Wbfl

your comments are not welcome.

Road

Regarding your recent edition of Road. Unfortunately the change you made rquires discussion, since it's a fairly large change to a long-standing part of the text. You may believe it's false, I'm not arguing about that one way or another, although it seems to me that what is written there is probably true or partially true. I also don't agree that the statement as written is violating NPOV in any serious manner - it only seems to be violating your own personal beliefs, which is something else altogether. The right way to go about this is to make a note on the talk page of the article that you think the statement is false, and invite comments so that others can defend the assertion or else come up with an improved one. Simply removing the text isn't going to work, because obviously others feel that the statement has merit. By all means argue your case on the talk page - but don't keep reverting, because this in itself is unhelpful, and would shortly put you in breach of other wikipedia policies (three revert rule and all that). I will revert for now and start a section on talk, so please feel free to make your point there. Thankyou. Graham 06:31, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

The same applies to Pavement (material) too, which I also reverted. By the way as you feel so strongly about this perhaps you can support your view with a reliable source too? Graham 06:45, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

==

May I remind you of WP:NPA. Calling me a 'rude user' for deleting the rude comment at the top of this page is against this policy. Also, your reversions of the articles I mention above without entering into a resonable discussion as proposed is another violation. Finally, comments here may not be welcome but that is not up to you - by becoming a wikipedian your talk page is necessairily open to all, otherwise how are you to participate in any discourse? I find your attitude puzzling at best, and not really in the spirit of Wkipedia. Continual reversion without entering into dialogue is also rude, so definitely a case of the pot calling. Please desist or follow the proper procedure, otherwise your limited credit with others here will evaporate very rapidly and you'll simply be ignored and blocked. Then your changes won't have a cat's chance in hell so why bother taking this approach? I'm also puzzled by the comment about being a "legal" sockpuppet on your user page - I don't believe there is any such thing, and if you are a sockpuppet then you'll be treated accordingly. Since you have called attention to yourself by your actions, don't be surprised when there are consequences. Graham 08:39, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

thanks for the lecture. maybe if you follow the link to sockpuppet you'll read about how sockpuppets not used to stuff ballot boxes, fake consensus, etc. are accepted at wikipedia. and if you believe that i'm a sockpuppet, you might understand that your condescending tone (which apparently pretends for effect that i reverted your comments) toward a long-time wikipedia user is ridiculous. calling my comment rude is bording on personal attack, and i'm highly offended by your rude comment, NPA-P. if you continue in that manner i must report you to jimbo-bobboy. don't want to, but it's up to you. please be civil. assume good faith. Wbfl 08:52, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

Huh? I know what a sockpuppet is. What is a 'legal' one? Anyway, it's irrelevant. I have offered a civil and reasonable chance to discuss changes to the Road and Pavement articles, so that we can figure out the best way to fix these to everyone's satisfation. You refusal to enter into that is puzzling. I do not have any axe to grind, the points you raise may have merit, or they may not, I don't know. I only say that the way you are going about it is wrong, and unlikely to succeed. The onus of proof is equally on you as it is on the person making those claims (who is unfortunately anon, so calling him in to defend himself is probably not going to happen, though I have tried). The text has stood there for some time, and it sounds reasonable. It is not POV, in particular. From personal experience it is obvious that trucks cause the greatest amount of damage to roads - drive on any motorway in the UK and you'll be following deep 'tramlines' in the left lane left by trucks. The track width of these is too wide to be due to cars or other vehicles, so the assertion is at least true as far as everyday observation is concerned. I agree it could do with a source, but if you are saying that trucks do not damage roads, then that assertion also needs a reliable source. In the case of an argument like this, the existing text should remain until it is resolved - it is NOT up to others to prove it is right - otherwise Wikipedia would not have got anywhere. Graham 09:02, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

please stop assuming "POV" that isn't there. if you pay attention, you'll notice that i altered one article to state that trucks cause significant damage. i put that there. and now you're writing here, "if you are saying that trucks do not damage roads"? i said in the edit summary that you should add something factual and NPOV (including attributed POV, if that's what you want). i can blast what's there about 20 ways from sunday. why are you going to insist that i go through that pointless exercise. the claims as they were in the article are imprecise, arbitrary baloney. if that comes from some "official" source, then it should be stated as such. stop treating me like some ignorant newbie and inventing rules about "large sections of text" or whatever you said. please. large sections of text are routinely removed without discussion. further, you keep putting back in irrelevant POV tax claims. why? if it's so important, edit it. i'm axing baloney. you have to at least admit that the tax claim has to go. c'mon. Wbfl 09:09, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

