User talk:Haraldwallin

Wiki Ethos

You don't own the article whatever contribution you have made. Your removal of accurate and pertinent information on thread galling, I took the time to contribute with no explanation whatsoever erks me. Thread galling is in fact the far most likely form of galling to be encountered by joe public and your instance on keeping the article focused on your own narrow experience with galling is self serving and not in the public interest or in keeping with the wiki ethos.203.206.77.37 (talk) 14:45, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Galling

Hi, please do not keep adding your "reference" to the galling article, as there is a conflict of interest. Thanks. --Wizard191 (talk) 18:40, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

I am not discrediting the reference. I fully believe that it is legitimate reference, however the conflict of interest is that you are one of the authors of the work, and you are adding it. This does not completely eliminate the work from the realm of being added as a reference, but someone other than yourself must review it and deem it worthy as a reference. My recommendation is that you add a note to the talk page of the article stating that you think it would be a good reference, but that you want others to review it first because you are a bias entity, in that you contributed to the work. Wizard191 (talk) 15:58, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

March 2009

Before adding a category to an article, as you did to Galling, please make sure that the subject of the article really belongs in the category that you specified. If it has not been already, it may be removed if the category has not been deemed correct for the subject matter. Thank you. Wizard191 (talk) 18:52, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Please stop changing the categories for the galling article. The "categories" you are trying to apply do not exist, which is why they show as a red link. For more information about categories please read WP:CATEGORIES. Wizard191 (talk) 16:29, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

November 2009

If you are affiliated with some of the people, places or things you have written about in the article Galling, you may have a conflict of interest. In keeping with Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy, edits where there is a conflict of interest, or where such a conflict might reasonably be inferred from the tone of the edit and the proximity of the editor to the subject, are strongly discouraged. If you have a conflict of interest, you should avoid or exercise great caution when:

1. editing or creating articles related to you, your organization, or its competitors, as well as projects and products they are involved with;
2. participating in deletion discussions about articles related to your organization or its competitors; and
3. linking to the Wikipedia article or website of your organization in other articles (see Wikipedia:Spam).

Please familiarize yourself with relevant policies and guidelines, especially those pertaining to neutral point of view, verifiability of information, and autobiographies.

For information on how to contribute to Wikipedia when you have conflict of interest, please see our frequently asked questions for organizations. For more details about what, exactly, constitutes a conflict of interest, please see our conflict of interest guidelines. Thank you. Wizard191 (talk) 21:01, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Stress (mechanics)

Hi, Haraldwallin. I'm glad that you're editing at Stress (mechanics). I have a couple of tips:

• Please use edit summaries to describe each edit briefly. This helps other editors keep track of what you're doing.
• Your edits seem to draw on your experience in the field. They would be more valuable to Wikipedia if they also included citations to published works.

Finally, I don't understand some of the content. I'm not an expert in continuum mechanics, but I know a little, and therefore I may be a representative reader of the article. You write that

'classical models of continuum mechanics ma

ke a quantitatively assumetion of an average force and accordingly fails to properly incorporate "geometrical factors" as important for stress distribution and accumulation of energy during the continuum.' This seems to me to be an overstatement. For example in a viscous fluid the velocity gradients are tensorially related to the stress tensor, via a tensor that expresses the 3D anisotropy of the material. Am I right? In an elastic solid, the displacement gradients are tensorially related to the stress tensor, via a tensor that expresses the 3D anisotropy of the material. So classical models of continuum mechanics do incorporate some information about the 3D structure of the material, right? Mgnbar (talk) 14:34, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

---

Hi Mgnbar, nice to get a message from someone with similar interests and I think we discussed this previously in the discussion page.
The article Stress(mechanics) in Wikipedia is getting much better since I first point out various issues regarding overall structure and comprehensiveness between mathematical discussion and text.
I have-not done any actual changes to the content and today is my first edit on the actual article of Stress(mechanics). The intention is to try emphasis what other writers already have written and point out what´s important.

You, Mgnbar, state that you fail to understand the content in the following sentence: 'classical models of continuum mechanics make a quantitatively assumetion of an average force and accordingly fails to properly incorporate "geometrical factors" as important for stress distribution and accumulation of energy during the continuum.'.
I can answer by relate to the following: 'In continuum mechanics, stress is a measure of the internal forces acting within a deformable body. Quantitatively, it is a measure of the average force per unit area of a surface within the body on which internal forces act. These internal forces are produced between the particles in the body as a reaction to external forces applied on the body.', which is exactly the same written buy another writer.

My text only emphasise on the fact and definition.

Regarding your examples of viscous fluid and elastic solid. I can´t relate to your statement because I don´t understand what you are trying to say. The gradient ( I presume it´s the fluids effect in the subject material and the produced gradient force you are referring to), force are "tensorially" related? Do you mean it´s related to size of the deformed volume?

My answer, if my interpretation of your text is correct, the assumption of a continuum and even distribution of stress within the body do not incorporate geometrical aspects of the body. The stress is in fact NOT evenly distributed and exhibit differences in concentration at sharp edges or other geometrical features within the body. The problem is thereby the assumption of a uniformed continuum and the use of a entity such as the physical force, rather than for example acceleration which by detention is more correct. The mathematical implication might look insignificant, but is "huge" if properly examined. --Haraldwallin (talk) 15:13, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

---

Hi again. Thanks for your prompt response. You don't need to duplicate your responses at my talk page; I would prefer to read them here.

Continuum mechanics is a simplified view of reality. Basic continuum-mechanical models such as the Navier-Stokes equations do not incorporate subtle geometric material information such as grain boundary effects. I know nothing about such subtleties, but I imagine that they exist and can have huge effects, just as you say. I certainly have no dispute with you there.

But basic continuum-mechanical models do incorporate some 3D information about the material. When I mentioned viscous fluids, for example, I meant the following. Let x denote position, v velocity, and σ the stress tensor. Then there is a tensorial relationship

${\frac {1}{2}}\left({\frac {\partial v_{i}}{\partial x_{j}}}+{\frac {\partial v_{j}}{\partial x_{i}}}\right)=\sum _{k}\sum _{l}a_{ijkl}\sigma _{kl},$

where a is a tensor expressing the relationship of stress (σ) to strain (the left side of the equation). The tensor a has some symmetries, which reduce its number of independent coordinates from 81 down to 36 or 21. But it is still rich enough to express 3D anisotropy in the response of the material to stress. For example, if the material is layered, so that it shears more easily along some planes than others, this is expressible in the tensor a, right?

Furthermore, the tensor a can vary over space and time. There is no assumption that the stress is evenly distributed throughout space, if by "evenly" you mean "uniformly" or "constantly". On the other hand, do continuum-mechanical models usually assume that stress is smoothly distributed (e.g. that it is continuously differentiable)? That would not account for sharp effects such as grain boundaries.

