Talk:Coandă-1910/Archive 4

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

→

Archive 10

Voting proposition

There is only two ways to continue.

1. We accept Gibbs-Smith as reference. That means the Coanda-1910 is and irrelevant plane in the history of aviation from his own saying: "There can be no doubt that the important source quoted in the [November] 1956 article [in Royal Air Force Flying Review] was either indulging in a friendly leg-pull, or was suffering from a faulty memory. However, the 'jet' Coanda was certainly remarkable in its way, and deserves a somewhat modest place amongst the ingenious ideas that were unworkable in practice." – Charles Harvard Gibbs-Smith (1960). The Aeroplane: An Historical Survey of Its Origins and Development, pages 220–221. London: Her Majesty's Stationery Office. BTW Coanda 1910 does not have a single entry in Encyclopedia Britannica. In this case this article is a very good candidate for deletion.

2. We do not take Gibbs-Smith as a trustful reference a we continue with the main assumption which made this plane important in the history of aviation: "the plane with the first jet engine!". As I explained above to Rosiestep I accept to add a "document" chapter or however you want to call it and we add Gibbs-Smith and those references contesting the main fact!

Please select one number! After that we can continue the discussions in a decent way! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lsorin (talk • contribs) 19:37, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

• clearly Gibbs cannot be an important reference for this problem. He may be mentioned as a source of contesters, but of secondary importance, since he is clearly not qualified for the subject —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.116.208.224 (talk) 20:44, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

So your voting is 2? --Lsorin (talk) 20:46, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

• • • yes —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.116.208.192 (talk) 21:16, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Your request flies in the face of Wikipedia's method for dealing with conflicting sources. Wikipedia chooses both versions and discusses them, telling the reader about each. Your wish to have one version or the other thrown out is not what we will do. The voting proposition is malformed, forcing a wrong choice in each case. Binksternet (talk) 01:58, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Ok. Propose your voting then! --Lsorin (talk) 05:48, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

We are forming a consensus, not voting. Binksternet (talk) 06:48, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Please let us know how we can form the consensus. Is agree the voting is a compromise. And only the politicians are using compromises. So please the ball is in your field! --Lsorin (talk) 07:53, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Consensus is the policy. Perhaps there are still too few eyes on this page, in which case we could follow Wikipedia:Consensus#Consensus-building_by_soliciting_outside_opinions. Although WP:Aviation and WP:Aircraft have several editors noone else seems interested in this page - it may be a lack of interest in early flight, there are editors who involve themselves in one era and not another. If comes down to trying to maintain a neurtal article there is Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard

Let's close the Voting proposition as this will not lead to consensus. Please see the new added section.

--Lsorin (talk) 09:58, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Definition of jet engine

I'm not very easily led into a logical box canyon. Rhetorically, I agree the term "jet engine" did not mean in 1910 what it means today. However, I resist any attempt to redefine the term "jet engine" to include Coanda against our traditional references which state that the first jet engine needed to have combustion in the air stream to be so defined. Binksternet (talk) 20:42, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Your beloved Wikipedia definition: "A jet engine is a reaction engine that discharges a fast moving jet of fluid to generate thrust by jet propulsion and in accordance with Newton's laws of motion." Do you agree with this definition? If you don't please change the the definition in Jet Engine. There absolutely nothing about your combustion statement. By the way you were not an expert in engines, right? --Lsorin (talk) 20:49, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

i think just a biased person, or a plain idiot (and excuse my expression, but its true) may argue seriously that it wasnt a jet engine. Yes, i think we all agree that it wasnt a "turbojet", the most common kind of jet we find today in use, but it was neverthless the first jet aircraft. As well, the only reliable source must be Stine, Cracinoiu and Antoniu, only scholars who had acces to all Coanda archive, documents and patents, from all periods, and more then that, was qualified to understand them corectly too. Gibbs is cleary a nut with no technical qualifications, and must be dismissed from the start, and Winter is not much better then him, a former journalist of the army with a later degree in history. Boyne is a very reliable source as well, and it is too way more competent then Winter (or Gibbs), and he should be mentioned close, or even as much as Stine, and all article rewrited, with those two (Gibbs and Winter) having maybe a small separate paragraph, a kind of "Controversies" at the end of the article, but to be clearly stated their lack of technical qualifications, which is obvious when you see the supositions made by Gibbs for ex., probably betwen two discussions with his favourite ghosts, after he managed to enter in the alternative realm in which he stoutly believe. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.24.129.40 (talk) 21:05, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

