User talk:Mr swordfish/Archive 2

Would you revise the "Conditions for existence" section in the the Coanda effect article please?
The Conditions for existence section is unnecessarily ultra-technical, as well as being poorly written. I have revised the first half of that section as it simply describes the results of the experiment depicted in the diagram on the right. But it was clear from that exercise that the reciprocal of the h/r ratio (and not the actual h/r ratios as stated) were used both in the original caption to the diagram and in the text! Mistakes like this, plus the poor English, made the section almost incomprehensible. I hope that my rendering of that section has improved matters, even though the diagram to which it refers is unnecessarily complex, having obviously been lifted from a professional journal (or similar text) without the accompanying explanations of what the various codes mean. For instance, what do the water pressure graphs (in cm H2O - labeled "Cm H2O" in the diagram!) in the top left hand corner of the diagram refer to?

The second half of the section starting with the sentence

A calculation made by L. C. Woods in 1954[14], of an inviscid flow along a circular wall........ needs serious reworking. Only the people who are already thoroughly familiar with Wood's, Young's, Van Dyke's and Kadosch's work would have the slightest inkling what these paragraphs mean, and whether the "h/r ratios" at the bottom of the section (referring to laminar flow over a curved surface) are true h/r ratios or their reciprocals. In fact this section seems to convey nothing other than that these authors have at some stage written about the Coanda effect. Maybe it should simply be deleted, though the information about laminar flow needs to be reported.

This section would make a lot more sense if some of the implications of the work were mentioned. I can think of one implication: since a fluid jet will not adhere to a curved surface at high h/r ratios it means that the airflow over a standard airfoil is not an instance of the Coanda effect, as the "jet" is, for practical purposed, infinitely thick (i.e. h/r has an extremely high value).

Cruithne9 (talk) 07:16, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

Wind-driven vehicles exceeding the speed of the wind
Hi Mr Swordfish. Best wishes for 2017!

User:HopsonRoad has had a lot to do with Forces on sails so you may know his work. He has done some new work and invited comments at Talk:High-performance sailing. He has also explicitly invited a small number of Users to comment and assist - see diff. You may be interested in contributing. Regards, Dolphin  ( t ) 02:58, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

"unexplained deletions" at Sail

 * 1) all links present in template
 * 2) further edits reverted without care  but not

What should be explained? D1gggg (talk) 03:40, 27 October 2017 (UTC)

How do I improve my contribution?
Hi, Pseudothink,

The main issue is that it needs a source. A side issue is that while it's fairly well established that A - B + C is almost always interpreted as A + -B + C, the corresponding application to multiplication/division is not so clear cut and may be ambiguous. At least that's my understanding; which is why we need to cite reliable sources - "my understanding" isn't good enough.

There seem to be thousands of threads on social media based upon something similar to your multiplication example (6 ÷ 2 * 3) with some contributors insisting on a strict interpretation of PEMDAS and others extrapolating from the convention for addition/subtraction. My take (again, "my take" is not good enough for Wikipedia) is that such an expression is ambiguous and a strict interpretation of PEMDAS may lead to an answer at variance with what many computer languages and calculators give.

In sum, I think a more nuanced version of what you had would pass muster; the key is to find reliable sources that treat the topic and accurately represent what the reliable sources say. If they disagree, then reflect that fact in the article. I think the article would be substantially improved by treating the multiplication/division example, we just need to be careful about how we treat it. Mr. Swordfish (talk) 16:24, 8 January 2018 (UTC)


 * A quick Google search turned up this: https://math.berkeley.edu/~gbergman/misc/numbers/ord_ops.html As someone with an advanced degree in mathematics, I wholeheartely agree with it.  Unfortunately, it's self-published and therefore not admissible as a reliable source. Let's see if we can turn up a better cite. Mr. Swordfish (talk) 17:23, 8 January 2018 (UTC)


 * Thanks, Mr. Swordfish, that was a very helpful response! Though I've used (and even financially supported) Wikipedia for quite some time, I'm still relatively new to contributing to it.  My Computer Science background gives me a particular appreciation for the importance of following standards and best practices in this context, though.  I need to self-educate a bit more to get my Wiki-fu up to snuff.


 * I'd based my previous contribution on feedback from my roommate, a math professor & PhD, and on a similar item I came up with from searching Google. I'll see if I can find a reliable source and improve the original contribution.  I again just saw a similar example  (6 ÷ 2 * (1 + 2)) pop up in a viral social media post, with most people arriving at the wrong answer, even some of whom I know to be college-educated STEM degree holders.


