User talk:Wdl1961

Indefinitely blocked
Some of your edits are clearly helpful, and you've reverted a fair amount of obvious vandalism, which I thank you for.

However, you have also made a number of edits which appear to be significantly outside Wikipedia's purpose of existence, and a number of edits in which your communications contained ungrammatical and unintelligible writing. It's not entirely clear that you are actually understanding and communicating in response to people complaining about your outside policy edits on article talk pages, your talk page, or the discussion on the Administrators' Noticeboard for Incidents.

I have placed an indefinite block on your editing Wikipedia, other than here on your talk page. This is not a permanent block. Any administrator, including myself, can unblock you immediately if you can clearly communicate that you understand that you need to discuss your edit problems with other editors in a focused and understandable manner.

If you can explain why your edits have been hard to understand, that would help in the matter.

Thank you. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 21:02, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for repeated abuse of editing privileges. If you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the text below, but you should read our guide to appealing blocks first.

Copy of your message to Georgewilliamherbert: Wikipedia e-mail InboxX

Reply |Wdl1961 show details 7:28 PM (1 hour ago)

if there is a specific item i edited in an article that is wrong i would like to know about it. i suppose a blown battery blinding a person is not important to some. 1961delang@gmail.com


 * Your intentions with an edit often appears to be with the best of aims, but the end result is chaos. Your habit (as demonstrated by your last edit) of copy and pasting irrelevant headers (in this case from your email program) is just part of it. There is a requirement under WP:COMPETENCE that a wiki editor is capable of making an edit that is at least approximately correct, in terms of making readable sentences appear in articles. Your additions are very often ungrammatical nonsense that's simply impossible to read or understand, let alone judge the accuracy of it.
 * As to accuracy, then you have an odd attitude to factual accuracy and an utter disregard for reliable references - just look at your changes to Torque converter. Andy Dingley (talk) 01:20, 22 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Bernoulli's equation:$$q\, =\, \tfrac12\, \rho\, v^2$$ is dynamic pressure,the reverse applies to a turbine .Fluid flow gives the final $$v^5 $$ factor proportional to $$n^5 $$.Wdl1961 (talk) 02:26, 22 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Thank you for demonstrating just what I meant. The question is: $$N^2D^5$$ (correct) or $$N^5D^2$$ (incorrect). It's hard to derive this, easy to look it up. My response was to cite good, robust references to support the correct one (and no, I didn't try to explain it - that's unduly difficult). Your response was, and still is, to ignore the issue of referencing, refuse to show where your own claim comes from and then to repeatedly paste in an irrelevant equation. Bernoulli is an irrelevance here - it's not a significant factor in the physical operation of a torque converter. Nor is your cargo cult approach of pasting in snippets out of context a helpful one. I know Bernoulli as well as you do: why does it matter here? You haven't even tried to explain this beyond pasting magic sigils all over the place and hoping we're impressed. As a basic rule in teaching, if the audience doesn't understand a statement, simply repeating it more loudly won't work any better. Andy Dingley (talk) 09:11, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

In wikpedia hydropower is the derivation and formula for power as follows:
 * $$P = \frac{1}{2}\,\rho\, A\, v^3$$

this formula applies to the pump and turbine. Because the flow is the same in both it results in v^5. This to me is a focused and detailed derivation. There are no fluid couplings with a variable diameter after they are designed and build. If you have a focused and particular question other than water is not oil I will try to answer it. Wdl1961 (talk) 00:31, 24 April 2010 (UTC)


 * This sort of analytical physics depends on understanding what the equation describes, not just on visual pattern matching because the resultant equations look similar. Your whole post here is nonsense: it makes no sense, it is a non sequitur, it's just playing at understanding.
 * As to your hydropower analogy, that has nothing to do with turbines or pumps. The equation you quote is merely a representation of the energy available in a flowing body of water - kinetic energy as 1/2mv^2 (derivable from Newton's 2nd law and a bit of integration), multiplied by the mass flow rate of the water, given the area of the channel and its speed. Andy Dingley (talk) 08:20, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

User:Wdl1961
has been edit warring, violating 3RR, by adding how-to instructions in Jump start (vehicle). User has refused meaningful discussion on talk page, and has shown no regard for WP policy, i.e. WP:NOTHOWTO. Edits:       --Dbratland (talk) 01:51, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Editors should be required to read art. first and apply rules evenly.Wdl1961 (talk) 02:03, 21 April 2010 (UTC)


 * The guideline you are using, WP:NOTHOWTO, says an article should "should not read like a "how-to" [...] manual". It does not say that an article should not contain any how-to instructions. The article Jump start (vehicle) does not in fact read like a how-to manual. Wdl1961 has merely added a brief section dealing with a fundamental safety issue, that contains some how-to information. But this does not turn the article, as a whole, into a how-to manual. There are other snippets of "how-to" information elsewhere in the same article. For example, the section immediately above the section Wdl1961 added says "A slave cable is plugged in to the receptacle on each vehicle, and the dead vehicle is started with the live vehicle's engine running."  If no how-to instructions are to be permitted in Wikipedia, a lot of Wikipedia articles would be hobbled.


