Talk:Standard penetration test

message: The edits which User:Yoshi123Yoshi made were well-intentioned, but needed significant editing, because the information wasn't entirely accurate, and because it placed undue weight on the problems of the test. A Wikipedia article should not start with a listing of the problems of the article subject - I moved the problems section to below a description of the test and its uses, where it belongs. I left out the reference link provided because I cannot read Japanese and thus cannot verify that it actually supports the re-written section.
Argyriou (talk) 21:28, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
thread_title: Problems with the test

message: User:Yoshi123Yoshi, I have explained repeatedly that the crap you are adding to the article is irrelevant to an article about the Standard Penetration Test. Just because you are unable to accept that the edits you are making to this article are full of shit doesn't mean you ahve the right to continually reinsert your shit into this article. Argyriou (talk) 03:35, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Why is it irrelevant? All you say is "it is factually wrong," or "it is irrelevant." But you never say why it is factually wrong, or why it is irrelevant. To me you are simply avoiding a discussion. You can start discussing by answering my questions mentioned above. And you need to watch your mouth. Yoshi123Yoshi (talk) 10:34, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Take your shit elsewhere, Yoshi 

message: Okey User:Yoshi123Yoshi lets look at this section. 
*The title is a bit questionable. I'd suggest something like "alternatives to standard penetration test"
*"that has overcome the conventional SPT problem" I'd suggests something of the lines of "claims the following advantages over the conventional SPT"
*"The NSWS was developed with the specific aim to encounter the recent weather abnormalities and natural hazard, saving human lives"  Could you clarify what you are trying to say here?
*"It is compact, weighs only 70kg, and highly-mobile, suited to measure the ground in the crowded residential areas." A bit POV. I'd suggests something like "The NSWS weighs 70kg and its designers claim that it is well suited to measure the ground in the crowded residential areas"
*"And it costs about only half of what used to cost with the conventional SPT test and triaxial compression test." again I'd make this a claim and attribute it to someone (the designers or whoever is making it).
*"A Diagonal investigation of the ground and self-scuttling by NSWS on YouTube" generally we shouldn't have inline youtube links in wikipedia articles.
©Geni (talk) 23:31, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: http://www.academia.edu/11004480/A_Presentation_of_Soil_Investigation_Example_for_Residentaial_Embankment_on_Inclined_Rock_Mass_and_a_Proposal_of_Reinforcement_Material_and_Method
The above link is the another paper uploaded by the creator himself. The paper is a report conducting soil survey at Amagasaki, a upscale residential area using NSWS. The comparison with SPT and the conventional SWS is made as well. Co-writers are Inazumi, Shinya, the associate Ph.D in civil engineer and Nishimura, an employee　from Nippon Steel & Sumikin Slag Products Co.,Ltd.
http://www.academia.edu/13677158/Investigation_at_the_Bottom_of_Railway_and_an_Embankment_by_Sounding_Method
This paper was used for the presentation at Kinki Regional Development Bureau (http://www.kkr.mlit.go.jp/en/)
If you check out his academia page, there are more papers in English.
About the cost thing, it is written in pdf uploaded by NARO (http://www.naro.affrc.go.jp/nkk/introduction/files/bstzondeshikenman_1.pdf).
It is written in a second page of the PDF, 
The following is the copy of that part from the pdf:
この調査方法は、ため池の現地で室内三軸圧縮試験と同様なせん断試験を行う方法であり、短期間かつ低コストに堤体の安定計算に必要な強度定数を調べることができます。この方法により、ボーリング・室内三軸圧縮試験と比較して、堤体強度の調査コストを約１／２に縮減できます。
Interpretation is:
This survey method conducts a shear test , that is equivalent to the in-lab triaxial compression test, at the pond venue and enables to investigate shear strength parameters that is required for stability analysis for a dam body with low cost　and a short period of time. With this method, the survey cost of the dam body strength will be about half of the boring machine and in-lab triaxial compression test.
If you are in doubt, you can ask someone who understand Japanese to translate.
And the weather thing, the creator of NSWS, Kozo Okita, was the member of 311 earthquake disaster Committee　(https://www.jiban.or.jp/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=1152%3A2008-09-15-06-47-00&catid=88%3A2008-09-15-06-45-17&Itemid=147) of the Japanese Geotechnical Society (https://www.jiban.or.jp/e/). The society released a report in June, 2012 proposing to Japanese government a use of NSWS to investigate the 311 aftermath. The book is here:https://www.jgs-shopping.net/products/detail.php?product_id=1000904434
Thank you for pointing out about youtube thing. I am ok with removing the link. Yoshi123Yoshi (talk) 02:09, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
thread_title: Overcoming SPT Problems

message: The discussion about PWRI article has been settled a while ago. It's been pointed out many times that Argyriou deleted my PWRI part and made its link as his ref. He specifically said by himself he cannot read Japanese. PWRI article is written in Japanese. He did it again. PWRI article summary is not just a local issue. SPT is a global standard, and it applies to those countries that follow the SPT procedure.
I appreciate creating a new article for NSWS, but a little care would be appreciated; instead of deleting NSWS section from SPT at all, a link would would have been nice. After all, NSWS is about SPT as well.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Yoshi123Yoshi (talk • contribs) 02:15, 14 September 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: The material you added, supposedly sourced from PWRI, is stupid and incorrect. In the past, I'd trimmed the PWRI material down to something intelligent and correct, and left the reference, but you insisted on restoring the whole mass of text every single fucking time, so I've just been removing it, as you're obviously a WP:SPA with no real interest in improving the article. Argyriou (talk) 03:25, 15 September 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Anyone who has read this talk page would understand who makes far more sense. You kept avoiding discussion in the talk page. All you do is cussing and never provided convincing opinions.Yoshi123Yoshi (talk) 06:41, 15 September 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: On the contrary, I see your insertions as WP:FRINGEy and unsourced by WP:reliable sources.  I suggest you stop trying to force your opinions into this article and Boring (earth).  I suggest if you don't stop, that you should be blocked for WP:Disruptive editing. BMK (talk) 07:24, 15 September 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Further Discussion about [[User:Argyriou|Argyriou]]'s Act