User talk:Dgies

Archives

Stress concentration in champagne bottles

I respectfully disagree I need a citation for the 30% strength calculation. An engineer with a Bachelors in Mechanical will be able to do this calculation. Stress concentrations are a well understood fenomena. Frank van Mierlo 23:27, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Below is a short introduction: Basic stress analysis calculations assume that the components are smooth with no irregularities.

In practice, many engineering components have changes in section and / or shape. Common examples are shoulders on shafts, oil holes, key ways and screw threads. A champagne battle is a lot like a shoulder on a shaft. Any discontinuity changes the stress distribution which causes local increase of stress referred to as stress concentration.

The stress concentration factor Kt is used to relate the actual maximum stress at the discontinuity to the nominal stress.

Kt = max direct stress / nominal direct stress

In information relating to stress concentration values care needs to be taken that the correct nominal stress is used.

The subscript 't' indicates that the stress concentration value is a theoretical calculation based only on the geometry of the component and discontinuity.

Some materials are not as sensitive to notches as implied by the theoretical stress concentration factor. For these materials a reduced value of Kt is used: Kf. In these materials the maximum stress is:

max. stress = Kf x nominal stress

The notch sensitivity, q, is defined as: q = (Kf - 1) / (Kt - 1) where q is between 0 and 1.

This equation shows that if q = 0, then Kf = 1 as the material has no sensitivity to notches. If q = 1, then Kf = Kt and the material is fully notch sensitive.

When designing, a frequent procedure is to first find Kt from the geometry of the component, then specify the material and look up the notch sensitivity, q, for the notch radius from a chart. Then by rearranging the above equation, determine Kf. Kf = 1 + q(Kt - 1).

Glass not being very ductile is very sensitive to stress concentrations.

Frank van Mierlo 04:56, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't dispute that the rim is a weak point because of seams and stress concentrations at the notch. The problem is that you are quantifying that weakness without any citation, and in fact the equations you offer only demonstrate that notch sensitivity represents a reduction in strength relative to the regular elastic limit. They don't quantify the weakness so you just claim that q=0.7 and apply that without providing any evidence. You might be right, but you can't jump to conclusions without providing evidenct or citations. —Dgies^t c 05:30, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You make several good points, are you an engineeer? Frank van Mierlo 23:42, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My degree was in physics. Also, note that I have moved your comment so that the thread of conversation is more readable. —Dgies^t c 00:53, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:What is a featured picture?

Have updated the survey, containing all similar pages, perhaps you want to change your "vote"? _→AzaToth 00:27, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sock puppet

I note you recently blocked an IP vandal under suspicion it was the same user. I think you were right, as I outlined here. Looks like someone's got a vendetta against Wikipedia. -- Kesh 02:58, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I marked them as sockpuppets on their talk pages and added them to the list, but I'm not an admin and haven't blocked anybody. —Dgies^t c 03:29, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! An admin already blocked those accounts, I was just wondering how to mark them as potential socks of Cplot, since that's what they look like. Appreciate the help! -- Kesh 03:42, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Village pump thread

I've replied on my talk page. --tjstrf talk 20:10, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Blocking 170.161.70.98

Actually, it is a soft block, which I denoted with "AO" (anonymous only). Thanks for watching out, though. --Kukini 01:56, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi

I reverted the editing of spam act beforehand. --Naohiro19(Talk Page/Contributions) 17:05, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Washington monument FPC

I've just gotten around to closing the Washington Monument nomination, but I need some more information on which version to promote. You opposed the original image due to the duplicate people. An edit has been created which removes this issue, so I was wondering whether this would change your opinion? Raven4x4x 07:54, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Still not really in favor of either version, but if it's getting promoted, I'll take the edited one. —Dgies^t c 08:11, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Image:George W. Bush public opinion polling.png

I tried to upload an svg version a while ago, but I'm unfamiliar with the format and the resulting file was corrupted. --tomf688 (talk - email) 22:32, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

anon nuking tons of ELs and ignoring talk page warnings

I noticed that you reverted many of his edits. Thank you for that! Did you check all of them? — Sebastian 13:36, 14 January 2007 (UTC) (Please reply on this page. I'll be watching it for a while.)[reply]

