User talk:73.238.3.45

Hello IP 73.238.3.45, just to note this: Taylor KO Factor is an old Index which should not by of higher relevance in 21. century. Nevertheless it is still noted in some publications. For further disscussions please consult Talk:Taylor KO Factor. Best --Ｔｏｍ (talk) 16:32, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

June 2018
Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. You appear to be repeatedly reverting or undoing other editors' contributions at Taylor KO Factor. Although this may seem necessary to protect your preferred version of a page, on Wikipedia this is known as "edit warring" and is usually seen as obstructing the normal editing process, as it often creates animosity between editors. Instead of reverting, please discuss the situation with the editor(s) involved and try to reach a consensus on the talk page.

If editors continue to revert to their preferred version they are likely to be blocked from editing Wikipedia. This isn't done to punish an editor, but to prevent the disruption caused by edit warring. In particular, editors should be aware of the three-revert rule, which says that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Edit warring on Wikipedia is not acceptable in any amount, and violating the three-revert rule is very likely to lead to a block. Thank you. —C.Fred (talk) 21:03, 10 June 2018 (UTC)
 * If this is a shared IP address, and you did not make the edits, consider creating an account for yourself or logging in with an existing account so you can avoid further irrelevant notices.

I am trying to add one sentence to an article. The article defines a physical action, knocking out an elephant with a firearm. It presents a formula for comparing rifle cartridges ability to do this given their muzzle velocity, weight, and diameter. The formula is published in the article. So are the predicted values of comparisons of sample cartridges. Also included is actual data on a subset of the sample of cartridges. The formula, the sample set of cartridges, and the observed data all come from the same book by the same author, specifically John Taylor. All three items are included in this article.

Prima facie inspection of all material shown indicates the formula predicted comparisons DO NOT AGREE with the provided observations. This is not explained by the author (Taylor) or the other editors.

I am trying to add one sentence to indicate this. The other editors do not like (calvaryman and TOM) do not the idea of making it explicit that a predictive formula does not agree with observed data. For whatever reason, they have an attachment to this formula. THEY DO NOT HAVE A NPOV. I do. I am merely pointing out that the author does not explain his formulas inconsistencies. They repeatedly revert my addition. They are the ones being disruptive. I have compromised with them on several points but they are irrational because of their attachment to a formula that does not predict observation. One of them even admits it is "completely bullshit" (his words). Yes they do anything to defend it.

I will not be bullied. I will continue to add my sentence to this article. I will not relent.


 * You may not "continue to add my sentence to this article". What you need to do next is discuss your proposed change at the article's talk page. Be prepared to provide reliable sources to back up your claim and to refute the other information in the article (like in the following paragraph where it's said that the formula is corroborated by observations). —C.Fred (talk) 21:32, 10 June 2018 (UTC)


 * You are asking me to prove a negative which is a logical fallacy and can't ever be done. I say the author does not provide any explanation why the observed data and the output of his formula don't match.  People who disagree with me merely have to provide a counter example.  That would be disproof by counter example and then they would win.  One solid reference one resolve the matter.


 * I have to wonder if you even read the article or my objections. Here's an example from the article.  .577 Nitro Express has a predicted (formula) value of 128.3.  .600 Nitro has a similar value of 147.5.  Yet the article quotes the author (and cites reference) that .577 Nitro Express provides about 20 minutes (1200 seconds) of knock out time and .600 Nitro Express provides around a half an hour (1800 seconds).  Note the obvious, the formulaic values for either do not match the observation in any way.  I do not need to cite a reference that 2 does not equal 3.  At some point obvious is a defense.


 * To make matters even more absurd, the author states the .416 Rigby will probably not knock the elephant out (a value of 0 seconds) yet his formula provides a value of 57.1 (from the table in the article).


 * So 57.1 means 0, 128.3 means about 1200 and 147.5 means about 1800. Can you explain the relationship in these numbers?  How much more does anything have to be explained?  Really.