A jet engine in aviation includes combustion. There is not enough power for flight without it. A compressor which sends a jet of air out of the exit is a blower, not an aviation jet engine. Otherwise, a simple squirrel cage fan is a jet engine. Note that at Talk:Jet engine, quite a lot of talk has been dedicated to the question of how to define "jet engine", with the decision made to make the article be so wide that it includes water jets. Aviation engines, on the other hand, do not normally call a jet of air a "jet engine"—Cumpsty says that the gas turbine is commonly synonymous with "jet engine" in aviation: "The gas turbine has many important applications but it is most widely used as the jet engine." M. Theodore Gresh writes in his Compressor performance: aerodynamics for the user that the jet engine development touched upon Buchi in 1905 and then skipped to Frank Wittle in 1930. No mention of Coanda. Binksternet (talk) 01:26, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

First regarding Cumpsty: because he did not mention anything about Coanda 1910 it means that it is confirming the step 1 as well that: Coanda 1910 is not important ? What is your position Binksternet ?

Regarding the other topic you need to change the definition from Jet Engine: "A jet engine is a reaction engine that discharges a fast moving jet of fluid to generate thrust by jet propulsion and in accordance with Newton's laws of motion." and add a special section which states especially that Coanda 1910 powerplant is not included in the definition and why. If you cannot do that that, I really think we need to update the article without your input Bisksternet, because your approach does not have any meaning technically and consensus wise ( you are just plainly refusing to agree/disagree with any steps I propose ). As well from your own statement "However, I resist any attempt to redefine the term "jet engine" to include Coanda against our traditional references which state that the first jet engine needed to have combustion in the air stream to be so defined.", I understand that you are not neutral in your very personal approach towards this article in particular. Again I suppose the other editors can agree that your input is not relevant as it is driven by your personal feelings, not general consensus. For you Binksternet before you start editing again in this page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Don%27t_be_a_fanatic. --Lsorin (talk) 08:27, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Cumpsty does not mention Coanda-1910 in relation to jet engine development, but the aircraft is still notable enough for a Wikipedia article. Binksternet (talk) 13:09, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Do you think that an engine that never was able to power an aircraft into flight would be an important step in the development of aviation? That's the question posed by Winter and Gibbs-Smith, and the answer they give is 'no', the engine is not notable because no flight was made, even though it can be said that the engine created a 'jet' of air blown rearward. Technically, a propeller drives a jet of air rearward, and so does a ducted fan, but a propeller works to power a lot of airplanes, while the Coanda-1910 was never reported to have flown in the 1910s. Binksternet (talk) 13:22, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Ok. What is the aircraft notable for?

"Yesterday night I build an airplane in my courtyard Lsorin-2010. The powerplant is jet engine working with bananas. You put bananas in the engine and the airplane is flying. I have pictures of bananas as well. I don't have a picture with the bananas jet streamed behind the engine! I'm wondering if the Coanda effect applies to bananas as well. Can I add this article to Wikipedia?" --Lsorin (talk) 13:26, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

The aircraft is notable for being the subject of reports in 1910 when it was shown in Paris. It is notable for having Coanda bring it back from the mists of time when he said in the 1950s that it flew in 1910. It is notable for generating a lot of discussion, and for acquiring a number of advocates agreeing with Coanda's 1950s and '60s description. Looks like very soon it will be notable as a centennial jet or centennial hoax, depending on the beliefs of the observer. Binksternet (talk) 13:53, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

