User talk:Andy Dingley/Archive 6

This is an archive of past discussions with User:Andy Dingley. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

←

Archive 4

RfC: AfC Helper Script access

An RfC has been opened at RfC to physically restrict access to the Helper Script. You are invited to comment. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 16:56, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

Waterstone

About the waterstone pic there... I am not sure why you undid my change. The pic does show a waterstone with a wooden casing, instead of two waterstones. Yogomove (talk) 04:44, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

This belongs at Talk:Sharpening stone#Waterstone image caption Andy Dingley (talk) 10:59, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

South Wales Railway

Re: Your comment on my talk page. No problem. But, is "Richard Marshall" a reliable source? Without an actual dated copy of any documents from the original prospectus, all information in the article sourced from a single person's article should be removed entirely as unreliable. --24.47.169.50 (talk) 23:14, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

Your recent deletions on the Polandball article

Maybe you could actually take care of the guy who is deleting stuff from wikipedia, instead of reverting my legit edits? Or do I have to login on my account every time and have a 5 page "legal war" that ends up at the arbitration committee, since nowadays thinks that if they have an account, they can delete any contribution done by an IP address, since apparently an IP address is a "no one" who has no edits and cannot do nothing? Ok - if we are supposed to have this edit on the website put via the hard way - please call the arbitration committee, since they need to review this case. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.76.8.142 (talk) 02:23, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

So, you admit that you're deliberately socking to hide from ArbCom, and then you expect sympathy?

Your addition was a good one. I would personally agree that this particular cartoon is a good illustration of Polandball themes. However it's also uncited and per a policy that makes things work around here, that's strictly a no-no. One that I'd already ignored once.

Another editor didn't, and per policy they were right to do this. You disagreed, edit-warred and then started vandalising their user page as a total WP:JERK. At that point you rather lost my support. Andy Dingley (talk) 02:40, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

sock users

Hounded off exactly which project, please? [1] --Rocknrollmancer (talk) 13:51, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

See User talk:Bridge Boy, Talk:Straight-twin_engine/Archive_2 and WP:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive759#Bridge_Boy

It got to the point where even I wanted rid of him as it was all getting out of hand, but he was badly provoked beforehand. A couple of editors using edit count as a substitute for RS to argue against a new editor wasn't an edifying sight. Andy Dingley (talk) 14:17, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

OK, ta. I'll try to absorb that lot later. I saw it a few days back but couldn't find it again until today. I've been investigating these alleged socks (at least, some of) ~~for~~ at various points over the last 18 months (due to the serial corruption with fiction of Caffay Racerrrr and similar pages) i.e., after the dates you provided above, as I was not contributing to WP back in 2012, but I knew which names and IPs were responsible after trawling through the diffs on selected articles. I believe I know whom 'they' are, IRL. Gotta dash now.--Rocknrollmancer (talk) 15:50, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

Q1 "crankshaft"

Hi, re this revert - I think that the IP refers to the drive for the mechanical lubricator, which is taken from a return crank secured to the crankpin of the front left wheel: it's visible in the infobox photo. The mechanical lubricator is directly below the left-hand side of the smokebox; it's that box with a handwheel, attached to the framing, and partially obscures the sloping double row of bolt heads where the cylinders are attached to the frames. --Redrose64 (talk) 00:34, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

In which case it's far too trivial to belong on the Q1 article. Would we mention that Q1s don't have faces either? Andy Dingley (talk) 00:51, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Original Barnstar
	Andy, Thank you for approving our citation on the Linear Actuators page. I was wondering if the URL could be changed to a better underwater page on our site. I edited it already. We have a lot more useful information about electric linear actuators. I will organize it into an article and submit it for review. Thank you, Mac mac@ultramotion.com Ultramotion (talk) 18:37, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

Thanks. The need for pressure compensation is obvious once it's pointed out, but it's the sort of thing that makes this example interesting. Andy Dingley (talk) 20:49, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

Wondering why you thought my edit was vandalism

Hello. Recently I made a small edit to the T-72 page. It appeared to me that someone had inserted the part I deleted in order advance a particular agenda, which was apparent in the fact that the reference was to a Russian news website that I could find frustratingly little about except that it seemed to be affiliated with the Russian government. Its one thing to encourage discussion of different sides of an issue and quite another to allow Russian propaganda on wikipedia. I was certainly not trying to vandalize anything, and your characterization of my actions as that was disconcerting to say the least. I would simply like an explanation as to why you would accuse me of that, and why you changed my edit back. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Landsman55 (talk • contribs) 02:42, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

Did you even read your edit?

Iraqi Republican Guard -> Iraqi Dummie Guard ?

Now if you're claiming that you were merely removing some Russian text (Russian text is permissible on English WP in cases like this, even though not encouraged), then WP:AGF requires me to believe you, and to put the rest down to merely careless editing. However it's not particularly convincing, when you're changing other terms too. Andy Dingley (talk) 03:15, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

Okay, that explains a lot. This is actually a hilarious misunderstanding. I use the XKCD chrome extension that changes certain words to other words for the purpose of my own amusement while browsing the web. It appears that the chrome extension made all the modifications on the edit page, which was then accidentally saved by me. The only edit I meant to make was a small deletion that I think you would agree was justified. It was at the bottom of the article in the part about the T-72s role in the ongoing war in Ukraine. Sorry for the misunderstanding, and thank you for working so hard to make wikipedia the great place that it is.

You're still doing it.

Now I don't care where you get your auto-vandalise plugin from or why you're using it – but stop now, because WP cares that traffic from your IP address is vandalising, not whether you did it, your computer or your kid brother. Andy Dingley (talk) 10:42, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

When I check the article, everything appears to be fine, so I don't know why your still accusing me of that. I was simply trying to clear this up and your response was unnecessarily terse. I was just trying to help. There's no need to be so unfriendly. I won't try and make any more edits in the future.Landsman55 (talk) 15:41, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

@Landsman55: I have followed the diff links provided by Andy Dingley, and I agree with him him. Just in case you didn't spot them, these links are the phrases "your edit" (in his post of 03:15, 17 February 2015 above) and "still doing it" (in his post of 10:42, 17 February 2015) - they are identifiable as links because they're shown in blue, instead of the black of normal text. It is clear from those that on each occasion, you altered an instance of "Republican" to "Dummie"; in the first case (on the article T-72), I also see that you altered "politics" to "the rat race". It doesn't matter whether the change was due to a script or not: you are responsible for every edit made using your account. --Redrose64 (talk) 20:07, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

Sorry if this is coming over as very adversarial, but it is a problem. Your computer is breaking stuff. If it does this, various WP editors and admins will get stroppy and you (it's your computer after all) will get the blame. Maybe it's not your fault, but you'll be held responsible. That is (for good or ill) how it works round here.

Is this just an XKCD joke script, or another deliberate let's-screw-with-Wikipedia thing from XKCD-bloke? I'm tired of a cartoon that takes such an anti-Wikipedia stance and so regularly invites deliberate trolling here. Andy Dingley (talk) 21:35, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

Gerotor

Hi Andy, of course how related things are is subjective, so the D in BRD looks useful. I left a msg on the talk, but I'm losing the will to R any link back in now (I don't think I put it in originally). Widefox; talk 13:29, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

In regards to article Weber carburetor

The section I removed was poorly written and I don't think it provides any encyclopedic information. In fact it had the encyclopedic tone tag since October 2012. I re-removed it now. If you still think that section should be there please consider fixing the tone before adding it back. Thanks. --80.223.129.187 (talk) 11:13, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

Yes, that section is inappropriately written for an encyclopedia. However your edit had no edit summary, so it's simply indistinguishable from simple vandalism (which we see a lot of).

Secondly, this section is on an encyclopedic topic, just poorly written (it's so bad that I even had second thoughts about restoring it). It needs copyediting, not blanking. It is part of coverage on Weber carbs that their naming is structured in such a way as to describe their features and sizing, and such information is appropriate for this article. Rather than simply blanking a section like this, how about taking on the task of re-writing it and copy-editing it yourself? That's a much more forward-moving change.

As this section really is so bad I'm not going to revert your blanking – but I do wish someone does, and does it with the appropriate editing needed to fix it. It's a useful section for the article, if fixed. Andy Dingley (talk) 19:25, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

Most was opinion and speculation. I couldn't find sources for most of it, so I wrote a replacement section without reference to the original. --Redrose64 (talk) 22:14, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

Thanks! That's a much better result. Andy Dingley (talk) 23:16, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

Possible ref for GWR Auto-Car Services

Hi Andy, here's a possible ref for bell signals Auto-Car Services. It's a transcription from the GWR rule book. Warwickshire Railways site is usually sound. It does seem to have a number of contributors and checkers. Robevans123 (talk) 00:48, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

Nomination of Pika Browser for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Pika Browser is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pika Browser until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article.

Courtesy nomination as your proposed deletion was contested by the author. RichardOSmith (talk) 15:54, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

T gauge

Hmm .. I think I still disagree with the inclusion of these. The page is about the product, not about the vendor, and in that way the pages are indirect. Moreover, we do not include external links because they are about the same product, we include them because they add information (which is either not included, or can not be included). Neither site offers information about the subject, they provide a place to buy it. And looking through it, these two sites, and also the Japanese and German sites, do not give any information beyond what is already in the document. These links plainly fail our external links guideline. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 11:26, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

This belongs at Talk:T gauge, not here. I'll move it over in a moment.

We should have pages that offer information, we should link (and only link) when they add information that we can't get otherwise.

I'm not a fan of external linking, but for the T gauge article there's just such a dearth of information otherwise that I think it's justified to link to these reseller sites because they are focussed on the product of relevance and they show the range of product available. If we don't have these as links, we lose this information and make a (much) poorer article. I can't see any other way to get this information.

It's just not true to say that these sites "do not give any information beyond what is already in the document", as without them there's almost no information in there. The article states that Japanese outline models are available, but it ignores the German and UK models - UK is becoming surprisingly popular, even though it's very restricted in choice. What's the choice of track available? These might be insignificant matters to the generic WP editor, but they do matter to railway modellers. There's also a long tradition of interest in collecting catalogues as artefacts in their own right and indulging in a bit of window shopping. Just look at prices on eBay for an old '60s Triang-Hornby catalogue, let alone something pre-war from Bonds or Bassett-Lowke. Clearly the commercial catalogues are highly valued within the hobby and website links are their modern descendant.

If you want to prune ELs from model railway articles, there are also far richer targets out there. Many of the articles really are little else but. Andy Dingley (talk) 12:32, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

You've made a perfect case for using the external links for references. What the other articles regards, see WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS. These still do not belong as external links at all. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 12:34, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

I'd have no objection if you re-wrote the article to extend it and support it with those sites as refs (although the usual incorrect idiocy of "All refs must meet RS" will then probably show up). However simply removing them without doing that is going backwards, not forwards. Andy Dingley (talk) 12:40, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

oil

The amount of oil used to generate electricity is insignificant, and the table in the article makes clear. Including oil with gas and coal encourages the misconception that the problems with oil and the problems with natural gas are intertwined. How many oil power plants are there in the 100 mW category? Any you should not just revert without comment. ( Martin | talk • contribs 15:03, 5 March 2015 (UTC))

It's small but that's far from "insignificant".

To say that there "are no oil stations" (as your edits did) is just plain wrong.

There's also the (also not insignificant) number of small stations using diesel engines, rather than oil-burning furnaces.

If you want to make this substantial change, go to Talk:Fossil-fuel power station‎ and start a thread on "Remove all mention of oil-firing as insignificant". See how far it gets. Andy Dingley (talk) 15:09, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

March 2015

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Editor routinely reverting contributions from IP address editors. Thank you.

This provided for information as required - no suggestion of malfeasance on your part. DieSwartzPunkt (talk) 16:56, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

Category:Coniston

Category:Coniston, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. Tim! (talk) 08:25, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

User talk:BilCat

Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, we would ask that you assume good faith while interacting with other editors, which you did not on Talk:V-2 rocket. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. - BilCat (talk) 09:23, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

From this point on, you can stay off my talk page for any reason. I've had quite enough of your lack of good faith over the years, so it's probably best if you just stay away from me as much as possible. - BilCat (talk) 09:31, 7 March 2015 (UTC)
- I'll go to your talk page whenever I'm required to. That includes warning you not to edit talk: page comments so as to change other editors !votes. Andy Dingley (talk) 19:45, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

Clarkson thimble tube boiler

Re. your reversion of my edit to Clarkson thimble tube boiler - do you not regard a Leyland steam wagon as a steam engine? Biscuittin (talk) 01:02, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

I certainly don't regard the Leyland steam wagon boiler as a thimble tube! There was one wagon fitted with a Clarkson boiler, as an experiment. No more than that. Leyland were unusual in that they were one of the few makers to use a multi-tube vertical boiler, itself a rare type.

Are you now going to claim the Cochran boiler as a "steam locomotive boiler" because the GN&SR built one (failed) railmotor fitted with one?

That template is a rag-bag of unrelated crap and would be best deleted. It has almost no coherence. Adding things like the Clarkson boiler to it only makes it worse (much worse). Andy Dingley (talk) 01:08, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

Reference 8 in the article refers to 13 Clarkson boilers being installed in Leyland steam wagons. Biscuittin (talk) 01:34, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

Sorry, as well as Leyland's own one-off experiment there was a fleet operator that trialled them (I ought to know, I wrote that article). We're still just talking about a dozen vehicles or so though. That's nowhere near saying "Clarkson boilers were used in steam vehicles". The idea of putting it in this navbox is that it implies it's a significant aspect of commonplace steam engines. One fleet here or there, they clearly weren't.

Also drop valves are a form of valvegear (the actuator), double beat valves are a form of valve (the throttle). You've piped them in this template to the same link. Andy Dingley (talk) 10:45, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

I did that because drop valve redirects to double beat valve. Do you think this is a misleading redirect? Biscuittin (talk) 15:51, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

About the template - I think there is a case for splitting off the boiler part to a separate template. Biscuittin (talk) 15:55, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

I have created and expanded "Template:Boilers". I suggest that the Boiler part of "Template:Steam engine configurations" be removed but I think there should be a consultation first. Biscuittin (talk) 19:57, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

re: test edits

I pressed the wrong button when I was editing the sandbox. Could you please help me revert them? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rider ranger47 (talk • contribs) 19:47, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

Massive interference with Royal Enfield

Gooday Andy - when you get the chance could you look at the contributions surrounding the renaming and deletions from this user as the old Royal Enfield page is on my watchlist (the new Indian Enfield is not) and this is way beyond me, needing TW or HU? Unless it's picked up before you get to it. Thx.--Rocknrollmancer (talk) 12:27, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

Time for a new article I think. Indian Enfields are big enough to warrant an article, not just a section within an article on the original company. Andy Dingley (talk) 12:34, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

See Talk:Royal_Enfield#Time_for_a_new_article_at_Royal_Enfield_.28India.29.3F Andy Dingley (talk) 12:39, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

I can't actually find what this change has done, but the Enfield India article was here???Rocknrollmancer (talk) 12:45, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

UK article is back and OK at Royal Enfield

Indian article is at Royal Enfield (Closed), pending a CSD#G6 deletion to allow it to be moved back to Royal Enfield (India). Andy Dingley (talk) 12:57, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

OK thanks for your efforts, I think I understand where everything ended up. We had the two pages co-existing quite nicely, with the occasional hiccup!--Rocknrollmancer (talk) 13:04, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

Vickers Tank Periscope MK.IV

Hello,

I removed the information that was outright incorrect.

There was no need to ask for citations, because I am familiar enough with the subject matter that was being referred to, to know that it was unfounded, and outright wrong. If you are going to retain this incorrect information, then please do your own research so it may be removed again. It's extremely common knowledge that the Axis tanks referred to did not have rotating periscopes. There was no rotating periscope mounts in the tanks referred to.

If you would like to make a temporary correction, 'one or two' may be correct, as it's possible one or two models of early Axis tanks did indeed have rotating periscopes. But that was a very, very short-standing amenity, and therefore the unfounded generalizations in that article were outright falsities. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 101.176.132.155 (talk) 03:10, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

"There was no need to ask for citations, because I am familiar enough with the subject matter that was being referred to,"

That's not the way WP works though.

You removed chunks of text both without explanation, and without sources. You also removed material from other articles in a similar manner, when the claim there was well supported in that article. You're also not logged in as an editor, so it's impossible to establish long term credibility for your own identity as someone who has demonstrated past knowledge in a field.

Some editors would see this as "yet more vandalism by an IP editor" and revert it on sight. That's wrong, although I can understand how they get to think that - there is a great deal of vandalism, and that's what most of it looks like. With neither edit summary, sources nor a track record as an editor, it's impossible to tell the difference. I reverted you here (as noted), not because of the lack of sources, not because you're an IP editor, but simply because you didn't explain why you'd removed the content. Whether you're an expert or not, this is a group project and you have to communicate to other people what you're up to.

There's also the problem of claiming, "I'm an expert". How can anyone confirm that? We get that claim a lot, and it's usually from gamers.

Also just what is your expertise? British inter-war tanks are an interest of mine too, I have a substantial bookshelf of most of the usual David Fletchers, I'm not far from Bovington. Yet I can source a lot of information about UK use of this periscope, not much about non-UK use of it or the Polish background. Do you have access to the Polish book that's the main source for this?

As to the matter of this article, then it belong at Talk:Vickers Tank Periscope MK.IV, so I'll move it there.

Your point seems to be that most of this article is reasonable (although poorly sourced) but the claims of German use are incorrect. I can't really dispute that – you're right, it's hard to think of an example of a German or Axis AFV with these periscopes. Commanders had cupolas instead. Yet this isn't proof that they weren't used! Maybe there's an example that both of us have overlooked. What did the Neubaufahrzeug use? The Italians? I know absolutely nothing of Japanese or Italian AFV optics. I'm not likely to get to Kubinka either. Andy Dingley (talk) 10:51, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

Well the original text didn't even corroborate with the references posted. It was complete nonsense. Why is such information allowed to be posted in the first place, yet my correction forced through unnecessary bureaucracy? Pretty loopy, to be honest. And no there are simply no sources to prove such generalizations, only numerous disproving them, literally any source referring in a general manner to periscope design and application of Axis and in particular German tanks. Why must I go through bureaucracy to disprove uncited, non-corroborating nonsense, when that nonsense got on to wikipedia without a hitch?

Seems very strange to me, that absolute falsities are welcomed and defended, and common-knowledge corrections are undone and questioned up and down. I think the root of the issues lies in the initial creation of articles, and most certainly not in the truthful corrections of them. Especially for things as factually inarguable as this.

I think ideally we should be questioning the person that originally wrote that part of the piece. Where did they get it from? Do they realize literally every piece of literature on the subject (except perhaps their own, uncited piece) contradicts their generalization? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 101.176.132.155 (talk) 15:55, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

It has been that way since 2008 [2], so for six years now you've made no comment about it.

WP works, by and large, by visibility. Articles aren't reviewed, they get looked at when editors have cause (usually quite random) to look at them. There's also a shift around 2007 were the standards raised and started to be enforced more robustly. This article is less than optimal but it's far from unusual. The way to move forwards with it is to structure it better around sources, not to start flinging around blame for how it got to be how it is. Andy Dingley (talk) 01:36, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

SS Great Britain

I've been doing some editing at SS Great Britain in an effort to improve the article - possibly to GA standard (User:Gatoclass is now helping) and I was wondering if you could help or had ideas. I've started a discussion at Talk:SS Great Britain#Help with finding citations and other work needed for a GA nomination if you had any thoughts?— Rod ^talk 15:19, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

Courtesy notification

I've started a new thread on the Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Use_of_commercial_locksmith_site_as_ref_versus_a_ref_from_The_Guardian Reliable sources noticeboard regarding the Mortise lock article. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 17:22, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

Reciprocating electric motor

I just added a prod2.

