User talk:Steelpillow/Archive 2011-12

Projective planes
Hi,

many thanks for the note about your reversion; I appreciate it. Usually, I would defer to your presumably superior expertise, because although I know quite a bit about mathematics I don't know all that much about projective planes. However, the examples you cite don't seem to support your point of view; in fact as far as I can see they seem to support mine. The articles on sphere and Klein bottle both contain "projective plane" just once, in the expression "the real projective plane". The real projective plane is one particular well-defined projective plane. There are different constructions for it (as the set of lines through the origin in R3, or as a square with certain edge identifications), but they all lead to isomorphic spaces, and it is a common mathematical convention to consider these as essentially identical; thus it makes sense to refer to the abstract structure to which all these constructions lead as "the real projective plane". This is quite different from projective planes in general, of which there are an infinite number of non-isomorphic ones; in fact the classification of the various kinds of projective planes is an open area of study, as the projective plane article itself states (e.g. Projective plane). In that context, I'm not quite sure what to make of your distinction between "the mathematical class of object" and "a specific example". As far as I understand that distinction, it seems to me just the other way around: "a vector space" refers to a mathematical class of object, and "the vector space" refers to a specific example (presumably introduced earlier in the text).

My theory would be that the use of "the" in the article came about not because mathematicians dealing with projective planes in general have an unusual habit of using definite articles differently than in other fields, but because some of the people editing the article weren't familiar with the general theory of abstract projective planes and were only or mostly thinking about the real projective plane, which they think of as "the projective plane". That's fine as long as one is writing only about that, but it leads to either confusing or nonsensical sentences in an article which also talks a lot about projective planes in general (e.g. "The projective plane has two common definitions. The first comes from linear algebra; it produces planes...", which immediately raises the question how a definition of "the projective plane" can "produce planes" in the plural). Therefore it seems far preferable to me to consistently use the articles as I did in my edit. If you disagree, please point to some examples (preferably outside Wikipedia) that support your theory of the non-standard usage of "the" in this context.

Joriki (talk) 21:09, 24 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Thank you for your kind words, though I am far from a superior authority. I just tell it as I understand it. First, what is logical and sensible is not necessarily what is to be found in the standard references. Being an encycolpedia, must follow established ways even if they are illogical. The point about my examples was that we also talk of "the sphere" and "the Klein bottle" in a parallel manner to "the projective plane". I do not conflate the general with the real as you seem to suggest I do. Yes there are real, discrete, complex and other kinds of sphere, but they all share certain characteristics such as having two lines meet in two points. The real, complex, etc. varieties may be referred to as "the real sphere" and so on. Similarly "the projective plane" encompasses the real, the complex, the discrete and so forth. Only when we get to specific examples do we tend to use the indefinite article "a". And of course as you point out, in referencing a previously-mentioned example the rules of grammar may make us revert to "the". The habit originates in topology, and since this is the "master" discipline for naming such manifolds, I feel we are obliged to follow. Some references I have to hand include:
 * Weeks, J; The shape of space, CRC (2002).
 * Richeson, D; Euler's gem: the polyhedron formula and the birth of topology, Princeton (2008).
 * The usage is not wholly strict, for example Richeson may title an illustration "A projective plane" while referring in the text to the illustration of "the projective plane". Nevertheless, I would favour such specialists over the folklore-riddled Mathworld site's article on the projective plane.
 * FYI there are many kinds of real projective plane, both in the sense that there are many different projections, even immersions, in real 3-space (See for example Ap&eacute;ry's "Models of the real projective plane"), and in the sense that different metrics (leading to differing Gaussian curvatures among other things) may be applied. Like "the projective plane", "the real projective plane" is a pretty broad kind of thing.
 * &mdash; Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 21:25, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Unpowered flight
I did not catch any discussion about the move from 'Unpowered aircraft' to 'Unpowered flight'. I think that there should be a clear distinction between this class of mechanical devices and the way in which they fly. Apart from wind-borne seeds and insects, whose trajectory could only loosely could be called flight, I don't think your addition to 'Unpowered aircraft' has added much that was not already in 'Gliding flight'. I would prefer a complete reversal, but your other supporters for your move may disagree. Who were they incidentally? JMcC (talk) 15:55, 17 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Hi, see Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Aircraft and (for background) the parent topic.
 * I agree about the distinction. However, there seemed little in the original Unpowered aircraft article that was not either already said atAircraft or expanded on in the linked articles on the glider, balloon and kite. If you feel that an article on unpowered aircraft does have a significantly deep bridging theme, then feel free to restore that article - I just couldn't think of anything constructive to leave/add there, so I just moved it across as my starting point.
 * I guess we are applying the same principle but in different contexts - I wonder what unpowered aircraft has to say that is not said adequately elsewhere, while you wonder the same about unpowered flight. I have aimed the latter at the wider context of unpowered flight generally (including drifting on the wind) as is the equivalent focus for the article on air propulsion. &mdash; Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 16:22, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

