User talk:Tmayes1999

Welcome!

Hello, Tmayes1999, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Where to ask a question, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome! --Phroziac 23:53, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Welcome

Hello Tmayes1999, and welcome to Wikipedia. Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! By the way, you can sign your name on Talk and vote pages using three tildes, like this: ~~~. Four tildes (~~~~) produces your name and the current date. If you have any questions, see the help pages, add a question to the village pump or ask me on Talk page. Again, welcome! You 23:53, Jun 5, 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for your contributions to articles about nuclear weapons, You are certainly enthusiastic about this subject, and we appreciate this.

Please have a look at some of the Wikipedia:Manual of style pages. There are some places where your articles do not read like encyclopedia articles. Also you should note that if there is a space at the start of a paragraph, then Wikipedia will lay it out exactly as written, without linbreaks or anything. This is rarely what is needed. Some of your article is also duplicating things we already have at nuclear weapon, nuclear weapon design and similar articles. You might like to consider merging the A-bomb article with these.

Thanks for your contributions, and keep editing. DJ Clayworth 22:10, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

One of the othr things that is unusual about Wikipedia is the hyperlink structure. This means, for example, that when you are writing about atomic weapon design, and you mention an alpha particle, you don' have to explain what an alpha particle is. Instead you make a link to alpha particle and let people who want to know find out for themselves. That makes articles shorter, and doesn't disrupt readers who either already know, or aren't interested. Happy editing. DJ Clayworth 20:42, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Please Keep

I want A-bomb to be restored as a stand alone article - Tim

I have restored it - can you do some work on it now? cf the attention tag. :) ...en passant! 05:55, 13 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Tim - I have no views on it myself - and was just referring to the tag that's there already. Have a fiddle and then remove the tag - if it gets re-posted asked the User what their concerns are. :) ...en passant! 06:07, 13 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Tag removed for you. You just go to edit and look for some thing in double {} type brackets and delete it.

You should be unblocked now. Calm down, you shared an IP with a vandal. I can't help that. — BRIAN0918 • 2005-10-30 13:56

A-bomb

If you want to discuss the creation of an "A-bomb" article, please do so on Talk:Nuclear weapon. Thanks. --Fastfission 21:12, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Formatting

Something about either your browser or your way of editing is screwing up the formatting of articles you edit. It is inserting paragraph returns in the middle of lines and spaces before lines. Please try and fix this. It causes people to spend a lot of time cleaning up after you and is very irritating, especially since someone has previously told you about it. --Fastfission 00:48, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I would suggest that you look over Wikipedia:Ownership of articles before you continue, it might save you a great deal of trouble DV8 2XL 04:36, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I have never tried to change the formatting of any article on wickipedia. The computer or my browser is somehow automaticly distorting the formatting on its own if this is occurring. Tim

If you're using Netscape, Mozilla, or IE, the problem isn't the browser. All of those work fine with Wikipedia. Here's tip number 1: Don't hit "enter" to wrap lines. Only use it at the end of paragraphs. Tip 2 is "read all of the help screens other editors have pointed you at". Tip 3: Wikipedia has a large set of help articles that describe style conventions for both content and formatting. Use them whenever you're not sure how to do something, or when you think someone might have a problem with what you plan to do. --Christopher Thomas 17:00, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Notice of Request for Arbitration

As it does not appear that an amicable solution to the contention over A-bomb will appear, I've filed for a Request for Arbitration. Tmayes1999, Christopher Thomas, Fastfission, and DV8 2XL are named as involved parties. --Christopher Thomas 04:08, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Just so you understand what this is - you should go to Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration#Tmayes1999 and fill in the section under "Statement by Tmayes1999". Do not modify any of the other sections, or reply to other statements - that's not what this page is for. Just write your own statement describing your views on what's happened. --Christopher Thomas 04:51, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Formatting

Hi. You absolutely must stop messing your formatting up and sticking so much unsigned material on talk pages. You make comments impossible to read afterwards without someone else doing a cleanup.

Add comments on a new line, with a blank line in between, to preserve spacing. Make sure that in the wiki editing page there is a blank line between the end of what you're replying to and your first comment.

Whenever you add comments, indent using a : character at the beginning of the line. If the comment is already indented, add one more : than is already in use. That does:

This

...to comments.

Don't use line breaks. Hit return only if you want a new paragraph. Indent new paragraphs the same as the first one if you use them.