More generally: I've lately noticed a spate of new-ish editors with usernames of the pattern <some word of two or three syllables><three-digit number>. Their edits are all of comparable quality. One of them created Reciprocating electric motor. Hmm. Jeh (talk) 23:17, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

Probably yet another school class. Andy Dingley (talk) 23:33, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

Hoax/vandalism on bridge articles

FYI: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/I Love Bridges. I see you have reverted some of their nonsense. JohnCD (talk) 09:22, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

Coding on Template:PD-The Moving Picture World

Hello:

I'm trying to code a condition into Template:PD-The Moving Picture World so that, if a third source appears, an "and" will appear between the second and third source, but if only two sources are defined, an "and" will come between the first and second source. Can you help? Thanks. Seattle (talk) 18:48, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

Brunel's swivel bridge

Thanks for your note. If you want to revise Cumberland Basin (Bristol) or create Brunel's swivel bridge either is fine by me. I've just added some more references (eg Heritage at Risk) which might be useful (if up to date with latest info). My editing was triggered by the Fells book - which also took me to the Redcliffe Shot Tower.— Rod ^talk 19:07, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

Sorry to butt in, but why "swivel" bridge? I've only ever heard them called swing bridges, and indeed there is an article Swing bridge, but not Swivel bridge. REgards to you both, Martin of Sheffield (talk) 19:57, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

"Swivel bridge" for the general type would be wrong, as that's not the term in common use. However for this particular bridge, the "swivel bridge" is Brunel's own term. I'd suggest looking at the http://brunelsotherbridge.org.uk site for the latest news. Andy Dingley (talk) 19:59, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

OK, thanks. I must confess I was under the impression that the old bridges had been destroyed by the new Plimsoll bridge, but then I am trying to remember a place I was last familiar with 40 years ago. Martin of Sheffield (talk) 22:27, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

Cookies for you

CookieMonster755 has given you a c ookie! Cookies promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. You can spread the WikiLove by giving someone else a cookie, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend.

To spread the goodness of cookies, you can add {{subst:Cookie}} to someone's talk page with a friendly message, or eat this cookie on the giver's talk page with {{subst:munch}}!

CookieMonster755 (talk) 00:41, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

Hello! There is a DR/N request you may have interest in.

This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult for editors. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help this dispute come to a resolution. The discussion is about the topic Magneto (generator). Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you! Biscuittin (talk) 23:18, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

Writers

That's...odd. I'm not sure how the engineers got introduced into the list - I have to do some digging tonight and figure out where the anomaly lies. I thought I'd pretty well excluded anyone who wouldn't be counted as a "writer" when I ran CatScan, but obviously I missed something I wasn't expecting to find - sorry about that. --Ser Amantio di Nicolao^{Che dicono a Signa?}_{Lo dicono a Signa.} 18:09, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

Found the issue, in an unexpected place...I'm correcting a bunch of articles now. Sorry for the trouble, but it should be pretty well-sorted out by the end of the night. --Ser Amantio di Nicolao^{Che dicono a Signa?}_{Lo dicono a Signa.} 21:24, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

British Restaurant

The politics you mention doesn't appear in the article at all. And it doesn't really fit with most of the other articles in food politics. Would it be more appropriate in Category:Food security?Rathfelder (talk) 20:59, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

No, I think politics. Churchill's involvement in the naming. Their expeditious removal (despite ongoing rationing and a dire shortage of domestic housing or cooking facilities) for imposed reasons. Maybe coverage needs to be expanded, but the story is there.

Category:Food security could be relevant too in addition, although this is about individual supply, more than bulk availability etc. Andy Dingley (talk) 22:11, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

Conduct at DRN

At the dispute resolution noticeboard, participants should comment on content, not on contributors. In particular, even if it appears that an editor is trolling, suggesting that an editor is trolling is a personal attack, and may result in moderated dispute resolution being failed. Your threaded comments and those of other editors have been hatted. Please discuss in your own section. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:16, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

Are you censoring me because I'm just there to be trolled and should shut up and put up with it again? I note that the threaded comments of others are not being hatted. Andy Dingley (talk) 21:16, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

Formal mediation has been requested

The Mediation Committee has received a request for formal mediation of the dispute relating to "Vectors are not tensors". As an editor concerned in this dispute, you are invited to participate in the mediation. Mediation is a voluntary process which resolves a dispute over article content by facilitation, consensus-building, and compromise among the involved editors. After reviewing the request page, the formal mediation policy, and the guide to formal mediation, please indicate in the "party agreement" section whether you agree to participate. Because requests must be responded to by the Mediation Committee within seven days, please respond to the request by 9 April 2015.

Discussion relating to the mediation request is welcome at the case talk page. Thank you.
Message delivered by MediationBot (talk) on behalf of the Mediation Committee. 13:17, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

JavaScript engines

Hi!

Here are my reasons for my recent edits (reverted by you) for the JavaScript page:

Interpreters

Most JavaScript engines today are not interpreters. V8 compiles JavaScript to native machine code before executing it, instead of interpreting bytecode. SpiderMonkey contains an interpreter, a JIT compiler (IonMonkey), and a garbage collector. JavaScriptCore also has more than one JIT compilers.

Virtual Machines

JavaScript engines are actually VMs. References:

https://code.google.com/p/v8/ :

Google engineer Lars Bak explains the key engineering decisions behind V8, the JavaScript virtual machine used in Google Chrome.

https://trac.webkit.org/wiki/JavaScriptCore :

JavaScriptCore is an optimizing virtual machine.

http://blog.cdleary.com/2012/01/string-representation-in-spidermonkey/ :

In the SpiderMonkey VM, the general solution to problems like these this is to build up a tree-like data structure that represents the sequence of immutable substrings. and collapse that datastructure only when necessary.

C and C++

SpiderMonkey has been moving to C++ for some time, and that's why I changed the "is implemented in C" to "was implemented in C". You can have a look at the source code for SpiderMonkey here: https://hg.mozilla.org/mozilla-central/file/ab0490972e1e/js/src

ES3 and ES5+

SpiderMonkey supports all features in ECMAScript 5, and many features in ES2015+ (i.e., ES6+), instead of ES3. References:

Rhino

The section I edited is "Use in web pages", so Rhino isn't quite relevant in this section. Moreover, Rhino is already mentioned in the "Uses outside web pages" section.

Comments

Would you like to elaborate your reason(s) for reverting my edits? Thank you!

(I'm not quite familiar with Wikipedia and English is not my native language. Please correct me if I did/said something wrong.)

-- Xue Fuqiao 12:37, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

This belongs on Talk:JavaScript, not here.

Firstly, "... is a virtual machine that interprets and executes JavaScript." implies not just that:

a JavaScript engine is a VM

and

A JavaScript engine interprets JavaScript source code

(both of which are separately true)

but that it's the VM that does the interpretation. This is not true, or at least it's misleading to word it like this.

At the level of this section in the article it's very high-level and simple. I'm quite happy with the original vague version, "... an interpreter that interprets JavaScript source code and executes the script accordingly." It's not detailed, it's superseded by some more recent engines (yes, there are compilers, yes, there are VMs, yes, there is compilation to native code) but it's correct as a beginning introduction.

As to Rhino, then the root problems are that this article is badly written and that this section is particularly so. It's a section on variations within JavaScript engines, not about JavaScript in web pages - even if that's the last heading above it. So fix the heading and section structure first. It's a bad list, if it contains only Netscape, SpiderMonkey and Rhino (as if there was nothing inbetween). Certainly though no general list including SpiderMonkey should be excluding Rhino.

As to the swathe of posted material above, then what's all that about? We're discussing the changes you made (stating that VMs did interpretation) not some raw sources for whether V8 is an interpreter or not.

This article needs the structure and context fixing first, not the nit-picking detail changes over what changed in one particular strand of JS engine development last week. That's the easy way to write WP articles, but it gives bad and unreadable articles that don't convey anything to the reader. Andy Dingley (talk) 14:32, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

Request for mediation rejected

The request for formal mediation concerning Vectors are not tensors, to which you were listed as a party, has been declined. To read an explanation by the Mediation Committee for the rejection of this request, see the mediation request page, which will be deleted by an administrator after a reasonable time. Please direct questions relating to this request to the Chairman of the Committee, or to the mailing list. For more information on forms of dispute resolution, other than formal mediation, that are available, see Wikipedia:Dispute resolution.

For the Mediation Committee, TransporterMan (TALK) 17:00, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
(Delivered by MediationBot, on behalf of the Mediation Committee.)

Don't look now but...

Not only has paid-by-vani-hari "admin" DoRD been cleansing the talk page of reliable sources to block discussion, he has gone back to the old admin habits of false claims about "sockpuppets" and has even blocked an entire IP range for a significant time.

I wonder how much Vani pays wikimedia to keep her article from containing accurate information? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.7.0.154 (talk) 12:57, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

If you would stop hopping from one IP to another, evading the block on your accounts, I wouldn't have to keep making reverts. For what it's worth, I somewhat agree with you about Ms. Hari, but you are not going about things the right way. —DoRD (talk) 18:40, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

"The ability to measure quantitatively voltage and current"?? really?? Galvanometer

Andy, let us reason together. Voltage does not have a "quantity," no more than temperature does. Voltage is a measure of electromotive force. We don't ask, "What is the quantity of your weight?" We say, "What is your weight?" In the same way, we don't measure the quantity of the voltage: We measure the voltage. The same for current. We don't measure it "quantitatively" -- the adverb is meaningless because voltage and current are already scalars. The measured number tells everything. We measure the voltage, and we measure the current. And if the results are not numbers, we have done something really wronglitatively. :-) Slade Farney (talk) 08:05, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

This belongs at Talk:Galvanometer, not here.

"Voltage does not have a "quantity,""

Of course it does. We have an agreed, objective and continuous scale for voltage, same as we do for mass, length and shoe size. Once such a scale exists, whatever its physical basis, we can start to make objective and quantitative measurements, rather than the merely qualitative.

"The ability to measure quantitatively voltage and current allowed Georg Ohm to formulate Ohm's Law"

The questioned change here is between accurately and quantitative. Not about the definition of measurement, as digressed above. Whatever your comments there, the point in this sentence is that Ohm needed quantitative measures of both current and voltage in order to develop his eponymous Law. Accuracy is useful too, but you can develop a vague law with inaccurate measurements. It does need to be quantitative though.

My reason for restoring this is primarily that galvanometers have in general been seen as non-quantitative. The first were non-linear, thus uncalibrated and they were also inaccurate. Later models (I don't know how good Ohm's was) improved on this. As real linear ammeters appeared though, through to today, the "mere galvo" has reverted to being seen as a qualitative indicator alone. As it stands, this isn't a good sentence as it doesn't explain context of how Ohm's quantitative work fits into this. However it's still a better sentence with "quantitative" rather than "accurate". Andy Dingley (talk) 09:39, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) I understand the point, Andy. Before decent meters, voltage was measured by e.g. seeing how much of a "twitch" you could get out of a frog's leg... or your own leg. Interpreting these really could not be done repeatably. But I don't think "quantitavely is the best word to express it. Jeh (talk) 10:30, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

Quantitatively is not only a reasonable word for this, it's precisely the word for it. It's what it means. It's what this word means precisely, this is the specific word used in metrology for exactly this situation. What other word would you suggest? Andy Dingley (talk) 11:25, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

If I had a better word in mind I'd have mentioned it. :) Maybe what's actually needed is a wording change, or a bit more explanation of how bad the prior situation was. Jeh (talk) 19:04, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

Perhaps a better word here is "quantify" (to assign a number to something) -- maybe you want to say, "The ability to measure quantifiably voltage and current..."? But now we have a redundancy. Quantifying something IS the act of measuring. I see two people on the street and point out that this one is "tall" and that one is "short;" I have compared them, but I have not measured them. Measuring is assigning a scalar to those statures in inches or centimeters or whatever. In fact, I cannot measure anything except "quantitatively." If you send me out to measure something and I don't come back with a number, I haven't measured it. I suggest you use one word or the other, not both: "The ability to measure voltage and current..." OR "The ability to quantify voltage and current..." Slade Farney (talk) 23:39, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

I have an old analog multimeter that gives me "numbers", but I wouldn't call them "measurements" (given that the readings aren't consistent from one scale to the next!). Even the crudest galvos permitted current to be "measured", for some definition of "measure." So did frog's legs (hm, it kicked not at all, a little, or a lot). But the later developments in galvos allowed relatively accurate, repeatable (precise), objective measurements, without which things like Ohm's Law could not have been observed and verified. That's the point being made here. Jeh (talk) 23:59, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

C'mon, all measurements are numbers, but not all numbers are measurements. You are refuting something that was never asserted. But if you are certain of your arguments, next time you are in a butcher shop, you can ask the butcher, "Please weigh my purchase quantitatively." And you can tell your students that their tests will be "timed quantitatively." You will know it is exactly 5.2 miles from your home to your office because you have clocked it "quantitatively." Try it out in the real world. Let us know how it goes. Slade Farney (talk) 05:44, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

Oh, dear me. It's the hoary old "you wouldn't say it that way in everyday speech" argument.

Encyclopedia articles are supposed to be written more formally and with more careful choice of words than everyday spoken language. In the case under discussion, the unadorned word "measure" would not convey the intended meaning. The simplest, most primitive galvos would show different amounts of deflection for different amounts of current. You could even assign numbers to various amounts of deflection. So by your argument, since it has numbers, it must be a quantitative measurement, right? But unless the numbers scale linearly and proportionally with the current it wouldn't help anyone discover Ohm's Law. Remember that we're writing for readers who may have never used an inaccurate multimeter; we need to convey that it was not always so easy. Jeh (talk) 06:02, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

No, "quantifying" is more than the assignment of numbers. I am assigned a number when I enter the bread store or buy a lottery ticket, but I am not "quantified." Your activity with the frog leg would not be called "measurement" unless you have assurance that the response of all frog legs is "quantitatively" the same. The most you could say about your frog leg is "detection." I originally suggested the phrase, "The ability to measure accurately voltage and current," which would rule out a lunch box full of frog legs. A dictionary would serve you well, here. Slade Farney (talk) 13:04, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

When you say "assign a number" are you referring to the measurement of a number from an objective range (which is quantification) or merely the assignment of some ordinal identifier (which isn't) ? The point is, that Ohm required the first meaning to be met (and thus a truly quantitative measurement) before being able to determine his Law. I would agree that this is more than most (although not all) galvanometers are capable of, and the distinction to ammeters is often than an ammeter is a galvanometer capable of some quantitative measure, more than crude indication. Andy Dingley (talk) 14:14, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

Sfarney, it's amusing that you suggest that I need a dictionary, and then go on to propose the word "accuracy". Accuracy would certainly be sufficient in this case, but it isn't required. All that is required here is that the instrument exhibit linearity (a reading 2x as high should correspond to twice as much current) and repeatability ("precision" in the lexicon; see Accuracy and precision). "Accuracy" refers to calibration to some external standard, how close the reading is to the "true" value, and that isn't required here. Jeh (talk) 15:47, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

Linearity would require accuracy, would it not? We establish linearity by determining the meter is accurately representing the subject on both ends of the scale, according to some external standard we have established for a unit of EMF or current? But go ahead and use "measure quantitatively", if you must. To me it sounds redundant and pompous -- the negative end of professorial. I have no doubt you are driving for the same goals I am, we just have a good faith disagreement on how to get there. Over and out. Slade Farney (talk) 17:16, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

"Linearity would require accuracy, would it not? " Not. You establish linearity by determining that the reading is proportional to the quantity being measured. i.e. a graph of "actual quantity" vs. "reading" would be a straight or fairly straight line. The reading does not have to agree with any external standard for this to be the case. Now, if the meter is accurate, it will be linear - but the converse is not necessarily true. To observe Ohm's law you need linearity, but you don't need accuracy. Jeh (talk) 23:35, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

"You establish linearity by determining that the reading is proportional to the quantity being measured." That would be quite a trick with an invisible commodity for which the very first instrument of measure is being devised. :-) For example, how would you establish that there is exactly twice as much romance in the air with your current paramour as with the previous, in order to confirm the linearity of your new romance meter? Of course, you would put two such paramours in series, and determine that the needle moved exactly twice as far across the dial, yes? And that would establish the accuracy of your new instrument of measure. Slade Farney (talk) 04:59, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

No. But it would establish its linearity. Jeh (talk) 05:02, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

... If you knew ahead of time the law of voltaic sources in series. But how could you know such a thing without measurement? Slade Farney (talk) 06:09, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Tim Birkin with Malcolm Campbell (small).jpg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Tim Birkin with Malcolm Campbell (small).jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Stefan2 (talk) 16:33, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

List of TED speakers

You're welcome for your thanks for this this edit made by me.

It's been reverted.

Having these convienence links in this list article is being discussed at Talk:List_of_TED_speakers#Keep_convenience_links_to_speaker.E2.80.99s_TED_talks. In case, you want to participate in the consensus. Thanks either way. Yours for a better Wikipedia. — Lentower (talk) 17:36, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

Vani Hari edits

Hi, you reverted a change I made to the Vani Hari article and I'm not sure I understand what I supposedly removed. I'm pretty new to editing Wikipedia so I apologize if it's something obvious. YesPretense (talk) 19:15, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

Sorry, that's my fault. I misread the direction of the diff and thought you were removing it, not adding it. Just noticed your comment on the article talk: and realised what you were doing. I've reverted my change. Andy Dingley (talk) 19:18, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

I've seen some stupid, callous shit on the internet...

and this is right up there with the stupidest, most callous. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 01:17, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

re User_talk:Ironholds#Death_threats.3F

Have you read Ironholds' past comment about setting another editor on fire? When he comes out with stuff like that, he loses the right to expect sympathy when someone else gives him the same sort of abuse. Let alone the idea of a WMF employee doing it.

To then try and tar Peter Damian as being part of sending him death threats is (in your own phrase) "a pretty sleazy guilt-by-association slur".

I'm no friend of Wikipediocracy and their hounding of Ironholds was inexcusable (and I'd note that I've had much the same from them myself: outing, phone calls to my workplace). However Ironholds's hands are far from clean and his slur of Peter Damian here is just that, 'sleazy'. Andy Dingley (talk) 01:24, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

There is an important difference between a credible death threat and Oliver's transparent OTT absurdist humour. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 01:47, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

Not if you're the target of it! Andy Dingley (talk) 08:24, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

Ironholds expresses his "interesting" view on Peter Damian: https://archive.is/4LT95#selection-6759.0-6807.82 Andy Dingley (talk) 09:45, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

Two people have now told me the "death threat" Oliver refers to was a pretty disgusting "dream sequence" narrated by Badmachine which, while disgusting and intimidating wasn't what I would call a credible death threat, any more than Oliver's reference to Peter in your link was a credible threat of violence.

None of this is excusable, of course. At least Oliver, though, appears to have learned not to do that kind of thing any more. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 18:50, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

Hi There

Hi there. I had removed the category from Daw with Maw and Paw partly because the edit was made by a block-evading vandal, and partly because I thought it was not policy to put categories on redirect pages to begin with. I'm sincerely curious to know if it is policy to put categories on redirects, or on the page the redirect goes to?--Mr Fink (talk) 20:32, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

Redirects that are "printworthy" should be categorised. See {{R printworthy}} et al. Most of these (like this one) should be categorised much as for articles. If it's a redirect that's something like a one-hit wonder band redirecting to an article on their song, then the redirect (and only the redirect) would be categorised under bands and the article would be under songs.