 * Unfortunately, this particular example is complicated (probably by design) by the use of the obelus symbol (÷), which is (per my previous update) discouraged from use in standard mathematical notation. Thus, despite being a popular viral problem, it may be a poor selection for use here, since it combines the issue of order of operations with that of correctly interpreting nonstandard mathematical notation.  I'll see what my mathy roommate suggests.  Thanks again!  Pseudothink (talk) 02:44, 16 January 2018 (UTC)


 * Welcome to Wikipedia, Pseudothink. I appreciate your acceptance of constructive feedback and think you will make a fine wikipedia editor. I'm going to move this discussion to the talk page of Order of Operations the article since that's the better place to address any proposed changes - other editors will see and have the chance to participate in the discussion if we talk about it there; if we continue on here it's just the two of us and wikipedia derives its strength from the collaborative effort.  Let's continue on the talk page. Mr. Swordfish (talk) 16:29, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

Talk:Lift (force)
Hi Mr Swordfish. Just a very minor point: your 25 April edit ended up before Doug McLean’s signature, rather than after it, thereby leaving Doug’s comments apparently unsigned. Regards. Dolphin ( t ) 21:20, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

Kutta condition
Hi Mr Swordfish. We are under siege at Talk:Kutta condition. If you are able to comment that would be appreciated. Regards. Dolphin ( t ) 13:22, 7 October 2018 (UTC)

Angle of attack
Hi Mr S. In Angle of attack there is an unsourced paragraph saying something like “A boat’s angle of attack is the angle between the boat’s course and the wind direction. See points of sail.”

I have looked at Points of sail and I don’t see anything that supports the statement that a boat has an angle of attack, and that it is based on the boat’s course. Could you have a look at the offending paragraph? Thanks. Dolphin ( t ) 22:17, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

Another example of the equal transit time theory
Hi Mr S. I have revisited a paperback book I bought in 1981 and noticed that it uses the equal transit time theory. I don't see it in your listing published on your User page. The book is How Things Work, The Universal Encyclopedia of Machines, Volume 1.

Page 554 contains the following, under the heading "Why An Aircraft Flies": "When the wing of an aircraft moves forward through the air, the flow of air along the lower surface arrives at the trailing edge before the flow along the upper surface. The lower surface flow attempts to expand around the trailing edge. As a result of this a vortex is formed. The rotation of this vortex accelerates the upper surface flow, so that the length of time required for a particle of air to move from the leading edge to the trailing edge becomes the same for the upper and the lower surface flow. The increased velocity of the upper surface flow eliminates the formation of a vortex by the lower surface air at the trailing edge, and it produces a lower pressure at each point on the upper surface than exists at the corresponding points on the lower surface. It is this difference in pressure that produces the lift."

My copy of the book was published by Granada Publishing Limited in 1972. ISBN 0 586 08385 5

It also contains a statement: First published in Great Britain by George Allen & Unwin Ltd 1967. German original first published by Bibliographisches Institut in 1963 under the title Wie Funktioniert Das?

Regards, Dolphin ( t ) 11:50, 11 October 2019 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of File:NasaPressureDiagram.jpg


The file File:NasaPressureDiagram.jpg has been proposed for deletion&#32;because of the following concern: "unused, low-res, no obvious use"

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the file's talk page.

Please consider addressing the issues raised. Removing will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and files for discussion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion.

This bot DID NOT nominate any file(s) for deletion; please refer to the page history of each individual file for details. Thanks, FastilyBot (talk) 01:01, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Bob Ames


The article Bob Ames has been proposed for deletion&#32;because of the following concern: "Non-notable person, fails WP:GNG, WP:BIO, article has substantial COI input as well."

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Ahunt (talk) 13:56, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

List of Common Misconceptions
Hello Mr swordfish. I just undid your undoing of my edit on the List of Common Misconceptions and left a note in the edit log. If you would, please check the sources for the misconception and see if you still think the edit lacks nuance, or just details. I was trying to exercise brevity, as it's a subject that can easily devolve (no pun intended) into lots of jargon. If you still think there's something wrong, please undo my undo and I'll bring it up in talk. Also, (partly because it is a very common misconception) if you feel like reading about some biology terms, I might direct your attention to the article on paraphyly and this diagram:



(In perhaps not the simplest terms), it's impossible to construct a biologically real clade that includes the monkeys (Old and New world) but which also excludes the apes, as all Old World Monkeys are more closely related to apes than they are to New World monkeys. As one of the sources points out, that is the only reasoning one needs to categorically state that humans and other apes are monkeys (one of the sources goes into this in depth).

Even more specifically, apes (including humans) must be considered Old World Monkeys, and not just monkeys, as long as animals like Aegyptopithecus are considered to be Old World monkeys (and such animals are considered to be Old World monkeys). Aegyptopithecus is located on the tree on the branch between where New World monkeys connect to the branch that leads to all Old World monkeys, including apes and humans. To call Aegyptopithecus and all the other Old World monkeys 'Old World monkeys,' but not apes, would result, again, in another paraphyletic (that is, invalid) clade. Incidentally, if one says that Aegyptopithecus is not an Old World Monkey, that eliminates the paraphyly with apes and Old World monkeys, but at the same time it creates a polyphyly between Old and New World monkeys that inappropriately excludes their most recent common ancestor and, again, inappropriately excludes the apes. One of the other sources goes into this somewhat.

