a cup of coffee, for taking the time to weather a dispute. Thanks for staying calm and civil! Coffee promotes WikiLove and hopefully this has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by giving someone else a coffee, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or someone putting up with some stick at this time. Enjoy!

Still on my open-ended wikibreak for the foreseeable future, but I drop by from time to time just in case.

Spread the lovely, warm, bitter goodness of coffee by adding {{subst:WikiCoffee}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

Thanks. I don't think I could have done it without your help.

I'm on a real-world holiday at the moment. Nice to have an opportunity to relax at last. Hope you are enjoying your Wikibreak. You certainly earned it. Burninthruthesky (talk) 10:32, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

My RfA

Pavlov's RfA reward Thank for !voting at my recent RfA. You voted Oppose so you get only one cookie, but a nice one. (Better luck next time.) All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 20:00, 16 July 2015 (UTC).

Although you didn't get the mop this time, at least your RfA generated lots of valuable feedback for you. By the time you've evidently taken that on board, I can see no reason why another attempt shouldn't be successful. Ideally, luck shouldn't come into it. Thank you for your continued commitment to the project. Burninthruthesky (talk) 07:16, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

That line in WP:ANI Advice

It stemmed from this: Wikipedia:Harassment#Wikihounding: "Correct use of an editor's history includes (but is not limited to) fixing unambiguous errors or violations of Wikipedia policy, or correcting related problems on multiple articles."--v/r - TP 23:17, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, I hadn't read it that way. Looks like my edit needs more work.

Somehow I think it should be made clear that harassment and other forms of misconduct are unacceptable whether they are connected to your edits or not. I've lost count of how many times I've seen it said at WP:ANI that "this is a content dispute", in response to complaints that are entirely related to conduct policies. Perhaps that topic is worthy of a separate essay. Burninthruthesky (talk) 08:12, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

I've re-written my edit. I've also created Wikipedia:This is not a content dispute. I welcome any further comments or improvements. Burninthruthesky (talk) 13:37, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

Thanks. I can see how it could have been read different. All that line meant, to me, was to make clear that following someone's edits because they have a history of violating content policies is not Wiki-stalking.--v/r - TP 01:40, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

WP:NOTCONTENT

Hi, I saw this article. Nice one. But I thought it could do with a little shaping and expansion so I have drafted an alternative version at User:Steelpillow/Test. What do you think? — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 13:54, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

Good work! I would be happy to see your changes added to the essay. I'm pleased to see it maturing nicely already.

Judging by the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Harassment there is considerable dissatisfaction at the difficulty of getting policy enforced, and I hope this essay may just help a little. Burninthruthesky (talk) 14:27, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

GPS article

We have not had anybody who has been able to state anything I have done wrong by writing the section, "Geometric Interpretation section is a disaster" on the talk page of the GPS article. This can now be seen on the administrators page. This is what triggered the complaint. These people are trying to censor criticism of their edits and proposals for improving the GPS article. The GPS article is very much in need of improvement. I am probably better qualified than all the rest of these editors put together. I am a licensed Professional Engineer. I hold advanced engineering degrees from both the University of Arkansas and UCLA. Some of these other editors have greatly screwed up the GPS article. RHB100 (talk) 21:14, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

Just to mention one example, there have been several mentions of Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines. The suggestion to "Keep headings neutral" stands out as particularly relevant. If you believe you have made "objective" statements throughout the discussion, your views seem somewhat out of line with the community. Burninthruthesky (talk) 06:48, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

Observation

I don't think forced apologies have much meaning. Just note the non-apologies in case the behavior re-occurs. Hoping it won't. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 20:53, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

@NeilN:Thanks for the advice, although I didn't try to force anyone to falsely claim they had "already apologized". I see an apology of sorts has now been made, although I still feel under threat of being unjustly blocked should I be bold enough to follow the policy at WP:EVADE.

I think on the whole, Wikipedia policies are very well designed, but too often it feels like standing up for them is fighting a losing battle. Burninthruthesky (talk) 09:14, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

Vested contributors arbitration case opened

You may opt-out of future notifications related to this case at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Vested contributors/Notification list. You recently offered a statement in a request for arbitration. The Arbitration Committee has accepted that request for arbitration and an arbitration case has been opened at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Vested contributors. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Vested contributors/Evidence. Please add your evidence by November 5, 2015, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Vested contributors/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, L235 (t / c / ping in reply) 01:19, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

Vested contributors retitled Arbitration enforcement 2

You may opt-out of future notifications related to this case at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Arbitration enforcement 2/Notification list. You recently offered a statement in a request for arbitration. The Arbitration Committee has accepted that request for arbitration and an arbitration case has been opened at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Arbitration enforcement 2. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Arbitration enforcement 2/Evidence. Please add your evidence by November 5, 2015, which is when the evidence phase closes. For this case, there will be no Workshop phase. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 13:54, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

