User talk:Genick

I noticed you were new, and wanted to share some links I thought useful:

If you are stuck, and looking for help, please come to the Wikipedia Boot Camp, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Or, you can just type {{helpme}} on your user page, and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions.

You can sign your name by typing 4 tildes, like this: ~~~~.

Be bold!

youngamerican (talk)

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia! We appreciate your contributions to the Ernst R. G. Eckert article, but we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material. Perhaps you would like to rewrite the article in your own words. For more information, take a look at Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Happy editing! Mak (talk) 02:40, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Helpme[edit]

I am trying to set a value for one person but different name E.R.G. Eckert and Ernst R. G. Eckert which are the same person. But I get different pages.

any idea?

Genick 15:42, 8 June 2006 (UTC)genick[reply]

I think you want to redirect (see Wikipedia:Redirect) E.R.G. Eckert to Ernst R. G. Eckert. Just edit E.R.G. Eckert and place #REDIRECT [[Ernst R. G. Eckert]] on the page and save. Use {{helpme}} again if you get stuck.--Commander Keane 15:41, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you this was the answer. potto 15:38, 9 June 2006 (UTC)genick[reply]

Shock wave reversion[edit]

Hi Genick, I've reverted your major changes to Shock wave. I've left a short explanation of why on the talk page. I would hope that we can work together to fix the many problems with this page. I think that a complete restart is probably not the answer here though. Feel free to leave me a message here or on my talk page. AKAF 12:18, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi do you want to discuss this over the email. my email is barmeir at gmail.com or you should give me you email address.

Can't do.AKAF 14:52, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi again,

I see that you cannot leave me email or identify yourself. Fine! I assume that you want to keep the mistakes in the shock wave article. Could you please explain why you insisting on keep the mistakes there. If you have a logical explain (don't have to be scientific just what are you secret motivations).

I can to do one of the two things

let you keep it, insert some paragraph about the history and
put somewhere big statement that

it is not make any sense scientifically, or

let the editors check which material make sense (you will have
to show some credential

in that case).

I am not hiding like you. you know who am I.

Genick

Now I realize you're new to the wikipedia, and there's a long standing policy about not biting the newbies, so I'm going to follow that advice and simply ask you to read this page: assume good faith.

Casting aspersions about other editors is generally considered insulting by even the most thick-skinned of editors, and I was more than a little upset to see your post on Deglr6328's talk page where you accused him of being a vandal. I only grew more concerned when I examined the article in question, shock wave, and found that Deglr6328 has never even edited any of your changes. The only edits he has made recently were to the talk page, which he clearly labeled as a technical mistake and quickly fixed. The page in question was already in its original form before you posed on his talk page.

As someone that has worked extensively with Deglr6328 I can state with no hesitation that his edits have been extremely constructive, and the wiki is a better place for them. Your "vandalism" claims are baseless. I think you owe him an apology.

And if you'd still feel the need to call in an admin for assistance, I'm right here, just click on my name to the right: Maury 19:03, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

An Automated Message from HagermanBot[edit]

Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. You may also click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your name and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you! HagermanBot 19:18, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

thanks, --potto 20:34, 1 February 2007 (UTC) genick[reply]

Nick Baker (chef) mediation[edit]

Hi,

Thank you for taking up this case. I hope it is OK to respond on your talk page. Unfortunately, the other party, Sparkzilla, has not expressed a willingness to mediate, so I'm not sure whether we can continue without his co-operation, unless it goes to a RfA. David Lyons 00:24, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

potto/genick is not a member of the Wikipedia:Mediation_Committee, and cannot assign himself to a mediation attempt. You should consider the request unfilled and continue with the RfA process. Maury 13:28, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Re shock wave article[edit]

Hello, Genick. I was about to put a message on AKAF's talk page about the shock wave article when I saw your message there, so I decided to write here too. You said:

I assume that you want to keep the mistakes in the shock wave article.

I would like to urge you to follow the Wikipedia policy Assume good faith. Wikipedian editors are not supposed to assume that other editors want to keep mistakes in the articles. We're supposed to try to get along harmoniously. --Coppertwig 17:05, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You also said:

I am not hiding like you.

This is saying something about another editor (AKAF). You're supposed to talk about the article, not say things about other editors. Wikipeida policy says "Comments should not be personalized and should be directed at content and actions rather than people." Many people would feel offended if someone says they are "hiding". Many users on Wikipedia are pseudonymous. It is commonly accepted here and there is no need to talk about the pseudonymous status of editors one is involved in a dispute with. --Coppertwig 17:31, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Genick, as Coppertwig reminded me, I have been less than polite in some of my dealings with you and I'd like to apologise for offending you. I'll try better in the future. What matters, after all is the articles. AKAF 09:23, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Congratulations to both AKAF and Genick for successfully shifting to a cooperative discussion focusing on article content. That is not easy to do when emotions have been involved. --Coppertwig 18:32, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Vandalism and Self-Promotion[edit]