Non-printworthy redirects shouldn't be categorised in the general category tree. However there are also templates, like {{R printworthy}} or {{R from misspelling}}, that are there specifically for categorising redirects, printworthy or not. Andy Dingley (talk) 22:12, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

ANI-notice

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. nafSadh did say 05:20, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

hi andy sorry i was experimenting — Preceding unsigned comment added by Leo 6869 (talk • contribs) 21:29, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

about your revert in "DC motor"

Dear andy dingley, you recently reverted my edit , saying " this isn't an article about universal motor". You do understand that the other name of series motor is called universal motor, so my edit is valid since I added content about series motor. I don't know why but i can constantly see u reverting edits even though if it is correct. So before reverting an edit please see whether u can do so. since you are reverting valid edits. You are discouraging new Wikipedia editors by reverting valid edits . --Chand3994 (talk) 15:20, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

The question here is whether that content is relevant to that article topic. This isn't an article on series wound motors (aka universal motor), it's an article on DC motors. The universal motor does belong there (why there is a section on them), but only as a form of DC motor, being used as a DC motor. Your addition was about AC use specifically. That belongs in the article at universal motor, but not in the specific section DC motor#Series connection. Andy Dingley (talk) 17:04, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

But you'd rather just edit-war and paste the irrelevant text in again anyway... <sigh> Andy Dingley (talk) 17:40, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

User:80.194.88.178

Re [3], that IP was already on my watchlist; it would appear to have been previously schoolblocked [4]. —Sladen (talk) 13:13, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

RAF Laarbruch

Hi

There was no need for a discussion, they have been various RAF airfield articles merged into the current airfield article over the last few months, two have had discussions over 14months ago and both got quick merge support but the merge proposer never carried out the procedure. Gavbadger (talk) 22:04, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

WP:OSE. Discuss first. Andy Dingley (talk) 22:05, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

It was an obvious merge to make, hundreds of RAF airfield articles have been merged into the new civilian airports over the last few years. You don't have to start a discussion for every merge especially such an obvious one which has was non-controversial. Gavbadger (talk) 23:05, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

It's not controversial, it's opposed. Andy Dingley (talk) 23:07, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

For what reason? Gavbadger (talk) 23:11, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

Because RAF Laarbruch has a substantial and obviously notable history. Rather more in fact than a very minor local airport. To claim that "it's an airport today" is WP:RECENTISM. Andy Dingley (talk) 23:17, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

Also, why ignore WP:NOTBROKEN ? Andy Dingley (talk) 22:07, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

Geniuine mistake, I was following the guidelines from WP:Merging and it said about dealing with "What links here", but it mean't double redirects not the rest. Gavbadger (talk) 23:05, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

Confused

Hi, I'm confused, you just accused me of making destructive editing in Wilfred Owen. Eh?? I never even visited this page! What's going on?? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.132.234.147 (talk) 07:53, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

That'll be this edit, one of a number from Windsor Boys School at the time a week ago. I presume that you're not at the school, you're just another mobile user - maybe along the M4 corridor, maybe not.

The confusion is because you're not logged in to an account, so you're just using an IP address as an identity. This means that you'll get messages aimed at previous users of that IP address too. Don't take it personally, we recognise that it's unlikely to be the same person a week apart. However if you'd like to have a more personalised account here, you might want to think about registering an account. You don't even have to use an identity that's connected to your real world identity, pseudonyms are fine. Andy Dingley (talk) 10:08, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

Audio transformer

What is the matter with you? Do you or do you not know that audio transformers are used in intercoms.Wondering whether you are an electrical student! Reverting wrong edits is good but reverting valid edits is not at all nice! what was your problem?. problem with me or with the edit which i made? --Chand3994 (talk) 11:55, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

Are you an electrical student? Perhaps you'd care to explain your edit at Batttery.

As to transformer, then your additions were the duplication of "transformers enable economical transmission" with "making transmission economical" in a following sentence. Nor was it particularly accurate (why ignore the crucial aspect of resistance and Joule heating? - that's what makes the difference). Your change to audio transformers was to add two trivial examples as a somewhat verbose list, which the existing term "audio equipment" covered perfectly well already. Nor is intercom particularly relevant, as an intercom is often considered to be a two-way communication device. Public address system would have been a better term to use and constant-voltage speaker system is the narrow topic where transformers are actually of relevance. Andy Dingley (talk) 12:11, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

: I had added points more than just the transmission is economical . I had added points about reduction in the current flow at higher voltages which leads to the reduction in joule heating as u say. And joule heating and i^2r loss are already explained if u can see,in the article so if I add points about joule heating it would be just a repetition. and i still wonder you are an electrical student. Good luck for your job of seeing through my edit history! I can now recognize that you are trying you revert all my edit by seeing my edit history.Why only mentioning the wrong edits? For your information see also my edits on rectifier,dc motor,radio and other non electrical topics Intercoms is a two way communication device and it also utilizes audio transformers. if u can see through an intercoms construction you will know that is. --Chand3994 (talk) 12:29, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

Your edit to DC motor was to add its behaviour with AC currents, [sic] then to edit-war to re-add it when that was removed. I'm not "out to get you", but nor am I seeing much that's a positive improvement. Andy Dingley (talk) 12:32, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

Telling about efficiency of dc motor is not so wrong in my point of view. you can also see my edit in rectifiers about efficiency and type of modulation in case of radio and torque capabilities in bldc. And i can see others accepting my edits which are valid in various other topic and i can see them giving a good response when the edit is wrong. But your response is absolutely terse. Thats how all this started. You can keep reverting valid edits saying silly comments afterall you are not gonna listen or accept anything which people say. I am not gonna lose anything. --Chand3994 (talk) 12:48, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

You have made few edits so far, and received a lot of reverts from a variety of other editors. I have seen nothing yet that counts as "good" and if I haven't reverted more, that has more to do with WP:AGF than their quality. If you think you're being harassed, then WP:ANI would be the place to raise that. Andy Dingley (talk) 12:53, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

You can see whether i got reverts from many editors or many of my edits are accepted. I will stop this conversation with this as I have some other works also to do. I don't want to waste my time for providing additional information in articles , whether it is a small information or big. people who see the article will have a better perception if things are explained in more than one way. If reverting every additional way of explanation is done on every article then the article will remain the same without any improvement. Thank you!!! --Chand3994 (talk) 13:02, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

Outrunner

Hey Andy - thanks for the heads up. I completely understand. I noticed that Outrunner has almost no citations and needed some. I was able to provide a citation about outrunners in RC craft by linking to a post about brushed vs. brushless motors being used in RC crafts. It seemed quite relevant as a source to help validate that statement. I will leave it up to you to decide if it is worth putting back in there or not. — Preceding unsigned comment added by WilliamHobby (talk • contribs) 19:52, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

AO

We were going to do a reddit /r/3dprinting contest to edit wikipedia to increase the amount of good info about 3D printing here. The Marketing dept came up with the idea. I am killing off the idea for now, since we are going through an AfD and it would be unseemly for us to drive traffic here. FYI. 50.205.5.74 (talk) 19:01, 24 April 2015 (UTC) (jebba)

Be wary of "Let's edit WP" campaigns. They need a cadre of WP-experienced editors to make them work. If a group of keen, but unfamiliar with WP, redditors show up then they're likely to fall foul of the local taboos and cargo-cults. This turns into a wikilynching and reflects badly on everyone.

I think a userspace rewrite of the existing article, by people who really know the product, is the best way to move forwards.

Would you agree my previous point that there are now many 3D printers available and few are WP:Notable - novelty not being in their favour any more. If so, how does the Aleph / Lulzbot differ from this? That's the aspect that would have to be highlighted. Andy Dingley (talk) 19:28, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

The proposal wasn't that people would edit the Aleph Objects articles, but improve 3D printing in wikipedia in general. Anyway, the idea is dead, so no worries there. I don't see anything in WP:Notability that mentions "novelty", so I don't see how that is relevant. I don't know why you get off on tangents if the machine can print its own parts (it can), as that is irrelevant for wikipedia Notability. Notability for companies reads "An organization is generally considered notable if it has been the subject of significant coverage in reliable, independent secondary sources". We have had significant coverage in many sources deemed reputable by wikipedia. "A primary test of notability is whether people independent of the subject itself (or its manufacturer, creator, or vendor) have actually considered the company, corporation, product or service notable enough that they have written and published non-trivial, non-routine works that focus upon it." In the other pages I list more sources, but here's a recent one from Forbes http://www.forbes.com/sites/tjmccue/2015/04/30/lulzbot-3d-printers-a-glimpse-into-the-future-of-american-manufacturing/ "My work here on Forbes is not to review products, per se, but to explore bigger industry trends and up-and-coming companies. ... If the future of American manufacturing includes 3D printing, and I believe it does, then this young company is showcasing some of the ways to produce new products, highly customized, and at a small scale. Small for now; expect big things from this customer-focused company." 50.205.5.74 (talk) 18:41, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

Here's a few more. A write up after an in-person visit from CompanyWeek (regional): http://companyweek.com/company-profile/aleph-objects A couple more from the last week in main local paper: http://www.reporterherald.com/business/ci_28031430/3d-printer-maker-growing-like-crazy http://www.reporterherald.com/news/ci_27999486/hightech-companies-consider-rmcit-campus There's more in industry press. Jebba (talk) 01:25, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

Cathedrals Express

Hi - re [5]: At the time of making the original edit (with my alternative account), Cathedrals Express was also a redlink. I wasn't aware of the historical named train, and therefore thought it unlikely to be created as an article, with Steam Dreams a better target for the link. I stand corrected :-) Optimist on the run (talk) 15:40, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

yeah Know Jay Miner thats my reference

1979 You dont know Jack You should have left it alone. It shows like most. You, are a pc person that is a AMIGA wanna be either that or a Amiga person that has gone to the dark side that doesn't know anything. Dang Jay was on you tube even talking on and about Amiga being Inc. in 1981 and started in 1979. I talked to Jay long long ago , and became a good friend of his. May he RIP. ITs sad shame what you people are doing to his system. I wont allow what is happening dont worry I really know the truth for people like you. The sources you use most of the time are from what falsehoods,and so called pfft amiga inc.. that uses false info , and doesn't even own a lick of sense much less the anything truly Amiga. Nobody does. Well, some company does. You'll find out who does. — Preceding unsigned comment added by AmigaOne (talk • contribs) 16:44, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

Bearing life

Nice section on bearing life calculation! You reintroduced my small section and expanded it so nicely. This was totally needed here. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.96.150.30 (talk) 14:41, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

You're welcome - more complicated than I realised though. I still don't understand the recent changes and need to go back on work on them a bit more. Andy Dingley (talk) 14:54, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

A kitten for you!

Thank you for catching that edit. I was trying to revert vandalism and bumped it back to the wrong revision!

PureRED (talk) 14:51, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

No problem, it's easily done. Andy Dingley (talk) 14:52, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

A cookie for you!

I like that you like that i have guts Retartist 11:13, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

Hello Andy. I saw your comment at WP:AE. I can't help but feel that at least four of the diffs are indeed violations. [6] [7] [8] [9]. I could comment on the case as you did, but I think the case is a lost cause already, again because of the nature of the filer. Just want to hear your opinion, do you think I should comment now, or open a new case with this diffs listed above after this one is closed? I'm in much better standing than Retartist. starship.paint ~ ¡Olé! 12:21, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

Be aware that Future Perfect has already blocked Retartist for a month for filing this. He blocked me and considers me "de facto banned" (whatever that means) for complaining of his support of infamous sock Betacommand/Werieth last year. He will probably do something similar to you.

Red Pen is of course entirely innocent of all charges - whatever those charges are - he has admin friends who share his agenda, and they are demonstrably willing to close any discussion of, or to block those discussing it. Discussions aren't closed because they were raised by the wrong IP, they were closed because Red Pen is untouchable.

It's up to you - but really WP is too broken to achieve much by this route. I don't have any better answers though. Andy Dingley (talk) 12:46, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for your response. Nevertheless, I will try. I've never been blocked, and I don't think my doing so is a blockable offense. There, it's done. starship.paint ~ ¡Olé! 07:30, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

And for a third time, closed as "We won't act against RedPen". Pathetic. 8-( Andy Dingley (talk) 15:01, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

You were right, man. I wish it wasn't so. starship.paint ~ ¡Olé! 05:48, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

Why are you deleting edits?

Thank for you message that you deleted my edit from the Fire ring page. I don't really see what extensive explanation is required here. All I did is make it more general by deleting "church" from "are used by families, youth, and church organizations year-round", as the fact that some organizations that use fire rings are churches does not add anything to an article on fire rings. While I appreciate your friendly style and the message you sent, I really don't think that making a habit out of deleting other people's edits is a positive contribution to Wikipedia or our community in general. Reading through the other entries on your user talk page I can only make one recommendation: stop undoing other people's work and get a life. 2600:1003:B841:DD94:4496:C7B:A480:52A3 (talk) 03:58, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

As you left it, the grammar became incorrect and certainly awkward. I've no problem with you deleting "church", but please leave a well-written article behind. Andy Dingley (talk) 09:22, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

An explanation of my revision

I changed line 32 in Leather to "vegetable tanned" and you changed it back to "vegetal tanned." Here in the United States, it's vegetable tanned. You must be a Brit, as that term is not used here in the States. So you can keep the revision; it's not a big deal to me that you changed it (within about 30 minutes), but realize I am not incorrect in calling it "vegetable tanned." ----

WP:ENGVAR Andy Dingley (talk) 18:58, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

Epicyclical gearing

Hi, can you check better what the content you reinserted contains. The ref is to the commersial site of a supplier of a particular type of gear system, and the text claims its originality. The section is placed in the article under benefits. I find this revertion weird and would urge you to have a better look at whether your edit benefits the article. Thanks Keanu (talk) 11:05, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

WP:SOFIXIT If it needs improvement, improve it. However what's unwarranted is to blank sections added, simply because they use a commercial supplier as a source. Surprisingly, these are the very editors and sources who might know something about the subject! The purpose here is to improve articles, not to preserve membership of the aristocratic wiki-club and keep out anyone who's hands are dirtied by mere trade. Andy Dingley (talk) 11:17, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

I have no idea about what aristocratic wiki club you are talking about and will leave the article since you feel that that contribution was to the better. Kind regards Keanu (talk) 11:22, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

You wanted to keep this guys contribution, can you follow him up, I dont see how to solve this since I am not too as smart as you are when it comes to this wiki stuff, sorry. Keanu (talk) 19:38, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

Please be civil

Instead of inserting a {{cn}} in my comment, as you did Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bon (programming language), you could have just asked. I find this move of yours quite uncivil, and you could have found the source for my claim right there in Bon (programming language). QVVERTYVS (hm?) 13:39, 23 May 2015 (UTC)

Ooh, more of the Mighty Allcaps. Use enough of them and all arguments become quite incontrovertible.

You are still claiming that an article should be deleted because you express a subjective and unsourced opinion that it had no part in the history of programming language development. of the two of you, I'm going with Dennis Ritchie over this. This sort of vague handwave "Believe me, I know what I'm talking about for I am L33T" is crap, whether it's in an article or presented as evidence for deletion. Andy Dingley (talk) 14:32, 23 May 2015 (UTC)

And Ritchie says Bon and B are unrelated. Maybe I should have posted the source to the AfD discussion, but the quote is right there in the article. Now please, let's have a discussion based on the available facts. QVVERTYVS (hm?) 15:47, 23 May 2015 (UTC)

The Bristolian (train)

When you say "I'm tired of your pointless edits like this", I assume that you refer to my edit of 17:43, 9 April 2015. Other than that, when have I followed up one of your edits with an action like that? Also, why is it pointless when it keeps the referencing style consistent within the article, per WP:CITEVAR? --Redrose64 (talk) 12:41, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

You have done this repeatedly, not just about ref formats, and all too often taking the "I'm An Admin, so I rule over content decisions too" approach.

Besides which, your summary, "don't mix WP:LDR with normal named refs; and the article wasn't using LDR before, so please don't introduce it without discussion", is simply wrong on several points.

We have a policy (weak and largely ignored) that the format of refs should remain consistent. There is some virtue to this. This change, however, did not affect format at all, merely the source code of the template call. You also stripped out the whitespace from the template, simply to inconvenience content editors with no change to the results of the template.

You describe the article as if it were "WP:LD format": there is no such thing. Each reference is LDR or not, articles can use either with no impact. What possible reason is there against LDR refs?

Nor was this even a change. This was a new, and needed, ref added to an article that is short of them. No doubt that alone makes it a bad practice from yet another of those pesky editors to be stamped out in admin-land. It's so much more important to harangue those doing the work and put every possible obstacle in their way.

I did think that you were one of the better admins once, but all I seem to see now is this sort of petty and utterly useless nit-picking. No doubt you think it's progress, you probably even get barnstars or shiny new hats for it. Andy Dingley (talk) 12:59, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

Excuse me. How can one edit be "repeatedly"? --Redrose64 (talk) 13:17, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

It's about what, not how many. But you've ignored that. Even though your own comment cited two examples of exactly the same edit. Andy Dingley (talk) 14:41, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

Two instances, on different articles, almost seven weeks apart. Your comment "I'm tired of your pointless edits like this" implies that I am in some way following your edits and making alterations after many of them. --Redrose64 (talk) 14:51, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

Yes, and not merely the LDR issue.

You still miss the point. It's not a good idea to make a worthless edit merely to gainsay someone else's work. It's a bad idea to do it once; it gets more annoying to do it repeatedly, but it wasn't a good idea even the first time (you still haven't addressed where your "LDR is bad enough to revert on sight" comes from). But you're an admin, the little people are irrelevant. Andy Dingley (talk) 14:59, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

What do you mean by "not merely the LDR issue"? Where have I said "LDR is bad enough to revert on sight"? --Redrose64 (talk) 15:19, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

You might not have said it, but your actions (noted here) are to revert it without discussion when you see it. Andy Dingley (talk) 15:22, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

I'm not against LDR per se, but when an article already uses one referencing style, WP:CITEVAR says that new refs should be of the same style. Adding new refs of a different style - such as LDR in an article already using a non-LDR style - goes against WP:CITEVAR. Also, please note that I didn't revert you, I moved the ref to the appropriate place in the text in order to be consistent with the existing refs. Nothing was lost. --Redrose64 (talk) 15:56, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

May 2015

Laser edits Hello Andy, sorry if I made an editing error. If alright, I will try again. Any other suggestions before I try.

I was trying to add a video of a laser beam inflight filmed with new fast image recording techniques, and the research article reference explaining the video

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Uq0H4-nvBB8&ab_channel=NewScientist Video of Laser Beam in flight http://www.nature.com/ncomms/2015/150127/ncomms7021/full/ncouomms7021.html

Thank you,Jcardazzi (talk) 17:12, 28 May 2015 (UTC)jcardazzi

I don't know what happened here, but your editing broke somewhere. Please remember to preview or check after editing.

As to this addition, then be aware that YouTube links are seen badly on WP. There's even a 'bot that automatically reverts them. If you do want to add it, then make it clear what you're doing and make it clear why it's relevant. Make the New Scientist link clear. Also use the {{YouTube}} template, not just a bare EL.

As to its relevance to Laser, I'm not so sure. It's interesting, but is its relevance to lasers in particular? Andy Dingley (talk) 18:19, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

Hello Andy, thanks for your comments. On further thought I think the articles relate to high speed photography techniques, where the scientists photographed laser light; not directly to lasers. I won't use the Youtube video, the New Scientist link includes the scientists video, posted on youtube. Thank you, Jcardazzi (talk) 00:57, 29 May 2015 (UTC)jcardazzi

Thanks

Given that we've bumped heads again, I thought it a timely idea to express how much I appreciate what you do here as en editor. We're all flawed, but you help me keep focused and on the right path, even when I happen to disagree with you (in part or full) over a specific edit or incident. --Orange Mike | Talk 11:51, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

Is this plausible?

