User talk:Argyriou/Archive2

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive of discussions regarding engineering articles. This archive will be added to as I get around to cleaning up my main talk page.

Contents 1 Geosynthetics 2 CBR 3 Grain size 4 How to get listed in Category:Engineer Wikipedians 5 bay mud 6 Thanks for response to my survey of Wikipedian engineers 7 Concrete 8 Review requested 9 AfD Nomination: Eco-cement 10 Eco-cement blanking 11 Your use of "groundwater" as a single word is incorrect. 12 Cement 13 GeoTech Page 14 Bearing capacity 15 GRLWEAP 16 Geotech WikiProject 17 Landslide

[edit] Geosynthetics

Noticed you are currently involved with the geotechnical engineering article. I've just extented the Geosynthetics article from a stub. Hoping to take the article somewhere. (I think engineering is generally neglected in Wikipedia). Was wondering if you'd take a look and see what you think. It's by no means finished but think it's got a backbone now. Comments/Edits etc. will be very welcomed. I'll be more than happy to return the favour with the Geotechnical Engineering article when you want. Regards Grahams Child 20:38, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

On a basic skim, it looks ok. The one thing which jumped out at me was that you don't mention "spun" fibers, commonly used for filter fabrics. I'll have a more detailed look later. Argyriou 23:07, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] CBR

The AASHTO pavement design procedure has used resilient modulus to characterize the subgrade material since at least 1986 (I'm not sure that it ever used CBR). That'll remain the same in the new AASHTO guide. Resilient modulus is very difficult to measure in the lab, so lots of agencies use a CBR correlation to estimate resilient modulus. The r-value test is used the same way in some agencies (perhaps all other than California that perform the test) - not used directly in pavement design, but as a resilient modulus estimator. Toiyabe 21:48, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Grain size

Seeing your interest in geotechnical engineering and soil properties, you may be interested in responding to questions I posted at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Soil#Soil_types:

Conflicting particle size criteria needs to be resolved and affects the following articles: ...

-- Paleorthid 19:34, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] How to get listed in Category:Engineer Wikipedians

Please see my response to your posting at User talk:Mbeychok/MRB's Survey of Wikipedian Engineers where I have told you how to get listed in the Category:Engineer Wikipedians -mbeychok 02:11, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] bay mud

thanks for your constructive edits to this article. best regards. ill be on the lookout for non-bay area info. Covalent 19:02, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks for response to my survey of Wikipedian engineers

If you are interested, the summary of my survey is available at User:Mbeychok/MRB's Survey of Wikipedian Engineers. Thanks for your response. - mbeychok 04:52, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Concrete

Hi, I see you are gradually tidying up as you go along.. The introduction needs to be redone too, bits and pieces tend to get added up there from time to time. Have you thought about making a clearer distinction between concrete the material at the time of mix design and placing, and how it behaves once it is cast solid into structures and has to survive the elements? And the production of concrete and the selection of concrete for particular requirements.. The there is the "Structural analysis" Cheers. Gregorydavid 22:25, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Review requested

Greetings:

Could you please review Hayward Fault Zone, and please refer other knowlegeble editors to this effort? I am considering nominating this article for featured status.

Thank you for your assistance, - Leonard G. 03:17, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure there are other "knowlegeable editors" that would be good to refer to. I'd want to see a little more about the geology and seismology of the fault, which I might be able to look up and provide, given a little time. Argyriou 22:42, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

No hurry, and thank you. - Leonard G. 04:58, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] AfD Nomination: Eco-cement

Hi. I was hoping not to get drawn into this discussion, and have been watching with interest from afar. I did meet John Harrison a few years ago, and it is possible that I will do so again. Indeed, he has sent me samples of his cement to test and try out in concrete. I will need a little time to sought out my views. However, my general reaction is that the article is awfully written, doesn't clear state what the cement is, and "comes across" as advertising and a little self-praising.

Whilst I'm here, I'd just like to thank you for the good work you are doing on tidying up concrete and cement articles. Kpeyn 07:56, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Eco-cement blanking

Please be more careful about copyvio notices. The Eco-cement article was written by the copyright holder to the web pages in question, and is thus not necessarily copyvio, which is why I didn't include copyvio in the AfD. If the article had been written by someone with a username of EcoGuy or something which didn't match "John Harrison", I'd have hit it with a copyvio tag a week ago. But when AubreyJohnWestonHarrison posts an article which matches content on the web written by "John Harrison B.Sc. B.Ec. FCPA", one should assume some level of good faith. (Only some - the article is clearly vanispamvertisement, which is why I AfD'd it.) Argyriou 16:32, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Unfortuunately this is not the case. Sure chances are that this person is correct BUT only if express permission is given in the following way can such material be included:

“

Copyright owners who submitted their own work to Wikipedia: If you submitted work to Wikipedia which you had previously published (especially online), and your submission was marked as a potential infringement of copyright, stating that you are the copyright holder of the work on the article's talk page helps, but will not likely prevent deletion. It is sufficient to: Make a note permitting reuse under the GFDL at the site of the original publication. Send an email from an address associated with the original publication to permissions at wikimedia dot org or a postal message to the Wikimedia Foundation.