Genick,

I have been watching your editing for some time now. If you are actually Dr. Bar-Meir, you should understand that posting your own supposed solutions in the text of compressible flow articles like Oblique shock is considered by Wikipedia to be self-promotion and vandalism. If you are not Dr. Bar-Meir, then that is a situation where you are lying about your identity. One of these situations has to be true, and either is a serious issue in my opinion. In addition to you user name Genick, I see that the user 209.32.159.25 is operating in a similar fashion on the compressible flow articles as yourself. There is no doubt they are being operated by the same person. You have also vandalized my own personal page, using it to write a message to me doubting my qualifications among other things (I am an aerodynamicist). This is not the first time you have done this. I am going to look into blocking both users.EMBaero 18:00, 17 October 2007 (UTC)EMBaero[reply]

You should think what you doing[edit]

Mr. EMBaero or who ever you are,

You make the allegations that i hide. You should read my user page. I am Genick Bar-Meir. You have understand that it is not appropriate to post erroneous unsupported claim while removing supported information. For example, you claim that there is only two solutions to oblique shock or the oblique shock turn to curve shock and etc. More over, you claim that analytical solution has no merit or point. Mover over you claim that no one used it. These claims aside to the fact they wrong they are without any base or reference or logic. I also do not understand why inserting to point to Java appellate when there is many who cannot be used it. I also do not understand why you remove link to an on-line program that use PHP.

Look I do not know who you are. But your behaviour is distasteful. You think that you can remove information with total disregards to other is not appropriate. If you have a specific claim you can discuss it. For example, if you believe that analytical solution has no merit or no one use please show any evidence. I will accept it. I do not fight versions war. I will file a dispute against you. I do not say that just because google say that I am the most famous guy in compressible flow you should do as I say. If you want to discuss specific issue I am always willing to do it.

Genick

Hallo Genick. Quoting my answer at that time from the discussion page of shock wave:

"To your comments on the analytical solution of an oblique shock: The standary equations for the oblique shock are an analytical solution. There are equations which you can use to find pressure/density/Mach jumps across an oblique shock if the shock angle is known. Finding the shock angle requires an iterative solution, which is, as the NACA 1135 states, not explicit. In these times where a relatively cheap calculator can solve the equation the inconvenience is long forgotten. I consider the sentence in example 4 of this article to be a good summary. With this in mind I find your assertion that an analytic solution did not exist before your work at best misleading."

Additionally, I would encourage you to read WP:COI and Wikipedia:No original research#Citing oneself. If you can convince someone else to insert the links to your text, then you might just have a chance of avoiding conflict of interest problems. Otherwise, pushing a non-standard solution where a standard solution exists, is at best a conflict of interest, and at worst vandalism. AKAF 15:16, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A Reply to: 'You should think what you doing'[edit]

the reply is on www.potto.org/reacton.php and on User:EMBaero potto (talk) 19:38, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Genick, I am going to break down my reply to the message you left me into several parts:

"You make the allegations that i hide. You should read my user page. I am Genick Bar-Meir."

You do not hide while using Genick, and I am leaning towards thinking that you actually are Dr. Genick Bar-Meir. However, I find the edits made by 209.32.159.25 very interesting. First, that IP address is located in Minneapolis, where you earned your Ph.D. and currently reside. From your Ph.D. dissertation, it looks like you are an Israeli or at least went to school in Israel for some time. The user 209.32.159.25, in addition to editing compressible flow pages and adding links to your online text, is mostly used to vandalize articles on Muslims. This cannot be a coincidence and I am wondering if there is any way you can explain this?

"You have understand that it is not appropriate to post erroneous unsupported claim while removing supported information. For example, you claim that there is only two solutions to oblique shock or the oblique shock turn to curve shock and etc. More over, you claim that analytical solution has no merit or point. Mover over you claim that no one used it. These claims aside to the fact they wrong they are without any base or reference or logic."

I have about 25 of the most well-known textbooks on aerodynamics sitting in front of me, and they all state that the Oblique shock equation has two solutions (weak shock and strong shock). This equation is the first one to appear in the theory section of the Oblique shock article. It is impossible to take that equation and analytically solve for the shock angle based on a given corner angle and upstream Mach number. This is why every textbook contains oblique shock tables, where the results are tabulated since solving for the shock angle based on those two parameters requires a very complex, non-analytical iterative process. If you want to claim that you have invented some new solution, you have the burden of proof and have to post information about your solution before it will be allowed on Wikipedia. Adding a link to your compressible flow text is not good enough, and I want to see something along the lines of an AIAA journal article.

"I also do not understand why inserting to point to Java appellate when there is many who cannot be used it. I also do not understand why you remove link to an on-line program that use PHP."

Downloading Java is free, and this NASA applet is very good. If you look at the history, I believe every applet on the oblique shock page has been coded in Java. I suppose I am not too sure what you are referencing this complaint to.

