User talk:Lsorin

Move picture
Dear Lsorin,

Is it okay if i move your picture from habor of Goes to the Wikimedia Commens then also other Wikipedia's can use it. (I would like to place in the dutch version)

Regards,

DZ

Please do as you like.

Regards, LSorin

License tagging for Image:FAILogo.gif
Thanks for uploading Image:FAILogo.gif. Wikipedia gets thousands of images uploaded every day, and in order to verify that the images can be legally used on Wikipedia, the source and copyright status must be indicated. Images need to have an image tag applied to the image description page indicating the copyright status of the image. This uniform and easy-to-understand method of indicating the license status allows potential re-users of the images to know what they are allowed to do with the images.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:
 * Image use policy
 * Image copyright tags

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. If you need help on selecting a tag to use, or in adding the tag to the image description, feel free to post a message at Media copyright questions. 15:07, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Grand Prix Final report infobox
A proposed deletion template has been added to the article Grand Prix Final report infobox, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice explains why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may contest the proposed deletion by removing the  notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page. Also, please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. If you endorse deletion of the article, and you are the only person who has made substantial edits to the page, please add db-author to the top of the page. ViperSnake151 20:30, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

World Air Games
WAG 2009 is not being held in 2008, so I'm not sure why you keep adding it to the 2008 article. If you want it there, you need to add a reference where we can see why a 2009 event is being held in 2008. Also, since this is the English language wiki, please add links to English-language web-page when they are available, which in this case, they are. Thanks! Franamax (talk) 21:02, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Sorry! Stupid me. I think is to late and my brain doesn't work anymore as it should... Thanks!
 * No problem, I'm never all that sure my own brain is working right no matter what time of day it is :) I'm going to change the link you put on the 2009 page to point to the English-language page on the wag2009 website.
 * Also, it would be good if you signed your posts on talk pages by adding four tildes ~ at the end of your text, they will automatically get converted to your name and the date and time. (Only on talk pages like this one, not in articles) And it's very nice for other people if you fill something in the edit summary field to tell them what you have done. I don't mean to lecture you, I see you've been here for awhile, just not very active. Cheers! Franamax (talk) 22:06, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Getting close to 3RR
Here's a friendly warning that you are at the edge of the three-revert rule at Jet engine. I do not wish to see you blocked for a fourth reversion in 24 hours. Binksternet (talk) 22:27, 19 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Hi Lsorin -- you seem to be trying to wage a battle on multiple fronts (Jet engine, the history article, etc.) to include the Coanda 1910. Please stop trying to insert references into the article. The proper way to go about this is to dicuss it, as is being done on the Coanda 1910 page. -SidewinderX (talk) 12:50, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Could you please lock the articles then? As I said already I'm not going to edit anymore. I recognise that I'm a total ignorant of the Wikipedia rules and personally I received enough threats that tells me that in the end my personal safety is more important than the memory of Henry Coanda on a garbage site like Wikipedia. I don't know how to ask protection for articles and I don't trust Wikipedia personally anylonger.

Lsorin (talk) 22:27, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

September 2010
You have been blocked from editing for a period of 24 hours for your disruption caused by edit warring and violation of the three-revert rule&#32;at Jet engine. During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. If you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding below this notice the text, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. Magog the Ogre (talk) 18:55, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Hi Lsorin, the link you've posted on my page has just made me realise that all this kerfuffle has probably originated from a translation mistake: Coanda's engine was a Reaction engine, there is no doubt about that. "Reaction engine" is thought by the uninitiated to be synonimous to "jet engine ". The term was coined at the start of aviation history, when many different systems were used in reaction propulsion but, when the jet affirmed itself as the better performing configuration, the term "reaction engine" become synonimous in common parlance with the "jet".

Please do not leave Wikipedia because of the errors of others. :) Brutal Deluxe (talk) 15:21, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Then what was wrong with the statement: "16 December – Henri Coandă's plane is the first jet to fly when it unexpectedly becomes airborne while testing the engine." from 1910 in aviation. Are we lost in translation again? A broken balloon is a jet engine as well then. Lsorin (talk) 15:31, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, a broken balloon is a reaction engine. I'm looking for more detail or plans on the Coanda engine so we can both see wether it was a jet or a ducted fan. One source calls it a turbojet, but it does not appear that Coanda expected the engine to emit high temperatures or shoot flames at all, as he had not provided protection against this. Brutal Deluxe (talk) 15:50, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

As I already explained in my last entry in Talk:1910_in_aviation. Is today's modern jet engine turbo compressor producing fast jets before the ignition chamber? Are they ducted fans? Are those jets coming from the compressor at high temperature or not? I really think that we enter area's nor me or you are specialist in. You need to be an engineer. I questioned as well Gibbs-Smith stuff as well. Was he a specialist in turbojet engines? Did he ever worked in a factory building such stuff? I think than we both can agree that be best expert in this was Coanda himself because he was working in the area later in his life as well. So could you please help me escalate this case to the Wikipedia administrators to get the protection against all this articles with the information blocked before Binksternet who started to mess up everything in here with his "expertise"? We really need a written material by experts which really analyzed all the aspects. Sadly again for this Wiki community is looks like the newest possible sources like the Romanian Air Force Museums which has most of Coanda's work is not trusted, because they are no knighted by Her Majesty the Queen. If this cannot be done, than, a least personally, I cannot really thrust this community. Thank you very much in advance! Lsorin (Lsorin) 17:33, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately it doesn't matter what we think, it's the experts that count. I would not use the Romanian airforce as a source because they are not an independent source, i.e. they are not neutral and obviously have a vested interest in claiming that the engine was a turbojet. In fact as there so many contradicting sources I would discard all the internet ones too, as they are all likely to be circulating info that came from WP. The one thing that is sure is that Coanda was trying to eliminate the dangers and downsides of propellers (as advertised at the time), wether he also came up with the thermojet principle is disputed, and it was certainly not a turbojet as the turbine was driven by a piston engine. Brutal Deluxe (talk) 10:15, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Please read What I added below.

Lsorin (talk) 12:09, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Your recent edits
Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you must sign your posts by typing four tildes ( &#126;&#126;&#126;&#126; ) at the end of your comment. You may also click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 20:43, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Coandă-1910
Hi Lsorin - Thanks for reconnecting with me. I'm not sure how much help I can be as I don't have any experience with airplane articles, but I can certainly give the article a bit of a cleanup... give me a little time. I noticed some things on the article's Talk page. The article is participating in a RfC (Request for Comment); that's good as it should involve more editors. It also appears to me (tell me if I'm wrong) that you are requesting editors to contact officials at external websites to verify details; that is not something we do. --Rosiestep (talk) 02:06, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Hi Rosiestep - Thank you for the reply and the clean up in the Coanda 1910. I agree with you fully regarding all Wiki's editors knowledge in the area of jet engines and especially we completely miss the translation authority in a highly specialized area like this. As well personally I'm not an expert in any of this to areas: Wiki and Jet Engines. That is why I did not know about all this stack of rules the Wikipedia has (for instance: request to officials. I was just a ( I suppose ) normal Wikipedia enthusiast, until last days and nothing more nothing less, and personally I fell sad that such a great toll makes not sense any longer at least to me. Regarding my request in your talk page I did not explain maybe the whole situation clearly enough. So if you have the patience to read the explanation, here is it: My first entry in the English Wikipedia related to the Coanda 1910 subject was in 2007. Of course that entry got corrected in time with the correct English wording (BTW I'm not an English native speaker so please excuse my mistakes ). This is the moment I started to watch this page. Only that, not Coanda 1910 or any related articles. This entry was quite stable until in noticed the change from Binksternet on 16th of December. Of course this really left me completely puzzled and I started to try to correct it back. And than I've got to know whole mess created by the change of the Coanda 1910 article and all the other related articles to it and the interminable discussions in which I started to be involved as well. Now looking back, where this whole mess started by a the same person with two(three) accounts, Romanianlies/Romaniantruth(s) which exposes his xenophobic intentions motive for which he got blocked in the end. A suppose the Wikipedia tries to address in xenophobia at very serious level according to the international laws. Sadly, as I looked down the history of the changes of the [Coanda 1910] and the discussions basically all the editors, even distinguished ones like Binksternet have been manipulated by this person. So that is why I proposed to: "=== Documentation === Several aviation historians (e.g.Gibbs-Smith) and other areas experts (e.g. Frank H. Winter) have done at different points of time, brief investigations, contesting several aspects related to the Coanda 1910, for instance the powerplant and the flight of December 1916. As the very large ( we can add for instance the statement that 800Kg of documentation exists at Romanian Academy and National Air Museum ) amount of documentation related to Coanda 1910 of different times and covering a multitude of sources, from different fields like, patents, engineering, metallurgy, fluid (jet, streams ), thermodynamics, aerodynamics, etc are very contradictory especially regarding the technical terms, as during 100 years history the terms used in all the documents, invented, explained and aligned in different languages (English, French, Romanian ). Until new studies about this very interesting airplane the assumptions stay as they are."
 * revert all the edits all the way back before all this xenophobic attacks started
 * block (eventually) the Romaniantruth(s) editing rights to all related articles (except maybe for the discussion part)
 * send to Binksternet a pink pen to note his books articles with question marks and buy him a ticket to Paris or Bucharest ( I will be really happy to do that personally )
 * freeze the article like this as this was last clean entry before the attack and manipulations started
 * add reference to new contemporary findings from this discussions like
 * and eventually and a chapter like this:

Lsorin (talk) 12:02, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Just noticed, on the same topic, the same person messed up Traian Vuia's related articles, during the same xenophobic attack. Lsorin (talk) 20:35, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Old Usernames
Hi Lsorin! Just so you know, when a username is changed on Wikipedia, the old name stays up in an inactive state. This is standard practice, and It's only a violation of Wikipedia rules to use more than one name in a deceptive manner. (see: sockpuppetry) I'm sorry you believe I'm manipulating all these editors to do my bidding, but I can assure you that this is not the case. If I had such powers I'd be using them to dominate the world and make all humanity tremble before me. Or maybe I'd just go into politics. Since I'm a Republican, these two things would actually be pretty similar.Romaniantruths (talk) 06:25, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Hi Romaniantruths/lies! As you've seen my proposal above I've very open for a decent dialog. What I really want is some stable pages looked or protected ( they were quite stable for the last 3-4 year until you started to edit ) and clarify all this mess in a civilized way and than we can put the conclusions in web. Regarding my accusations of xenophobia, looking at the history of your accounts, (BTW do you have some other edits in Wikipedia with other account names?), it is clear the you especially targeted to Romanian aviation pioneers. Keep in mind that Hitler was doing the same, he targeted a particular nation and their values and than manipulated minds of the whole Germany in you know very well what. If this is true than it looks that you found the proper medium in Wikipedia, to exercise your manipulation skills, as the editors in general don't really think widely enough to understand the real implications their, afternoon in front of computers, own actions. If this is is no true, than I really apologize and let's be neutral from the beginning in all this discussions and not start arguing that RoAF archives are more or less relevant than the RAF archives, because this will lead us back to square one. --Lsorin (talk) 09:20, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

And two more questions: Are you an aviation historian? Second could you please leave the political agenda of what ever party you belong to out of the discussions? Wikipedia is trying to list fact in the most neutral way possible that is way is it still a foundation, not a company not a governmental agency. Personally I'm agnostic to politics and military. I have never been in any army or governmental job. --Lsorin (talk) 09:46, 25 September 2010 (UTC) First things first. My line about my fellow Republicans and world domination was a joke. As a liberal member of a very non-liberal party I strongly disagree with much of what has happened both nationally and internationally since 2000. I forgot that you might not hear much of what happens in this country since you live in a distant land with your own concerns, both national and international. Secondly, I'm not at all sure why you would ask me about my professional background. I haven't asked you, or anyone else on Wikipedia about theirs because the editing protocalls on this site are about reliable references, not professional credentials. Indeed if I were to tell you that I am an aviation historian, or combustion engineer, or aeronautical engineer, and point you to books I had written or scholarly papers I had published, it wouldn't make much difference since original research is not accepted here. These books or papers would be given no more or less weight than if they had been brought up by any other editor, regardless of his or her personal qualifications. I am pressed for time right now, and will be back to address your other concerns later. Romaniantruths (talk) 18:39, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Hi Lsorin, Your remarks about Hitler are fascinating. I didn't realize he had an interest in the history of aviation, let alone that he was involved in extensive discussions about this internationally. I'm afraid I don't know exactly what Hitler's amateur researches into aviation history led to. Did he make some important discovery about early flight? I noticed above that you've been getting threats and are concerned for your own personal safety. This is a very serious situation! Such threats are not tolerated on Wikipedia, and it is your clear duty name these people who have been threatening you, and report them. But don't be frightened; if they don't live in Romania you're probably safe. Romaniantruths (talk) 03:09, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Removed PROD
I've removed your PROD on the Coandă-1910, as it's most likely ineligible for PRODding. Notability is not an issue, as you basically admit in your PROD statement, and I don't see any other issues that warrant deletion. As such, I'd seriously recommend against and AFD as fruitless. This is primarily a content dispute, and deltioiuns are not the way to handle those issues. Thanks. - BilCat (talk) 06:47, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Ok. Yesterday night I build an airplane in my courtyard Lsorin-2010. The powerplant is jet engine working with bananas. You put bananas in the engine and the airplane is flying. Can I add this article to Wikipedia? I have pictures of bananas as well. I don't have a picture with the bananas jet streamed behind the engine! I'm wondering if the Coanda effect applies to bananas as well.

Ok, now trying to be more serious. There are two ways to continue:

1. We accept Gibbs-Smith as reference. That means the Coanda-1910 is and irrelevant plane in the history of aviation from his own saying: "There can be no doubt that the important source quoted in the [November] 1956 article [in Royal Air Force Flying Review] was either indulging in a friendly leg-pull, or was suffering from a faulty memory. However, the 'jet' Coanda was certainly remarkable in its way, and deserves a somewhat modest place amongst the ingenious ideas that were unworkable in practice." – Charles Harvard Gibbs-Smith (1960). The Aeroplane: An Historical Survey of Its Origins and Development, pages 220–221. London: Her Majesty's Stationery Office. BTW Coanda 1910 does not have a single entry in Encyclopedia Britannica. In this case this article is a very good candidate for deletion. (Like my banana airplane example)

2. We do not take Gibbs-Smith as a trustful reference a we continue with the main assumption which made this plane important in the history of aviation: "the plane with the first jet engine!". As I explained above to Rosiestep I accept to add a "document" chapter or however you want to call it and we add Gibbs-Smith and those references contesting the main fact!

Please select one number! After that we can continue the discussions in a decent way! Until that I will keep the Article as PROD, so more people can see the mess created in here. --Lsorin (talk) 16:22, 26 September 2010 (UTC)


 * A PROD is not an AFD - once a PROD has been remove, it's not to be restored. You have to take it to AFD it you want to pursue further deletion. - BilCat (talk) 16:32, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Could you please help me take the AFD?

--Lsorin (talk) 18:48, 26 September 2010 (UTC)


 * I'd genuinely like to, but I have difficulty doing it myself. - I'll see if I can find someone to help you with it. - BilCat (talk)


 * Thank you very much BilCat for help! I already tried and I made a mess ;).--Lsorin (talk) 19:53, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Your recent edits
Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you must sign your posts by typing four tildes ( &#126;&#126;&#126;&#126; ) at the end of your comment. You may also click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 19:58, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Articles for deletion nomination of Coandă-1910
It looks like you're trying to get Coandă-1910 deleted but are having trouble getting the deletion discussion started. I think you're getting screwed up with the diacritical mark above the "a" in "Coandă", which is essential in this process. Another problem is that "see __ discussion" is not a valid rationale for deletion and you're likely to get a lot of responses of TLDR.

