User talk:Blake1960

February 2011

Welcome to Wikipedia. Everyone is welcome to contribute to the encyclopedia, but when you add or change content, as you did to the article Chevrolet Volt, please cite a reliable source for the content of your edit. This helps maintain our policy of verifiability. See Wikipedia:Citing sources for how to cite sources, and the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. Ebikeguy (talk) 05:24, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not add commentary or your own personal analysis to Wikipedia articles. Doing so violates Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy and breaches the formal tone expected in an encyclopedia. Thank you. Ebikeguy (talk) 05:52, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome

Welcome!

Hello, Blake1960, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Unfortunately, one of your contributions does not conform to Wikipedia's Neutral Point of View policy (NPOV). Wikipedia articles should refer only to facts and interpretations that have been stated in print or on reputable websites or other forms of media.

There's a page about the NPOV policy that has tips on how to effectively write about disparate points of view without compromising the NPOV status of the article as a whole. If you are stuck, and looking for help, please come to the New contributors' help page, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Or, you can just type {{helpme}} on your user page, and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Here are a few other 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 have any questions, check out Wikipedia:Where to ask a question or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome! Ebikeguy (talk) 06:02, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

3RR Warning

You appear to be engaged in multiple edit wars, and you have reverted three edits on Chevrolet Volt within the last few minutes. If you revert a fourth time, you will be in violation of Wikipedias Three Revert Rule and you will, most likely, be blocked from editing. Please stop. Thanks very much. Ebikeguy (talk) 06:07, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not attack other editors. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Ebikeguy (talk) 06:10, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Blake1960, please read WP:OR and WP:RS. See also WP:Civil. You need to provide reliable sources otherwise it is considered original research. Also due to your edits/reversals in Miles per gallon gasoline equivalent and in Chevrolet Volt you could be blocked for reversing more than 3 times (see WP:Edit warring).--Mariordo (talk) 12:50, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

MPGE/Chevrolet Volt

Speaking as another degreed (MS) engineer, with 16 years experience in the automotive industry, please allow me to suggest that the math you present in your edits does not accurately calculate equivalent miles per gallon. Please refer to the references in the articles you are editing so enthusiastically to understand why the numbers presented already consider all the losses, including power generation losses, in the overall efficiency of various vehicle types. I encourage you to stop your disruptive editing immediately, before administrative action is taken against you, and bring up your concerns on the talk pages of the articles you are editing, rather than attempting to over-ride editor consensus with your own unsupported hypotheses. Thank you very much. Ebikeguy (talk) 06:57, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

3RR Block

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 24 hours for 3RR violation and making personal attack, as you did at Miles per gallon gasoline equivalent. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. Your ability to edit this talk page has also been revoked. If you would like to be unblocked, you should read the guide to appealing blocks, then contact the unblock mailing list at unblock-en-llists.wikimedia.org OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 04:52, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection.

Your recent edits

Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. You could also click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 19:22, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

ANI Notice

I have brought your recent personal attacks up at ANI. Please contribute to the discussion here:

http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#Blake1960_engaging_in_personal_attacks.2C_repeated_OR_and_NPOV_violations_and_refusing_to_seek_consensus

Ebikeguy (talk) 19:32, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

3RR Report

I have reported your violation of WP:3RR here. I renew my request that you stop your disruptive editing, personal attacks, and refusal to attempt to find consensus with other editors. Ebikeguy (talk) 22:34, 16 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

3RR

Just to tell you, you seem to be in violation of WP:3RR. It also isn't permanent destruction of your work - you can get it back from page history. How about you post the disputed content to the talk page, then let other editors comment on it, so you can see how it can be improved, then reinserting it into the article. Thanks. GoogolplexForce (talk) 00:36, 17 February 2011 (UTC) (If I misinterpreted the timestamp, then I apologize.)[reply]

That's five reverts - cease and desist. Open up a discussion on the the talk page of it, and stop adding the contested material. Thanks. GoogolplexForce (talk) 01:43, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I opened a discussion up on this issues days ago! I was met with bizarre ad hominem, off-topic blather, and blatantly false assertions, and a whole bunch of POV. I'm about fed up with it. If this is how wikipedia works, it isn't worth my time to try to add any value to it. I'm a highly respected mechanical engineering analyst. I don't lie, I don't push any agenda, I just want to present all the pertinent information, the TRUTH.

Someone needs to review this. I am adding factual information sourced from the US Department of Energy. The editors objecting to it have provided no sound reason for repeatedly reverting it, certainly not one shred of helpful information or discussion, just a bunch of their own POV. This should be a slam dunk case if anyone unbiased would look at it. Can you tell me what is out of line in ANY the following?

