User talk:Mr swordfish/Archive 1

Lift (force)
Hello Mr swordfish,

On 22 April Crowsnest removed from Lift (force) a quotation attributed to Weltner & Ingelman. On 23 April you restored the quotation. In your edit summary you asked why was this removed?

Crowsnest has now started a new discussion on the Talk page to explain why he removed the quotation. See HERE.

Now that there is a new discussion on the Talk page it is an invitation to other Users to discuss the matter so that all interested in the article Lift (force) can contribute to the final position on this matter. You are welcome to return to Talk:Lift (force) and contribute to the discussion on this matter.

Best regards. Dolphin ( t ) 05:03, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

"Thrust" and sails
Dear Swordfish,

Where in the sail aerodynamic literature  is  the  term "thrust" used? For example, I  cannot find  it  in   CA  Marchaj's  work  except to refer  to force applied on fish fins. Bcebul (talk) 23:00, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. The thread is List of common misconceptions‎;. Thank you.

Unreferenced?
Ahoy MSF,

I added the NASA link as a complete, general reference to the completely general Foil parent subject page. (Juan) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.200.236.234 (talk) 02:13, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

Foils
My $.02 for what it's worth is that the merge made sense in 2009 and still makes sense today. I'd support reverting to the last edit by Crowsnest (simply a redirect to airfoil). Mr swordfish (talk) 21:08, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

I have provided ample evidence that the Foil (fluid mechanics) page was and is a parent subject about natural and artificial foils seen on planet Earth in both air and water, partly by providing a long, substantial list (an encyclopedic effort, at least) of extremely various and illustrative examples -- the parent subject should NOT have been so radically edited/deleted/merged into a page about (a sub-class of) one type of (artificially-engineered) foil (used by man) (in air only), The merge made all foils "airfoils" against all common sense, semantic logic, and common usage by such knowledgeable-enough parties as scientific officers in the US Navy, and completely neglected any effort to flesh the subject out. The biases, premises, etc that engendered that edit have no basis in the reality or possibilities of either foils or encyclopedia. (juan)98.200.236.234 (talk) 03:09, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

Kudos and apparent wind
I'd like to congratulate you for the recent multiple edits to the article on sailing. I particularly appreciate the fact that you made the edits separately, so that anybody can see what you did. I fully agree with all your edits. Regarding whether or not the point of sail refers to the true or apparent wind, I agree with you that we don't need to say anything until we reach consensus. In fact, we probably never need to say anything about this in the article on sailing, the matter should be clarified in the article on points of sail which is currently silent on this point (pun intended). Let's see how others react to the discussion on the sailing talk page. Again, thank you for your edits.--Gautier lebon (talk) 09:30, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Ballast
Hi Sword, I added a reference to rule 51 on the Sailing page, as well as a talk discussion about ballast to the page. I found references to ballast being allowed. I've not sailed a ballast equipped boat, so the rule has never even been part of my discussions. Please see the talk page. Sliceofmiami (talk) 00:50, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

/wiki/User:Mr swordfish/Bernoulli principle
This is an automated message from MadmanBot. I have performed a search with the contents of /wiki/User:Mr swordfish/Bernoulli principle, and it appears to be very similar to another Wikipedia page: Bernoulli's principle. It is possible that you have accidentally duplicated contents, or made an error while creating the page&mdash; you might want to look at the pages and see if that is the case. If you are intentionally trying to rename an article, please see Help:Moving a page for instructions on how to do this without copying and pasting. If you are trying to move or copy content from one article to a different one, please see Copying within Wikipedia and be sure you have acknowledged the duplication of material in an edit summary to preserve attribution history.

It is possible that the bot is confused and found similarity where none actually exists. If that is the case, you can remove the tag from the article. MadmanBot (talk) 14:44, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

User:Mr swordfish/Bernoulli principle
Be careful with what you type as an article name! I've moved the false demonstrations paragraph to User:Mr swordfish/Bernoulli principle/1. Buggie111 (talk) 15:02, 29 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Please do not make edits to my work-in-progress user pages without discussing on the talk page. You may think you are being helpful, but you are not.  Thanks Mr. Swordfish (talk) 15:29, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

Redirects
Welcome to Wikipedia. Please do not create redirects to your user pages or user sub pages. Such redirects will  be deleted. The page you probably  created ks at  User:Mr swordfish/Bernoulli principle/1 where it  was moved to  by  another editor. For more information on  creating  pages, please visit the links in  the welcome message at  the top  of this page. When posting messages to  talk  pages, please post  new message at  the bottom  of the page. Thank you. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 15:07, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Swordfish, all we are doing is moving the article drafts you create from articlespace to your userspace. You were titling them as /wiki/User:MrSwordfish, which instead of creating them in your userspace, creates the article as a subpage of the nonexistant article /wiki. We aren't trying to stop your work in any way, just move it to the correct page. Else, someone, either another person, or a bot, would have tagged your page for deletion as a copy of the current page, Bernoulli principle. Good luck on the article, and sorry for any misunderstandings. Buggie111 (talk) 15:27, 29 May 2012 (UTC)