[10] I think not, but thought it might amuse you anyway. 50.0.136.194 (talk) 19:54, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

I really can't see what they're meaning, other than just trolling for the lulz. Andy Dingley (talk) 10:57, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

Shaker-style pantry box

Your eyes and hands would be appreciated. Cheers! 7&6=thirteen (☎) 14:39, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

A Dobos torte for you!

7&6=thirteen (☎) has given you a Dobos Torte to enjoy! Seven layers of fun because you deserve it.

To give a Dobos Torte and spread the WikiLove, just place {{subst:Dobos Torte}} on someone else's talkpage, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend.

7&6=thirteen (☎) 14:40, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

Stage Jig

Dear Mr Dingly,

I noticed that on May 14th you reverted a deletion on the page for 'Stage Jig' that claims 'Jack Ketch's Jig', written in 1994, is of the same period as the jigs this article discusses, which date 1580s-1670s. The deletion was made because reference to this 20th century performance, about a restoration someone or other, doesn't belong here as far as I am aware, unless you know otherwise? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.197.120.66 (talk • contribs) 10:59, June 6, 2015‎

Although that's a modern performance piece, the term goes back to the Restoration period, in just the same context. Andy Dingley (talk) 18:20, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

Scorpion

Andy,

Suffice it to say you are not qualified to pass judgement on edits on the article on USS Scorpion. The article is crap, sponsored by disinformation persons and is an insult to the family members who lost fathers, brothers, uncles, sons and husbands. The references available are slim and controversial, sometimes technically incompetent. Citing spam from sensational books written for profit is not a proper reference either.

It is not an editing war, it is a matter of respect for 99 dead servicemen. I would appreciate it if you would leave this alone, undo all your muddling and stop pretending this is an editing war. There are some people in the world who are very well versed on the subject and have a duty to clean up silly articles that wish for explosions, torpedoes, soviet warfare and similar garbage.

Please stop your harassment on this article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Brandywine589 (talk • contribs) 02:10, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Indian Space Shuttle Programme

You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Indian Space Shuttle Programme. Requesting you to add your opinion. Regards Thanks. M.srihari (talk) 07:32, 8 June 2015 (UTC)Srihari

A barnstar for you!

	The Original Barnstar
	I believe you were right about 5.5s serving in Korea, it appears the 74 Medium Battery (Battleaxe) equipped with 5.5s served in Korea during the last few months of the war. Mrniceguy101 (talk) 18:28, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

The Battleaxes were quite famous for it. Not Glorious Glosters famous, but still some pretty major engagements. Andy Dingley (talk) 19:51, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

University of Exeter workshop

Thanks for your note re the University of Exeter workshop. I'm not quite sure what I'm going to find when I get there - I've asked for more details about how many potential participants. If it is only going to be half a dozen then probably happy on my own but if 20+ then someone else would probably be useful. There was a call for help on this over a year ago (Daria & Harry were involved in setting it up) You say its not far -where in Wales are you?— Rod ^talk 10:37, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

I'm just a leek's throw from England. On the South Wales main line, so I know I can get a train from my door to Exeter's door. If you've not been to Exeter before, it's a nice place, but parking is hellish, B&Bs expensive and a B&B with parking even more so. It's a place for visiting by train. Andy Dingley (talk) 12:03, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

That's a little unfair; parking is pretty good these days, and with the improvements to junction 29, driving around the city has improved too. But still, a much better place to visit by train, it's true. Harrias ^talk 12:10, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

I hadn't really thought about travel yet, and have never been to Exeter University before, but had added an external link to Exeter University July 2015 highlighting the Travel details and campus maps from the university. My experience is that there is usually parking at universities in the middle of July as many students have gone by then. NB I don't yet know the room & which campus etc.— Rod ^talk 14:05, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

The two main campuses are pretty central - easy walk. There are some other campus(es), but they're satellite campuses and not really in Exeter. I think one's not even in Devon! Andy Dingley (talk) 14:31, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

I've just heard back from Exeter about the study day/workshop on 15 July & we may have 20 ish participants, so if you are still free, it would be great if you were able to come along. I've now heard the specific venue is "expo lab 1 in the Forum" (but I've not checked where that is yet).— Rod ^talk 14:12, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

Thanks Rod, I'll have to check the diary and get back to you. I've a big project coming up, probably not started by then, but might be. Andy Dingley (talk) 14:19, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

Any news on this as an email discussion took place today about expenses and whether accommodation etc would be needed? Can you email me so that I get an email address to forward/copy you in to the discussions if you are going to be able to make it.— Rod ^talk 20:08, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

Looks good Rod, Unfortunately my email provider and usual email address has chosen tonight to do "No Core Services Affected" on-the-fly maintenance, so it's all b0rked for tonight. I'll message you later, if it ever works again. Andy Dingley (talk) 21:55, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

Ref

You introduced a whitespace inside ref tags. Why? Why is this useful? And why your version is better than mine? You changed a long-standing consensus on the page to use unspaced tags and then you reference to CITEVAR that contradicts your actions. -- Magioladitis (talk) 20:40, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

I did not "introduce" it. I created that page, and I created it, as always, with useful whitespace in a non-critical location. This helps to make wikicode source easier to edit manually by content creators. Remember them? There is no "long-standing consensus" on that page. WP:CITEVAR (per recent discussions on this issue, see its talk:) has become a bad and mis-interpreted guideline because it is being used to prevent against well-thought-out manual edits that improve the clarity of references. If so (and even its author thinks it has now been misinterpreted), then it's certainly a shield against pointless 'bot damage from a 'bot that sees "damage" where there is none. Andy Dingley (talk) 20:44, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

Please revert yourself

Please revert yourself. [11] As you well know your personal assessment is insufficient and what is required for inclusion, as per the lead muliple valid sources that assert the death as unusual, not some third state proximate cause. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 22:11, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

No. It's a valid addition with good sourcing. Yet again, you do not WP:OWN this, or your many other claimed articles. Andy Dingley (talk) 22:14, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

Caisson lock

You have more comment at [12] 86.131.4.105 (talk) 15:12, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

Champion (spark plug)

Hello. For information, see: Champion Aerospace - Spark Plugs. --Cjp24 (talk) 23:41, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

Yes, a photograph of a Champion spark plug might be a useful addition.

A photograph of a Cessna, with no visible sparkplugs, is not. Not even if it has them hidden away inside. Not even if it has an invisibly tiny sticker on the cowling. Andy Dingley (talk) 23:44, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

This photo shows the existence of Champion Aerospace, a division of Champion (not indicated in Champion (spark plug)), and (authorized way) a (small) logo of the brand. In general, logos on vehicles are not big. --Cjp24 (talk) 00:00, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

Just what new knowledge is imparted to the reader by using this photograph? That Porky Pig is prone to shooting at it, mistaking it for a duck hunt? The sticker is tiny. The sticker conveys nothing. Even a photo of an aircraft owned by Champion, using Champion parts, would still convey nothing if we can't even see them. Andy Dingley (talk) 00:31, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

This photo shows (one application) that Champion is present in aeronautics and a (small, of course) logo of Champion (here Aerospace). --Cjp24 (talk) 00:47, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

A tiny photo of a sticker shows nothing about anything, even when it's your photo (and your aircraft?) Andy Dingley (talk) 00:51, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

May be the legend of the photo was not the best. This photo shows above all the activity in aeronautics, not indicated in the page, not a sticker. It's not my aircraft, see more aircrafts on Commons. --Cjp24 (talk) 01:11, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

My toolbox has a Champion spark plug sticker on it. It's not aerobatic though. A sticker proves nothing. A photo of a tiny sticker doesn't even prove that much. Andy Dingley (talk) 01:16, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

This photo shows mainly an aircraft, not a sticker. It illustrates the presence of Champion in aeronautics. --Cjp24 (talk) 01:34, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

Other example: see Ferodo. --Cjp24 (talk) 01:48, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

A discussion is open at Commons:Bistro here. --Cjp24 (talk) 03:43, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

The discussion here belongs on the article talk: page, not on my talk: page, not at Commons, not on a French talk page. I have sympathy for the language issue, but this is the English language WP, after all. Andy Dingley (talk) 09:29, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

Motorist

I moved Motorist to Motorist (disambiguation). While I disagree that a dab page is needed or appopriate here, if one is needed, there is a clear WP:PRIMARYTOPIC, and the pages need to be organized according to the guidelines.--Srleffler (talk) 04:42, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

Foreach loop

Re [13]: CoffeeScript aside, what do you think about moving the page to Comparison of programming languages (foreach loops)? I mean, the page is more like a list than a proper article anyways :) It would make it fit in with the other comparison lists in Category:Programming language comparisons, which is where I found the page in the first place. 83.226.255.86 (talk) 16:40, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

That's already what this article has become. I think we should delete it instead, or at least prune almost all of it.

This is an article about foreach loops, not languages. It should only include language examples where they add to that. So the concept of "foreach" should be explained. An example from a simple language that supports foreach should be given, then other languages only where they illustrate some variant of this. So C/C++ could be in there four times (Pointer increment, array index by offset, macro and C++ foreach). It would also need a Lisp-like example for heavily recursive languages. Maybe Visual Basic to show the method-based form .foreach() for COM objects. A functional version (like LINQ or OCaml) demonstrating use with lambda functions. Python to show list comprehension or generator expressions.

We need to lose the repeated statements of the plain, uninteresting, foreach loop form just in different (and usually editor's favourite) languages. Andy Dingley (talk) 16:51, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

Please take another look

Hello! I am leaving this note for you because you participated in a deletion discussion about the Wikipedia article titled Institute of Continuing Education. I substantially expanded the article today (for the helluvit), and would appreciate if you would take a look and see if it’s better than when you last saw it. Cheers.Anythingyouwant (talk) 03:38, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

Thanks. I've always been in favour of keeping this, as I considered it a currently poor article on a notable topic that deserved expansion. Thanks for actually doing it. Andy Dingley (talk) 09:12, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

dimethylmercury

It did. That's why I fixed it in the article. Dimethylmercury is not mercury poisnoing as much as cyanide poisoning isn't carbon poisoning. Per the article it's not metabolised or broken down in any way into mercury. It always say dimethylmercury poisoning not mercury poisoning. It's not mercury poisining. So I revert your suggestion back at you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dqeswn (talk • contribs) 17:03, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

SMAW

(re: this) - Gee, Andy... those red links have been there for almost 10 years now. Don't you think it's ok to remove them? Or do you honestly think articles for them are going to be created? (say, before the end of this decade?). I only ask because in your eagerness to pounce on that revert, you didn't leave anything in the edit summary or on the talk page that would explain why. - ^theWOLFchild 01:27, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

I think that it's time someone wrote an article on weld spatter. Andy Dingley (talk) 09:33, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

Steam cars

Hi Andy there is an obvious disagreement between you and User talk:Lathamibird in the Steam car article. Can you both raise the issue in the articles talk section so that a consensus can be reached. Thanks NealeFamily (talk) 10:19, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

"Disagreement"? Is that what you call blanking sourced sections now? If he's really convinced that "99% of steam cars were non-condensing", he needs to pitch up some sourcing for that. Maybe "99% by distinct model" by listing every backyard-special separately but, given the production dominance of the few larger makers (White, Stanley, Doble), this figure is a nonsense for actual cars made. Andy Dingley (talk) 10:25, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

Chepstow listing

I reverted IkbenFrank partly because there was no mention of listing in the article, which goes against WP:CAT#Articles ("it should be clear from verifiable information in the article why it was placed in each of its categories"); partly because I couldn't find the station at http://www.historicengland.org.uk/listing/the-list and partly because IkbenFrank has a history of adding irrelevant and inaccurate information. --Redrose64 (talk) 13:13, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

The Newman book refers to N. Lancaster Owen, who I can't find... but there is a W. Lancaster Owen. It could be him - Newman's typo, perhaps - or it could be a brother. Any thoughts? Ghmyrtle (talk) 13:35, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

Lancaster Owen didn't work for the GWR, and in any senior role, until some years after Chepstow station building was built. One of Stephen Jones' 'Brunel in Wales' books has the best description of the line. Andy Dingley (talk) 15:21, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

OK, but Newman says: "Railway Station, Station Road. 1850 for I. K. Brunel's South Wales Railway, designed by N. Lancaster Owen....." Do you think that is incorrect and that Newman is unreliable? I don't have the Jones book - does that contradict Newman? Ghmyrtle (talk) 15:29, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

I don't know a "N. Lancaster Owen". William Lancaster Owen is well known as an engineer of works for the GWR, but not until 1875 (he worked early on for the GWR, but this seems to have been more of an internship under his father. Then he made his own career on canals before returning.).

I don't know offhand the build date for the Chepstow station building. There was expansion work at Chepstow under his charge in the 1880s, especially the expansion of links into the ironworks site. As to the station building, then my understanding is that it was built around 1850 - possibly 1852, when the through route across the bridge opened. At which time W. Lancaster Owen was about 7.

So the station building is either newer than the station and was a Lancaster Owen design (which might also explain why it's not listed). Or else the station building is original and pre-dates him. Or there's another N Lancaster Owen in the GWR who's otherwise unrecorded. But it's implausible that William Lancaster Owen was designing station buildings in 1850. Andy Dingley (talk) 15:47, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

Also worth noting is that the whole building was lifted to fit onto the new raised platforms during the gauge conversion. Andy Dingley (talk) 15:49, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

It's probably a Newman cock-up - but it's "a well-known local fact" (apparently) that the existing station buildings were built "by" (or at least for) Brunel. It would be good if we could get it definitely sorted out one way or the other. Would it be better to remove the mention of Lancaster Owen entirely? Ghmyrtle (talk) 17:36, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

Arbitration motion regarding Arbitration enforcement

By motion, the Arbitration Committee authorises the following injunction effective immediately:

The case is to be opened forthwith and entitled "Arbitration enforcement";
During the case, no user who has commented about this matter on the AN page, the AE page or the Case Requests page, may take or initiate administrative action involving any of the named parties in this case.
Reports of alleged breaches of (2) are to be made only by email to the Arbitration Committee, via the main contact page.

You are receiving this message because you have commented about this matter on the AN page, the AE page or the Case Requests page and are therefore restricted as specified in (2). For the Arbitration Committee, L235 (t / c / ping in reply) via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:30, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

Mention on Arbitration Enforcement case

I wanted to let you know I mentioned you on Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Arbitration enforcement/Evidence in this edit and I may mention you again in future edits. This is just a courtesy to inform you that you were mentioned. Thank you. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 17:49, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

On the hiding of threads at Wikipediocracy

I moved the thread (about you and Metasonix originally, though it has strayed quite a bit now) after seeing Fae's comment, and put it in a subforum that bots can't see. We do that whenever a thread goes in a direction where one or more people being discussed probably wouldn't want that discussion to come up in a google (etc.) search. I also binned the post Fae was referring to, FWIW.

A lot of those discussions are just inside baseball with little or no educational value to the general public anyway, so we just assume that people (mostly Wikipedians) will just sign up for an account if they want to see it. --SB_Johnny | ^talk✌ 20:45, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

But the threads with my home phone number, the photographs of my partner, that's all OK? Andy Dingley (talk) 20:51, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

Email me a link please. --SB_Johnny | ^talk✌ 21:05, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

Did you not realise just what a pit that place is? Search back on ANI here and watch an admin telling me to "man up" and refusing to act over it, because outing's a banning offence hereabouts, but if it's done by the same people on a different website, that's all fine and dandy.

As I'm a non-member of Wikipediocracy, you have more search access and access to more threads there than I do. Andy Dingley (talk) 21:11, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

Well, WP's pretty much a pit too (did you notice that the guy who started the pit apparently thinks that the middle east can be improved by stirring up drama?), but at least WO's self aware about that. I did a quick search, didn't see anything like you described, but feel free to drop me a line if you run across it again. --SB_Johnny | ^talk✌ 21:33, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

You could try searching for your own name. You'd posted to that thread. Your act of shocked innocence just took a bit of a hit there. Andy Dingley (talk) 23:59, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

Wouldn't help much since I have 3,000+ posts over 3.5 years, and frankly I don't read every word in every thread. However, since you seem to have found the thread now, you can either email me a link to the part you'd like removed, or not. --SB_Johnny | ^talk✌ 02:08, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

Change from announced time table for the Arbitration enforcement arbitration case

You are receiving this message either because you are a party to the Arbitration enforcement arbitration case, because you have commented in the case request, or the AN or AE discussions leading to this arbitration case, or because you have specifically opted in to receiving these messages. Unless you are a party to this arbitration case, you may opt out of receiving further messages at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Arbitration enforcement/Notification list. The drafters of the Arbitration enforcement arbitration case have published a revised timetable for the case, which changes what you may have been told when the case was opened. The dates have been revised as follows: the Evidence phase will close 5 July 2015, one week earlier than originally scheduled; the Workshop phase will close 26 July 2015, one week later than originally scheduled; the Proposed decision is scheduled to be posted 9 August 2015, two weeks later than originally scheduled. Thank you. On behalf of the arbitration clerks, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 07:58, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

Bob Essery

Please explain this revert. --Redrose64 (talk) 16:02, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

Are you serious? As you clearly don't get it after a bunch of ALLCAPS boards, there is nothing I can say now that will explain it to you. Andy Dingley (talk) 16:05, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

What bunch of ALLCAPS boards? --Redrose64 (talk) 17:08, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

User:Fklatt adding promotional material

You might be interested in this Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents thread: User:Fklatt adding promotional material. This relates to the "MotorPrinter links removed" section at the top of this page. --Guy Macon (talk) 15:08, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

Spelling

"Humorist" is correct in British English. See for example here. Please consult a dictionary and self-revert. Feel free to check before you make a mistaken correction next time. --John (talk) 22:36, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

Why not look at which spelling Cutler favoured? Although humorist is indeed correct, so is humourist. Nor am I ever going to take the Economist, the Daily Mirror for people with money and a distrust of long words, as a style guide. Andy Dingley (talk) 23:06, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

Nah, it isn't just the Economist. If you say Cutler preferred an unusual spelling, a source for that would be appropriate. Otherwise, please admit your mistake and learn from it. --John (talk) 23:10, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

Gentlemen, "humorist". Oxford English Dictionary. Vol. 7 (2nd ed.). Oxford University Press. 1989. p. 484. and "humourist". Oxford English Dictionary. Vol. 7 (2nd ed.). Oxford University Press. 1989. p. 486. are both listed without a clear preference for either. The quotations prior to 1718 prefer the former with later quotations preferring the latter. Martin of Sheffield (talk) 08:23, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

Thankyou Martin

I don't know what "oxforddictionaries.com" is. It claims to be the OUP (there are a number of "Oxford" dictionaries on the net), but it's a drastically cut-down version of the real corpus. I would no more use it than the Economist.

I do of course use an OED. A big blue one at home (sometimes I have electronic access, but paper is cheaper). As Martin noted, they're both in there. If he has access, he'll also see that one of the alternate meanings was as someone susceptible to the effects of humours. Cutler's choice was a deliberate pun on this (when did Cutler ever pass up a pun?). Andy Dingley (talk) 08:36, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

Good lord what a pedantic at best and otherwise self-serving attitude. Where is it written that your attitude should prevail in an encyclopedia? Juan Riley (talk) 19:09, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

West Somerset Mineral Railway

Hi, I'm thinking of trying to get West Somerset Mineral Railway up to GA. I notice you added the Jones and Madge books to the bibliography, but these are not actually used in the text - do you have copies of the books? If so could you ad a fact or two from them to the article?— Rod ^talk 19:48, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

Sellick covers the basics and copies are everywhere, but the section in Madge pre-dates most others, so gives a bit of a different slant on it. Jones is now an essential source for anything resembling full coverage, or modelling. It really is a very good book (and could stun a buffalo if hurled enthusiastically). GA would be possible without (coverage and completeness are never an issue for GA), but it is worth getting hold of.

