Contents

User talk:Tmayes1999: Difference between revisions

Revision as of 10:32, 14 August 2007

• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• How to edit a page
• Help pages
• Tutorial
• How to write a great article
• Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Where to ask a question, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome!  --Phroziac 23:53, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Hello Tmayes1999, and welcome to Wikipedia. Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

• The Five Pillars of Wikipedia
• How to edit a page
• Editing tutorial
• Picture tutorial
• How to write a great article
• Naming conventions
• Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! By the way, you can sign your name on Talk and vote pages using three tildes, like this: ~~~. Four tildes (~~~~) produces your name and the current date. If you have any questions, see the help pages, add a question to the village pump or ask me on Talk page. Again, welcome! You 23:53, Jun 5, 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for your contributions to articles about nuclear weapons, You are certainly enthusiastic about this subject, and we appreciate this.

Please have a look at some of the Wikipedia:Manual of style pages. There are some places where your articles do not read like encyclopedia articles. Also you should note that if there is a space at the start of a paragraph, then Wikipedia will lay it out exactly as written, without linbreaks or anything. This is rarely what is needed. Some of your article is also duplicating things we already have at nuclear weapon, nuclear weapon design and similar articles. You might like to consider merging the A-bomb article with these.

Thanks for your contributions, and keep editing. DJ Clayworth 22:10, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

One of the othr things that is unusual about Wikipedia is the hyperlink structure. This means, for example, that when you are writing about atomic weapon design, and you mention an alpha particle, you don' have to explain what an alpha particle is. Instead you make a link to alpha particle and let people who want to know find out for themselves. That makes articles shorter, and doesn't disrupt readers who either already know, or aren't interested. Happy editing. DJ Clayworth 20:42, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Not sure quite what you're doing wrong, but your edits are trashing the formatting in the articles you edit; you are inserting line breaks semirandomly, and not putting them in where you need them. It may be a fault in your web browser, I would recommend Mozilla.

Your spelling leaves an enormous amount to be desired too.

For example:

equal - not eqaul

I want A-bomb to be restored as a stand alone article - Tim

I have restored it - can you do some work on it now? cf the attention tag. :) ...en passant! 05:55, 13 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Tim - I have no views on it myself - and was just referring to the tag that's there already. Have a fiddle and then remove the tag - if it gets re-posted asked the User what their concerns are. :) ...en passant! 06:07, 13 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Tag removed for you. You just go to edit and look for some thing in double {} type brackets and delete it.

You should be unblocked now. Calm down, you shared an IP with a vandal. I can't help that. — BRIAN0918 • 2005-10-30 13:56

If you want to discuss the creation of an "A-bomb" article, please do so on Talk:Nuclear weapon. Thanks. --Fastfission 21:12, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Something about either your browser or your way of editing is screwing up the formatting of articles you edit. It is inserting paragraph returns in the middle of lines and spaces before lines. Please try and fix this. It causes people to spend a lot of time cleaning up after you and is very irritating, especially since someone has previously told you about it. --Fastfission 00:48, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Tim, you've been formatting articles poorly, spelling things wrong, and replacing well-written sections with things like "The most common method of detonating an A-bomb is called the implosion method. The implosion method is superior to the gun method of detonating an A-bomb." It was not me that origionally put that statement in the article. All I did was fix the grammar errors, and so on that were made by who ever wrote the statement.*

You had a large number of factual errors in your A-bomb article despite your "garuntee" (you claimed the last US nuclear test was 1994, it was actually in 1992; you claimed current worldwide stockpiles were around 100,000, they are actually around 20,000; etc.), and in the end it was apparently just a dump for you of pseudo-precise values from other websites. I don't think your "A-bomb" article was anything to be excited about, and frankly I'm not very thrilled about your edits to Nuclear weapon design. They are misformatted (you've been asked at least twice to try and correct this), they are full of spelling, grammar, and formatting errors, and you have been replacing standard terminology with antiquidated phrases like "A-bombs". Whether or not fission weapon design needs its own devoted article is a good question, but your approach is thoroughly wrong-headed, and calling people who have, in very good faith, tried to contact you, work with you, and correct your errors "vandals and idiots" is not a very good approach either. --Fastfission 02:40, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The last live nuclear test really was in 1994 after a two year moratorium created by the