 * I appologize if I created it in the wrong place. Where is the article now?  I can't find it, and it appears that it was simply deleted. Mr. Swordfish (talk) 15:32, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I moved it to User:Mr swordfish/Bernoulli principle and User:Mr swordfish/Bernoulli principle/1 (false demonstrations paragraph). Buggie111 (talk) 15:34, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of /wiki/User:Mr swordfish/Bernoulli principle


Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. This is a notice that the page that you created was tagged as a test page and has been or soon may be deleted. Please use the sandbox for any other tests you want to do. Take a look at the welcome page if you would like to learn more about contributing to our encyclopedia.

If you think that the page was nominated in error, contest the nomination by clicking on the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion" in the speedy deletion tag. Doing so will take you to the talk page where you can explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. You can also visit the page's talk page directly to give your reasons, but be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but do not hesitate to add information that is consistent with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, you can contact one of these administrators to request that the administrator userfy the page or email a copy to you. Writ Keeper &#9863;&#9812; 15:31, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

You're making these pages in the main article space, not your userspace
Hey, Mr swordfish, you're making these articles in the main article space, not your personal userspace; that's why they are getting moved or deleted. You can work on User:Mr swordfish/Bernoulli principle, but don't keep creating them at /wiki/User:Mr swordfish/Bernoulli principle, because that's not the right place for it. Writ Keeper &#9863;&#9812; 15:33, 29 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Thank you for clearing up this misunderstanding. Mr. Swordfish (talk) 15:37, 29 May 2012 (UTC)


 * One more thing, I have disabled the category links as we don't want userspace articles to appear in the categories. When it comes out of userspace you will need to remove the "nowiki" tags around the cats.  Spinning  Spark  17:12, 29 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Thank you.Mr. Swordfish (talk) 17:26, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

Assuming good faith
Contrary to 'wrecking' your article, I  explained above where it  had been moved to  by another editor and why. We all  try to help here and as one of the major contributors to  Editor assistance/Requests with  over 700 editor requests answered there, I  take offense at  your comments. If you want help as you asked for at  Editor assistance/Requests, or from  any  other help  desk, you want to try assuming  some good faith yourself. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 17:07, 29 May 2012 (UTC)


 * I underrstand that another user moved it. But prior to that, you simply deleted it with a one word explanation of "implausible".   Why did you simply delete it?  And did you not follow the numerous cites to peer-reviewed journals before declaring it "implausible"? Mr. Swordfish (talk) 17:25, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
 * You saw "implausibleredirect". That means someone looking for your draft wouldn't search for the incorrect term you titled it as, as its an "implausible" search term. No big problem, had this happen to another user yesterday. Buggie111 (talk) 17:27, 29 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Just get  it right  please Swordfish -  I simply deleted the redirect you created. I won't  demand an apology, but you need to  improve your attitude if you want to get along with folks here. We're not  supposed to  'bite the newbies' but I've been around too long to  have much  sympathy for people who are rude, won't  read their messages,  won't  read instructions, and then bite the hand that helps. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 18:53, 29 May 2012 (UTC)


 * You may not demand an apology, but I owe you one. This misunderstanding was entirely my fault.  I'm sorry.  Let's move on.  Mr. Swordfish (talk) 19:09, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

Talk page guidelines
At WP:TALK

Central points

Maintain Wikipedia policy There is reasonable allowance for speculation, suggestion, and personal knowledge on talk pages, with a view to prompting further investigation, but it is usually a misuse of a talk page to continue to argue any point that has not met policy requirements. Pay particular attention to Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons, which applies to talk pages as well as to articles: "Editors must take particular care adding information about living persons to any Wikipedia page." Creating talk pages Talk pages are generally created by clicking a red "Talk" tab and creating the page, like any other page. Do not create an empty talk page simply so that one will exist for future use. Do not create a page solely to place the template on it. Template:Talk header and similar discussion warning templates should not be added to pages that do not have discussions on them. There is no need to add discussion warning templates to every talk page, or even to every talk page that contains a discussion. How to use article talk pages Communicate: If in doubt, make the extra effort so that other people understand you. Being friendly is a great help. It is always a good idea to explain your views; it is less helpful for you to voice an opinion on something and not explain why you hold it. Explaining why you have a certain opinion helps to demonstrate its validity to others and reach consensus. Stay on topic: '''Talk pages are for discussing the article, not for general conversation about the article's subject (much less other subjects). Keep discussions focused on how to improve the article. Comments that are plainly irrelevant are subject to archival or removal.''' --Asher196 (talk) 22:29, 30 July 2012 (UTC)


