User talk:Tournesol/Archive 2011

Mathcad page in Swedish

Hi Tournesol, I am sorry to hear you don't like the Swedish Mathcad page, but I can assure you that this has been created by a real person, it was not machine-translated. I had asked a colleague in Sweden to provide a translation of a basic text of our product Mathcad. The text includes facts, no Marketing-information and we would like to see a basic version represented in the Swedish Wikipedia. As we have a large user base in your country, we are sure other people will pick up on it and extend it. If any of these sentences are so ugly, feel free to change them, or let me know which and I can follow up with our team in Sweden.

Thanks. Bettina — Preceding unsigned comment added by BettieGie (talk • contribs) 16:14, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

Haraldwallin

Galling

Hej. Jag hoppas att du är ärlig och representerar det riktiga Wikipedia, när det gäller andra Wiki users så undrar man ibland. Jag förutsätter att du kommer att hålla dig till fakta istället för att slänga fram olika beskyllningar.

Jag har bidragit till flera artiklar med både text och även bilder på Wikipedia, se artiklar som: galling, Wear, Stress (mechanics), Adhesive wear. Efter att jag gjort mina edits har artiklarna blivit mycket bättre. Eftersom jag bidragit med mycket info ville jag precis som alla andra ha referenser till texten. Jag infoga då 2008 min rapport som reference eftersom jag inte viste att det var förbjudet.

1. Wizard 191 tog bort den reference jag satt in och bad mig fråga någon annan om de kunde läsa min rapport och avgöra om den kan vara en reference, vilket jag gjorde.

2. Någon annan läste min rapport och förde in den som reference i galling artikeln.

3. Då blev någon arg och vandaliserade reference hänvisningen till min rapport samt skrivskyddade vandaliseringen.

4. Eftersom mitt arbete kan tagit skada av vandaliseringen ville jag korrigera detta, vilket jag gjorde.

5. Då kom alla de konstiga beskyllningarna från Wizard 191 och Bob house 884.

Wizard 191 har förövrigt kommit med falska påståenden tidigare om att jag på något sätt skulle ha varit en av flera författare till mitt arbete, så som bilder med mera. Om det finna folk som påstår sig gjort mitt arbete skulle jag vilja veta vilka de är. Eftersom jag gjort som man skall borde allt återställas till original skick.

Dessutom kan det inte vara i Wikipedias intresse att dölja korrekt information på grund av antalet citat som en rapport har? Då skulle det vara omöjligt att bidra till vetenskapen för andra än enbart välsituerade personer på stora universitet? Är det verkligen sådan elitism, informationsmonopol och snedvridning av verkligheten som Wikipedia skall stå för?

--Haraldwallin (talk) 13:22, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

Tack, jag skall försöka framföra ditt perspektiv till den som bad mig kolla upp situationen. - Tournesol (talk) 16:16, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

Why did you do this? Varför gör du mig illa på detta sättet?

Well, the strange thing is that Tournesol|Tournesol didn’t tell me, that he was going to translate my text from Swedish to English.

It´s a violation against me to make a improper translation whiteout telling me.

Of course it’s offending when people do fake and false interpretations of my text.

Why did TransporterMan ask for Swedish-language help, when the translation from Swedish to English is fake?

I’m not offended by the policies of Wikipedia, because I demonstrably followed them.

Consensus may change, but it’s not consensus to remove or vandalize something without cause.

TransporterMan conclude that Harald Wallin didn’t include his theses as a reference so why remove when the reference doesn’t violate the policies of Wikipedia? --Haraldwallin (talk) 16:37, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Varför talade du inte om att du skulle översätta texten med egna kommentarer osv..

Jämför min text med din översättning. Din text innehåller många egna tolkningar och kommentarer vars utgångspunkt är att objektifiera mig som skribent och vars kontext mycket lätt kan tolkas som extremt nedvärderande.

Dessutom, varför talade du inte om att du skulle översätta texten?
Är du verkligen övertygad om att det du gjort var fint och trevligt?

Jag kan tillräckligt mycket engelska för att klara av att skriva själv, eftersom det bevisligen blir mer korrekt och dessutom inte innehåller knepiga kommentarer på det sätt som du bidragit med i din översättning.

Om du inte inser att det du gjort är ett stort fel och att du varit elak mot mig, så är det tragiskt och bevisar min ståndpunkt att majoriteten i denna diskussion saknar egenkännedom och endast letar efter fel hos mig eller i det jag skrivit.