I can bring them down next week. Andy Dingley (talk) 21:41, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

File:John Cobb (small).jpg listed for deletion

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:John Cobb (small).jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why it has been listed (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry). Feel free to add your opinion on the matter below the nomination. Thank you. damiens.rf 00:52, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

My sincere thanks

Hi Andy Dingley.
Thank you for your improvement to my edit on the Topsy article. You are quite correct. Voltage does not pass through something but rather is applied across something. I believe that that part of the article is now totally technically correct. (Let's hope that we don't get reverted by someone who doesn't understand electricity.) Again, my thanks.
Richard27182 (talk) 05:07, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

Negative resistance GA

Andy, re your comments at Talk:Negative resistance/GA1. The review was closed and the article passed before you posted your comments. You might want to move them to the article talk page in a new section. It's a pity the reviewer did not concentrate more on that sort of thing instead of getting hung up on citation style issues which are not part of the GA criteria anyway. SpinningSpark 22:34, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

Just delete them then. I posted (pretty rapidly) in response to a request for comments at the project page. If the powers that be have already decided it's a GA pass, then that's out of my hands.

This is why I take no part in GA. It looks at the wrong things. Usually it gets the wrong people to look at them. Andy Dingley (talk) 08:07, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

Actually, most GA reviewers would zero in pretty rapidly on the WP:LEAD requirement. I certainly do when I review GAs. It's just this one reviewer seemed to be entirely obsessed with one irrelevant (to the GA criteria) issue. I wasn't looking to delete your comment, I'm fine with it staying there. I just thought you might want to put it somewhere more visible, but that may be moot now, Chetvorno seems to have picked it up with the intention of running with it. SpinningSpark 17:37, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

Giant's Causeway Tramway

No, I'm just reading through old Railway Magazines. This article is by Charles Lee, who did extensive research. The 1880 Act was 43 and 44 Vic. cap 197.Johnragla (talk) 10:53, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

Exeter workshop

		The Helping Hand Barnstar
		Thanks for all your help with the Exeter workshop today. The evaluations from the group showed that appreciated your input and guidance. — Rod ^talk 19:34, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

thank you

Thank you for the thank you. I don't understand why they do not let these very unusual deaths be included in the list but I tried my best. It's like dealing with bullies in the playground. Alec Station (talk) 14:44, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

The auto page and springs.

Hi Andy! I wanted to ask if you had thoughts on how I might work with the leaf spring material I mentioned on the auto project page. Luke is right in claiming the article isn't up to 2015 standards. However, I think he is throwing the baby out with the bath water in regards to refusing to help fix vs blank the content. I don't think I'm receiving special treatment given the infobox and other edits. Anyway, I would be interested to know if you have suggestions. Thanks Springee (talk) 00:26, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

I've just noticed User talk:Shelbychevette 8-( Andy Dingley (talk) 01:05, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

Yes, I posted on Shelby's talk page encouraging him to join the conversation when his 72 hours is up. He was also editing some Volvo pages to remove the "station wagon" term. I felt it was a bit to zealous and hence why I asked. Do you think I'm off base with my request to bring the spring article back at least long enough to fix the issues before it is merged away? Springee (talk) 01:15, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

I've asked the blocking admin why multi-article 5RR seems to result in a block for only one involved editor. I'm also raising this at ANI because I'm not going to sit here and be called a "pathological liar" by him. Andy Dingley (talk) 01:17, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

That was certainly one that I felt was over the top. If the forum had a report button I would use it. I'm frustrated in that I think he feels that he has spoken and thus the views of others don't matter. I'm not real happy about how he has responded to my posts (nothing like yours) but I don't think it helps my cause to argue too much. Incidentally, I wasn't able to find any consensus validating what he was doing with the Corvette (or Volvo) pages. Springee (talk) 01:27, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

I haven't even seen what he's been up to with Volvos 8-( What'll happen if he discovers one of my Volvos (which is now a "station wagon" or something) also has a transverse rear leaf spring? Andy Dingley (talk) 01:36, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

I would suggest buying a Korean SUV with coil springs all around. Saves all sorts of confusion! Springee (talk) 01:42, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

Hmmm... Friend has a little Korean thing - just had a coil spring break on it. Like when did coil springs start breaking? That's about the only thing I didn't manage to break (or just have fall off) on my Rangie. Andy Dingley (talk) 01:45, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

Rectangular boilers vs box boilers

Andy, I usually see references to rectangular boilers in works on ironclads; are these the same thing as box boilers? Thanks in advance.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 23:45, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

Yes. Flat sided rectangular boxes with several S shaped flues through them, big enough to crawl through for cleaning. Very little staying, so limited to low pressures. These are very early boilers: low pressure, saltwater feedwater. Once condensing engines come along, as do evaporators, feedwater becomes freshwater and pressures start to rise. Even when stayed, the box boiler is big, heavy and underpowered so soon becomes obsolete in favour of cylindrical tank boilers. Still flued, but when they developed multiple small diameter firetubes we have the Scotch boiler. Andy Dingley (talk) 00:09, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

Rippon, Commander P.M., RN (1998). The evolution of engineering in the Royal Navy. Vol. Vol 1: 1827-1939. Spellmount. p. 29. ISBN 0-946771-55-3. {{cite book}}: |volume= has extra text (help); Invalid |ref=harv (help)CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link) is a good source for this period. He gives 1820-1870 as a range for 'box', although by the later date they had more complex fluing and yet were still well obsolete. Andy Dingley (talk) 00:11, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for this, I'll try to hunt down a copy. Only snippet view on Google Books, sad to say.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 01:42, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

I've just had a look and it's not actually as good as I remembered for this early stuff. Really comes in from about 1850-1860. Still worth having though. There's more on these early boilers in some of the other steam engine books on stationary and commercial marine plant. Andy Dingley (talk) 01:53, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

Subterranea Britannica

Hi Andy. I removed the ref to Subterranea Britannica because it didn't appear to be an RS. Having looked into it further I'm undecided. What do you think? Sam Walton (talk) 16:43, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

Sub Brit have been doing this stuff for years. Leading figures within it (Nick Catford and Nick McCamley) are the absolute leading experts of post-WWII UK bunkerology. Railways are off their usual patch, but there's still no reason at all to question their use as a source.

For the Dingle station opening date, Gahan's ubiquitous Seventeen Stations to Dingle is probably a more obvious source to use, but there's nothing wrong with using Sub Brit and the Sub Brit page should certainly be linked on the Dingle station article. Andy Dingley (talk) 17:16, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

Alright, thanks. Sam Walton (talk) 18:16, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

en-Cats

Hi, Andy. Excuse me, I'm a full german greenhorn und not quite familiar with the conventions in the en-Cat-Section. Are you dealing with the IMDb-Datasets or is it possible to make own decisions if the Data seem illogical? --Koyaanis (talk) 12:36, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

I have no involvement with IMDB, Wikidata or whatever. However Roundhay Garden Scene was an English film, not a French film. Andy Dingley (talk) 13:29, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

NACA cowling

Sorry Andy - I see so many "dubious" tags without comment in the talk page that I didn't check the comment there before "fixing" the tag. Give me an hour or two and I'll do it properly... Shem (talk) 10:14, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

Take a look at Meredith effect.

The problem is that it's implausible that a Townend ring gives any measurable boost in thrust and it's barely credible that a NACA cowling would either. We should certainly trail Meredith effect and the idea that heating the cooling air in an enclosed duct can generate thrust, but we (in general) need to source such claims, and where it's really rather unlikely, then we would definitely have to source it. I doubt that there are such sources. It would be a small effect, it would be an effect dwarfed by the simple reduction in drag, it would be an effect no-one went looking for. I'd be surprised if anyone had done the awkward large wind tunnel experiment necessary to measure it, let alone that they've written it up in a traceable publication (although the NACA published papers are the place to look). Andy Dingley (talk) 10:19, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

Your change now is just plain wrong and an abuse of that source.

Meredith was British and, because of local politics, was only looking at R-R engines rather than Bristols - i.e. liquid-cooled inlines. So Meredith was looking at a liquid cooling radiator, which dumps a great deal of heat into a small duct. Optimum conditions for this effect.

In a large air-cooled radial, the energy density is far lower. It is impractically hard to achieve a useful effect.

If this ever happened, it's going to be the later-war US engines with the close shrouds, the Bristol Centaurus in the Sea Fury (the most likely combination of all) or the German radials and circular-shrouded inlines. It's really most unlikely in the pre-war US radials.

The content that's there now has to go. It's just plain wrong. Andy Dingley (talk) 10:25, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

Andy, completely agree. I've made edits at radial engine, Townend ring and NACA cowling. I'd be grateful for your thoughts. Shem (talk) 11:55, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

WikiProject Television

There's an issue at WikiProject Television that I would like your input at. Electric Burst^{(Electron firings)}_(Zaps) 17:44, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

Small block

Please do no add and then reverting my removal of your link an article about the Ford Boss 302 engine to the article about Chevrolet small-block engines (which is a redirect of small-block). That could be considered harassment by many Ford enthusiasts! Moreover, you comment for me to "fix" the link is impossible! This is because there is no "small block Ford" article! Perhaps you could develop an article about the history of Ford's small-sized V8 engines? Unfortunately, such specific details about the history and designs of Ford engines are beyond of my areas of expertise. At this point, it is better to only keep the direct link to V8 engines (which is a redirect of small block V8) because there is a discussion of small and large block terminology. Thanks! CZmarlin (talk) 14:28, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

Recess (song)

Beatport is a music player. Is genre tag reliable? 115.164.49.74 (talk) 16:06, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

I have no idea. Why ask me? Andy Dingley (talk) 16:18, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

Thanks

I brought the complaint of spamming to the blacklist in good faith, but you have shown that it was incorrect. Thank you. Incidentally, it had nothing to do with nationality (on my part at least).

And steamcruft is one kind of cruft I don't mind: I knew Tony Marchington, his company floated the day my first son was born, my wife worked for the firm and they had a double celebration in the pub: we're rich and new baby. That's the money Tony used to buy the Scotsman. I also saw Alan Pegler's London-Edinburgh run steaming over Digswell viaduct, one of my earliest memories, so although I live in the Western region my railway layout - 27' x 17' tailchaser with crossover, twice round - is North eastern, and the main station can accommodate a prototypical 1964 Scotsman formation, I have built all the right coaches to match the marshalling sheets. So I am a bit of a steam fan. Guy (Help!) 11:11, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

FYI

Just to let you know that I filed this Thanks for your efforts in this situation. MarnetteD|Talk 21:59, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

I take it you've seen WP:ANEW. Having seen the home phone IP's edits, I wonder if a topic ban is more appropriate? They seem to have an industry-wide soapbox. Andy Dingley (talk) 22:01, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

I had seen it when you mentioned Hot Fuzz but you have added more films (good work on the research) since then. A TB could be in order. Cheers. MarnetteD|Talk 22:07, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Algolia

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.
You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

A tag has been placed on Algolia, requesting that it be deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under two or more of the criteria for speedy deletion, by which articles can be deleted at any time, without discussion. If the page meets any of these strictly-defined criteria, then it may be soon be deleted by an administrator. The reasons it has been tagged are:

It seems to be unambiguous advertising which only promotes a company, product, group, service or person and would need to be fundamentally rewritten in order to become encyclopedic. (See section G11 of the criteria for speedy deletion.) Please read the guidelines on spam and Wikipedia:FAQ/Business for more information.
It appears to be about a person, organization (band, club, company, etc.), individual animal, or web content, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. (See section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion.) Such articles may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. Hitro talk 19:46, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

A7? Are you having a laugh? Andy Dingley (talk) 19:48, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

No sir, I am not having the laugh. Let the community decide whether this article should exist or not. Please do not remove CSD template, make your case on the talk page. Thank you. Hitro talk 19:53, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

Don't edit-war to re-add challenged CSDs. Andy Dingley (talk) 19:54, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

Please read the template carefully. Let the community decide about this article. Regards. Hitro talk 19:56, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

Nomination of Algolia for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Algolia is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Algolia until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Hitro talk 20:29, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

The Letter H

Hi Andy, isn't it only cockneys who drop the h when pronouncing the letter 'haitch' ? Unibond (talk) 00:12, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

Yes, Cockneys are the ones who drop their aitches. However "aitch" (at least as far as pronunciation is concerned) is the commonly used term for the thing which they drop.

Talking about "a haitch" (emphasising the "h") is generally seen as a Cockney affectation when trying to talk proper. Maybe an old one now, but it was the butt of some 1950s radio comedy, and of course Parker in Thunderbirds. Parker not only emphasised them, he picked up the haitches dropped by others and would add them as a prefix to any vowel, like a Victorian curate, wrapping up the indecency of a bare piano leg. Andy Dingley (talk)

Disambiguation link notification for August 24

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Ballast tank, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Pitch. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:59, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

Internet of Things

I've blocked the one named account. If IP socks continue to add the link, I'll go ahead and blacklist the spammed URL. Let me know if you see any continued activity, in case I miss it. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 20:34, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, I've already listed it at the blacklist page. Obviously blocking won't work against the morphing IPs and now that it's started to spread to other articles, I don't think protection would work either. Andy Dingley (talk) 20:36, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

I had missed the listing on the WT:SBL page, and had added another mention at WT:WPSPAM. Seeing as it has been going on for months, has multiple socks, and has now spilled onto other articles, I'll go ahead and blacklist it now. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 20:41, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Editor Retention

Technically that wasn't for me and if we're actually trying to retain the editor, I doubt I'm helping but I hope you got enough background in case you just want to go "what he said." -- Ricky81682 (talk) 10:10, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

I'm not sure we want to retain the editor. If they turn up so clearly To Right Great Wrongs, that's a hard position to reverse and it's not one that's productive as is. Maybe they'll also turn out to be an excellent and impartial editor on the topic of 18th century architecture or the geography of Sulawesi, but on the whole, past experience suggests such a thing is unlikely. Andy Dingley (talk) 10:13, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

Editor's been here since 2006. Started exclusively on Chicago Democratic aldermans (see his user page, pictures of them too) ~~and was edit warring in the history to downplay the Chicago machine.~~ Probably just used to not having any opposition. :) That won't happen until we go for a post-1934 US politics topic ban (which is one ARBCOM probably doesn't see too often). -- Ricky81682 (talk) 10:38, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

I contributed to several local pols and earned good articles, but never exclusively on anything. Early this year, I turned my attention in part to national politics. Is that ok? I was ill prepared for the buzz saw I walked into. I found numerous articles absurdly non-neutral with respect to copious reliable sources. We have had American Politics, and the sequel, but we have never addressed the extensive, systematic damage inflicted on the content of our project by years of purges of reliable sources, ample opportunities to make contributions. As our Americans for Prosperity article drew closer to the completeness of coverage required by our good article standards, I also found a cliche of editors who really much prefer an incomplete article to a GA and are able to quickly assemble a local consensus in favor of incompleteness. I was counselled that the way to address a local consensus is with an RfC. That's the backstory in a nutshell. I guess I would prefer to tall my own story, you presenting my story highlighting incidents and not good articles, seems a bit pointed. My history is available to anyone who is interested, thanks. Please let me know if I can answer any questions. Thanks. Hugh (talk) 19:44, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

Communist Party (Great Britain)

I have not assumed any ownership of any article. Yes I continually allow for edits and changes to take place. I would never assume that any one can allow for an article to be edited. I do work by consensus and there was no consensus to move this article. My view on the word Britain rather than Great Britain is not a unilateral view nor a view that only I hold. Most people on the talk page agreed that Great Britain is appropriate and certainly not Britain. I would therefore ask that you move this article back to Great Britain as opposed to the inaccurate and out of date 'Britain'. The organisation no longer describes itself as the CPB and this should be acknowledged. (Garageland66 (talk) 21:54, 28 August 2015 (UTC))

WP:3RR?

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. MisterBee1966 (talk) 08:58, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

Reverts

You are pressing revert first, then finding reasons to do so. Stop it. 178.16.11.132 (talk) 02:06, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

Thanks Andy for reverting the "3-gun " nonsense on the Nelson class article. I wish people that don't know the correct terminology (User talk:178.16.11.132|talk), would refrain from putting things in their own words. Keep up the good work Andy, thanks again.The Dart (talk) 07:11, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

Why are you inventing nonsense terms like "thread density" (in decimal fractions of an inch, no less!) rather than the established term "pitch"? Andy Dingley (talk) 08:43, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Kci357

Andy, you really made a mess of this SPI. First, if you reopen an SPI but put in the wrong master (in this instance the case of the username), you can't just fix it yourself. You should notify a clerk to correct it. Second, apparently you think that this SPI is related to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Kj650. What you should do is reference the second SPI in the body of the one you create to explain why. You can't just slap a template on the new SPI. It took me sometime to fix all this, and it was a headache. It should be intact now, but if you want to say something about Kj650, you'll have to add it to the body.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:16, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

A beer for you!

Looks like everyone needs the sudz to bury their noses in today ;) at this rate i'l have to open a bar! Irondome (talk) 17:10, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

Deprodding of Overview of RESTful API Description Languages

Regarding Overview of RESTful API Description Languages: the proposed deletion process is only meant for uncontroversial deletions and is a one-time process. If the article has previously been listed at AfD or deprodded, proposed deletion can unfortunately no longer be used and alternative means should be considered (since AfD didn't work out either, it may be best to consider alternatives :) ). -Sonicwave ^(talk|c) 05:16, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

It is uncontroversial. When I AfDed it, there were no comments whatsoever. Andy Dingley (talk) 08:27, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

M19 Tank transporter

I have asked for more input here Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Military_history#M19_Tank_transporter. Sammy D III (talk) 21:36, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

3 wheeled automobiles

Thanks for clearing up regarding cyclecars but you really should put that information in the article. It should be made clearer that a large part of the appeal of these was that people didn't need a full driving license to drive them although most people regard them as cars. Also, I don't think the article should simply say the Morgan Motor Company, as they've been making 4 wheeled cars since 1936. The 3-Wheelers were just part of the range. Aron Robinson (talk) 18:02, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

There's a lot of cleanup needed in that article, but it needs to go forwards not backwards. The UK has long (since at least the '30s) made a distinction for cyclecars. These have advantages where "you can drive them on a motorcycle licence" etc., but they were not themselves defined as motorcycles, as vehicles. We still have issues today like the Severn Bridge tolls - car tolls are payable on 3 wheelers, even on MP3s (if they notice!). Andy Dingley (talk) 18:32, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

This AN/I report concerns you

[14] BMK (talk) 00:39, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

Thanks. Andy Dingley (talk) 01:16, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

Damien Maltarp

Hello Andy, I saw this edit. It was Trinity College, as per the sources used in the article. Which source in the article suggested Trinity Hall? The Rambling Man (talk) 16:13, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

I was just cleaning vandalism from the IP who changed it a month ago. Couldn't find a consistent answer by web searching for either Trinity (College) [15] or Trinity Hall [16] - although Trinity Hall is smaller, it has long been a strong rowing college. If you're happy that there's a definite answer, then I'm fine with that. Andy Dingley (talk) 16:39, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

I just googled Damien Maltarp and the official history of Trinity College noted him. Simples. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:41, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

Ah, I'd been looking for 1997. Didn't see that one. Andy Dingley (talk) 16:45, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

Hard left

At the top of this page it clearly states "The examples and perspective in this article deal primarily with the United Kingdom and do not represent a worldwide view of the subject. Please improve this article and discuss the issue on the talk page. (August 2015)" I have tried discussing this, I have tried compromising. Why are you blocking attempts at improving this article and compromising on the content. I even used the language of one of the editors who is defending your position. I have improved and made clear the fact that this term is used in the United Kingdom. I've added Derek Hatton. But you are refusing to compromise and to allow edits. Why? What makes your opinion superior to mine? (Garageland66 (talk) 16:53, 15 September 2015 (UTC))

Go make your case at WP:ANEW. Repeatedly stripping references against other editors is not the way to proceed.

