Welcome!

Hello, Steelpillow, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• How to edit a page
• Help pages
• Tutorial
• How to write a great article
• Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome! Mushroom (Talk) 13:48, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Guy,

User:RobertAustin asked me to make a user box template for people who like polyhedra. You can add it to your main user page if you like it. You can see others who use it at (Special:Whatlinkshere/Template:User_Polyhedron). Tom Ruen 05:50, 7 January 2007 (UTC) ADD[reply]

This user is interested in polyhedra.

Thanks for uploading Image:Polygons.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, then you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, then a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a restatement of that website's terms of use of its content, is usually sufficient information. However, if the copyright holder is different from the website's publisher, then their copyright should also be acknowledged.

As well as adding the source, please add a proper copyright licensing tag if the file doesn't have one already. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then the {{GFDL-self}} tag can be used to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Fair use, use a tag such as {{non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair use. See Wikipedia:Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the image is copyrighted under a non-free license (per Wikipedia:Fair use) then the image will be deleted 48 hours after 18:06, 21 June 2007 (UTC). If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. The Sunshine Man 18:06, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm firmly of the opinion that it's an aircraft if it flies through the air; as in non ballistic.

Are you seriously claiming that for example, the flying bedstead is not an aircraft?

FWIW for rockets and all other jet powered VTOL vehicles the lofting surfaces are within the engine.WolfKeeper 15:01, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

See my reply on Talk:Aircraft -- Steelpillow 18:52, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Look like we will have to agree to disagree on the terminology - no problem I have raised the issue at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Aircraft for others to comment. MilborneOne 21:45, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hihi. I've again removed the quote and preceeding paragraph. While the quote is something you might find in a paper or textbook, I don't think the fact that mathematicans can't agree on it is especially relevant, as there's a definition directly above the statement. Also, no sources. "Oft-quoted" and "seldom respected" are both pov statements, unless you can provide a source. "Us" is also pov and informal. Anyhow, gimme a shout if you still think it should be included. Thanks! Fin©™ 12:45, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. "Pov" means "point of view", articles should conform to a neutral pov. I would consider "seldom respected" to be your own personal opinion, unless you can provide a reputable source - you said it was well discussed by experts, provide a link if you can. Anyway, I've restored an edited version, without the pov, and put a tag for style at the top of the article - its written like discussion/essay/paper. Much thanks! Fin©™ 16:48, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

From Talk:Polyhedron, I do not think your claim We do not talk of the "cell" of a polyhedron but of its "body". is true. (You can search the term "cell" inside the talk page.) However, I will not do the edit that is the same as User:58.177.85.161. Instead, I will add one link in the term "cell" that is appeared inside Polyhedron. QQ (talk) 20:59, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