OAU! I'm impressed! Looks like we have an agreement? "Conada-1910" is the first jet airplane". Chapter added: "Documentation, Contesters" or whatever you wanna call them! And list everybody Gibbs-Smith, White, Cumpsty the documents of 1910 with the explanation that the term "jet Engine" did not even existed at the time. We can even list that Coanda started to lie in the 50'es and 60'es for fun and to make his plane important in history of aviation. --Lsorin (talk) 14:49, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

I think you getting notable mixed up with important. In wikipedia terms "notability determines whether a topic merits its own article". I believe the aircraft has received sufficient coverage in reliable sources so yes it is wikipedia notable. On the other hand personally I feel it had no influence on the development of the turbojet or anything as commonly understood under the term "jet" - ie a hot blowy thing. GraemeLeggett (talk) 15:18, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Did Leonado Da Vinci's ornithopter had any impact to the evolution of aviation during the 20 century? I think not. But still it is noted. The same with Coanda-1910, Coanda himself didn't claim the patent for the jet engine ever. Hi just said the he invented it. Is the same with Leonardo Da Vinci's ornithopter, he was the inventor. Nobody for the editors contest that the patent of the Jet Engine belongs to Sir Frank Whittle and Hans Von Ohain ( not even Coanda himself contested that). So I still thing we are in the right direction. --Lsorin (talk) 17:59, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Coanda's engine was more like a hair dryer than a gas turbine. Cold air entered, and warm air exited, warmed from heat exchangers, compression and exhaust fumes. As an aviation engine, it was failure. I would not say that Coanda invented the jet engine, since Dr. Stolze invented and patented the gas turbine in 1872. Binksternet (talk) 18:57, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

So did you took in the mean while some classes in "jet engines"? Just to explain you a bit more about the turbine and the powerplant Coanda was having. The most classical type of wind turbine existed many centuries ago (see Windmill. Of course the turbine used in the other direction was patented by Dr. Stolze as you said above. Anyway, and this is the tricky part, a normal turbine, even the ones running today in any jet engine in the sky produces a helicoidal vortex according to the Betz'_law Betz' law which was not the case with Coanda's "turbopropulseur". If you read carefully the English patent (same in the French and Swiss one) you will realize that his turbine was not just a simple one as the air jets were straitened at the exit from the turbine. This was never done before and explains as well the his personal statements, about the test of the plane, that lead to the Coanda effect studies. As well he is stating very clearly in the patent: "which can be compared to the constituent elements of a turbine or fan, but differ from the same by the fluid which is compressed in the said propeller, having to transmit its kinetic energy to the apparatus in form of an axial reaction and to escape from the diffusing apparatus."

Another important aspect which does not exist in any previous turbines is the fact that the vacuum created internally is used for enhancing the performance. ( see Contra-rotating propellers). Do you want more technical details? This is why I would be more careful when calling Coanda's powerplant a hair dryer. I hair dryer would not burn up his plane, in the air, even made if is made wood. ;) Coanda's "turbopropulseur" it was never considered a turboprop as in today's terms coined by Sir Frank Whittle and Hans Von Ohain. It is considered correctly as a "termojet". By the way did you know that Coanda made his plane in Gianni Caproni's atelier? And he was a very good friend of Secondo Campini which build this thing? I think you can see the connection alone to the 'termojet'. Thank you for having the patience to read this. --Lsorin (talk) 19:43, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

And to close another topic: the Ducted fan patent was filed only in 1960. As you might now the patenting process is a very tough one so that if a similar patent existed in the past the patent would not be granted. So if 1911 'turbopropulseur' would have been a ducted fan the patent in 1960 would have not been approved. --Lsorin (talk) 19:52, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

That's not a patent on the concept of the ducted fan. That's a patent on a "ducted fan-jet turbine". To use it to interpret the turbo-propulseur is OR. GraemeLeggett (talk) 20:39, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

