Talk:Larssen sheet piling

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion: Participate in the deletion discussion at the. —Community Tech bot (talk) 11:22, 15 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Flarsena 25.jpg

Spam
The content that I have repeatedly removed is nothing more than refspam disguised as "expertise". We do not generally allow single companies/sellers to inundate articles with their websites, independent sources should be found and these links should be removed immediately. Praxidicae (talk) 21:35, 19 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Before any content is restored I'd ask that all users please engage here to reach a consensus that "meever&meever" are "experts" and that they constitute a reliable source. Praxidicae (talk) 21:54, 19 December 2019 (UTC)
 * They
 * Make
 * Steel
 * Sheet
 * Piling.
 * Is that simple enough for you? Andy Dingley (talk) 22:01, 19 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Okay, so I make a lot of things, including cookies. Am I now an expert on baking? Can I go add my website praxidicaebakesgreatcookies.com to Cookies, Chocolate chip cookies and sugar cookies? Is that clear enough for you? Praxidicae (talk) 22:03, 19 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Andy, they make their sheet metal piling. That 1) doesn't make them an expert on all sheet metal piling, and 2) that also does make them both a primary source and a clearly non-neutral source (they have a strong bias to skew content in favor of their own product). I don't want to be rude, but I really shouldn't have to explain this to you (an experienced Wikipedian), but content in Wikipedia articles is supposed to be summarized from secondary, reliable sources - and that is the bottom line here. Waggie (talk) 22:08, 19 December 2019 (UTC)
 * And you have just removed all of the sourcing. And much of the content. Do either of you have the slightest understanding of how to improve an article, or any interest in doing so, rather than playing at admins?  This is one of the most stupid and damaging bits of WP:BITE I've seen in recent memory. You should both be ashamed.  Andy Dingley (talk) 22:12, 19 December 2019 (UTC)
 * No, allowing spam damages the credibility of Wikipedia. We don't keep spammy sources around because something lacks actual reliable sources. I'd expect an editor of your tenure to know this. The only thing shameful here is your incivility toward people who are working in good faith to keep the encyclopedia neutral and free of promotional content. Praxidicae (talk) 22:19, 19 December 2019 (UTC)
 * I've not been bitey at all and have no reason to be ashamed. I'm asking that we follow WP:V and WP:SPAM. Yes, I'd like sources in the article and apparently so do you, so I really don't understand why you've removed the Russian language (and very relevant) EL's that Prax added. Sources and ELs can certainly be non-English, and your removal of them is rather contentious. Please take a step back and think about what the goals of the encyclopedia are, I think you're getting frustrated here for no reason - we all want to build an encyclopedia. Waggie (talk) 22:44, 19 December 2019 (UTC)


 * Okay, this is ridiculous I restored sources from the original part of the article. I suggest you restore them now because being written in Russian does not mean they cannot be used and you seem to be combative about this just for the sake of it. You literally just spent the last hour griping over the fact that there are no sources and now are mad and reverting me for adding actual sources. What gives? Praxidicae (talk) 22:32, 19 December 2019 (UTC)
 * You didn't restore any sources, you added a couple of WP:ELs. That's not the same thing: they don't support the specific content in the article, which is the primary role of sourcing. They also fail WP:NONENGEL because they're both in Russian (seriously? You think that's an appropriate EL here?)
 * As to "combative", then you and Waggie have even removed the Commons link that I'd added. Just how petty are you two? Andy Dingley (talk) 22:42, 19 December 2019 (UTC)
 * How, exactly, do they fail WP:NONENGEL by being in Russian? That guideline states that English is strongly preferred, but that non-English ELs are allowed if they provide "visual aids such as maps, diagrams, or tables" as this link clearly does. Waggie (talk) 22:50, 19 December 2019 (UTC)
 * The main problem with the EL you're advocating here is that it's not about sheet piling. It's about pile drivers, the machine which install piles, and the use of deep rod piles to provide building foundations (there is one brief note about one of the machines being usable for sheet piles). Do you even realise how unrelated deep piles are to sheet piles?  Or did you just Google and trust?   And you're really advocating that this EL is sufficiently vital that it being inaccessible to nearly every reader, and also unexplained and out of all context, makes it suitable? You're kidding? Andy Dingley (talk) 23:11, 19 December 2019 (UTC)
 * You know what? I'm done dealing with your attitude, Andy. I'm trying to be polite and content oriented, and simply have a discussion with you about the merits of various sources/links, but your attitude is simply beyond the pale. Waggie (talk) 23:14, 19 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Attitude? You help drive off a new editor for having the temerity to add relevant refs, and now you're trying to justify Russian ELs that aren't even about the subject.  Just think about that one. Andy Dingley (talk) 23:30, 19 December 2019 (UTC)
 * I reverted the addition of spam from a clearly COI editor (who was violating UPOL and has since been blocked for it, which would have happened regardless of anything I did). Then I tried to have a civil discussion with you about the merits of various sources and ELs. Your argument was that the ELs were not appropriate because they were in Russian, and cited WP:NONENGEL. You made not one comment about the content of those ELs, simply that they were Russian language. I was simply pointing out that they had diagrams and that is one of the exceptions to the "strongly preferred" language in the guideline YOU quoted. So per your advice, I thought about it and I've come to the conclusion that I still don't want to deal with your attitude any more until you're ready to have a civil discussion about content. Waggie (talk) 23:58, 19 December 2019 (UTC)


 * Are you now going to remove these refs: - because there's no difference between ArcelorMittal and Meever & Meever, in terms of being commercial suppliers. Andy Dingley (talk) 22:44, 19 December 2019 (UTC)
 * I'm not being petty. Your personal attacks and unwillingness to understand that promotional content isn't allowed leads me to believe you may have a conflict of interest. Do you? And yesm those refs should be removed.Praxidicae (talk) 22:45, 19 December 2019 (UTC)
 * You have edit-warred, you've driven off just the editor we needed with a bad case of WP:BITE and now you're accusing me of having a COI here. So stop complaining of farcical "personal attacks", or you're going to be the one at ANI. Andy Dingley (talk) 23:13, 19 December 2019 (UTC)
 * feel free to take me to ANI for removing spam right after you take yourself there for personal attacks.Praxidicae (talk) 23:18, 19 December 2019 (UTC)


 * , I think one of the big differences here is that my username isn't "ArcelorMittal", nor do I work for that company. There should be a fair few papers and books that would work better as refs anyhow. Working on that. SQL Query me!  22:58, 19 December 2019 (UTC)
 * But the editor adding the content makes no difference to the quality of that content. Fortunately we have multiple editors, thus we can review such things, no matter their origin (and thanks for adding them, BTW). If a source is objectively meeting our requirements, and it is not overly promotional, as in it delivers useful and accurate content, without bias and without excessive promotion (the Meever & Meever ones weren't either) then they're OK, no matter who brought them. Even a COI editor with an obvious COI (and  were merely new here, they never hid their identity) can post such things up, such as on Talk:, for general review and use, if agreed by consensus. Andy Dingley (talk) 23:05, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

Questions

 * What's "Larssen piling"? Is all interlocking sheet piling "Larssen" ?  If Larssen only applies to some of it, how can this be identified? Is the shape different?
 * Is the best name for this article "Larssen sheet piling" or simple "sheet piling" or "sheet piles"?
 * Why do some sheets interlock in the "face" of the trapezium and some in the "walls"? Does this make any practical difference?
 * Andy Dingley (talk) 21:46, 19 December 2019 (UTC)