So is it correct to say that classical models account for some geometric information (anisotropy), but not for other information (non-continuum effects)? The article Stress (mechanics) should be clear on this. Regards, Mgnbar (talk) 17:44, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

---

Hi Mgnbar.

You can´t seriously think I can answer your argumentation above, I´m not stupid you know. hehe sorry I could not help it.
Seriously don´t take any offence, I suggest that you define and in detail explain what you are trying to say. I think you can agree that you are eager to debate and defend the classical models of continuum mechanics, which is good.
But you can´t expect me to understand the argumentation such as the above equation without telling me the conditions of the whole system. I can only guess what you are getting at.
My spontaneous reaction is I think I understand what you try to say, and in my report on galling

• Wallin H.: An investigation of friction graphs ranking ability regarding the galling phenomenon in dry SOFS contact : (Adhesive material transfere and friction), free pdf document at www.diva-portal.org found here
  

the notion of a connection to "energy density" or as you write "stress" and size of the deformed volume exist in the discussion chapter. The mathematical relationship in my report looks almost the same as your scalar model above. Hoverer, the problem is your use of stress (σ) to define strain, energy density and acceleration is more correct. As I said stress (σ)=(Force/Area), include the "physical" force as a variable and there is no compatibility between the force and the deformed matter. You fail to do a correct transformation from a three dimensional to a one dimensional system and therefore the definition of the model is false. --Haraldwallin (talk) 19:23, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

---

Sorry for being unclear. As I said, I'm not an expert in mechanics. I was under the impression that the material I quoted was foundational, so that I would just have to remind you of it. I'm not sure what you mean by "compatibility between the force and the deformed matter". The standard continuum-mechanical models do incorporate conservation of mass and conservation of momentum. Do you mean something more than that? Also, I'm not sure what "one-dimensional system" you're talking about. Everything I wrote about was three-dimensional.

Here's more detail. Let x be position, t time, and v velocity. This x and v are three-dimensional vectors. Let ρ be density (assumed constant), p pressure, σ the Cauchy stress tensor, and f a body force. The Navier-Stokes equations are

$\nabla \cdot v=0,$

$\rho \left({\frac {\partial v}{\partial t}}+v\cdot \nabla v\right)=-\nabla p+\nabla \cdot \sigma +f.$

In order to turn the latter equation into a partial differential equation purely in v, we have to relate the stress tensor to v or x in another way. For an elastic solid, the relationship is

${\frac {1}{2}}\left({\frac {\partial u_{i}}{\partial x_{j}}}+{\frac {\partial u_{j}}{\partial x_{i}}}\right)=\sum _{k}\sum _{l}s_{ijkl}\sigma _{kl},$

where u is displacement and s is called the compliance tensor; see Hooke's law. In a viscous fluid the relationship is

${\frac {1}{2}}\left({\frac {\partial v_{i}}{\partial x_{j}}}+{\frac {\partial v_{j}}{\partial x_{i}}}\right)=\sum _{k}\sum _{l}a_{ijkl}\sigma _{kl},$

as I wrote above. The Viscosity article has some discussion about this, but it assumes an isotropic material. The reference that I know best is Pollard and Fletcher: Fundamentals of Structural Geology.

Finally, I do not know enough about this material to "debate" you on its merits. I'm not coming up with this stuff on my own; it's all from the 1800s, right? I'm just trying to help you use your knowledge to improve Wikipedia. Mgnbar (talk) 20:26, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Hi again. I've skimmed through your paper, but it's pretty far away from anything I think about. It doesn't seem to have any fluid dynamics. That might explain why you and I are having trouble understanding each other; the only continuum mechanics I know is fluid dynamics (and I don't know that well). Mgnbar (talk) 14:46, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

---

Ok, you or "the classical continuum mechanics" try to merge two incompatible attributes.

The force, stress or pressure all have the attribute of a single entity, whereas the energy and acceleration of mass have the attributes of three dimensions.

The "classical models of continuum mechanics" describe a three dimensional system using one dimensional variables, this is ok and is correct for a couple of "special solutions" but for a generalized solution they fail to make a proper "base transformation" due to this inbuilt fault factor.

An example, examine the equation of the force. F=ma the force is not one dimensional in the right lain, but is treated as a one dimensional variable in the existing "classical models of continuum mechanics".

I hope and think we can agree about that.

Perhaps we now can agree to that this also leads to problems regarding the models in your argumentation above.

No, we do not agree. In Newton's second law, the force and acceleration are vectors: F = m a means ${\vec {F}}=m{\vec {a}}$. The classical models definitely treat these as three-dimensional. The Navier-Stokes equations that I wrote above definitely treat position, velocity, acceleration, and force as three-dimensional vectors, not as scalars. The stress tensor relates two three-dimensional vector quantities: the normal vector to a surface, and the resulting force vector on that surface.

The pressure is a scalar field, but its gradient is a vector field; writing this vector field as the gradient of the pressure is just saying that it is a special kind of vector field, namely a potential field. Really, the only scalar quantities in the Navier-Stokes equations are time t and density ρ. Do you agree?

If by "base transformation" you mean "change of basis" or "change of coordinates", then you are wrong. The Navier-Stokes equation is tensorial. It automatically handles coordinate changes. Mgnbar (talk) 14:33, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

Regarding my report, the mechanics can be found in the discussion chapter page100-110(something) and is a crude schematic description of how acceleration increase "exponentially" and mass "linearly" if the zone of deformation shrinks, "deformation zone shrinks", with regard to the "geometrical factors" and the direction of the deformation, or as you probably would put it "deformation vector".

This is important, because "energy density" or energy concentration is connected to acceleration and metallic-crystals can only phase transform if the energy density reach or exceed a certain limit. --Haraldwallin (talk) 13:06, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

I've looked at pages 100-102 or so. Are you just saying that "As the size of the contact decreases, the pressure and acceleration increase"? This is quite believable. I don't see how the acceleration increases "exponentially". Mgnbar (talk) 14:33, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

---

You have not addressed any of my polite requests about your editing: There are still no citations in your edits to Stress (mechanics). You are still not using edit summaries. You continue to copy this conversation to my talk page, although I've asked you not to. It seems to me that you are more interested in discussing mechanics than in editing Wikipedia. As Bbanerje noted at Talk:Stress (mechanics), such discussions are more appropriate for iMechanica than for Wikipedia. Mgnbar (talk) 14:33, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

---

Hi Mgnbar.

Excuse me?? What are you taking about? I quote: "You are still not using edit summaries. You continue to copy this conversation to my talk page, although I've asked you not to. It seems to me that you are more interested in discussing mechanics than in editing Wikipedia. As Bbanerje noted at Talk:Stress (mechanics), such discussions are more appropriate for iMechanica than for Wikipedia.", end quote.