And to boot, the ducted fan is discussed in Flight in 1955 fan and earlier. GraemeLeggett (talk) 20:43, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

I see this page has been busy the last few days! I'd like to point out in connection to the ducted fan and reaction engine arguements being mulled over yet again that according to Octave Chanute in his well-known and well-respected book Progress In Flying Machines, a ducted fan was patented for aviation puposes by a Mr. Ward of Texas in 1876. He says the fans were on a horizontal shaft, but ducted downward "..so that the reaction would act against the force of gravity." He took out further patents in 1877, and was followed by a Mr. Walker, who filed patents on a modified version of this ducted fan reaction-propulsion system in 1892. Chanute discusses this on pages 64 and 65 of his book, which is in the public domain and available for full veiwing on Google Books. Romaniantruths (talk) 02:32, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

OK. Very good! So Romaniantruths you agree that Coanda's patent from 1911 is not about a ducted-fan, as no patent office in the world would grant him with something already existing. --Lsorin (talk) 06:17, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

No, Slorin, you have no Idea what you're talking about. As you can see above the US granted three different patents on ducted fans before 1900. You just don't understand how patents work, and what is or isn't patentable. Try reading up on patent law.Romaniantruths (talk) 02:52, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

• i think is obvious it wasnt a ducted fan, and the characterization made by competent peoples like Stine and Boyne (both who had acces to all Coanda documentation and especialy have the qualifications required to understand them correct, unlike Gibbs or Winter) is that Coanda-1910 was a "primitive jet" or an "experimental jet". Ofcourse it wasnt the "turbojet" created in late 30's, but it was a jet. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.116.208.237 (talk) 06:51, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
• adding to your Gibbs-Smith story an extract from Flight magazine: "And thus back to my theme of an ungenerous review. Charles Gibbs-Smith is like a lion prowling the pages of history, roaring magnificently. One would like to pat his noble head and talk about early-birds—but he makes it difficult. To those of us who are not professional historians he often seems too arbitrary in arriving at conclusions which he regards as indisputable. As a nice example of ignoratio elenchi his reply to my letter would be hard to beat. He seems to have got me confused with Voisin. I certainly did not suggest the Wrights were untruthful, nor say that I believed the statement of Drinkwater—but probably Voisin does." Flight Magazine,5 December 1963, Historians and Pioneers, Jack Parham. --Lsorin (talk) 10:44, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

It seems to have been a response to this itself in response to this 31 October letter. In turn it was followed by a response by Gibbs-Smith in an later letters page. There's probably more correspondence. GraemeLeggett (talk) 12:45, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Aha, I believe the source of the barney is Gibbs letter titled A PIONEER'S CURIOUS AUTOBIOGRAPHY in Flight 17 Oct 1963. Though I'm not sure what their debate shows. GraemeLeggett (talk) 12:58, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

unagreed edits

It has come to my attention that Slorin has made a huge number of undiscussed edits during this discussion. He has changed the claims so that it says the aircraft was a jet, and erased numerous references which show that it wasn't. I have reverted these edits.Romaniantruths (talk) 03:45, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Once again numerous unagreed edits of the same character as above have been done claiming the Coanda is a jet by the same 2 editors. I will again erase them. It is puzzling that Lsorin claims that unagreed edits are vandalism but continues to do them on a continual basis. Lsorin, why do you feel this is appropriate?Romaniantruths (talk) 15:13, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Article protected, again

I protected this article before due to edit warring, and now I have had to protect it again for the same reason, this time for three weeks. If no agreement can be worked out during the protection period, this article will go on 1RR probation after protection expires, enforced by long-term blocks on any editor who violates it by making more than 1 revert. Either way, the edit warring must stop.

