User talk:NYCDA

Another editor claims this paragraphs violates the following policies: WP:SPS, NOR, NOT#PUBLISHER, NOT#FAQ, NOT#CBALL

Here's the text
 * MTBF is not to be confused with life expectancy. MTBF is an indication of reliability. A device with a MTBF of 100,000 hours is more reliable than one with a MTBF of 50,000. However this does not mean the 100,000 hours MTBF device will last twice as long as the 50,000 MTBF device. How long the device will last is entirely dependent on its life expectancy. An 100,000 MTBF device can have a life expectancy of 2 years while a 50,000 MTBF device can have a life expectancy of 5 years yet the device that's expected to break down after 2 years is still considered more reliable than the 5 years one. Using the 100,000 MTBF device as an example and putting MTBF together with life expectancy, it means the device should on average fail once every 100,000 hours provided it is replaced every 2 years. Another way to look at this is, if there are 100,000 units of this device and all of them are in use at the same time and any failed device is put back in working order immediately after the failure, then 1 unit is expected to fail every hour (due to MTBF factor).

It's better documented here. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Mean_time_between_failures#Article_Written_by_user_NYCDA

I strongly feel I have documented everything and provided verifable sources but another editor still claims it's violating many guidelines and I'm using the wiki to publish my own research. I have opened an RFC and other previously involved editors have commented on it but everyone so far have avoid this issue completely. User Kateshort  has been very helpful with his (or her?) comments and I no longer have any doubts to my understanding of those wiki guidelines. If you have the time after reading this, please visit the above link and help me resolve this issue. NYCDA (talk) 23:28, 22 January 2008 (UTC)