Alla mina argument är sanna, men de ignoreras helt utan kommentar. Istället hänvisas till någon kryptisk formell andledning som inte har stöd i Wikipedias stadgar.

Era åtgärder att ta bort min rapport som referens gör inte artikeln bättre, snarare förhindras den intresserade att ta reda på underliggande fakta.
Varför är det så viktigt att förhindra spridning av denna viktiga information?

Om det är så att någon hackat sig in på mitt konto och ändrat så ni inte kan läsa det jag skrivit, ja då kan jag förstå att den här situationen har uppstått.
Men det är troligen osannolikt och ert handlande är inte drivet av okunskap.

När jag gjorde mitt arbete på universitetet uppkom exakt samma mentalitet och gruppdynamiska självbedrägeri, troligen driven av ett egenintresse i botten, samt känslan av tillfredställelse av att ha makt att bestämma andras framgång eller kunna göra det jobbigt för mig.

Om mina teorier om de bakomliggande orsakerna är sanna, så kommer du att reagera på detta meddelande efter ett förutbestämt mönster i samklang med tidigare reaktioner. --Haraldwallin (talk) 12:22, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

---

Gratis, du bekräftade bara mina farhågor och svarade exakt så som jag trodde du skulle svara.
Congratulations, your reply is in alignment with everything I would expect from someone with bad intentions.

I did reply on your question, your translation is false due to incompatibility between what I wrote and what you wrote in English and claim I wrote in Swedish.

Example: Since he had added a lot of information, he wanted to add references and used his report from 2008 (another possible interpretation is that he in 2008 added a reference to his thesis/report)(again, not clear who)(Haraldwallin's choice of word) (unsure whether Haraldwallin refers to the Wikipedia article or to the thesis/report) (but I don't believe this addresses the current case)
More example: Wizard 191 har förövrigt kommit med falska påståenden tidigare om att jag på något sätt skulle ha varit en av flera författare till mitt arbete, så som bilder med mera. Om det finns folk som påstår sig gjort mitt arbete skulle jag vilja veta vilka de är. Eftersom jag gjort som man skall borde allt återställas till original skick.Dessutom kan det inte vara i Wikipedias intresse att dölja korrekt information på grund av antalet citat som en rapport har? Då skulle det vara omöjligt att bidra till vetenskapen för andra än enbart välsituerade personer på stora universitet? Är det verkligen sådan elitism, informationsmonopol och snedvridning av verkligheten som Wikipedia skall stå för Moreover, Wizard 191 has earlier presented false accusations about Haraldwallin being one of several writers behind his work such as images etcetera. If there are other people that claim to have written Haraldwallin's work, he would like to know who they are. Since Haraldwallin has done everything by the book, everything should be restored to the original state. Furthermore it shouldn't be of useful for Wikipedia to hide correct information due to the number of citations in a report/thesis? If so, it would be impossible for anyone except well-off people in major universities to contribute to science. Is this kind of elitism, information monopoly and distortion of reality something that Wikipedia should be part of?

It´s pretty clear your translation is not correct in the scenes of context and of what I meant or intended to write, excluded your own comments.
Your biggest fault is that you didn’t tell me you where going to translate my text!! Why didn’t you tell me in advance?
If you wanted to help me, why did you do this strange translation?

You also produce a very degrading lie, I haven’t wrote anything about, and I quote: “that it had to be some sort of conspiracy”!!!, perhaps you just made a Freudian statement? I might be wrong about that and perhaps you know =)
(Freudian statement = your reflection unmask your inner intentions)

You are Swedish and It’s probable you have some sort of motivation to write the comments in English. But I prefer you would have the guts to answer my points, instead of trying to vessel your way out of your own blunder.

--Haraldwallin (talk) 11:19, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Do not hide facts!!! It is a violation against all that Wikipedia stands for

If you don´t agree to the written facts, try improve the facts by altering the text. Do not hide facts!!! To hide facts is a violation against all that Wikipedia stands for. I´m surprised that Wikipedia doesn’t through you out from it’s network

--Haraldwallin (talk) 14:36, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Your attempts to market your thesis has nothing to do with presenting facts. If you don't want to follow the Wikipedia guidlines and the pieces of advice given to you, then don't edit Wikipedia articles. Get your own home page or blog or whatever. - Tournesol (talk) 15:13, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Try to improve Wikipedia by writing your own correct facts and do not delet other "correct facts"

Sorry my work acknowledge the fact and summons the acceleration vector which “attributes” are 1dim, and the mass as a 3dim function, there are no references in my report who include the same information.

