Your addition has been removed, as it appears to have added
copyrighted material to Wikipedia without
permission from the copyright holder. For
legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other websites or printed material; such additions will be deleted. You may use external websites or publications as a source of information, but not as a source of article content such as sentences or images. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be
blocked from editing.
76.248.149.98 (
talk)
03:11, 17 November 2011 (UTC)
- Hi Frppe; I've reverted your edits, much of which were apparent copyright violations, and the rest which appeared to synthesize the cited sources in such a way as to suggest original research, per WP:NOR. Please use the article talk pages if you'd like to discuss your edits further. Thank you, 76.248.149.98 ( talk) 03:11, 17 November 2011 (UTC)
Response from Frppe -- I own the challenger-o-ring.com website and so clearly it is acceptable for me to post information directly from my own website. This is a story which deserves to be told and your reverting my edits is not appreciated. Al Newberry, PE
- Well, no. For starters WP:COI is clearly an issue, as is the presumption that your website is a reliable source, per WP:RELIABLE. It may be a story worth telling, but that's not what an encyclopedic entry is for: it's to assemble content in a neutral fashion from reliable sources. Perhaps you can add content using the New York Times as a source, without copying directly from published accounts. 76.248.149.98 ( talk) 03:57, 17 November 2011 (UTC)
- Just trying to spread a little WP:BITE love. There are a zillion rules and one can't be expected to know them all right away. The rules that are most rigorously enforced relate to the relevance, applicability, and admissibility for an encyclopedia. The conflict of interest rule helps to keep things balanced by having people edit only articles on things they're not directly involved in. I remember a request Wil Wheaton made (in some other venue) that someone should correct his Wikipedia article specifically to avoid that conflict of interest. Thanks for bringing your source to our attention, and for your efforts here. -- ke4roh ( talk) 04:23, 17 November 2011 (UTC)
Response by Frppe -- I am a licensed professional engineer in 38 states and Fred Policelli invented the Capture Feature as the Hercules filament wound solid rocket motor project manager so it seems our website should be regarded as reliable. Our credentials are well established and easy to check out.
I am not directly involved in the shuttle program and never was. Fred and I were co-consultants on a commercial (non-aerospace) project and that is when I learned the story. It was almost a decade later than I had the idea of assembling the challenger-o-ring.com website. Our motivation is to tell the story pure and simple. So to infer that the reverts were justified because I am involved in the SRM (solid rocket motor) is flawed. I am an engineering historian when it comes to this issue.
But let's go to other issues.
No 1 -- The quotation from David Acheson of the President's Comission was removed. That is a very relevant quote and provides a strong prespective into the inherent joint design flaw. To put it bluntly, the current Wikipedia article misleads the reader to believe that temperature and temperature only was the problem. That is wrong. In fact, temperature may have aggravated the problem but the problem was an inherently flawed joint design. Since Mr. Acheson's statement is part of public record, since he was on the President's Challenger Investigation committee, I would hope his statement has to conform to anyone and everyone's definition of reliable. See the WP article on David Acheson for more information.
No 2 -- The brief discussion about the NY Times article of Sept 22, 1986 and the link was removed. Why? I don't think you can justify that.
No 3 -- The fact that Dr. Diane Vaughn names Fred Policelli as the inventor of the Capture Feature in her exhaustive book The Challenger Launch Decision was removed along with a link to Dr. Vaughn's book. I would hope Dr. Vaughn (professor at Columbia U) and her book would pass muster when it comes to Reliable. Her credentials are far more impressive that some of the references you are allowing to remain in place.
No 4 -- Why were the hydroburst facts quoted in Allan McDonald's book (co written by Dr. Hansen of Auburn) omitted. It is a matter of public record and I would think McDonald & Hansen's book would be considered reliable. Professor Hansen, by the way, was the one allowed to write Neil Armstrong's official biography. I would hope Dr. Hansen is regarded as reliable even by WP
On a final note, why would you not want this information in the article? Encyclopedias tell the "good bad and the ugly historical facts" and are fair and balanced. If not they (the encyclopedias) are themselves not reliable. I would hope WP wants to be fair and balanced.
Welcome!
Hello, Frppe, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:
- The five pillars of Wikipedia
- Tutorial
- How to edit a page and How to develop articles
- How to create your first article (using the Article Wizard if you wish)
- Manual of Style
I hope you enjoy editing here and being a
Wikipedian! Please
sign your messages on
discussion pages using four
tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out
Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on
my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{help me}} before the question. Again, welcome!
ke4roh (
talk)
04:06, 17 November 2011 (UTC)
Your addition has been removed, as it appears to have added
copyrighted material to Wikipedia without
permission from the copyright holder. For
legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other websites or printed material; such additions will be deleted. You may use external websites or publications as a source of information, but not as a source of article content such as sentences or images. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be
blocked from editing.