Can you concisely tell me why you want this article deleted? If it's within the deletion policy I'm willing to assume good faith and help you out. I should note, however, that the talk page discussion right now is not supporting deletion. &mdash; KuyaBriBri Talk 18:43, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Thank you very much for the reply! Let's see how the discussion goes. I was trying to build up the consensus in the talk page. It looks like the guys disagree with the Step 1, so basically the need to deletion in not any longer relevant. Anyway now the question is why the plane is important in history as without the jet engine, in does not even make sens to have it in. Anyway I will contact you immediately personally when needed. Thank you again! --Lsorin (talk) 19:06, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

It looks like the edit war continues. I'm repeatedly asking Romanianlies/Romanianthruths to participate first to the discussions and then do the edits, but continuously my requests and my questions are ignored. Is that another way to handle this case? --Lsorin (talk) 16:53, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
 * There are a few things that can be done. First, I'm going to request full protection of the page due to the ongoing content dispute. If an administrator agrees that the situation warrants full protection, no one other than an administrator will be allowed to edit the article while the protection is in place. And generally, an administrator will only edit the article after careful consideration, including whether the proposed edit has some consensus. Second, I'm going to place a request for some additional eyes on this at WikiProject Aircraft.
 * For your information, the full dispute resolution process can be found here. I see no reason yet to escalate this issue beyond where I already have, and you ought to know that making complaints about the same issue through multiple venues is considered "forum shopping" and is highly looked down upon. You also need to know that name-calling (e.g., "Romanianlies") is a violation of WP:NPA; consider this a first warning, and if it continues I will report you. redacted comment; did not realize that this really was Romaniantruths' old username
 * Please note that I am not taking anyone's side in this dispute, and I will be informing the others involved in this dispute that I have left this comment here. &mdash; KuyaBriBri Talk 17:23, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Thank you again! I'm very happy with your neutral approach. I have really had hard times getting some administrator attention more deeply in this topic and the Consensus build up discussion which was tried in the talk that was mostly ignored. So I really hope that the discussion will continue in a really neutral manner. --Lsorin (talk) 17:35, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

re: Vandalism term
On the Coanda-1910 discussion pages. Please remember "Any good-faith effort to improve the encyclopedia, even if misguided or ill-considered, is not vandalism". See also Types of and What is not and in the latter how to deal with it. Accusations of vandalism could be taken as personal attack contrary to NPA. GraemeLeggett (talk) 19:37, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Combative use of old username
Please stop using the disallowed name of Romanianlies when referring to User:Romaniantruths. Such continued needling is combative and not collegial. Binksternet (talk) 17:28, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Talk page etiquette
Hello,. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikiquette alerts regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Binksternet (talk) 05:49, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

1RR at Coandă-1910
You know that the article Coandă-1910 has been limited to one reversion per editor per day. Along with the limitation is the requirement for editors to explain each reversion on the talk page. This reversion of yours restored the category motorjet which has been deleted by others as not applicable because a motorjet has combustion in the airstream. You must explain your reversion or be blocked for violating the new article rules. Binksternet (talk) 13:39, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
 * As you know very well from the discussions, Coandă-1910's powerplant is accepted by some historians as a motorjet and by some not and called just a simple ducted-fan. According to NPOV both claims should be presented equally. So the decision is yours: we keep it in both categories or we removed from both, but we cannot have it in one single category.--Lsorin (talk) 13:51, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Take your concern to Talk:Coandă-1910 or be blocked for 1RR violation. Binksternet (talk) 13:56, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
 * My concern was taken to there for the last month, as you very well know and you very well ignored the consensus build up. Should I be blocked for following the WP:GEVAL?--Lsorin (talk) 13:59, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Take your concern to Talk:Coandă-1910 or be blocked by User:Amatulic for violating the injunction at Talk:Coandă-1910. Debating the issue here will not satisfy Amatulic. Binksternet (talk) 14:14, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 31 hours for abuse of editing privileges. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding below this notice the text, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. Addendum: Lsorin, I feel your edits have been overall worthwhile and constructive. However, you have three times in the past 24 hours re-inserted words such as "monoplane" that have been met with objection by other editors. While your concern may be valid, please realize that edit warring will not get the version you want into the article, no matter how good your intentions are. My 1RR notice was abundantly clear about what would happen if anyone makes more than one revert in 24 hours. I did not want to block you, but now that the rules have been laid down, I must enforce them. ~Amatulić (talk) 18:43, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
 * So how can I escalate my case?--Lsorin (talk) 19:01, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Lsorin: If you did not get a single proposal supporting the addition of the word "monoplane" to the article, but instead got your additions reverted multiple times, there comes a point where you must respect the consensus and move on to something else. You are reverting when you repeatedly re-insert text that has been removed multiple times. Others have made reverts also, yes, but not multiple reverts in 24 hours. If I am mistaken, please point out other 1RR violations and I will take appropriate action.

Also, you are failing to abide by the policy Assume good faith if you feel that you are the only neutral contributor.

When your block expires, you are welcome to continue making constructive contributions as you have been doing. ~Amatulić (talk) 20:16, 2 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Amatulic, I just noticed your entry now. In the talk page I could not get convinced that the mistake in that article is not relevant. Help me to escalate that to other forums. Is the WP:RSN the correct one? The last time I put there something the admin watching it just left it up in the air. Is there another forum? About the revert stuff I still don't understand what was the Wikipedia rule you have used for blocking. I explained above why I did not considered my edits as reverts. Can I escalate my concern with this revert stuff anywhere?--Lsorin (talk) 20:43, 2 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Lsorin: The 1RR restriction is clearly stated every time you try to edit the article, and also stated on the talk page at Talk:Coandă-1910. It does not matter if you don't consider your edits as reverts. The simple fact is, you repeatedly re-added text that was removed by others, willfully ignoring the apparent consensus. Your actions were reverts by any definition. I know you were doing this in good faith, but at the same time you were ignoring the 1RR restriction. The resulting block was inevitable.


 * You can discuss the subject of reverts at Wikipedia talk:Edit warring. You can also complain about my action at WP:ANI.


 * Also be aware that repeated unblock requests, as you are doing, may be viewed as WP:TENDENTIOUS and result in an extended block. I suggest just waiting it out. ~Amatulić (talk) 23:47, 2 November 2010 (UTC)


 * As I explained already my understanding that the "apparent consensus" was reached that is why my edits. What is that "apparent consensus" in your opinion
 * At least at some point the user TransientVoyager has done an outdent :


 * Comment: I don't know when the term 'sesquiplane' was coined (maybe later than 1910?); however, it is simply a biplane with unequal-sized sets of main wings, but still a type of biplane nevertheless, so referring to a sesquiplane as one is not incorrect; merely imprecise, and Oiseau could be forgiven for doing so, especially if the term was not in existence at the time. But confusing 'monoplane' with 'biplane' is another matter entirely – very odd!--TransientVoyager (talk) 09:28, 31 October 2010 (UTC) Even odder when you consider the French equivalents for the terms are 'monoplan', 'biplan' and 'sesquiplan' – it's not exactly rocket science!--TransientVoyager (talk) 10:56, 31 October 2010 (UTC)


 * In wondering as well why the removal of the word 'monoplane' by Binkstenet is not considered as a revert?
 * When ever I will be able edit again I will take this "blocking" issue to the forums you proposed. Thanks for that! I still have some little hope that, we can do some constructive work here, but it would be nice to see some third opinion and not destructive as started by RomanianTruths sometime ago.
 * About the WP:TENDENTIOUS I will be waiting for getting unblocked, but still I'm very sad that nobody when want to understand that I have no intentions to impose a particular idea. I'm just trying to correct lies stated on this article against the main stream. As well I ask you now to block the article again, as solve this issues in the talk page as this revert rules I see in this Wikipedia talk:Edit warring forum are anyway very unclear and controversial by themselves. (Who did the revert me or Binskternet?)

About "Assumption of good faith"
As I'm not able to edit the talk page of Coanda-1910, but everybody reading this page can see how much "Assumption of good faith" has Binskternet to my edits. My last entry statement "This work is reflected by additions to the powerplant related patents on 3rd of Decemeber." is a free translation from a secondary source. On page 31 there is this entry: "Dupa închiderea oficiala a salonului a fost transportat probabil într-unul din atelierele lui Bayard, unde Coanda a mai efectuat câteva modificari pe care le gândise în prealabil. Una dintre aceste modificari a vizat turbina. Pledeaza în favoarea acestei afirmatii completarea la brevetul de inventie Propulsor solicitata de Coanda la 3 decembrie 1910." which translates aproximately in English: "After the official closing of the salon was probably transported in one of Bayard's workshops, where the Coanda has made some changes which he had thought previously. One of these changes aimed the turbine. Advocates in favor of this, the addition to the "Propulsor" patent the claim requested by Coanda on 3rd of December 1910." At least, unlike Binsksternet, I'm trying to find sources supporting my edits, not just copy-paste Winter's very "neutral" approach on Coanda-1910. Winter in his "neutral" approach is never talking about the later additions to existing patents nor the exact dates when the claims were made! --Lsorin (talk) 21:59, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
 * My conclusions about the Coanda-1910 are formed by the references I find, and it is an ever-expanding, ever-developing conclusion. I do not come to the article with my conclusions already cemented in place. I weigh sources by their verifiability and reliability.
 * The secondary source in your link has no author listed, and no footnotes showing where the information came from. It does not measure up to Gibbs-Smith and Winter who are well-known scholars on the topic of early aviation. Winter definitely wrote about the 1910 patents and the 1911 patents, comparing them to conclude they were substantially the same. Winter wrote: "Again, there are absolutely no changes in the specifications. All are identical, save for language and legal differences. This is a most important point, as will become obvious later." Later in his 1980 article, Winter notes that Coanda had "ample time" to rewrite his patent applications for their May 1911 filing. Winter discusses how Coanda recreated his patent drawings in 1965, adding new features not seen in the 1910s. He says that Coanda (and his fans) assert that Coanda made changes to the aircraft engine in November–December 1910, and that these new changes were what made the aircraft flyable. Winter says this is complete rubbish, that Coanda would have changed the patent applications filed in May 1911 to include his notional new developments from five months earlier, "major" developments that would have been "crucial" to the practicality of the design, "yet the essential details remained the same as in the original French specification."
 * I have JPG images of this article, scanned from print, for any who contact me by email. The ten images are 500 to 700 kb each. Binksternet (talk) 00:03, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Again you are talking about your personal conclusions. Wikipedia is not for personal conclusions. I told you several times. Make your own website for Coanda-1910 and put you personal conclusions there not in a public site. Again you are trying to change the focus of the readers to your own biases views. I would be really happy to get a had of Winter article from you "juvenile non-fiction" library to see how neutral is the author in his approach to the subject. I think for Gibbs is very clear already as you did never comment.--Lsorin (talk) 11:33, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Again I have to write on this page as I'm blocked for not so clear reasons, against the latest statements of Binsksternet in the talk page. In the patent at paragraph 10 of the second page there is an entry stating: Les perfectionnements qui font l'objet de la presente invention ont ete presentes dans leur application a l'appareil Coanda qui ete expose a l'exposition de la Locomotion aerienne d'october-november 1910. In free translation to English: The improvements forming the object of this invention, have been presented as application to the Coanda device, which was exposed at "l'expositionde la Lomomotion aerienne" of october-november 1910. Is this enough to state that the additions releated the plane presented in this article which is now a kind of a "copy-paste" of Winter, which stated that the patents are identical?--Lsorin (talk) 11:16, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