Aircraft / flight
Thanks for the message (I'd stopped watching that page becoz of so much stuff about GAs etc). I see you've made the move, but you haven't completed it - e.g. the lede and the infobox still refer to "aircraft", but "flight" (see my comment at WT:WikiProject_Aircraft) covers more than aircraft. DexDor (talk) 16:00, 17 July 2011 (UTC)


 * No probs. Yes, tidying up the loose ends may take a while. Fell free to help out (grin). &mdash; Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 16:32, 17 July 2011 (UTC)


 * I think you're going about things the wrong way - if you think that "Powered aircraft" should be moved to "Powered flight" then you should raise it on that articles talk page (although for such a recently created article with few incoming links that's not such a big deal), ensure that the renamed article is ready to go (with all necessary changes to lede, infobox, text, categories etc) and change the old article to a redirect (not have everything duplicated). Also your note at WT:WikiProject_Aircraft doesn't make clear whether it's both moves or just the "Unpowered" move that you're reversing.  DexDor (talk) 17:41, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Funnily enough I haven't touched the powered aircraft article yet, there's nothing there to revert. There can be no ambiguity about that. Copying it across was just a starting point but I want to be reasonably sure that powered flight has a future before I invest time & energy in re-purposing its new content. &mdash; Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 19:37, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I can see the benefit in a Powered flight article that covers both aircraft and birds etc (and discusses similarities / differences - although this may already be covered somewhere in WP) - especially as there's at least one bird article that's linked to PF. I think Powered aircraft is also a useful article as it can refer to obscure types of powered aircraft (e.g. Nuclear powered aircraft) while keeping Aircraft down to a comparable size to Aircraft (to reduce size/complexity of Aircraft). However we currently have lots of links to Powered flight - an article that's a bit muddled (the lede sentence, infobox and content don't match the title) and duplicates a lot of PA.  If your intention is to change PF to something along the lines I've outlined above (including a link to PA) can you do so asap - let us know if you want help with it. DexDor (talk) 21:07, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
 * If you could, that would be great - I'll owe you one! I got sidetracked onto other issues today, and it is now bedtime over here - with a working week to get through before I can spend any time on it again. &mdash; Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 21:34, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Done, but I'm sure it can be improved on. There is something you could do for me - could you take a look at User:DexDor (it relates to Template talk:Seriesbox aircraft categories) - although I'm not sure an infobox can take a table like this. PS I'm a Brit (and working) too. DexDor (talk) 06:13, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

Dirigible balloon
You've undone my edit (trying to trim/simplify Aircraft) saying there's a difference between Dirigible balloon and Airship. What is the difference ? If it's just that DB was the term used at the time then there's nothing wrong with WP using the modern term. DexDor (talk) 16:13, 17 July 2011 (UTC)


