User talk:Industry shill

several serious technical and math errors

I would love to learn more about "several serious technical and math errors" in "The Bicycle Wheel" by Jobst Brandt. Could you elaborate? -AndrewDressel (talk) 16:18, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Comments by page # 11. Concrete analogy is flawed. Concrete has no tensile strength. Tensile strength is "created" by "borrowing" from compressive strength at the cost of lower net compressive. Aluminum rims have both tensile and compressive strength, so there is no net benefit from pre-load other than stiffness.

30. That is stress/strain for plain steel, not stainless steel, actual spoke wire. Stainless is correctly shown on p125. To not understand the "bump" in the shown curve is to not understand strain aging and/or fatigue.

35. Wheels do not collapse if spokes go loose. They become less stiff, but collapse is a function of rim strength, not spoke tension per se. Rims without excess compressive pre-load have more capacity for applied load.

39. The left-most ellipse shows "negative tension" - impossible in wire.

46. Only some spokes are swaged (hammered). Others are drawn or ground to shape. Brandt uses the term "swaged" where he should be using the term "butted" - the generic.

57.1. Anodizing is not observed to cause rim cracking. It is a function of excess spoke tension and rim extrusion anisotropy. 57.2. Ceramic does not cause rims to overheat. Clearly the author has no experience of use or has bothered to look up thermal conductivity of alumina/titania.

71. See 35.

72. "Correcting the spoke line" is a misnomer - bending a spoke before the hub hole has deformed is by definition going to create a non-alignment with the final form.

74. "Stress relieving" is a misnomer. Spokes are not observed to initiate fatigue in regions of high residual stress, but bending stress. The actual practice of over-tension serves to embed the spokes in the hub and rim, thus helping to ensure tension evenness, nut it does not address fatigue directly as "described".

105. The method described causes excess spoke tension. See 57.1.

119. The "formula" fails to account for spoke stiffness. Observe the Park Tools tensiometer calibration chart for 2.0mm titanium and 2.0mm stainless steel spokes for example.

131. Incorrect conclusion drawn. This calculation shows the effect of load on spoke length. The incorrect conclusion is "evidence" that higher strength derives from higher tension. It should be obvious from the lack of any material strength factors in the data input that it is impossible to arrive at a strength calculation as shown. Again, load is not strength.

These details are fascinating, but by now I hope you realize the difficulty with using them on Wikipedia. Without some recognized reliable source stating that there are "several serious technical and math errors" in the book, any attempt to say so will be considered original research. Has this been published anywhere else? -AndrewDressel (talk) 13:27, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

Understand, but at the same time, why would self-evident mistake (eg 11, 30, 39, 46, 57.2, 119, 131) require citation? I can "cite" sources for flat earth theory, but that doesn't make it correct. But this said, each point (this is merely a compilation) has been on rec.bicycles.tech and thus searchable on Google Groups for many years, Re-posting hundreds of pages of r.b.t. is a daunting task, but if this is something you feel strongly about, since you're clearly interested in this field, you could start a (collaborative?) examination that would be citable.Industry shill (talk) 16:31, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

I am interested. Let's talk off-line. You can find an email address here. -AndrewDressel (talk) 16:51, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

October 2010

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. Users who edit disruptively or refuse to collaborate with others may be blocked if they continue. In particular the three-revert rule states that making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period is almost always grounds for an immediate block. If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the talk page to discuss controversial changes. Work towards wording and content that gains consensus among editors. If unsuccessful then do not edit war even if you believe you are right. Post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If edit warring continues, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. TeaDrinker (talk) 22:23, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Original research

Howdy and welcome to Wikipedia! I took a look over some of your recent contributions and wanted to draw your attention to one of Wikipedia's key policies: no original research. Wikipedia is not equipped to analyze new claims (or even material discussed by many people on blogs or online fora). We require all content in Wikipedia be attributable to a published reliable source, and absolutely prohibit the publication of new ideas here. Unlike academia, which thrives on novelty and original thinking, here we only include material which has made it into published sources (even if the new ideas are apparently true). I have some concerns that some of your contributions, while interesting and perhaps meritorious in other settings, are perhaps inappropriate for Wikipedia since they are original syntheses. Another important policy is biography of a living person, which negative information about a person requires additional scrutiny of sources, since it opens up the potential for defamation claims. Anytime something might reflect poorly on a person, we insist that there be a published source attributed (sources like blogs or internet fora are rarely acceptable). If you have any questions, feel free to let me know.

