Talk:Galling/Archive 1

This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Original research

Latest comment: 12 years ago5 comments4 people in discussion

This looks more like a dictionary entry. Should it be here, or in wiktionary? Motor 03:01, 16 Mar 2004 (UTC)

I think it just needs expanding and/or merged with some more appropriate article. --144.131.67.249 13:41, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

I plead guilty to original research in this case. I just removed the following paragraph, and replaced it with my own explanation of galling as a cold welding phenomenon:

Galling can occur when metal parts, such as the threads of nuts and bolts, are forced together and rubbing generates friction between surface asperities. The friction causes heat, which is mainly isolated to these asperities. The asperities weld together but further displacement causes these tiny welds to break, which makes the surface even rougher, creating more opportunity for friction. Galling should not be confused with cold welding.

The friction welding explanation does not match my own observations, see the main article for more details. Unfortunately, I have never found a credible source discussing galling, so I have no references to offer.--Yannick 01:06, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

I myself am an active researcher within the area of tribology, with particular focus on wear in sheet metal forming, which is often related to galling. Very often in text books, galling is used as a term describing cold welding, scuffing or severe adhesive wear for metals with no emphazises on that the metals should be a certain Fe-alloys or a pure element such as Al, as the previous author described. Generally, these materials materials are more suspectible to galling, but indeed other metals suffer from galling as well. The statement that carbon-steels do not suffer from galling is incorrect, which has been shown by several researchers including myself. If this was the case, than the automobile industry, as an example, should have no need for the use of press-lubricants during forming of carbon-steel components. But this is of course not the case.

However, the definition of galling as a single event, or wear mechanism, is very rarely used. Rather, most authors, including myself, use the expression to describe a wear process, composed of several regimes and wear mechanisms. A short description is the following: Initially when two surfaces are brought into contact and slid relative each other, a regime of mild wear is initiated, meaning that transfer of material from one surface to the other will occur. Generally material transfer occurs from the softer surface to the harder surface. This regime will continue for some sliding distance, depending on the loading, temperature, materials etc. The continuous pick-up of material on one surface localizes the contact, leading to a concentration of the contact pressure which subsequently localizes the areas of where material transfer occurs. Therefore, lumps of transferred material will grow in certain areas, which at a certain lump size initiates the entering into the second regime, where scratching of the counter-surface by the lump initiated. Generally, the lump hardness is increase by strain hardening and oxidation phenomena, which makes scratching possible. In this stage, the metal forming industry often starts to notice the phenomena of galling, since scratches begin to be visible on the formed parts. If the sliding is allowed to continue, at least in un-lubricated conditions, scratching will transfer into severe metallic adhesive wear, cold welding or scuffing etc, which is related with very high friction and possible seizure of the tool and work material. /Anders

If I understand you correctly, you're saying that the former friction-welding definition is closer to the truth than my cold-welding definition currently in the article. And yet this doesn't match my practical experience, which is that galling happens exclusively to corrosion resistant metals, and preferentially to similar mating materials. For example, even a 304 / 17-4 pair will gall less than either of those materials gall with themselves. I've found a weak web reference [1] which might make us both right. According to this, the mild wear regime which you describe will only occur after the oxide surface film has broken down, which of course is thinner on corrosion-resistant metals. Once that happens, material similarity would accelerate asperity accretion since it essentially becomes localized cold-welding. That will rapidly take us to the second regime where all the visible scratching occurs.

In other words, the mechanism you explained is universal, (and may apply to carbon steels in unusual situations which I haven't seen,) but it is greatly magnified by cold-welding in corrosion-resistant metals. Is this a good technical basis for a better definition of galling?--Yannick 04:37, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

What about the role of load in galling? Surely the mild-adhesive wear regime could be bypassed if loads are sufficient. After all isn't this the idea behind the ASTM test for galling? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.234.236.251 (talk) 04:53, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

Well, it´s a god question.
My answer is already provided in the article and I hope you like it.

“Galling can occur even at relatively low loads and velocities because it is the real local pressure or energy density in the system that induces a phase transition, which often leads to an increase in material transfer and higher friction.”

If you read the chapter “Mechanism”, you may conclude that plastic flow and acceleration and deceleration of mass around the penetrating object, (the lump), is responsible for the developed pressure. There’s no pressure whiteout acceleration.
The load in a macro aspect, such as the normal load, is not the single reason for transitions between wear regimes.
The Mild-adhesive wear regime could be bypassed if the oxide layer is breached and the contact distinguished by continuous plastic flow in the bulk material which promote accumulation of energy during the slide.
At a certain limit, the accumulation of energy changes the materials plastic behavior.

