Cronkurleigh

Welcome

Hello Cronkurleigh, and Welcome to Wikipedia!

Welcome to Wikipedia! 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:

• Table of contents

• Department directory

Need help?

• Questions – a guide on where to ask questions
• Cheatsheet – quick reference on Wikipedia's mark-up codes
• Wikipedia's 5 pillars – an overview of Wikipedia's foundations
• The Wikipedia Adventure (a tutorial orienting you with Wikipedia)

• Article wizard – a Wizard to help you create articles
• The simplified ruleset – a summary of Wikipedia's most important rules
• Guide to Wikipedia – a thorough step-by-step guide to Wikipedia

How you can help:

• Contributing to Wikipedia – a guide on how you can help

• Community portal – Wikipedia's hub of activity

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 Wikipedia'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 Wikipedia, and thank you for your contribution.

You made some edits to the article on the Hybrid airship which were strongly biased against the type. Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/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 Wikipedia: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 ^{operator / talk} 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 Wikipedia'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 Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia, 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 Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia 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

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 Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia:American Skyship Industires, Inc. and/or American Skyship Industires, Inc. by following the instructions at Wikipedia: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.

"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 Wikipedia. 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 Wikipedia. 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 - Yes "Steelpillow", quit doing that to my contributions!

What you did to User:TheLongTone and User:GraemeLeggett was utterly beyond the pale - see for example the policy page Wikipedia: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) [Updated 12:14, 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)

You three take the cake. "Utterly beyond the pale"? How about your actions? The personal attacks against me on talk pages? The questioning as to my claims when all three of you hide behind avitars, all holier-than-thou. Back a few steps away from the mirrors, kids! Quit snogging with yourselves and take a good long look at what you've become.

Joseph Goebbles would be proud of you. Cronkurleigh (talk) 14:22, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

Happy to oblige:

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.

— Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 15:02, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

April 2014

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for abuse of editing privileges. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the following text below this notice: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. However, you should read the guide to appealing blocks first.  DP 15:13, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Cronkurleigh (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

The editors running this part of Wikipedia refuse to let anyone contribute information they disagree with, and I have escalated this by returning their attitude as a means to bring their totalitarian control to the greater attention of Wikipedia. From the start I was treated with disdain and disrespect by people who refuse to answer simple questions, such as who they are and what their relevant credentials might be after offering my own - to which they implied I was a liar. Not once did any editor contact me first to ask questions, or suggest changes, and await a response. Had any of them done so, they might have had the opportunity to learn something new and come away with expanded knowledge on the subject matter that they instead merely seek to control to their whims and preconceptions. If Wikipedia seeks to be a source of disinformation via the exclusion of experts who seek to correct errata and contribute relevant information, let the triumvirate of editors (who had nothing better to do than heavily edit my contributions and delete substantial referenced material) have their day. However, if Wikipedia seeks to be a source of genuine information, their actions and attitudes should be corrected, and perhaps they should be the ones who are blocked. The ball is clearly in your court. The question you have to ask yourselves is, do you really want to reinforce the perception that Wikipedia is run by a club of self-important jerks living in their mothers' basements eating cheesey-poofs, or do you want to improve both your reputation and the value of the content you offer the world? Sadly, I rather expect you'll reinforce the stereotype, but one does occasionally does find unexpected things happening... Cronkurleigh (talk) 15:34, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

Decline reason:

Nope, the ball's in your court. You are asking us to unblock you. It thus behooves you to be civil in the process, to assume good faith and to not insult others in the process. Basically, to not throw your toys out of the pram. All of which, nonetheless, you went ahead and did anyway. If there is a ball in our court, it's a stinking rotten fruit that is generally spherical in shape. Don't act all surprised if we're not throwing you the keys back. — Daniel Case (talk) 17:10, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

.

The challenge is this: when you signed up, you agreed to OUR rules and OUR way of contributing and OUR way of behaving. That means following WP:BRD, finding WP:CONSENSUS instead of WP:TRUTH, not attacking others, and not disrupting to make a WP:POINT. Because you didn't like how the first one worked out, you decided to go all out on the rest ... so, what makes you think you should be unblocked if you cannot follow the first of these concepts? DP 16:03, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

Then why don't you hold your existing editors to that same standard? I was merely responding in kind to the disruptive editing I was the recipient of. Policy also states that referenced material must be included even if it isn't true. I included factual input with appropriate references that, according to policy, must be included - but I rather doubt you'll abide by those rules, will you. And now your hit squad seeks to delete my contribution on small but significant bit of history out of spite. Great going! That'll thrill the people of Youngstown, Ohio who thanked me for writing up something they remembered fondly from their past. I'll be sure to pass that you'll be deleting the article on American Skyship on to those folks. Cronkurleigh (talk) 16:28, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

"Responding in kind??" That doesn't seem very ethical or adult of an action. No, our policy does not state that "referenced material must be included even if it isn't true", because if a consensus among editors says it doesn't get included then it doesn't get included. Period.