This diagram might be a little confusing, because it may be taken to imply that humans are not apes, or that apes are not Old World Monkeys, since they are listed differently. Really, in the place where it says 'Old World monkeys' should be 'Baboon' (or some other Old World monkey), in the place where it says 'apes' should be 'Orangutan' (or another ape) and the labels 'Old World monkeys' and 'apes' should be located at the branch points lower down.

I will tell you that there is, in point of fact, some debate as to whether some living Old World monkeys might be more closely related to apes than they are to other living Old World monkeys which, if true, just makes it even more untenable to say that apes aren't monkeys, but that's not just nitty-gritty, it may also be somewhat debatable. It's also entirely moot since, as long as Old World monkeys and New World monkeys are both monkeys (and they are), apes must also be monkeys.

Apes were historically considered to be a sister clade to all monkeys because they have a number of derived characteristics (the lack of a tail, an appendix, generally larger brains, etc.) which all other monkeys lack. For similar reasons, it was once thought that birds belong apart from the other diapsids because of their derived characteristics (feathers, bipedialism, the lack of teeth, the lack of a tail, etc.) but modern molecular and paleontological evidence allows us to definitively say that crocodiles are more closely related to birds than they are to lizards, (and therefore, that birds are diapsids) and in just the same way, that baboons (a type of Old World monkeys) are more closely related to apes than they are to New World monkeys (and therefore, that apes are monkeys).

My original draft included a shorter (but still far too long) version of the above text. I'm afraid my greatest failing as a Wikipedia editor is my lack of brevity. I may have overcompensated and cut the entry down a little too much. If you've got any recommendations for stuff to include in a revised edit, for more nuance or more detail or what have you, please let me know and I'll see what I can do. Also, if you find this all unsatisfactory for some reason, do go ahead and undo the whole edit.

Anyway, sorry to inflict you with my anti-brevity skills. Nice to make your digital acquaintance. Joe (talk) 17:42, 26 November 2021 (UTC)

Cheers
You're an honorable editor, Mr. Swordfish. Cheers. Joe (talk) 01:34, 12 December 2021 (UTC)

Bernoulli’s principle
Please have a look at Talk:Bernoulli's principle. Dolphin ( t ) 01:37, 27 March 2022 (UTC)

Your Removal of My Edit on "List of Common Misconceptions"
Dear Mr. Swordfish,

I have to strongly disagree with your removal of my contribution to the article "list of common misconceptions." I would argue that what I included is absolutely a common misconception. It frequently resurfaces on social media (I can't count the number of times I've seen it over the years since it aired) and there are numerous articles about it online as any quick Google search would tell you. I would even argue that it is a much more common misconception than many of the misconceptions currently on the page. It is clear to me that many people — perhaps even the majority of people — genuinely believe that Mark Jackson declared his interest in having sex with Savannah James live on the air during an NBA Finals game. It is misinformation that needs to be clarified and countered, and I think it should be put back on the page. 2601:240:CB80:36A0:10F8:A459:B5A4:42C8 (talk) 16:28, 22 July 2022 (UTC)


 * The place to discuss this is the Talk page for the article List of common misconceptions. You can make your case there and if you can get a consensus of editors to agree that this item should be included then we can reinstate it. Mr. Swordfish (talk) 17:44, 22 July 2022 (UTC)

Ways to improve U.S. v. Moylan
Hello, Mr swordfish,

Thank you for creating U.S. v. Moylan.

I have tagged the page as having some issues to fix, as a part of our page curation process and note that:

"While case is notable, need more sourcing that is independent of the case record itself"

The tags can be removed by you or another editor once the issues they mention are addressed. If you have questions, leave a comment here and begin it with. Remember to sign your reply with. For broader editing help, please visit the Teahouse.

Delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.

Slywriter (talk) 15:46, 27 July 2022 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your help on this page. I have found three secondary sources, one of which is very good and covers pretty much everything that's in this article. I think that should be enough to remove the template. Cheers. Mr. Swordfish (talk) 14:04, 28 July 2022 (UTC)

We're definitely all Bozos...
If you're going to rewrite Wikipedia articles like I Think We're All Bozos on This Bus, it helps to read an entire section before proceeding, not just the paragraph you're interested in. You duplicated information from the previous paragraph: that the President is "mechanical" (animatronic); and Clem's name being recorded as "Ah Clem". You also misquoted the Hispanic visitor who complains that Clem broke the President. JustinTime55 (talk) 13:17, 4 November 2022 (UTC)

ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message
 Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2022 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:32, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

Common misconceptions
Hi, MS. I think you may have put this comment in the wrong section?? Sundayclose (talk) 01:12, 15 January 2023 (UTC)