The Mild-adhesive wear regime is a consequence of relative low temperature, pressure and brittleness in the fracture mechanism.
The Severe-adhesive wear regime is a consequence of accumulated energy, heating, high pressure and includes an initial ductile fracture mechanism.

(Look, the Severe-adhesive wear regime includes a change in the materials plastic behavior.
The material is “relatively” more ductile compared to it’s initial state.
The “heated” ductile fracture is followed by a sudden drop in temperature and quick cooling which leads to the local annealing and creation of fusing points between the surfaces often referred to as cold welding.)

--Haraldwallin (talk) 12:11, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

Thermological explanation of galling

Latest comment: 12 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hi. I´m responsible for most of the text regarding the galling phenomenon presently found in the Wiki archive.

My opinion of the galling phenomenon is the following. Galling is highly connected to thermal or pressurized influenced contact and the interaction between the mating surfaces.
The temperature or pressure around penetrating objects is higher for small and sharp objects compared to larger blunt objects due to higher acceleration. This means that phase transition can take place even in the initial build up process and onset of adhesive material transfer and galling. It was clear that a change in material behaviour, which increased resistance for further advancement, took place around sharp edges even in the build up process where attached material was insignificant. My conclusion, there is a connection between the attached material and the geometrical situation around penetrating objects and developed pressure and temperature in the contact zone.
The theory about electrolyte and a galvanic exchange is interesting but in my research using a SOFS (slider-on-flat-surface) tribo-tester, revealed a clear difference between exhibited contacts found in the tracks after testing. An electrolyte and a galvanic exchange should always be present, which was not observed using the above equipment.

If you are interested in the argumentation read the reference and perhaps include it as a reference in the Wiki text about galling.

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

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Haraldwallin (talk • contribs) 20:50, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Category:Welding

Latest comment: 14 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

The galling phenomenon is not really a type of welding process but the same mechanism, "concentration of energy", is involved in both friction welding and cold welding as in galling.

The above text was in the article and really belongs here for discussion. The author of this comment might well be correct that the welding category should go. Wizard191 (talk) 17:51, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Sorry about that. I thought it was god idea to explain the difference between welding and material deterioration. Galling is a wear process and friction welding is a manufacturing process. Booth include concentration of energy which in this case means kinetic energy (acceleration of deformed material), pressure and heat. Acceleration of deformed material is a prerequisite to develop a contact pressure of any sort, in fact all developed forces include acceleration even the gravitational force. --Haraldwallin (talk) 22:00, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Electrolytical explanation of galling

Latest comment: 16 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Could it not be that because when the oxide layer is removed and there is a electrolyt present that ther is a galvanic exchange in metal and that is why the bounding occurs? Willems.stijn (talk) 04:37, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Location of galling

Latest comment: 13 years ago4 comments4 people in discussion

Why is no mention at all made of thread galling ? Its one of the most common places for galling to occur and certainly the most likely place that anyone outside of the sheet metal forming industry would encounter it. As a result I believe it actually deserves a special mention in the opening paragraph. But to not even mention it at all when one of the two references used in the article deals with it specifically is a travesty. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.169.218.140 (talk) 06:37, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

It´s a travesty to complain, and do nothing =)

I suspect that your generall intention is only to mention my name in an unfavourable manner, which is against wkikpedias generall purpose.
If you want to be a bully you can use faacebook or flaschback as everybody else. However, if you are serious which i strongly disbelieve, you are free to add anything that make the galling page better.
Because I do not have suprimousy over wikipedia, but if I´m right, I´m right, and you can´t do anything about that LOL =)

No, my intention was\is to improve the article. Which I did and then subsequently saw removed with no explanation. There's no point in making trying to make any changes to the article if you are just going to jealously remove my contributions, I've got better things to do than get into a revert war. I even went to the trouble of finding a relevant reference only to see you use it for its discussions of 'materials likely to gall' without any mention at all of its major topic, thread galling. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.59.133.156 (talk) 02:08, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

Yes you did a god jobb and many of your changes where valid and I was very impressed, they are still in the text, but you did some errors regarding the context and melody of the text and therefore I took your text and changed it slightly. Regarding your exitness over threads, you can put it in because I don´t have ownership over the wikipedia article. But make the article better and don´t vandalize or make unjust accusation, as you previously did against me LOL
Remember, this is wikipedia and you as well as I, are free to make changes and there are many who will. No offence