See also Polytope#Convex_polytopes, the table on element names. It seems like there's two parallel sets of terms from opposite directions, so both could be correct, so a body is a n-face in an n-polytope, always only one of course, but equally a polyhedron itself could be called a cell naming from the bottom. Well, anyway I guess it comes down to when people actually want to talk about an n-face of an n-polytope! Perhaps there is a real difference. Perhaps body can imply solidness, including interior, like the face of a polyhedron is considered a solid surface, while a polygon could be solid or not. Okay, I give up, but would like it if the polytope table was clarified if wrong or any, since I put body there as n-face! :O Tom Ruen (talk) 23:46, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry to take so long to reply, I have been away. For a line segment on its own, we do not talk of it as a "side" or "edge": it only becomes a side or edge when we use it to make a polygon. For a polygon on its own, we do not talk of the "face" of the polygon but of its "interior" or (more recently) its "body". When we use the polygon to construct a polyhedron then it becomes a "face" of the polyhedron, or if we use it to construct a tessellation then it becomes a "tile". Similarly with a polyhedron: on its own it has an interior or body, but when we use it to construct a polychoron or spacefilling it becomes a "cell". To summarise, terms such as "face", cell" and "edge" are not used when the object is being discussed in its own right. Hope this makes sense? (Tom, I'll have a look at your table separately). -- Steelpillow (talk) 17:57, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Guy. I overstepped my knowledge but put a picture of your space-filling polyhedra for Wearie-Phelan bubbles at: Hexagonal_truncated_trapezohedron#Wearie-Phelan_bubbles. Hexagonal_truncated_trapezohedron is a topologically equivalent polyhedron anyway to the irregular tetrakaidecahedra. Hopefully I colored the faces well, wanted to show a different color for each face type. Feel free to replace or destroy as my failed work necessitates! Tom Ruen 23:53, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I placed a reply on my talk page to your question on unpowererd kite that has powered harness or mobile anchor. Joefaust (talk) 20:12, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Steelpillow! You aren't breaking etiquette at all. If you ever have a problem, concern, or want an answer to a question on why someone did something, the best thing is to just ask them on their talk page. So you are right on. In regards to your comment, I understand your concern with biting a newbie, but this was fairly blatant. I did look at the revisions before s/he copied my user page, but the only content was the following: "User:Haoyang1234567890. I love polyhedra, Ratchet and clank and science." I really didn't feel that was worth much in saving, but as I write this, I am going to restore that part of his user page. Really, it wasn't so much copying my user page (although that is weird, because I have never have interacted with said user), it was the fact that the content on his page made it appear he was an administrator, which is a big no-no, and the links on his page were directed to my pages, which is highly confusing to some users. Thanks for the note. Cheers, « Gonzo fan2007 (talk ♦ contribs) @ 22:17, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi SP, Thanks for your lively commentary on the use of aviation terminology. Just to further elucidate: Recently, I wrote a book about a test pilot for an British publisher, Creçy Books, and had to determine what the "house" style guide was for terminology. In doing a search through their style guide, as well as many other British publishing houses including Aeroplane magazine (surprise, surprise?, this "institution" recommends that "aeroplane" not be used even though it belies their historic title/banner), it was quite evident that the word "aeroplane" was no longer in use. It was a matter of popular convention that dictated usage, and although a certain generation may be comfortable with the term, it evokes a certain kind of nostalgia but nothing more, it falls into the same "arcane" category as "betwixt", "'twas" and many other words/idioms/colloquialisms that gradually fall out of use. However (LOL: modern placement of the conjunctive adverb...), I could certainly make a case for the use of the word "airplane" which is accepted worldwide as a contemporary term and has a clear definition in the wider category of "aircraft". IMHO Bzuk (talk) 15:42, 23 August 2008 (UTC).[reply]

Hi Bzuk, thanks for the message. I am happy to say my bit and let others be the judge. -- Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 15:51, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hello I'm interested to hear why you feel that aircraft do not belong in the pressure vessels category, given that many of them are pressurised and therefore are also at risk from uncontrolled decompression events? Thanks Socrates2008 (Talk) 14:50, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Socrates2008. Pressurised aircraft are of course pressure vessels. But many aircraft are not, and in any case the Aircraft article does not go into this aspect of aircraft design, and so adding it to the pressure vessels category is not appropriate. There is a separate article on Cabin pressurization, which primarily covers its application to aircraft, and I think this would be a more appropriate article to add to the pressure vessels category. In fact I just have. Hope that's OK. -- Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 20:57, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Obviously some are and some aren't, so the addition of this category could be argued either way. My preference is still to include it, as we don't have a separate article for "pressurized aircraft" (although cabin pressurization comes close, the article is this case is about the concept, not the container). Socrates2008 (Talk) 23:55, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I replied on the talk page. Igorpak (talk) 17:40, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In my opinion, and , and we use to distinguish between them. Bean49 (talk) 09:55, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. My apologies. Where the unit of measurement is not otherwise specified, you are correct. In the part of the Regular polygon article where I reverted your edit, the unit was stated immediately above so I assumed that the degree symbol can be left out. So when I reverted a whole chain of previous bad edits I did not stop to consider whether your degree symbol should be there after all. I have restored it, and added some more to other equations. -- Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 18:18, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. I mentioned only because of your edit summary. Bean49 (talk) 10:34, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Both concave and convex polygons are two different subsets of simple polygon set, so one can't use or to distinguish between simple and convex/concave. If I'm wrong, please explain the error in my reasoning in the corresponding article cause now it is confusing.