As to the internationalisation issue, then that's just a pointless tag; no more use than saying "Washington DC" fails to account for a town near Durham. Andy Dingley (talk) 17:02, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

RMS Queen Mary/Queen Elizabeth in steam turbine

Just so you know, Wikipedia is not beholden to monarchs or people. We don`t call American or Canadian ships named after people `the`, therefore British ships should not get special treatment, especially just those named after royalty. Llammakey (talk) 11:22, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

No, but we do follow COMMONNAME and we shouldn't invent new wikineologisms just because "We're not beholden to how you royalty-grovelling peasants do it, so we're going to do it differently, for the sake of it." Andy Dingley (talk) 11:32, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

The is not part of the name, therefore does not fall under COMMONNAME. Per Wiki policy Wikipedia:Naming conventions (ships)#Using ship names in articles, with a Royal Navy specific example. So, in fact, yes we are doing it differently. Llammakey (talk) 17:12, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

If you read the naming conventions page you'll see when the definite article should be used. Now in this case (if the RMS prefix was also in use, as WP MOS says it should be on the first use only) we would both agree that it isn't needed. However in a later use, "On Tuesday the Queen Mary sailed to California" it should be used, and RMS should not. As this use was so late in the article I'd assumed incorrectly that RMS wasn't being used (with the |3=2 parameter to the template). Andy Dingley (talk) 17:24, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

Yeah no, that's not what is says. Also if you look at any FAC ship article, nowhere do they use a definite article before a ship name except in very specific cases, when referring to something belonging to the ship, such as "the Queen Mary incident" or "the Queen Mary survivors. Please take a look at FAC for how it is supposed to be done concerning ship articles. Thank you for your time. Llammakey (talk) 21:33, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

Atomo dental

Hi Andy, you removed one external link I added to the page [rubber]. I'm actually a little confused, because the page I added is just giving some useful information for the general feature and spec of the nitrile gloves. Nothing like commercial. Would you please let me know what part I should remove in my page so that I can add this external link? Thanks, Tom — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tompleasanton (talk • contribs) 23:05, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

Please read WP:EL. The link you added, like all of your other edits, was to promote a dental supplies company, rather than to improve the encyclopedia. Also it is particularly lacking in content relevant to nitrile rubber as a topic in general. Glove sizing is not adequately relevant to that article. Andy Dingley (talk) 23:12, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Andy Dingley. You have new messages at Stifle's talk page.
Message added 12:58, 16 September 2015 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Stifle (talk) 12:58, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Andy Dingley. You have new messages at Stifle's talk page.
Message added 13:38, 17 September 2015 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Stifle (talk) 13:38, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

Europefan

Funny thing is, if he added cat:German inventions one page a day, nobody would probably notice and it would stay. As many of those articles are German inventions, should I just add the cats myself, and be done with it, or are we having too much fun? Cheers Jim1138 19:17, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

The trouble is that they're not all German inventions. He has a poor record for accuracy (Plastilin is German, but Plasticine isn't. Artificial 'indigo' started the whole German chemical industry, but indigo dye is ancient. The osteotome is Scottish.)

I did add some of them once, but then I was reverted myself! Andy Dingley (talk) 19:20, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

Just a note

After seeing your comment related to ANI here, (I'm guessing it was more tongue in cheek than anything), I just wanted to let you know SageRad's behavior will likely be a main focus at an upcoming ArbCom case: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case#GMO_articles

I'm not sure if you actually were considering ANI in the future or if you were aware of the pending case already, but I just wanted to give you heads up that it probably wouldn't be taken up at ANI due to the case. Kingofaces43 (talk) 19:51, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

Oh, lovely. Well, if we're an "army of flying monkeys", it'll make getting up that Reichstag easier.

I think he's largely right - WP is hopelessly dysfunctional on articles like this, which is why I don't waste time on them. But sometimes an ignorant charlatan is just that, it's hardly bias to say so. Andy Dingley (talk) 20:37, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

Message

Hi Andy,

Not sure why you left a warning on my talk page? Can you enlighten me?

Polyamorph (talk) 11:05, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

Well, technically I can see why, but it's a bit odd!

It's an unrelated user talk page, not yours. I presume that you created this page, as I guess you must have been the first person to post a message there. Page creators (not page "owners") get the automatic deletion notices.

Sorted now anyway, sorry to have bothered you. Andy Dingley (talk) 11:58, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

Yes it was a bit out of the blue! I created the user talk page when I added a welcome message back in 2010, no worries! cheers! Polyamorph (talk) 13:31, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

Windlass Steelcrafts

Thanks for PRODding Windlass Steelcrafts. Just to let you know, there are at least 4 companies connected to each other that keep dropping spammy ext links. My contribs at this time show my reverts.

Best, Anna Frodesiak (talk) 06:30, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

And Draft:KnifeIndia exists. Just letting you know. :) Anna Frodesiak (talk) 06:31, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

Cabin cycle

I didn't cn-tag Quasar in the expectation of establishing "...is a cabin cycle" to be false, rather I'm trying to make some sense of the currently shambolic cabin cycle article, which it seems to me should have Quasar, Ecomobile etc, and anything resembling the Lit Motors prototype, at its core - if you know of good sources that identify any of these (or anything else) specifically as cabin cycles, the cabin cycle article sure could use them! 110.77.221.193 (talk) 17:31, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

Fact tagging everything in sight never improves anything. At most, if gives an excuse for teenage traffic warden wannabees to come along later and delete useful content "because they can".

I don't know what a "cabin cycle" is. Maybe there's a definition. Maybe it's something invented by WP. That has to be sorted out on that article. All that's self-evident is that the Quasar is, and should be linked to, whatever WP decides is the appropriate term, article and description of "two wheeled motorcycles with lids". This question of terminology is not furthered by fact-tagging the Quasar article, as if the presence of a roof was somehow in doubt.

Personally (and I'm not a biker), "cabin cycle" sounds good to me, at least for these rare examples with two wheels and a roof. No doubt the delivery trikes and the very light trucks will be a debatable question for inclusion, but there are a handful of two wheelers like this, and they seem to be clearly "cabin cycles". Andy Dingley (talk) 18:16, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

There are those who believe a cabin motorcycle is a FULLY-enclosed motorcycle, like the Acabion, Peraves, Lit Motors prototype, etc - which the Quasar is not. A reliable source stating that the Quasar is a cabin cycle or cabin motorcycle would help! 110.77.221.193 (talk) 20:20, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

So what do you want to call, "That which a Quasar is"? I don't care. Call it a Magic Pumpkin Coach for all I care. But the Quasar obviously is such a thing: a two-wheeled motorcycle with a lid but no doors. Andy Dingley (talk) 20:39, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

Sure, it's a two-wheeled semi-enclosed motorcycle with a roof. The question is, is that the same thing as a cabin cycle? A reliable source stating that the Quasar is a cabin cycle or cabin motorcycle would help in establishing that it is. Multiple sources stating that cabin cycles are fully enclosed, and none stating that the Quasar is a cabin cycle, would suggest otherwise. 110.77.221.193 (talk) 22:21, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

There is no point in having separate articles for "cabin cycles with doors" and "cabin cycles [sic] without doors". The doorless group with big open spaces are popular because they avoid the need for outrigger pogos as the rider can still use their feet. The largest group of these (excluding delivery trikes) are probably the Eastern European dalniks; they didn't always have doors and the doored / doorless types weren't distinguished as separate. Andy Dingley (talk) 22:33, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

SMS Goeben photo

File:Yavuz Sultan Selim, Midilli from the German airship SL 10.jpg

Hi Andy. We can't use that photo, since we have no author details, so we can't prove that it's PD in the country of origin. More importantly, we don't have a date of publication, so we can't prove its PD in the U.S. And lastly, it certainly fails any claim to fair use, since there are many free alternatives. Thanks. Parsecboy (talk) 09:31, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

If it's on Commons we should be able to use it.

If it shouldn't be on Commons, it should be deleted from Commons.

We rarely need to know authorship, we need to know licensing. In older cases like this, the authorship becomes moot as the licensing doesn't depend on it. Was this taken from a privately-owned Zeppelin? No. Andy Dingley (talk) 10:01, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

That's simply not how copyright works. The license is entirely dependent on the authorship. EU copyright law specifies a term of 70 years after the death of the author. Commons requires all works hosted there to be in the public domain in the country of origin and the United States, which is a whole other can of worms. Parsecboy (talk) 17:04, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

See Commons:Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Yavuz_Sultan_Selim,_Midilli_from_the_German_airship_SL_10.jpg Andy Dingley (talk) 10:06, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

Nomination of Kayempur High School for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Kayempur High School is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kayempur High School until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. I thought you would be interested since you PRODded it. — Jeff G. ツ (talk) 03:33, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

September 2015

Hello, I'm Walter Görlitz. I wanted to let you know that I undid one or more of your recent contributions to JIRA because it did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. WP:RS does not apply. MOS:ACRO does: "an acronym should be written out in full the first time it is used on a page, followed by the abbreviation in parentheses". CVS is not an exception. Walter Görlitz (talk) 20:29, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

The CVS article can't even agree what the acronym expands as. No-one in the industry, per COMMONNAME, ever refers to this as anything other than "CVS". This is not even the CVS article, it's an article referring to and linking to CVS. As such, it should use the term in widespread use. Andy Dingley (talk) 20:32, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

Talk:Piggate

Per your comments about the merge proposal being an alternative attempt to delete the article: that is not my motivation as nominator; I was genuinely trying to find an outcome acceptable to all, as recommended by the closing admin. I was, I think, naive to believe it could be done - passions are too high; the strength of opinions and the distance between them means we will probably be stuck in a "no consensus" loop for a long while over this. I think it highly likely that some people's political opinions have coloured their !votes at the AfD and subsequent discussions, and I believe this is true at both ends of the spectrum. From reading your comments on the page I sense very strongly that you believe that too - of at least one side of the argument if not both. I offer as friendly advice the observation that a number of your comments are being aimed at a particular person or group rather than their arguments, and it might be better not to give them the opportunity to come back at you with WP:NPA. RichardOSmith (talk) 14:51, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

There are at least ~~two~~three (sorry, I'd missed your edits) people there who are pushing very clear agendas to delete this article, or some of this article, by any means necessary. I'm sure I've identified them clearly enough, with diffs, for them to work this out. Are you suggesting that perhaps they haven't got the point and I need to make it even clearer?

Merging this to the book article is not an option. Maybe it would be better (although not yet, it's still unpublished) but this is WP, not a rational encyclopedia. A merge simply makes this aspect from a notable article topic requiring AfD into just a footnote in another article and those can be deleted by drive-by edits. As indeed, one of those claiming "merge" had already done just beforehand. Andy Dingley (talk) 15:08, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

Please bear in mind that whilst you may see a very clear agenda to delete, I'm sure others see a clear agenda to keep inappropriate and/or politically charged content at any cost and both sides believe their argument is correct and superior. The merge proposal is a very much the compromise option, intended to leave the content in the target article - likely pruned but not removed altogether. I guess that's why it will fail: the keepists won't accept it being sidelined; the deletists won't accept any mention of it at all. Yet I think it's the best outcome - there was no consensus to delete but there was no consensus to keep it either. Clearly you see the merge option as just another way of deleting but I'm not sure that it makes any difference where there text is - it's still there and Piggate will still take you to the content wherever it is. I don't expect we'll see eye-to-eye but this is an inclusive church that should be able to accommodate all views - and that was the purpose of my original note: one doesn't have to agree with another's opinion but I think it should still be respected. So to answer your first question: should you be clearer about the agendas you see being pursued? No, just the opposite. To spell it out: I do think you have been making personal attacks in your arguments and furthermore, I think you are handing a gift to those at the receiving end of them because it's easy to point to WP:NPA and tell you that you are wrong and then, by association, your arguments get discredited too. Don't give them the satisfaction. RichardOSmith (talk) 16:23, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

"If (RichardOSmith and Reaganonomics) can't delete this article honestly through AfD, they will strip it section by section until only trivia remains". You are an extremely experienced editor here and I'm not going to insult you by templating you, but that's the kind of WP:NPA issue I was talking about, and now it's aimed at me. Please refrain from doing it again. RichardOSmith (talk) 21:40, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

Then please stop pushing a clear POV onto it. You're not the solution here, you (and reagan) are the problem. Andy Dingley (talk) 21:42, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for clarifying your views. You are wrong, of course. RichardOSmith (talk) 21:46, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

A beer for you!

Apparently, I'm your socketpuppet, so I thought the least I could do was bring you some beer. Don't let the bastards grind you down. bonadea contributions talk 19:38, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

Thanks! 8-) Andy Dingley (talk) 19:39, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

Europefan

Who's the sysop you referred to in your AIV comment? I looked at the SPI archive and couldn't find anything. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 20:09, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

USS Triton (SSRN-586)

Hello! I wanted to let you know that the reverting at this article is still going on even though there was a consensus at WikiProject Military history to leave this article alone and to work on other articles that lack key information. BTW - That bump on the TritonUser talk:Andy Dingley/Archive 6/s deck was the housing for its towed communications buoy.Marcd30319 (talk) 21:13, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

H-4 Hercules

Just wondered why you find Curtiss and Porte irrelevant?80.229.34.113 (talk) 11:20, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

Why wouldn't I? In what way are they relevant? They're both decades earlier and although they involve the terms "large" and "flying boat", that scale of large is so much earlier that they bear little real relation to Hughes' work. Andy Dingley (talk) 11:35, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

Not relevant is an easy statement to make without qualification, thank-you for the reply. I was thinking on the lines of Curtiss and Porte being the origin of large flying boat design and "transatlantic" cargo capability that readers who have no knowledge of might find to be of interest seeing Hughes at the further end of its development. The H-4 coincidence is curious, but not my reason for including them. Whether it is a nod to Curtiss perhaps someone with more in depth knowledge might comment? Frederick Koolhoven is, as I am sure you are aware a contemporary of Curtiss and Porte working with Porte at British Deperdussin. Including Curtiss, Porte or Koolhoven in Howard Hughes' See Also is a non-starter in my opinion, but I can see reason to include them on the Hercules page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.229.34.113 (talk) 12:18, 7 September 2015 (UTC) 80.229.34.113 (talk) 12:21, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

I can't see flying boats of that early period as relevant. "Large for the time" isn't enough.

The point about the H-4 is that it was long-distance, heavy transport. For which the solution happened to be large, and happened to be a flying boat. The other aircraft listed, including the Koolhoven, have that much in common. In the early period though, these were not heavy transport aircraft – if they had been, they'd have been land-based, the best technology of the time achieving more from a runway than from water. Andy Dingley (talk) 16:21, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

"Large for the time" is not what I mean, we could say that about any solution that happens to be large and a flying boat. The Do X is a bit before the Hercules' time, but I am not making an issue of that, I am sure it is of interest for readers to compare in any case. True the Curtiss and Porte craft were not heavy transports in the modern sense, but they were designed for long-distance, some for transatlantic use, others used/developed for transport; Porte's G9 was for example designed for trans-ocean cargo and would have been state of the art had it been realised. There is also a common link with submarine warfare with Curtiss and Porte. As above it is more the men/personalities, origins and extent of development that I am concerned with, not listing Porte or Curtiss aircraft that precede the Hercules. I do not see it doing any harm for readers to see that others before Hughes were thinking on the same lines and trying to push developments in the same field.80.229.34.113 (talk) 17:04, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the beer Irondome, glad you took the trouble to read the page on Koolhoven, but I do not support your view that it's thin stuff, how thick does it need to be? The article provides the references if I am not mistaken - Van Lammeren's "Het vliegtuig en zijn onderdelen". I should make it clear it is not my suggestion that Hughes took Koolhoven's design by including it on the page and Andy above here is in my humble opinion quite correct to support its inclusion. It is clearly an interesting comparison to the Hercules and seems to have sparked some debate! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.229.34.113 (talk) 17:50, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

It is certainly an elegant design, for a drawing. (Beer all round b.t.w. it's one of those days :)). I would like to see an article created on it, a stub would be a good start. My Dutch I am afraid, is not up to the task however. Now, is consensus for having the type on "see also" or not at this stage? I have no burning POV issues whatsoever, but the discussion is potentially improving the article. Simon. Irondome (talk) 17:59, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

Mine's another pint by the way, I recall a model of Koolhoven's design http://theflyingboatforum.forumlaunch.net/viewtopic.php?f=104&t=1363&sid=15706a59ee6ef7aa58c99b671dbd51d5 http://www.inyourpocket.com/Amsterdam/Bel-Air-Models_114113v Not able to find a website presently.80.229.34.113 (talk) 18:26, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

If neither of you have any further comments on Curtiss and Porte I can add them and see what happens.80.229.34.113 (talk) 09:39, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

So we both (or at least I) thought they weren't relevant a week ago, nothing has changed in the meantime, but now you think "Maybe I'll just try it again and wear them down with persistence"? That's not the best way to work: mostly it's called edit-warring. Andy Dingley (talk) 10:03, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

I was being polite should you wish to comment further following Irondome who states 'no burning POV issues'. I assume your position remains the same and the consensus is 2:1 for? Asking for further comment is not a 'war' Andy or an attempt to wear you down!80.229.34.113 (talk) 11:14, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

None the wiser here re ground effect; there are three refs to ground effect in the Hercules page, including "Wing In Ground effect aerodynamics." se-technology.com. Retrieved: October 6, 2010 (a broken link unfortunately).

The Olmsted page states ...Olmsted was also the first to design a super-transport WIGE (wing-in-ground effect) vehicle in the spring of 1942, that is presumably a straight forward statement of fact, and Out of this effort ultimately developed Howard Hughes huge flying boat, the Spruce Goose that is not straight forward as the effort may include some other aspect of aerodynamics that is not entirely related to ground effect. I can only suggest further inquiries? Perhaps someone with in depth knowledge of the Hercules' aerodynamics might comment.80.229.34.113 (talk) 11:09, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

The H-4 is just the sort of aircraft (large, seaplane) where ground effect is a major factor. However that's a long way from saying it was designed to operate like that. Andy Dingley (talk) 11:16, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

Indeed - more digging required.80.229.34.113 (talk) 11:46, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

Chepstow Castle

It certainly had been used as a prison, in the Civil War and later. Should it be "the former prison"? Ghmyrtle (talk) 12:46, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

It depends which books you read. I don't believe it for a moment!

In the 18th century, the "picturesque" tours of the Wye would certainly include this room and the guide would point out the iron ring in the floor for shackling up prisoners. However this is about as accurate as Redcliffe Caves in Bristol, where the iron rings were for "shackling African slaves on their way out to the West Indies".

The real "prison" seems to have been the small chamber in the gatehouse, or during the Civil War firstly the Great Tower (briefly, where the whole garrison was locked in as the only place big enough) then the rectangular guardroom under Marshal's / the Dowager's tower. Later of course, Marten's tower.

The vaulted cellar was for storage, as the only part of the castle with easy loading from the river. There's still evidence for a hoist, and of course the ring in the floor to attach it. Nor is there any evidence for ironwork ever being set in the river-looking window, a rather obvious escape route!

So I think the "prison" tales are a total fabrication, a century or two later. Andy Dingley (talk) 13:02, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

OK, you obviously know much more about it than I do! I still don't like the [sic] much though. Ghmyrtle (talk) 13:12, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

No, I don't either. Really there should be a good link into the whole Wye and picturesque tourism along the Wye valley coverage (an article in itself). Andy Dingley (talk) 14:01, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

Wye Tour...? Ghmyrtle (talk) 14:10, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

Excellent! Andy Dingley (talk) 14:14, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

I won't mention the fact that you edited that article back in 2011.... Ghmyrtle (talk) 14:17, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Cadw says: "The tower nearest the river was the castle prison":[17] Martinevans123 (talk) 14:27, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

Allegedly so, although it's very small and so was never more than a lockup or bridewell. Certainly after the fall of the siege they needed somewhere bigger. Andy Dingley (talk) 14:43, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

Lotus Cortina

Andy, the article states in at least 2 places that production continued into 1970. Eagleash (talk) 22:46, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

It's hardly a "1970s car" though. It was still produced (sic) for a few months into 1970, before the MkIII Cortina's launch (there was no MkIII Lotus).