I answer your questions only to make you happy and hopefully give you some input, if you don´t appreciate the discussion you are "very free" to leave me alone. I didn't start this discussion, you did. You have no businesses blaming me for anything and infact you are NOT!! polite.

Regarding me answering on your page, it is clear this discussion must be held on both pages to discriminate false statements.

And about the acceleration, if you are cleaver enough you will understand the significance of an increase in acceleration with a shrinking plastic zone. And I hope you are "polite" enough to admit it has been forgotten in previous deformation models of mechanics (before 2007). But quite frankly I don´t care what you think. The implication is already happening around the world and I´m thrilled over the prospects. The "geometrical factors" in "compressive stress" and frictional contact gives the relation (acceleration=1/x) witch increase the acceleration expectationally when x travels to 0, (or in other words the plastic zone shrinks towards an "unlimited small volume).
The schematic sketch in my report is very crude but gives all needed mathematical foundations in coordination with empiric observations to develop and improve the year 2006-2007 existing models of compressive stress and frictional deformation mechanics. --Haraldwallin (talk) 20:35, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

---

I apologize for hurting your feelings. I was frustrated by our continuing inability to communicate very basic issues of Wikipedia use. Perhaps this is due to a language difference? I don't know.

If you read Wikipedia:Edit summary you will learn what an edit summary is and why you should use it. If you examine Special:Contributions/Haraldwallin, you will see that you have not been using edit summaries. I cannot be any clearer on this.

Your copying of the conversation to my talk page is not really a big deal to me, but it is unusual. There is no reason why having two identical copies of a text helps to "discriminate false statements".

Regarding your own material on galling, etc., I was honestly asking questions to clarify what you meant (because I do not understand it, because this is not my field). I don't think that I was being impolite, but I'm sorry if I came across that way. Please be aware that the term exponential, as it is used in the English-speaking mathematical community, does not apply to the function a = 1 / x. Mgnbar (talk) 21:18, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

---

So, what is the proper term for the rapid increases of acceleration due to "geometrical factors" in "compressive stress" and frictional contact where the relation (acceleration=1/x) increase the acceleration very rapidly when x travels to 0, (or in other words the plastic zone shrinks towards an "unlimited small volume)?? --Haraldwallin (talk) 18:25, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

---

You could say "Acceleration is inversely proportional to x" or "Acceleration varies inversely with x." But my sense is that this terminology is a little old fashioned, because it is unnecessarily vague. If one wants to say that a = 1 / x, to an audience that isn't afraid of math, then one should just say a = 1 / x and be done with it, I think.

I don't have your paper in front of me (I'm traveling), but I don't recall seeing the word exponential in the paper anyway. And it doesn't appear in Stress (mechanics). I think you used that word only here on this talk page. So again it's no big deal. I as just wanted to clarify. Regards, Mgnbar (talk) 22:57, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

---

Hi, Mgnbar. Listen, I think you only try to annoy me.

Your statement quote: “You could say "Acceleration is inversely proportional to x" or "Acceleration varies inversely with x." But my sense is that this terminology is a little old fashioned, because it is unnecessarily vague. If one wants to say that a = 1 / x, to an audience that isn't afraid of math, then one should just say a = 1 / x and be done with it, I think.” end quote, are extremely strange if you have any knowledge of mathematics and are serious.

To explain the connection between an “exponential increase” in acceleration and a “shrinking deformed volume” in "compressive stress" and frictional contact, by the expression (acceleration=1/x) when “limes” x travels to 0, is to me NOT! vague. It’s in fact a very precise mathematical illustration to a complex mechanical event. And your suggestion “inversely proportional” see quotation gives no clear association to what takes place, which is the word “exponential" increase of acceleration with a shrinking deformed volume when the “limes” x travels to 0.

And an increase in acceleration when the deformed volume shrinks is of course important! or do you fail to acknowledge this?

The word “exponential” when describing the relation between acceleration and the shrinking volume is found in the paper as a notation and figure text. But it’s not important because it is analogically given by the boundary conditions such as the nominal penetration velocity and the presented schematic illustrated geometrical constraints. So the nature of the function for acceleration should be perfectly clear with a relative basic knowledge in mathematics and mechanics. --Haraldwallin (talk) 17:10, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

---

I am definitely not trying to annoy you. I am actually trying to help you learn how to edit Wikipedia, just as others helped me when I started. We have gotten sidetracked into a discussion of your thesis.

I agree with you that the statement "acceleration = 1 / x" is clear and precise. Great. I believe you that it is also important; I cannot judge this, because I do not work in this field. The statement "'acceleration = 1 / x' is an exponential relationship" is wrong. But let's not talk about it any more; it has nothing to do with your editing of Wikipedia, which is all that I care about. Mgnbar (talk) 21:56, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

---

Hi talk. Ok, I’m not responsible for your own opinion.

However, I already discussed the absence of edit summaries so please, it is not necessary to mention them again. But I repeat my answer in case you missed it.
I’m not the only one who forgets the edit summaries and if you feel you have a lot of spare time you may discuss this with all the other editors on Wikipedia instead of bothering me whit long recitation that only you might get any satisfaction from.

This is the first time that you have actually addressed the issue of edit summaries. Other editors will ask you to use them, until you do. But as far as our discussion goes, the matter is closed. Thank you.

Regarding eventual citations in the article, as I said. My text only emphasize on the fact and definitions of continuum mechanics and I believe my contribution is still in the wiki article, so just read it.

This is the first time that you have actually addressed the issue of citations. The matter is closed. Thank you.

My report statement is the following: The relationship acceleration = 1 / x makes the “acceleration” increase exponentially when “(limes) x travels to 0”, not the opposite!! If you have trouble reading it’s not my fault.
But I must ask you, why do you even consider presenting me equations of continuum mechanics if you don’t understand the boundaries and nature of it’s origin?
And of course I get annoyed when your tone is not very nice and far from polite and you accused me of starting this conversation when I clearly didn´t.

--Haraldwallin (talk) 23:38, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

I started the discussion of your work, and I was happy to discuss your work until I realized that you were not going to address my concerns about your Wikipedia editing. That's when I became frustrated. I have never criticized the substance of your work. You have expertise in it and I do not, and I have repeatedly said so. I was just trying to help you present your ideas in English.

You have addressed my two concerns, and you have helped me understand your work a little better. So for me this discussion is finally finished. I hope that you enjoy editing Wikipedia. Goodbye, Haraldwallin. Mgnbar (talk) 14:43, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

---

Hi Mgnbar. You still give false statements and I quote:

“:This is the first time that you have actually addressed the issue of edit summaries. Other editors will ask you to use them, until you do. But as far as our discussion goes, the matter is closed. Thank you. This is the first time that you have actually addressed the issue of citations. The matter is closed. Thank you.”, end quote.

My answer.