OK well I think its fair to say I'm not going to be able to emulate the exact 'context and melody' that your going for here so I'll leave the specifics of it to you. Personally I think the whole tone of the article is very dry and overly specialized for a public access encyclopedia but anyway. I see that there IS now a mention of threads but it incorrectly states that galling occurs during the thread cutting operation. In fact if you read the reference I supplied properly, its during the assembly of the fasteners that galling is most likely to occur. Which is why I believe that's where the average 'wiki reader' is most likely to encounter it. I mean how many people use bolts compared to those that operate sheet metal forming equipment ? BTW Might I suggest that in the future if your going to remove a significant chunk of someones writing for any reason you at least show them some courtesy and write a few words of explanation in the edit summary? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.169.189.2 (talk) 02:46, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

Ok. I apologize for not showing the courtesy to write a few words of explanation in the edit summary. I don´t know how to do it properly and politely and I haven´t written any comments previously because every body else was changing the text without any politeness or extensive comments.
And quite frankly, your original comment refers only to me regarding this problem but the problem is universal for all of Wikipedias articles and to attack only me was not very polite. Although I understand and sympathize with your request.
However, the problem with an incorrect statement that galling occurs during the thread cutting operation, are not to be found. Only thread manufacturing are mentioned.
If your browser connect to another version of the galling article, please notify me.

I hope this apology is accepted. --Haraldwallin (talk) 16:46, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

No worries, apology accepted. Yeah that's the bit I'm talking about. I guess cutting wasn't a true synonym for manufacturing in this case since you can also roll threads. But my point was the reference deals with neither, its about the assembly of the completed fasteners. In other words,trying to screw the nut onto the bolt.

I hope I can be excused for using mixed language between British and American English

Latest comment: 13 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hi, I noticed that my use of mixed spelling between British and American English have been a source for minor exasperation.
I hope I can be excused, because "British English" is not my mother language and the subject galling, friction and thermodynamic issues are very complex subjects and the glossary are not always well established. And quite frankly, British and American English, it all sounds the same to me.

However, I tried to use an objective spelling and in detail explain and define, all used glossaries that can be apprehended as strange. Know this, galling was a very undeveloped field of science when I started to write a report based on my research done in the University back in 2006-2007 and subsequently the galling article found here in the Wikipedia archive, that I contributed to in 2008, involve much of its content. In my research, and in others, the frequent use of knew developed expressions was very common.
However, their are frequent misinterpretation and misunderstandings due to differences in opinion, understanding and interpretation of definitions. This is why I tried my best to explain all aspects of the galling phenomenon in such a essential and fundamental way as I possibly could, whit out using my own terminology.
For example, my own paper found in the references, is much more explicit and exact in distinctions between different contacts such as abrasive- and adhesive-wear and I also theoretically explain differences in the adhesive-wear regime and consequently name them based on how they operate and are manifested in differences in exhibited characteristic patterns found in the tracks after sliding.
I defined and explained my terminology in detail because there just were no standardized words available to make a useful report that following researchers could understand and learn from so that they could avoid do research based on theoretical errors.
The consequence is that the reader must go through the introduction and discussion chapter to fully understand the context and definitions that I used and make the thesis fully comprehensible and useful.

I hope this explanation perhaps solve some of the issues regarding spelling, structure and used glossary in in the text found in the wikipedia Galling article. --Haraldwallin (talk) 13:33, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Cleanup templates

Latest comment: 13 years ago5 comments2 people in discussion

The following discussion was started on my talk page, and I'm moving it here. Wizard191 (talk) 18:50, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Why is the galling page changed and include three different types of uninformed and out of date information? The three information banners can bee seen below: {{Copyedit}} {{COI}} {{wikify}}

I discussed the problem whit the three shown banners whit the Wikipedia live-chat service and they told me to just delete them. I now noticed that you included them again in the article, so I now humbly request to the supremacy of Wizard191 to get rid of these three inaccurate information banners or at least specify the problem in the galling discussion page, as everybody else. If you haven´t read the galling article, how do you know it´s something wrong whit it? I can assure you that everything I put the Wikipedia galling article it is extensively peer-viewed and approved at Karlstad University, Sweden.