The above formulas employed by the EPA for calculating their reported MPGe do not account for any fuel or energy consumed during the creation or transmission of electrical power, which is required to charge BEVs and PHEVs. This EPA form of calculating the gasoline equivalent energy content of electricity disagrees with established Department of Energy policy^[1] stating specifically that:

When comparing gasoline vehicles with electric vehicles, it is essential to consider the efficiency of the respective ‘‘upstream’’ processes in the two fuel cycles. ...the critical difference is that a gasoline vehicle burns its fuel on-board the vehicle, and an electric vehicle burns its fuel (the majority of electricity in the U.S. is generated at fossil fuel burning power-plants) off-board the vehicle. In both cases, the burning of fuels to produce work is the least efficient step of the respective energy cycles.^[2]

Per the Department of Energy, the gasoline-equivalent energy content of electricity (E_g) is calculated as follows:^[3]

E_g = (T_g * T_t * C)/T_p

E_g = (0.328 * 0.924 * 33705)/0.830 = 12,307 Wh/gal

where:

T_g = U.S. average fossil-fuel electricity generation efficiency = 0.328

T_t = U.S. average electricity transmission efficiency = 0.924

T_p = Petroleum refining and distribution efficiency = 0.830

C = Watt-hours of energy per gallon of gasoline conversion factor = 33,705 Wh/gal

See the section entitled Well-to-Wheel below for more information on this issue.

What in any of the above is POV, or OR, or anything problematic? It is straight out of the DOE's Petroleum-Equivalent Fuel Economy Calculation; Final Rule policy as cited. HELP!!! Blake1960 (talk) 01:58, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You should be discussing this on the article talk page rather than engaging in a revert war. The talk page doesn't contain attacks on you. If consensus is against you, you need to make a convincing case to others, keeping Wikipedia policies in mind. Right now it seems to other editors that you are engaging in original research and synthesis, which isn't acceptable for inclusion in articles. Edit-warring will not get the version you want into the article. Therefore, I have blocked you for your continued violation of WP:3RR; see below. Please use the time to review the policies I mentioned just now. Once you understand them, you may appeal the block with an explanation of your understanding. ~Amatulić (talk) 02:02, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 72 hours for edit warring. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the text {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. ~Amatulić (talk) 02:02, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection.

I changed the title... I think that was rude. And where did I say "POV"? What'd you mean by "Mob"? Look, I apologize for any incivility, as it was not intended. Check the talk page of the article for my answer to your post, by the way. GoogolplexForce (talk) 02:12, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The "POV" is what those prohibiting my contributions are accusing among others. Every time they delete major contributions, they just flippantly justify their actions by citing one of many different reasons, and they change from with the wind. They have not provided any actual example of what they are talking about. It just happened again, look at the discussion page. I'm presenting DOE information straight off the DOE document and am being accused of manipulating information to try to distort. It's outrageous and very disappointing. The only advice or help offered is to tell me to go read the wikipedia entry for whatever type of issue they assign at that time. I've read them all. If there is an actual valid objection, then it ought to be spelled out so we can discuss it. No? I've tried repeatedly to discuss the issue. The discussions have been frustrating. They don't address the issue, just present their own POV and often blatantly inaccurate information. HELP!!! Sorry for the title change. Was just playing around. Figured I could do what I want on my own user page. :) You seem very reasonable. How about taking a detailed look at this issue? Please. Blake1960 (talk) 15:51, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ebike is part of the problem! How may I expect him to resolve the issue??? Good grief, after being blocked, I can't even request mediation? By "mobocracy" I was referring to the so-called "concensus" justification of third parties for refusing to deal with the actual issues here. If all that is required is for a gang of like minded purveyors of a certain POV to shut out a balancing contribution, well, then what has wikipedia become. I've heard accusations like that before. Rules should be followed. I'm happy to take my lumps when justified. In this case, you have three others joining together to stifle valid contribution to a rather interesting article, one pertinent to current events and to misleading information being put out by our federal government no less. You'd think balance and a comprehensive presentation of the pertinent facts would be welcome. I ask again, what specifically in the reverted contribution is a problem? It is verbatum from the DOE final ruling on gasoline equivalent economy calculations dealing with electric vehicles. Not a good source? That was among the most recent allegation stated. I think you made it. How can an official ruling by the DOE not be a good source? Also alleged was "your are putting together pieces from RS and drawing your own conclusions pushing your point of view." That is untrue. I make no conclusions beyond stating the obvious, is stating that two plus two does not equal three constitute OR or POV? The wiki rules say no. And in truth, I mainly quoted the source. The allegations are as bogus as the EPA equations for MPGe.Blake1960 (talk) 16:07, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

See:

WP:AGF - Assume good faith. That's an official guideline. You are to assume that other editors are acting in good faith. Currently you are not doing that.