This small change in the handling of entities in Newtons F=ma is my contribution to the world of science.

If you where a bit interested you would also realize the wonderful things this notion will bring.

(But of course it can also release destructive power and deteriorate a lot of egos)--Haraldwallin (talk) 16:36, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Don´t hide information, improve Wikipedia by writing facts and do not delete "correct facts"

Sorry my work acknowledge the fact and summons the acceleration vector which “attributes” are 1dim, and the mass as a 3dim function, there are no references in my report who include the same information. This small change in the handling of entities in Newtons F=ma is my contribution to the world of science. If you where a bit interested you would also realize the wonderful things this notion will bring. (But of course it can also release destructive power and deteriorate a lot of egos--Haraldwallin (talk) 16:35, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

A one-dimensional vector isn't a vector, Harald, it's a scalar. I thought you had studied university level Mathematics? - Tournesol (talk) 16:41, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

It´s bad English to write a double genitive “Of….Of…..”, thought you Tournesol have gone through class 4-6 in Swedish ground school (svenska grund skolan).

It´s pretty funny when you make a perfectly good text worse with your changes, and it wasn’t even my text =)

--Haraldwallin (talk) 17:30, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

There's this expression about a pot and a kettle... - Tournesol (talk) 17:33, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

I think you aren’t a bit interested in improving Wikipedia with facts because if you were interested you would also realize the wonderful things my scientific report points out. Wikipedias rules are the following “it´s ok to use your own work if it´s benefits others.”

You must prove my report and explanation about acceleration in plastic deformation false, then it doesn’t benefit anyone and my report can be deleted as a reference.

Please prove me wrong, I’m interested in you ability to match mathematical models and the reality.

--Haraldwallin (talk) 17:43, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Apropå scalär kontra vector. Acceleration är en vektor, scalär är storleken på accelerations vektorn i en viss punkt. Varför skall jag alltid träffa på besserwissrar som klagar men aldrig har rätt =)(Jag skriver på svenska så du förstår) --Haraldwallin (talk) 17:56, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

I'm perfectly aware of the difference between a scalar (which, by the way, is written skalär in Swedish, not scalär), what I found odd was your ...as a 1dim vector..." above. - Tournesol (talk) 18:44, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

The questions is if the system must be handled mathematically discrete or as a continues system.

The system is either handled mathematically discrete or as a continues system.

The acceleration vectors “attributes” are 1dim and mathematically present in every point if it´s a continues system. The mass attributes are always 3dim. --Haraldwallin (talk) 19:24, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Don´t hide correct information, instead help people get access to it

Hi Tournesol, Wikipedia have never been about consensus. Wikipedia is about making new correct and useful information public for a brooder amount of people quicker and within a shorter time interval than ordinary dictionaries.
This means researchers with a specific knowledge may help other people get access to it and speedup the expansion of the world mainstream knowledge. I think you agree It´s a god deed to share information even if this knowledge is regarded new for the ordinary layman and in the forefront of science.
Wikipedia has never been about satisfying some perverse peoples needs to act as deputies for bureaucratic hegemonies. For example, It will be impossible to incorporate pictures in Wikipedia if you can’t give away your own pictures and include your own work as a reference to the same pictures.
And do you Tournesol really think any researcher can write an scientific article which isn’t based on his or her own knowledge including research? --Haraldwallin (talk) 13:49, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

I don't think you care at all about what Wikipedia is or isn't about. You're just hell-bent on getting a reference to your own thesis into Wikipedia, to make yourself feel like an important researcher. - Tournesol (talk) 14:40, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

That was not joke

You removed my good edit( http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Chulpan_Khamatova&action=historysubmit&diff=457514434&oldid=445873239 --94.228.193.11 (talk) 22:43, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

Considering your talk page, I'd take that to the article talk page. Bring references. - Tournesol (talk) 07:28, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

• Thanks--Islamocid (talk) 20:58, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

Cheese

Thanks for finding that aphorism.   Will Beback  talk  11:22, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

Ooh yummy. - Tournesol (talk) 11:26, 15 December 2011 (UTC)