You have written and expressed your opinion about “edit summaries” and “citations” in both the Wikipedia Stress (mechanics) discussion page and on my own personal discussion page. I have written the same answer on all occasions and I’m sure you have read it. In case you missed it, I repeated them once again as you clearly have seen.

I believe your main concern is not the content of my eventual changes to the wiki article Stress (mechanics), but rather the possibility to make a fuss over a very marginal problem and a common mistake for all editors on Wikipedia.

Why you chose me as your victim for your misdirected concern, I have no idea. But there are possibly some logical explanation.

Regarding my English as you so nobly try to improve, I think it’s pretty obvious the problem was not my writing, it was your ability to read. I wrote that the acceleration may increase exponentially (with x approach 0). NOT!!! an exponential mathematical relation, as you insisted. To mention an “increase in acceleration” rather than to discuss a “relation” makes the outcome and implication to the mechanics much more legible and clear.

The context of my writing was very clear on that point and the implication on stress modeling is huge and most importantly, my changes to the wiki article Stress (mechanics) are still present so someone must have liked them.

And please read what you write, because you were not very polite. --Haraldwallin (talk) 17:33, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

May 2011

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Galling. Users are expected to collaborate with others and avoid editing disruptively.

In particular, the three-revert rule states that:

1. Making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period is almost always grounds for an immediate block.
2. Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you continue to edit war, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Wizard191 (talk) 16:35, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Galling

Hi, I've given a third opinion about the issue of whether to include your thesis as a reference in the Galling article. In my opinion the reference should not be included as unfortunately wikipedia policy does not consider 'lower' level research theses as reliable sources because they are not as thouroughly peer reviewed as doctoral theses and journal articles. You can read more of my reasoning at Talk:Galling, I note as well that another user Diego Moya has also tried to give some reasons as to why the reference may not be appropriate and some constructive comments as to how you could show otherwise.

Whilst WP:Third Opinion is not designed as a tie breaker, it would be great if you could try to participate in the discussion, and perhaps show me why I'm wrong, rather than simply continuing to insist on it's inclusion as you appear to have done here [1].

Regards and happy editing! Bob House 884 (talk) 11:50, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

As a follow-up to this: Harald, I've removed your new request for a third opinion. As far as I can tell, two 3Os have been given on Talk:Galling in the past few days. If you're still unhappy, take it to the next level of dispute resolution. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 14:42, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

Egen forsking på Wikipedia

Hej Harald,

Det har kommit in en förfrågan på svenskspråkiga Wikipedia om att försöka reda ut en situation du är involverad i.

Har du lust att förklara din syn på saken i några tiotal ord? Är du införstådd i att det anses olämpligt att åberopa egen forskning på Wikipedia?

- Tournesol (talk) 17:47, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

---

Hej. Jag hoppas att du är ärlig och representerar det riktiga Wikipedia, när det gäller andra Wiki users så undrar man ibland. Jag förutsätter att du kommer att hålla dig till fakta istället för att slänga fram olika beskyllningar.

Jag har bidragit till flera artiklar med både text och även bilder på Wikipedia, se artiklar som: galling, Wear, Stress (mechanics), Adhesive wear. Efter att jag gjort mina edits har artiklarna blivit mycket bättre. Eftersom jag bidragit med mycket info ville jag precis som alla andra ha referenser till texten. Jag infoga då 2008 min rapport som reference eftersom jag inte viste att det var förbjudet.

1. Wizard 191 tog bort den reference jag satt in och bad mig fråga någon annan om de kunde läsa min rapport och avgöra om den kan vara en reference, vilket jag gjorde.

2. Någon annan läste min rapport och förde in den som reference i galling artikeln.

3. Då blev någon arg och vandaliserade reference hänvisningen till min rapport samt skrivskyddade vandaliseringen.

4. Eftersom mitt arbete kan tagit skada av vandaliseringen ville jag korrigera detta, vilket jag gjorde.

5. Då kom alla de konstiga beskyllningarna från Wizard 191 och Bob house 884.

Wizard 191 har förövrigt kommit med falska påståenden tidigare om att jag på något sätt skulle ha varit en av flera författare till mitt arbete, så som bilder med mera. Om det finna folk som påstår sig gjort mitt arbete skulle jag vilja veta vilka de är. Eftersom jag gjort som man skall borde allt återställas till original skick.

Dessutom kan det inte vara i Wikipedias intresse att dölja korrekt information på grund av antalet citat som en rapport har? Då skulle det vara omöjligt att bidra till vetenskapen för andra än enbart välsituerade personer på stora universitet? Är det verkligen sådan elitism, informationsmonopol och snedvridning av verkligheten som Wikipedia skall stå för? --Haraldwallin (talk) 13:18, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

Tack, jag skall försöka framföra ditt perspektiv till den som bad mig kolla upp situationen. - Tournesol (talk) 16:16, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

Sådär, du finner mitt försök att förklara din ståndpunkt här, jag hoppas att jag tolkat dig rätt. - Tournesol (talk) 18:45, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

What do you mean by "fake"?

Hello Harald,

Would you please explain what, in my attempt to translate your description of your situation, you consider a "fake"?

- Tournesol (talk) 21:32, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

---

Jämför min text med din översättning. Din text innehåller många egna tolkningar och kommentarer vars utgångspunkt är att objektifiera mig som skribent och vars kontext mycket lätt kan tolkas som extremt nedvärderande.

Dessutom, varför talade du inte om att du skulle översätta texten?
Är du verkligen övertygad om att det du gjort var fint och trevligt?

Jag kan tillräckligt mycket engelska för att klara av att skriva själv, eftersom det bevisligen blir mer korrekt och dessutom inte innehåller knepiga kommentarer på det sätt som du bidragit med i din översättning.

Om du inte inser att det du gjort är ett stort fel och att du varit elak mot mig, så är det tragiskt och bevisar min ståndpunkt att majoriteten i denna diskussion saknar egenkännedom och endast letar efter fel hos mig eller i det jag skrivit.

Alla mina argument är sanna, men de ignoreras helt utan kommentar. Istället hänvisas till någon kryptisk formell andledning som inte har stöd i Wikipedias stadgar.

Era åtgärder att ta bort min rapport som referens gör inte artikeln bättre, snarare förhindras den intresserade att ta reda på underliggande fakta.
Varför är det så viktigt att förhindra spridning av denna viktiga information?

Om det är så att någon hackat sig in på mitt konto och ändrat så ni inte kan läsa det jag skrivit, ja då kan jag förstå att den här situationen har uppstått.
Men det är troligen osannolikt och ert handlande är inte drivet av okunskap.

När jag gjorde mitt arbete på universitetet uppkom exakt samma mentalitet och gruppdynamiska självbedrägeri, troligen driven av ett egenintresse i botten, samt känslan av tillfredställelse av att ha makt att bestämma andras framgång eller kunna göra det jobbigt för mig.

