User talk:AKAF/Archive2007

Shock wave discussion refactored to bottom
Hi again,

I see that you cannot leave me email or identify yourself. Fine I assume that you want to keep the mistakes in the shock wave article. Could you please explain why you insisting on keep the mistakes there. If you have a logical explain (don't have to be scientific just what are you secret motivations).

I can to do one of the two things it is not make any sense scientifically, or in that case).
 * 1) let you keep it, insert some paragraph about the history and put somewhere big statement that
 * 1) let the editors check which material make sense (you will have to show some credential

I am not hiding like you. you know who am I.

Genick

Hi AKAF

You change the shock wave article and ask that I leave a message for you. You can read my reaction in talk to shock wave. You can email me at barmeir at gmail.com or tell me what is your name so I know who I am talking to. I will also would like to know what is your background so it will help me to explain  the physics of shock wave and other things to you. --potto 15:42, 1 February 2007 (UTC) Genick

Hi AKAF. you make good points on the talk page. It's a good discussion of the subject (my own research area is shock waves in water interacting with air bubbles). It'd be good to get some pictures of shocks, tho'.

best wishes, Robinh 22:08, 8 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Hi, AKAF. I have also put a comment on Genick's talk page.  I would like to comment on something you said to Genick on Talk:Shock wave:
 * I'm sorry, but your writing is not in English. It is not grammatical, and often doesn't make sense. 
 * I suggest that this statement could have been written differently so as to be less likely to be taken with hard feelings, especially the "not in English" part. I would feel offended if someone said something like that to me about any language that I use at either high or low level of competence.  Different people have different definitions of "English".  I consider that Genick's writing is in English.  Everyone makes some grammatical errors, I think.  Some make more than others.  It's not necessary to tell them they're not writing English.  You could say something more content-oriented such as "I didn't understand this part, and that part, ..." etc.  It's better to focus on discussing article content and try to avoid saying things that might offend other editors.  It's more courteous to say "I don't understand" than to say "this doesn't make sense".  If you assume good faith, you can assume all writing makes sense to the one writing it -- and can be explained. --Coppertwig 17:42, 5 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your message on my talk page. I was already thinking, as I read along on the shock wave talk page, that there was an increasing level of cooperation going on.  Congratulations for your patience with me as well as with Genick.


 * I, along with other Wikipedians I've encountered, seem to be accustomed to often interspersing comments so that comments appear close to the specific material they're answering, although it can make it more difficult to notice when new material has been added. Adding comments at the bottom of a section is also often done, and tends to be done when there's less of a reason to intersperse.  I might try to stick to adding comments at the bottoms of sections at Talk:Shock wave as I think you requested, but I don't promise to necessarily always remember or to do so if I see a particularly strong reason to intersperse.  I may also add comments at the bottoms of sections slightly more often on other pages.  --Coppertwig 09:48, 6 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Re your comment on my talk page re interspersing: Well said.  Likewise.  :-) --Coppertwig 10:45, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Refactored from top

Here is another explanation
Here below are your claim. And below you should find my explanation.

Lock Sir, Wikipedia isn't yours. If you don't know the topic and you do not have the education than perhese you should work on the English. If you insist that you know the material, at least read the report that you allege to have the solution. Just page 10 it is only 10 lines above NACA113 equation 150a to the equation. Genick --potto 05:06, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

The standard analytical solutions to the oblique shock can be found in (for example) NACA1135 equations 115-170. If you claim that you are the first person to find an analytical solution to the oblique shock, I think you'll be disappointed. Your research may indeed be (new,interesting,correct) and if you can provide a refereed publication which agrees with you, then it could be added to comments about the standard solutions. '''Good that you brought this point. Read the NACA1135 report and refer to the wiki article on oblique shock. or to NACA 1135 page 10 equation 150a. It state "No convenient explicit relations exist" please locate it in the report. This relationship is the most important one. Your comment simply insults over 50 Ph.D. who dedicate you find the solution to this equation (if you would like to have ref i can provide you). This solution is important because it deals with the most fundamental question what will be shock angle for given upstream Mach number and wedge angle. The approximation that confuse with the solution exist but it is wrong (this is what I refers to the error in NACA 1135. The assumptions are wrong .). Now you can review the solution, it is explicitly explain in my book or ask someone who know basic mathematic (no knowledge in differential equations is needed, just simple algebra, well, a bit more than high school, though some high school students can figure it out.). The equations that you referred to 115-170 include equation 150a (may be you should read again that report) are either approximations or showing the reverse relationship (which is 1 to 1 and not 1 to 3 (solutions)). I hope that my explanation convince you or direct you to read so that you can understand. If you understand what I am saying, should we go with the history section? or do you need more explanations? if so, what are the points that you do not understand? By The way, my book with the solution is wildely used many places.''' --potto 05:06, 2 February 2007 (UTC) genick bar-meir

what is your knowledge
I was checking your correspondence on shock wave discussion. For example here