Thanks

Hi. My sincere apologies - I read your edit back to front and thought you were adding the unneeded remark. I have now restored your edit, and feel suitably foolish. -- Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 18:37, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Np, there is really no need to apologize. It's great that the issue has been fixed. Thanks 193.219.93.218 (talk) 05:07, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think you'd be interested in WikiProject Polyhedra. Hope to see you around there! Professor M. Fiendish, Esq. 04:06, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I was able using your image of the mid wing monoplane to create illustrations of the various wing angles. I've uploaded file:monoplane_gull.svg as an example. I'd like to know what you think of it, and if I've got the attribution to your original correct. GraemeLeggett (talk) 15:04, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Several thoughts:

• I uploaded them to the Wikimedia commons from where Wikipedia automatically picks them up. I'd appreciate it if you could do the same.
• Personally I'd make the inboard section shorter and the outboard section longer.
• Also, I'd consider getting rid of the undercarriage, however that might depend on other drawings alongside.
• I am still working my way through the page, so if I don't like your drawings would you prefer me to modify them or use different ones?

-- Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 15:15, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'll look into the commons.

Aesthetically, I think you're right - it'll probably be better with a longer outboard.

I'll try it without the u/c.

I've got anhedral and dihedral done as well, inverted gull is no more effort. There's "polyhedral" (a la McDonnell-Douglas Phantom) and the "ruptured duck" is much the reverse of that. Whatever I do, you are welcome to modify or improve upon.

As a final, not unrelated thought, as you are also doing biplanes, can you do a good illustration of "bays". Here's Flight in 1919 on the subject GraemeLeggett (talk) 15:48, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've uploaded to commons, and used the pics in the article. Would you mind checking I've got the attribution right for the files. GraemeLeggett (talk) 12:39, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The attribution looks OK, thanks. I'd like to tinker with them a bit at some point - would you be happy for me to update your files, or would you prefer it if I uploaded new ones? -- Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 09:56, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Whatever works best for you. GraemeLeggett (talk) 17:40, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Guy. I went a little wild, adding example images of isotoxal polygons, and added star polyhedra examples too. There's still nothing given on isotoxal polytopes, although there could be like the bitruncated cubic honeycomb and rhombic dodecahedral honeycomb, etc. Examples are helpful to me, but I admit trying to list them ALL when the list is fairly short is still perhaps not ideal.

Anyway, hopefully I did good, glad for any input you'd like. (I have no reference sources for isotoxal polygons!!!) Tom Ruen (talk) 05:23, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Steelpillow!

I don't have a great knowledge in polytopes and all of its families. To tell you the truth , i made this table to help in my process of learning. Can you help me find the other families of polytopes ? I will include these new families with pleasure. Can you help me with possible mistakes and erros in this table? Thanks in advance!!!

--Mateus Zica (talk) 16:23, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Custer channel wing configuration deserves a mention in 'your' article - have fun with the line drawing! You can see photos here. --TraceyR (talk) 17:09, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I'd forgotten all about that one. Now done, see Wing configuration#Dihedral and anhedral. -- Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 20:12, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for re-writing that paragraph. I wrote it originally and I think your version is a good improvement! - Ahunt (talk) 20:39, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks I'll have to figure out something then; I may just make the rest of the SVGs myself. I'm not terribly familiar with SVG, but I know another markup language and I have made SVGs before. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 23:20, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