I most certainly do nothing out of "spite". As part of the block, I reviewed your history of edits. I found an article that appears to be an invalid content fork, and put the article up for discussion. Others may disagree with my analysis, and based on (ohh...the magic word) consensus it will either be kept, merged where I think it belongs or deleted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DangerousPanda (talk • contribs)

The truth of the matter is, you need someone like me around. As you may recall, the "Hybrid Airship" page was more than a bit derelict, with citations from Wikipedia for being out of date going back a couple of years. I lived it. I invested a significant part of my professional life in it. It was my profession for yonks. What pity that it comes to this to get your attention in my meager attempt to improve things. Quite frankly, you need experts to inject facts into this diatribe. There are simple facts that are understood in the engineering community, and all I attempted to do was inject some reasonable, measurable facts. At the end of the day, I'm only trying to help. Not you, but the people that turn to this as a resource in an electronic, instant-information world. Perhaps you're all victims of the instant gratification that is a part of the pervasive availability of access that is the information age; in the days of letters, then phone calls, then faxes, everyone kept their cool - especially because they didn't have the ability to edit the work of another uninvited.

I took the time to pass on my experiece, starting with revitalizing a languished discussion, and was prepaed to carry on as a _contributor_ to this morass you only pay attention to when something changes.

Do you really want this to be a factual Encyclopaedeia, or the fallacy of egotistical maniacs. Do you want it to be real, or is this all an ego trip. These are the facts. I may not present them per your format, but perhaps you should dig deep and get curious, and wonder what someone has to say before changing anything they contribute. Then you would have a better pool of knowledge that could hold itself up to respectability. Collaboration produces beautiful things - especially in that most precious of human things: Understanding. Your focus should be on cautious, patient inclusion - which is the exact opposite of my experience.

Therefore, I refer again to one of the many rules of engagement - which I posted previously, but I chose to append after your response.

"Editors may not add their own views to articles simply because they believe them to be correct, and may not remove sources' views from articles simply because they disagree with them." --Guy Chapman

It's your people that started this. They removed source' views from articles simply because they disagreed, and they got in my face about it. That, sir, is the crux of the matter. If you can't abide by the rules, why should I? Cronkurleigh (talk) 18:32, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

There is little point in misrepresenting the course of events, since everybody's edits are accessable. You are simply digging yourself a deeper hole. (In your terms we certainly started it, because in your terms nobody is allowed to disagree with your edits: not how things work). This mess started with an attempts to discuss matters: you were the one who refused to behave in a civilised and rational manner.TheLongTone (talk) 19:20, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

Because you're continuing to make personal attacks on other editors, above and beyond your original unblock request being something that could be enshrined in WP:NOTTHEM as the poster child of how not to request an unblock. I'd strongly suggest you read WP:GAB before commenting further, as continuing down the lines you've been on so far will not result in an unblock, but instead in your ability to use your talk page being revoked. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 23:26, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

I do love that having been banned, so many have so much time to respond. Clearly I am perceived as a threat to the comfort zone you are accustomed to. Get over yourselves. Seriously. You're not that important. If I was so worthy of banning, why is the discussion still going on? Here, yet again, is an "editor" who seeks to impose his/her thoughts. Isn't it enough that you got me banned? No. You behave the same way you did when I wasn't banned: I was patient at first, stood my ground, and slowly became a part of your environment. I learned from you.

Be careful of the enemies you make. I can live without your approval; but what will you do when all this comes back to haunt you. Not me, but you.

Tally ho, mates! You had the opportunity to learn from one of the best; let me know when you get to travel the world as an expert in this subject matter. Oh that's right, you haven't and probably never will. Little fish in a drinking glass.

Again, clearly I'm a threat! You don't know how much that inspires me... Cronkurleigh (talk) 02:42, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

No, my fellow editors are actually taking time out to try and make you see sense, we hate losing a knowledgeable editor. You were evicted for your outright disruptive behaviour, not for your views. The fact that this is still not obvious to you frankly says it all. You are no threat now, just a sore loser.

I think you should go write a book about it all. You can publish for next to nothing on a DIY site (I use Lulu.com, who offer both ebook and print editions). I am sure it would have a ready readership, in Youngstown and elsewhere. That would even provide the more experienced Wikipedia editors with a reference for some of that material you have hoarded away, so it might be able to end up here after all. Just a thought, goodbye and - though I am sure you do not believe me - good luck. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 10:09, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

Actually, you're blocked not banned. "Indefinite" means "until the community is convinced that the behaviours that led to the block will not recur". It does not mean "infinite". Wikipedia appreciates experts - but of course, Wikipedia only accepts information that has been published by third party sources and never personal knowledge (this is one of the reasons that academics hate us). Someone's subject matter knowledge is only as good as their ability to edit according to the community norms that they agreed to. Don't say you "learned from others" because you clearly did not, or else you'd still be happily adding your knowledge to the project. DP 10:15, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

You say toe-may-toe, I say toh-mah-toh.

