User talk:Yoshi123Yoshi

Standard penetration test

Please do not undo the edits I made to Standard penetration test. The information you added placed undue weight on the problems of the test, and isn't really very accurate. A Wikipedia article should not start with a listing of the problems of the article subject - I moved the problems section to below a description of the test and its uses, where it belongs.

Regarding the accuracy of your edit, of the problems listed:

is not actually a problem with the test, but with the method used in Japan to report the test results. In the U.S., one N-value isn't taken to represent a full one-meter interval, but only the 30 cm (or shorter) interval over which the sampler was driven.
doesn't actually mean anything - there's a difference between a "scaling" and a "distribution".
The primitiveness of the method is not *why* it is inaccurate for weak soils.

The statement "when penetrating the ground, water is dumped to the ground weakening the soil layers" doesn't state the problem accurately - "dumped" implies water is added to the borehole, not that water pressure is increased due to the sampling. Reason #2 that the method "cannot" collect accurate data is a better statement of the problem.

Argyriou (talk) 21:20, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Stop it.

Yoshi, stop adding useless crap to the boring (earth) and standard penetration test articles. The material about the defects of the SPT are irrelevant to the article about boring - most borings don't involve SPTs, and most SPTs aren't subject to the problems you are so hung up on. You're placing undue weight on your pet little hobbyhorse of SPT problems by even mentioning them in the boring article, where they're only relevant to a small minority of cases.

The stuff you added to standard penetration test was poorly written, and doesn't provide any real useful informaiton. There is probably a place for an article about the Swedish Weight Sounding machine, but it should be its own article, not a sentence with a link to an article unreadable by most readers of the English Wikipedia. Changes to a test which isn't the standard penetration test don't belong in an article on the standard penetration test.

Argyriou (talk) 02:39, 11 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not insert fringe or undue weight content into articles, as you did to Boring (earth). An article should not give undue weight to any aspects of the subject but should strive to treat each aspect with a weight appropriate to its significance to the subject. Please use the article's talk page to discuss the material and its appropriate weight within the article. Thank you.

Your recent editing history at Standard penetration test shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you get reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Argyriou (talk) 02:41, 13 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Boring (earth)

This article is very much going to be an overview of the subject rather than one that covers any details in particular depth. A guiltily paragraph section on problems with Standard penetration tests is excessive. Probably want to throw in a single sentence mention that there are options beside the SPT and then link to an article which covers the matter in more detail.©Geni (talk) 09:02, 13 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is not the place to try and argue that the entire civil engineering sector is ignoring certain issues. The article on Boring (earth) certainly isn't the place to do so. The article should mostly talk about the the machines used and the type of projects that make use of the technique with maybe one paragraph total on methods of measuring the properties of the soil involved.©Geni (talk) 04:29, 17 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

AN/I

A report has been filed on AN/I which concerns you. You see it and respond here. BMK (talk) 05:21, 17 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Standard penetration test

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you vandalize Wikipedia. You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you disrupt Wikipedia. You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you use Wikipedia for soapboxing, promotion or advertising. You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you vandalize Wikipedia by deliberately introducing incorrect information. Please stop. Articles on Wikipedia do not give fringe material equal weight to majority viewpoints; content in articles are given representation in proportion to their prominence. If you continue in this manner, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Argyriou (talk) 03:37, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

License tagging for File:NSWS2.JPG

Thanks for uploading File:NSWS2.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) 10:05, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

License tagging for File:NSWS1.JPG

Thanks for uploading File:NSWS1.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) 10:05, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

File permission problem with File:NSWS2.JPG

Thanks for uploading File:NSWS2.JPG, which you've attributed to http://nss3-h.com/pages/NSWS.htm. I noticed that while you provided a valid copyright licensing tag, there is no proof that the creator of the file has agreed to release it under the given license.

If you are the copyright holder for this media entirely yourself but have previously published it elsewhere (especially online), please either

make a note permitting reuse under the CC-BY-SA or another acceptable free license (see this list) at the site of the original publication; or
Send an email from an address associated with the original publication to permissions-en@wikimedia.org, stating your ownership of the material and your intention to publish it under a free license. You can find a sample permission letter here. If you take this step, add {{OTRS pending}} to the file description page to prevent premature deletion.

If you did not create it entirely yourself, please ask the person who created the file to take one of the two steps listed above, or if the owner of the file has already given their permission to you via email, please forward that email to permissions-en@wikimedia.org.

If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Non-free content, use a tag such as {{non-free fair use}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:File copyright tags#Fair use, and add a rationale justifying the file's use on the article or articles where it is included. See Wikipedia:File copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have provided evidence that their copyright owners have agreed to license their works under the tags you supplied, too. You can find a list of files you have created in your upload log. Files lacking evidence of permission may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. You may wish to read Wikipedia's image use policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. DMacks (talk) 03:37, 14 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Edit warring on Boring (earth)

Your recent editing history at Boring (earth) shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you get reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Mikenorton (talk) 10:41, 14 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

and Standard penetration test

Your recent editing history at Standard penetration test shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you get reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.Argyriou (talk) 03:28, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:Nippon Screw Weight System concern

Hi there, I'm HasteurBot. I just wanted to let you know that Draft:Nippon Screw Weight System, a page you created, has not been edited in 5 months. The Articles for Creation space is not an indefinite storage location for content that is not appropriate for articlespace.

If your submission is not edited soon, it could be nominated for deletion. If you would like to attempt to save it, you will need to improve it.

You may request Userfication of the content if it meets requirements.

If the deletion has already occured, instructions on how you may be able to retrieve it are available at WP:REFUND/G13.

Thank you for your attention. HasteurBot (talk) 01:35, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Your draft article, Draft:Nippon Screw Weight System

Hello, Yoshi123Yoshi. It has been over six months since you last edited your Articles for Creation draft article submission, "Nippon Screw Weight System".

In accordance with our policy that Articles for Creation is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been nominated for deletion. If you plan on working on it further, or editing it to address the issues raised if it was declined, simply edit the submission and remove the {{db-afc}} or {{db-g13}} code.

If your submission has already been deleted by the time you get there, and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion by following the instructions at this link. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. JMHamo (talk) 07:59, 2 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]