76.248.149.98 (
talk)
03:11, 17 November 2011 (UTC)
- Hi Frppe; I've reverted your edits, much of which were apparent copyright violations, and the rest which appeared to synthesize the cited sources in such a way as to suggest original research, per WP:NOR. Please use the article talk pages if you'd like to discuss your edits further. Thank you, 76.248.149.98 ( talk) 03:11, 17 November 2011 (UTC)
Response from Frppe -- I own the challenger-o-ring.com website and so clearly it is acceptable for me to post information directly from my own website. This is a story which deserves to be told and your reverting my edits is not appreciated. Al Newberry, PE
- Well, no. For starters WP:COI is clearly an issue, as is the presumption that your website is a reliable source, per WP:RELIABLE. It may be a story worth telling, but that's not what an encyclopedic entry is for: it's to assemble content in a neutral fashion from reliable sources. Perhaps you can add content using the New York Times as a source, without copying directly from published accounts. 76.248.149.98 ( talk) 03:57, 17 November 2011 (UTC)
- Just trying to spread a little WP:BITE love. There are a zillion rules and one can't be expected to know them all right away. The rules that are most rigorously enforced relate to the relevance, applicability, and admissibility for an encyclopedia. The conflict of interest rule helps to keep things balanced by having people edit only articles on things they're not directly involved in. I remember a request Wil Wheaton made (in some other venue) that someone should correct his Wikipedia article specifically to avoid that conflict of interest. Thanks for bringing your source to our attention, and for your efforts here. -- ke4roh ( talk) 04:23, 17 November 2011 (UTC)
Response by Frppe -- I am a licensed professional engineer in 38 states and Fred Policelli invented the Capture Feature as the Hercules filament wound solid rocket motor project manager so it seems our website should be regarded as reliable. Our credentials are well established and easy to check out.
I am not directly involved in the shuttle program and never was. Fred and I were co-consultants on a commercial (non-aerospace) project and that is when I learned the story. It was almost a decade later than I had the idea of assembling the challenger-o-ring.com website. Our motivation is to tell the story pure and simple. So to infer that the reverts were justified because I am involved in the SRM (solid rocket motor) is flawed. I am an engineering historian when it comes to this issue.
But let's go to other issues.
No 1 -- The quotation from David Acheson of the President's Comission was removed. That is a very relevant quote and provides a strong prespective into the inherent joint design flaw. To put it bluntly, the current Wikipedia article misleads the reader to believe that temperature and temperature only was the problem. That is wrong. In fact, temperature may have aggravated the problem but the problem was an inherently flawed joint design. Since Mr. Acheson's statement is part of public record, since he was on the President's Challenger Investigation committee, I would hope his statement has to conform to anyone and everyone's definition of reliable. See the WP article on David Acheson for more information.
No 2 -- The brief discussion about the NY Times article of Sept 22, 1986 and the link was removed. Why? I don't think you can justify that.
No 3 -- The fact that Dr. Diane Vaughn names Fred Policelli as the inventor of the Capture Feature in her exhaustive book The Challenger Launch Decision was removed along with a link to Dr. Vaughn's book. I would hope Dr. Vaughn (professor at Columbia U) and her book would pass muster when it comes to Reliable. Her credentials are far more impressive that some of the references you are allowing to remain in place.
No 4 -- Why were the hydroburst facts quoted in Allan McDonald's book (co written by Dr. Hansen of Auburn) omitted. It is a matter of public record and I would think McDonald & Hansen's book would be considered reliable. Professor Hansen, by the way, was the one allowed to write Neil Armstrong's official biography. I would hope Dr. Hansen is regarded as reliable even by WP
On a final note, why would you not want this information in the article? Encyclopedias tell the "good bad and the ugly historical facts" and are fair and balanced. If not they (the encyclopedias) are themselves not reliable. I would hope WP wants to be fair and balanced.
Welcome!
Hello, Frppe, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:
- The five pillars of Wikipedia
- Tutorial
- How to edit a page and How to develop articles
- How to create your first article (using the Article Wizard if you wish)
- Manual of Style
I hope you enjoy editing here and being a
Wikipedian! Please
sign your messages on
discussion pages using four
tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out
Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on
my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{help me}} before the question. Again, welcome!
ke4roh (
talk)
04:06, 17 November 2011 (UTC)