”

As such a person has to express permission in a way that entirely proves the copyright material is available for use. This can only be done on the original publication and by eamail to the foundation. In this case possibly WP:IAR may have applied but you never know and copyvio is one thing that requires procedure wonk as much as possible... --Errant Tmorton166^(Talk)(Review me) 21:11, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Your use of "groundwater" as a single word is incorrect.

Simply look at the seminal journal of the science - it is called Ground Water. Why did you edit it to promote this problem?—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.255.93.87 (talk • contribs) 18:15, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Because it can be spelled both ways, but spelling it as one word is more common (looking on Google, "groundwater" outnumbers "ground water" about 2:1) and consistent with the title of the article Argyriou 01:23, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Sorry - it is not listed your way in wordnet (Princeton.edu). I think your edit should be reversed, and article title should be corrected.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.255.93.87 (talk • contribs) 19:32, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Merriam-Webster accepts it as one word. The Concise Oxford Dictionary (1990) shows groundwater as one word. That's more authoritative than wordnet. I will not reverse the edit, nor change the title of the article. Argyriou 02:40, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

You neglect to say the Mrriam Webster has both versions, not just one. Further, your position conflicts with Wikipedia guidlelines: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Lamest_edit_wars see discussion regarding "aluminium" The standard should be set by those in the practice of hydrogeology, and there the standard is Ground Water as adopted by the journal of the same name.

The people who practice hydrogeology, geotechnical engineering, and environmental engineering use both spellings. There are several textbooks titled simply "Groundwater", and there is a "Journal of Groundwater Hydrology". You have not shown, because you cannot show, that the one-word usage is incorrect, even within the field. It's also not a UK vs U.S. issue. Therefore the article stays as is, unless you want to take it to an RfD. Argyriou 03:03, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Now that I'm at work: Cedegren, in the reference in the field, uses "groundwater", as does the NAVFAC Design manual. The USBR Earth Manual uses "ground-water", always hyphenated. Bowles' Foundation Analysis and Design uses "groundwater". Argyriou 17:55, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Cement

Sorry for the delay in response. For a subject like cement, about which there are numerous web pages, it's almost completely useless to include a foreign-language external link, regardless of how good it is. And regardless, Cimento.org isn't exceptional by any means. The two users you mention seem to have calmed down, but if they come back, feel free to revert for vandalism, and leave a note on their talk pages. If it continues, we'll block. --Spangineer^es (háblame) 17:30, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] GeoTech Page

Comment on Landfill being in the "see also" on the Geotechnical Engineering page. The reason I removed the link was that the landfill page talks about garbage dumps. If it also talked about raising/modifying site grade, I would have not removed it. Just wondering your thought process on keeping the landfill page in the links. I can also see a Geotechnical Engineering issues with capping/closing a landfill, and opening a landfill. Just curious? --Tom Bonnie 16:35, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Successful construction, operation, and closure of large garbage dumps is a pretty important problem in geotechnical engineering, even if small in terms of volume of work. And I suppose there should be an article about grading and fill - the Grade disambiguation page is awful. Argyriou (talk) 17:44, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Bearing capacity

That's funny because I've only used Terzaghi and Vesic, although I did use Hansen once for a retaining wall. I was thinking we could cover all the major methods and perhaps include the equations for one or two of the more simple and applicable ones (Vesic is a little complex). I don't have a book with Meyerhof or Hansen's equations, so you can change it to those if you want. I'm also just a student, so I'll leave it to you to handle the stuff that happens in practice :) Basar 02:05, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] GRLWEAP

User:Argyriou/GRLWEAP. It was prodded, which is why I deleted it. Guy (Help!) 22:19, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

I'll check with Basar - there was talk of moving the content into an article about the class of program, instead of just the one program. Otherwise, I'll add some references to show notability. The program is, in the U.S., anyway, the program used for dynamic analysis of pile-driving. By the way, once it's ready, can I just move it back to article-space, or do I need an admin for that? Argyriou (talk) 22:36, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Geotech WikiProject

I started a WikiProject on geotech if you are interested. Basar 22:55, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

I am. What was the outcome of the discussion regarding GRLWEAP? (See discussion immed above, and my original request to Guy.) Argyriou (talk) 22:56, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Oh, I wasn't involved in that. An admin came by and deleted a bunch of his articles for copyright violations. You can see his talk page for which ones. You can recreate that article without an admin. Basar 23:02, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

I noticed that. I thought you had said something about generalizing that article to be about more than just GRLWEAP - was such an article ever created? Argyriou (talk) 23:56, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Sort of; I just told him how to move the article when he asked how. As far as I know, the new article was never made. Basar 01:00, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Landslide

Why did you revert my change at "Landslide" ? I'm new to Wikipedia and even if I didn't clean up the vandalism properly (which I was not familiar about) my entry was still an important historical land slide that destroyed an entire village near where I was born.

I'm talking about this change: 18:28, 10 February 2007 70.48.136.229 (Talk) (→Historical Landslides)

Thanks Maxime

Maxime, there were a couple of reasons, but it's mostly laziness; it's much easier when cleaning up vandalism or inappropriate edits to just revert to a previous version. I've gone and put that landslide back, because it is a useful addition to the article. (Especially because it's referenced!) Αργυριου (talk) 14:48, 15 February 2007 (UTC)