There's also a hard and fast rule against reverting a person's edits more than three times in 24 hours (except simple vandalism, fairly narrowly defined). That's the three revert rule I added a warning about above. Thanks for your work and again welcome! --TeaDrinker (talk) 22:34, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

License tagging for File:Spark plug sd.jpg

Thanks for uploading File:Spark plug sd.jpg. You don't seem to have indicated the license status of the image. Wikipedia uses a set of image copyright tags to indicate this information.

To add a tag to the image, select the appropriate tag from this list, click on this link, then click "Edit this page" and add the tag to the image's description. If there doesn't seem to be a suitable tag, the image is probably not appropriate for use on Wikipedia. For help in choosing the correct tag, or for any other questions, leave a message on Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. Thank you for your cooperation. --ImageTaggingBot (talk) 17:07, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

File:Spark plug sd.jpg listed for deletion

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Spark plug sd.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. Biker Biker (talk) 08:16, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

File source and copyright licensing problem with File:Spark plug guts.jpeg

File Copyright problem

Thanks for uploading File:Spark plug guts.jpeg. However, it currently is missing information on its copyright status and its source. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously.

If you did not create this work entirely yourself, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, please add a link to the page from which it was taken, together with a brief restatement of the website's terms of use of its content. If the original copyright holder is a party unaffiliated with the website, that author should also be credited. You will also need to state under what licensing terms it was released. Please refer to the image use policy to learn what files you can or cannot upload on Wikipedia. The page on copyright tags may help you to find the correct tag to use for your file.

Please add this information by editing the image description page. If the necessary information is not added within the next days, the image will be deleted. If the file is already gone, you can still make a request for undeletion and ask for a chance to fix the problem.

Please also check any other files you may have uploaded to make sure they are correctly tagged. Here is a list of your uploads. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Biker Biker (talk) 15:37, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

File source problem with File:Spark plug insulator.jpeg

Thank you for uploading File:Spark plug insulator.jpeg. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, please add a link to the page from which it was taken, together with a brief restatement of the website's terms of use of its content. If the original copyright holder is a party unaffiliated with the website, that author should also be credited. Please add this information by editing the image description page.

If the necessary information is not added within the next days, the image will be deleted. If the file is already gone, you can still make a request for undeletion and ask for a chance to fix the problem.

Please refer to the image use policy to learn what images you can or cannot upload on Wikipedia. Please also check any other files you have uploaded to make sure they are correctly tagged. Here is a list of your uploads. If you have any questions or are in need of assistance please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Biker Biker (talk) 15:37, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Images, licences and sources

You need to make sure that any image you upload has a clear source, and a licence. It is much easier if you upload images at http://commons.wikimedia.org as the upload wizard guides you through the process and ensures that you don't make the repeated mistakes that you seem to be making uploading images to Wikipedia. My advice is to re-upload the images at Commons and then these on Wikipedia can be deleted. --Biker Biker (talk) 15:39, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Apologies. My priority with my limited time is correct information rather than learning Wikipedia syntax. Feel free to edit or assist.Industry shill (talk) 16:37, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Notification of automated file description generation

Your upload of File:Budd conestoga.jpeg or contribution to its description is noted, and thanks (even if belatedly) for your contribution. In order to help make better use of the media, an attempt has been made by an automated process to identify and add certain information to the media's description page.

This notification is placed on your talk page because a bot has identified you either as the uploader of the file, or as a contributor to its metadata. It would be appreciated if you could carefully review the information the bot added. To opt out of these notifications, please follow the instructions here. Thanks! Message delivered by Theo's Little Bot (opt-out) 14:24, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

Merge discussion for Timing belt (camshaft)

An article that you have been involved in editing, Timing belt (camshaft), has been proposed for a merge with another article. If you are interested in the merge discussion, please participate by going here, and adding your comments on the discussion page. Thank you. Sincerely, SamBlob (talk) 14:26, 4 January 2015 (UTC)