User talk:Egg plant

Ranmadhu here
Hi there! This is Ranmadhu (aka: User:Akamad). You emailed me about the vandalism. Sorry about the delay in replying, since I don't check my email often enough.

The user in question has made several vandal like edits. This was several days ago, so there's no need to take action on this user at this time (once again, apologies for the late reply).

But in future, the best thing to do in a case like this is to check the other edits the user has done, to see if any of them are acts of vandalism, if so revert them. Then have a look at Template messages/User talk namespace for an appropriate warning to put on the user's talk page and monitor the contributions of the user. If you find the user continues to vandalise, follow the procedure listed here. If you find the user is constantly vandalising and disregarding the warnings on his/her page, then add them to Administrator intervention against vandalism for immediate action. As you can see, there are a few steps involved, fortunately, most users stop vandalising after a couple of warnings are left on their talk page.

If you want to talk to me, probably best to post something on my talk page, but I certainly have no issues with emails, it's just that I only read my emails every few days so it might take me a while to reply. Thanks - Akamad 11:39, 15 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Yeah, that's certainly the best place to catch me. Just a quick tip for future, when posting something on a talk page, it's best to sign your post by typing " ~ " at the end, this will produce your username and a timestamp. If you have any questions, don't hesitate to ask, you know where to find me :-) Akamad 04:59, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

Atmospheric reentry
Hi there. I came across the Atmospheric reentry article, to which you have contributed heavily. I was wondering if it was possible for you to add an introduction of sorts to the article. This is a standard feature on most articles as stated in the manual of style and Lead section. I figured you were the most qualified to write it. Thanks. - Akamad 21:14, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

hi eggplant  i appreciate all the points you made above. im a theoretical physicist, but at the time i was at NASA many years ago, i functioned more as an experimentalist. i did work on wind tunnel ablation tests of new materials...yes apollo era. we also did some air flow analysis. ill try to add a little to the article, but feel free to call me on any points that you think are not on target. i feel you have more experience in reentry than i do. i went on to work more in atmosphereic physics. you can read by bio in brief on my home page here. best regards, michael Anlace 20:51, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Hi Anlace, Thanks for your input. I've reworked the reference system and shifted your paragraph slightly. I also broke my own rule and modified "Feathered Reentry" in order to include it within the new reference system (It doesn't hurt to include a reference to Dean Chapman who was a good guy and one of the most brilliant people to work at Ames). Egg plant 07:29, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

hi egg your continuing work on the site looks great,  i like all the beefed up references :) best regards, michael Anlace 21:05, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Hi Anlace, Thanks. Concerning your comments on ablation TPS research: You might want to go into the details of hypersonic wind tunnels based upon your own experience, e.g. the physics behind pebble bed heated tunnels, arcjets, shock tunnels, etc. Egg plant 00:20, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

Unfortunately Wikipedia is not a secure place for esoteric knowledge; and it is becoming less-so. All this good work on atmospheric reentry needs to have reliable, verifiable references, to protect it from adversarial interest groups, who make heavy-handed use of policy to further their goals. Important results must be published somewhere? What are the right journals to check? -- 99.233.186.4 (talk) 07:02, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Space exploration
Saw your note on my talk page, took a look, and I have commented on the article talk page. I basically agree that it's in need of serious work; I can't work on it for the next week, I have a large NASA proposal due Real Soon Now. I don't agree that it should be deleted and redone from scratch. I think that the gaps can be filled in and the criticism section non-neutral point of view bias against manned spaceflight made neutral (there are legitimate controversies about the benefits of manned spaceflight, and space exploration as a whole, but I agree that the section as-is is completely one sided biased, and technically wrong on several points). Georgewilliamherbert 22:03, 25 February 2006 (UTC)