Fausto Veranzio

Content discussion

Goodmorning, i saw you turned my changes in the previous version, saying Veranzio was croatian. Actually he was born in what nowdays we call Croatia, but in that time Croatia didn't exist. He belonged to the Veranzio family, one of the noble venetian familyin Dalmatia. He also moved to Venice when he was still a child and he studied in Padua. He wrote his books in Latin (like the mist of the books in that time) and italian. So i think is not correct to say he was croatian, and the information dosen't find a match in his own wikipedia page. I suggest to correct the "parachute" page turning again "venetian" or, better, "Dalmatian" . If you disagree we can discuss on this page. Alb89vit Alb89vit (talk) 09:12, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

Hi Alb89vit, welcome to Wikipedia. I have copied your message to Talk:Parachute#Fausto Veranzio and replied there. Burninthruthesky (talk) 10:31, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

Message

Don't bother with MurderbyDeadcopy, you will only encourage his misguided and hostile behavior. I already tried helping him once, but, like you and other editors, I was marked as a bully. Just note his behavior will eventually lead to blocks, and maybe change his attitude. Best of luck.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 21:52, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

Only warning

This is your only warning. If you file another bogus and retributory SPI like Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Andy Dingley, you risk being blocked.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:00, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

@Bbb23: My complaint was made in good faith, after I observed a behavioural pattern over the course of several months, as I presented in 14 bullet points, with diffs. Why did you delete the report rather than close it as unproven, as you did for Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Hengistmate? You blocked the filer of the Hengistmate report for disruption but said my report, based partly on this false claim, was "bogus and retributory". Did you notice that the false report against me was filed after I filed my report? Please explain your comments and your actions. Burninthruthesky (talk) 18:11, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

Your report was (Personal attack removed) good faith, no matter when it was filed. You're (Personal attack removed) I didn't block you as I blocked the IP. My (Personal attack removed) stands. I suggest you back off in this and (Personal attack removed), or (Personal attack removed) may happen.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:53, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

I think I made my motives clear. As required, I provided evidence to show my suspicion was reasonable, although I'm pleased to see one anonymous user has now obtained an account. When I see apparently independent users making similar false statements, I will naturally suspect they may be the same person. I will also be suspicious about IP edits that are obviously acting in the interests of another editor but are obviously technically untraceable. Contributors have clearly been annoyed and driven away, and I had expected a more thorough "investigation". I hope your Wikibreak is refreshing. Burninthruthesky (talk) 10:49, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

wanted one simple nothing

Truth is above us all. A clear conscience laughs at false accusations. In many things, u will describe yourself the most while trying to describe somebody you can't stand and that can't be avoided. A real truth will still stay. Walk way your domination carefully because it is borrowed to you, I'm not responsible for this anymore and don't need more. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Marty10000 (talk • contribs) 14:33, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

Happy New Year, Burninthruthesky!

Happy New Year!

Burninthruthesky,
Have a prosperous, productive and enjoyable New Year, and thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:14, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

Send New Year cheer by adding {{subst:Happy New Year fireworks}} to user talk pages.

Vandalism on acoustic resonance?

Hi just a query to the so called vandalism on the wiki page titled Acoustic resonance. As a physics student myself I support the change that was made prior to you removing it. I mean no disrespect however the image for an open cylindrical tube clearly shows 2 nodes at either end which is incorrect they should instead be anti-nodes. The second diagram for the closed cylindrical tube should show an anti-node emerging from the speaker and a node at the the other end. I do hope you will take the time to investigate the matter as it would be a shame for A-level students to learn the incorrect diagram. However if I am indeed wrong which is a possibility I would like a basic explanation on how the diagrams given are correct.

--G.A.H 17:13, 11 February 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Grace.A.Hitchcock (talk • contribs)

Hello Grace,

Welcome to Wikipedia. Note the caption on the graphic says, "the horizontal axis is pressure". If it were displacement, you would be correct to say that both ends of the open pipe should be anti-nodes. Even if that were the case, it would not help to simply swap the two images, as was done in the edit I reverted. I hope this clarifies. Burninthruthesky (talk) 17:48, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

Wingtip device

Hi,
Your revert was very instructive to me. At first I thought that the noun "aircraft" is countable, therefore the phrase "for following aircraft" was incorrect, so it should have been "for a following aircraft". But suddenly I realized that "aircraft" could be also in plural, and it is in our case. "Aircrafts" in plural would have more sense, but English, like other natural languages, is far from being logical. How about "for airborne aircraft"?
Google: "for airborne aircraft" 51k, "for following aircraft" 6.3k

PS. Your profession is very impressive to me. I am a Polish computer programmer, living in Poland.
Regards :-) 85.193.217.151 (talk) 13:43, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

Thank you. Yes it is an English oddity. I don't see a problem with the grammar in your suggestion, but it slightly changes the meaning. If two aircraft are following each other, they are both "airborne", but only one is "following". That is why I made the revert. Burninthruthesky (talk) 07:52, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

Do you mean that one aircraft is following another one? I thought that the word "following" meant here just "airborne" in some weird aviation jargon ;-) Now everything is clear to me. My edition had no sense at all. But I admire your patience and politeness in our discussion :-)

