User talk:Firewall

WOW! What a truly amazing first effort!! Please tell me you're staying here to add more articles like this one. In fact, I'm moving this amazing new article over to another wiki I contribute to, namely a radio control-related wiki over at Wikicities. I'm an active R/C aviation buff. I realize this isn't radio controlled, but it's still an amazing bit of flying technology. Anyway, the same folks who run this site run Wikicities as well and the documentation licenses are the same. Welcome, welcome, welcome! - Lucky 6.9 05:59, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I really don't know how to make a response to your comments above yet except to make an edit to this note. For all I know, I am the only one that will ever see my own comments here. Yes, this is my first article, and yes, I would like to submit others as time permits. If you can read this, please indicate so. I will continue to scour the Wikipedia web site to find out how people communicate. Firewall 16 January 2006

Not a problem. Communicating is simple. If you click on the user's name at the end of each message, it will take you to his/her user page. Just click on the talk page tab at the top of the screen and edit away. You can also click on the toolbox on the lower left corner of the screen and send an e-mail. I took a moment and copied the article over at that other wiki as well. It's still growing and an article like yours is a real showpiece. Best of luck and best wishes on what I assume is your invention. - Lucky 6.9 18:54, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The article came up OK for me just now. The search engine may not have been updated. Also, I personally have a tendency to want to get dyslexic on the name and type "entompter" instead. The transfer to the other site was a mere cut-and-paste so it shouldn't have affected it. Worst that could have happen was to inadvertently blank the page, but the original would still be inthe edit history so restoring it would have been a cinch. Anyway, try the search function again or just hit "go." Let me know if you still have problems with it. Thanks again for such a truly impressive entry. - Lucky 6.9 23:14, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Plans for future articles

In the future, I am considering some new articles dealing with the following topics: biological inspiration (e.g., as exemplified in the Entomopter), collection of marine life and automated life support systems (see: http://avdil.gtri.gatech.edu/RCM/RCM/Aquarium/CollectYourself.html ), engineered contracting (as done with my own place, see: http://www.victorian-estate.info and especially http://www.private-estate.info where I built a country victorian estate on 5 acres amid a forest with flowing spring-fed streams ), n-dimensional string theory after Grinwald's theorem, Tukish (Türkçe) cognates, and non-rocket-based monopropellant propulsion systems (expanding on things like the Reciprocating Chemical Muscle). Firewall (talk) 18:11, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

GTRI

Excellent work on expanding that article! Disavian 08:37, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Images

Administrators: Current issues with questionable copyright on images have been addressed and images replaced with greater care regarding tags. Please help me with suggestions on wording of proper self-generated material if there is still an issue or new issues arise.

GA nomination Robert C. Michelson

Just to let you know that I've read through all related correspondence but I need some time to digest the changes in the article itself. I keep working on it, but got slowed down by work overload. Best regards.NIMSoffice (talk) 07:55, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have passed this GAN. I hope you understand this review was harder than many others because of WP:BLP and suspected COI. I do hope it will not discourage you from further edits and I do encourage your expanding other topics which I noticed on WP. You are an experienced editor on your own, but please do not hesitate to contact myself or other editors, e.g., if comment or advice is needed. IMHO, wikipedia is a very friendly community. Best regards.

P.S. Please don't forget to sort out copyright issues.Materialscientist (talk) 07:17, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I forgot to mention how I get around tags (which I never remember myself too). I just type WP:template in WP "search" window and quick-search what I need; or, sometimes, just experiment and type {{who}}, {{what}} in the page and look at preview results :)Materialscientist (talk) 01:25, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I was looking for something else at WP:GA and by chance found lots of GAs on BLP, including Frances Oldham Kelsey, Pamela C. Rasmussen, George Schaller. Materialscientist (talk) 10:32, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Still active ?

Hi

Are you still active on Wikipedia? If so do you have any particular desire to edit Robotics articles?
(I have slightly cheated as I can see from your edits that you have only really concentrated on general articles with a few exceptions lol)

If so there is a need for experts at the Robotics project. Wikipedia:WikiProject Robotics

I appreciate that there may be WP:COI issues but these would only arise if the articles were in your particular field of specialisation or on your own prodcuts/personal businesses/personal history articles.

