Misplaced Pages

User talk:Cronkurleigh: Difference between revisions

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
Browse history interactively← Previous editNext edit →Content deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 12:14, 11 April 2014 editSteelpillow (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers38,162 edits Vandalising another user's page: and GraemeLeggett too← Previous edit Revision as of 14:16, 11 April 2014 edit undoCronkurleigh (talk | contribs)310 edits Vandalising another user's pageNext edit →
Line 241: Line 241:
{{warning|'''WARNING: Vanadlising another user's page may get your own account blocked.'''}} {{warning|'''WARNING: Vanadlising another user's page may get your own account blocked.'''}}
What you did to ] and ] was utterly beyond the pale - see for example the policy page ''']''' and the Vandalism policy section on ''']'''. If you persist in such outrageous behaviour, you are likely to be reported at ] and find that your user account gets blocked. Subsequent anonymous "IP" editing can also be blocked if need be. — Cheers, ] (]) 11:36, 11 April 2014 (UTC) What you did to ] and ] was utterly beyond the pale - see for example the policy page ''']''' and the Vandalism policy section on ''']'''. If you persist in such outrageous behaviour, you are likely to be reported at ] and find that your user account gets blocked. Subsequent anonymous "IP" editing can also be blocked if need be. — Cheers, ] (]) 11:36, 11 April 2014 (UTC)


Yes, "Steelpillow". I did it to get your attention. Report it. I want a discussion with the powers that be. You, "Squadron Leader" Graeme, and "TheLongTalk" are a clique that is oblivious to the harm you do to other people's contributions. You have vandalized everything I've contributed, and a discussion at high levels should be had.

Since bothering to contribute I've been insulted and belittled by you and your comrades. You run roughshod over everything. So: How does it feel to have your contribution changed to suit another editor's whim? Pretty shitty, I bet. Learn from it, and learn to _collaborate_ instead of _control_ - or just get the hell out of the way.
] (]) 14:16, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

Revision as of 14:16, 11 April 2014

Welcome

Hello Cronkurleigh, and Welcome to Misplaced Pages!

Welcome to Misplaced Pages! I hope you enjoy the encyclopedia and want to stay. As a first step, you may wish to read the Introduction.

If you have any questions, feel free to ask me at my talk page – I'm happy to help. Or, you can ask your question at the New contributors' help page.


Here are some more resources to help you as you explore and contribute to the world's largest encyclopedia...

Finding your way around:

Need help?

How you can help:

Additional tips...

  • Please sign your messages on talk pages with four tildes (~~~~). This will automatically insert your "signature" (your username and a date stamp). The or button, on the tool bar above Misplaced Pages's text editing window, also does this.
  • If you would like to play around with your new Wiki skills the Sandbox is for you.

Cronkurleigh, good luck, and have fun.Aboutmovies (talk) 19:57, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

Hybrid airship article

Hi, welcome to Misplaced Pages, and thank you for your contribution.

You made some edits to the article on the Hybrid airship which were strongly biased against the type. Misplaced Pages takes a neutral point of view on controversial issues and seeks to present both sides of the argument without being judgemental. In the present case, industry opinions differ as to whether the compromises inherent in a hybrid design can find a suitable niche. I have therefore edited down your contribution to reflect this. If you would like to discuss this issue or any other concerning the article, please feel free to post on its Talk page (Talk:Hybrid airship). I hope you can appreciate the way Misplaced Pages works and stick with us to become a productive and knowledgeable editor. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 20:49, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

I find it interesting that the page was decidedly pro-hybrid without any basis in engineering fact; that my simple addition of some factual details gets derided, and that the editor Steelpillow proceeds a lecture about presenting both sides of the argument regarding controversial issues, etc., when there is no controversy. If Steelpillow has facts that contradict the scientifically supported data presented, then he should do so; to label the results of wind tunnel studies and sound, basic aeronautical engineering as "criticism" is creating controversy, not increasing understanding - the latter being the goal of any Encyclopedia (which editor Steelpillow clearly has negative thoughts, given his practice page deriding Misplaced Pages https://en.wikipedia.org/User:Steelpillow/test1

