Talk:Cyclogyro

Article Semi-protected

This article has been repeatedly attacked by vandals who finally referred to it to some "experienced volunteer editors". These volunteer editors clearly have no knowledge or any comprehension of this subject at all. They have inserted "citation needed" and warnings about the content entries throughout the article in a manner reflecting their ignorance and put an editing lock on it — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.228.58.37 (talk) 11:21, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

The article was locked due to your insistence on reverting changes while referring to editors as vandals without reason, and your removal of maintenance tags. Despite this I think we all want your input on the article, you seem to know quite a bit about it. More than me in any case. What I'm going to do is make a series of edits, one section at a time, and give you time to comment on them here. If I missed something, or removed something that should stay please, please let me know. I'm not out to "get" cyclogyros, I think they are extremely cool, and I hope to one day ride in one, I just want to make sure the article is encyclopedic. In the meantime, please consider what will reflect better on cyclogyro research: An article with unreferenced promotional and POV statements that makes it seem like fringe research? Or, a referenced, balanced article that makes cyclogyros seem like an exciting upcoming technology? UnclaimedUsername (talk) 17:02, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

I made the first edit, moving some material from the lede to a new section. Comments? UnclaimedUsername (talk) 17:02, 22 June 2012 (UTC) Since there was no response I went through and edited the full article, including the history section where I believe most of the trouble was. Other than the last sentence which was very POV/unencyclopedic, I didn't remove anything, I just rearranged / reworded / moved material. I repeat, other than that one sentence, I didn't remove material, I simply rearranged it. UnclaimedUsername (talk) 16:54, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

Surely making the article read as if it was written by a child or someone demented is one way to make most people stop reading it. At first you tried to eviscerate it, now this subtler tactic to achieve the same objective. Obviously high power and therefore fuel requirements result from the helicopters low efficiency. In turn high fuel consumption limits the helicopters range. Sure enough you have it reversed which is self evidently absurd - "Helicopters suffer from low efficiency in forward flight, which results from their high power and fuel requirements, as well as having limited flight range compared" So for the time being the article conforms to your alleged notion of encyclopedic standards, but somehow you "forgot" to remove the warning labels - of course leaving them in place further discredits the article, which is your obvious objective — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.124.61.175 (talk) 19:51, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

If the statement about helicopter efficiency has problems, then they were put there by you, not me, as I simply copied and pasted your statements into their own section. Also, the warning labels have been retained as the article, even as revised, still has the same problems as before. The reason for this is that I attempted to retain as much of the information you posted as possible, in order to no alienate you, someone I believed could be a valuable contributor. Your personal attacks and comments have shown me how wrong I was, as you are clearly either a) a troll b) a self-deluded promoter of cyclogyros who believes that acting like a late night infomercial is a good way to promote your field or c) a moron. In any case I don't believe you'll ever be a valuable contributor and so I'm going to stop trying to appease you. I am simply going to edit this article in the way I think is best then encourage other non-moronic editors (i.e. not you) to improve upon it. I would have long ago left this article alone for you to ruin with your edits if not for your ridiculous reverts and comments, but now I am making a point of ensuring that you never again attempt to vandalize this article the way you did before it was semi-protected. And, for the record, I do see the irony in calling you out for personal attacks and then responding like this. I simply don't care as you are a delusional, self-promoting, idiotic, self-righteous waste of oxygen. UnclaimedUsername (talk) 14:59, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

Do not modify other's comments on the talk page. If you want to emphasize what I said please quote me. I'm not hiding it. UnclaimedUsername (talk) 17:17, 3 July 2012 (UTC) The biggest flaw that the article has after you "contributed" to it is that it does not make it clear why the cyclogyros are needed at all. The article had a brief explanation of some of the helicopters major shortcomings and how the cyclogyros eliminate or minimize these problems, but all that is gone now. Nor does it any longer mention the implications for the fixed wing airplanes (requiring the very costly and remote airports) which will only dominate the aviation industry for as long as vertical takeoff and landing air vehicles remain comparatively inefficient — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.228.241.155 (talk) 19:26, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Rewrite

I removed much of the extraneous detail and did a rewrite. Much of what was removed was POV, unecyclopedic in tone, unreferenced and not notable. It read as if one person involved in cyclogyro development wrote most of the page, while undoubtedly well intentioned it still had strong a personal bias. If anyone wants to modify my rewrite or restore some of the information in an encyclopedic way that's fine, but don't revert the whole edit. UnclaimedUsername (talk) 18:38, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

Follow up to the complaint of "vandalism" from 84.229.134.250: The removed material was grossly unencyclopedic. I understand when you see a big chunk of an article disappear it looks like vandalism but, the removed material was unreferenced, POV and added little to nothing. As an example look at this excerpt, which comprises maybe 40% of the largest removed portion: "Given the rapid progress accomplished in the field lately and the much greater opportunities for further development it can be seen that not only are the cyclogyros (cyclocopters) headed to become the dominant type of the vertical takeoff and landing air vehicle, but they can reasonably be expected to take a substantial market share from the fixed wing aircraft (requiring very costly and usually remote airports) which today still comprise 90% of all aircraft in operation, thereby reshaping the aviation industry." You can't tell me that's not just someone's personal, POV, opinion.UnclaimedUsername (talk) 03:52, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