clinton administration in 1992.*There were no significant factual errors in the A-bomb article. There was only a few typing errors.You have misquoted me on the 100,000 weapon stockpile. I was talking about the the size of the worlds stockpiles in the past during the cold war not about the size of curent stock piles.. There were spelling, and grammar puntuation errors most of which I fixed with my edits to the article. The nuclear weapons article you refer to was not very good. I edited it to improve it, and to eliminate the errors that were in it. Very few of the errors in article were actually made by me. I fixed many kinds of errors in the article nuclear weapons today that were made by other people ,and not by me. I never said that fission would convert a whole kilogram into energy in the A-bomb areticle at all. If you read it more closely you would see that I said specificly that fission converted less the 1000 th of the mass into energy.Your claim that I made that statement was never true to begin with. et el Tim

• • All reputable sources put the last US nuclear test as having taken place on September 23, 1992. Check it for yourself. Your spelling, grammar, formatting, and capitalization errors were rampant in the article by the time it was turned into a redirect, and they continue both in your responses on this page and on your edits to Nuclear weapon design. Please do not re-create an "A-bomb" article -- there is considerable consensus against its existence. It is not, and was never, the correct article title — "A-bomb" is by itself just an abbreviated form of "atomic bomb" which is an imprecise and antiquated name for fission weapons, one which was considered imprecise and poor even in 1945. Your "corrections" have included bad writing, bad spelling, and lots of pseudo-precise nonsense pasted in from other sources, and will require a good deal of correction themselves. Please just take a look at the number of changes which were recently made to clean up your formatting and spelling errors to the article. Take a look at how you left the article, misformatted and horrible looking. This is not a case of a few typos; it is a systemic problem with everything you have so far contributed to Wikipedia, one you have shown no intention of fixing. My patience is wearing pretty thin. --Fastfission 03:19, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• • • I would like to second Fastfission's comments.

• • • First, the last US nuclear test was in 1992. See [1], [2], [3]. This is not in factual dispute by any credible source.

• • • Second, there are huge typing and spelling and grammar errors in everything I've seen you do. If you really don't know better and still want to contribute, please ask someone else to help proof stuff before you load it up for live content.

• • • Please be more careful. You're making a mess. Georgewilliamherbert 03:26, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I would suggest that you look over Wikipedia:Ownership of articles before you continue, it might save you a great deal of trouble DV8 2XL 04:36, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I have never tried to change the formatting of any article on wickipedia. The computer or my browser is somehow automaticly distorting the formatting on its own if this is occurring. Tim

If you're using Netscape, Mozilla, or IE, the problem isn't the browser. All of those work fine with Wikipedia. Here's tip number 1: Don't hit "enter" to wrap lines. Only use it at the end of paragraphs. Tip 2 is "read all of the help screens other editors have pointed you at". Tip 3: Wikipedia has a large set of help articles that describe style conventions for both content and formatting. Use them whenever you're not sure how to do something, or when you think someone might have a problem with what you plan to do. --Christopher Thomas 17:00, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

As it does not appear that an amicable solution to the contention over A-bomb will appear, I've filed for a Request for Arbitration. Tmayes1999, Christopher Thomas, Fastfission, and DV8 2XL are named as involved parties. --Christopher Thomas 04:08, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Just so you understand what this is - you should go to Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration#Tmayes1999 and fill in the section under "Statement by Tmayes1999". Do not modify any of the other sections, or reply to other statements - that's not what this page is for. Just write your own statement describing your views on what's happened. --Christopher Thomas 04:51, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. You absolutely must stop messing your formatting up and sticking so much unsigned material on talk pages. You make comments impossible to read afterwards without someone else doing a cleanup.

Add comments on a new line, with a blank line in between, to preserve spacing. Make sure that in the wiki editing page there is a blank line between the end of what you're replying to and your first comment.

Whenever you add comments, indent using a : character at the beginning of the line. If the comment is already indented, add one more : than is already in use. That does:

This

...to comments.