Even then, the Cortina Lotus was effectively dead from 1968 onwards, when the Escort appeared and the performance Lotus-developed version shifted to that. Andy Dingley (talk) 22:54, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

Are you then saying that 1970 isn't part of the 1970s? Eagleash (talk) 23:07, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

I'm saying that for describing a car introduced in 1963 and prominent in the mid '60s, then only making it into the next decade by a few, unmarketed months (and I doubt if Lotus were still making _any_ Cortinas by 1969), describing it as a "'70s car" is misleading. Andy Dingley (talk) 23:11, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

It is the article that would be misleading, not the category and though you may (or may not) be right about production, the few sources I have, agree with the information in the article that production continued into 1970. Lotus didn’t build the MkII, Ford did at Dagenham and however few may have been made latterly, if you went to a Ford dealer in early 1970 and ordered one, it seems likely they would be able to procure it for you. Until it was officially deleted it would remain 'in production’.

All the Lotus articles have been looked at recently after it was realised that a lot of the racing cars and F1 cars had been placed into Category: Lotus vehicles instead of the appropriate sub-cats. Looking through the road cars is a continuation of that. Obviously categories can only reflect what is in the article. It would not be possible to apply categories based on what someone else may know (or feel is correct) about the subject, as people are not psychic. If you have info. (sourced) that changes the production dates then please, edit the article appropriately and the cats can then be changed accordingly. You have too much standing as an editor to go down the OR/"I know better” route. Regards, Eagleash (talk) 11:55, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

You are taking a vehicle that dates from 1963 and categorising it as "'70s" but not "'60s". That's just plain wrong - whatever the minor overlap at the end. Andy Dingley (talk) 12:16, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

Incidentally, for much of 1970 your Ford dealer was unable to supply you with anything, owing to repeated strike action at Dagenham. Andy Dingley (talk) 12:18, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

Ah now... there lies further confusion; :P Category:Cars introduced in 1963 is a sub-cat of Category:Vehicles introduced in 1963 which is itself a sub cat of Category:1960s automobiles. So yes by "sub-catting" it is included in 1960s automobiles. And incidentally I well remember the late 60s/early 70s; Ford didn't seem to have much trouble providing stock despite industrial action and anyway it's not really relevant. Eagleash (talk) 12:32, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

Acrylonitrile butadiene styrene

Hi Andy! Stop kill people with editing that page. ABS plastic is exteremely harmful for 3D printing and as it pproduces fumes of Acrylonitrile. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Physics3dc (talk • contribs) 13:10, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

Whitworth created the first TRUE surface plates-couple of references:

Minutes of Proceedings of the Institution of Civil Engineers, Volume 91- "In 1825 he married Fanny, youngest daughter of Mr. Richard Ankers, and shortly afterwards came to London, to the workshop of Messrs. Maudslay. He soon won a position as one of the best workmen, and while here he made his first great discovery, which consisted in the mode of construction of a set of perfect plane surfaces. Up to that time the most accurate planes had been obtained by first planing and then grinding the surfaces. They were never true, and young Whitworth became possessed with the idea of making a true plane. At the next bench sat a Yorkshireman named John Hampson, a good workman and a good fellow, who took an interest in his young companion’s work. One day as they worked Whitworth ventured on an idea. 'If these planes were true, one of them ought to lift the other.' 'Tha knows nowt about it,' was the cynical reply of steady-going experience. Whitworth kept on at his problem, working quietly at his lodgings. His first step was to abandon grinding for scraping. 'Taking two surfaces,' he said, when telling the story afterwards, 'as accurate as the planing tool could make them, I coated one of them with colouring matter and then rubbed the other over it. Had the two surfaces been true, the colouring matter would have spread itself uniformly over the upper one. It never did so, but appeared in spots and patches. These marked the eminences, which I removed with a scraping tool until the two surfaces gradually became more coincident'

But while his skill as a workman was thus being made the most of, Whitworth‘s mind was not idle. He saw that his first thought was not enough. Two surfaces might lift each other by fitting perfectly and yet not be true planes. One might be convex and the other concave. A new light came. Make three surfaces. If each will lift either of the others they must be planes and must be true.

After another stage of skilful labour the three planes were made and the test fulfilled. The Sunday after the problem was solved Whitworth called on his old mate. 'John,' said the young man, 'come to my house ; I’ve something to show you.' The true planes were exhibited. 'Ay! tha’s done it,' said John. That was probably the greatest moment in a great life. Joseph Whitworth had perceived that a true plane was the first thing needed for the improvement of mechanical construction. He set to work to produce it, and by sheer clear thinking and honest work he did produce it. "

........................................................ and:

A remarkable advance in the direction to which we have referred was made prior to the year 1840 by Sir Joseph Whitworth, and formed the subject-matter of a paper read before the meeting of the British Association at Glasgow in that year. Specimens of truly plane metallic surfaces were then, for the first time, brought under the notice of scientific men, and the method of preparing such surfaces was also made known. Up to that time the process relied upon for obtaining plane surfaces on metal plates, and indeed the only one practically used, had involved the operation of grinding two plates together with emery powder and water.

The Whitworth Measuring Machine 1877 The Whitworth Measuring Machine: Including Descriptions of the Surface plate. ...............................................

There are many other references as there are many references that are hazy on the origins of the surface plate, wrongly attributing it to Maudslay such as Naysmiths book. However they confuse the lapping ABC (grinding as it was referred to at the time) method Maudslay used with the SCRAPING ABC method invented by Whitworth. Maudslay immediately adopted the new scraping process for his whole shop, leading some to wrongly attribute it to Maudslay but it was Whitworth who was the inventor.=Motorhead (talk) 05:30, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

=Motorhead (talk) 19:07, 10 October 2015 (UTC): OK then, so Maudslay gets credit for the use of plates, Whitworth gets scraping and the use of sets of three. Maybe it's even worth noting that the idea of an accurate generated surface comes from optics and lens or mirror grinding? Are you going to add the refs to the article? Andy Dingley (talk) 09:28, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

Actually I've looked into the optical flat development and it appears to have a totally separate historical line and it seems to have occurred later than the scraped surface plate, at least I haven't come across any connection. Concave and convex mirrors were made long before the surface plate but optical flats were more difficult due to the same problems Maudslay and his predecessors encountered, namely rolling off the edges and uncertain local material removal due to uncontrollable grain size of the abrasives(the variable grain size far exceeds the l millionth tolerance of Whitworths true surface plate) and the constantly increasing curvature of 2 plates being lapped together(due to gravity).

Maudslays lapped(ground) plates had to have been VERY good but not good enough, I'd guess as good as .0001 or so for most of the surface. Whitworth got that down to .000001 on the entire surface (which is far better than typical surface plates found today which can be +/-.000012 for a AAA grade plate the size of Whitworths)

I actually use all the above techniques and I have seen the results first hand. Lapping plates together simply wont produce a flat enough surface while I can scrape to .000002 without difficulty and to .000001 with extra care.

Ultimately I would say this: Maudslay gets credit for recognizing the critical importance of good surface plates as a foundation for all metrology. Maudslay gets credit for making very good lapped plates and using them to great effect. Maudslay gets credit for inventing Joseph Whitworth(among others). Whitworth gets credit for using scraping to produce the first reliably true surface plates to 1 millionth accuracy. Whitworth gets credit for developing hand scraping to its highest level and using it to great effect. Neither gets credit for the AB BC CA three plate method of verification as I have found indications of its use as far back as the ancient Egyptians and as Nasmyth said he believed it to be "a very old mechanical dodge". =Motorhead (talk) 19:07, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

hard left

yeah, but you do know that redirects don't require any AfD, mkay? --ℕ ℱ 20:31, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

They can also be reverted, per BRD. It has been. Andy Dingley (talk) 20:33, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

David Cameron

Is now bluelinked twice in the Piers Gaveston Society article - with essentially only a single anonymous allegation being the basis. If we have him in the table, it makes sense to also have the counterclaim in the table - of if we have him after the table, it makes sense to remove him from the table. Having him essentially listed twice - on rather slim basis, alas, makes no sense to me. Collect (talk) 23:11, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

So add the counterclaim (such as it is) to the table. Toby Young (now there's someone impartial!) can't find anyone who (after a major scandal broke) says that he was, therefore he wasn't?

Removing him from the table, when the #Snoutrage scandal is so publicly visible (I know you'd like that article deleted altogether) looks ridiculous and like nothing more than sheer whitewash.

Has there been any denial from Cameron that he was part of Piers Gaveston? No. Andy Dingley (talk) 23:27, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

I have no pig in any UK political race - so the apparent assertion that I wish to "whitewash" Cameron or "whitewash" Corbyn is silly (you might note my positions about him as well). And the LBJ position "Make him say he did not fuck the pig" is one which, I trust, you would also find quite beyond the pale. Saying that "he must deny it -- then his denial makes it more noteworthy" is the type of position I have found in some editors (see User:Collect/BLP for examples of such). Collect (talk) 23:31, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

Well it would of course be foolish for Cameron to deny any allegation, on just that basis. Except that he has denied the main allegation in all of this (which WP ignores, because the corpus of mid-western teenagers doesn't have the wit to notice it) – just when did he become aware of Ashcroft's non-dom tax status? I note also tht William Hague seems to have been locked in a monastery since this story broke, yet he's in the thick of it.

The point remains though, there is no serious denial of Cameron's membership of Piers Gaveston. We should be careful not to state that he was a member (we don't know), but nor is it necessary or even wise to act as if he definitely wasn't. The denials so far are surprisingly feeble and fall, of course, under Rice-Davies.Andy Dingley (talk) 23:44, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

Removing URLs from |work= param in {{cite}} templates

Hi Andy, I think this is a recent change to the templates. I have some tool (can't remember which) which highlights CS1 errors. I'm working my way through cleanup lists for Somerset and Bristol where these show up. If you take a look at Help:CS1 errors item 25 External link in |<param>= - it says ext links are not allowed. I presume this is discussed somewhere but I don't understand enough about templates to get involved in the debate.— Rod ^talk 15:23, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

I get that, but is the fix either to remove the ELs or maybe better would be to recognise that this could be a legit way to work and so to permit them? At least for |website=, where such a link certainly makes sense (At present |website= just seems to be synonym for |work=, so it even gives a misleading error message) Andy Dingley (talk) 15:50, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

I think if it is an internal link eg work=[[BBC]] that is OK but still could be confusing to the reader if they have too many possible blue links. I don't think work=[http://www.thisisbristol.co.uk This is Bristol] is any advantage over work=This is Bristol as it doesn't help the reader to validate (or find out more) from the source, and I have found myself clicking on the wrong blue link in a ref.— Rod ^talk 15:58, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

Raised at Template_talk:Citation#Using_URLs_in_.7Cwork.3D_param_for_.7B.7Bcite.7D.7D_templates Let's see what some other editors think. Andy Dingley (talk) 16:07, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

Reference errors on 13 October

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

On the Arc welding page, your edit caused a redundant parameter error (help). (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:18, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

Steam shovel

Andy Dingley, in the lede paragraph of the Steam Shovel entry, my reason for changing the British English word "favour" to the American word "favor" is perfectly logical and valid: The Steam Shovel was an American invention. Hence the spelling change.

Please desist in non-logical edits. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jmn100 (talk • contribs) 03:23, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

Please read WP:ENGVAR. To avoid just this sort of unsourced "But WE invented that!" argument, our policy for language is to favour stability over all. Andy Dingley (talk) 09:27, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

Cock o' the North

Please see Locomotives of the L.N.E.R., Part 6B, p. 189 where it says "the nickname given to George, the proud fifth Duke of Gordon (1770-1836)", so the link to George Gordon, 5th Duke of Gordon was correct. --Redrose64 (talk) 23:17, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

The name is much older than that, something medieval, and is inherited by successive heads of the clan. Andy Dingley (talk) 23:21, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

The 5th Duke's linked article, BTW, doesn't even include the term. Andy Dingley (talk) 23:23, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

Arc Welding

Andy, I noticed you made a number of edits but in doing so you undid my previous edit. I'm assuming you made a mistake so I will make my edit again changing the word anode to electrode. An anode by definition is negatively charged. A postitively charged electrode is called a cathode. The context of the rest of the paragraph keeps talking about a positively charged electrode so I strongly believe the latter is the proper term to be used here. If you disagree for some reason please explain your rationale. Thanks. Lbecque (talk) 19:32, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

Maybe the very detailed ref I added will explain it? Andy Dingley (talk) 19:38, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

No Andy, in fact your reference supports that the anode is negatively charged and is a concentration of electrons. BY DEFINITION an anode is negatively charged and a cathode is positively charged. This needs to either say cathode or positively charged electrode to be consistent with the rest of the paragraph. The very next sentence says "If the electrode is positively charged, it will melt more quickly,...". Please change this back to positively charged electrode. --Lbecque (talk) 20:14, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

No, anode is much better.

The point here is that in welding, either terminal (torch or workpiece) can be the anode, depending on how you connect it. Yet the anode (whichever that is) is always the one that gets hotter. Conventionally it's wired so that the workpiece is the anode, thus the pool gets hotter. Sometimes you want the filler hotter, such as for wire-feed MIG, so you reverse the polarity to make the electrode positive (DCEP).

The anode, whichever piece that is, gets hotter.

The definition of anode / cathode depends on the direction of current flow, so it reverses (by polarity or charge) when something is either a producer or consumer. " An anode by definition is negatively charged. " is only true for a producer of current. In this case it's backwards. Consider the analogous case of a vacuum tube: the cathode has to be heated to emit electrons which are then attracted to the positively charged anode.

You are incorrect here on two counts: your anode definition is wrong for consumers of current, it's only true for producers. As is relevant to the article here, "anode" is better than "electrode" because it's describing the heat behaviour (which tracks the anode) whereas "electrode" could be either and strongly implies that it's the hand held electrode and not the workpiece (which is generally going to be the wrong way round for stick welding). Andy Dingley (talk) 22:24, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

Andy I have created a power supplies section on the talk page of arc welding to discuss this further with all users. --Lbecque (talk) 21:12, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

A cup of tea for you!

With this ever dramatic world and winter coming, here's a cup of tea to alleviate your day!

This e-tea's remains have been e-composted SwisterTwister talk 05:01, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

Category:Automata (computation)

Category:Automata (computation), which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. QVVERTYVS (hm?) 09:59, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

Talk:Autism Speaks [18]

Yes, Wikipedia is WP:NOTCENSORED. We do not remove sourced content because it is objectionable or offensive. This does not mean that everything potentially objectionable or offensive is fair game. That your opinion may or may not be objectionable or offensive to someone somewhere is immaterial. Article talk pages are not a forum for general discussion of article topics, they are for discussing improvements to their associated articles. A random editor's opinion of Autism Speaks is not in any way relevant to improving the article. - SummerPhD^v2.0 14:40, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

Blanking a comment, clearly because you disagree with the poster's valid and widely supported criticism, then labelling it as "chat" (it certainly wasn't "chat") does little more than make you look biased. How close is your connection to Autism Speaks? Are you patrolling for adverse criticism here in any sort of professional capacity? Andy Dingley (talk) 16:04, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

I have not worked with or for Autism Speaks or an autism organizations. I have not stated an opinion of the organization.

The editor, who apparently neglected to sign in, used the talk page for general discussion of the article's subject. In Wikipedia slang, we call that "chat". The standard warning for using a talk page as a forum to discuss the topic is {{uw-chat1}}. This warning reads, in part, "I am glad to see that you are discussing a topic. However, as a general rule, talk pages are for discussion related to improving the article, not general discussion about the topic or unrelated topics." This was clearly an editor discussing their personal feelings about the article's topic. It is completely unrelated to improving the article and does not belong on an article talk page. - SummerPhD^v2.0 01:36, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

"Chat", by any broad definition, is some degree of informal dialogue between two or more. This was a monologue instead, one uncomplimentary to Autism Speaks. Now this isn't something we encourage, as being related to the subject rather than the article – so warning is appropriate. Per WP:TPO though, just which part of it supports not even hatting it (as is permitted for off-topic posts, with the warning "Your idea of what is off topic may be at variance with what others think is off topic; ") but deleting it completely and repeatedly, against an independent editor, "normally you should stop if there is any objection. ".

You have broken TPO on at least two counts. You also seem to think that editors are required to have an account, and that it is remiss of them not to use it. Andy Dingley (talk) 02:21, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

Talk pages are for discussion related to improving the article, not general discussion about the topic or unrelated topics. So far, you've floated various claims:

removing off-topic chat is censorship (it is not)
I disagree with the soapboxer's opinion (I have stated no opinion, unlike you)
it is not "chat" (it is discussion unrelated to improving the article, sorry if the slang threw you)
I am biased (your opinion of the organization is clear, I have no stated opinion)
I have some close connection to the organization (I do not)
after 9 years of editing, I am now editing for pay (or, perhaps, I have been lying in wait to pounce on the article after nearly a decade...) (patently absurd)
somehow one-sided soapboxing is OK, so long as it doesn't become a dialogue (wow...)
somehow this editor's soapboxing is not off-topic in a discussion that is to be limited to discussion of improving the article (they state their opinions of the organization, which are completely irrelevant here).

Additionally, you have decided that I believe the editor is required to have an account (I simply believe they do have an account and chose not to use it here).

If you would like to throw any other accusations to see if they'll stick, I really cannot help you.

No matter your obvious opinion of Autism Speaks/(politician's name here)/broccoli/whatever, article talk pages are not a place for you or anyone else to air them. - SummerPhD^v2.0 04:16, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

Please don't delete sections of my reply on this talk: page either. Andy Dingley (talk) 08:25, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

We have a guideline at WP:TPO. It's not a policy, but it's widely recognised as a guideline so strong that an editor breaks it at their peril. We generally, and rightly, only go anywhere near it to revert deliberate vandalism.

This is an article on autism, on a subject that is controversial about a group that has systematically ignored people with autism themselves. The article here is a whitewash, because any discussion of such has been removed over and over. When an editor with autism appears and makes a valid criticism of them, we clearly differ as to whether that is relevant or not. But even if it falls under TPO, under the specifically listed definition for "off topic" as being the discussion of the subject rather than the article (a point that is rarely enforced elsewhere) the recommendation to at most hat the content, not to delete it. Or delete it twice, against the protest of others.