WP:NOTTHEM - Talk about yourself, not others. If you can show that you understand why you were blocked, I or another administrator may unblock you or reduce the duration so that you can request mediation. Use the unblock template as described in your block message above.

WP:NOTTRUTH - "Truth" does not matter on Wikipedia according to official policy. Sorry if that's a disappointing revelation to you. Verifiability, not truth, is what matters. As a scientist/engineer myself, I agree with you in principle that simple mathematics should need no references, but the fact is that mathematical derivations synthesized from sources violates a long-standing policy. Please review WP:SYNTHESIS if you have not done so already. ~Amatulić (talk) 18:16, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for listening. I really appreciate it. If what you say is true, then the three editors who have been wiping out my contributions are operating according to a gross double standard as the article is RIFE with all kinds of mathematical statements, and conclusions, and original research that are not sourced or verified. But since it agrees with their POV, it is okay. Balance is sorely needed.

Not about truth? Really? So it's just a mouthpiece for propaganda? Come on now. All that's needed is to find a piece of shady journalism then Wikipedia can present it as encyclopedic fact? That can't be good. If truth doesn't matter, what is left?

Thing is, the information I cited is verifiable and impeccably sourced; I provided the exact reference from the DOE. I have truth AND perfect verifiability from a highly credible source, the DOE. So how is it that is a problem? Other than the fact that a cabal of three have made it their mission to stifle the truth I mean? Seriously, how can an explanation of gasoline equivalent fuel economy from the DOE per their official policy report be deemed unsatisfactory as a source?

If you can wonder about that, then PLEASE, how about looking into applying some of your referenced standards to the jerks who deleted my contributions without any kind of thoughtful discussion whatsoever? One guy, Ebike, whined about me "attacking" him personally. Turns out I used the word "afraid" in asking why he would not allow my contributions sourced from the DOE policy report.

I initially assumed good faith. They sure didn't. They just repeatedly wiped out my entire contributions with no thoughtful discussion or explanation. Then I am told that before restoring any of what was deleted, I must discus the issue and reach consensus? Where was the consensus before they wiped out all my hard work? Double standard. It's pretty obvious when one editor reports you for waging personal insult due to using the word "afraid" that there is no good faith happening. This has been a one way street all the way. Very frustrating and disappointing.

I do appreciate very much your time and that you are willing to listen. Thanks and have a great evening. Blake1960 (talk) 21:59, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not a party to this dispute, so I can't speak for those who have disagreed with you.

Examining your edits, it looks to me like the problem may lie in the way you introduced the information, saying

"The above formulas ... do not account for any fuel or energy consumed during the creation or transmission of electrical power"
"This EPA form of calculating the gasoline equivalent energy content of electricity disagrees with established Department of Energy policy".

Those two phrases I quoted constitute original research. Explanation:

What sources make a point about EPA formulas not accounting for energy consumed during creation and transmission of power? It isn't Wikipedia's place to make a point of it if the sources don't; it's enough simply to state the EPA's formulas. Therefore, this constitutes original research.
Nowhere does the Department of Energy say that "The EPA disagrees with us" or anything similar. You basically synthesized this conclusion from the sources, suggesting there's some sort of dispute between the EPA and DoE.

That's my take on why you kept being reverted. Had you simply introduced the information in a neutral fashion, you could have avoided problems. Something like this: "The Department of Energy employs a different calculation, which accounts for energy consumed during creation and transmission of electrical power" and go on describing the calculation. No need to say anything about disagreement or flaws.

You really need to discuss this on the article talk page. Propose your edit and ask for help improving it, rather than engaging in revert-warring. ~Amatulić (talk) 19:46, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

We wouldn't accept a shady journal, too. WP:RS, it states:

Articles should be based on reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. (My italics.)