Don't use line breaks. Hit return only if you want a new paragraph. Indent new paragraphs the same as the first one if you use them.

Always sign your contributions on talk pages with the ~~~~ (four tilde or ~ characters in a row) special characters.

Thank you. Georgewilliamherbert 05:23, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Tim, it is disruptive for you to keep making so many edits without signing your edits. As stated above, use ~~~~ (four tilde or ~ characters in a row) special characters to sign each of your talk page edits. It is not acceptable user behavior for you to keep making unsigned edits in the type or quantity that you have been. I did not make any unsigned edit to any article , only in a talk page are there ANY unsigned comments by me . tmayes1999Georgewilliamherbert 23:57, 13 August 2007 (UTC) I THINK THAT MANY, OR SOME EDITS THAT SOME PEOPLE HAVE ATTRIBUTED TO ME WERE NOT ACTUALLY MADE BY ME AT ALL.TMAYES1999[reply]

Tim, knock it off. The article edit histories are right there for anyone to click on and view, and you aren't fooling anyone. You edited your stuff into paragraphs of mine right here, below, on this page, in the middle of a warning message. Knock. It. Off. Georgewilliamherbert 08:09, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not add content without citing reliable sources, as you did to Nuclear weapon design. Before making potentially controversial edits, it is recommended that you discuss them first on the article's talk page. Thank you. Georgewilliamherbert 01:12, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I never had any reason to believe that my minor edit would be controversial to begin with . I assure you I am able to prove what I said is true .tmayes1999 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tmayes1999 (talk • contribs)

Tim, vandalizing people's Wikipedia userpages is grounds for being blocked for harrassment and disruption. Don't do it to my user page or anyone else's again. That is for talk pages. I DID NOT VANDALIZE ANY BODY'S WICKIPEDIA USER PAGES . THAT IS A TOTALLY FALSE ACCUSATION* TMAYES1999.I THINK THAT IT IS JUST PEOPLE PLAYING DIRTY IN ORDER TO ABUSE ME.* TMAYES1999 Please stop. If you continue to vandalize Wikipedia, as you did to User:Georgewilliamherbert, you willbeblocked from editing. Georgewilliamherbert 08:21, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Edit history: [4] shows that you did, Tim. Edit histories do not lie. You also inserted your comment in the middle of my warning, again, after being warned not to. Georgewilliamherbert 08:31, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Also, re your statement (shown in diff above, but that I have now deleted off my Userpage) that I had deleted your edits to Nuclear weapon design, please see: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Nuclear_weapon_design&action=history. I have not edited that article since July 25, three weeks ago. Your edits today were reverted by User:Patrick and User:24.147.86.187, neither of whom is me. Georgewilliamherbert 08:35, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I TRIED TO LEAVE A MESSAGE FOR YOU ON YOUR TALK PAGE JUST LIKE YOU ARE DOING ON MY TALK PAGE . I DID NOT TRY TO VANDALIZE ANYTHING . TMAYES1999

Tim, this is the edit history: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User%3AGeorgewilliamherbert&diff=151124427&oldid=145356237 That's your edits, and that's not my talk page, that's my user page. And anyone on Wikipedia can see that by looking at it. You have no excuse for this. Georgewilliamherbert 08:37, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I AM VERY ANGRY WITH SOME OF THE OTHER WICKIS WHO HAVE ABUSED ME, LIED ABOUT ME , MISQUOTED ME, MADE MANY FALSE AND UNJUSTIFIED ACCUSATIONS AGAINST ME . THEY HAVE BEEN VERY UNFAIR TO ME AND THEY PLAYED DIRTY WITH ME FREQUENTLY.

IF I WAS ON YOUR USER PAGE INSTEAD OF YOUR TALK PAGE IT WAS AN HONEST MISTAKE ON MY PART, AND PLEASE ACCEPT MY APOLOGYS FOR THAT.TMAYES1999

As I just showed you, I have not deleted your comments from Nuclear weapon design.