If you have an uncontroversial change to request, or if you come to an agreement about a change needed to this article, post an {{editprotected}} tag on this page with the proposed change, and an administrator can make the change while the article is protected. ~Amatulić (talk) 20:15, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Why the POV and the Expert-subject were removed? As well some references as well are gone ( to instance the ones regarding the engine and the technical data. --Lsorin (talk) 20:20, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

I just restored those tags. I tried to find a point in the edit history between some constructive edits and heavy warring, and picked a point to restore to. If, and only if, there is consensus to restore a different version to work from, I'm happy to do so. As I said above, I can also make uncontroversial edits as needed, just make an {{editprotected}} request on this page. Adding a source to an existing claim in the article shouldn't be controversial. ~Amatulić (talk) 20:26, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for adding the tags back. The section was ignored by Romaniantruths in his edits.

Edit request 2 from Lsorin, 1 October 2010

{{edit protected}}

According to the definition of the jet engine the powerplant of Coanda-1910 is jet engine. Called in the official paper from the 1910 exhibition in Paris", turbo-propulseur" (French), the term is not the same as the contemporary turboprop, term which was coined in the late 30' by Sir Frank Whittle and Hans Von Ohain patents. It was a more rudimentary type of jet, know today as "airjet", "thermojet" or "motorjet". As discussed in this section the importance of the article about this airplane is given by the fact of being the first jet aircraft

. ( the last reference from the American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics was ignored in the discussion most of the time) As well the many references like the once from the Romanian Air Force and other museums and books in Romanian have been ignored.

Lsorin (talk) 20:53, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

 Not done It is not at all clear what the request is. You need to be specific, where does it go, what does it replace, and exactly what wikimarkup and text should be put there? You're mixing in your commentary with edit proposals above. Please put the actual edit to be made in a separate paragraph and explain it. Look at your first edit request above this one; see how the text to be inserted into the article is broken out from the rest of the comments? ~Amatulić (talk) 21:11, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Edit request 1

{{editprotected}} The Coanda-1910 powerplant is a jet engine as per Jet Engine definition. So my request will be to revert the introduction to:

---

The Coandă-1910, also referred to in some sources as the 1910 Coanda Jet, was an experimental build in 1910, the first jet-propelled aircraft. It was powered by an experimental, more rudimentary jet engine with a turbine driven from a conventional engine. also called "airjet", "thermojet" or motorjet.

---

--Lsorin (talk) 20:34, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

I have fixed this request. Don't place the "tl" when you're making an actual request; doing so will ensure that your request does not get seen by an admin. —KuyaBriBri^Talk 20:50, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Sorry! I have done a correct request now. Thank you for the explanation about the 'tl'!

--Lsorin (talk) 20:55, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Um, do you want to modify that request again? None of those three sentences are grammatically correct. Also, "in some sources" is weasel wording; you don't need that phrase. ~Amatulić (talk) 21:24, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

You are right! This was just a copy of an older version before the editing/reverting started. Here is my new proposal for the introduction:

---

The Coandă-1910, was an experimental aircraft build in 1910, the first jet-propelled aircraft. It was powered by an experimental, more rudimentary type of jet engine with a turbine driven from a conventional engine. also called "airjet", "thermojet" or motorjet.

---

--Lsorin (talk) 09:55, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

Not done here, because this has been re-requested below. ~Amatulić (talk) 06:11, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Romaniantruths

We had a discussion in this section. The main question were the importance of the whole article if the plane in not important and the Jet engine vs. Banana engine article example. Basically the conclusion is that the plane is important for Wikipedia's point of view and it must be listed as a jet engine otherwise we need to change the definition of Jet Engine. If you are not willing to do that change ( or add a special explanation in the Jet Engine why only this particular powerplant does not fit the definition than please stop reverting the edits or we will need to take administrative actions if you don't start participating in the discussion first before editing. As well for any kind of problems you are raising up, I proposed to add a sandbox were all the controversies and the references with regards to any particular airplane and its constructors can be gathered. Every airplane with controversies will have a reference to that page. This way we can have all this discussions focused in one place and not change the whole Wikipedia with every single new reference found in the web. --Lsorin (talk) 09:20, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