 * I guess we have a different standard of plainly irrelevant. I would disagree with adding the proposed section, but I don't think it's so far fetched that the mere discussion of its merits should be censored.  YMMV.  Mr. Swordfish (talk) 23:10, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
 * The problem I have is that I didn't see anyone proposing the section be added. It just looked to me like a random debate about Steve Jobs.--Asher196 (talk) 00:16, 31 July 2012 (UTC)


 * My take is that the intent of the writer was to request us to add such a section, although it was not expressed in a very articulate manner. Regardless, the idea was roundly panned, and that should have been the end of it.  Were the idea to come up again, we couild say "yeah,somebody proposed that once and it was met with howls of derision so let's not bother to debate it again." Instead, by expunging the debate we can't say that.  I doubt it makes much difference in the greater scheme of things, I just prefer to let the process work and keep the historical record instead of just deleting discussions because we disagree with the idea.  My bias is towards the free flow of ideas and while I think this was a dumb idea, I support the right of editors to proffer dumb ideas even when I would argue against incorporating them into the main article. Few people read the talk pages, so I'm fairly lenient about what can appear there.  SPAM, disruptive posts, personal attacks, etc. disrupt conversations and I'm OK with that stuff being deleted.  In this case, the process seemed to be working, so I fail to see the necessity of deleting the discussion. Reasonable people can differ, so I'm not going to the mat over this one. Mr. Swordfish (talk) 01:10, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

"List of common misconceptions" revert
If I can find a more reliable source, would it be acceptable to re-edit the page? Tkbx (talk) 22:29, 31 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Absolutely. If you can meet the criteria for inclusion by citing reliable sources, then edit away. Mr. Swordfish (talk) 23:46, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

RfC on Glass is a liquid misconception
(Note: I'm listing this on the talk pages of all editors active at Talk:List of common misconceptions for the last two weeks). I started an RfC on the "glass is a liquid" issue that caused the edit war leading to protection status. Your comments would be appreciated, so that we can build a consensus and avoid further edit warring. siafu (talk) 20:51, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

Concerning the recent issue on List of Common Misconceptions
I just wanted to let you know, for the record, that I never at any point felt that your actions in this matter were inappropriate or anything but good faith; I completely understand your desire to have adequate sourcing on that of all pages and I'm sure this would have been an easily resolved non-issue, but it simply got blown out of proportion needlessly in your absence. Please don't feel that my strong opposition to the other party's actions in any way reflects on how I perceived yours. :) Snow (talk) 19:56, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

File:NASA LiftFromFlowTurning.gif missing description details
Dear uploader: The media file you uploaded as: is missing a description and/or other details on its image description page. If possible, please add this information. This will help other editors make better use of the image, and it will be more informative to readers.
 * File:NASA LiftFromFlowTurning.gif

If the information is not provided, the image may eventually be proposed for deletion, a situation which is not desirable, and which can easily be avoided.

If you have any questions, please see Help:Image page. Thank you. Theo's Little Bot (error?) 08:42, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

I seem to have jumped to a conclusion, and I apologize
Hello Mr. Swordfish,

When I wrote, in a talk page that I can't seem to find now, that the wind tunnel simulation software was original research, and that it did not correspond to reality and was unphysical, I was basing what I said on my intuition for physics. I have spent a few hours researching wind tunnels and so on, and I was astonished to see very similar wind patterns on several websites. I was also frustrated by the way I was never able to see the "big picture" ie the undisturbed air far above and far below the wing. I think it would be a great idea to make the scale of the simulation adjustable so that one can see the big picture. As it is, your simulation does suffer from appearing counterintuitive, and even appearing suspect. Jack 203.106.160.221 (talk) 07:41, 29 April 2013 (UTC)


 * No need to apologize; it was a good-faith suggestion on the talk page of Lift(force). Suggestions for improvement are always welcome on the talk page. Agree that making the scale adjustable is a good idea, however that animation was made by another editor, not me.  Unfortunately, my animation skills are non-existant so it is unlikely that I would be able to implement your suggestion.


 * I also understand that the diagram may seem "suspect", especially to someone who had been taught the equal-transit-time-fallacy. There is a tremendous amount of misinformation about the cause of lift, with the equal-transit-time-fallacy the most common but by no means sole culprit.


 * As for "counter-intuitive", I think the entire field of fluid dynamics is somewhat counter-intuitive. With fluids, a change in velocity in one direction can cause a change in velocity perpendicular to that direction. This makes fluid flow complicated and hard to visualize. This doesn't happen in solid-body mechanics, which is what we are most familiar with and is the basis for most of our intuition in physics.