Cronkurleigh (talk) 22:09, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

FYI the accepted edit cycle is Be bold - Revert - Discuss' (BRD): You were bold, I reverted in part, it was your turn to discuss and I even invited you here to do so. Instead you started an edit war. Now that you have been warned about edit warring, I will restart the R of BRD and I trust you will now obey etiquette and Discuss not War. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 17:51, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

No, Steelpillow, you started the edit war - by deleting my contribution and belittling it as mere "criticism". I added a simple section, and you repeatedly re-named it to imply that it was simply and opinion. By that standard, Newton merely had an opinion on gravity and how it works - never mind that his laws of motion allow us to do everything in engineering, including the navigation of spacecraft.

Instead of worrying so much about my contribution, why not get to work and clean up some of the grammatical errors elsewhere in the article? Why didn't you get busy and bring the Current section up to date? The References too, for that matter. No, you focus is against anything you don't agree with, delete, spin, or otherwise cut off at the knees. I'm very sorry that you don't get what an engineering fact is, or that it should be made available to the reader. Why not get your facts straight, such as the Santos-Dumont No.14 was not a "hybrid airship" - though it apparently is the first use of the term with respect to aircraft.

Again, from the get-go, you treated my like an antibody goes after an infection. Not very professional on your part, or civil. Your "be bold, revert, discuss" is out of order in terms of scholarly pursuit; it should read "be bold, discuss, revert as required" based on facts. And, point of order, I did provide the references, and all you had to do was check them to see if they were factual - and then politely ask, "What would you think of calling your contributed section by another name, such as Criticism?", whereupon I would have the opportunity to give my opinion on the matter, and offer my reasons, or accept your idea. No, you just changed it, without asking a single question.

So, how about this for a better guideline than the one you presented: Get the facts strait, don't parrot the popular press, and don't delete what is offered in good faith without showing respect - i.e. ask questions first, and shoot later.

On the latter, you do shoot first and ask questions later, which is very unwelcoming indeed.

Cronkurleigh (talk) 16:07, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

Hello! There is a DR/N request you may have interest in.

This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Misplaced Pages:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult for editors. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help find a resolution. The thread is "Hybrid airship". Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you! EarwigBot  21:05, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

Assume good faith, and br polite.

I see you just replaced content into Hybrid Airships with a snippy edit summary about vandalism. The edit summary of the edit that removed the content was clear about the intent, which was basically to cut unecessary detail and did not alter the main thrust of the argument. Your comments about propaganda and so on are unwarranted and offensive: I don't see anybody putting forward any markedly enthusiastic claims for hybrids. For what its worth, I do a great deal of editing on LTA aviation (early stuff, so I know little about hybrids), & am of the opinion that LTA aviation is marginal at the best of times.TheLongTone (talk) 14:53, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

I would do so if I hadn't been treated with hostility from others from the start. I posted a simple engineering fact with references that is relevant to the subject matter. It would be nice if those who have repeatedly deleted my contributions in their entirety at first, re-named my entries (blatantly using negative terms to belittle my contribution), and have now gone to slowly whittling away at my contributions are perhaps more in need of your council than I am. Also, they could, rather than attack my contribution, work on correcting the grammar of the rest of the article.

The article as it was was riddled with errata - such as the Santos-Dumont picture was labeled as a hybrid airship when it was never intended as one historically. The page was hopelessly out of date, and I brought it up to snuff; it had a multiplicity of detached references, which I cleaned up. I am only reacting to the bad-faith and impoliteness I have experienced. What I added was fundamental detail, expressed in lay terms, that anyone could understand. I will continue to clean up such things, if permitted.