 * Another example is the article on rip current. That has a section on escaping a rip current. This section also contains some how-to instructions. But the article, as a whole, does not read like a how-to manual, and it seem to me that the article would be incomplete, indeed irresponsible, if it did not include this section. --Epipelagic (talk) 02:53, 21 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Indeed, other stuff exists. The point is to continue moving the how-to instructions away from Jump start (vehicle) and over to Wikibooks where it is most appropriate.  The fact that some parts of the article, or other articles, deviate from policy is not a reason to insist on making it even worse. --Dbratland (talk) 03:59, 21 April 2010 (UTC)


 * That is missing my point, which is that these articles do not "deviate from policy". --Epipelagic (talk) 05:00, 21 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Reading the policy that way is equivalent to saying you can put how to instructions into any article you like as long as there are other parts of the article that are not instructions. Is the only reason for having the policy to ensure that merely some of each article is encyclopedic in nature? --Dbratland (talk) 05:27, 21 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Nowhere in any guidelines is it said that you can't explain how something works. If that were the case, then you couldn't even write a coherent article on something like a fish hook. But what the guideline you invoked said, was that articles should not read like an instruction manual. Some articles require an explanation here and there of how things work. There is nothing unencyclopedic about that, so long as the article doesn't degenerate into a mere instruction manual. --Epipelagic (talk) 06:13, 21 April 2010 (UTC)


 * I would think with something like this, which does carry an element of danger, Wikipedia should not be giving instructions, especially unsourced ones. If we have sources that indicate the correct way to jump start a battery, they should be linked on the page. That seems to be sufficient. Dayewalker (talk) 06:19, 21 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Yes, safety instructions like these need impeccable sources, like the sources given for escaping a rip current. --Epipelagic (talk) 06:33, 21 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Is it possible to put a hatnote at the top of the page, rather than the bottom as guidelines normally indicate, saying Instructions on how to jump start can be found at Wikibooks? This would help clear up any confusion and direct those looking for help to the right place.  And if there is nothing left to say on Jump start (vehicle) after all the how-to has been moved to Wikibooks, then the page should be deleted or merged.--Dbratland (talk) 14:39, 21 April 2010 (UTC)


 * I would personally disagree with such a hatnote, because it's not the job of Wikipedia to meet the needs of every user who's looking in an encyclopedia for information an encyclopedia shouldn't include. It seems to defeat the purpose of defining what does not fall within Wikipedia's mission and domain, if Wikipedia just links to all that information anyway, especially right at the top of the article. If users look for how-to information here and can't find it, they can reasonably be expected to figure out that there may be a better place to find that information than an encyclopedia. Propaniac (talk) 15:13, 21 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Indef block and ban on the basis of WP:COMPETENCE. This editor has a long record of edits that can best be described as "surreal", bearing little relation to reality and no relation to WP policy. I believe they have some past career experience with electricity power generation, but they still have a particularly unusual view of how some well-accepted engineering principles work. Their abuse of references is particularly problematic as they've often made edits that are just plain wrong, but aren't obviously so to an editor not skilled in the arts and assuming that a claimed cite will mean the same as that which a reference actually stated. "relational vibration" in engines was one of the worst examples of this. Andy Dingley (talk) 07:35, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Having read through their talk page, browsed through their mess of a user page, and looked at some of their edits, I'm inclined to agree with Andy Dingley that the competence of Wdl1961 is indeed an issue. Beyond My Ken (talk) 09:54, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

for easy ref "Relational Vibration "

copy from Talk:Four-stroke engine

13 User:Wdl1961

14 file

14.1 Relational Vibration

Wdl1961 (talk) 13:47, 21 April 2010 (UTC)


 * I have jump-started a great many vehicles in my time, the content you added was borderline incomprehensible. Guy (Help!) 20:19, 21 April 2010 (UTC)


 * first occurs before last like 1 ,2,many,many.

Wdl1961 (talk) 20:42, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

I'm sorry, that sounds just like plain craziness. A certain soundness of mind is required to edit Wikipedia, and it does not seem to be present here. I was about to indefinitely block at this point, but Georgewilliamherbert was faster than me.  Sandstein  20:58, 21 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Yeah. I have left a message asking them to try and clearly communicate on their talk page the reasons for their communications issues.  This is an indef block based on the communications and coherency issue - not a permanent block.  They may have an issue they can resolve, or they can refocus on communicating coherently and succeed in the future.  Any administrator who comes to believe that they are going to be able to edit in a productive manner and communicate in an intelligible manner going forwards is welcome to unblock without further notification to me.  I don't know whether they will be able to do that, but one would hope that they can.  They have been reasonably good about vandal fighting and I don't doubt their good faith, but there's something wrong here that good faith does not overcome.  Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 21:09, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Arguing with anonymous strangers
"Arguing with anonymous strangers on the internet is a sucker's game because they almost always turn out to be – or to be indistinguishable from – self-righteous sixteen year olds possessing infinite amounts of free time"

- Neal Stephenson

original droop speed control
notice the slack in the chain to ignore small speed disturbances.