The quote that you are referring to is not my personal point of view, but rather a well informed prediction of where the present trends are leading(I could post a lot more, but chose not to at this time). If you read attentively the comments (accompanying the flight videos posted by Dr Hu and Dr Benedict) show much the same expectations (alternate concept...revolutionise the aviation industry etc)You seem to have far more than a passing interest in seeing this article conform to "the strictest standards" of impartiality and encyclopedic content, yet your rewrite was done very sloppily and featured disjoint sentences etc - which is not consistent with an attempt to improve the article. My guess is you probably are employed by one of the helicopter companies who certainly have to be concerned about these developments. OK now I will contact the Wikipedia about your activities here — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.124.93.64 (talk) 17:27, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

If you believe some of the removed material isn't POV, unecyclopedic in tone, unreferenced and not notable then please add to the most recent version and edit in that material with appropriate references and an encyclopedic tone, don't simply revert the the whole thing. I know very little about Cyclogyros, so your input would be valuable. Also, in reference to your reference on my edits as sloppy, disjointed and motivated by some sort of helicopter company conspiracy: please don't resort to ad hominem attacks, they add nothing. I assume good faith on your part, please assume it on mine. I simply came across an article with unusually major problems and I tried to clean it up. Finally, this discussion can now be continued at: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard#Cyclogyro UnclaimedUsername (talk) 18:25, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

I'm tired of fighting with the IP address editor. So I left the article the way they want it (minus a few typos) and simply flagged most of the problems I see. Feel free to clean up said problems, or to discuss this conflict at: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard#Cyclogyro where, incidentally, they agree my earlier edit was not vandalism. UnclaimedUsername (talk) 22:53, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

Comparison with helicopter

It was disappointing not to find any comparison with a helicopter. Evidently there is presently some dispute about the inclusion of unreferenced material on this topic - it's not my intention to stir this up. Nevertheless, it seems that there are some difficulties with a helicopter, such as loss of airspeed on the retreating-blade side in forward flight and the need for a tail rotor. Does the cyclocogyro completely avoid these? Are there and difficulties with a cyclogyro that are avoided in a helicopter? It seems likely that there are, given that helicopters are common while cyclogyros are unheard of. There must be something that can be said about these matters which isn't so contentious as to demand deletion for want of references(?). --catslash (talk) 15:38, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

Edits on 2016-09-03

I have reverted Jcpascoa’s additions today. Perhaps I should have explained in more detail the issues with the addition:

• The addition/fixing of an external link to the CROP project is probably a good thing. It needs to be done properly per WP:EXT though;
• I find the citations to be opportunistic. They are added only to justify themselves (as a source for the statement "this resulted in a significant apport to the literature"). This is often done in academia but this is not how Wikipedia works;
• There appears to be a conflict of interest at hand. Jcpascoa, you should read Wikipedia’s policy regarding conflicts of interest and definitely refrain from citing yourself, especially if this is your first edit;
• The Youtube video linked contains many copyright violations (copyleft material republished under Youtube standard license), several of which come from this page (WP:CIRCULAR);
• The final sentence ("This concluded with great success the Project CROP") is definitely not neutral (see WP:NPOV).

This in my view justified the complete removal of the addition. Ariadacapo (talk) 17:10, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

I understand they problems associated to the appropriate way to cite the updated link of project crop.

I have changed the type of license of the video on the demonstrator, now it is creative commons, it should be adequate to be used in conection with this article.

I will also change the videos of the multimedia description of the project to creative commons. These videos were actually made to be used in large dissemination.

Following this corrections will propose alternative text for your consideration. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jcpascoa (talk • contribs) 19:03, 3 September 2016 (UTC) Updated old link for EU Project CROP. Added Link to test in Europe of cyclogyro, similar to the Korean already incorporated — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jcpascoa (talk • contribs) 18:40, 24 September 2016 (UTC)

I agree the Korean and European YouTube videos should be treated similarly: They should both be removed. I have to echo the above concerns about self-promotion; I would advise Jcpascoa to take a look at the guideline on conflicts of interest. Huon (talk) 19:25, 24 September 2016 (UTC)

To present links to video on two different tests of cyclogyros seems of general interest. I totally disagree with the idea that the videos are against the rules of wikipedia. Otherwise how do you justify inclusion of videos on (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NASA_wind_turbines). Just because they are NASA can be there, but EU and Korean outputs of general interest are eliminated. It seems strange here. Jcpascoa (talk) 20:14, 24 September 2016 (UTC)

Allow me to be blunt for a moment: There's a difference between a historical documentary made by NASA 35 years ago to provide background information and an 18-second video clip that provides next to no useful information. What possible additional benefit does your video provide to Wikipedia's readers above and beyond what we previously had? I understand the desire to showcase your work, but Wikipedia is not the place to do so. Huon (talk) 12:35, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Cyclogyro. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071031043144/http://www.robotworldnews.com/100194.htm to http://www.robotworldnews.com/100194.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080125080910/http://cyclocopter.snu.ac.kr/overview.htm to http://cyclocopter.snu.ac.kr/overview.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:18, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

External links modified (January 2018)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Cyclogyro. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071018025506/http://serve.me.nus.edu.sg/cyclocopter/ to http://serve.me.nus.edu.sg/cyclocopter/
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://pdf.aiaa.org/preview/CDReadyMATIO06_1322/PV2006_7704.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:01, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

Content trimming

This article was full of inappropriate material: minor proposals of no real significance, future plans which breach WP:CRYSTAL, unsubstantiated and highly suspect claims, and so on. I have trimmed a lot of it. If anybody disagrees, please discuss individual issues here and do not engage in edit warring. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 19:49, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

I agree with your text removals for the reasons described. I have furthermore removed the text that has been unsourced and tagged for the past six years. If this is verifiable somewhere then surely refs would have been found by now. Regardless, it can be put back in with proper refs cited. - Ahunt (talk) 21:12, 3 July 2018 (UTC)