Always sign your contributions on talk pages with the ~~~~ (four tilde or ~ characters in a row) special characters.

Thank you. Georgewilliamherbert 05:23, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Tim, it is disruptive for you to keep making so many edits without signing your edits. As stated above, use ~~~~ (four tilde or ~ characters in a row) special characters to sign each of your talk page edits. It is not acceptable user behavior for you to keep making unsigned edits in the type or quantity that you have been. I did not make any unsigned edit to any article , only in a talk page are there ANY unsigned comments by me . tmayes1999Georgewilliamherbert 23:57, 13 August 2007 (UTC) I THINK THAT MANY, OR SOME EDITS THAT SOME PEOPLE HAVE ATTRIBUTED TO ME WERE NOT ACTUALLY MADE BY ME AT ALL.TMAYES1999[reply]

Tim, knock it off. The article edit histories are right there for anyone to click on and view, and you aren't fooling anyone. You edited your stuff into paragraphs of mine right here, below, on this page, in the middle of a warning message. Knock. It. Off. Georgewilliamherbert 08:09, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

August 2007

Please do not add content without citing reliable sources, as you did to Nuclear weapon design. Before making potentially controversial edits, it is recommended that you discuss them first on the article's talk page. Thank you. Georgewilliamherbert 01:12, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I never had any reason to believe that my minor edit would be controversial to begin with . I assure you I am able to prove what I said is true .tmayes1999 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tmayes1999 (talk • contribs)

Tim, vandalizing people's Wikipedia userpages is grounds for being blocked for harrassment and disruption. Don't do it to my user page or anyone else's again. That is for talk pages. I DID NOT VANDALIZE ANY BODY'S WICKIPEDIA USER PAGES . THAT IS A TOTALLY FALSE ACCUSATION* TMAYES1999.I THINK THAT IT IS JUST PEOPLE PLAYING DIRTY IN ORDER TO ABUSE ME.* TMAYES1999 Please stop. If you continue to vandalize Wikipedia, as you did to User:Georgewilliamherbert, you will be blocked from editing. Georgewilliamherbert 08:21, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Edit history: [1] shows that you did, Tim. Edit histories do not lie. You also inserted your comment in the middle of my warning, again, after being warned not to. Georgewilliamherbert 08:31, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Also, re your statement (shown in diff above, but that I have now deleted off my Userpage) that I had deleted your edits to Nuclear weapon design, please see: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Nuclear_weapon_design&action=history. I have not edited that article since July 25, three weeks ago. Your edits today were reverted by User:Patrick and User:24.147.86.187, neither of whom is me. Georgewilliamherbert 08:35, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I TRIED TO LEAVE A MESSAGE FOR YOU ON YOUR TALK PAGE JUST LIKE YOU ARE DOING ON MY TALK PAGE . I DID NOT TRY TO VANDALIZE ANYTHING . TMAYES1999

Tim, this is the edit history: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User%3AGeorgewilliamherbert&diff=151124427&oldid=145356237 That's your edits, and that's not my talk page, that's my user page. And anyone on Wikipedia can see that by looking at it. You have no excuse for this. Georgewilliamherbert 08:37, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I AM VERY ANGRY WITH SOME OF THE OTHER WICKIS WHO HAVE ABUSED ME, LIED ABOUT ME , MISQUOTED ME, MADE MANY FALSE AND UNJUSTIFIED ACCUSATIONS AGAINST ME . THEY HAVE BEEN VERY UNFAIR TO ME AND THEY PLAYED DIRTY WITH ME FREQUENTLY.

IF I WAS ON YOUR USER PAGE INSTEAD OF YOUR TALK PAGE IT WAS AN HONEST MISTAKE ON MY PART, AND PLEASE ACCEPT MY APOLOGYS FOR THAT.TMAYES1999

As I just showed you, I have not deleted your comments from Nuclear weapon design.

You are not showing good judgement and the ability to check the facts regarding who's posting what here. If you are not capable of contributing to Wikipedia in a positive and stable manner, including properly engaging in discussion where appropriate and being able to tell who did what and when, you probably should stop editing Wikipedia. I HAVE POSTED MY COMMENTS ON TALK PAGES IN ORDER

TO ENGAGE IN A RATIONAL, CIVAL, OBJECTIVE ,LOGICAL, AND CONSTRUCTIVE DISCUSSIAN OF THE ISSUES I WROTE ABOUT . I WILL NO LONGER LEAVE MY COMMENTS ON THE TALK PAGES UNSIGNED HOWEVER.TMAYES1999

This has all been explained to you before.And you're still not signing your talk page edits, Tim. Use ~~~~ (four ~ characters) at the end of your comments. Georgewilliamherbert 08:52, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

..ok. I have now just deleted your latest updates to the Nuclear weapons design article, because of two reasons. One, it was out of context with the surrounding discussion, and two, you signed a contribution to the article.