Thanks Chaosdruid (talk) 18:27, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Its a matter of time. Presently I am inundated with other activities. I do try to correct egregious claims or uncited claims in articles from time to time, and I am interested in seeing more GA articles (including those which I started). That would include more GA robotics articles, but besides having too much on my plate at the moment, there seems to be a camp within Wikipedia that chafes at the notion of subject matter experts improving their own article submissions or even articles about which they have intimate knowledge. Apparently at Wikipedia it is more important that subject matter experts withhold their input on various subjects, than the encyclopedia grow with accurate information that is sometimes only available form sources close to the subject. Fighting COI battles with loser editors who can't contribute technically, is a waste of my time. Consensus does not equal truth or accuracy. Peer review is a better solution, but sadly most of these editors are not qualified "peers" on many technical subjects. ⁃ Firewall 21:42, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

We have a specific template which asks for "attention from an expert" and as you are one I cannot imagine that COI wouold be a problem - there may be concern raised if the article was about your own company, product or you but even then, as you have already seen, these things are easily dealt with. Mostly it is a need to address a concern rather than a real problem with COI

I have already consulted with two other extremely experienced editors, one of who is involved in Featured articles, the other in Good Articles. We are all of the opinion that it is the content that matters and not who wrote it. We also agreed that the person who would know most about themselves would rpobably be themselves lol!

I know that one of those editors was involved in getting your article to FA - User talk:Malleus Fatuorum and he was one I asked as he had got the article to FA after the COI had been on there.

You can see our discussions at the bottom of his talk page.

I am going to follow up with a chat to someone at the WP:COIN but one of my main goals is to get experts involved and if WIkipedia is going to retain any credibility at all experts must be consulted, made to feel comfortable and not harrassed by idiots with their noses in the rule books and up someones a***e. (pardon my French)

There are several people I have had contact with who would be suitable as experts, including Larry Tesler and yourself, and robotics is the industry of the future (unless EATR gets us all !) and I would not anticipate more than one or two articles a month.

I will plough on as there are lots of things to do before I get round to the stage of setting up the assessment team and it would only be after that that we might need expert opinion - probably in one month or maybe two.

PLease don't think that all wikipedians are as dim-witted as most - we do try and stop the rot and sometimes we even succeed ! lol

Chaosdruid (talk) 04:51, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

First, thank you for your sane comments regarding COI. Because I do not have super powers like some admins, and because I can't fight sustained battles against Wikipedians with agendas or axes to grind, I essentially quit editing my own articles except to update mundane information such as dates and winners for the International Aerial Robotics Competition each year. Indeed Malleus Fatuorum and Materialscientist where most gracious and helpful in getting two of my articles to GA status. This made the articles better and made Wikipedia better in spite of the whining by the editors/admins who chose to tag the articles with COI and the unfounded assertion that a NPOV "could" exist. What a great way to taint valid, factual, well cited information! Shame on them.

Second, my comment about being "too busy" is not just an excuse. Whenever someone tells me that they are "too busy" I think to myself, "you don't have a clue about "too busy""... Most of them come home after their 9-5 jobs and get "too busy" with television or going to bed on time. In my case, I have just embarked on building a new home. I am the General Contractor and this takes an enormous amount of my time, and will do so for the next 9 to 12 months (depending upon weather delays). Because of the nature of a construction project, it must be "front burner" "job #1". Therefore I don't want to commit to HAVING to perform on any other extracurricular project. Having said that, I am not opposed to reviewing a new Wikipedia article every now and then until I have completed this construction project, but as the Robotics Editor for a major journal, I am already under the gun to review articles and don't have time for that as it is. Maybe I could help as "overflow" until I am free in 9-12 months. ⁃ Firewall 04:09, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ah ! that is a lot on your plate lol

Never mind, I am sure WIkiworld will still be here, mad as ever, next year :¬)

The sad thing is that the COI guide even states "[Honour Wikipedias] encyclopedic quality (verifiability and original research); editorial approach (neutral point of view); as well as the Wikipedia copyright policy."..."Who has written the material should be irrelevant so long as these policies are closely adhered to."