About Hartmann
Again because I'm blocked for unknown reasons I have to write here my comments. I hope that some administrator can see the garbage written by Binsksternet in the talk page of Coanda-1910. Hartmann is a very know French aviation historian expert in Pierre Clerget and Clément-Bayard which has done extensive work on the related subjects with access to the French archives of Clerget Collection and Clement-Bayard. This childish accusation of Binskternet have no place in Wikipedia. His preferred sources Winter and Gibbs, which the whole current article is biases for, are as well "juvenile nonfiction" ( Winter's account). Then about the so called, "translation" made by Binskterne to what Hartmann has written he is trying to manipulate the readers once again to his on biases view. The correct translation from French:

" < > Jet biplane Coanda with engine 50 hp Clerget presented at Salon of 1910.(Clerget Collection).

The jet airplane of Coanda

The Romanian engineer Henri Coanda (1885-1972) remains famous for having conceived in 1908, constructed and experienced in 1910 at the Clement-Bayard the first jet-propelled airplane. The device works as such: in front of a fuselage a turbine of 60 cm in diameter, driven by the engine via a gearbox mounted upside down (1 800 engine turns, 4000 turns the turbine), shoots the air sucked through the annular space surrounding the engine; the air strikes a deflector with a section profile as the wings and generates in front a < >. The intake air and the propelled air are mixed with exhaust gases which contribute partially the effect of reaction. With 4-cyl 50 hp Clerget rotating at 1800 rpm, the surge at fixed point is only 17 kg at 4000 rpm for the turbine, but Coanda's account it pulls at 24 kg in flight. In December 1910, after the presentation of his revolutionary vehicle at the Salon de l'aeronatique, Henri Coanda is experimenting on the Issy-lex-Moulineaux airfield. The power is too low for the take-off of his machine, but would stay in the air once launched. This experiment has the merit to prove that the solution works perfectly. He would have had to turn the turbine to more that 7000 rpms to have get enough force, at the risk that it explodes.

< > Coanda jet aircraft at Airshow 1912.(The Aérophile)."

Regarding Hartmann's account it might be based solely on the documentation he had available from Clement-Bayard archives and Clerget Collection. As Coanda already explained later in his statements, the adding of the asbestos plates and the injectors and burners were done during the experiments and that is why they are not present in the Clement-Bayard's archives or Clerget Collection. Hartmann states only what he found in the archives, without any personal interpretations unlike other historians like Winter and Gibbs-Smith.--Lsorin (talk) 08:49, 3 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Again I hope that some administator can see my comment her and take it to the talk page of Coanda-1910. GraemeLeggett is asking the editor to contact directly Hartmann. When I tried to contact another aviation historian on the subject, I was told by Rosiestep that is not alowed by the Wikipedia policies. Which one is true as I started to be puzzled now?--Lsorin (talk) 11:25, 3 November 2010 (UTC)


 * With another hope that some admin will see my posts. Who is Hartmann: The free translation from:
 * Biographie de l'auteur
 * Gérard Hartmann est membre de la commission Histoire, Arts et Lettres de l'Aéro-Club de France, il est devenu un spécialiste de l'histoire de l'aviation française des débuts. Il a publié de nombreux ouvrages.
 * to English:
 * Author Biography
 * Gerard Hartmann is member of the Committee on History, Arts and Letters from the Aero Club of France, he became a specialist for the early history of French aviation. He has published numerous books.--Lsorin (talk) 14:18, 3 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Rosiestep didn't say that contacting people isn't allowed. There is no policy that prohibits you from contacting anyone. However, you would not be able to use your personal communication as a source, due to the Verifiability policy. Personal communication isn't verifiable. Anything you cite should be published. ~Amatulić (talk) 05:44, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for File:Coanda_propeller_-_reconstruction.jpg
Thanks for uploading or contributing to File:Coanda_propeller_-_reconstruction.jpg. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use. Suggestions on how to do so can be found here.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Do you want to opt out of receiving this notice? Melesse (talk) 01:23, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I updated the template. I hope it is ok now. Thanks for letting me know.--Lsorin (talk) 08:27, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I hope your fair use rationale is suitable, it's a valuable image to have in the article – "a picture is worth a thousand words." I've never been able to get my head around the complexities of tagging images so I can't be of much help here, but I notice there is a note within the rationale warning message which says Please remove this template if a rationale is provided – now you've provided one maybe that is what you should do to prevent its deletion, Melesse would be qualified to say.--TransientVoyager (talk) 17:59, 28 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Agreed, this is a very valuable image to have here. Andy Dingley (talk) 10:48, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

Jet engine
This edit is egregious. Not only are you repeating yet again the "Coanda 1910 jet" claim, but you've done it directly after a definition of jet engine that states fuel combustion to be a requirement, the most obvious point on which Coanda fails to be a jet.

This is outright POV and edit-warring, still. Andy Dingley (talk) 10:42, 15 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Andy, I hoped that I don't need to repeat myself. You, me and Binsksternet none of us is an aviation historian. If Boyne, Stine and other aviation historians discribed it as a "termojet" who the heck are we, to say the opposite? Not to have Coanda-1910 listed in the history of the jet engine is a POV!--Lsorin (talk) 10:57, 15 December 2010 (UTC)


 * By all means list it in the history. No-one is arguing against that. However, as expanded at WP:AN/EW, what you listed in that history is a problem as it makes quite unsupportable claims. Andy Dingley (talk) 12:03, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

Back at WP:AN/EW
Your additions to Jet engine and History of the jet engine.

Raised at WP:Administrators%27_noticeboard/3RRArchive146 Andy Dingley (talk) 11:20, 15 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks for that! I did not know about that forum. I hope that my account will be blocked permanently or erased from Wikipedia to prove how biased it is. My guess is that your entry will be ignored, but I have some hope anyway! ;)--Lsorin (talk) 13:13, 15 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Lsorin, you are being ridiculous. If you don't want involvement in this article to the point of asking to be blocked permanently, why not instead simply exercise some restraint and work on some other area of Wikipedia, or voluntarily limit yourself to a 1RR rule? Wikipedia is a volunteer project. If some part of it causes you stress, why not move on to another part?


 * Permanent blocks are reserved only for editors who rampantly disrupt or abuse the project. You aren't a vandal-only account, you aren't a sockpuppet, you don't post spam, you don't make legal or personal threats &mdash; at worst you forget about WP:AGF, WP:NPA, and WP:CONSENSUS from time to time, infractions that merit only short-term blocks (which, ironically, you contested vigorously last time you earned one).