The edit summary is NOT a discussion, it is unhelpful to treat it as one. The proper place to discuss this is at Talk:Road - you'll see I have made a start there. The point is, one person says one thing, you are saying it's not true. It's just one person's word against another's, and since the text has stood for months, obviously no-one else felt there was much wrong with it until now. What makes me think you have a POV is the way you have worded your edit comments, which is hardly in neutral, dispassionate language. Clearly these assertions have upset you, for some reason. It seems to me the damage claims are at least reasonable (I will have a look at the tax thing, specifically, which I didn't see before), and so should be able to be defended. If these claims are not reasonable then we can work out how to change the text accordingly, but wholesale deletion seems unwarranted. The way to proceed is to negotiate a text we can agree on - I do NOT agree with its wholesale deletion, hence my reversion. But edit wars are pointless too, so please discuss this. Graham 09:18, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

i discussed it here. you've said nothing about the tax issue -- essentially the only whole subject matter i deleted on that one page. why? on the other edit (4th power), just use your head. reductio ad absurdum. do you also not find it curious that the issue of single-tires v. double-tires isn't mentioned? any claim of a direct exponential relationship between single-tired vehicles and duel-tired, wide-footprint "trucks" is ridiculous. the contributors of the 4th-power woozle and the 10,000x woozette are both attempting to use huge numbers for effect rather than truth -- hence the totally out of place POV tax nibble by somebody pushing an agenda. that it stood so long is criticism of the editors who saw it (rather than the implied validity you assume). if 4th-power/10,000x arguments are to be used w/o clear attribution, they must include much more caveat material. it's a dangerously difficult stat. throwing in taxes takes it into the stratosphere of BS. "Heavily loaded trucks can do more than 10,000 times the damage done by a normal passenger car." so it's more than 10,000, is it? well then why not 12,500? why not, as i can find sources for, far more than that (e.g., canadian trucks)? it's the stat equivalent of weasel words, and it's no testament to wikipedia that it stayed there as long as it did. the 4th-power example was even worse. it's slop, and you're defending it, as though its temporary removal (pending correction) is a tragedy. absurd. Wbfl 03:00, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

Well, as far as I can see the statement more or less says, "trucks are taxed higher than cars". I don't think that's in dispute, trucks are taxed higher than cars in all countries I know about (UK, Australia, most of Europe). It then goes on to suggest this higher taxation doesn't compensate for the damage trucks do. Assuming the statement about damage is true, then this statement seems reasonable to me. So it comes back, in either case, to a) whether trucks do more damage and b) how much more. The answer to a) would seem to be: almost certainly, which leaves us only with answering b. One says damage is exponentially greater, the other says 4th power. These could amount to the same thing, depending on what the figures actually are. Again, it doesn't sound unreasonable (though I note what you say about axle configuration, etc. what it ought to do is relate it to number of tyre contacts rather than axles). That is what we need a source for, and yes, I agree a source for these figures would lend it great credibility that is lacking at present. However the gist of the argument seems reasonable to me, which is why wholesale deletion isn't appropriate - some clean-up and amendment, yes. Anecdotal evidence for the damage trucks do is easy to come by - I've seen it with my own eyes, a cement truck mounted the pavement (sidewalk in American parlance) just here the other day and the whole thing just broke up. You don't see that happen with a car. If anything the car would come off worse by having its tyres wrecked. So what's needed is some source for this 4th power, if it is true. That shouldn't be too hard to come by. And if that turns out to be true, then the "absurd math" that you railed against is in fact perfectly fine, and the statements that follow about taxation are also fine. The so-called 'huge numbers' are not for effect, but in fact follow because that's what happens when exponentials are present. It doesn't help your cause to tilt at windmills - you could easily have simply pointed out what you think is an absurd statement in the talk page, then wait for input. To you it may seem like a 'pointless exercise' but that's the way to build consensus and get the best outcome. Corrections don't have to be instant. In the end it will all arrive at the same place, but a lot less argy-bargy and stress will have been caused. Now, sources. So far the best I have found is a reference which I quote:

The American Association of Highway Transportation Officials (AASHTO) determined in its 1950’s Road Test that pavement damage increases exponentially with the weight of a truck. For example, one 80,000-pound five-axle truck does the same road damage as 9,600 cars. A seven-axle triple does as much damage as more than 27,000 cars. In a number of states, five-axle trucks operate well above 80,000 pounds. A number of states allow five-axle trucks to operate above 80,000 pounds on the Interstate highways under claims of grandfather rights. [1].