It also says "Editing in an area in which you have professional or academic expertise is not, in itself, a conflict of interest. Using material you yourself have written or published is allowed within reason, but only if it is notable and conforms to the content policies"

There are those who see a rule, do not read properly (probably ADD or similar) and then persist in thinking they have found a Wikisword to defend Wikihonour in the shape of the "Great Book of COI" - people like that and the "civility police" are rampant on here and it can at times, become unbearable.

So, on behalf of all Wikiworlds sensible people I apologise to you for the way you were treated !

Drop me a line if you have a rainy day or two later in the year as there will be stuff up for review which I can leave for someone with your skillset and you can take a look at if you have the time. I spent most of last evening trying to sort out the ANN and NN articles. It took me one and a half hours just to sort out this tiny little page Neural network (disambiguation) just so that the various parties from the pages wouldnt get their knickers in a twist over definitions and stop a year and a half discussion over merge/don't merge/oh idon't know/ok well maybe merge/no dont merge and to actually progress forwards. I await the expected earbashing and reversions...

Best wishes and good luck with the house Chaosdruid (talk) 06:43, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Who's Whose

Thanks for spotting that - AWB, or I, must have gone a bit crazy - It is supposed to skip those changes in cites - no tea for it tonight and off to bed early so it can think about what it has done lol Chaosdruid (talk) 17:48, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Custom signature fix needed

Hi there! You have a custom signature set in your account preferences. A change to Wikipedia's software has made your current custom signature incompatible with the software.

The problem: Your signature contains a syntax error, specifically formatting tags that are in the wrong order.

The solutions: You can reset your signature to the default, or you can fix your signature.

Solution 1: Reset your signature to the default:

Find the signature section in the first tab of Special:Preferences.
Uncheck the box (☑︎→☐) that says "Treat the above as wiki markup."
Remove anything in the Signature: text box.
Click the blue "Save" button at the bottom of the page. (The red "Restore all default settings" button will reset all of your preference settings, not just the signature.)

Solution 2: Fix your custom signature:

Find the signature section in the first tab of Special:Preferences.
Change the signature as shown below, or make other edits to make the signature appear how you want it to appear.
Click Save to update to your newly fixed signature.

Current signature:
'' ⁃ [[User:Firewall|Firewall]]''

Fixed signature:
'' ⁃ [[User:Firewall|Firewall]]''

More information is available at Wikipedia:Signatures#Customizing how everyone sees your signature. If you have followed these instructions and still want help, please leave a message at Wikipedia talk:Signatures or respond here. Thanks. – Jonesey95 (talk) 19:31, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: William Stuart Michelson has been accepted

William Stuart Michelson, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.

Congratulations, and thank you for helping expand the scope of Wikipedia! We hope you will continue making quality contributions.

The article has been assessed as Start-Class, which is recorded on its talk page. Most new articles start out as Stub-Class or Start-Class and then attain higher grades as they develop over time. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

Since you have made at least 10 edits over more than four days, you can now create articles yourself without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for creation if you prefer.

If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk. Once you have made at least 10 edits and had an account for at least four days, you will have the option to create articles yourself without posting a request to Articles for creation.

If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider leaving us some feedback.

Thanks again, and happy editing!

SL93 (talk) 16:08, 27 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Custom signature fix needed

Hi there! You have a custom signature set in your account preferences. Changes to Wikipedia's software have made your current custom signature invalid.

The problem: Your signature contains a syntax error or obsolete HTML tags.

The solutions: You can reset your signature to the default, you can fix your signature, or you can do nothing.

Solution 1: Reset your signature to the default:

Find the signature section in the first tab of Special:Preferences.
Uncheck the box (☑︎→☐) that says "Treat the above as wiki markup."
Remove anything in the Signature: text box.
Click the blue "Save" button at the bottom of the page. (Do not click the red "Restore all default settings" button, which will reset all of your preference settings, not just the signature.)