 * Sorry, but you don't qualify for a permanent block, no matter how many times you ask. Banning yourself from this article voluntarily is currently your only option if you don't wish to be involved anymore. If you want to get official about it, I suppose you could prevail upon ArbCom to impose a topic ban on you (as only ArbCom can make that determination), but they are likely to decline. ~Amatulić (talk) 02:49, 16 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I explained on the talk page. Personally I get sick when I see that the first link in Google send us to Binksternet personal synthesis of Coanda-1910, a guy which refuses to go to any aviation museum, but has a "foremost" book in his little library, full of lies, on which he is sustaining his edits. So until I don't see a book demonstrating that Coanda was indeed a liar, I will still be sick to see the disaster made in this article :(.
 * No back to round Earth. Can you give me an example of me breaking the WP:AGF? Did I personally attack you? What about WP:NPA2? You know very well who "promoted" me for blocking.


 * About WP:CONSENSUS lets try it here again, only the two of us, as you did no want to participate before:
 * Please add below:
 * The point view of the majority on aviation histroy regarding Coanda-1910:
 * Sources supporting the above:
 * 
 * Sources disagreeing the above:
 * 
 * 


 * As well please take the case to ArbCom even that it will be rejected. I want to see really some senior staff from Wikipedia looking at this case, as we are starting to tamper with some government laws.
 * Thanks in advance!--Lsorin (talk) 08:32, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 1 week for Edit warring / Disruptive editing. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the text below this notice, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. &mdash; slakr \ talk / 17:19, 16 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Simple. You were warned about edit warring; the result of the report on the 3RR board was to decline action so as to give you the benefit of the doubt; you seized upon this as justification to continue your edit warring; you were thus blocked. It simply is not acceptable to repeatedly insert contested material if you've not been able to gain consensus for it on the relevant talk pages. --jpgordon:==( o ) 19:51, 16 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Obviously I can't speak for the admins, but I see the problem like this:
 * Most of this is a content dispute. No sensible admin would wish to be drawn into that.
 * There are "reliable sources" that diagree. There is no single "right" answer, at least not one that we can access. Even so, most of this disagreement between the sources (Boyne is the obvious case) is itself subjective interpretation (e.g. categorization as a jet or non-jet), rather than claims of fact (e.g. did it lift off the ground).
 * Your editing behaviour has been to reject consensus between other editors. I think there is some agreement that the aircraft should be listed, and there are ways to word things without claiming anything definitively that can't be supported with equal certainty. I'd certainly favour this. However your actions have not been conducive to achieving such agreement: you've rejected compromise wording as too weak, then you've edit-warred such that other editors are no longer interested in compromising.
 * Your recent edits to Jet engine were not just content disputes, but were demonstrably non-factual. Some details of the aircraft remain unclear, but some are known - singling one out, the fuel injection issue. To place your claim into a paragraph that states this definition (i.e. jet engines burn fuel) when we do know that this wasn't the case here, is to claim something that is definitively sourceable as incorrect. It's just a false claim of proof by association. You might have been edit-warring before, but you definitely were after this.
 * Your attitude to other editors is unwarrantedly hostile and accusative. Unblockers are unlikely to accept a guarantee of future good behaviour from someone making such outlandish claims.
 * Andy Dingley (talk) 20:29, 16 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Both of you Beeblebrox and Jpgordon as sending me to WP:EDITWAR. Maybe my English is not good enough, because I cannot personally find which point from that Wikipedia rules page I did violate. Please cite for me from that page that section and I will try to translate it to my native language to understand it. BTW I just noticed this entry in the beginning of that page: This page in a nutshell: Don't use edits to fight with other editors – disagreements should be resolved through discussion. Can you please explain the slakr action of blocking my account in that light? Maybe my missing English skills, trick me once again.


 * Andy we have been discussing this Coanda-1910 bullshit for too long to start pointing now sources from the net. You know very well that Coanda-1910 is mentioned in several Jet engine history books. You cannot deny that. If Not, I will make again the effort to list those sources (Boyne articles books,Gunston books, several aviation history symposiums etc) here. My edit 2 days ago in Jet Engine, was to list the Coanda with its controversies as well ( basically Gibbs, Winter even than those can be considered speculations as they have no real proof those demonstrate that Coanda really lied ). So this is all what I wanted. The history is is full of this kind of shit and Wikipedia is not the place to make it strait. The history is as it is with Coanda a liar for some. You action was just to remove it. And then you are just accusating my right now: However your actions have not been conducive to achieving such agreement: you've rejected compromise wording as too weak, then you've edit-warred such that other editors are no longer interested in compromising. So please propose for consensus, an entry for the Jet Engine and History of Jet Engine in NPOV mode including Jet Engine History bibles like Boyne's and Gunston's.
 * Then regarding the whole thing about the engine and the afterburners or the missing of those. I will give you another very simple example, if you would even try to consider it. Not a single source from 1910 describes that the thing described in the patent called "Improvement to propellers" was placed in any duct! There is not a single picture inside the cowling, as Stine called it, to demonstrate that the thing described in the patent was even connected to the Clerget engine. So every single scholar of Coanda, even Anotoniu with his 3D reconstruction, just guessed. Gibbs and Winter are even worse because they call it a simple ducted fan. Sorry but at least we two, can agree that is was not a simple ducted fan, if we consider that the "thing" from the patent was installed in a duct. So, the only descriptions are Coanda's drawings presented later. The case is the same for the afterburnes: exactly like the duct and the placement of the compressor in the duct was not described in the patents, the same is for the afterburners. Even then if I will try to consider him a liar, I really have hard time understanding how in rooms full of jet engine experts and aviation historians in London when he was made honorary member of the Royal Aeronautical Society or presented with the key of city of Paris as the father of the jet engine, there was no a single guys asking the same questions like you today? As well witnesses of his tests like Voisin and Caproni were alive and very well at the time which makes me wonder again, why they never jumped to say that Coanda was lying all the time about that device he constructed and modified some 40 years earlier. And about consensus, I proposed again the same consensus build up like before, to Amatulic ( just check before the blocking on this talk page). With my WP:AAGF, I beg you to join! I hope that you agree, that at least I was not proposing any voting there, as other editors.--Lsorin (talk) 21:24, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Sockpuppeting?
Are you sockpuppeting as ? Andy Dingley (talk) 16:40, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

You are suspected of sockpuppetry, which means that someone suspects you of using multiple Wikipedia accounts for prohibited purposes. Please make yourself familiar with the notes for the suspect, then respond to the evidence at Sockpuppet investigations/Lsorin. Thank you. Andy Dingley (talk) 16:48, 17 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Neglecting to log in to evade a block isn't quite the same thing as using multiple accounts to evade a block. In any case, the IP address is also now blocked. ~Amatulić (talk) 17:12, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
 * No, we treat it exactly the same. This isn't a blocked username, it's a blocked person. --jpgordon:==( o ) 17:36, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
 * OF COURSE! Please block the whole Romania as I have accounts everywhere in Romania! Please take the case to higher forums or remove my account, as you all just ignore any kind of decent request I make! This is already a ridiculous joke!--Lsorin (talk) 19:24, 17 December 2010 (UTC)


 * I see you admit that you've been using sock-puppets to keep the world from knowing about Coanda's pathetic lies(according to the mainstream of aviation historians). Ion G Nemes (talk) 04:24, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
 * That was sarcasm. Lsorin lives in Finland and does not control the IPs in Brasov. Binksternet (talk) 14:51, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Replaceable fair use File:Coanda propeller - reconstruction.jpg
Thanks for uploading File:Coanda propeller - reconstruction.jpg. I noticed the description page specifies that the media is being used under a claim of fair use, but its use in Wikipedia articles fails our first non-free content criterion in that it illustrates a subject for which a freely licensed media could reasonably be found or created that provides substantially the same information or which could be adequately covered with text alone. If you believe this media is not replaceable, please:


 * 1) Go to the media description page and edit it to add, without deleting the original replaceable fair use template.
 * 2) On the image discussion page, write the reason why this image is not replaceable at all.

Alternatively, you can also choose to replace this non-free media by finding freely licensed media of the same subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or similar) media under a free license, or by taking a picture of it yourself.