 * Bernoulli's principle itself seems counter-intuitive, at least the way it's usually explained - why should faster moving air have lower pressure? There's no simple intuitive way of explaining why faster moving air causes lower pressure.   However, if you turn it around and ask "why should pressure differences cause a change in speed?", the answer is quite intuitive: if air flows from a region of high pressure to a region of low pressure, there's more pressure behind than in front so the air experiences a net force causing it to speed up. Mr. Swordfish (talk) 20:17, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

Reliable sources
Hello, '''All material must cite a reliable source, is that all true? How can you prove all you words official?''' - posted by ‎Mimicotton


 * Reply left at User_talk:Mimicotton Mr. Swordfish (talk) 14:36, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

Let's Work Together
When you disagree with an edit, your reversion needs to come with an explanation of why. It's simple common sense and courtesy. In most cases, the argument can be settled informally. Going into rules lawyer mode immediately makes us all less productive. Worst all, it does a lot to make Wikipedia editing less fun. --Isaac Rabinovitch (talk) 17:09, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

Stop vandalizing my contribuitions!
Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to vandalize Wikipedia, as you did at List of common misconceptions, you may be blocked from editing. --Keshetsven (talk) 16:17, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

Hello, everyone! Welcome to my talk page!
I want to thank you again for your kind an intelligent response to my posts. The main reason I am writing a note here, however, is to share with you that I found the experience of attempting to share ideas on the astrology topic extraordinarily disappointing. It is obvious from the statements of 2 editors that (a) there was an a priori assumption that anyone interested in testing astrology had minimal critical thinking skills, education, and technical competency, and ironically they talk about confirmation bias!!! (b) they clearly had little understanding of the topics which they were addressing and I doubt either one of them even knows what a structural equation model, support vector machine, etc. are, (c) many of the assumptions could be demonstrated to be incorrect. For example, one of the studies was conducted by the chair of the psych dept at a community college, data analyzed by me and paper written by me and overseenn and critiqued by the chair of the Research and Evaluation Methodology dept at UF and s published full-time professor of sociology at UF. These professors found the research to be extremely well designed and executed. To be insulted, denigrated, and evaluated by individuals who have far less competency in research methods than I do was shocking. I have corresponded with distinguished professors of physics and research methods and statistics and have received great appreciation and support for the work. However, I was treated with disrespect and extraordinary supercilious haughtiness. I do not wish to defend myself or argue these points. This is not a matter of my being overly sensitive or delusional. I am sharing this only in the hope that it will be helpful. I am not wealthy but one year I donated to wikipedia during the holiday seasons because I thought it was the most worthwhile service I could think of donating to. Never again. That one person is disappointed in wikipedia is not important. What is important is that people hiding behind aliases with no biographical information and hurling verbal missiles from their protected bunkers is childish, unethical, and damaging to the good intentions of wikipedia. Wikipedia is one of the most wonderful experiments in the dissemination of knowledge. As with any large enterprise, there are always some weak areas. I am pointing an extremely weak area in hopes that it may inspire some corrective measures. As for myself, I will not be participating in the future as an editor of wikipedia. Thre is no point in engaging in discussions with individuals of lesser technical expertise who ignorantly and maliciously attack and insult others who are more competent in the subject than they are. Some dogs should be caged and quarantined from humanity. DavidCochrane100 (talk) 12:25, 18 April 2014 (UTC) DavidCochrane100

PS, here is a link to a paper in one of the leading journals in SEM. I am 3rd author: http://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ921797  To be told that I am using buzzwords, etc. is not true. I am just underscoring the point of how extreme the mistreatment of others in these discussions is. The issue here is not personal and I don't need apologies. The issue is that a few bad apples spoil the entire barrel and the wikipedia enterprise is seriously threatened by these bad apples. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DavidCochrane100 (talk • contribs) 13:00, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

woof woof -Roxy the dog (resonate) 18:52, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

Talk:Lift (force)
Hi Mr S. You may have missed this comment about the current state of our article on Lift. Dolphin ( t ) 08:08, 5 September 2014 (UTC)


 * I did see it, but thought you adequately responded so I didn't feel I had much to add. I do think he has a point in that the article quickly transistions from "lift" to "lift on an airfoil" with little to say about bluff bodies or objects such as kites where the drag is much higher than the lift.  But that's probably just a reflection of the ratio of published literature so I don't think it's misleading.


 * The bulk of the material could probably be moved from the lift article to the airfoil article with no real loss of logical organization. As a sailor, I might even prefer that since "litt" and "drag" are just constructs based on a choice of co-ordinate system; many technical books on sailing choose the coordinate system to be parallel and perpendicular to the boat instead of the wind and talk about "drive" and "heel" instead of "lift" and "drag".  It's the same physics, but "lift" isn't the main object of study.  I'm not going to advocate for such a move, but won't object if someone else does.


