Talk:Cyclogyro

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Article Semi-protected

message: 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)
thread_title: Rewrite

message: 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)
thread_title: Comparison with helicopter

message: I have reverted ’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. , 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title:  Edits on 2016-09-03 

message: 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.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:18, 16 August 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: 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  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.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:01, 26 January 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified (January 2018) 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Content trimming