User talk:Argyriou/ArchiveC

Regarding your comments

You cannot simply remove the link or contents because you cannot read!! At least you should try to read or ask others for help??? The PWRI is the official government institution. They do not put up nonsense just 'cause they feel so.

You cannot not simply discredit others because you do not verify. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Yoshi123Yoshi (talk • contribs) 06:12, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

concerning the standard penetration test

Dear,

Even if SPT N-value is consecutively measured, the sledge hammer drives in the sampler with acceleration. At the presence of gravels easily crackable by the boring machine, the N-value will be the average of the gravels and that location. If the gravel is relative strong, the blow will be consumed with the gravel's entire surface area so at the weak layer the entire surface area of the gravels will be measured, and the resulting N-value will be big even at the presence of the weak layer.

A sliding layer that would cause a landslide is a couple of centimeter thickness and slide with water so one cannot detect the sliding layers with the standard penetration method.

Recently there have been many landsides due to this reason; with the boring machine it is very hard to detect this sliding layers. Especially, the method cannot detect 0 to 3 N-value weak layers.

I read your mail, and yes, I did not know about the difference of the Japanese and American applications. Thank you for pointing out.

Also, I have read your new "Problems with SPT" section. And I believe that what you would like to say is that there is a need for analysis at the lab, tri-axial test. In this case it is very difficult to obtain a specimen for the test since the content is sand and liquefied with the boring machine. Therefore, you cannot obtain C, phai, and density for the stability test.

We succeeded in measuring at the venue using an in-situ shear machine and obtained C and phai successfully where it is impossible with the conventional method.

You should read the Japanese Geotechnical Society journal Volume 9, No.3, page 443-455. This is the proof. National Agriculture and Food Research organization of Japan officially presents this method and the Japanese Geotechnical society acknowledges this. You said you would not understand Japanese. I can send you English translation of the journal, not the entire one if you send me your email address.

I was stressing about the PWRI because the Japanese civil industry and the government omit these facts even though the PWRI has been posting on the web about eight years. It is very clear the reason why lately there have been many landslide accidents causing many causalities; it cannot be blamed entirely on the crazy weather. The defect of the boring machine is a very serious matter.

If you would like to know more about this new machine, please check out the following link. http://okita-ko.com/jp/ You can find research paper in English here. http://okita-ko.com/jp/report/

Sincerely, — Preceding unsigned comment added by Yoshi123Yoshi (talk • contribs) 11:55, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

About your comment about the standard penetration test

I checked out "verifiability" of Wikipedia, and it says it prefers English documents, but non-English document is fine just as well. It never mentions one can delete and conclude unverifiable simply because one cannot read foreign language. I did not know the differences in Japanese and US's method, but you could point that out saying the Japanese civil industry has this problem. After all that's Wikipedia is all about...

 In the "talk" section, you said I am wrong. You could simply point out the difference in Japan and the US.  I did not know about the difference, but this does not mean I am wrong, you know...
 You should really try to translate or have someone help you do that.
 And I mentioned about other problem of this test. you have not responded.  I pointed out the search paper that proves what I wrote. Although it is in Japanese, you should be able to read an abstract in English at least.

You really cannot delete because you cannot read.

Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Yoshi123Yoshi (talk • contribs) 07:15, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

I deleted because you're wrong, and because you're placing undue emphasis on the material. Argyriou (talk) 18:47, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

A cookie for you!

Thanks for your interest in the Eranbot project [1]. Please add comments to improve its interface and efficacy. Lucas559 (talk) 17:53, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

Argyriou really needs to read academic papers and see the flaws of the SPT. When I first emailed you, I pointed out links for academic papers in English. I don't think you have read it. I am not babbling with groundless evidence.

And you should not make a reference of PWRI to your writing as if you have actually read it. Anybody who has actually read would understand you have never read the article. It is quite different!!!

Before falsely accusing my action as undue weight, you really need to look into it. The technology advances twenty four seven, and for the betterment of humankind, i don't know why you hinder it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Yoshi123Yoshi (talk • contribs) 04:22, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

AN/I

You have been mentioned in this AN/I report concerning the editing of Yoshi123Yoshi. BMK (talk) 05:00, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

About SPT discussion

I left your name on the SPT talk page, so you must have got the bells telling that I wrote in the talk page. I have no intention to start another edit-war, trying to be more productive. But all you care about is deleting my writings and make the PWRI link as a reference for your writing even though you said you cannot read the article. You really need to join the discussion. Although you said my writing about the summarpy of PWRI as factually wrong, you never said how so. This is far from the productive discussion.

You need to undone your deletion of my writing. When you gave me the valid reason why it is factually wrong, I will delete by myself.

Thank you

Yoshi123Yoshi (talk) 09:08, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

I have already showns you that it is factually wrong, and inappropriate in that article. Please remove it now, and stop trying to peddle your hobby-horse on Wikipedia. Argyriou (talk) 15:46, 24 July 2015 (UTC)