Om mina teorier om de bakomliggande orsakerna är sanna, så kommer du att reagera på detta meddelande efter ett förutbestämt mönster i samklang med tidigare reaktioner. --Haraldwallin (talk) 12:21, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

All right, you use several hundred characters in your response, yet you don't answer my question, which was what in my translation attempt (in which I clearly indicated what was your statements and my guesses at what you meant) you considered to be a fake. It's interesting to note, however, that you ended up in a similar situation at your university, and that your conclusion is that it had to be some sort of conspiracy. I realize it was a mistake to believe I could help out here. - Tournesol (talk) 12:16, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

---

Gratis, du bekräftade bara mina farhågor och svarade exakt så som jag trodde du skulle svara. Congratulations, your reply is in alignment with everything I would expect from someone with bad intentions.

I did reply on your question, your translation is false due to incompatibility between what I wrote and what you wrote in English and claim I wrote in Swedish.

Example: Since he had added a lot of information, he wanted to add references and used his report from 2008 (another possible interpretation is that he in 2008 added a reference to his thesis/report)(again, not clear who)(Haraldwallin's choice of word) (unsure whether Haraldwallin refers to the Wikipedia article or to the thesis/report) (but I don't believe this addresses the current case)
More example: Wizard 191 har förövrigt kommit med falska påståenden tidigare om att jag på något sätt skulle ha varit en av flera författare till mitt arbete, så som bilder med mera. Om det finns folk som påstår sig gjort mitt arbete skulle jag vilja veta vilka de är. Eftersom jag gjort som man skall borde allt återställas till original skick.Dessutom kan det inte vara i Wikipedias intresse att dölja korrekt information på grund av antalet citat som en rapport har? Då skulle det vara omöjligt att bidra till vetenskapen för andra än enbart välsituerade personer på stora universitet? Är det verkligen sådan elitism, informationsmonopol och snedvridning av verkligheten som Wikipedia skall stå för Moreover, Wizard 191 has earlier presented false accusations about Haraldwallin being one of several writers behind his work such as images etcetera. If there are other people that claim to have written Haraldwallin's work, he would like to know who they are. Since Haraldwallin has done everything by the book, everything should be restored to the original state. Furthermore it shouldn't be of useful for Wikipedia to hide correct information due to the number of citations in a report/thesis? If so, it would be impossible for anyone except well-off people in major universities to contribute to science. Is this kind of elitism, information monopoly and distortion of reality something that Wikipedia should be part of?

It´s pretty clear your translation is not correct in the scenes of context and of what I meant or intended to write, excluded your own comments.
Your biggest fault is that you didn’t tell me you where going to translate my text!! Why didn’t you tell me in advance?
If you wanted to help me, why did you do this strange translation?

You also produce a very degrading lie, I haven’t wrote anything about, and I quote: “that it had to be some sort of conspiracy”!!!, perhaps you just made a Freudian statement? I might be wrong about that and perhaps you know =)
(Freudian statement = your reflection unmask your inner intentions)

You are Swedish and It’s probable you have some sort of motivation to write the comments in English. But I prefer you would have the guts to answer my points, instead of trying to vessel your way out of your own blunder. --Haraldwallin (talk) 11:13, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

As I stated above, I realize it was a mistake to believe I could help out here. I don't want to put it more bluntly than that. - Tournesol (talk) 14:02, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Please just drop the stick and back away from the horse.

I hope you realise by now that there is an obvious consensus to leave your reference out of the article. If we can just leave it at that, we can all move on happily. You are of course totally free to disagree but you are not going to win this battle unless you provide some cogent reasons for including it. Nobody is questioning your motives or good-faith, or trying to excise you from wikipedia. Nobody will even hold a grudge about this (well you are free to of course). Please just accept the outcome and move on, you're causing yourself and others needless stress. Regards, Bob House 884 (talk) 14:02, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

---

Well, its clear your thoughts about consensus have nothing to do with correct actions or even formal rules or correct argumentations and the possibility to spread free and important information gives you the creeps.

I believe that your society consist of an elite with power to discriminate and maintain monopoly over public information sources such as Wikipedia.

Your nightmare would be the spread of correct information founded on reproducible empirics rather than consensus from a scrambled elitist group of Wikipedia user’s.

--Haraldwallin (talk) 11:35, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

I've tolerated your incessant harrassment, personal attacks and baseless accusations of cabal-ism for long enough. An expectation at wikipedia is that you engage in reasoned, civil discourse with other editors, this is an expectation which also applies to virtually every postgraduate course and academic context that I'm familiar with. You have seriously and repeatedly failed to meet this minimum standard so you won't mind if I (like everyone else so far who has come along to try and HELP YOU [2] [3]) take this oppurtunity to bow out of this whole bizarre situation. Do not contact me again. Thanks, Bob House 884 (talk) 12:53, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

---

You must be joking!! I think everybody who have the energy to read and counter check the conversations between me and your colleges of discreditationists, sincerely agree to my complaints about your incorrect behaviour.
I have tolerated incessant, personal attacks from Wikipedia officials and others, suggesting that I “almost”!!! have done something wrong.
Yours and your colleges lack of response to my well formulated arguments are legio and you only reply with accusations rather than the factual matters.
So please answer these questions and do not start accusing me.
Once again: The overall questions are:

1. Where my pictures taken away from the galling page against my will, due to complaints by anonymous person who falsely claimed owner ship of my pictures ??
2. Is it a fact that Karlstad University finally approved me, (Harald Wallin), as the owner of the pictures currently found in the Wikipedia galling article and also authorized me to give the pictures away to Wikipedia commons, if I wanted to ??
3. Where my university level scientific D-report containing the original pictures describing the context that surrounding them included as a reference by user [[4]] 3 November 2009??
4. According to user [[5]] may my university scientific report be included as a reference to the pictures as well as the written text found in the Wikipedia galling article??
5. Have my work and contributions massively improved the following articles: wear, galling and Stress (mechanics)?

--Haraldwallin (talk) 11:46, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

Harald, how many times do we need to go over old things? I have already proven to you that the "anonymous person" was diva-portal.org - and that you also had already been informed of this by antoher editor. Will you just drop it? The pictures are in the article now, are they not? Do you have an interest in making wikipedia better or are you just going to continue complaining about something that diva-portal.org did several years ago and where noone on wikipedia did anything wrong and thus has nothing to do with? GameOn (talk) 05:48, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

Warning

This is your last warning; the next time you make personal attacks on other people, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Comment on content, not on other contributors or people.

---

Wow……this is actually very interesting.
The might and progeny of the Wikipedia officials and the crowd of willing followers are quite depressing. Do you actually believe I’m going to putt down my effort to explain the truth about continuum mechanics, galling, wear and all other areas in physics who might be affected by the acceleration component in the overall deformation proceedings, just because some crazy crowd of off Wikipedia officials have some believers that may obey their thoughts?

