User talk:Jack Trumpet

File copyright problem with File:ASTM C1028 equipment.jpg

Thank you for uploading File:ASTM C1028 equipment.jpg. However, it currently is missing information on its copyright and licensing status. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously. It may be deleted soon, unless we can verify that it has an acceptable license status and a verifiable source. Please add this information by editing the image description page. You may refer to the image use policy to learn what files you can or cannot upload on Wikipedia. The page on copyright tags may help you to find the correct tag to use for your file. If the file is already gone, you can still make a request for undeletion and ask for a chance to fix the problem.

Please also check any other files you may have uploaded to make sure they are correctly tagged. Here is a list of your uploads.

If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thanks again for your cooperation. Eeekster (talk) 01:27, 31 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ebonelm response.

Hi Jack I have provided you with a response on my talk page. I hope that it helps. Best wishes. Ebonelm (talk) 20:11, 3 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of File:BOT-3000 tribometer.jpg

The file File:BOT-3000 tribometer.jpg has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

unused, low-res, no obvious use

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated files}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the file's talk page.

Please consider addressing the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated files}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and files for discussion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion.

This bot DID NOT nominate any file(s) for deletion; please refer to the page history of each individual file for details. Thanks, FastilyBot (talk) 01:02, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sure. Whatever.

June 2024

Please do not add inappropriate external links to Wikipedia, as you did to Road slipperiness. Wikipedia is not a collection of links, nor should it be used for advertising or promotion. Inappropriate links include, but are not limited to, links to personal websites, links to websites with which you are affiliated (whether as a link in article text, or a citation in an article), and links that attract visitors to a website or promote a product. See the external links guideline and spam guideline for further explanations. Because Wikipedia uses the nofollow attribute value, its external links are disregarded by most search engines. If you feel the link should be added to the page, please discuss it on the associated talk page rather than re-adding it. [1] MrOllie (talk) 20:47, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

MrOllie, I have been doing road and floor slip resistance testing for many, many years for CALTRANS, the City of Phoenix, The Massachusetts Transit Authority, The New York Transit Authority, Apple, Disney, Ford, Porsche, General Motors, Continental Tires, and abut two thousand other government agencies and international companies. I've worked for the government of Singapore many times, and done testing from Mexico to Canada to Guam to New York to Florida. I'm an expert in this field and I do nothing else but test slip/skid resistance for a quarter century now. The information I post on Wiki is meant to be informative for people looking for answers on the web. Some of these topics, like floor slip resistance testing and road slip resistance testing, has either very little published information on them (like road testing with ASTM E303-22, which I personally updated through the ASTM E17 committee myself in 2022), and floor slip testing (which is plagued by bogus tests created in Americas to help sell slippery tile and win slip and fall lawsuits using unproven test methods with withdrawn standards. What I publish here are provable facts and I give all necessary documentation. I will continue to get good information published here, but I will be more careful to link to more "neutral" sources of thew information. But as one of the world's top experts in this field who is in regular contact with leaders in this industry around the world, I know what I'm talking about and some of the best information is on blog posts, which are not necessarily "advertisements". The days of publishing books and magazine articles are just about over. Wikipedia authors need to understand the importance of blogs and websites as the latest source of good information. Jack Trumpet (talk) 21:55, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You may well be an expert on floor slip resistance testing, but you are not an expert on writing encyclopedia articles - which must be free of editorializing and original research, and must comply with the required sourcing standards. You cannot simply add your personal opinions or what you know to be true to the encyclopedia. In fact you do not remotely 'give all necessary documentation'. We cannot use vendor advertisements or personal knowledge as sources here. Using 'blogs and websites' is specifically forbidden by Wikipedia's sourcing requirements. If you'd like to try to get those standards changed you can argue for that at Wikipedia talk:Reliable sources, but you cannot simply ignore them as you have been. MrOllie (talk) 22:07, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This is really important - edit warring (that is making the same change over and over) is not a substitute for making an effort to comply with Wikipedia's core policies. MrOllie (talk) 22:12, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Jack TrumpetMrOllie you’re erasing entire sections discussing withdrawn standards. These standards are withdrawn. You can’t simply erase the facts because ASTM publishes them on a website. 68.101.101.170 (talk) 22:12, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