 * If he continues the discussion I'll probably chime in, but I'm happy to leave the discussion as it stands for now. Mr. Swordfish (talk) 11:49, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

Talk:Lift (force)
Hello Mr Swordfish.

I would like to discuss with you about the following statement: "However, when an aircraft is climbing, descending, or banking in a turn the lift is tilted with respect to the vertical."

I guess that during climb or descent, lift still opposes the sole gravity force, therefore the lift doesn't change significantly its orientation with respect to the vertical. For sure climb/descent tilts the air coordinates system but not the orientation of the lift w.r.t. the vertical.

What do you think to reword in this way: "However, when an aircraft is banking in a turn the lift is tilted with respect to the vertical." --Piafheleco (talk) 18:53, 14 September 2014 (UTC)


 * The usual way to analyze aerodynamics problems is to use a co-ordinate system that is parallel and perpendicular to the oncoming air. Lift and drag are defined as  the components of the total aerodynamic force in that coordinate system, so if the co-ordinate system is tilted (as it is whenever the plane is climbing or descending), the lift is tilted as well.


 * Really, this is just splitting hairs over definitions. The total aerodynamic force vector is still pretty much the same, we've just changed our frame of reference.  There is still a vertical force, it's just that strictly speaking given the precise definition of lift, the lift is no longer vertical. Mr. Swordfish (talk) 20:04, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

General cleanup
Thank you for your post about The Volokh Conspiracy. I did not know that this is not a regular news blog. I'm sure that I am not the only one. I wonder if after the brew-ha-ha dies down, if we should check to see if this source is being used properly. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 17:36, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

Frustrated
Please tell me how I could word the request at Reliable_sources/Noticeboard better. I tried to make clear, more than once, that the question is about the status of TWS as an RS, not a discussion of the opinion piece. I mentioned the opinion piece, carefully called it a "side issue" and emphasized that the goal of this post was to ascertain community opinion on TWS as an RS. I don't want to address it another day, I want to address it today.-- S Philbrick (Talk)  13:26, 28 September 2014 (UTC)
 * I struck out the side issue, as that may have led to a problem. I urge you to redact your discussion of the side issue, so subsequent readers will concentrate on the main issue.-- S Philbrick (Talk)  13:29, 28 September 2014 (UTC)


 * S Philbrick ,


 * My understanding is that the RS notice board only deals with specific instances of source X being used in article Y to establish Z. Without a specific instance, there's no context so it's difficult to make a call. So I don't know that they will make an up or down ruling on the Weekly Standard's status in general.  It's not what they do.  At least that's my understanding.


 * I commented on the case at hand, because that's what I think we're supposed to do there.


 * Perhaps you could find an example of an article using a non-opinion piece from the Weekly Standard as a source and file a new request using that as an example. Mr. Swordfish (talk) 13:44, 28 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Fair enough. Many of the discussions in the past have made general conclusions about a source, not just a determination about a specific citation in a specific article. However, the instructions imply what you just said, so I guess all those other conclusion were ignoring the instructions.-- S Philbrick (Talk)  13:52, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

RfC
Your official !no vote show that you crossed out 'oppose' but you've seemed to have argued against inclusion since then (although it's difficult to follow all these discussions). You may wish to clarify your position. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 02:32, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

African American lead straw poll
You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:African American. Thanks. RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 18:37, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

Yobot's changes to lift (force)
I checked Yobot's changes too, but didn't see a problem. It seemed to just be removing redundant markup written twice in the article (See WP:REFNAME). Do you see any details missing from the rendered version of Yobot's [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Lift_%28force%29&oldid=641063213 revision]? If so, we should report a bug, otherwise it will make the same changes again. Burninthruthesky (talk) 14:36, 5 January 2015 (UTC)


 * I did not look at the changes in depth, I just did a diff and saw that some references had the relevant page numbers or section numbers removed. If this information is repeated elsewhere then I have no objection to its removal. Mr. Swordfish (talk) 13:21, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

FYI
There is currently a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Burninthruthesky (talk) 21:01, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
 * And again, this time at [//en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#Conduct_of_J_Doug_McLean] Burninthruthesky (talk) 14:09, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

To collapse or not to collapse
Hi, I see you undid my collapse of a section at Talk:Lift (force). The reason I collapsed it was not because I thought it was not about editing, it was because the discussion was entirely opinion-based and paid no attention to sourcing. As such, it comprises no more than idle chat, but some might be misled into thinking it was actually relevant. The PoVs expressed in it have been aired for many months now and never adequately sourced despite repeated challenges to an acknowledged expert in the topic. There comes a time when such facts of life have to be recognised. What part of that do you find fault with? &mdash; Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 19:12, 19 February 2015 (UTC)