		The Barnstar of Diplomacy
		Thanks for mediating the discussion over SVG vs PNG formatting and for soliciting interested views (particularly my own Highly Informed View℠) – this is exemplary Wiki-diplomacy. Particularly praise-worthy are your words “Although it goes against my original thoughts, I am now persuaded.” exhibiting openness in your own thoughts, above and beyond mediating between others. Thank you. —Nils von Barth (nbarth) (talk) 05:53, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Steelpillow. You have new messages at Nbarth's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

As I just stumbled upon this article again and tried to fix a few small areas, I realized that tiny "patches" would not suffice. This article requires an entire rewrite. Comments? FWiW Bzuk (talk) 12:12, 2 May 2010 (UTC).[reply]

Hi, I replied on the article's talk page. -- Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 13:29, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Steelpillow. I've replied on my talk page.TSRL (talk) 16:37, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Added some more stuff there.TSRL (talk) 17:07, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Here's an unusual wing configuration - a rhomboidal tractor biplane from 1911 - worth a look! --TraceyR (talk) 14:28, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, yes it's the Walton Edwards Rhomboidal, and a replica was made for the film [[Those Magnificent Men in Their Flying Machines]. I would classify it as a joined wing. As remarked in the article on wing configuration, this form has never yet flown on a full-size aircraft. -- Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 19:50, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for that info! I had noticed that the Flight issue was dated April 1st and wondered whether it was an elaborate darkroom hoax! To judge from the pilot's perspective, this particular Rhomboidal gives a whole new meaning to the term "tractor" aircraft! --TraceyR (talk) 08:49, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I just came across the fact that you are interested in polyhedra and thought that you might find this presentation interesting. It's not mainstream physics at the moment/yet, but does provide some interesting results nevertheless (see the other publications on the same site, perhaps 38 would be a good place to start). The author isn't suggesting that nucleons are little spherical objects arranged in (truncated) tetrahedra, but that they (quantum-mechanical standing waves?) are organised on a lattice governed by FCC principles. Have fun! --TraceyR (talk) 12:17, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

He's evidently been publishing since the 1950's. I guess that if his ideas held any sway in the community, they would have hit the mainstream by now. One wonders whether the problem lies with his ability to get them accepted, or with the ideas themselves. Numerological coincidences abound everywhere - Gödel remarked that they are more common than orderly mathematical relationships. To discover such a numerical alignment is not necessarily to be on the trail of new physics. One must also wonder to what extent the author appreciates this. Sadly, my theoretical physics is not up to the challenge. I do know that current theory is leaning towards a clumping of alpha particles with the extra neutrons banished to the margins - he would need to show how his lattices align with and/or arise from this structural model. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 21:05, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Eugene Wigner first noticed (and published) something along these lines in 1937, before sharing the Nobel prize for his work on the Shell Model of the nucleus, so it has some pedigree. Pauling also did work in this area. Everling even had an early paper rejected because his work suggested the existence of a neutron 'skin', which went against the dogma of the time - not the way science is supposed to proceed; and, as you say, that idea is now accepted. Of course alpha particles are themselves tetrahedra. I'm not a physicist, but I help F.Everling to prepare his papers and presentations. There's a lot of impressive work behind his publications, e.g. discontinuities in the plot of binding energy against mass number at the accepted (sub)shell closures (shown in the Strasbourg paper). In 1964 he presented a paper "Further Evidence for an Exceptional Subshell Closure at 56 Neutrons in 40 Zr 96", which preceded Boboshin et al's 2007 paper "New Double-Magic Nucleus 96 Zr and Conditions for Existence of New Magic Nuclei" by 43 years. As good as the peer review system is, once someone produces ideas which are 'unconventional' it can get hard to have papers accepted. Thanks for taking the time to look at it - that's more than some experts do! --TraceyR (talk) 15:45, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Shame I'm not an expert. Many thanks for the heads-up, I'm impressed. The "not invented here" problem is getting some airing in New Scientist magazine and there is talk of some kind of "not-those-peers-reviewed" journal for the terminally rejected. I'd love to see something come of it. Meanwhile, tetrahedra do not pack closely in a BCC sphere lattice. It's actually quite an unusual packing problem - how to pack tetrahedra in a BCC sphere lattice with minimal gaps. I wonder whether some of the spare neutrons might fill in the gaps? — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 19:32, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There's an excellent book, "Models of the Atomic Nucleus" by Norman D. Cook, which summarises the existing approaches. In spite of the nature of the subject, Cook wears his obvious erudition lightly and has written a comprehensive, very readable and entertaining (!) introduction to the subject. I wish that it had been available when I was a school, but he probably hadn't been born then! I believe that a 2nd edition is on the cards, but the current edition is well worth having a look at. ISBN 3-540-28569-5, Springer. There are several chunks available to view online here. Cook also favours the FCC lattice approach and provides his "Nuclear Visualization Software" with the book - that might interest you too. The software is also available to download here. Cheers. Oh yes, I had some nagging doubts about Wigner's Nobel Prize - it was less about the Shell Model, more about symmetry. He almost proposed a 3D FCC model in 1937. Cook mentions this too in his chapter "The Lattice Model: Theoretical Issues" (ch.9).--TraceyR (talk) 12:03, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well I appreciate that.