I reverted all which were the most recent change and didn't seem to make any other significant (helpful) change. This was probably 80% or so of the spree. —Dgies^t c 16:19, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sebastian has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling to someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Happy editing!
Smile at others by adding {{subst:smile}}, {{subst:smile2}} or {{subst:smile3}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

Thanks a lot for your effort! — Sebastian 03:14, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Timbaland

After you deleted it claiming slashdot is not a RS, the same user that put it in, User:O^O put it back in. I have since deleted and if he does it again, I plan to report him for the 3RR rule. I think we may need to get an arbutitrayer (? I hope you know what I mean) on this, but I think no artist official comment, not Wikipedian worthy.--WhereAmI 22:21, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

He edited in again, this time with a small translation.--WhereAmI 22:30, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I saw it. That translation is completely inadequate for judging whether not this as a RS. If could just be some Finnish site saying "this was posted to digg". I have left him a 3RR warning. If he does it again, you can request a 24 hour block at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RR. —Dgies^t c 22:33, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My take

I'm not O_O, but I came to this site to write my own article. If I create a website with all the files (including the cross-mixes) permanently available, will you leave the link intact? It's important information, and it's not the wikipedia thing to do to remove such. It's an ongoing controversy, and thousands of people are aware. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 82.68.80.219 (talk) 00:04, 15 January 2007 (UTC).[reply]

What you're basically asking (translated into Wiki-ese) is: "If I publish a site of my own original research, making allegations against a real living person, can I cite that in their article?" There are several problems with this: Original research is not allowed on Wikipedia, so posting it on a 3rd party site and linking to it brings up the question of reliable sources. You may be acting in good faith, and not attempting to deceive, but you personally are not considered a reliable source for the purpose of citing in an article unless you are a noted expert in music copyright infringement. Furthermore, the biographies of living persons policy says we must have very high standards of proof for posting allegations against living persons. If the allegations are true, better sources will eventually come into existence. Until then, please just wait. —Dgies^t c 00:17, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The research posted was published on the YouTube site. That is not an example of "original research". ebeeson

It is the original research of whoever made the video. And because they are not a recognized copyright expert or a first party to the dispute, they do not meet the definition of a "reliable source". —Dgies^t c 03:36, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why do you get to define the rules of what research is valid and what is not? Are you enough of an expert in music copyright infringement to say who's work in that field is allowed on Wikipedia? ebeeson

We should follow the guidelines at Wikipedia:Reliable sources. They suggest research should either be "Scholarly", as in published in a academic journal, or if "Non-Scholarly", should demonstrate expertise and editorial oversight. YouTube is zero editorial oversight, and I have seen no claims that the person who made the video is an expert in the field. —Dgies^t c 03:06, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20070119-8659.html Is this on the master list of "wiki approved sources"? Where can I find a copy of the approved sources list? ebeeson

There's no "master list". Editors are simply expected to exercise good judgment. Think about it as if you were writing an academic paper on the subject: What sources would you feel confident citing? A blog? An IRC transcript? Look for sources which have editorial oversight and some expertise in the field. Is this explanation satisfactory to you? —Dgies^t c 07:48, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, it's not. Because facts are facts, it doesn't matter the source, as long as they're true. ebeeson

Humorously named people

I noticed that the Category you created, "Humorously named people", is likely headed for deletion. I understand that categories like this take quite some time to develop and flesh out, yet this particular one appears to be unwelcome at Wikipedia, unless I'm misunderstanding the argument. I hope that you will continue your work here at Wikipedia. However, just so you know, there are also other wikis out there that might very well welcome such a Category project as yours. You might start by looking at Wikia.com, Centiare.com, or PBwiki.com. If you feel that this message is too spammy, you are welcome to delete it from your discussion page. --JossBuckle Swami 13:26, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your concern, but I'm a fairly experienced editor and a veteran of the XfD process so I won't take it too personally. —Dgies^t c 15:52, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry

Original post

Hey man, it's just that the "Phat Phuc Noodle Bar" image is being questioned, and since it is such a perfect image, I wanted to deflect attention from it. I'll make you a deal - we'll restore the "What the pho?" restaurants in two days if you go onto the talk page and vote in support of keeping the image. Or not. But come on, help me out!

Anyway, uncool thing to do, sorry for that. Zweifel 07:47, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

AAAh -- okay, I'll cut and paste this onto my talk page.Zweifel 07:50, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]