User talk:Arydberg: Difference between revisions

Welcome!

Hello, Arydberg, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• Tutorial
• How to edit a page
• How to write a great article
• Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{helpme}} before the question. Again, welcome! Acroterion _(talk) 02:48, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Question: What became of the early news stories that pilots of the AirFrance airliner 'in the sky behind TWA Flight 800, had filed a report saying: They were taking an evasive action because of missles in the area? Balddrick (talk) 16:27, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Easy as pi?: Making mathematics articles more accessible to a general readership

The discussion, to which you contributed, has been archived, with very much additional commentary,
at Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)/Archive 35#Easy as pi? (subsectioned and sub-subsectioned).
A related discussion is at
(Temporary link) Talk:Mathematics#Making mathematics articles more accessible to a general readership and
(Permanent link) Talk:Mathematics (Section "Making mathematics articles more accessible to a general readership"). Another related discussion is at
(Temporary link) Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Mathematics#Making mathematics articles more accessible to a general readership and
(Permanent link) Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Mathematics (Section "Making mathematics articles more accessible to a general readership").
-- Wavelength (talk) 01:37, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

TWA 800

Moved here from article talk, as it's getting away from article improvement.

As with 9/11 articles, innuendo, synthesis and original research are not substitutes for authoritative sourcing. You are confusing effects tests (what happens when it goes boom) with proof of concept (can it go boom) tests. I appreciate that you're talking about it here rather than on the article, but this is not related to improving the article. Any suggestions you have concerning an appropriate, concise caption are welcome.

I will note, however, that when the nose comes off an airplane, the CG in fact does move aft, owing to the absence of the nose mass, and the plane will therefore climb, however briefly. Acroterion _(talk) 16:33, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

On your first point yes I am assuming the purpose of the tests is to prove that kerosene can explode. I realize that there are many disagreements but I grew up with many kerosene lamps still around and used it for starting fires. This stuff does not explode. I’ve put it on wood fires and seen the fire go out and then tried to light the vapors coming off the coals with no luck. I cannot believe that jet A which is kerosene could explode. I am sometimes tempted to offer a cash prize to anyone who can make a kerosene explosion.

Also I resent the implication that people who argue the government’s finding are conspiracy nuts. I have friends who fall into this.

I have a bs in physics and am a licensed glider pilot. Planes are rated not only for the amount they can carry but it has to be in the correct place to keep the center of gravity within preset limits.

Let me know if any of my statements need support and I will look for sources.

Arydberg (talk) 00:44, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Nobody's categorizing you into the "conspiracy nuts" tag. You do indeed need sources, lots of them, and reliable ones - no blogs, YouTube videos, advocacy websites, and the like. Take a look at WP:RS and WP:V for requirements. Also, you should look over the history of the article and talk archives - this article's not exactly new to these issues, and you'll see what the consensus of editors has been where sourcing is concerned.

You are technically correct about kerosene not "exploding" under normal pressures: but a deflagration of a combustible vapor/air mixture in a closed container isn't much different in effect. Take a look at the standard response protocols for kerosene [1]: the upper explosive limit is 4.9% and the lower is 0.6%, and it will indeed explode/deflagrate under the right circumstances, if above the flash point temperature. Regards, Acroterion _(talk) 02:46, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

I looked and this is what I found by clicking on Upper Explosive Limit.

Upper Explosive Limit Or Upper flammability limit. UEL. Highest concentration of a flammable vapor in air at which explosion or combustion can occur: 4.9%

The Lower Explosive Limit is similar. The "or combustion" part is what interests me. There is no question that this stuff will burn and will burn spectacularly if atomized with air but the only other references I can find to actual explosions are other planes which brings up lots more questions. Dont forget this is not space age material. It has been around and used extensively for over 100 years. A google search on kerosene explosions will result in many hits but almost all of these are adulterated kerosene or people lighting kerosene heaters and being injured by gas explosions from other sources. btw I once got into a argument with a friend on the safety of jet fuel. He had been trained in fire fighting and was told jet fuel was similar to gasoline. It is if it is a military fuel as they mix gasoline with their kerosene but this in not used in commercial aircraft. Arydberg (talk) 13:59, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Every year a few people figure that if they can't get kerosene for their heater, gasoline is just as good and might be better. Gasoline + kerosene heater = bomb. The idea that gasoline and kerosene are similar is, as you state, silly - gasoline is orders of magnitude (I think, not sourced) more dangerous, and will explode if it even thinks it sees an ignition source. Acroterion _(talk) 16:58, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