If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified how these images fully satisfy our non-free content criteria. You can find a list of description pages you have edited by clicking on [ this link]. Note that even if you follow steps 1 and 2 above, non-free media which could be replaced by freely licensed alternatives will be deleted 2 days after this notification (7 days if uploaded before 13 July 2006), per our non-free content policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Fut.Perf. ☼ 19:51, 10 January 2011 (UTC)


 * I've tagged this image for why it can't be replaced. Andy Dingley (talk) 20:24, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

File:Coanda propeller - reconstruction.jpg listed for deletion
A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Coanda propeller - reconstruction.jpg, has been listed at Files for deletion. Please see the to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Fut.Perf. ☼ 06:57, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks for letting me know. I've sent an e-mail to 'permissions-en@wikimedia.org' for further clarifications. Personally I don't care if the picture is deleted or not. My only goal was to improve the quality of the article by giving the reader a visual representation of what some specialists believe the cowling of Coanda-1910 contained.--Lsorin (talk) 10:23, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
 * As the other images have, it seems, had OTRS permissions recorded for them, is it possible to do the same for this one? Andy Dingley (talk) 12:58, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I made a fair use argument for keeping the image. However, I agree with Andy that OTRS permission would be the best way to go. It's a good image and the article would benefit from keeping it. ~Amatulić (talk) 17:51, 11 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Archive link Files_for_deletion/2011_January_11

Coanda-1910
Yet again, you've added the contentious "The Coandă-1910, designed by Henri Coandă, was the first jet-propelled aircraft. " as the first sentence on the article. You do not have any support for this claim, certainly not in that position. Andy Dingley (talk) 16:05, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
 * What is the mainstream about Coanda-1910? And let's move the discussion to the talk page. Thanks!--Lsorin (talk) 16:15, 13 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Now raised at Administrators'_noticeboard/Edit_warring Andy Dingley (talk) 16:34, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

January 2011
You have been blocked from editing for a period of 2 weeks for edit warring, as you did at Coandă-1910. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the text below this notice, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:35, 13 January 2011 (UTC) During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection.


 * And I will add to this the warning that the next time you are found pushing this agenda against existing consensus, there will be a much longer block. Fut.Perf. ☼ 16:40, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
 * There is no consensus people! What the heck is wrong with you! Even Andy wrote: it is a "tentative stalemate"! I explained decently already that this "stalemate" is against the mainstream, question refused to be answered in several rounds by Andy and Binksternet!--Lsorin (talk) 16:45, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Ruddervators
If you have any content changes, similar to your recent raising of the ruddervator issue, that are not contentious in the obvious manner, then you might wish to note them on your talk page. I would be willing to look over such suggestions and potentially (with the most generous interpretation I can offer, so long as you're not trying to push the "jet propelled" line again) to add them to the article.

This offer would extend to Henri Coanda and the Avrocar history too, as there's some movement in that field recently too. Andy Dingley (talk) 16:50, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
 * What is the mainstream about Coanda-1910?--Lsorin (talk) 17:30, 13 January 2011 (UTC)


 * For a recent "mainstream" view by a respected authority, the new piece by Winter seems relevant. http://www.airspacemag.com/history-of-flight/Coandas-Claim.html Andy Dingley (talk) 18:18, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
 * [redacted] The publication were this article, written by the a technical "freelance" expert in "true jets" ( wondering what is then a "false jet" ) was printed at centenary of Coanda-1910, by the official magazine of the same institution Smithsonian Institution to which H. Coanda untrusted unique material in the world about Coanda-1910. The magazine editors should be ashamed for what they have done( Brett Holman on 16 December 2010 at 8:08 pm Those fools... fools! What have they done? )--Lsorin (talk) 18:58, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Hi, the above-cited Brett Holman here, logging in to my little-used Wikipedia account. I just want to point out that my reference to 'fools' was not because I thought the Air & Space article was wrong (to the contrary, it seems quite balanced to me), but a joking reference to the passions that the Coandă-1910 arouses and the consequent dangers of writing anything about it on the internet. (I've taken to calling it 'the Romanian plane' for this reason :) At any rate, I'm now sceptical of Coandă's claims regarding the Coandă-1910. Airminded (talk) 00:17, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Mr. Brett Holman, if you start believing in ghosts ( like Gibbs-Smith ) and other paranormal things like "true jet" engines, then personally I think that you chose the wrong career in your life! Of course if you still want to become a foremost historian, like Boyne for instance, than check the real history of jet engine, not the one pushed by Winter and Gibbs-Smith. The history of aircraft jet engines is quite colorful and long and it started very long time before Whittle and Von Ohain were even born. This continuous efforts to remove Coanda from history of jet engine, just because his flight test was not officially witnessed it is absolutely ridiculous! If you'll really want to become a Coanda scholar, I can guarantee you that you will find that all his work was more or less related to jet propulsion. This is why in 50's and 60's shit like today, would not have happened because every single authority in the world, technical or academic knew about his work on jet propulsion, before the first world war, in between the wars and after the wars . Good luck with your career!--Lsorin (talk) 10:12, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Planning to be blocked
Your new user page rant makes me think you are preparing to renew edit warring over the Coanda-1910. I recommend you do not do this. You already made good additions to the article, good information about patents, good stuff from Antoniu. You do not have to fall on your sword because you did not achieve consensus for your version of the article. Let it go. Binksternet (talk) 19:51, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

Arbcom
I'm replying here because it would not be right for me to alter your user page.

Thanks for your excellent responses Lsorin; they have made me realise that certain pieces of information that should be included in the article for balance are missing. For instance: references to the entry in the French national archives where Coanda's flight/s is/are noted (unless I've missed it in the article), Voisin's account of the crash and endorsement of Houart's story, and the brief respite in the bad weather which would all add more credibility to test flights having taken place.

In response to some of your comments though, I would never use the term 'liar' to describe Coanda, or any another person, unless I was certain that they made a habit of doing so. Nevertheless, why Coanda changed his account of events we can only speculate, and I find it very odd that we have contradictory versions of details of its construction over which there should be no doubt. That is why I find it difficult to accept claims made by sources that cite Coanda's word as their source when we don't know which version of his accounts is true. Too much doubt.

Houart being a friend of Coanda is attributed to Stine in the article.

Whether or not the archives listed the aircraft as being moved to Issy in November doesn't have any bearing on the absence of evidence of activity during December, the important period. Either the Issy records were incomplete (unusual if it was under "constant observation of the French Army who owned it") and L'Aerophile (who wrote "that if the machine were ever to develop as the inventor hoped, it would be a beautiful dream", and that it was the "chief attraction of the 1910 salon") were inexplicably no longer interested in the Coanda-1910's development, or the aircraft never took to the air. Too much doubt.

I imagine that the aircraft probably did burn (for much the same reasons as you state), and one could speculate that it could have been intentionally destroyed on the ground. I'm not saying that did happen, merely a possibility, but citing Coanda himself leaves doubt in my mind for the reasons I've already mentioned. Another question I've asked myself is: why, having done all the hard work and gone to the great expense of creating the aircraft, which supposedly took to the air before he realised it, did he not pursue the design further after demonstrating that it worked? – surely there would have been interested military or private parties that would have backed him after that. Again, merely speculation.

Returning to the 'cart' again eh? Ha ha, well I'm not surprised that's come back to bite me, no problems there, but I'm sure you understand the point I was making at the time. ;-) But to cut a long story short, IMHO there are still too many doubts and grey areas to make the claim that the Coanda-1910 was the first jet-propelled aircraft, only that it is more of a possibility than I thought before. --TransientVoyager (talk) 17:55, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
 * In the end what I wanted is a decent discussion with Andy and Binksternet, as reasonable people. How can any normal brain can even question that Coanda-1910 was not tested? This is what bothers me since the beginning of this mess. Because Winter and Gibbs-Smith said so? This is unbelievable. So we have a guy, constructing a toy he dreamed about since childhood and then he simply sells it, without even being curious if it flies or not. This is the highest level absurdness one can imagine. I have never head of an aircraft designer not thing to test his plane. And then I'm really thinking, what kind of historians will even try to demonstrate such absurd crap?
 * The conflict basically resumes to this two opposite positions:
 * Coanda-1910 was the first jet according to mainstream of the sources, and speculated by two guys that was not even tested
 * Coanda-1910 was a experimental toy which did not even have a propeller to take-off, sold for twice the price of construction and his designer lied after 40 years later that was tested. ( this is the current version of the entry to the article as you very well know)
 * Anyway you know very well that I tried to discuss with Binksternet and Andy about this just to be ignored and put on Edit Warning. That why this ArbCom thing is the ultimate resort as proposed by Amatulic. But anyway it looks like the voting works again in their favor, as some guys are mixing up the content, with the behavior, nationalism, bias and Wikipedia rules and so on, instead of just looking a the main point I was trying to make Andy and Binksternet are refusing to collaborate :P


 * Now regarding your comment, I never accused you of making anyone a 'liar', it was just a question. I did not accuse Andy either, I just stated the fact. The doubts about the statement are clear from the patents themselves. Every new patent is different. The changes between every new version of the patents of "turbo-propulsuer" and the the plane are so numerous that is difficult to assume that the plane was tested in the form presented at the exhibition. By the way did you notice a small aspect in the landing gear? The wheels and the skid are touching the ground in the same time? It would not even move in that configuration, so it might be that the it was semi-retracted in the exhibition. Anyway I noticed all this difference in the new version of this [] web site. So a lot of unknowns, that can be revealed still!
 * What still can be added is that a miniature "turbine" was running in the exhibition, in the honor hall of the exhibition, and in 1911 Coanda was keeping some conferences about the turbine and the experiments done. If the minutes of the conferences would be still available in some archives would be great. Why Winter does not say a word about those? And the books written on the subject next year?