--Haraldwallin (talk) 16:21, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

What is this "live-chat service" that you speak of? I haven't ever heard of one. The proper way to discuss the templates is here on the talk page of the article. All three are applicable because: 1. {{Copyedit}} the English needs to be improved 2. {{COI}} you have pretty much taken ownership of the article 3. {{wikify}} the article needs more wikilinks. Hope that explains it. Wizard191 (talk) 18:53, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Hi dude, Wazz up Wizard191, why didn´t you include my entire massege? It looks very miserable and whining, as it reads above =)

Are you kidding me?, so you don´t have a "Wikipedia live-chat service", strange because I used it, and if that isn´t possible must sombody be realy evil. No suprise to me when the whole world is bullying and abusing people who have no means of fighting back, with the exeption of trying to make it so clear how horrific the discussion, realy can be. And it is to be hoped that somewhone in the crowd of onlookers finally realize the unreasonable and unjust in the many´s bullying against an unknowing victim or potential plaintiff.

Regarding your, Wizard191, complaints quotation: "you have pretty much taken ownership of the article 3." end quotation, I can only reply that there are several others who make contributions to the galling article and I only make sure it´s scientificly correct with regards to syntax and source. Some parts have I watched extra carefully, for example the pictures because I made them and it´s therefore easy for me to correct the content and syntax of the description. Other peaople are free to write any knew exiting findings and I will not change anything as long it´s has warranty. A lot of the text have been changed by others over the years and is still present in the article so don´t blame me for something that clearly isn´t true. --Haraldwallin (talk) 17:06, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

I thought I did include the whole message, other than the greeting. If I missed something else, then feel free to copy it over; it was a mistake if I missed it. After looking through the history of the article it doesn't appear that you've taken ownership of the article. So I'm cool with dropping the COI tag. Wizard191 (talk) 19:18, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Stop this harassments of my reference

Latest comment: 12 years ago24 comments6 people in discussion

Why do you always give me a hard time???? It´s not fun!!

You have you deleted a reference to my master thesis report from Karlstad university about the galling phenomenon. The reference and pictures where examined and approved by mail to the Karlstad university and I´m the author and legal owner of the pictures and the text in the report as the mail and Telephone conversation between me, Kau and Wikipedia concluded back in 2009-2010.

I know there are some people who try to steel my report and my examination executive have used my pictures whiteout my approval and correct citation in his Dr exam. But I have the original pictures, the steel plates, proof of me being in the lab making all the tests and all other authorities such as Karlstad University’s library have approved me as the owner of my work. So please stop helping these harassments

If there’s a problem, please tell me what to do. I can make all necessary arrangements, phone calls and mail once again, but it’s ridicules if I have to all this every year. Isn’t Wikipedia alleged to follow legal standards?

Sincerely, Harald W

It's not that what you are doing is illegal. It's that you are pushing your own wares here, which is highly discouraged per WP:COI. Wizard191 (talk) 13:25, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

No, the reference was putt there by another user. So please stop harassing me.

And Why did you delete Adhesive_wear_(material) in the wear article????? Was it because I opened it??? Is it really the Wikipedia spirit to bully some of it’s users???? Stop this and change back all the strange deleted sections and behave normal, it’s actually not fun anymore. --Haraldwallin (talk) 13:44, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

But you want it restored, therefore you are pushing your own wares. As for the red links, they are fine in the see also section, but not as "main" links. Wizard191 (talk) 14:00, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

There is no such thing as getting approval to post something on Wikipedia. It's a community decision, not a person's. I'm voicing my opinion that you shouldn't push your paper onto Wikipedia because it's a college thesis and not necessarily reliable. I'm requesting a third opinion. Wizard191 (talk) 16:40, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

But I have been through all that with the community decision and mail conversation and all other things, se above discussion.
Someone else made the reference to my report.
My report is not a college thesis, Its a University scientific “peer viewed” work and labeled as a D-level University paper and also defended in a public symposium with several high level academics including a professor present. There are several citations to this kind of work in Wikipedia so why is only my work discriminated, also my pictures are still in the article and needs to be citied to assure the reader a full incite to the context, surrounding the used test equipment and materials.

This is important because my examination executive wrongly used the pictures whiteout making it correct citied to my report and also scientifically used them in an improper way.
Please stop this, it’s starts to look very similar to network bulling.

Sincerely, Harald W

--Haraldwallin (talk) 12:51, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Response to third opinion request:

Hi there, I'd like to give a third opinion if I may,

Firstly, regarding the legal issue (or rather lack thereof). Wikipedia doesn't purport to own copyrights on any sources it references to, nor does it purport to have contacted or notified any authors and/or copyright owners or even to have known who such people were. Anybody can reference a paper by anybody else, its not generally neccessary to prove to wikipedia that you have authored the work. If you suspect that your paper has been plagarised, there may be university or academic boards who can help you deal with this, but its not really an on-wiki issue. (Note that this is not legal advice).