I can assure you, I’m not going to lay down my fight and effort to spread the knowledge about relative acceleration connected to plastic deformation in small deformed volumes found in every article about mechanical deformation.

--Haraldwallin (talk) 00:53, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

Harald, your edit here comes very close to making a block a reality. Please read WP:GF and WP:Etiquette so that can be avoided. GameOn (talk) 15:35, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Disruptive editing

Occasionally one editor becomes involved in conflict with another, and flare ups occur. When the matter becomes entrenched and repeated, action must be taken to avoid disruption. I have no idea what the original dispute was about, and that original dispute does not matter—who was right and who was wrong is simply of no interest to established editors. The situation now is that you have repeatedly ignored the advice of multiple independent editors by posting some tendentious text to make a point regarding another user. That must stop because Wikipedia is not the place to continue battles. If it is repeated, I will seek administrative assistance to have your ability to edit blocked in order to prevent further disruption. Wikipedia is not a forum where disputes are permitted to drag on indefinitely, and editors who fail to learn that are removed. If you have a question regarding Wikipedia's procedures, please reply here. Johnuniq (talk) 22:53, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

Editing old discussions

These edits are really not ok. You didn't do them in 2008, you did them 2011. If you want to add more links on the talk page to your own thesis do so by adding information after the old one. Please don't change what you've earlier written like that. I would also suggest that you use the "Show preview" button instead of saving so many times. And I've moved the new text to after the old one instead, next time I'll probably just revert you. GameOn (talk) 05:42, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

Procedures

Please see User talk:83.227.233.10#Procedures where I have left a message regarding the editing of Talk:Galling. In that message I explain why the edits at that page needed to be reverted.

It appears that you may intend updating certain publication information as necessary. That is not an appropriate procedure for the talk page of an article. A better procedure would be to put the information on a suitable page (for example, your user page, namely User:Haraldwallin, or possibly this talk page if you do not want to create a user page), then update it whenever wanted. Even when editing a user page, it is important to use "Show preview" (the button might be just "Preview") and do not save the edit until satisfied that the text is correct. I mention that because it took 21 edits at Talk:Galling to make a reasonably small change (diff). After updating your user page, you may want to add a brief note at the article talk page: The first note might say something like "For information regarding this topic, see the bibliography at User:Haraldwallin" (with a signature). Subsequent notes would be added underneath (on a new line, type a colon (:) then a new message and a new signature—the colon causes the message to be indented, see WP:TP). For example, a new message might say ":Details updated." (with a signature).

If you would like to discuss this, or have any questions, please reply here (there should be no need to notify me; I will probably notice the comment and may be able to respond). Johnuniq (talk) 07:04, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

---

In case you did not see it, I replied at my talk page on October 17, saying: "I understand that, particularly on the Internet, it is common to encounter contrarians who will object and oppose any venture, no matter how worthwhile. Those same people do operate at Wikipedia, but most of the regulars here are not like that—I explained that the best (and correct) procedure would be to leave any personal notes at your user page, and I am not your opponent, and in fact would be very willing to help with any of Wikipedia's procedures. Please ask if there is a problem."

Please stop changing Talk:Galling other than to add new comments that satisfy WP:TPG. At Wikipedia, there is no attempt to rectify whatever bad things happened at a talk page in the past (apart from removing anything inappropriate)—we have to move on and there have been no new contributions at that talk page since July. I am not your opponent—please just tell me (by replying here) if there is anything that you feel should be done about the article or its talk page. Johnuniq (talk) 02:00, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

I have fixed the problem in the galling discussion page, all the intressting text about galling is back where it bellongs including an Edit summary to the changes.

--Haraldwallin (talk) 13:15, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

I also included my reference in the galling article as Diego Moya so promptly summits "Editing in an area in which you have professional or academic expertise is not, in itself, a conflict of interest. Using material you yourself have written or published is allowed within reason" [6]

--Haraldwallin (talk) 13:19, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Would you please consider contributing to Wikipedia...

... in any other way than adding references to your thesis? One could very easily get the impression that you aren't very interested in improving the encyclopedia at all, just in promoting your own work. The English language edition of Wikipedia has millions of articles that have nothing to do with your thesis, have you considered improving them instead? - Tournesol (talk) 16:12, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Harald, this is getting silly. If you want my questioning your motives for endlessly adding references to your own thesis removed, ask someone else to remove my comment instead of removing it yourself. If you can't find anyone willing to do that, perhaps you shouldn't remove it either? - Tournesol (talk) 16:24, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Sorry my work acknowledge the fact and summons the acceleration vector which “attributes” are 1dim, and the mass as a 3dim function, there are no references in my report who include the same information.

This small change in the handling of entities in Newtons F=ma is my contribution to the world of science.

If you where a bit interested you would also realize the wonderful things this notion will bring.

(But of course it can also release destructive power and deteriorate a lot of egos)--Haraldwallin (talk) 16:32, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

I don't believe you answered my question. Have you only come to Wikipedia (more than two years and five hundred edits ago) to try to promote your own work? - Tournesol (talk) 17:26, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

I think you aren’t a bit interested in improving Wikipedia with facts because if you were interested you would also realize the wonderful things my scientific report points out. Wikipedias rules are the following “it´s ok to use your own work if it´s benefits others.”

You must prove my report and explanation about acceleration in plastic deformation false, then it doesn’t benefit anyone and my report can be deleted as a reference.

Please prove me wrong, I’m interested in you ability to match mathematical models and the reality.

(Note: I started editing and improving articles in 2008, thats five years ago)--Haraldwallin (talk) 17:40, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

November 2011

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to add soapboxing, promotional or advertising material to Wikipedia, as you did at Stress (mechanics), you may be blocked from editing. JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 18:46, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Talk:Galling. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Please be particularly aware, Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states:

1. Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made; that is to say, editors are not automatically "entitled" to three reverts.
2. Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. Johnuniq (talk) 03:16, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

Anyone can edit

Many editors understand that this is the encyclopedia that anyone can edit. Unfortunately, that simple slogan can lead to significant misunderstandings since any edit can also be reverted. That is why there are numerous policies and guidelines concerning what is appropriate, as has been explained at various talk pages where you are active. One of the most important rules at Wikipedia is that edit warring is prohibited since it is obviously unproductive for editors to indefinitely revert each other. The purpose of Talk:Galling is to provide a space for editors to discuss improvements to the article—it is not a permanent record of discussions which a particular editor finds useful, and it is not a place where links to a thesis are recorded. If you have a reason for repeating your edits at that talk page, or at Galling or Stress (mechanics) or Wear, please discuss that reason with other editors. However, simply repeating opinions that are not based on policy is not helpful—indeed, it is disruptive as it diverts the attention of other editors from their work. An editor who repeatedly misunderstands anyone can edit to mean that they can edit war indefinitely will be blocked for escalating periods. Johnuniq (talk) 03:16, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

Listen Johnuniq, try to understand.