I am not sure about the other editors, but I have over 30 years involvement in LTA, aeronautics, astronautics, and transportation as an engineering professional. In my profession, I have of course been a member of several professional organizations; in those, I have been called upon to peer review articles and collaborate with other professionals in authoring scholarly, learned works; we don't go around deleting content we don't agree with, adding spin to deflate a fact that doesn't suit our world-view, or complain when a new voice chimes in. You have, in this page, a very caustic environment where the editors can't be bothered to keep the page up to date, clean up grammar, or research and add content that would be informative to the inquisitive reader - but wow, do they have time to suppress anything they disagree with!

You say above that you, "don't see anybody putting forward any markedly enthusiastic claims for hybrids." To me, it seems that the whole page, as it was, was markedly enthusiastic and pro-hybrid, and lacked any objectivity. Prior to any of my edits, the page did contain many statements that read hybrid airships can do "x" - without saying that these were claims made by proponents without any engineering substantiation that "x" could be attained; hence my comment regarding propaganda.

This sort of page on a technological issue needs and deserves to be treated with the scientific objectivity as Misplaced Pages's page on airspeed, albeit with a Carl Sagan/James Burke style of making it accessible to the lay person, don't you agree?

So why not leave me alone, and encourage the other editors to bring the page to its full potential informational goodness?

Would that be so difficult?

Cronkurleigh (talk) 15:34, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

You are exaggerating and seeing offence where none is intended. As stated, the edit to which you objected merely cut a load of figures: the accusation of vandlism is unfounded. This sort of hysterical behaviour will not win you any respect as an editor.TheLongTone (talk) 17:04, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

You are entitled to your opinion on the matter, TheLongTone; however, I am not offended, I am merely frustrated and simultaneously laughing at the matter. Clearly my contributions are not wanted, had have been aggressively pushed away - that is commentary for you to consider, meant to be constructive.

So, never mind then. Rather than buck a system that is averse to contributions, I will create a Misplaced Pages page dedicated to hybrid airship aerodynamics, and another regarding hybrid airship history, and I'll leave the existing editors and their page to their devices.

Great way to welcome a new contributor guys! Cronkurleigh (talk) 17:43, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

The system is one of collegiate editing. I have interacted with both the other editors who have edited the page & found both of them reasonable people who are willing to discuss any issues. It's you who are not participating in reasonable discussions: throw your toys out of the pram if you will, but don't expect me to take you seriously. Fundamentally all that has ever been asked of you is that you provide sources. If yout claim about 30 years experience is true, that should not be a problem for you.TheLongTone (talk) 18:14, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

Well, you're wasting your breath, TheLongTone - or keystrokes, to be more accurate. In return, I can't take you seriously at all, since the facts I put up are simple and proven, and your version of the Misplaced Pages process is at best, amateur. Clearly none of the three of you has practical experience in aerospace engineering, or you would all see what a load of bollocks the content of the page was, historically, in upkeep, and again in terms of objective analysis. What is this "we have to include everybody's views", boloney? This is science, and historical facts; opinions need not apply. That you are supportive of a continuance of what cannot be put any more politely than complete misinformation deserves to be excised from Misplaced Pages, in my opinion. But you're not up for that discussion: I've called out the facts where they were wrong, you the guys you call so cooperative and reasonable are in some sort of dream-world, out of touch with hard facts.

You give the impression that "fluffy knowledge" is acceptable; I abhor "fluffy knowledge". So let's agree to disagree, and I'll go my way and produce what I consider to be knowledgeable and informative content, you you guys can do what you think is right. It's a big world in here; plenty of room for all of us.

If Misplaced Pages articles on the subject cannot be objective and include hard data and the knowledge professionals in the field, what good is it?