 * The article currently explains that "Sometimes [dirigible] is applied only to non-rigid balloons, and sometimes dirigible balloon is regarded as the definition of an airship (which may then be rigid or non-rigid)". For clarity, it is best if we retain the distinction consistently. &mdash; Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 16:28, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

Glider
The table in Unpowered flight gives examples alongside each type of flight eg albatross for a bird that soars. This seems to be highly specific type, just like 'military glider'. A Military glider was used as an example because they did (& could not) not soar. A Primary glider is another type that only descends, which you might prefer. I think giving either as an example is entirely legitimate. I think your reversal was based on a misunderstanding. JMcC (talk) 08:26, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Hi. This article is about a certain flight characteristic and its sub-classes. The term "Military" describes a class of usage, not a class sharing common flight characteristics. Primary gliders as a class are less well known than the examples already provided (and also merge into ultralights), so there would seem to be a case for keeping those examples. However, if you feel they have their own problems, I would be interested to know what those problems are. Maybe between us we can do better. &mdash; Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 18:30, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

An important flight characteristic of a military glider versus a sporting glider is that it only goes down. It is not just use. There is also a big difference between a primary glider and an ultralight in terms of soaring ability. The term "glider" is generic, which is why the glider article became the cumbersome glider (sailplane). It doesn't really give an example of an aircraft that only descends like a flying squirrel. JMcC (talk) 19:01, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Not all military gliders are of the "controlled plummet" heavy transport variety. Check out the Yokosuka MXY8. &mdash; Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 19:42, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, if you include powered aircraft. The term 'glider' encompasses powered and unpowered aircraft, just like 'military glider'. Happy to use primary glider as the closest example to a non-soaring glider. They were not designed for soaring, though in a strong wind, it probably could use ridge lift, as, I guess, could a flying squirrel if it wanted to. JMcC (talk) 10:51, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

TB
 S ven M anguard  Wha?  15:10, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

Polygon
Please can you avoid the use of the word 'you' in your edits to the main article space. It is usually considered unencyclopedic. See WP:YOU. Thanks, Ian Cairns (talk) 14:12, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

Stellated octahedron
Hi Guy. Perhaps you have something to help on some discussion at Talk:Stellated octahedron. Tom Ruen (talk) 05:38, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

January 2012
Hi, and thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. It appears that you recently tried to give Density (polytope) a different title by copying its content and pasting either the same content, or an edited version of it, into another page with a different name. This is known as a "cut and paste move", and it is undesirable because it splits the page history, which is needed for attribution and various other purposes. Instead, the software used by Wikipedia has a feature that allows pages to be moved to a new title together with their edit history.

In most cases, once your account is four days old and has ten edits, you should be able to move an article yourself using the "Move" tab at the top of the page. This both preserves the page history intact and automatically creates a redirect from the old title to the new. If you cannot perform a particular page move yourself this way (e.g. because a page already exists at the target title), please follow the instructions at requested moves to have it moved by someone else. Also, if there are any other pages that you moved by copying and pasting, even if it was a long time ago, please list them at Cut and paste move repair holding pen. Thank you. Ankit Maity  Talk •  contribs 16:49, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Talkback
Ankit Maity  Talk •  contribs 17:13, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Talkback
Ankit Maity  Talk •  contribs 15:53, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

Quasiregular polyhedra
Please see my reply at Talk:Tetrahemihexahedron. Double sharp (talk) 06:01, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

Flag-transitive polyhedral compounds
Could you explain to me clearly why the stella octangula is flag-transitive and, for example, the compound of ten tetrahedra is not? I don't exactly follow you at Talk:Stellated octahedron. Double sharp (talk) 11:29, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your reply. It's a lot clearer now. Double sharp (talk) 08:43, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

Euler characteristic for higher-dimensional polytopes
You mentioned that "the situation is quite different from polyhedra". Could you please provide some examples? This is interesting (and is also yet another gap in my knowledge). Double sharp (talk) 11:36, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your reply. Double sharp (talk) 08:43, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

Edit removed-
Dear Mr. Inchbald,

I added last week a company name on the list of companies from 'electromagnetic compatibility' topic. This company has been producing equipment for 25 years now, and is a world wide reference producer in this domain. As all the other companies from the list.