You are not showing good judgement and the ability to check the facts regarding who's posting what here. If you are not capable of contributing to Wikipedia in a positive and stable manner, including properly engaging in discussion where appropriate and being able to tell who did what and when, you probably should stop editing Wikipedia. I HAVE POSTED MY COMMENTS ON TALK PAGES IN ORDER

TO ENGAGE IN A RATIONAL, CIVAL, OBJECTIVE ,LOGICAL, AND CONSTRUCTIVE DISCUSSIAN OF THE ISSUES I WROTE ABOUT . I WILL NO LONGER LEAVE MY COMMENTS ON THE TALK PAGES UNSIGNED HOWEVER.TMAYES1999

This has all been explained to you before.And you're still not signing your talk page edits, Tim. Use ~~~~ (four ~ characters) at the end of your comments. Georgewilliamherbert 08:52, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

..ok. I have now just deleted your latest updates to the Nuclear weapons design article, because of two reasons. One, it was out of context with the surrounding discussion, and two, you signed a contribution to the article.

Tim... Look. You sign talk pages. You don't sign articles. Signing articles is a user policy violation. It's disruption.

You sign them with four tildes ~~~~, not by typing out your account name.

You don't insert your comments in the middle of other people's comments.

You've been given many more chances than is normal for when disruptive users are just blocked to stop the disruption. You have to start correcting this behavior right away. Georgewilliamherbert 09:35, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your last comment on Talk:Nuclear weapon design was put into the middle of a discussion from 2004.

Tim, you have to stop this. Georgewilliamherbert 09:38, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What did you mean by sign with 4 tildes. ? I did not know I was not supposed to sign edits to an article . How is my edit out of context with the surrounding discussian.? I was responding to a question in the discussian about current High explosive lense designs which was posted by another Wiki. Tmayes1999 09:48, 14 August 2007 (UTC)I ask you to restore my edit.? It is highly relavent to high explosive lense designs .Tmayes1999 09:50, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You now appear to understand signing with four tildes. That worked.

If you did not know that you're not supposed to sign article edits, only talk page edits, after using Wikipedia on and off for 2+ years, you should be blocked immediately. This is inexcusable.

Regarding the context... you inserted that comment into the middle of the discussion of classical spherical implosion systems. Adding the "...but you can do 2 or 1 point too" before you're done talking about spherical systems is out of context.

The explosive lens section already talks about 2-point nonspherical systems, if you look down to the second to last paragraph:

It is speculated that modern designs may use a prolate spheroidal pit and two-point detonation, i.e. just a single explosive lens at each end of the weapon. The end result is formation of a supercritical sphere, but with a vastly superior level of reliability when compared to a weapon requiring dozens of simultaneous detonations. [5]

What you said was redundant with that section, and was out of place where you put it in.

Please read more carefully when inserting material. Even if the specific thing you say is correct and/or sourced, it may be said in the wrong way or in the wrong place.

Also, please look at the <ref> Reference citations </ref> in those articles so that you can format references properly. Referring to the Nuclear Weapons FAQ section without the proper reference will just confuse readers. Georgewilliamherbert 09:57, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Tim, you inserted your comments into the middle of mine again.

Again: This is another disruptive blockable offense. Stop doing it. Add yours afterwards, or indent properly to make them distinct.

I am going to reorganize in another edit so that people can read them. Georgewilliamherbert 10:11, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I was talking about one, and two lense spherical implosion systems.Tmayes1999 10:02, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This here is about Linear Implosion systems.Tmayes1999 10:02, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I was writing about one, and two lense spherical implosion systems , not about linear implosion systems.Tmayes1999 10:02, 14 August 2007 (UTC)Please restore my edit .Tmayes1999 10:02, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That section is not referring to linear implosion systems, no. It's talking about two point implosion systems. They are not the same thing. They also aren't "spherical", but they are true implosion (mass that's subcritcal at STP) not linear implosion (mass that's supercritical at STP mildly compressed from uncritical into supercritical).

Again, your edit is redundant with the information below it that I cited, and out of place. Georgewilliamherbert 10:16, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There are one, and two lense spherical implosion systems, and that is what I was writing about . Tmayes1999 10:22, 14 August 2007 (UTC) The two point non spherical implosion system you are thinking about is called a linear implosion system . I invite you to go read about it and find out for your self that this is true .Tmayes1999 10:32, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]