 * Steelpillow ,


 * The section you collapsed was on-topic i.e. it was about how to improve the article, with some specific suggestions and criticisms. That's clearly within wiki policy regarding usage of the Talk page. We reached consensus about a month ago regarding how to treat the quantitative statement about momentum transfer.  That will remain in the article until some new consensus is reached, however consensus may change.  I do not find mark camp's contributions to the talk page "disruptive".  Mr. Swordfish (talk) 12:45, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Then we should agree to differ on the disruption this topic is causing. The more I dig back through the archives, the more I find that this discussion has been going on for literally years, and in all that time even such an acknowledged expert as Doug has been unable to produce adequate sources to back their PoV. Mark too has contributed to that history. Disruption need not be wilful and may well be innocent (as we should assume here) but it is still disruption. My view is firmly that, without new reliable sources to back up the discussion and prove me wrong, it is going nowhere except to reignite a sterile and endless repetition, and is a perfect example of WP:RUNAWAY. &mdash; Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 13:13, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

Lift Article, and Expert Retention.
Mr Swordfish, I am trying to contact you, but I am being blocked. Do you know why? 101.170.170.142 (talk) 03:38, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

Trying again... but still blocked?? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 101.170.170.142 (talk) 03:43, 11 March 2015 (UTC)


 * The Lift(force) and its talk page has been semi-protected because of persistent disruptive editing by a non-registered user. Only registered users may edit there. I had nothing to do with this action. Mr. Swordfish (talk) 18:42, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

OK, I'll try a paragraph at a time... (Zapletal Writes->) Mr Swordfish, with regard to your current Lift-Talk-page topic on "... Momentum Transfer ...", you can take it that I agree with Doug that "TS" should be replaced. Please see my many previous posts for supporting arguments. Please note that I cannot put my case in person there simply because of Steelpillow's "gaming" of the system.

More importantly, I ask you to think deeply about the issues raised in these articles -> Wikipedia:Expert Retention = WP:EXR, Wikipedia:Expert Rebellion, and Wikipedia:Wikipedia is Failing = WP:WIF, all of which are well explained by WP:COMPETENCE and WP:RANDY.

A few months ago the Lift article came close to LOSING forever the most highly qualified expert on this particular subject that has edited here, namely Doug. I believe Doug is now back again trying to improve this article only because he received some support from a second "lone dissenter", namely myself. I should note that I never claim "expertise" in any field, but as Doug has said, my understanding of the technical details of Lift are the same as his. (And BTW, I was awarded a Masters of Engineering Science on fundamental matters related to Fluid Dynamic Lift some 35 years ago, and have learned a lot more since then.) But there are now concerted efforts being made to expel me from the Lift pages, after which these same people plan to finish the job they started on Doug. Please read the Talk pages of the relevant Users, and any background chatter you can find, for evidence of these intentions.

I note that you have a particular interest in the ETT model, or rather in debunking it. What is now happening is that another "fringe theory", as equally absurd as ETT, is being promoted "front and centre" of the article as a realistic model of how Lift works. And not only is "TS" right at the top of the article, but also at the very bottom in the "One Minute Physics How Does a Wing actually work?" link, with TS thus bookending the article! Bizarrely, that You Tube cartoon starts by debunking ETT, and then ends by claiming that "real" Lift is due to TS, together with the COANDA effect! Why is the Lift article promoting these ideas?

Anyway, you have an influence on how Wikipedia evolves. But you, personally, are unlikely to suffer any adverse consequences of a failure of Wiki. A failure such as, say, an education system that relies excessively on low quality Wiki articles for its teaching, a very real possibility given the increasing "commercialisation" of the education system. A failure that would be the result of letting the "Randies" of the world run riot.

Still being blocked by the filter ... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 101.171.170.161 (talk) 00:47, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

But future generations will ... 101.171.170.161 (talk) 00:52, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

Future generations will reap what you now sow. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 101.171.170.161 (talk) 00:56, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

RFC and Mediation
You authored a currently in-progress Request for Comments concerning Lift (force). Shortly thereafter, I recommended formal mediation, and you are one of the editors who agreed that you would participate in mediation. It is my understanding that an open RFC may block the start of mediation. Would you be willing to request closure of the RFC as being subsumed into the scope of mediation, if that turns out to be necessary? Robert McClenon (talk) 02:35, 27 March 2015 (UTC)


 * From the timeline below, it looks like it will take a week or two for the mediation process to spin up. By that time the RFC will have run the usual 30 days and presumably someone will close it at that time.  If it turns out that the RFC is precluding the mediation process I will ask for early closure. Mr. Swordfish (talk) 12:34, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