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Shock_wave#M.3C1_behind_an_oblique_shock.3F

It cannot believe how much misconception the people (including yourself) on this discussion have. The answer to the above question is simple always for strong sock and in some conditions for a weak shock. when strong or weak shock occur is depends on b.c. If you interested in unsteady state there is third solution which is M < 1.

Another example,

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Shock_wave#Supersonic.3F

The discussion by WolfKeeper is totally wrong  just read my book about moving shock. By the way, I was the first one to find analytical solution for this case. If he was right than you could not hear any one. Boy, he should read a book about this topic before writing this in wikipedia. genick

--potto 21:19, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

please read my explanations
I put my explanations in shock wave article.

I think that communication this way put you in bad light. I think it is better for you to make it discrete. May be irc or other forms? also this communication take long time. Do you have any idea? Yes, I know that you don't want to reveal yourself.

mediation
Dear sir/Madam,

I request a mediation against your editing in shock wave. I hope that you will either explain why you would like to keep errors in the article or stop changing it. If you believe that your corrections are of/on any base please explain. you can find the meditation requrest in http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Mediation_Cabal/Cases/2007-02-01_shock_wave

Genick I have nothing to hide you do. everything that I do is transparent and if you like discuss with me any of the issues or you believe that you are right and I am wrong please show or explain it.

Oblique shock wave
Hello AKAF. Thanks for the message. Yes, both oblique shock and moving shock are indeed dog's dinners. My first thought was to merge them with shock wave (on the grounds that they are Galilean transforms of a steady shock) but on reflection this isn't quite appropriate because a small amount of material on angles etc should really appear in a separate article. Would you agree with this? I must say, I think that Genick is acting in Good Faith, but his editing does need heavy revision by someone with a more (how to put this?) natural writing style.

While I'm writing, do you find the "types of shock wave" section in the shock wave article in need of serious revision? The wording seems to imply that the list is somehow a natural typology of shock waves, and the actual entries are nothing of the sort. What do you think? Best wishes, Robinh 08:29, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

It is all water under the bridge
I also agree withe Robinh that the type of shock need to be modified. I believe that my version has a good base to start (need more discussion about MHD).

Genick --potto 15:07, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Congratulations to both AKAF and Genick for successfully shifting to a cooperative discussion focusing on article content. That is not easy to do when emotions have been involved.  --Coppertwig 18:33, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Expansion wave and negative step function
I would like to know your opinion on Talk:Shock wave. Thank you. -Myth (Talk) 03:46, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

re:RFA
Just replied to your comment on my RFA, as far as I was aware my email had been activated for ages, but after you mentioned it I checked and it had been deactivated somehow! But I had set it to receive emails ever since User:Ginkgo100 suggested I do so, and have received emails from both Patchbook and Tony and Kintesbuffalo many times. I hope this helps answer your concerns! SGGH 20:30, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

RFA
Thanks for your contributions to my RFA, which ended successfully. I appreciate you taking the time to vote :) SGGH 20:48, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Tyluthan
http://www.freewebs.com/tyluthan is NOT my personal site. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Ouijalover (talk • contribs) 01:58, 8 April 2007 (UTC).

Mackensen's RFB
Hi, I just read your comment on Mackensen's RFB. I don't understand this:


 * I just can't get the nightmare out of my head of an RFA with 100 support comments and one oppose, which mackensen (or some later bureaucrat) defines as 'valid' and refuses sysadminship.