I may not have Mike Hartley's polytope knowledge, but I do have a 100% solid background in Mathematics Foundations and method. As you can clearly see from my past practice, I do NOT put stuff in the article that I am not sure about, or even that I am but can't find references. Therefore you can assume that whatever I do put there I am pretty sure about - though there are of course style preferences such as our "vertex representation" dispute.

I am quite sure that had Mike defined flag with the phrase "each face, other than the minimal face, contains the one of preceding rank" you would not have reverted it. Your current definition has redundant information, which is not really good mathematics, and 2 other mistakes, all this I shall shortly put in the article talk.

I will feel comfortable to "return" IF you in future trust that I know my mathematics and will not put things in the article which I am not SURE are correct - and you do the same. SteveWoolf (talk) 09:36, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That's OK by me, thank you. As one of my recent edits showed, I sometimes make accidental mistakes. In such case, I will take no offence if you correct or revert such things.

The vertex representation issue is about more than just style - I will raise that on the discussion page if necessary. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 18:20, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. Your account has been granted the "reviewer" userright, allowing you to review other users' edits on certain flagged pages. Pending changes, also known as flagged protection, is currently undergoing a two-month trial scheduled to end 15 August 2010.

Reviewers can review edits made by users who are not autoconfirmed to articles placed under pending changes. Pending changes is applied to only a small number of articles, similarly to how semi-protection is applied but in a more controlled way for the trial. The list of articles with pending changes awaiting review is located at Special:OldReviewedPages.

When reviewing, edits should be accepted if they are not obvious vandalism or BLP violations, and not clearly problematic in light of the reason given for protection (see Wikipedia:Reviewing process). More detailed documentation and guidelines can be found here.

If you do not want this userright, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. Courcelles (talk) 17:48, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've turned Complete icosahedron into a disambiguation page, with content based largely on your comments on Talk:Final stellation of the icosahedron. It's not my area of expertese so I'd apprecate if it was checked over. —Pengo 22:42, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Guy - I got some help with CD diagrams as templates, and converted to a table form to prevent mid-symbol breaks, but it ended up not useful, since HTML won't allow tables to exist in-flow with text, so they can only exist between lines of text. There must be another way to prevent newline breaks. Tom Ruen (talk) 02:29, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Solution found - span HTML code with inline-block style: Tom Ruen (talk) 08:55, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Guy - I am a Wikipedia newbie and a Polyhedra enthusiast. I made some suggestions on the "discussion" page for "Polyhedra" for some books to consider for inclusion on the list. Just some thoughts - thanks for the consideration. JeffHoop (talk) 16:56, 25 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Steelpillow, So at last I discover who is doing all those drawings on that page. THANKS for the good work. Jack Jackehammond (talk) 20:14, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 11:16, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]