However I think the real issue here is whether the reference should be included. Your paper was written for a Masters or Professional level degree yes? Whilst you are obviously very proud of the paper and it is clearly the result of two years of dedication and hard work which is commendable, it is probably not suitable for use as a reference in wikipedia. The issue is that papers produced for 'lower' level postgraduate qualifications are not always vetted and peer-reviewed to the same standard as doctorate papers and journal articles, they are also more numerous which means that they are not as well followed by the relevant academic community (and therefore less subject to more informal scrutiny). We therefore do not consider such theses reliable sources unless they are very well cited in other works or have had significant influence on thought in the area. The relevant policy is here

I hope you are not disheartened, whilst I am not an expert in this subject I can see that your paper is very professional and clearly an interesting read to anybody interested. Unfortunately it's just not really what we need at wikipedia - this isn't meant as a slight against you or your work.

If either of you would like to refute anything I've said or tell me I'm completely wrong, please do so - this is a none binding process but I hope you will consider what I have to say. Regards, Bob House 884 (talk) 18:08, 12 May 2011 (UTC)|}.

Thanks for the input Bob! I think you hit the nail on the head. Wizard191 (talk) 19:06, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure to what extent this is a conflict of interest; the citing oneself section explicitly says "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, but only if it is relevant and conforms to the content policies.". What should be ascertained here is to what degree user Haraldwallin has included material from his master theses, and what amount of peer review has it been through. If this paper has been assessed by experts in the field and is not used with undue weight, it may be used. Haraldwallin should provide answers to these questions to prove his paper as a valid reference. Diego Moya (talk) 16:08, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

Hi Harald, I've removed the 'references' to your thesis which were associated with the images in the article. This is because, as far as I am aware, it's not neccessary to provide references for images which have been released into the public domain or under the terms of a GNU license. Any attribution is done through providing a link to the appropriate documentation, where you are clearly adknowledged as the creator of these images. Please note that this is not at all because the images are related to the thesis under discussion - I'm just trying to make the article more compliant with wikipedia's general style guidelines. Regards, Bob House 884 (talk) 12:54, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

But I have been through all that with the community decision and mail conversation and all other things, se above discussion.
Someone else made the reference to my report.
My report is not a college thesis, Its a University scientific “peer viewed” work and labeled as a D-level University paper and also defended in a public symposium with several high level academics including a professor present.
There are several citations to this kind of work in Wikipedia so why is only my work discriminated, also my pictures are still in the article and needs to be citied to assure the reader a full incite to the context, surrounding the used test equipment and materials.

Please stop this Diego Moya and Bob House 884, it’s starts to look very similar to network bulling and this is not in the spirit of Wikipedia.

Sincerely, Harald W —Preceding unsigned comment added by Haraldwallin (talk • contribs) 12:58, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Hi again,

I don't believe it's neccessary for context purposes to provide the reader with the exact conditions under which the phenomena in the pictures occured. If you feel it is, then the proper place to do that would be on the documentation pages for the images themselves.

Regarding your off-wiki conversations with WMF representatives; it appears from the images pages that the discussions you engaged in were related to licensing of the images and ensuring that you, rather than a third party or your university owned the images or the rights to redistribute them - if this is the case (and frankly I can't see why you would be having off-wiki discussions with anyone official regarding content issues) then it's in no way an endorsement of using the reference/relating it to each of the pictures.

Regarding your thesis itself; as I have said before it's a great piece of work, however all the evidence I've seen indicates that it was produced for a masters (or similar) degree, for instance it is listed on each site as a 'student thesis' (and not a dissertation which is common terminology for a doctoral thesis) and that it was produced for a 'professional degree', you've frequently referred to it as your 'master thesis'. I've tried to explain that these sorts of theses aren't normally considered reliable sources unless for example they are well cited in other works - indeed one way you could prove me wrong is to find other authors who have cited your work in their research.

Regarding WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS, well it does - wikipedia can be edited by anybody, which means anyone can come along and add borderline, or totally unacceptable content. Other people try to remove that content but they don't always catch it. If you are finding other articles which contain references you don't think are appropriate - remove them, but the nature of the project means that it doesn't really hold much sway as an argument a lot of the time.

I hope I've addressed some of your concerns, please refrain from accusing other editors of 'bullying' or 'harassment'. I can assure you that everybody here is paying attention to your opinions and the points you are making, however as it happens everybody so far has disagreed with you on balancing both sides but nobody means to harrass or aggravate you, I'm sure that you've realised from your studies that academic or indeed wikipedian discussion can sometimes appear a tad frank or 'full on' whilst remaining perfectly WP:CIVIL, respectful and constructive - accussing other editors of bullying etc. is likely to increase tension - just as accussing your professors of bullying you would at university.