In fact I can and will erase editorializing and unsourced or unreliably sourced content. MrOllie (talk) 22:16, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

So are you saying ASTM C1028 was withdrawn 10 years ago? You've erased that fact. Why would you do that? Jack Trumpet (talk) 22:18, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The section was full of editorializing and noncompliant sourcing - it was unsalvageable as written. MrOllie (talk) 22:20, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

ASTM C1028 was withdrawn because using it was getting people hurt needlessly. ASTM F1677 and F1679 were rejected by OSHA and the ASTM. These are facts. I will do my best to point these facts out without referring to websites, but ASTM is a website. Shall I refer to some book of ASTM standards instead? Why hide the fact that some standards are withdrawn and why? To help people get killed in slip and fall accidents? Jack Trumpet (talk) 22:21, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia has basic sourcing requirements, you've got to meet them if you want to add material. Citing the standard and giving your opinion of it will not work either - if you want to include this, you must find a secondary source that meets Wikipedia's requirements that makes the point directly and cite that. Not part of the point. Not something you can extrapolate from - direct support. This is the requirement of WP:NOR and WP:V, two of Wikipedia's core content policies. MrOllie (talk) 22:27, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I’m trying to make the world a safer place and keep people you love out of hospital beds with my 25 years of experience in this field. I’m making the world a better place. I’ll try to not editorialize in the future. But you might try considering that entire sections of the article didn’t need to be erased. You are being highly overdramatic when you say that absolutely nothing could be salvaged from entire sections that have been up for years. Try considering making changes where editorializations have been made instead of erasing entire sections of someone’s vast knowledge on this subject. You are going to get people killed by erasing good information. Jack Trumpet (talk) 22:43, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have added a published book that cites what I am saying about certain withdrawn standards. I will add more when I have time. If someone writes a book, then that makes it true? If it’s published on a website, then that makes it not true? Is that the world we live in now? I will do my best to cite books and not websites in the future, but please stop being overly dramatic and erasing entire sections of people’s expert facts and hard work when clearly you could’ve done a better job of eliminating certain sentences while keeping the stuff that was properly cited and was facts and not editorializatinns

. The number one reason people go to emergency rooms is for falls. The number one reasn, slippery floors are installe(dn America, not around the world) i in inappropriate placesn America i is because they with relied on withdrawAmerican n standards to assess thslip e resistance of flooring before they put it in place. Please do not contribute to people getting killed because you wanna have an argument with me. Make changes that are helpful instead of being argumentatie , overly dramatic, and bullying. You are being a bul, not helping anyone. And you’re not “fixing” Wikipedia by erasing entire sections of provable facts from it. . Jack Trumpet (talk) 22:49, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If someone writes a book and gets it properly published through a reputable publishers that is presumed reliable on Wikipedia. That is not 'the world we live in now', it is how Wikipedia has worked for a long time. The fact that content that did not meet Wikipedia's basic requirements persisted for a while (even for years) does not mean that error cannot ever be fixed. Please stop personalizing this - someone was bound to notice the problems sooner or later, and if I had not made these cuts today someone else would have sooner or later. MrOllie (talk) 22:52, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm happy you're making the world a better place, but Wikipedia is not a venue for that (see WP:NOTSOAPBOX and WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS.) We're just here to make an encyclopedia, not to solve all the world's problems. You should keep that sort of thing on your own website. I did consider making changes, but after consideration deletion was the best option available, given that the required sourcing to base changes on was not present. MrOllie (talk) 22:49, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You’re clearly someone who has too much time on his hands and doesn’t want to help, but rather erase facts. Facts are facts. I will cite them using books and you can continue to erase all the facts until I have you removed from Wikipedia for bullying and erasing people’s work because you’re angry. Jack Trumpet (talk) 22:53, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of facts. We keep what meets the site's standards and cut the rest. MrOllie (talk) 22:54, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Jesus, dude. I’m going to go outside. Enjoy your cyber bullying session today. Jack Trumpet (talk) 22:55, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I am enjoying today's session of bringing Wikipedia content in line with required policies, thank you. If you can have me 'removed from Wikipedia for bullying' you should go ahead and do that now - making empty threats will not cause me to abandon Wikipedia's content policies. MrOllie (talk) 22:57, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]