By the way, take a look at JP-7, the really-unwilling-to-burn stuff that was used in the SR-71, and for that matter JP-4 and JP-8. Acroterion _(talk) 17:11, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Do you think this explosion could bring down a 747. Note the mass ratio is 3kg/cubic meter or .8 gals of fuel per cubic meter. This is a concentrated mist. Note the pressure developed is 3 atm and max temp is 450 deg. This is a pretty poor explosion. http://www.galcit.caltech.edu/EDL/publications/reprints/galcit_fm99-7.pdf

Arydberg (talk) 03:01, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Link to Schweizer 2-33

Thank you for the suggestion for a link in the glider article to the Schweizer 2-33. It is impractical to list every type of glider in this article. However there is a link to List of gliders which does contain the redoubtable 2-33 and a link to its article. JMcC (talk) 23:51, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Your comments at RC circuit

Please sign your comments on talk pages. Also, please do not insert new comments in front of someone elses reply as you did to me. It makes it look like I am commenting on something that was not there when I replied. SpinningSpark 17:36, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Sources and questions (Aspartame)

Even controversy articles abide by reliable sourcing standards. A website with personal experiences is likely not an RS per WP:SPS. It's not OR, since it's not your research, but that doesn't make it RS. Ask a scientist about longitudinal studies of toxicity. (That's still OR until it's published). Comments are fine so long as they are civil. For future questions, you can try the Help desk, or ask about specific sources at WP:RSN, the noticeboard, not the policy page. Also, please sign your posts with 4 of these ~. Ocaasi (talk) 04:29, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

Phenylketonuria

I hope you understand why your addition was reverted. -- Brangifer (talk) 03:57, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

January 2011

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to use talk pages for inappropriate discussion, as you did at Talk:Aspartame, you may be blocked from editing. Wikipedia has a policy called Wikipedia is not a crystal ball, so your personal beliefs about the future are meaningless to article improvement.Novangelis (talk) 05:33, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

This is your last warning; the next time you use talk pages for inappropriate discussions, as you did at Talk:Aspartame controversy, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Posting the previous warning back to the talk page two and a half days after the fact, followed, no less, by an inappropriate sarcastic comment, was about the clearest example of of not heeding the warning possible. The message was posted to your talk page because the article discussion page should not be cluttered with meaningless commentary and issues of editor behavior. That is why there are user talk pages.Novangelis (talk) 22:30, 7 January 2011 (UTC) {{tlp|adminhelp} Is the above behavior tolerated ? Why is Nova not on the stewards page? Is he bullying me? The subject is very controversial and there is no fixed answer as he assumes. I thought you liked sarcasm?

Thanks. Arydberg (talk) 12:58, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

One of your questions is "Why is Nova not on the stewards page?". Short answer, because Nova is not a steward. If your assumption is that only stewards can block, you are in error. Admins can block. Nova is not an admin, but can issue warnings. My cursory review of your editing is that it betrays your lack of familiarity with how WP works, but that's perfectly understandable given your relative inexperience here. Jumping from an initial warning to a final warning looks a bit precipitous. Let me have a conversation with Nova, and see if I'm missing something.--SPhilbrickT 13:30, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for looking. In short this is an article about a controversy but one side is emphasized over and over again. The other is rejected. This is not a NPV. Arydberg (talk) 18:05, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

The other side is NOT rejected (well, MEDRS do reject it, but Wikipedia doesn't) and the many details about it are described well enough that anyone reading it will understand the anti-aspartame POV. (If Wikipedia was rejecting it it wouldn't be mentioned at all.) It gets the NPOV description and WEIGHT it deserves. It's a fringe theory that is not backed up by MEDRS, hence it must be described without promoting it as if it was of equal legitimacy as the mainstream scientific POV. Currently the anti-aspartame POV is pushed by a few fringe advocates: BM (the main and full-time pusher is the non-medically qualified wife of a Jehovah's Witness pastor) who is allied with a couple retired physicians who self-publish their POV. We're dealing with some really weird types. They are very active and convince many people that their various aches and pains are caused by aspartame, but the MEDRS say that they are wrong. The Ramazzini Foundation in Italy has done some rat research that has been rejected because of faulty research methods, refusal to release all data, and because they were not Good Laboratory Practice (GLP) certified when they did the studies. That's pretty poor.