PS. Aviation is something absolutely fascinating to me, especially that I couldn't be a pilot because my sense of direction is poor to the point of being ridiculous. No joke. I have problems even on earth. :-) Luckily it doesn't affect my skills as a programmer. 85.193.217.151 (talk) 11:50, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

Banked turn

I think the source is wrong. If Ncos(theta) = mg, then N = mg/cos(theta), which means that the normal force would be greater than or equal to mg for all values of theta. This doesn't make sense, since the normal force is the component of the vehicle's weight perpendicular to the road surface, and therefore must be at most equal to mg. The proper equation is N = mgcos(theta). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zrach1 (talk • contribs) 14:26, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

Hi Zrach1,

Welcome to Wikipedia. Yes, the equation in the article does mean that the normal force would be greater than or equal to mg for all values of theta. This is correct, because the normal force must counter not only the weight of the vehicle, but must also provide enough centripetal force to keep the vehicle moving in a circular path without friction. This has been extensively discussed in the past at Talk:Banked turn#Frictionless banked turn. You might find that discussion helpful. If you have any further comments about the article, please add them to the bottom of the article talk page, so it can be seen by other interested editors. Burninthruthesky (talk) 14:52, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

Hi,

My mistake. I was thinking of the normal force as only countering the force due to gravity (as in the case of a stationary object on an inclined plane) rather than also having to deal with the force due to centripetal acceleration. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zrach1 (talk • contribs) 16:47, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

256

Hey 256 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2605:A000:160D:200B:D802:247C:85ED:F0 (talk) 18:28, 8 October 2016 (UTC)

Human factors in Aviation safety listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Human factors in Aviation safety. Since you had some involvement with the Human factors in Aviation safety redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. Dawnseeker2000 14:27, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

Edit filter

Regarding this morning's SPI, I had asked MusikAnimal to look into modifying the edit filter on his talk page a couple days ago, and I agree with him when he said that having it block all new users and IPs would likely be too high collateral damage, but he is looking into it. I don't want to say too much about it on-wiki. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 16:08, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

Hi, thanks for the update. I can understand you not wanting to say too much. I'm glad it's being looked into. Burninthruthesky (talk) 16:36, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

November 2016

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. --Elektrik Fanne 14:18, 11 November 2016 (UTC)

Elektrik Fanne was subsequently confirmed as a sockpuppet. Burninthruthesky (talk) 09:08, 3 June 2017 (UTC)

SPIs and IPs

I stuck up for you on ANI, but you really should be more conservative with opening SPIs on IP-editors.

CU won't do anything[1] so the only effect it would have would be they get blocked based on behavioral evidence that you yourself present, and even then it would have to be in violation of the non-rule regarding logged-out edits, i.e., you would need to present evidence that they are actively trying to deceive others, or get around some kind of block or editing restriction or 3RR, or vote-stack, or something. Simply saying "I think this IP is this named editor logged-out" is not in itself going to do anyone any good, because you aren't giving any reason why them editing while logged-out is a bad thing. In the recent Elektrik Fanne SPIs, all you seemed to be saying was "These look like they are the same person", and most SPI-closers I've dealt with would probably say "Yeah -- so what?"

Even if you do have a legitimate grievance with another user editing logged-out, SPI isn't really the place to take it, because the violation would still be vote-stacking, or trying to get around 3RR, or something, rather than specifically sockpuppetry. AN or ANI would be the better place.

Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 14:30, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

@Hijiri88: Thank you for your comments. I appreciate you taking an impartial view.

During those cases, I was acutely aware that the Checkuser tool is useless against anyone who chooses to fire up a mobile device and gain Internet access which is technically untraceable to their main account. Somehow, I feel I haven't succeeded in making that clear to everyone. Personally, I'd be happy to see a soft block with account creation disabled on all mobile networks, as they seem to create an easy loophole for socks to exploit. I suppose collateral damage is the reason we don't.

Thanks for the tip that it isn't sufficient to show socks are the same person. In future I will take more care to be explicit about what deceptive purpose the edits appear to have if it isn't obvious. Meanwhile, one of our articles cites a source that nobody can verify exists, except for two mobile network users who say they have found different editions, but can't name the publisher. I guess that will eventually get clarified one way or the other.

I also take on board your comment about citing comments by others as evidence. As you know, that's what I did in a previous thread. I was wary of pinging the editor concerned as I didn't want to be accused of canvassing. In my experience, ANI is exceedingly unpleasant, and rarely achieves a useful result. At least I haven't come back to find myself site-banned or anything. I'm grateful for that. Burninthruthesky (talk) 10:13, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

May 2017

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. 185.69.145.73 (talk) 16:11, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

Discussion here. What next? A fake block notice? Burninthruthesky (talk) 09:08, 3 June 2017 (UTC)

Season's greetings

Happy Yuletide!

Merry Yuletide to you! (And a happy new year!)

— Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 16:50, 24 December 2016 (UTC)

FYI

I blocked Burninthrutheskysworstnightmare (talk · contribs). Thanks, GAB^gab 00:35, 11 August 2017 (UTC)

Hmm, that's a new development. Thanks for your swift action, and for letting me know. Burninthruthesky (talk) 06:53, 11 August 2017 (UTC)