Obviously it would be an unusual single oppose. Could you elaborate on this? What kind of single oppose could torpedo a request for adminship? I have no problem thinking of single reasons, for instance if someone pledged that he'd use his adminship powers to undelete copyright-infringing images or otherwise compromise Wikipedia, a single oppose (even no opposes, if the bureaucrat is doing his job) would be enough, but I can't see that there would be just one of them. In fact if the bureaucrats promoted in such circumstances they and the promoted party would find themselves before the arbitration committee within minutes. But in any case practically everybody who cares about Wikipedia would oppose. What kind of situation do you envisage, where there is a single valid reason to oppose that would simultaneously attract just one opposing comment, and would nevertheless cause a bureaucrat to fail the candidate? --Tony Sidaway 07:55, 11 April 2007 (UTC)


 * My opposition was perhaps a little schrill :-) but it's for a reason. Mackensen's proposition is (in essence) that the votes on RFA (or maybe just the votes of oppose) would no longer be counted as votes, but would be grouped as arguments. I feel that Mackensen's proposal is weak because it increases the discretionary range of bureaucrats to the point of dictatorship without addressing any of the fundamental problems in the system. For instance:


 * RFA John_DOE
 * Support (20 instances) I trust this editor.
 * Support (20 instances) This editor is my friend.
 * Support (20 instances) This is a NBD adminship.
 * Support (10 instances) Support as nom.
 * Oppose (5 instances) This user BITES
 * Oppose (5 instances) This user has too few edits on AFD
 * Oppose (5 instances) This user has personal material in userspace
 * Oppose (5 instances) This user has too many userboxes
 * Oppose (5 instances) Hasn't demonstrated a need for the tools


 * In the current arrangement, this RFA would fail 70/30/0. What mackenson is suggesting appears to be that under the new system that the actual votes would be disregarded, although to what extent he is unclear. For instance if Mackenson decides that groupings (7,8,9) are "invalid" and then counts the votes, he has (70/15/0) which is a pass by the 75% rule. The problem is that this sets a precedent for somewhat wider interpretation of bureaucrat powers. As an example, in a recent AFD (RevRagnarok (?)) some supporters reason was effectively "Support because he hates the EU". This shows that there is certainly a precedent for poor support comments. For a bureaucrat inclined that way, I can think of reasons for ignoring any combination of arguments 2-9 above, and then retallying the votes. There are certainly other combinations, such as ignoring voters with low edit counts (as in danny's RFA).


 * The other problem with Mackensen's arguments is that (in extremis) a single well-argued oppose of sufficient strength would be sufficient, since votes (both pro and con) will be completely ignored and only arguments counted. This leads to further discretion over the definition of "well-argued" and "of sufficient strength". Certainly the 8th paragraph of Mackensen's statement appears to say that he would ignore all opposes all the time for anyone vaguely appropriate (Which is effectively asking for RFA to be replaced by bureaucratic fiat). The logical counterpoint to mackensen's "support all" stance is a second bureaucrat with an "oppose all" stance based on the same set of rules.


 * I have no doubt that mackensen feels that some RFAs are failing because of "invalid" oppose votes, and would like to correct it, but I think that the logical outcome of his argument is that the bureaucrats have a true vote amongst themselves after the RFA with their supports/opposes based on the particular combination of arguments which that particular bureaucrat feels to be "valid". I think that this ignores the main strength of the RFA system, which is that the discretionary range of bureaucrats is quite small and thus a grudging acceptance of a close result which goes against the way someone has hoped is more likely. AKAF 09:51, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I've noted your comment on my RfB, and your comment on Moralis's RfA which is in the same vein, and I'd like to make a minor observation. First of all, my RfB and his RfA are operating under quite different rules. Mine is still (last I looked) organized with distinct support/oppose/neutral sections and while there's been a high level of productive discussion it is otherwise a normal request and I have no idea how the bureaucrats intend to close it. Moralis's RfA represents an experiment in formatting and is quite independent from my RfB and ought to be treated as such (indeed, the organizer opposed my RfB). Mackensen (talk) 11:17, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm not unaware of that. I think though that there is a persistent theme: That the significance of a straight vote-count should be reduced. Additionally the coupling of the proposal and the RF[AB] is close in both cases. I am unclear as to whether Moralis wanted this change or not, but in both the possible cases, I would vose oppose. ie if Moralis was unaware of the effect of the reformatting I would oppose on the basis of inexperience, and if Moralis was aware then I would oppose on the basis that I think he's created a disaster. In general I just don't think that an RF[AB] is a good place for straight up vote on a structural change. There's straw polls for that. AKAF 11:31, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