The question is if it´s ok to use your own scientific work in Wikipeida.

The answer is Yes!

For example, It will be impossible to incorporate pictures in Wikipedia if you can’t give away your own pictures and include your own work as a reference to the same pictures.

Wikipedia encyclopedia newer hide facts and links to references of that same correct information.

If Johnuniq want to improve the articles and for some reason dosen´t want my report as a reference, Johnuniq must prove it wrong. :Then Johnuniq must delete all the information, pictures and theories which I have contributed to in the galling, wear and Stress (mechanics) articles, because they are closely linkt to my research.

Do I promote my self, or do I promote a theory?? It´s clear I promote the theory not my work. But do you really think any researcher can write an scientific article which isn’t based on his or her own knowledge including research? --Haraldwallin (talk) 11:28, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

Hi, Haraldwallin. Wikipedia is constructed by consensus, and right now the consensus, be it right or wrong, is clearly against including your thesis work in the stress/mechanics articles. I have a suggestion that may help you build consensus in your favor: Using the literature databases in your field, find all published works that reference your work. Such a list would give other editors a better idea of the impact of your ideas on the field. Regards, Mgnbar (talk) 13:36, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

Hi Mgnbar, Wikipedia have never been about consensus. Wikipedia is about making new correct and useful information public for a brooder amount of people quicker and within a shorter time interval than ordinary dictionaries.

This means researchers with a specific knowledge may help other people get access to it and speedup the expansion of the world mainstream knowledge. I think you agree It´s a god deed to share information even if this knowledge is regarded new for the ordinary layman and in the forefront of science.

Wikipedia has never been about satisfying some perverse peoples needs to act as deputies for bureaucratic hegemonies.

For example, It will be impossible to incorporate pictures in Wikipedia if you can’t give away your own pictures and include your own work as a reference to the same pictures.

And do you Mgnbar really think any researcher can write an scientific article which isn’t based on his or her own knowledge including research?--Haraldwallin (talk) 13:41, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

You clearly need to read Wikipedia:Consensus, which summarises itself thus:

Consensus trumps everything on Wikipedia except occasional legal concerns. Consensus takes many forms, including global policies arrived at by consensus but also discussions about individual articles and individual edits such as your own, and is the fundamental way that decisions are made on Wikipedia.--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 13:55, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

You clearly doesn’t understand that Conesus means that every editor must agree.

(It´s fair to ask the question if you are a bit illiterate? or isn´t English your born language)

Clearly I don’t agree with you.

Wikipedia is primarily about making new correct and useful information public for a brooder amount of people quicker than ordinary dictionaries.

Do you agree we have "Conesus" on the above--Haraldwallin (talk) 14:07, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

Hi again, Haraldwallin. The Wikipedia:Consensus page explicitly and repeatedly says that consensus does not require unanimity. So no, it is not true that every editor must agree.

You are not alone in disliking how Wikipedia works. Have you looked at Citizendium? It's similar to Wikipedia, but it gives more weight to subject-matter experts such as yourself. You might prefer its organizational principles over Wikipedia's. Again, I'm just trying to help. Best regards. Mgnbar (talk) 14:17, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

Hi Mgnbar consensus means that every body must agree.

I don’t think Wikipedia have redefined the word "consensus", even if they try to redefine the word “consensus” it doesn’t matter because the question is whether you people are doing something terribly wrong and stupid?
Or if my work, pictures, theories, references, text and contributions to Wikipedia are wrong.

Clearly vast amounts of my contributions are still present in Wikipedia articles such as pictures, text and theories. Everything I have put in are still there except the one reference to all the pictures, theories and text!!

The question is if it’s ok to use your own scientific work in Wikipeida.

The answer is Yes!

For example, It will be impossible to incorporate pictures in Wikipedia if you can’t give away your own pictures and include your own work as a reference to the same pictures.

But do anybody really think any researcher can write an scientific article which isn’t based on his or her own knowledge including research?

And, according to Wikipedia rules, if someone want to improve the articles and for some reason doesn’t want my report as a reference, they must prove it wrong by discussions on the talk page.

If the reference is found to be wrong. Then all the information, pictures and theories which I have contributed to in the Wikipedia articles galling, wear and Stress(mechanics) must be deleted. Because my contributions are closely linkt to my research.

God luck with deleting all my contributions =) I think you have several hours of work in front of you and still you will do a terrible stupid mistake.

--Haraldwallin (talk) 14:35, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

It has been explained that participation at Wikipedia requires collaboration, and a willingness to listen to others and to learn standard operating procedures. Repetition will not win.

Consensus is not what you say: consensus does not require unanimity—see one of the many links given earlier, or consult a standard dictionary.

An article talk page (Talk:Galling) is not available for expressing grievances, or for providing a permanent record of a document. I have explained that it would be fine to put a limited amount of information on your user page (click the red link: User:Haraldwallin), and a link to that user page could be included in a very brief note at the article talk page (I could add such a note). However, an article talk page is not a place to express personal views which are unrelated to proposed improvements to the article, and is not a permanent record of anything.

If you have a proposal for editing an article, or a question about procedures, please state your case in one location (here would be fine). Related discussions should not be conducted at multiple locations. Johnuniq (talk) 09:35, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

We obviously don’t have consensus because I and Diego Moya and many other Wikipedia participant acknowledge the fact that incorporated scientific pictures clearly must be of your own scientific work and also include a link to the pictures “peer viewed” and published scientific source. Or else it will be almost impossible to incorporate any type of pictures to the Wikipedia articles.

You and your associates, for some strange reason, wants information and knowledge about the source of the pictures and text found in the galling article, to be kept hidden and not easy accessible against the paragraphs in the Wikipedia manual against censure ship.

Unfortunately I don’t have the knowledge to make you and your associated blocked from Wikipedia due to acts of censure ship.

--Haraldwallin (talk) 15:18, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

Edit warring notification

Your edits have been raised here:

Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Edit_warring#User:Haraldwallin_reported_by_User:JohnBlackburne_.28Result:_.29

--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 14:13, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

student thesis...

Just so you know student thesis are not a reliable source here on Wikipedia and is most likely the reason they were removed WP:SELFPUBLISH- Moxy (talk) 15:10, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

It´s a scientific report and it´s peer viewed for 12 months and the work is used in a dr Anders Gåård Drs examination and scientific articles

--Haraldwallin (talk) 15:19, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

I agree with you - I was just pointing out why it keeps getting removed - for some odd reason noone is telling you why its being reverted- could also be because of a Wikipedia:Conflict of interest that people think may be involved. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Moxy (talk • contribs) 15:22, 6 November 2011

Well it´s not a conflict of interest according to User:Diego_Moya [7], because my scientific report, pictures and graphs are used and cited by Dr Anders Gåård at Karlstaduniversity in scientific articles and in his Dr examination.