All the best, Bob House 884 (talk) 13:51, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Regarding your Third Opinion request: I am a Third Opinion Wikipedian. I've removed the request for an additional third opinion on this matter. It would appear that the issues are no different than those which existed when the prior third opinion was given, so an additional 3O on this matter would be inappropriate, especially since the entry of Diego Moya into the matter has caused more than two editors to be involved in the dispute. If additional assistance is needed to resolve this dispute, I would recommend moving on to some other form of dispute resolution. If I might comment on one point, however, I would point out to Haraldwallin that Bob House 884's comments were made in response to the first Third Opinion request made in this matter; they are not harassment or bullying. Under the terms of the 3O Project they're also expressly non-binding and can be accepted or rejected by the participants in this dispute. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 14:06, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

I think you have been totally misinformed about me and my work.
I always ask on the discussion page for permission to write in the articles.
I’m polite and scientifically correct and when I write there always other people being quite rude to me, but I´m still polite and don’t say bad things back to them. Look at your talk page for an example.
But my patients is limited and I honestly don’t understand why I’m the victim of all this.

1.I wrote a lot of text and included information in the galling article and therefore I wanted to have it cited with my work, because there where other editors who disbelieved the content of the Wikipedia galling article and my work could prove it right.

2.I did as User:Wizard191 told me and asked for permission to write my text in the galling article and also if someone could include my report as a reference

3.Some other user included my report as a reference in the Wiki galling article

4.I also included pictures

5.The pictures where removed due to claims from another anonymous party, probably one of my examination executive who became a Dr. He is not a professor!!

6.I proved, via mail, my right to give away the pictures to Wikipedia commons

7.The reference to my report was vandalized

8.I tried to correct the reference but the vandalization was write protected

9.I then made a notation above the vandalized reference

10.User:Wizard191 wrongly accused me of taking control over the galling article

11.User:Wizard191 admitted to being wrong about me of taking control over the galling article

12.User:Wizard191 called me a lair

13.When a couple of people start deleting pictures, vandalizing references, write protect the result of the vandalization and call me alls sorts of unpleasant things, is that not harassment?

14.My work demands five years studies it´s “peer viewed” that I can give you proof of. If I understand correctly Wikipedia previously never used the rule about discriminating report like this. Why are you so eager to delete my report?

15.Also, there have been several other strange things happening when I write, such as offending, bot controls, implying all sorts of strange things, is that not bullying?

--Haraldwallin (talk) 16:05, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

I'm sorry Harald, I've been trying to explain why the reference appears not to be acceptable for wikipedia, I've taken a lot of time and effort in trying to make sure what I've said is as fair, polite and neutral as possible and to direct you to the relevant policies which dictate wikipedia's content.

Your continued response to this has not been to respond to the points which have been made by me and others, but instead to assert irrelevant points such as your OTRS conversations, the existance of other stuff on wikipedia, your own academic motivations and, most seriously you have consistently attacked the motives and good faith of people who happen not to agree with you.

I'm sorry but thats just not a productive way to have a discussion and I'm not really prepared to engage further.

A last few helpful points:

If you want to demonstrate why we should use your report, show evidence - has your report been cited by any academics, has it already achieved prominence in mainstream theory in this area? Give citations, demonstrate your h-index etc.
Wikipedia isn't a vanity press for academic work or anything else, we mirror what is in the real world - if your work recieves attention in the mainstream, soon enough it will do the same on wikipedia, but we aren't here to promote little known theses, however interesting or uncontroversial they may be. Most journals are available to almost all practicioners in the relevant field, doctoral dissertations are fairly widely circulated and cited by people interested in a paticular field, Masters theses however are not widely read and therefore including them is often undue prominence
If you find other, similar reports which seem to have been subject to special rules remove them - we aren't discriminating against you, this is a specific guideline on sources. Anyone can make an article or add something to an article, we don't endorse all of it - there is an article right now about Islam in the Falkland Islands even though there are only 3 Muslims living in the Falkland Islands! By removing things which shouldn't be there, you help improve the encyclopedia.
If there is stuff in the Galling article which isn't supported by sources other than your paper, take it out! If something isn't supported by a reliable source, it shouldn't be on wikipedia - we can't lower our standards just because nobody can find any other 'better' source - hey if you find that a significant amount of the article is your original research then you might be able to convince a well respected journal to publish your work, and then youll find that in a year or two you will be cited on the article.