 * So what kind to person will intentionally destroyed on the ground 1 million Francs, just to declare 30 years later that it was the first jet without even testing if his idea was possible or not? How absurd this can be?
 * Yes he did try to build the jet engine later. And it is know that he took some loans from Aeroclub de France to build the plane money which were lost in the accident. From being the most celebrated designer (Coanda-1910 was exhibited in the honor hall of the exhibition and there was a daily a queue of visitors to the main attraction) in France he is running away to England next year without any money? In 1930 he was still pursuing a thermal jet engine, but much simplified, especially regarding the mechanical parts, which looks like he have most of the problems with.


 * Again your last comment is a pure synthesis. Why this is not followed in Wikipedia? I said already, I agree to have Winter and Gibbs-Smith with their absurd stories, but you cannot make a mainstream out of that or weight it equally to the mainstream. Sorry but this is what I was teached by Wikipedia!--Lsorin (talk) 22:35, 13 February 2011 (UTC)


 * I agree with you about there probably being lots of stuff that hasn't been given an airing so far, some of which might tie up some loose ends, as long as it all comes from reliable sources otherwise it would be inadmissible despite being true; that's the sad thing about WP. :(


 * No worries Lsorin, I didn't think you were accusing me of making Coanda a liar; I accepted your question as such and thought I answered civily. Maybe you saw something in my reply that wasn't intended.


 * Again, I agree with you that it doesn't make sense that the aircraft wasn't tested if it worked. Now, what I'm about to write is pure speculation in an attempt to describe a fictitious scenario in which flight testing didn't take place. Coanda put large amounts of time, effort and money into the project, and his good name and reputation would have been on the line if it didn't work, so, on finding that the thrust from the turbo-propulseur was insufficient to get the aircraft into the air, the aircraft was destroyed on the ground in a fire that was supposedly the outcome of a crash landing. That would remove the possibility of anyone being able to demonstrate that it didn't work, preserve Coanda's reputation, and would answer the question as to why he didn't search straight away for further backing to continue the development of a supposedly successful design. The question then would be: what about the witnesses Houart and Voisin? Houart was a friend and so might agree to corroborate the story for Coanda's sake. Regarding Voisin, how do we know he witnessed the event? Do we just have Coanda's word for it since the article doesn't cite any independent source, or was Voisin agreeable to be part of a cover-up to preserve the reputation of a fellow designer as well? As I said, desperately looking for answers, all this is pure speculation, but still a possibilty even if unlikely. More questions than answers.


 * When you say mainstream sources, are you really referring to those that support the idea that successful test flights took place (which IMHO would make it the first jet-propelled aircraft), and do they ultimately base their opinions mainly on what Coanda said? That would be risky. To give you an idea of my thinking on the whole thing I'll give you an example of a similar type of situation: If for instance I ran 100 metres in 9 seconds exactly (0.58 seconds off the record), witnessed by the current record holder Usain Bolt and a close friend of mine, would I be able to claim the world record? No, because the word of neither Bolt nor my friend would be regarded as being sufficient evidence even though it was true – I'd need to repeat it, timed by official witnesses over a verified distance before it was recognised. Then, if some years later someone officially takes the record at 9 seconds, and I then changed my story and stated that I'd done it in 8.9 seconds, I would lose any possible credibility for actually having unofficially done it in 9 seconds! A bit unrelated I know, but can you see the parallel similarities and maybe understand my viewpoint? --TransientVoyager (talk) 20:52, 14 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Ok. One more aspect to be added to the fictitious story. If Coanda destroyed the plane on the ground Just to hide his "turbo-propulseur" failure, then why did filed a new patent on 19th of May 1911 with the propulsion provided by the same disastrous device? Why during the whole 1911 he is keeping several conferences with the main subject the failed turbine? And why would he fill another patent on 17 of July 1911 related to same kind or turbine stuff, Turbine à explosions? Looking for this information in the article I just noticed that the Binksternet "minor changes" removed that reference, that is why you might have not noticed it.


 * Anyway my point with this mainstream, sustained by the experts, is that NONE of us in this WP, is an official to measure Usain Bolt's jump! That's is why Larry Sanger left WP: despite its merits, Wikipedia lacks credibility due to, among other things, a lack of respect for expertise. Why are we trying to ignore the expertise again? Just to make WP less credible? This is Binksternet and Andy's agenda? Are you subscribing to their agenda as well?--Lsorin (talk) 22:28, 14 February 2011 (UTC)


 * True; it would be unlikely that Coanda would follow that course of action if the turbo-propulseur was a total disaster!


 * No, I don't ignore expertise, but I do question experts' opinions when they disagree. --TransientVoyager (talk) 20:12, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

(moved from the LSorin page)

For Andy Dingley

 * four or five "first jet aircraft"  Aaaaa, quite a number! You are really the undiscovered aviation archeologist! So which are those four of five "first jet airplane" before December 1910 to claim that priority?
 * an absolutist "this was the first" statement is quite out of place for this aircraft Really? Are you doing some kind of WP:SYNTH, again? And another fact the introductions I proposed, never removed the speculations of Winter and Gibbs-Smith! If was the "first jet-propelled aircraft" according to the mainstream and speculated by one aviation historian as not being first not even last and by one freelancer not being even tested.
 * unsubstantiable claims by Coanda in the 1950s Why the historians of 1950's never had problem with Coanda's claims and completely ignored Gibbs-Smith lies? The problem is that none of us in this Wikipedia lived at those times nor either of us is a historian to dig the right archives and to ask the right people about the reality of the claims (like Voisin for instance). This is why Jimbo's statements about history shall be followed as such. Sorry, but this is the reality.

For Binksternet

 * was unable to achieve consensus Consensus is achieved by discussion, not by ignoring it or by voting. Sorry, but this is what Wikipedia explains to me! From the number of start you have you must know this as well...

For "uninvolved" Fut.Perf.
Do you call involvement or not?


 * pushed an agenda against consensus Which consensus? Do you mean this voting against Wikipedia's own policies: Polling is not a substitute for discussion?
 * The issue is successfully being handled by simple admin intervention Which is? Maybe you missed the fact that another admin User:Amatulic suggested me to take the case the ArbCom.

For Nimbus227

 * name Coanda means very little to me As per WP:SYNTH nobody shall care if you in 40 years never hear of Coanda. Some guys like for instance NASA heard of him. What about this guys? Of course you did not, because he was French/Romanian! ( can you fell the nationalistic touch of my statement? ) This is exactly the problem of Wikipedia: the WP:BIAS. As being one of the few Romanian nationals writing on an English (UK + US) Wikipedia, I'm very easily "killed" with voting against its own rules and WP:EW, by the English bunch.
 * I have grave doubts about its ability to even move under its own power as it was designed. I'm really surprised by your statement! What is the MTOW of your Schempp-Hirth Nimbus-4? What is the engine power of the Nimbus 4DM? Does it even move under its own power?
 * It appears to be a one-sided content dispute supported by academics and your own Royal Air Force museum.
 * I asked for an RfC to be closed before considering a Good Article review, it was. What closed by whom? Was I involved in that closure? Or because I was voted against it was closed?

For Cube lurker (and Jclemens)

 * It was suggested to me by User:Amatulic to take the issue to ArbCom. And personally I feel, this is the last place were personally I can still expect neutral, unbiased approach regarding the attitudes of Andy and Binksternet regarding the edits and the uncountable tries to discuss the issues at hand. If my case is refused, than Larry Sanger's despite its merits, Wikipedia lacks credibility due to, among other things, a lack of respect for expertise, statement is once again enforced by this particular case.