That's a pretty strong lead - the AASHTO has a website here: [2]. I haven't managed to track down a more direct source there just yet, but I will keep trying. The claim is also repeated by a spokesman for Transport 2000, which should show up if googled. Seems that there is something valid to this, but if you are still unhappy or unconvinced, all the article need say is that "According to a 1950s study by..." etc. If you still don't accept it, then you'll have to come up with a better source of your own that supports your viewpoint. You asked for sources, I have found one, or at least a good lead for one. Over to you. Graham 04:27, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

Follow up - google for "AASHTO Road Test", there are lots of references. Seems most of these figures are derived from this original experimental research. There is even a slideshow with maps and photographs showing the tests being done. Graham 04:36, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

you are entirely missing the point with regard to taxes and the damage math. it is absurd math. doesn't matter what some "study" (interested, BTW) says about it. it's terrible to make that claim as it's made. if you want to put it in there with correct attribution, i hope you understand (since i've suggested it about 5 times) that i support that approach. it's still wrong, but at least it's something wrong pinned to a source, not the wikipedia voice. better yet, put in the exact quote with correct attribution. re the taxes, it's not appropriate for insertion in an article about pavement. period. put it in a tax article, or a politics article, or a socialism article -- not the pavement article.

that example of the 2,000 lb axle is so stupid i'm baffled that somebody is supporting it. pisses me off that you're attempting to make me smoke that argument with a complete rebuttal. stop wasting time. put the claims you support in the article with correct attribution, leave the tax nonsense out entirely, and come up with a sourced, semi-workable example for the 4th-power crowd. wouldn't that be easier than arguing with me? you want it, you put it in. i got rid of unencyclopedic garbage. i'm not here to represent the trucking industry. Wbfl 04:46, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

In what way is the math absurd? You keep saying that, perhaps you ought to explain what you mean. IANAM but it looks alright to me - a typical car does have about 1/2 ton per axle, if a truck does have 2 tons per axle then 256 times the damage is the result... if anything 2 tons per axle is conservative - that's quite a light truck. A 38-tonner with 6 axles would have more than 6 tons per axle, which would be 12^4 = 20,736 times the damage done by the car. Would you prefer that higher figure? It certainly helps the tax argument look valid, whether or not it's appropriate to mention it. (Personally I feel it is, since 'Road Tax' in the UK at least is meant to be levied for the purpose of maintaining the roads. It isn't of course). Graham 05:07, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

i give up. you are, as they say in your country, a nutter. the recent edit still sucks. Wbfl 05:31, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

So, it's back to throwing insults? If you'd take the trouble to explain what the problem is, I might be able to see it your way. Graham 05:32, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia's ethics towards you

Wikipedia has no policies, applied consistently. All the admins on en-l openly admit counting any shred of persanal fairness as mattering less than developing Wikipedia as they wish. Blocking of only 1 side when 2 sides have done exactly the same thing that the block is supposed to have been for, is routine. It's what happened to me too, and claiming to have any rights against a biased 2-day block actually was the offence that got me permablocked, after only 5 weeks' membership. Look at all these: a voice from within Wikipedia's own system describes how the ArbCom and dispute resolution systems are rigged with discretionary catch-alls that always enable admin to win http://mail.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/2005-June/024230.html on how force of group numbers dictates Wikipedia pages's content http://mail.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/2005-July/025936.html this is actually called "don't bother reporting abusive admins" http://mail.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/2005-July/025921.html I was wary of how the umpiring of pages the whole world can fight over could possibly work well, but I was drawn into Wikipedia by a friend who was briefly (and no longer is, already!) having good experiences with sharing his medical concerns on a couple of pages on medical subjects. Here are 2 administrators saying to me http://mail.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/2005-August/027816.html http://mail.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/2005-August/027817.html saying "You are not entitled to anything" and "Wikipedia is not a democracy." On the nature of Wikipedia: http://mail.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/2005-July/025583.html http://www.indymedia.org.uk/en/2005/08/322087.html http://spectrum-fairness.blog.co.uk/ tag "Wikipedia" messages of support: "some of the people on there do seem pretty sarcastic and bullying .... some of the right-wingers on there seem to think mentioning anything negative but factual about Reagan or Bush constitutes bias and there do seem to be some nasty characters on there." - from Aspievision, http://s13.invisionfree.com/aspievision/index.php "You are not the only one who has had problems with Wikipedia taking sides in a dispute, and being blatantly unfair to the other side without even giving them a chance to defend themselves." from FAMSecretSociety, a Yahoo group " of late I've noticed that some independent contributions have been either radically edited or censored. I've not had time to check articles on 9/11, the London Bombings, the assault on Falluja etc, but judging from the way content was edited promptly out of articles on SSRIs, schizophrenia and Asperger's, there definitely seem to be operatives in place ready to clamp down on anything that may cast doubt on establishment canards." from Medialens, http://www.medialens.org/board/

Sifl

I knew Sifl. Sifl was my friend. You sir, are no Sifl. --Happylobster 14:37, 10 November 2005 (UTC) & Olly.