"Look I do not know who you are."

Nor should you. However, I will tell you two things. First, I am an aerodynamicist. Second, you have made reference on potto.org and Wikipedia to people that I know, and I think they would be very unhappy to see themselves referenced in your compressible flow text.

"But your behaviour is distasteful. You think that you can remove information with total disregards to other is not appropriate. If you have a specific claim you can discuss it. For example, if you believe that analytical solution has no merit or no one use please show any evidence. I will accept it. I do not fight versions war. I will file a dispute against you."

Please find an editor that thinks my behavior is more distasteful than yours. It appears you have started many disputes before I started editing Wikipedia. I will remove information when I see something that is erroneous or unintelligible jargon. This includes just about all of the information you have ever posted on Wikipedia. Please be my guest if you want to file a dispute - I am not afraid to bring these issues before an administrator.

"I do not say that just because google say that I am the most famous guy in compressible flow you should do as I say. If you want to discuss specific issue I am always willing to do it."

Are you actually saying that you are the most famous person related to compressible flow? Google brings up your compressible text, but it does not appear that you have a single peer-reviewed publication related to compressible flow. Is that correct? I've looked through your text. While most of the derivations appear to be correct, it is the explanations and qualitative observations along with those equations that make a good text. Your text is severely lacking when it comes to those issues. To me, it just looks like you took some of the old compressible flow books and copied the equations from them. If those equations are copied from any of the compressible flow authors that I know, I will tell them to pursue plagiarism charges. Judging from what else Google brings up about you, I know you are no stranger to lawsuits.

If you are going to continue your old editing habits, please stay away from Wikipedia and concentrate on your own work. Many of the aerodynamics articles are in bad shape because all of the other editors gave up on arguing with you and concentrated on other subjects. That will not happen with me. EMBaero 04:12, 21 October 2007 (UTC)EMBaero ^{Superscript text}[reply]

Your Return[edit]

Hi Genick,

You left me a message on my talk page, and I'm going to try and reply to you here. I don't want to get either of us too heated up about it, but I'll try and explain some of the things which have previously been a problem with your editing.

1. Firstly, your replies to talk page edits have been between the beginning and the end of the edit to which you are replying. This is a problem because it makes the discussion very hard to read. It's hard to tell who said what, particularly if there are 3 or more participants in a discussion. Generally you should start your reply with an additional indent ":" after the signature of the person to whom you wish to reply. An example of a discussion formatted in this way by experienced wikipedia users might be that at Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_adminship. Even if you don't agree with this method of formatting, you should please use it because it is the standard here at wikipedia.

2. I understand that you don't like the anonymous system of wikipedia. However you should understand that it is the system here. I think that it is important that you take the time to understand why an anonymous user's contributions are valuable. Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia, and as such is not a forum for publishing original thought. It is simply a space for collecting insights from reliable primary and secondary sources in a convenient format. The insights should (ideally) all be cited. If an insight is available in more than one source, then the most reliable of those sources should be cited. See Wikipedia:Reliable_sources for more. This affects you in that if an insight appears in your book and in (for example) Liepmann and Roschko, then the latter will be the correct citation. Your book is valued less as a citation because it is "self published", and because it is not peer reviewed (Although I'm sure we could have a discussion just on the peer reviewed status of any standard text).

3. Your insights on the shock wave solution may indeed be correct and insightful, but they don't belong on wikipedia. This is not because they are wrong, but because you can't produce a valid citation for the solution. If you wish to state that your solution is superior to the standard solution, you need to provide a peer-reviewed citation for that assertion. This is independant of the "truth" of your statement. The fight as to whether your solution is correct or not belongs in the peer-reviewed literature and not on wikipedia. Currently wikipedians are forced to assume that your solution is false, since you have not managed to get it published in a peer-reviewed journal in the field. Get it published in JFM and we'll be right there with you.

4. You need to take 5 minutes to cool off before you reply to comments. You should understand that, as English apppears not to be your first language, that your edits frequently require re-writing from another editor. You should also understand that any request for real names or credentials will be regarded as cyberstalking and will result in a reduction in your credibility. Finally, please understand that wikipedia does not accept any new theories, or even any new ways of looking at old theories. This means that any great attempts to describe a well-known phenomenon in a way which is "easier" to understand will be rejected simply because it is innovative.

I hope that we can have a productive editing relationship in the future. Regards, AKAF (talk) 08:36, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

File:LimitedTheta.jpg listed for deletion[edit]

An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, File:LimitedTheta.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. JaGa^talk 17:18, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of File:ObliqueD.png[edit]

The file File:ObliqueD.png has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Orphaned image, no context to determine possible future encyclopedic 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 {{proposed deletion/dated files}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the file's talk page.

Please consider addressing the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated files}} 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. --TheImaCow (talk) 19:23, 6 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]