What reasons did you have to exclude it from the list? Are you aware about info that contradicts my opinion? Do you think that information is not relevant to this topic?

Thank you in advance for the answer! Best regards, Adrianm2012 (talk) 15:21, 14 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Hi, LINKSTOAVOID item 14 forbids listing links to commercial web sites (Such a link is acceptable in the article about that company). The links listed on the EMC page are (or should be) restricted to either internal links to just such articles or, in another section, to specific freely available information made available by a company. To help communicate this message to editors such as yourself, HTML comments to this effect are incuded liberally in the page code. Hope this helps. &mdash; Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 20:55, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

3 horizontal surfaces
'Now restore the 3-surface entries in wing configuration. You can't agree or disagree with material you have never seen before. And that is not sufficient criteria for removal or inclusion in any case, and stop making threats. --Stodieck (talk) 21:00, 19 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Happy to discuss politely as I asked on your talk page, but I'm afraid I find your tone here bullying and uncivil. In the first instance you might like to respond politely to my original comments at Talk:Wing configuration. &mdash; Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 13:11, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

Talkback - Stellated icosahedra
Double sharp (talk) 07:37, 3 June 2012 (UTC)


 * I've fixed the e1/e2 problem, but I have already made a new set of images in the new style, with the mirroring problem for the chiral cases! (Even worse, some appear to have f1 while some have f1.) Is it still OK? After all, they are just mirror images. Double sharp (talk) 13:19, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

WP: Harassment
Posting of personal information WP:OUTING Posting another editor's personal information is harassment, unless that person voluntarily had posted his or her own information, or links to such information, on Wikipedia. Personal information includes legal name,. . . information is accurate or not. Posting such information about another editor is an unjustifiable and uninvited invasion of privacy and may place that editor at risk of harm outside of their activities on Wikipedia. This applies to the personal information of both editors and non-editors. It also applies in the case of an editor who has requested a change in username, but whose old identifying marks can still be found. Any edit that "outs" someone must be reverted promptly, followed by a request for Oversight to delete that edit from Wikipedia permanently. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Stodieck (talk • contribs) 22:59, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

WP: Harassment
There is a complaint against you in http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents. It requires your immediate attention as specified in WP:OUTING --Stodieck (talk) 03:53, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you. Mdann52 (talk) 12:53, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

October 2012
You have been blocked from editing for a period of 24 hours for edit warring, as you did at Aircraft. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding below this notice the text

The comments I made were related to the article more than to you personally, and they were aimed at improving the article overall. But that would require significant changes to the article. In the meantime, there is a content dispute about the lead itself, and that has to be resolved without warring in the article but with discussion on the talk page and dispute resolution if a consensus can't be reached. I figured the Cheers was part of your sig, but ScienceApe's objections to your comments and tone went beyond that and were supported. Even you admitted to being "tetchy" and some of your comments are smug. Perhaps you don't intend it, but they came across that way, not just to ScienceApe, who may be biased, but to me as well.

Most important, I'd like you to explain what you mean by "I will stop". What exactly will you do and what exactly won't you do if you're unblocked?--Bbb23 (talk) 21:48, 13 October 2012 (UTC)
 * I will not edit the article but stick to making proposals (politely) on the discussion page as you suggest.
 * However having slept on it, I realise I need a longer WP:WIKIBREAK to reset my head. So I won't even be doing that for a while. Still, the sooner I can tell folks as much on the talk page and elsewhere, the sooner I can take my break.
 * &mdash; Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 09:56, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

Season's tidings!
To you and yours, Have a Merry ______ (fill in the blank) and Happy New Year! FWiW Bzuk (talk) 00:39, 22 December 2012 (UTC)