Solution 2: Fix your custom signature:

Find the signature section in the first tab of Special:Preferences.
Click the Learn more button next to the error to learn how to fix the error.
Update your signature to fix the error.
Click Save to update to your newly fixed signature.

Solution 3: Do nothing:

In accordance with a recent request for comment, all invalid signatures will be changed to the default, which looks like "Example (talk)", one month from now.

If you have followed these instructions and still want help, please leave a message at Wikipedia talk:Signatures. Thank you! MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 06:05, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Good article reassessment for International Aerial Robotics Competition

International Aerial Robotics Competition has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 04:12, 25 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of The Preserve at Sharp Mountain, Georgia for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article The Preserve at Sharp Mountain, Georgia 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/The Preserve at Sharp Mountain, Georgia until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, 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 until the discussion has finished.

~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 04:08, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Repeating here

Please provide disclosures of articles you have edited and which you have conflicts of interest with, per WP:DISCLOSE, as I have previously asked. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 01:55, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Notice of Conflict of interest noticeboard discussion

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard regarding a possible conflict of interest incident with which you may be involved. Thank you. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 21:15, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of William Stuart Michelson for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article William Stuart Michelson 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/William Stuart Michelson until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, 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 until the discussion has finished.

scope_creep^Talk 23:13, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Conflict of Interest

Hi @Firewall: We need to have a conversation about your very clear WP:COI when you come back. I would suggest you don't edit any of articles that have been described in the coin entry or you risk being blocked from this point forward. I will look in again when you return. scope_creep^Talk 15:47, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I am presently trying to figure out how to adequately place the COI tag on all articles for which I am affiliated. In some cases, I am the primary repository for neutrally-sourced information as in the case of the International Aerial Robotics Competition that I created some 33 years ago. I want to avoid any "actual" COI and strive to be neutral when documenting historical facts. The fact that other admins helped me create and approved some GOOD ARTICLEs years ago, led me me to believe that all was well, but apparently standards have tightened up. So that said, I would greatly appreciate your help to fix deficiencies. Firewall (talk) 19:42, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Firewall: The policies around coi were more or less the same 10+ years ago when the GA article went through and I think it is a clear failure of administration. Certainly attitudes have hardened towards it during that period and there is simply no reason to write coi articles, particularly since they are so damaging to the reputation of the encyclopeadia. I would suggest, that as somebody with a clear conflict of interest that you don't directly edit any of the articles listed in the coin report again or create any articles that your have a direct relation wether its personal, or a colleague or a work mate or have a financial or fiduary relationship (unlikely I think), in the future. If you do edit them directly, you risk being idef blocked. There is no appetite for an editor to continue flaunting the rules. There is a mechanism to enable you to update the articles which is Edit requests. You make a request on the talk page, an uninvolved editor examines the content for suitability and if well structured/written and sourced correctly it goes in. I would use that from now. Its slow, but dissaociates the coi editor from the article. Lastly your articles will be copyedited to remove WP:PRIMARY, WP:SPS sourced material and other non-salient information that can't verify per WP:V or is WP:NPOV. Lastly as your primary-repository of infon on the IARC, then that is clearly WP:PRIMARY and can't go in. scope_creep^Talk 08:45, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I was unaware of the serious nature of COI when these articles were initiated years ago. In the process of bringing the Robert C. Michelson article to GA status, COI was mentioned and set aside as a precluding issue by those editors and admins guiding me through the process of creating the article (as can be seen in the discussion on its Talk Page). I will certainly cease to edit these articles except to add additional references to the material that already exists (especially in the case of the International Aerial Robotics Competition article) as requested by AirshipJungleman29. If even that is unacceptable under the Wikipedia guidelines (of which I do not claim to be an expert), I will even cease that action. Just let me know. Firewall (talk) 16:10, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Pirelli Internetional Award

The article Pirelli Internetional Award has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Article is referenced soley to the pirelli site. Fails WP:SIGCOV. Non-notable award.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. scope_creep^Talk 13:26, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]