Congratulations! You have helped make "Lift from Downwash" the New ETT.
If you ever wondered how the ETT-fallacy became so widespread, now you know. It is because of people like you. 101.170.127.241 (talk) 02:31, 2 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Erik, you are well aware that legitimate content disputes can be civilly discussed on the article talk page. You have been asked many times to stop making offensive personal remarks. I have left a further message for you at User_talk:101.170.127.241. Burninthruthesky (talk) 10:09, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

Welcome back
I'm glad to see the recent unpleasantness hasn't put you off Wikipedia completely, and I'm relieved to see Lift (force) is back to business as usual. Let's hope it stays that way. Burninthruthesky (talk) 10:12, 2 June 2015 (UTC)


 * Thanks. I had pulled back from the discussion mainly because I had pretty much said everything I intended to say so that further contributions would be repetition.  And in the greater scheme of things, the point of contention was quite minor.


 * As for business as usual, well, the Lift article has always stirred up a lot of differing opinions and I expect that to continue. I'm coming up on my sixth anniversary as an editor for the page and I've witnessed a lot of long arguments on the Talk page.  Fortunately, the process appears to work, since the present article is a vast improvement over what I found when I first got here. (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Lift_%28force%29&oldid=297590054)  Or at least I think so. Thanks for your patience and understanding in helping to improve the article.  Shame about Doug leaving - maybe he'll be back after a break.  Mr. Swordfish (talk) 14:37, 2 June 2015 (UTC)


 * Yes, the article certainly has improved. I hope so too that Doug will come back after a break. Burninthruthesky (talk) 15:02, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

Introducing the new WikiProject Evolutionary biology!
Greetings!

I am happy to introduce you to the new WikiProject Evolutionary biology! The newly designed WikiProject features automatically updated work lists, article quality class predictions, and a feed that tracks discussions on the 663 talk pages tagged by the WikiProject. Our hope is that these new tools will help you as a Wikipedia editor interested in evolutionary biology.
 * Browse the new WikiProject page
 * Become a member today! – members have access to an opt-in notification system

Hope to see you join! Harej (talk) 21:06, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

Invitation
Hi Mr swordfish. Thank you for your editing at Forces on sails. As discussed there, I am proposing to re-organize the article, using much of the existing material, in order to make the article more accessible. I hope that you will participate. So, I invite you to follow the sandbox page where the reorganization is being drafted. I suggest making comments on that effort at Talk:Forces on sails. Sincerely, User:HopsonRoad 15:39, 10 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Hi Mr swordfish. I have drafted a lede and overview at Talk:Forces on sails/sandbox for your review and editorial input. Cheers, User:HopsonRoad 13:36, 16 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Perhaps you could look things over and give some perspective at Talk:Forces on sails, before I get in too deep! Cheers, User:HopsonRoad 16:08, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

I invite you to look at the discussion at Talk:Forces on sails and elsewhere in the Talk page, which I have just tied to the WikiProject Sailing. There are two parallel efforts, one in the main article and one in the sandbox. It appears that the two editors are unlikely to reach a consensus as to which approach is more appropriate to WP:MOS. It would help, if other editors would look at both efforts and comment at the Reorganization? section. Sincerely, User:HopsonRoad 00:42, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Hi Mr swordfish, I note that you've been absent from Wikipedia for a little while and have some controversy to attend to elsewhere. Nonetheless, the above invitation stands and it would help, if more than the current two voices were participating! Cheers, User:HopsonRoad 17:19, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Hi Mr swordfish, I've been absent from WP for a while, but am hoping to return to the Forces on sails article. It would help to receive your perspective (and perspectives from others) on the relative merits of the progress made in the article, versus the approach implicit in the sandbox. Cheers,User:HopsonRoad 15:54, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

Hi Mr swordfish, I have substantially rewritten and brought across new text in Forces on sails, in case you would like to improve the result. Cheers, User:HopsonRoad 21:18, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Beth Fertig


A tag has been placed on Beth Fertig requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about a person or group of people, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please read more about what is generally accepted as notable.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator. -- Non-Dropframe   talk   20:46, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

Nomination of Beth Fertig for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Beth Fertig is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Articles for deletion/Beth Fertig until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. -- Non-Dropframe   talk   19:53, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:41, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

equal transit time list
Hi Mr Swordfish,

I offer the following for your perusal for possible inclusion in your list, first a book then a pilot's website:

"A View From The Hover" John Farley, published 2008 by Seager Publishing Limited, ISBN 978 0 95327 52 5 0 (Paperback). On page 266 the author says "Those who like to use Bernoulli to explain lift say that...the air above the wing would have a lower pressure than that below it because it had to speed up to travel the longer curved distance above the wing.."