To quote one of the founders of Airship Industries:

"The tired old carousel of Lighter-than-air (LTA) continues to revolve, on average once every twenty years or so. Is that an Aereon or a Megalifter? In a poor light a Skyship looks much like a Dynairship. Whatever virtues LTA once possessed have now been overtaken by the enrmous reduction in payload size and power consumption and the ready availability of uav's of all sizes, from Globalstar downwards, with which to deploy them. Time on station has been a red herring for years, the area to focus on being "on station" LTA has never been any good at this, a twenty knot headwind reduces your speed of advance by 40%, and is likely to result, if prolonged for anytime, in the vehicle being as likely to be found in Alabama as Afghanistan. In the trophosphere the situation gets worse! The main attraction of LTA lies in the fact that those seeking investment in such crackpot schemes know that investors have no reliable database of what the build or r&d costs for such turkeys ought to be, it's rich picking time for the snake oil salesmen when an air ship project hits town. Luckily, the tired old carousel at DARPA and similar institutions revolves at about the same speed, whenever anybody at such government offices wants a little extra cash for themselves, why not flag up a new "Walrus" or "Skycat"? It like goldfish, a short attention span means you can re-introduce the same nonsense time and again and wait hopefully for the cheques to drop through the letterbox! It is just possible that a conventional blimp of about 100 metres, approximately similar to a "K" class but with advanced glass cockpit and lightweight diesels, could make headway in the coastal surveillance/anti piracy field, but its a small r&d task, no money in it for the speculators you see. I know what I am talking about, invest at your peril! John Wood (Ex Chief Exec and co-founder of Airship Industries)"

If certain editors of Misplaced Pages cannot bear to engage in honest scrutiny of a subject such as hybrid airships, and merely wish to blather on in praise of an idea, fanboi-like, excluding all those they see as dissenters, well, George Santayana applies, doesn't it:

"Progress, far from consisting in change, depends on retentiveness. When change is absolute there remains no being to improve and no direction is set for possible improvement: and when experience is not retained, as among savages, infancy is perpetual. Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it."

If certain Misplaced Pages editors want to be goldfish, one cannot stop them; but what a shame that in the process, known facts are ruthlessly shoved out of the way! Cronkurleigh (talk) 18:21, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

You seem to be using rather more keystrokes than I am. I see no facts being ruthlessly shoved out of the way, no evidence of fanboys (there is no need to be condescending, sweetie) & also disagree that the original article was particularly pro-hybbrids.TheLongTone (talk) 20:04, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

Did it ever occur to you, "sweetie", that the ultimate in condescension is people masquerading as scholarly when they are not? I'm sorry that my years of expertise in the subject matter exceed those of the other editors, and that I am incapable of pleasing their desires to be all inclusive. Clearly this subject is being attended by editors who haven't worked extensively in the field, and are unprepared to dig deep and analyze. So be it. That, to me, is being a devotee of a particular technology on the basis of faith - which is roughly what a fanboi is, as I understand the use of the word.

Again, I'm just commenting on the fact that this process doesn't work very well, which is why experts typically keep Misplaced Pages at arms' length where popular opinion outweighs cold, hard facts. You want to do a "Popular Science" level of scholarship, go right ahead. Rather than taking insult from that sort of comment, why not take instruction? "Gee, we're being perceived as unwelcoming and non-erudite; how do we do a better job at inclusion and objectivity?", should be your response, "sweetie". Cronkurleigh (talk) 20:51, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

Well, your perception is your reality. My distinguished colleagues and I disagree, and we consider this effort to be classic fanboi material - all worship, no content of merit. I'll make you a deal, you go your way, I'll go mine. You do your bit the way you want to, I'll go do a page the way I see it should be done, and we'll see who has the best content, objectivity, and readability. Peace out. Cronkurleigh (talk) 20:16, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

Dagenham.TheLongTone (talk) 20:30, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

All Hat, No Cattle...

Having engaged Misplaced Pages on a topic near and dear to my heart, I find it interesting that people hide behind "rules of engagement" over getting to the relevant facts. How inefficient, and condescending: The process is more important than the facts.

Not one person I that has engaged me has ever raised any sort of factual error I have committed; and why is that? Just one, "I have evidence that is incorrect based on the following..." would be appreciated.