You do make me laugh! And how is anyone supposed to take you and your comrades seriously? TheLongTone, for instance, can't write in complete sentences, can't spell, doesn't use proper grammar, and is sadly mistaken about the scrapping of the structure of R-101: Quote: "Because of hisurbanity [sic] needs to be read with a great deal of caution." What the heck does that mean? "...was broadcast by the BBC. But its a very readable..." Never follow a full stop with a conjunction, and the possessive form of the word "it"? Seriously? How about a simple "...it is..." if you can't handle a contraction. "...a very different proposition. Several points here. One, the..." Needs a colon after here. "...that I cabn find is..." Please, the spell check went off on that as well as "hisurbanity".

Now, regarding N. S. Norway, I see a lot of unsubstantiated opinion, and very little understanding of the engineering process. I would dig through my files to prove the point, but right now I'm really not inclined to; rather, I leave it to TheLongTalk to justify the aspersions she/he casts against Shute. In addition, if you build something and it turns out badly, and you're going to junk it, might as well test it to destruction on its way to the scrap heap, right? As an argument, the fact that tests were conducted on it in no way proves that it wasn't a piece of unusable junk. Gee, can't find the 40,000 sterling Shute estimates? Finding the same figure elsewhere related to something completely different does not negate Shute's assertion.

It's no wonder it is damn near impossible to get straight facts published here, what with that sort of nonsensical thinking and lack of basic use of the English language! Cronkurleigh (talk) 14:30, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

Well, this IP vandalism is one reason we won't be welcoming this user back any time soon. Talk about a sore loser! — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 10:20, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

Sore loser? Hardly, "Steelpillow". Looks to me more like you're a sore winner. Gloat much?

I am genuinely amused at the lengths you go to to berate and belittle after successfully blocking me! You must be so proud of yourself! Three cheers for Steelpillow! Hip, hip... Gee, didn't hear a hurrah... hmmm... Must be a very hollow sort of victory. Cronkurleigh (talk) 14:30, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

MIT certainly doesn't think much of you guys... http://www.technologyreview.com/featuredstory/520446/the-decline-of-wikipedia/Cronkurleigh (talk) 14:40, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

Your sole reason for having access to this talkpage is to request unblock - if you're going to use it to insult editors (which is why you're blocked in the first place), then there's no need to continue having access, is there? DP 15:31, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

Now resorted to this IP], which this editor has used off and on since 20 March. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 09:31, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

Since when is it an insult to point out that an editor cannot write in complete sentences, check spelling, and use proper grammar - let alone get facts straight? And why is it the editors rampantly deleted my contributions have continued to chase after me here, insulting me, berating me... one would think having succeeded in eliminating what they consider to be a pest, they'd take the high road and drop it!

Given that some of the editors who attacked my contributions are in such close proximity to Hybrid Air Vehicles, it seems a little more than interesting that they should be so against the inclusion of simple engineering facts. One wonders if any of them are involved in the effort; either way, it would seem their passion has overwhelmed real scholarship, and they should have recused themselves from comment or contribution. Complaints like my sources being from 1927 have no place here, as facts are facts. Again, I bothered to take a page which none of them had bothered to tend to, brought it up to date, corrected a multiplicity of factual errata, only to have "them" repeatedly remove anything they disagreed with - which is utterly against Wikipedia policy. I took the time to author a page on an interesting chapter in the history of modern airships, which included some sourced analysis of its downfall and was steadily working to improve that when that effort was set upon by a similar effort to eliminate anything that called the viability of the project into question. Not once in the process of both efforts did I ever receive the courtesy of a talk page entry asking questions or if I agreed to any change. When I would undo single changes with the reason for rejection, again no discussion was at hand; the changes were simply reinstated without discussion. The American Skyship entry became so heavily edited in a period of a few days by this process of intrusion that I was forced to re-post one of the original edits to recover all the lost material. All of the intrusive edits that lead to this were unhelpful; yet my reversion to get the page back on track that I had invested a couple of weeks worth of spare time was banished as an unhelpful edit! If your editors spent more time finding things to contribute than to tear down the efforts of someone generating new material and fixing pages they never bothered to keep up to date, Wikipedia might be a much more useful resource.