I don't think you've read all of the policies that have been linked to you, because they nicely answer your points. And would you please not call people jerks? They aren't "stifling the truth". Ebike wasn't whining, and you did come off a bit rude, even if it was unintentional. The bit about truth is in there because "truth" can pretty easily be twisted to your personal opinion. They did explain, and my personal interpretation of the consensus before the fact is the article section in it's longest standing form. I think I got everything. GoogolplexForce (talk) 21:54, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I posted on the MPGe talk page again, and I'll re-post it here:

Really, only the small text and most of the first paragraph seem off to me, so:

The EPA form of calculating the gasoline equivalent energy content of electricity is different than established Department of Energy policy^[4] stating specifically that:

When comparing gasoline vehicles with electric vehicles, it is essential to consider the efficiency of the respective ‘‘upstream’’ processes in the two fuel cycles. ...the critical difference is that a gasoline vehicle burns its fuel on-board the vehicle, and an electric vehicle burns its fuel (the majority of electricity in the U.S. is generated at fossil fuel burning power-plants) off-board the vehicle. In both cases, the burning of fuels to produce work is the least efficient step of the respective energy cycles.^[5]

Per the Department of Energy, the gasoline-equivalent energy content of electricity (E_g) is calculated as follows:^[6]

E_g = (T_g * T_t * C)/T_p

Eg = (0.328 * 0.924 * 33705)/0.830 = 12,307 Wh/gal

where:

T_g = U.S. average fossil-fuel electricity generation efficiency = 0.328

T_t = U.S. average electricity transmission efficiency = 0.924

T_p = Petroleum refining and distribution efficiency = 0.830

C = Watt-hours of energy per gallon of gasoline conversion factor = 33,705 Wh/gal

Fixes it up nicely, I think.

I wouldn't have noticed the latter problem pointed out by Amatulic if he hadn't, so, thanks. GoogolplexForce (talk) 22:11, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Again:

Though, the second paragraph could use some work GoogolplexForce (talk) 22:16, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well to wheel

This is a needed article, currently a redirect. Could you move the text you wrote for mpg equivalent lo that? Let me know if you need assistance. Leonard G. (talk) 05:24, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Do not go back to edit warring

You don't seem to get it. When you get blocked for edit warring, you don't go immediately back to edit warring once you're off, as that tends to just get you re-blocked. Please stop adding the material. GoogolplexForce (talk) 18:50, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, I take it that the IP 206.255.26.94 is you, and you just forgot to log in? GoogolplexForce (talk) 18:59, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

^ Department of Energy, Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, 10 CFR Part 474 Electric and Hybrid Vehicle Research, Development, and Demonstration Program; Petroleum-Equivalent Fuel Economy Calculation; Final Rule, June 12, 2000
^ Department of Energy, Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, 10 CFR Part 474 Electric and Hybrid Vehicle Research, Development, and Demonstration Program; Petroleum-Equivalent Fuel Economy Calculation; Final Rule, June 12, 2000
^ Department of Energy, Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, 10 CFR Part 474 Electric and Hybrid Vehicle Research, Development, and Demonstration Program; Petroleum-Equivalent Fuel Economy Calculation; Final Rule, June 12, 2000
^ Department of Energy, Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, 10 CFR Part 474 Electric and Hybrid Vehicle Research, Development, and Demonstration Program; Petroleum-Equivalent Fuel Economy Calculation; Final Rule, June 12, 2000
^ Department of Energy, Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, 10 CFR Part 474 Electric and Hybrid Vehicle Research, Development, and Demonstration Program; Petroleum-Equivalent Fuel Economy Calculation; Final Rule, June 12, 2000
^ Department of Energy, Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, 10 CFR Part 474 Electric and Hybrid Vehicle Research, Development, and Demonstration Program; Petroleum-Equivalent Fuel Economy Calculation; Final Rule, June 12, 2000

[1] Department of Energy, Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, 10 CFR Part 474 Electric and Hybrid Vehicle Research, Development, and Demonstration Program; Petroleum-Equivalent Fuel Economy Calculation; Final Rule, June 12, 2000

[2] Department of Energy, Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, 10 CFR Part 474 Electric and Hybrid Vehicle Research, Development, and Demonstration Program; Petroleum-Equivalent Fuel Economy Calculation; Final Rule, June 12, 2000

[3] Department of Energy, Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, 10 CFR Part 474 Electric and Hybrid Vehicle Research, Development, and Demonstration Program; Petroleum-Equivalent Fuel Economy Calculation; Final Rule, June 12, 2000

[4] Department of Energy, Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, 10 CFR Part 474 Electric and Hybrid Vehicle Research, Development, and Demonstration Program; Petroleum-Equivalent Fuel Economy Calculation; Final Rule, June 12, 2000

[5] Department of Energy, Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, 10 CFR Part 474 Electric and Hybrid Vehicle Research, Development, and Demonstration Program; Petroleum-Equivalent Fuel Economy Calculation; Final Rule, June 12, 2000

[6] Department of Energy, Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, 10 CFR Part 474 Electric and Hybrid Vehicle Research, Development, and Demonstration Program; Petroleum-Equivalent Fuel Economy Calculation; Final Rule, June 12, 2000

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]

[6]