No. Again, I say a resounding, "No." Engage me on the facts, the physics, and knowledge if you can; but never cower behind the artifice of process.

Got facts? Bring 'em. That is scholarly debate.

All else is illusion.

Cronkurleigh (talk) 00:20, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

A cite for the 'worst of both worlds' statement would be a start.TheLongTone (talk) 09:14, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

Very interesting that you should mention that - it's one of the things that was vigorously edited away by other editors on an almost hourly basis after I first posted my addition, which I will repeat in it's entirety here:

Engineering Analysis

Charles P. Burgess, noted aeronautical engineer, addressed this in his 1927 book Airship Design - part of a five volume collection commissioned by the Ronald Aeronautic press to preserve the knowledge of all aspects of balloon and airship technology. In Chapter XI, Common Airship Fallacies, Burgess demonstrates that hybrid airships are the worst of both worlds, especially in terms of aerodynamic performance:

"The use of planes to give dynamic lift to airships has been a favorite idea of inventors for the past 30 years;and some early airships, notably Santos-Dumont's No. 10, built in 1903, were actually fitted with such planes. An airship with lifting planes may be regarded as a combination airship and airplane, and a consideration of the characteristics of such a craft shows that it combines the disadvantages, and loses the merits in a peculiarly complete manner."

On the aerodynamic efficiency of an airship equipped with wings, Burgess continues:

"Even if the difficulties of starting and landing the combination craft could be overcome, it would still be inefficient in flight. For every 1,000 lbs. lift carried by the planes, approximately 60 lbs. resistance must be overcome by the thrust of the propellers. On the other hand, a 5,000,000 cu. ft. airship flying at 60 mph experiences only about 20 lbs. resistance per 1,000 lbs lift, and the relative resistance decreases with increasing size and diminishing speed. It is apparent, therefore, that the increase in lift obtained by the use of planes on an airship would require a disproportionate increase in engine power and fuel consumption."

Some current proposals intend to use a flattened or multi-lobe hulls to create aerodynamic lift. Engineering analysis and experiment demonstrate that attainable dynamic-lift-to-drag ratios are significantly below that of efficient wings.

References

  1. Burgess, p.289
  2. Burgess, pp. 289-290
  3. Buerge, The Suitability of Hybrid vs. Conventional Airships for Persistent Surveillance Missions, 48th AIAA Aerospace Sciences Meeting, 2010
  4. Carichner and Nicolai, Hybrids...the Airship Messiah?, AIAA LTA Systems Technology Conference, 2013

So there you go, TheLongTone! The essence of my original contribution, which again, was vigorously edited away into oblivion... vandalism, in my book. These are the words and findings of experts in the field; the laws of aerodynamics haven't changed since 1927, and Burgess' analysis has not been contradicted by any modern study; but apparently the facts are too much for certain people here! And to think that certain editors messaged me, saying we need to represent all sides; well, excluding the above certainly contradicts that supposed inclusiveness, doesn't it "sweetie".

Anyway, since this bit was cast aside by the Hybrid Airship page, I'm laying claim to it for the page I will be posting on the 1st. Be good sports and don't plagiarize! Get you own content if you don't want mine. LOL Cronkurleigh (talk) 12:13, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

IF you post another page on the same topic it will likely be nominated for speedy deletion as an article that duplicates an existing one, and it will either be deleted or merged with the existing. I would seriously urge you to attempt to edit in a more co-operative fashion. Most of this seems to have occurred because you objected to somebody removing some content: imo his reason for doing so was valid (removing overdetail) and your reaction to it was excesive. Whether you disagree with the edit or not, it was most certainly not vandalism, & the editor in question is a knowledgable & experienced editor who had the courtesy to explain the reason for his edits in detail on the talkpage. As for the previouslty mentioned ref, your quote isn't quite the same, but if the article wording was amended it would serve. However, I think you need a more modern source, something that deals with hybrids that use their hull as a lifting body rather than airships with winglets.TheLongTone (talk) 16:11, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