So you can sit there, all self-important, and take constructive criticism as insult in order to protect your perception of reality and to protect your sacred cows. It only makes me laugh! And, man, does it form the wonderful basis for an article! I only came to add a little bit of history and information for the betterment of readers; but, if you'd prefer I add this to one of my future articles elsewhere, that's fine too. It only makes you all seem like obsessive people with nothing better to do than control things instead of collaborate to build things up.

Given all the articles that call Wikipedia a sham that have been forwarded to me by colleagues in engineering and in the media, I see the error of my ways in simply assuming that Wikipedia actually could be used to pass along real knowledge gained from experience. After all, everyone here hides behind fake names, doesn't put up anything even close to a CV pursuant to what they edit, and at the end of the day, behave like people do in cars - cutting in line to be first at a red light, changing lanes without signaling, talking on their cell phones, &c. The anonymity here is stifling genuine exchange.

So again, if editors can't state who they are, list their credentials, or take the time to edit their own user pages for spelling and grammar, what good are they? And they run off someone who took the time to contribute.

Anyway, thanks for all the great material! I'll make certain to make use of it. Too bad it had to be gained instead of what I set out to do: Pass on a little knowledge. Cronkurleigh (talk) 17:15, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

I seriously do have to love the hypocrisy of people who cannot be prevailed upon to do more than put up "avitars" of what they desire as their perceived personae here, and you have the audacity to "edit" my every contribution and lecture me on how scholarly pursuits are undertaken. It kind of makes me wonder if any of you have written scholarly papers in university. Based on your collective behaviour, I would guess not. I wonder if you've ever written scholarly papers in the sciences. Again, I would guess not.

Have any of you been invited to write for Scientific American? I rather doubt that. The editor that was assigned to me was cooperative, asked questions, and was in general helpful - especially in terms of suggesting additional links to provide readers with opportunities to learn, and suggestions and ideas on how to better express ideas.

Have any of you been invited to write and present papers for an international professional organization in aeronautics? I'm guessing again, no. Transportation? Again the guess is no. Asked to prepare and give a talk on your knowledge by, say, the U. S. Navy based on knowledge they need to know? Again, but this time admitting, rhetorical question.

Ever work as a flight test engineer getting a blimp certified? No? How about a field engineer for Richard Branson's Virgin Lightship's first, the blimp that advertized for the State Fair of Texas. No again? Were you there with Ian Alexander and Wolfgang von Zeppelin, promoting that the Zeppelin Stiftung should finally spend money set aside by Graf Ferdinand von Zeppelin and build an airship again? Did you watch The Wall - the Iron Curtain" - come down in the current Graf von Zeppelin's home? No, you were not there.

I was.

You are all so busy with your "process" and perception of what is that you've become oblivious. You hide and critique and delete and promote your own things instead of live in a world of inclusion and patience. You edit when opportunities for contribution exist everywhere. For you, Wikipedia is nothing more than, as I have said before, a first person shooter game.

People like you disgust me. You treat knowledge with the personal belligerence of people that have contributed nothing to it. Self-importance, run rampant, based on things you read about.

I bother to quote John Wood, his bit that this is all a carousel that revolves ever couple of decades in an effort to myself in this manner, and I'm met with "word salad" as a response. You didn't read it. You didn't care. Too busy to take the time to perfect your own User pages and maintain a thing I found adrift like the Marie Celeste - and now I'm "evil".

Your opposition is nothing to me. As Maria Federici titled the book I ghost wrote for her: "Obstacles... Bring 'Em".

Obstacles are something to be overcome.

Quit being that. Cronkurleigh (talk) 01:14, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

Nomination of American Skyship Industries for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article American Skyship Industries is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/American Skyship Industries until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. DP 16:17, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

File source problem with File:Artist Rendering of American Skyship Industries, Inc. Sign.png

Thank you for uploading File:Artist Rendering of American Skyship Industries, Inc. Sign.png. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, please add a link to the page from which it was taken, together with a brief restatement of the website's terms of use of its content. If the original copyright holder is a party unaffiliated with the website, that author should also be credited. Please add this information by editing the image description page.

If the necessary information is not added within the next days, the image will be deleted. If the file is already gone, you can still make a request for undeletion and ask for a chance to fix the problem.

Please refer to the image use policy to learn what images you can or cannot upload on Wikipedia. Please also check any other files you have uploaded to make sure they are correctly tagged. Here is a list of your uploads. If you have any questions or are in need of assistance please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

Also:

• File:ASII Manufacturing Plant - Phase 1.png
• File:Proposed ASII Manufacturing Facilities at Lansdwonde Airport.png
• File:RS.1 Logging Original.png
• File:RS.1 Logging Rework Concept.png
• File:RS.1 Logging.png

ATTENTION: This is an automated, BOT-generated message. This bot DID NOT nominate your file(s) for deletion; please refer to the page history of each individual file for details. Thanks, FastilyBot (talk) 03:00, 7 December 2016 (UTC)