From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Aviation / Aircraft / Rotorcraft (Rated Start-class)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of the Aviation WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see lists of open tasks and task forces. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
Checklist icon

Article Semi-protected[edit]

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 (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 (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 (talk) 19:26, 20 July 2012 (UTC)


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 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 (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: 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: where, incidentally, they agree my earlier edit was not vandalism. UnclaimedUsername (talk) 22:53, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

Comparison with helicopter[edit]

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)