For 71.141.88.54

 * unfortunately he seems afflicted with rather bad, apparently nationalism-inspired deafness about consensus. I tried several times to build up consensus? Why it didn't work? Because the you did not participate! Show me your messages that was deaf to ? And another beautiful thing, you are accusing me of nationalism. What were the edits of User:Romaniantruths related too? Was that a nationalistic-inspired move or xenophobic one? Is Binksternet "Gibbs forever" kind of statements: apparently nationalism-inspired deafness?
 * but there are lots of otherwise-comprehensive sources making no mention of it at all Have your read the description of WP:SYNTH? Just to give you an example: If Jane's Encyclopedia does not say that The Earth is round that mean that the Earth is flat? Are you a scholar of Coanda to make that kind of synthesis?
 * The relative scarcity of authoritative sources to contradict the dubious sources is not too uncommon a situation with fringe claims Exactly that is why Gibbs and Winter's statements are fringe in nature! Not a single academic, museum or Coanda scholar considers, those two "dubious sources"!
 * I'd like to imagine that mediation or a chat with an experienced uninvolved editor Maybe you did not notice. It was tried:

For TransientVoyager
First of all about your statement statement while there is doubt it is not reasonable to claim that the Coandă-1910 was definitely the first jet-propelled aircraft. Did you ever seen me removing any reference to Winter or Gibbs-Smith? I never said there there is no doubt! What I said, is that they are just speculating that Coanda-1910 was never tested with evidence of absence and as per WP:NPOV their statements can not represent the introduction to the article ( as it is now)! As well what you wrote there is pure synthesis:
 * have no real indisputable evidence to support the claim that a jet-propelled flight actually took place do you have access to the national archives of France or the archives of the Romanian Aviation Museum? Coanda said that he flew. Are you calling him a liar as well?
 * Victor Houart (for his son) who can hardly be regarded as an independent witness How do you know that Houart was his friend? Are you a scholar of Houart? Gabriel Voisin was the witness to the crash, as stated in 1950. That guy lived until 1973 one year after Coanda's death. Why Gibbs-Smith or Winter never said a word about him? Any other true historian at the time would have asked Voisin in person in Coanda was a liar or nor. And the book written by Houart was endorsed by Voisin, BTW. But as you can see we get both lost in pure synthesis again. I have references to that, but how can I add(check the 1910s section) them to the article, when Andy sends me strait to WP:EW?
 * reports of bad weather preventing any flights taking place for a period encompassing the supposed test flight dates Those report were made by guys living a few thousands miles away from Paris. Check 'Le Temps' for 17th of December, and you find that it is true that is was raining in Paris in the previous morning of 16th, but the afternoon was sunny and unexpectedly warm for that period of the year with temperatures soaring to 12 degrees centigrade. Why Winter is missing that? And BTW I did add a link, with statements of a professional meteorology archeologist at some point removed by Binksternet ( surprise, surprise).
 * closely-watched airfield where other, later aircraft tests and piloting activities were listed but with no mention of Coandă or his machine Antoniu did had access to the archives. Surprise! He did not find Coanda listed in December archives. But the main problem, was that that the exhibition was closed in November not Decemeber, and Coanda declared clearly that he moved the plane to Issy, immediately after the exhibition was closed! But the other big surprise, I asked Antoniu if the deadly accident from Issy on 19th of December, which was shortly remembered in January's number of "Flying" was listed in Issy archives. Another surprise, no! What about L'Aerophile? No as well. So what was "closely-watched" and how much can one trust that source?
 * no reports of any kind regarding the crash and ensuing fire If the cart( I know that you like the term ;) ) did not burn down, where it did disappear? In thin-air? We are talking here about 1 million Francs expensive piece of machinery. If it did not burn, why Coanda did not reused most of the existing parts for the next plane Coanda-1911 which BTW was very similar but have a round fuselage and completely new wings? The reality, might be that Coanda did not wanted to make to much publicity at the time to his failed stunt! Again synthesis. Why we don't stick to the sources. In this case Coanda himself.
 * For the conclusion. Let's go back to Jimbo's example: is the Earth flat or not? The mainstream says that is round. And to satisfy the WP:NPOV's Due and Undue weigh, speculations like the Earth is flat are listed but just with "small" letters! What I read now are Coanda? The Earth is flat, but some academies, scholars and experts are saying that is round and Romania is celebrating that the Earth is round How does this sounds to you?

RFAR Henri Coanda
An Arbitration case involving you has been opened, and is located here. Please add any evidence you may wish the Arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Arbitration/Requests/Case/Henri Coanda/Evidence. Please submit your evidence within one week, if possible. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Arbitration/Requests/Case/Henri Coanda/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Alexandr Dmitri (talk) 08:35, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Arbitration/Requests/Case/Henri Coanda closed
An arbitration case regarding Henri Coandă has now closed and the final decision is viewable at the link above. The following remedies have been enacted:


 * is prohibited from editing or commenting on articles about the Coandă-1910 aircraft, its inventor Henri Coandă, or the history of the jet engine. This topic-ban shall be effective indefinitely, but Lsorin may request that it be terminated or modified after at least six months have elapsed. In considering any such request, the Committee will give significant weight to whether Lsorin has established an ability to edit collaboratively and in accordance with Wikipedia policies and guidelines in other topic-areas of the project.


 * The topic-ban imposed in this decision applies to all pages in all namespaces. However, the topic-ban does not preclude Lsorin from (1) responding to good-faith, reasonable inquiries from other editors on his user talkpage seeking information about the Coandă-1910, as long as Lsorin does not misuse this permission; (2) participating in the arbitration enforcement discussion of any allegation that he violated the topic-ban; or (3) posting an authorized request for the lifting or modification of the topic-ban after the specified time period has elapsed.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Salvio  Let's talk about it! 21:50, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Discuss this

April 2011
To enforce an arbitration decision, you have been blocked from editing for a period of 24 hours. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you believe this block is unjustified, please read the guide to appealing arbitration enforcement blocks and follow the instructions there to appeal your block. SarekOfVulcan (talk) 13:46, 6 April 2011 (UTC) Notice to administrators: In a March 2010 decision, the Committee held that "Administrators are prohibited from reversing or overturning (explicitly or in substance) any action taken by another administrator pursuant to the terms of an active arbitration remedy, and explicitly noted as being taken to enforce said remedy, except: (a) with the written authorization of the Committee, or (b) following a clear, substantial, and active consensus of uninvolved editors at a community discussion noticeboard (such as WP:AN or WP:ANI). If consensus in such discussions is hard to judge or unclear, the parties should submit a request for clarification on the proper page. Any administrator that overturns an enforcement action outside of these circumstances shall be subject to appropriate sanctions, up to and including desysopping, at the discretion of the Committee."

Need for help on the Romanian wikipedia
I did read a bit of the discussion page (its quite a bit to read) and I have (I believe) a good understanding of what is going on. I also compared what you said with the Romanian wikipedia article for Henri Coandă and, although I am not an expert in the field I believe that what you were trying to upheld in the English version is still written in the Romanian one. I must recognize the tenacity and patience you proved in this debate and the perseverance to learn all the details of "discussing" appealing and otherwise navigate through wikipedia. I am far less capable of doing this, particularly because I recognize in all this the pattern of bygone societies where "dușmanii poporului" where judged and condemned pretty much the way you got your sanctions. I am sorry and I acknowledge that I do not have the patience to read every single detail but intuitively I feel that you had the best and most honest intentions and were punished precisely for that.

Now, the reason I am writing here is because I have a dispute on the Romanian Wikipedia and I was looking for help even if in the form of an opinion. Basically, the highest ranking administrators there are upholding information on the article about Aura Urziceanu without proper sources (kind of the thing you went through). Basically, several administrators on the Romanian Wikipedia, insisted forcefully to include information from a book and they kept that for more than one year. It ended up that the book did not contain that information at all demonstrating that the administrators never opened the book they defended! At that point they went on a google frenzy search to get "other evidence" which the world wide web certainly has hidden someplace. Reading what happened to you, I understand that if I continue to complain about the Romanian administrators who don't read the sources they back up and ban and criticize anyone who has a different opinion, I will end up being banned indefinitely. I certainly have to read some more to really get the big picture but I think there will come a time when being banned indefinitely from wikipedia on those grounds may become a distinction of honor! Gigi marga (talk) 22:59, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

WikiProject Romania
--Codrin.B (talk) 17:13, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

Please claim your upload(s): File:Virago750.JPG
Hi, This image was seemingly uploaded prior to current image polices, Thank you.

However, as part of ongoing efforts to ensure all media on English Wikipedia is correctly licensed and attributed it would be appreciated if you were able to confirm, that it was your own work, by marking it as own, amending the information added by a third party, and by changing the license to an appropriate "self" variant. This will assist those reviewing the many many "free" images on commons that have not yet been transfered to Commons. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 22:34, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

Nomination for merging of Template:Infobox Gliding Grand Prix report
Template:Infobox Gliding Grand Prix report has been nominated for merging with Template:Infobox Grand Prix Final report. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Thank you. Zackmann08 (Talk to me/What I been doing) 03:55, 6 January 2017 (UTC)