TeckWiz's RFA
Hey AKAF. Thanks for commenting on my unsuccessful RFA last month under my old name, TeckWiz. I'm now known simply as User:R. I've been very busy lately which is why you're getting now. I will use your comment to help improve, and I hope to keep helping and improving Wikipedia alongside you. -- TeckWiz is now R Parlate Contribs@(Let's go Yankees!) 16:22, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Bureaucrat
Thanks for your comments. I am Wikipedia's newest bureaucrat. I will do my best to keep your concerns in mind as I perform my duties. Andre (talk) 09:48, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Requests for adminship/Elonka 2
Thank you for taking the time to participate at the discussion in my Request for Adminship. Unfortunately the nomination did not succeed, but please rest assured that I am still in full support of the Wikipedia project. I listened carefully to all concerns, and will do my best to incorporate all of the constructive advice that I received, into my future actions on Wikipedia. If you can think of any other ways that I can further improve, please let me know. Best wishes, Elonka 05:06, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

My RfA
I owe you a big thank you for supporting me in My RfA, which was successful with 67 supports and 20 opposes. - Penwhale &#124; Blast him / Follow his steps 23:52, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Re: Genick/potto
AKAF,

I see we are working to change some of his work at the same time. Redirecting some of his pages looks good for now - perhaps I can write new articles sometime soon. I've been watching his work for a while now, and it is difficult to understand his motives for writing such poor articles. The articles in aerodynamics need a lot of editing, and a plan has to be sorted out to work with them. I've got some ideas and I'll send you a longer message about them sometime soon. EMBaero 15:12, 18 October 2007 (UTC)EMBaero
 * I would much prefer to have useful articles than redirects, but I think that some of them are in such poor condition that redirection is the best option at this time. AKAF 15:29, 18 October 2007 (UTC).
 * I revised the Moving shock article into something that makes sense for Wikipedia. Writing a new article on Shock dynamics will be more difficult mainly because a good article opens the door to shock wave interaction, which is very complex.  I don't like the term shock dynamics very much, either - perhaps it will eventually be a stub leading to articles like shock wave interaction, shock-boundary layer interaction, shock trains, etc.  Of course, I am getting a bit ahead of myself with these future articles as more simple ones like Gas dynamics and Compressible flow need to be finished first.  Do you know of anyone else interested in editing aerodynamics articles?  If there is any interest, I was thinking of establishing a dialog on the Category:Aerodynamics page.  As far as Genick, I am leaning towards believing he actually is Dr. Genick Bar-Meir.  However, looking up his name on Google shows he has been unemployed and involved in some lawsuits - seems like he might be a troubled person.  He shows knowledge of compressible aerodynamics articles, but it is mixed with absurd claims and grammatical errors as you no doubt have seen.  If he attempts any more ridiculous edits, I will file them with administrators as vandalism. EMBaero 02:45, 19 October 2007 (UTC)EMBaero

Regarding Genick
For what it is worth, some many months ago, I exchanged a number of emails with Genick in which I asked if his book had been published anywhere other than online and had it ever been peer reviewed. As I recall, he admitted that it had not been published anywhere but online and that he doesn't plan to do so. As I also recall, he could not name any peer reviewers of his book. I also did a search of Google Scholar to see if he has published any peer reviewed work of any kind and anywhere ... and found there was little or none. I came to the personal conclusion that the credibility of his online book was not very good. Regards, - mbeychok 05:22, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Requests for adminship/Elonka 3
Thank you for your participation in my RfA. It was definitely a dramatic debate that landed on WP:100, but ultimately was deemed a successful declaration of consensus, and I am now an admin. I definitely paid close attention to everything that was said in the debate, and, where possible, I will try to incorporate the (constructive) criticism towards being a better administrator. I'm going to take it slowly for now, partially because of the holidays and all the off-wiki distractions. I'm working my way through the New admin school, carefully double-checking the relevant policies, and will gradually phase into the use of the new tools, with my main goals being to help out with various backlogs. I sincerely doubt you'll see anything controversial coming from my new access level. :) I also fully intend to keep on writing articles, as there are a few more that I definitely want to get to WP:FA status. If you do ever have any concerns about my activities as an administrator, I encourage you to let me know. My door is always open. Have a good holiday season, --Elonka 17:57, 20 December 2007 (UTC)