--Haraldwallin (talk) 16:20, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

The MA thesis in generally gets little scrutiny--certainly far less than the PhD dissertation. They are rarely cited in scholarly books or articles. Furthermore they are very hard to obtain and thus of minimal value to Wiki users. Thesis supervisors recommend that good ones be submitted as articles, which are then scrutinized by a scholarly journal. Bottom line: Wiki should rarely cite MA theses, in my opinion, and we should let the WP:RS rule stand until its in a "scholarly journal"."quote Rjensen"Moxy (talk) 16:29, 8 November 2011 (UTC

Please don´t delete my messages on my own talk page, this is a warning User talk:Moxy you may be blocked.

Yes it´s very hard to obtain a Master degree in Sweden, 5 years of study in the university and the scientific report was peer viewed by Anders Gaard and Professor Jens Bergstrom, amongst others, during a period of about 12 months at Karlstad university and my report is also cited. The empiric scientific founding’s, pictures and my interpretations of the friction mechanisms are still found in the Wikipedia articles, so why are my reference for some reason not valid for User:Tournesol, User:Johnuniq, User:JohnBlackburne and User:GameOn? please ask them.

You may also phone and ask anybody at Karlstaduniversity yourself, you know the number because you just deleted the number?? may I ask why you deleted it??--Haraldwallin (talk) 17:00, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

For your own security, please do not provide your email address or other contact details. Moxy (talk) 15:01, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

We don't phone universities up and ask them about their students. We expect people to use published sources. If this research has been published somewhere, cite the published version. Elen of the Roads (talk) 17:20, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

Ok, here it is, peer viewed for 12 months and published at Academic archive On-line (DiVA),

on a permanent URI: urn:nbn:se:kau:diva-2790

• Wallin H. 2008, 129 p: An investigation of friction graphs ranking ability regarding the galling phenomenon in dry SOFS contact : (Adhesive material transfer and friction), A free pdf document available here or www.diva-portal.org found here or at www.uppsok.libris.kb.se here use search words:"galling & Harald Wallin" or the direct libris link here

--Haraldwallin (talk) 17:19, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

---

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 1 week for Edit warring and breach of WP:3RR, attacking other editors, and generally suffering from WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT, as you did at Galling. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the text {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. Elen of the Roads (talk) 16:43, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

While blocked, I suggest you take the opportunity to read a number of wikipedia policies and guidelines. WP:3RR - our policy on edit warring, WP:RS - our guideline on what constitutes a reliable source, WP:NPA - our policy on how to interact with other editors, and WP:CONSENSUS, our guideline on how to reach agreement on article edits. Elen of the Roads (talk) 16:47, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

Reviewing the Conflict of Interest

Harald, you may want to post your case to Wikiproject Science to ask for advice on how to deal with your content used without a source. Ask for people in that project with more experience on how this can be done properly. Diego (talk) 09:59, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

I don't think there's a conflict of interest problem - a researcher can cite his own published research, it's just polite to say that it's him. Harald has been quite clear that it's him - the problem is the 'published' thing. Uppsala university seems to publish all its student theses (we don't know even if it's just all the ones that passed....). I know someone who might be able to help though - he's not an engineer, but he does know the Swedish university system. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 21:15, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

[8] Kiefer.Wolfowitz is an academic at a Swedish University, and may be familiar with those two sources and hence able to clarify the published and peer reviewed status of the thesis. Elen of the Roads (talk) 21:40, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

Harald, why don't you just drop this? How many years are you going to debate including your reference in wikipedia? Your claims that all text that you've added must be removed if your reference isn't included makes it look, to me, that you have only been editing for one reason - to add your own reference. Why isn't it possible for you to add some other reference to the article about galling than your own thesis? Has noone in the whole world written about galling? Of course others have, you even list some of them (including another article on wikipedia) in your thesis. Can't you just try and edit some articles that doesn't have anything to do with your thesis? GameOn (talk) 14:01, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

Talk:Galling has been archived to remove old recriminations and personal mission statements. I repeat what I have mentioned before (search for "click the red link: User:Haraldwallin" above) that a limited amount of material is welcome on a user page: there should be no reference to other editors or general recriminations, just positive statements about the editor's interests, with links to relevant documents. However, generic statements are not suitable at the talk page of an article. Johnuniq (talk) 00:59, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

Purpose of Wikipedia

I read the comment above with timestamp 15:18, 6 January 2012 UTC. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia where people make contributions which other people change. Every edit box is followed by the text "If you do not want your writing to be edited, used, and redistributed at will, then do not submit it here.". If there is a problem, please explain it here without raising other issues (such as censorship). Why not take my earlier suggestion of putting some information about your work (not about other editors) on your user page? By the way, you have repeatedly said "Consensus means that every body must agree", but that is not correct—as mentioned before, please consult a dictionary because consensus does not imply unanimity. At any rate, such commentary must not be placed on the talk page of an article. Johnuniq (talk) 00:07, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

Your thesis

Well, I got my answer [9]. In Wikipedia terms, having your thesis marked does not constitute peer review, and having it placed in a database like this does not constitute publication in a peer reviewed journal. So until your material is published in a peer reviewed journal, I would not think it was appropriate to use in the article. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 01:09, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

Answer: A database like, https://libris.kb.se/, doesn’t publish non peer reviewed scientific material.

KB in, https://libris.kb.se/, stand for the "Royal Library of Stockholm" for god sake

Time to make up your mind

Harald, I believe you have come to a crossroads in your participation in the Wikipedia project.

Either you decide that you want to participate in building the world's greatest encyclopedia ever, and in order to be able to do so, you accept to drop the subjects of galling/stress/wear/etc and start focusing on other subjects. Perhaps not indefinitely, but for a considerable amount of time, during which you show that you're willing to contribute substantially to other articles. Or you decide that come hell or high water, you will have things your way with your thesis.

Please give this some thought, then tell us what your decision is. I hope you're willing to follow the first path I describe, but if not (or if you claim to be willing to but keep acting the way you have) I believe it would be best for everybody if your account were blocked indefinitely.

This has nothing to do with censorship, but currently you're not only wasting your own time but also that of volunteers who could spend their time doing something more useful.

- Tournesol (talk) 13:10, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

Well, I guess you should thank me for writing much of the galling article and also for giving my pictures to the Wikipedia commons, introducing them into the galling article and including the references to the pictures and info that I wrote that can be found on a database like, https://libris.kb.se/, that doesn’t publish non peer reviewed scientific material.

KB in, https://libris.kb.se/, stand for the "Royal Library of Stockholm" for god sake

You don't answer my question. Are you willing to drop the subjects of galling/stress/wear/etc and start focusing on other subjects in order to show that you're willing to contribute substantially to other articles? Please answer yes or no. - Tournesol (talk) 16:34, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:56, 24 November 2015 (UTC)