Both sides are presented, but because the scientific POV is backed up by good research, it will appear that it gets more "emphasis", but actually that's just a reflection of the fact that MEDRS make that emphasis. Wikipedia articles are required to reflect that emphasis. We don't make it. It has been done for us. Arydberg and User:TickleMeister are upset that the fringe theories don't get as much weight as the mainstream POV, but that's the way things are done here per WP:FRINGE and other policies. I suggest that they stop disrupting the talk page by endless repetitions of the same complaints and take this further in dispute resolution since other eyes need to look at this. They should present their case at the WP:FT/N. -- Brangifer (talk) 19:40, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

You haven't been blocked. Nor is the talk page protected, which might also prevent you from posting. I'm not sure why you cannot post.--SPhilbrickT 19:25, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

As you have been told numerous times, the talk page is for improvements to the article. At the upper right hand corner of the page, you will see three policies: No original research, Neutral point of view and Verifiability. What you wrote failed on all three counts and offered nothing over the existing content. Massive editing could not bring it to anything resembling the current article and the comments reflect that. (In fact, I could have cited numerous other deficiencies, but restricted myself to the major problems.) Your comment indicates that you want to write an advocacy piece/critique, not an NPOV encyclopedia article. Please do not use the talk page unless you are discussing collaborative and encyclopedic article improvements.Novangelis (talk) 22:25, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

I have two questions for you: 1) how do i remove my name and disassociate with wikipedia. I'm horrified by what I found here. And 2), I'd like to talk to you about possibly giving you a voice on DORway. If that interests you, please send me an email.Writegirl62 (talk) 21:03, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

Notification

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.Novangelis (talk) 04:23, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

Look... Wikipedia is NOT THE PLACE to be doing public advocacy for or against an organization, movement, cause, or issue. See WP:NOT#SOAPBOX. That's official policy.

Reading the Aspartamine talk page, you are clearly advocating the viewpoint. You've abandoned any pretense of editing with a neutral point of view and are clearly trying to advocate.

That is not what Wikipedia's for. If you insist on that type of behavior, your account will be blocked.

Create your own advocacy website, publish magazine articles or books. Don't advocate here. It's not Wikipedia's role, or point. We're a neutral encyclopedia. Our only "issue" we advocate for is free access to information, which we advocate by creating and freely sharing. Anything else is misuse of the site.

We don't expect you not to have an opinion, but having an opinion and trying to force it upon others are two very different things. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 04:45, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Arydberg. You have new messages at Kingoomieiii's talk page.
Message added 17:57, 31 January 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

AN/I notice...Aspartame

A complaint has been filed at AN/I located here. Since only two editors were notified, I'm placing a notice on the pages of all editors who have commented at Talk:Aspartame controversy in recent history. -- Brangifer (talk) 22:09, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

Warning

You have been part of a coordinated campaign to push a fringe POV on the Aspartame controversy article. This [2] and similar posts show that you are systematically campaigning against Wikipedia's core content policies. This has to stop. I am notifying you that further disruptive editing in this area will be met with blocks. Fut.Perf. ☼ 07:34, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Well, let's make this the official Arbcom warning:

The Arbitration Committee has permitted administrators to impose, at their own discretion, sanctions on any editor working on pages broadly related to pseudoscience if the editor repeatedly or seriously fails to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behavior, or any normal editorial process. If you engage in further inappropriate behavior in this area, you may be placed under sanctions including blocks, a revert limitation or an article ban. The committee's full decision can be read at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Pseudoscience#Final decision.

Fut.Perf. ☼ 09:56, 14 February 2011 (UTC)