Note that the author doesn't say this is incorrect.

He later says "...it can be demonstrated that the flow past a flat plate which has an alpha (and so is providing lift)...divides to go over the top and bottom, not at the leading edge but at a point a little way behind it on the under surface. Thus the air going over the top still has to go further to get to the trailing edge so still speeds up...."

My interpretaion of the above is that the author is putting forward the equal transit time idea to his readers as one part of the explanation for lift since he also says "..the flow round..a wing...is very complex and not totally explained by the work of either Bernoulli or Newton."

http://www.ce560xl.com/files/High_Altitude_Aerodynamics.pdf

page 3 "Wing Design" says "Air passing over the upper wing surface moves at a higher velocity than the air passing beneath the wing because of the greater distance it must travel over the upper surface." RegardsPieter1963 (talk) 02:30, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Jews for Jesus Wikipedia: Opinionated or Not Opinionated
Mr. Swordfish, I just read the policies. Are you an official editor for Wikipedia? I understand now that the sources I cited as from a not-yet published media kit are not acceptable. Will they be acceptable when the media kit is published? The media kit is a fact sheet. It is not self-promotion. But you (I assume it was you) deleted everything I posted yesterday. For example, you deleted our Jews for Jesus Statement of Faith. I checked other Wikipedia sites of religious groups and their Statements of Faith are posted. Why did you delete ours? Also, do you see how many statements from those who oppose Jews for Jesus are on this site? It dominates the entire site, which is ridiculous. So I posted letters from people who agree with our beliefs and what we do. Yes, the letters are from our website. Is that why you deleted that entire section? It seems like you are not permitting me to post any references from our website to state our positions. You also deleted our own statements about who we are, what we do, why we do it, our own statements about the controversy over our That Jew Died for You site. I'm sorry, but I have read your policies and this still seems to me like total censorship. You did not leave up a single thing I posted yesterday. Do you have the authority to do this. Please explain. Thanks.Messianicmatt (talk) 18:59, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for your response. I did not know about conflict of interest, so thank you for pointing that out. I will have to let my employer know about that. I appreciate your explanation about the fact sheet. And I understand why the Endorsement section may have not been appropriate. I am still a bit upset, however, that you deleted every single thing I had added. Did you do that due to conflict of interest? I don't think so, because I don't think you knew at that point that I worked for Jews for Jesus. So, if you didn't do it due to conflict of interest, why, for example, did you take down the Statement of Faith, which was footnoted? Why did you remove every instance under "Evangelizing" of explaining who we are and what we do, when those were also footnoted? Yes, the footnotes were to links on our website, but they were just a handful, not voluminous, which is what I believe the "Sourcing" guidelines warn against. Why did you remove the response I added to the controversy over the That Jew Died For You video, when it was also footnoted to just a single link to our explanation of why we did the video? If it was not a conflict of interest issue (which I now understand), I don't see why you felt you had to delete every single word and reference I posted.

To put it another way, if someone else (who doesn't work for Jews for Jesus) had added the Statement of Faith, the explanations under "Evangelizing," and the explanation of "That Jew Died for You," with the same footnotes I used, would you have deleted them?Messianicmatt (talk) 21:38, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

Mr. Swordfish. Murph9000 got back to me with some very helpful suggestions on how to approach this. I realize now I unintentionally just violated one of his suggestions, which was not to make any more edits until I "talked" it out with some of you editors. But if you look at the changes I made today, you will see they are all sourced from a non-Jews for Jesus website (an article in the Atlantic Monthly) and that they are relatively minor additions to the existing article. I changed the first line of the article because it spoke of "conversion" of Jewish people, which is a very loaded and controversial term, in my opinion. "Conversion," as you may know, conjures images of the Spanish Inquisition, with the alternative to "conversion" being executiion! So I used the Atlantic Monthly article as a source to describe the mission of the Jews for Jesus organization. Please let me know if these edits I made seem "kosher." If they do, then I hope I am on the right track to improving this article. Thank you! Messianicmatt (talk) 22:50, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

Linguistic prescription
Hi. At Linguistic prescription you recently reverted an edit by Curly Turkey, rightly I believe. Since then he's been a bit bullish. I don't want it to become an edit war, so if he pursues it further it would be better to take it to the talk page. But maybe you can keep an eye on it, as will I. --Doric Loon (talk) 20:04, 11 April 2016 (UTC)


 * Thank you, Doric Loon, for carrying the ball on this one. This is not my field of expertise, but it seemed clear to me that the material was sufficiently sourced, although the cites were in the parent article.  It looks like this is on the way to a reasonable resolution. Mr. Swordfish (talk) 17:40, 14 April 2016 (UTC)