Bob House 884 (talk) 16:51, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Hi Bob House 884.

I suppose you cannot read or doesn’t want to read what I write in the messages. English is not my first language, have this in mind when you give me these strange and I’m sorry to say impolite, ambiguous messages and I honestly think that everybody who can read this discussion will give me the credit of being the victim of “several Wikipedia users” and also one “Wikipedia official” misdirected concern about what “I have done” or “not have done”.

I have several times pinpointed exactly what you and the others, in my point of view, have been doing wrong regarding your explanation of the whole event.

The proof of me following the rules and done as I been told is found in my informative text and other edits found in discussions and several articles found on Wikipedia.

And through my own inquiry on several discussion pages and followed pledge to write my theories and technical explanations, based on empiric observation during my university research, in the Wikipedia articles, I never write whiteout permission since the first time I was told to ask permission by Wizard 191 back in 2008.

Since I started to write the affected Wikipedia articles have been massively improved through slight and step by step changes, partly due to my included work. This started around 2008. I also included pictures after an inquiry from you people on Wikipeda. Most of the text in several articles found on Wikipedia and sometimes whole articles and pictures are still present in Wikipedia, so someone must have liked my edits.

Its so sad that several humans take time in making one defenseless person humiliated and falsely accused. Don´t you have anything better to do?

--Haraldwallin (talk) 13:01, 18 May 2011 (UTC) (Sorry, I forgot to logg in or I was logged out. Can’t remember I’m so chocked by this whole scheme) --83.227.233.10 (talk) 12:57, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

Hi Bob House 884.

I want to ask you one thing.
Do you know what a Swedish D-level university paper is?
In Sweden D-level papers are cited in articles and other scientific works.

If you don’t have expertise in the field of galling and friction and clearly don’t have a clue about the quality of Swedish D-level university reports which evidently some other Wikipedia user have and found reliable and ok to use as a reference on Wikipedia.
Why do you take time and void another users judgment and take all the effort and remove all traces of my report? The text from my report is still found in several articles on Wikipedia, what’s so wrong whit my report? --Haraldwallin (talk) 13:16, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

Harald,

If you were writing an encyclopedia, and somebody came along and asked you to cite their own thesis, you politely refused, making reference to an internal policy which clearly indicates that source does not meet the expected standards but that person persisted, offering no new arguments and insisting that somebody else told them it was okay several years ago whilst repeatedly accusing you of bullying, harrassment, ignorance, stupidity, discrimination and making false accusations and refusing to listen to the numerous editors who expressed agreement with you, how exactly would you react?

If you want this paper included you will need to provide citations from other academic works which indicate that the paper is widely accepted by the relevant academic community. We are not here to promote your paper if it has not already recieved attention.

I have asked the good folks at WP:RSN what a 'D-level paper' is and I have been reliably informed that it is not a PhD level paper. This means we almost certainly cannot accept it as a source. Again this is not a reflection upon you or your work, we do value Masters level work and think PG research degrees are certainly a valuable thing for anyone's resume and a daunting intellectual challenge, however the theses they produce are categorically not reliable sources unless they have recieved significant citation in mainstream academia. Wikipedia is made up demographically of university educated people, many of whom have done PG degrees, a large number hold doctorates - I'd expect something in the region of 2000 users have an unpublished thesis to their name and I'm sure every one of these makes for fascinating reading, however the guideline is very clear and there is no reason to make an exception for you I'm afraid.

I suggest you go about getting this published, then see if it shows up on wikipedia. Bob House 884 (talk) 20:01, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

Hi strange talk.

You have no formal education and knowledge about galling. Why should you overrule someone, other than myself, who reviewed my report and deem it worthy as a reference back in 2009 or 2010?. And your formal complaints are of your own construction to support your hidden and probably very sinister agenda.

If someone don’t believe me, see quotation below.

Wizard 191 told me to ask somebody to and I QUOTE!!: “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.” END QUOTE!!

The discussion is found on my talk page.

Further more, I want to know who lifted my work if you still claim there is another author to the text and pictures. --Haraldwallin (talk) 14:32, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

For the record the reference was added here by another user when that user tried to cleanup the article. I have no knowledge on the subject at hand what so ever, but I do know that I wouldn't dream of adding my own thesis (which also happens to be from the university here in Karlstad) as a reference for any wikipedia article. Harald, if you do want help clearing things up (which several seem to have tried already) please let me know, either here or on my talk page on svwp. GameOn (talk) 19:16, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

User:Wizard191 wrote, "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."