Tim... Look. You sign talk pages. You don't sign articles. Signing articles is a user policy violation. It's disruption.

You sign them with four tildes ~~~~, not by typing out your account name.

You don't insert your comments in the middle of other people's comments.

You've been given many more chances than is normal for when disruptive users are just blocked to stop the disruption. You have to start correcting this behavior right away. Georgewilliamherbert 09:35, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your last comment on Talk:Nuclear weapon design was put into the middle of a discussion from 2004.

Tim, you have to stop this. Georgewilliamherbert 09:38, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What did you mean by sign with 4 tildes. ? I did not know I was not supposed to sign edits to an article . How is my edit out of context with the surrounding discussian.? I was responding to a question in the discussian about current High explosive lense designs which was posted by another Wiki. Tmayes1999 09:48, 14 August 2007 (UTC)I ask you to restore my edit.? It is highly relavent to high explosive lense designs .Tmayes1999 09:50, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You now appear to understand signing with four tildes. That worked.

If you did not know that you're not supposed to sign article edits, only talk page edits, after using Wikipedia on and off for 2+ years, you should be blocked immediately. This is inexcusable.

Regarding the context... you inserted that comment into the middle of the discussion of classical spherical implosion systems. Adding the "...but you can do 2 or 1 point too" before you're done talking about spherical systems is out of context.

The explosive lens section already talks about 2-point nonspherical systems, if you look down to the second to last paragraph:

It is speculated that modern designs may use a prolate spheroidal pit and two-point detonation, i.e. just a single explosive lens at each end of the weapon. The end result is formation of a supercritical sphere, but with a vastly superior level of reliability when compared to a weapon requiring dozens of simultaneous detonations. [5]

What you said was redundant with that section, and was out of place where you put it in.

Please read more carefully when inserting material. Even if the specific thing you say is correct and/or sourced, it may be said in the wrong way or in the wrong place.

Also, please look at the <ref> Reference citations </ref> in those articles so that you can format references properly. Referring to the Nuclear Weapons FAQ section without the proper reference will just confuse readers. Georgewilliamherbert 09:57, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Tim, you inserted your comments into the middle of mine again.

Again: This is another disruptive blockable offense. Stop doing it. Add yours afterwards, or indent properly to make them distinct.

I am going to reorganize in another edit so that people can read them. Georgewilliamherbert 10:11, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I was talking about one, and two lense spherical implosion systems.Tmayes1999 10:02, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This here is about Linear Implosion systems.Tmayes1999 10:02, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I was writing about one, and two lense spherical implosion systems , not about linear implosion systems.Tmayes1999 10:02, 14 August 2007 (UTC)Please restore my edit .Tmayes1999 10:02, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That section is not referring to linear implosion systems, no. It's talking about two point implosion systems. They are not the same thing. They also aren't "spherical", but they are true implosion (mass that's subcritcal at STP) not linear implosion (mass that's supercritical at STP mildly compressed from uncritical into supercritical).

Again, your edit is redundant with the information below it that I cited, and out of place. Georgewilliamherbert 10:16, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There are one, and two lense spherical implosion systems, and that is what I was writing about . Tmayes1999 10:22, 14 August 2007 (UTC) The two point non spherical implosion system you are thinking about is called a linear implosion system . I invite you to go read about it and find out for your self that this is true .Tmayes1999 10:32, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Tim, I have been working with Carey and other researchers on this for 15-odd years. I can design these things. I know the difference between linear implosion and two point implosion systems. What you're trying to describe is two point implosion systems, which we already mention in the article. Linear implosion is entirely different. Georgewilliamherbert 10:39, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am also able to design these things,* and I have researched them in very great detail since the year 1979. I am talking about such advanced modern designs as a spherical implosion system in which two hemispheric shaped high explosive shaped charges merge their shock waves smoothly into a spherical implosion wave to implode a spherical core . Gary Sublett also mentions that design for example.* That is an example of a two lense design That is what my edit is about . Tmayes1999 10:46, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:04, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]