• well, i think the article look aproximatevly correct now, neutral and with all points discussed. But i still think that Gibbs is not a reliable source, as well Winter. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.79.19.124 (talk) 12:10, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Gibbs-Smith and the other contesting references cannot be ignored in Wikipedia, if you still want to keep it neutral. That is why proposed is to list all of them in a article were all this stuff can be nicely gathered and not lost by removals. Coanda-1910 and all other articles will link to this new page, so that rest of the articles related can have a decent life and not changed with every single new article found in press. So please move them there. I will try to start helping with this work as well. --Lsorin (talk) 13:30, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

No such conclusion was reached and your questions were invalid for obvious reasons. Since you have the highly controvertial view that the 1910 Coanda was a jet, I suggest that you go to that nice little sandbox you've constructed and write it down. That way this article will not be constantly changed by you every time you find something new on the internet.Romaniantruths (talk) 14:17, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Ok. Please ask the valid questions in this talk page! As well please explain what is not valid in my questions! --Lsorin (talk) 14:24, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

The information needs to be together for each article - the "controversy" (or just disagreement between sources) can't just be hived off into one location. If reputable source A says that the aircraft was painted pink and reputable source B says it was painted red, then both have to go in (per NPOV) and the article would have a line to the extent that "the xxxx was painted pink¹ or red²". since the issue with this aircraft is whether it flew or not and what the engine was the information belongs here. The situation is different where you have two aircraft (and two articles therefore) making a claim to be the first to do something. GraemeLeggett (talk) 15:06, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Give me an example of an article about an airplane seen as some historians in pink and other historians in red in the whole Wikipedia. The Coanda-1910 makes it to the Wikipedia "not" because of the controversies ( color, jet bananas or other controversies)! It make is to the Wikipedia because it was the first Jet Aircraft, not because it was a foehn. Otherwise please propose it for deletion, if you agree with the step 1 of the discussion.

--Lsorin (talk) 17:34, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Romaniantruths I asked actions from you on this talk page. The discussion are going here not in the article history. Without a reply in this talk page I will report you next revert as vandalism. --Lsorin (talk) 15:12, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

lsorin, you haven't been discussing your changes here. You've just been erasing references you don't like and changing the article into a fictional account of the 1910 Coanda. You also clearly have no understanding of how Wikipedia works. Try reading the instructionsRomaniantruths (talk) 15:38, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Ok. That please teach me. I was asking several time for help an I got usually no replies. Anyway I suppose you must be quite experienced since you started editing this June, especially Romanian related articles. --Lsorin (talk) 17:37, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

I don't understand why an example on how one could report differences of opinion from equally valid sources gets mixed in with the notability criteria. The notability criteria is summarised as "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to satisfy the inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article." This is independent of what the subject of the article acutally did or didn't, was or wasn't. GraemeLeggett (talk) 19:25, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

I don't really understand how the notability of Gibbs-Smith or what ever other so called Coanda scholar can be more notable that Coanda himself; recoding from the TVR archives with the man himself about the flight ( sorry is in Romanian and a have no clue about the copyright ):

Coanda interview in 1966 --Lsorin (talk) 20:43, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

You reverted without any discussions. Wikipedia does not work like that. "Find consensus, avoid edit wars" from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Five_pillars. With your last revert you removed the first reference to Stine and the Jet Engine. You need to explain first here, why those references are no not relevant to the subject. --Lsorin (talk) 16:49, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Binksternet I didn't know that anybody ( in this case you ) is allowed to change the entries of other editors in the discussion pages! ( this related to your "cleaning" of the [Romaniantruths http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Romaniantruths facts] ). --Lsorin (talk) 09:44, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

I have removed your combative use of Romaniantruths' former user name. It was disallowed, and he changed it. Please do not insist upon using it yourself. Binksternet (talk) 16:43, 4 October 2010 (UTC)