Well, TheLongTone, thanks for the dang threat. Pretty danged rude of you. Your peeps on the Hybrid Airship page have made it abundantly clear that they don't want anything above a "readers digest" version of events, and that's fine. I don't often use all caps, but when I do I mean it: AS I ALREADY POINTED OUT, MY PRESENTATION WILL BE MODELLED ON THE WIKIPEDIA PAGE Airspeed, AND WILL THUS INCLUDE HARD NUMBERS, MATHEMATICS, GRAPHS, AND TABLES THAT WILL OBJECTIVELY ASSESS THE PHYSICS AND ECONOMICS OF THESE VEHICLES. Got that? I laugh at your "think you need a more modern source" - what part of the laws of physics don't change don't you get? How many times do I have to say that? And what part of Burgess showing that efficient wings don't work, therefore inefficient lifting bodies are worse? Doesn't anybody read any more? Do you know how incredibly offensive your response is? You couldn't even be bothered to read and comprehend what I took the time to try to explain to you!

This is why you people need to go your way on this, and I'll be "over there" with the guys that write scientifically literate articles, like the guys that did Airspeed. "You guys" - whoever you are - go do the fluffy, qualitative, feel good stuff, and I'll publish the hard engineering facts.

Now go away and leave me alone. We'll see who's got the better entry on the 1st. And heaven help you if you try to get it taken down as "redundant", because it won't be. Cronkurleigh (talk) 17:04, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

FOR GOD'S SAKE, THE LONGTONE! I NEED MORE MODERN SOURCES THAN 1927? WHAT THE BLAZES DO YOU THINK I REFERENCED MATERIAL FROM 2010 AND 2013 FOR? NOT MODERN ENOUGH FOR YOU? WHAT IS? SOMETHING FROM LAST WEEK? YESTERDAY? IS AN HOUR AGO MODERN ENOUGH?

You really take the cake, TheLongTone. That's why I included current sources that substantiate Burgess!!! And now you know why I come away with the impression that y'all are blind, deaf, dumb, and vandals, and have zero respect for the Hybrid Airship page and its "editors". Cronkurleigh (talk) 17:19, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

Cool your jets. I was not threatening you: I was stating a fact. All new articles are patrolled: those that meet certain crieria can be deleted without discussion. As for going away and leaving you alone, you seem not to realise that if you edit Misplaced Pages you are not alone. If you want to be alone, go create your own website. Re Burgess, what I said was nothing to do with the laws of physics changing : it was to do with the fact that he is not talking about what seems to be modern hybrid practice. As for the rest of your post, its offensive patronising nonsense, and does not do anything to help your claim to have any potential to be a useful editor. Generally, the more anybody shouts, the less they get listened to. You clearly are not worth bothering with, so don't bother replying: I will not be reading anythingm more you post here.TheLongTone (talk) 17:48, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

Seriously, stop. Quit bugging me. I stated quite clearly that I was modelling my input on proper aeronautical engineering pages since my input was met with such hostility. Ad again, you don't read: Burgess addresses the most efficient means of adding aerodynamic lift, wings (not winglets, but the way), and that is less efficient than simply designing to the required volume; therefore using a less efficient means of creating aerodynamic lift clearly won't work either! So cool your damn jets, and pay some attention for a change!

You are so typical of what I've run into here! You're so busy being confident you already know everything that you can't even read a simple paragraph or two. I'm ever so glad you're gone now! Stay that way!Cronkurleigh (talk) 19:32, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

Inadvertent typos in article names

If you wish, you can request that an administrator deletes Misplaced Pages:American Skyship Industires, Inc. and/or American Skyship Industires, Inc. by following the instructions at Misplaced Pages:Criteria for speedy deletion#G7. Author requests deletion. GraemeLeggett (talk) 18:05, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

Thank you Graeme. I found that a period at the end of a wikipedia page name (as you probably already know) doesn't link well. Cite error: There are <ref> tags on this page without content in them (see the help page).