The reason I wanted to have my theses as a reference was it’s connection to the pictures!! My Theses contains an important explanation for the exhibited patterns found in the pictures, connected to the relation between surfaces during friction and the acceleration of mass in the deformed volume

User talk:Diego Moya wrote, "Using material you yourself have written or published is allowed within reason, but only if it is relevant and conforms to the content policies."

I rest my case!!--Haraldwallin (talk) 20:32, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Harald, can you take a look at the explanation on svwp regarding talkpages, the important part is how we (on all wikimedia projects that doesn't use LiquidThreads) use indentation when replying. As I stated above I have no knowledge on the subject, but I don't see the point in adding your thesis as a reference since I think I understand enough from the text for each image and that text doesn't seem all to complicated so a reference may not be required (I'm not saying your thesis or the subject of the article isn't complicated - for me they clearly are). And the user that added the article may not have read it, take a look at the next edit in the history - it was formatted using an extra tool that doesn't require the user to visit the link in question themself. The article does need more references, and since you have knowledge about the subject could you add other references to it? Your thesis contains 46 notes, please add the relevant references to this article. And just to let you know, here an article on wikipedia isn't seen as a reliable source so don't add that one. Additionally there's no article on svwp, perhaps you could create an article there? I would also suggest that you drop what has previously been said and done and focus on what's going to happen. A thesis such as yours shouldn't be used as a reference, and in case you want to change that this isn't the place to do so. Please continue to improve this article, but do not use your own thesis as a reference. GameOn (talk) 05:18, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

User:Wizard191 wrote, "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."

The reason I wanted to have my report as a reference was it’s connection to the pictures!! My report contains an important explanation for the exhibited patterns found in the pictures, connected to the relation between surfaces during friction and the acceleration of mass in the deformed volume

My reference was included in the galling article at 17:54, 3 November, by User:Thumperward (Filling in 1 reference using Reflinks), proving that I didn’t made my report a reference!!!!

Firstly, I don’t know how to make a “proper” reference!!!
Secondly, there’s the following text (Diva-portal.org Retrieved 2009-11-03), that clearly I haven’t included, because my report was written the year 2007 and approved by the professor in the year 2008.
If someone later on hacked my Wikipedia account or Wikipedia’s edit log with intention to blame me from editing my report as a reference, they made this fatal error.
Because it would be totally stupendously if I wrote the notation (Diva-portal.org Retrieved 2009-11-03).
Someone clearly was trying to give the impression that my report is newer than it is.

User:Wizard191, probably know who made the reference to my report in the first place. And probably also who vandalized the reference to my report and included the notation: (Diva-portal.org Retrieved 2009-11-03).
The notation is the proof that I’m telling the truth.
User talk:Diego Moya wrote, "Using material you yourself have written or published is allowed within reason, but only if it is relevant and conforms to the content policies."

I rest my case!!--[[ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Haraldwallin (talk • contribs) 12:47, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

You still haven't given a single reason based in policy for it's inclusion. Bob House 884 (talk) 13:31, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

Harald, I finally understand what you mean with vandlization of the link. Adding information on when the link was used isn't changing the facts on when the thesis was written. I hope others excuse that I switch over to swedish to make the point clear to Harald that noone has done anything wrong and that this is a missunderstandning from his part before continuing with other points in english. Datumet är alltså när någon/något (om det var en bot eller annan automatisk programvara) besökte länken och la in den i artikeln, på svenskspråkiga wikipedia skulle det ha stått "Läst den 3 september 2009". Det handlar inte om att förstöra referensen, påstå att din uppsats är skriven ett annat datum än vad den är eller på något sätt förstöra för vare sig dig eller andra wikipedianer utan den sortens information bör läggas in på alla externa länkar. And then I'll take the rest in english. The problem, because there is a problem, is that you assume that if someone edits in a way you don't approve of the user is somehow out to get you. This isn't the case, and if you started editing more articles (you have edited only a very limited amount of articles) you would see how others go about making edits and thus get a better understanding of wikipedia. In case you haven't gone over it I would suggest you take the tutorial, either in english or in swedish, please note however that these are for two different language versions of wikipedia so not everything that's allowed on enwp is allowed on svwp and vice versa. I do hope that you can leave your reference behind you soon and continue making other contributions to wikipedia instead. GameOn (talk) 07:05, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Withheld?

Latest comment: 13 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Is this some obscure terminology? Because otherwise it doesn't seem to be the right word to use in the prevention section. Clarityfiend (talk) 07:19, 22 May 2011 (UTC)