"Editors" with "awards" - "TheLongTone", et. al. are scholarship "frauds".

It's a funny thing that certain "editors" feel free to bleed all over any contribution I make, having decades of relevant experience in airship, and on in particular has the audacity to complain that my statements, made boldly and correctly (without so much information that I get junk mail, of course...) are to be questioned!!! Oh dear, "TheLongTone"! Sorry to edit all over your User page! You've whittled away at every contribution I've made, and, more importantly, questioned that my credentials as provided are true ------- when you provide _absolutely_ _no_ _information_ _about_ _yours_. You just put up unrelated pictures and put captions about how they supposedly relate to aircraft history.

It's people like you that need to be banned from Misplaced Pages. What's it like to feel the branch creak? You haven't a leg to stand on; or a frontal lobe.

In short, people like you "TheLongTalk" should back the hell off so people that bother to take the time to invest in the availability of knowledge for all people can attain. (Yes, that is a proper construct in English, isn't it, you annoying excuse for a human being...)

Yes, I adopted a moniker in keeping with the usual modus operandi of "your" world; however, I've tipped my hand in so many ways you should by now be able to know exactly who I am and what I've contributed to the relevant science.

You? You hide, "edit", and put up pretty irrelevant (and pretty irrelevant) pictures as some sort of CV.

In future, if you want to be "professional" about it? Never call me "sweetie". Ever. Or delete something I worked to put out there for the consideration of people that might use this lame excuse of an Encyclopedia in order to learn a thing.

And yes, I do have a vast library which will be referenced, p. and pp. (rarely done to the page or pages here) when I'm done.

How dare you question either my ability to back up what I say or my credentials!

Meanwhile, I expect what I write to stand on its own in the reader's eye - and they should question it all, including your lame references baloney.

So who are you, "TheLongTone"? Who are you, "Steelpillow"? And you, "Squadron Leader Graeme Leggett"? Lecture me on scholarship whilst you hide behind fake names. I've already let it be known who I am - and you insult me by not paying attention...

Scholarship... I laugh at your attempts to pretend to that level of effort... Cronkurleigh (talk) 07:05, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

You may well have decades of relevant experience in airships, but you do not have decades of relevant experience of Misplaced Pages. Your pretensions to personal authority are not merely irrelevant to us but deeply contrary to our founding principles. I have to wonder what you think you are doing, coming to play in an environment so inimical to the values you express above? If you do choose to remain, you need to recognise that you are a rank newcomer here and you will need to learn to play by our rules. Otherwise, as you have found, your labours will for the most part be time and effort wasted. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 10:57, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

Vandalising another user's page

WARNING: Vanadlising another user's page may get your own account blocked.

What you did to User:TheLongTone and User:GraemeLeggett was utterly beyond the pale - see for example the policy page Misplaced Pages:No personal attacks and the Vandalism policy section on User and user talk page vandalism. If you persist in such outrageous behaviour, you are likely to be reported at WP:ANI and find that your user account gets blocked. Subsequent anonymous "IP" editing can also be blocked if need be. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 11:36, 11 April 2014 (UTC)


Yes, "Steelpillow". I did it to get your attention. Report it. I want a discussion with the powers that be. You, "Squadron Leader" Graeme, and "TheLongTalk" are a clique that is oblivious to the harm you do to other people's contributions. You have vandalized everything I've contributed, and a discussion at high levels should be had.

Since bothering to contribute I've been insulted and belittled by you and your comrades. You run roughshod over everything. So: How does it feel to have your contribution changed to suit another editor's whim? Pretty shitty, I bet. Learn from it, and learn to _collaborate_ instead of _control_ - or just get the hell out of the way. Cronkurleigh (talk) 14:16, 11 April 2014 (UTC)