Your reaction here was quite inappropriate. It's against our practice and guidelines. It's against an editor who for their WP unfamiliarity and their own condition is likely to have a problem in seeing why this was done. Most of all, it's supporting a problematic bias about a group who's main notability is for having that problematic bias. Now if you tell me that you're doing this innocently, I'm required to accept that. But you're not doing it well. A note to follow up their comment, even hatting it, to explain why we need to stay on topic, or to restrict to what's independently sourced, would have been far more constructive. Andy Dingley (talk) 11:23, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

Real life

Hi! I noticed on a template on my talk page that the link to real life had turned pink (User:Anomie/linkclassifier) and that you were somehow involved in this. I have no idea how the link was suddenly involved in this, but the {{busy}} links to 1901 pages, so I think it would be best to fix links after a potential deletion of the article/redirect. Not sure what is going on though. Best, w.carter-Talk 16:52, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

Maybe Special:Contributions/Mdhashim24 will make this clearer. Can't move it back to the proper name until what's now a redirect is deleted to make space first. Andy Dingley (talk) 16:54, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

Ah! The "move it back to the proper name" explain things. I missed that part in all the housekeeping after the vandal. Thanks for explaining, w.carter-Talk 16:58, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

The Groke

I asked you for your opinion, and you chose to just remove my message without comment. Now you have started to edit-war over it. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 16:06, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

Just leave it to the archive 'bot. Patience! Andy Dingley (talk) 16:49, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

Hard Left

Hi Andy

Garageland66 has continued to tenaciously edit war and disruptively edit the Hard Left article. Do you think they should be referred to the Admin noticeboard? --Reaganomics88 (talk) 15:35, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

I would assert that Reaganomics88 has tenaciously vandalised the Hard Left article by removing sources and changing elements that had already been established. (Garageland66 (talk) 15:47, 28 October 2015 (UTC))

Garageland, you have a history of edit warring and have attempted the mass removal of well sourced and relevant information simply because you do not agree with it. In addition, you have insisted on the usage of original research, in contravention of WP:NOR. --Reaganomics88 (talk) 16:00, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

inappropriate edit (reply)

Hi Andy, I'm sorry If there were any inappropriate disturbances to any articles due to interactions with my account. As I was leaving for work I must have left Wikipedia logged on to my account because I later found out that one of my little brothers had vandalized different articles on Wikipedia using my account. It was not my intention to disturb anyone's hard work. CeleryKnightAP (talk) 04:36, 31 October 2015 (UTC). Thanks!

Debate over spelling

Hi Andy, since you reverted an edit on Bristol Siddeley back to my version, I thought you might be interested in the discussion on my talk page. Bazonka (talk) 21:09, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

Hi, Bazonka. Not seen you since the Abercromby. FYI, "license v.tr. (also licence)" - O.E.D. Regards, Hengistmate (talk) 12:26, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

Comments regarding Arbitration Enforcement 2 case

As the talk page guidelines for this case state, all comments must be in an individual editor's section, there are no threaded discussions except for comments made by arbitrators or clerks. So, your comments to Gamaliel have been moved to Wikipedia talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Arbitration enforcement 2/Evidence#Andy Dingley's section. Thank you. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 16:56, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

French submarine Gymnote (Q1)

Hello Andy
How did you do that? I was trying to fix what was there before, but couldn't find the degree symbol anywhere I looked; where was it? Xyl 54 (talk) 22:53, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

Just type it in as °. MediaWiki works fine with it.

If you're using Windows and a full keyboard, you can type this as Alt-0176 on the numeric pad. Otherwise use the Character Map Windows utility.

Alt-0176 ° is degrees, Alt-0186 º is ordinal (e.g. Nº42). Hard to tell apart otherwise.

You can also use the HTML entity reference ° ° Andy Dingley (talk) 23:12, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

Ahh! Thanks for that! I'll have a play with those later. And thank you for fixing the Gymnote page. Regards, Xyl 54 (talk) 00:56, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

re: bookkeepers

actually I was commenting more to MB. I didn't see any reason for the "I want to put Liz's talk page as evidence" stuff. Apologies for not being more clear on that. — Ched : ? 21:52, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

oh. In that case, funny you want to discuss it here, and not somewhere else. If you have a question for me, I'm always happy to oblige you. MarkBernstein 01:55, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

Talk page location

Gamaliel's talk page is here, not hereNE Ent 01:44, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

Should I ever wish to talk to Gamaliel, I'll bear that in mind. Andy Dingley (talk) 01:55, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

Gamaliel is pretty upset at you for jumping to assumptions of bad faith and casting aspersions at him. Could you please re-read your remarks and refactor them as best you can to be more factual, and to include diffs where appropriate, and to avoid making assumptions of bad faith. If there is room for doubt about what he meant, you should ask Gamaliel to clarify his remarks. Please do so politely. You may want to wait 24 hours before speaking to him so that the emotions can decrease a bit. Jehochman ^Talk 03:02, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

I can do nothing about Gamaliel's happiness, that's a matter between them and Marcus Aurelius.

I can only point out to you that they presented evidence to AE and were somewhere between careless and misleading as to what they wrote. Specifically they took a comment of mine (several editors cited made much the same comment) that was a negative view of EvergreenFir's reporting of Eric's comment. As his comment was never any more than a passing mention of WMF's new initiative and how he finds it personally offensive, I see no reason for AE action in response to it and EF gave none, other than "Eric mentioned gender". I do happen to consider Eric's complaint illogical, and said as much to him at the time.

The problem is that Gamaliel then took my comment and cited it, with no mention of EvergreenFir, but attached to an action by GorillaWarfare. An action made after my comment, so I can hardly have been commenting upon it! This is not a subtle difference of interpretation, it is a self-evident matter of anachronism. There is little to discuss over it. A response by Gamaliel of "I will clarify that" would have resolved all this a day ago. They have made no such response, they have simply become more and more shrill (with help from MarkBerenstein) and are shouting "I'm offended!" and "OMG, NLT!" from the rooftops (Yet the right place to discuss NLT is at ANI, which they haven't done.)

This matters, because The Atlantic's published piece was largely about adverse attitudes to GorillaWarfare, and their fact checking is also inadequate, as evidenced by their lumping of EC in with the admins. I have no problem with GorillaWarfare. I have no wish to be lumped in with "The GorillaWarfare haters", especially not on the basis of a dubious post from Gamaliel being presented as shoddy evidence to AE.

Liz has made two actions here in their role as clerk. The first was not one I was happy with (although I can see why it was done) as it decontextualises Gamaliel's response to my request to clarify this and has instead turned them into a platform where Gamaliel can shout anything they like with no nearby response permitted from their target. Surely the clerking of all this should find a better way?

Liz' second action though was to remove all of it, as seeing EvergreenFir as outside the scope of this AE. As this removed the contentious cite altogether, I'm happy with that. If Berenstein is so unhappy re NLTs against another editor, they'll be needing ANI, not a talk: page. Andy Dingley (talk) 11:14, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

I would have gladly provided a response of "I will clarify that" immediately if you had made it clear that is what you wanted. Instead you responded with repeated invective scattered across multiple pages which made it entirely unclear what exactly your complaint was. It seemed at points you were insisting that your comment was not offensive, and others that you never made the comment at all. A single clear, civil sentence on your part would have ended the matter to your satisfaction and mine immediately. Gamaliel (talk) 16:36, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

My first comment: [19]

"I can't see the Cassianto comment you cite (your diff is incorrect). I would point out though that my comment was directed at EvergreenFir's literally vacuous request for enforcement against EC, giving no reason for this other than that EC had mentioned "WMF's workshop related to gender issues" and a misquoting of his use of the word "offensive". GorillaWarfare wasn't even involved for some hours, so I fail to see how my comment can be construed as a reaction to their block of EC."

I did not specifically ask, "Did you make a mistake in mis-attributing my comment as a reference to the wrong person, or was it a deliberate choice?" but my comment is surely a pretty obvious invitation to clarify this.

Your response was: [20]

"Offensive comments like that have a chilling effect on the willingness of editors to submit genuine requests for enforcement. AE can cope just fine with allegedly frivolous requests without contributions such as yours. "

You have since continued in much the same vein.

As your comments have now been redacted as being simply out of scope anyway, I see no value in continuing any of this. However either take it to ANI or drop the stick. Andy Dingley (talk) 16:50, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

Since this whole mess seems to be about a lack of clarity, for the record, let me be absolutely clear: I was never trying to label your comment as an attack on GorillaWarfare. In fact the whole notion of that I find puzzling, as I fail to see any reason for or gain in this; an attack is an attack, regardless of the target. I thought my evidence submission was very clear that I was discussing attacks on both AE submitters and enforcing admins. Apparently you disagree that this was clear, which is fair, but your initial request for clarification came across to me as a doubling down on and justification for your attack on EvergreenFir and not as a request for clarification on what I thought, accurately or not, was already clear. I am genuinely trying to get to the root of this here and not further a conflict, but if you feel like this is more horse beating, I will drop this now. Gamaliel (talk) 17:12, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

Claims vs Attempts

I really don't want to have to bother with taking this to the article talk so, as you appear to be the only one opposing it, I thought I ought to explain to you why 'attempts' is is better than claims'. 'Claims' has a lot of implicit meaning that suggests that what it claims is the case is different from reality. Attempts makes it clear that this is the aim of Thatcherite economic policy without passing judgment on whether the methods of pursuing the aim are correct or not. Reaganomics88 (talk) 18:38, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

Everything I've seen you edit, across a range of articles, has been a highly POV push for a right-wing agenda, and a particularly simplistic one at that. Given your username, I am hardly surprised by this. I see no point in discussing further with you. Andy Dingley (talk) 12:43, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

You choose not to discuss because you cannot present a reasonable argument. "Right-wing agenda", your refusal to co-operate and exhibition of WP:JDL, all signify WP:NOTHERE. --Reaganomics88 (talk) 22:03, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

Apologies for Old Dock

That was a dumb disambiguation on my part. Thanks for catching it! /wia /tlk 22:52, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

Powerline river crossings in the United Kingdom

Hello. I noticed this link that was used as source when the article was created in 2005, but was accidentally deleted along with vandalism in 2007. I don't know if it's a reliable source, but it's better than nothing... Thomas.W ^talk 12:31, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

Thanks. Andy Dingley (talk) 12:36, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

Dural

So per this, is this edit by Jujutacular wrong? Brycehughes (talk) 13:44, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

What's the scope of the Duralumin article? Is it "Duralumin" (a specific trademarked alloy invented in 1903) or is it the 2000 series alloys, the aluminium alloys that use copper to give age hardening properties? Duralumin was the first of these, but not the only one. Avional is 2017 alloy, an aluminium copper alloy with 1% silicon as well. That means its not Duralumin, but it may well belong as a section in an article on 2000 series alloys, that we've so far named "Duralumin". Andy Dingley (talk) 15:17, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

Should Avional be deleted? Of course not. It's a named alloy, it's in plenty of sourced catalogues etc. Sourcing is probably rather easier if you search in French though. I wouldn't argue with the redirect, as there wasn't much there, but the categories still belong on there. Andy Dingley (talk) 15:21, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

Cool, thanks. Brycehughes (talk) 23:54, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

This is taking the piss though. Andy Dingley (talk) 21:31, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

Ha! Brycehughes (talk) 01:28, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

?? Andy Dingley (talk) 01:29, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

Ha!, as in I agreed with what you said and also thought it was funny. Brycehughes (talk) 02:26, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

Yeah, I think it's hilarious when I spend time writing stuff and a drive-by IP blanks the lot because they've taken one crappy website as accurate.Andy Dingley (talk) 10:54, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

John Robinson Airey

A little too close paraphrasing? Or am I missing something? [21] — MusikAnimal ^talk 16:53, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

There's no paraphrasing at all. One's a second-hand direct quote of the retirement address (that isn't even authored by that site) and the other is a list of his publication titles, which wasn't in copyright at the time (you can't copyright a title) and would be PD by now anyway.

If you think the address is a problem, then remove it wholesale. It's mostly decorative, doesn't really convey much detail. Andy Dingley (talk) 18:33, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

Yes it's true if you take out the titles this doesn't throw nearly as many red flags, but I still see paraphrasing like In the 1871 census, when John was 2 years old, the family was living at Hunslet and He was awarded his B.A. in 1906, with first class honours in both Part I and Part II, etc. There's just little scraps here and there that are word for word from the source. Surely you see the concern? At least speaking for myself, I know it's often difficult to reword prose when you have limited sources to go off of. I'm also confused why the source in question [22] was not cited in these areas it was adapted — MusikAnimal ^talk 19:00, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

Well just delete the thing then. You're not going to make me care over anything on WP. Andy Dingley (talk) 20:15, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

Can't we just reword it? I'll help :) — MusikAnimal ^talk 20:28, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

Done, I think. This isn't a huge major unambiguous WP:G12 issue, but it could have led to deletion. I know you know how copyright works, and how it is a serious issue because there are potential legal concerns. I can see how you reworded much of the content, but I feel some of it needed more work. Please try to be more careful moving forward. Don't take this as an attempt to question your place in this project, when I think your prolific, long-term content creations clearly speak for themselves. All the best — MusikAnimal ^talk 22:20, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for that. If this was a collegiate project to build an encyclopedia then that's just how we would fix things.

You're right, this wasn't particularly well written. Take the words "St Johns College" "Natural Science" and "Tripos" and re-arrange them into a sentence. There's not many variations to be had with that and none of them are of particular creative merit – but we have rules, so there you go.

This isn't an encyclopedia though, it's a bureaucracy run by Young Pioneers. Far too many of them here would see this more as just an opportunity to do some shouting and I have neither time nor inclination to waste my life in that direction. I maintain no ongoing interest in anything I write here; one would be mad to, or would go mad if one did (although Hiduminium this week was particularly inept). And after all, I've already read it, so I have no personal need to keep it around. I only publish about half of what I write, and even then I delete a bunch of that afterwards. It's not worth the hassle. Andy Dingley (talk) 00:06, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

JSTOR cleanup drive

Hello TWL users! We hope JSTOR has been a useful resource for your work. We're organizing a cleanup drive to correct dead links to JSTOR articles – these require JSTOR access and cannot easily be corrected by bot. We'd love for you to jump in and help out!

See the list

Sent of behalf of Nikkimaria for The Wikipedia Library's JSTOR using MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:18, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

Acrylonitrile butadiene styrene

Hello Andy Dingley.
I take it that "Rv unsupported trolling, ENGVAR and broken filenames" [23] was aimed at this edit by Physics3dc? (who I see has a 'history' on that page) I was worried I'd accidentally broken a file name, but I see where they 'corrected' a file names' spelling, among other things, which you fixed. Regards, 220 of ^Borg 17:36, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

Yes, he seems to have a confusion between melting temperatures and decomposition temperatures. I hope I've restored any of your substantive edits that followed it (although life is too short to really worry too much over spaces around parameter pipes). Andy Dingley (talk) 18:48, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

Indeed, at least no one's shooting at us! My main point was to add a more accessible source on the seatbelt recall. I do like to have the "{{cite whatever", on the same line when possible, and I also did a search and replace on the " = " etc. with 'excess' spaces, in passing. That's why I thought I may have broken a filename, though I specifically looked for that. I did for a brief time think you might have been referring to me.

(It was early am here.) 220 of ^Borg 00:14, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

Overdrive (mechanics)

Looking again at User talk:Tamfang#Overdrive (mechanics), because a conversation elsewhere reminded me of it — you concluded

However I think we are legitimately stuck with "overdrive is a term" for this one, as that's the highest common factor between them.

The language that I changed was

Overdrive is a term used to describe a mechanism ...

Why isn't "a mechanism" (or, better, "any mechanism") closer to the essence than "a term for a mechanism"?

Now the article begins

Overdrive is a term used to describe the operation of an automobile ...

and I'd be tempted to make it "Overdrive is a state of operation ..." —Tamfang (talk) 00:27, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

"... is a term used to describe a mechanism ..." is within your basic criteria for removing "term". It could indeed simply be "... is a mechanism ...".

For "... is a term used to describe the operation of ...", can we replace this with "... a state of operation ..." and still be recognisable? That's not a phrase I've ever heard before. Maybe "Overdrive is the operation of ..." if your holy mission is to stamp out "term", but I think simply "operation" would be better than the unfamiliar "state of operation". Andy Dingley (talk) 00:41, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

Renault 4CV Orthographic transcription

There is no MOS guideline that even deprecates the use of orthographic transcription alongside the IPA, let alone forbids it. On the contrary, it is expressly permitted; to quote: "The Wikipedia respelling system, using the {{respell}} template, can be used in addition to the IPA."

The utilitarian reason for providing a respelling pronunciation is that the people who most need a guide to the pronunciation are usually the ones least likely to know the IPA.

On both these grounds I therefore ask that you self-revert on your removal of the orthographic transcription.

Thank you,

Awien (talk) 14:29, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

This was removed in 2013 by CplDHicks (talk · contribs), "replaced very rough pronunciation guide with IPA". You remonstrated with them then: [24]. Despite your claim today, "restore unexplained removal of orthographic transcription of quatre chevaux" this was far from "unexplained".

I have no axe to grind with IPA. Take it up at Help talk:IPA for French if you want to talk to the IPA afficionados here. I see two issues though:

We work widely with IPA here. We link the symbology for it to a pronunciation key, reviewed by those knowledgeable in the field. The IPA used is well-defined and well-structured. We generally consider this to be adequate and appropriate.
Your "CAT shu VOH" is a fragment of text dumped into the article with no annotation, certainly no use of the {{respell}} template. It may be a correct pronunciation in your reading voice, but a different accent may change this significantly. Unlike IPA, this isn't standardised. I can't see either need for it, nor virtue in having it. Andy Dingley (talk) 14:59, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

B-24 Liberator double and single tails

Hi Andy Thanks for jumping in re reversions of my edits on the B-24 Liberator page. Autonomously yours 110.175.158.17 (talk) 11:18, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

revert

Don't you like a file that's directly derived from the vector source file over the reverse engineered one?--Frysch (talk) 20:08, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

Not when it's a different image, no. Andy Dingley (talk) 23:38, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

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) 16:38, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

PZFlex

Back in APril you PRODded this, and it was deleted. Undeletion has now been requested at WP:REFUND, so per WP:DEL#Proposed deletion I have restored it, and now notify you in case you wish to consider AfD. Regards, JohnCD (talk) 17:25, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Operating Temperatures

Andy, you have confused operating temperature (the range of temperature in which equipment is certified to be used) with input and output heat differences. Since temperature is not directly indicative of heat change, due to specific heat qualities, temperature cannot be used to directly indicate efficiency unless a complete thermodynamic cycle takes place where all other things are equal (and the specific heat quantity would still need to be considered). Please undo your revert on internal combustion engines. Typenolies (talk) 21:19, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Reword it if you like, as "operating temperature" (especially when linked to operating temperature) does have some implication of a steady state temperature such as the coolant temperature. " temperature difference between the input and output temperatures" is fine. However " Carnot cycle, whose efficiency is determined by the heat in a substance after a complete thermodynamic cycle. " is just plain wrong. Andy Dingley (talk) 21:37, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Bonehill/Mail

Regarding this revert - "malicious Ebola-scare hoaxer cannot be punished under Human Rights Act" seemed like the kind of story the Mail might have over-egged to further its own agendas, and Bonehill clearly has a history of putting out false statements about himself.

I couldn't find any other coverage of the verdict - Google only returns a few blogs and mirrors for the "Freedom of speech has a very high threshold and I would have breached Article 10 of the Humans Rights Act if I had found you guilty" quote attributed to the judge, or for the name of the judge plus the name of the accused. The local paper that's been otherwise covering Bonehill's various arrests and trials hasn't mentioned him for months. I think we should treat this with some caution. --McGeddon (talk) 17:22, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

If even the Mail has directly mis-quoted a judge to that level, then that's going to be a story in its own right.

The Mail is rarely inaccurate on factual details. It will apply any sort of editorial bias it likes to comment upon them, and it will be remarkably selective about what it does report, but it's rarely just wrong in a way that could land them in court later. Andy Dingley (talk) 20:51, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

WP:BLPSOURCES is a bright line, though, isn't it? If there's no non-tabloid source for a fact about a living person, we conclude that it's neither verifiable nor noteworthy and leave it out. It's not even as if any other tabloids have picked up the story.

(The Mail Online was of course famously happy to briefly publish fabricated quotes for an extremely high profile international murder trial a few years back - misquoting a district judge at Stevenage Magistrates' Court seems like something they might not lose too much sleep over.) --McGeddon (talk) 10:07, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

This isn't a question of whether it's sourced or not, it's a question of whether the Mail is an adequate source for this. There has never been any agreement on WP as to this status as a blanket rule for the paper. In this case though, I'm inclined to believe them and don't see any issue with it. Andy Dingley (talk) 11:16, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Do you mean there's some disagreement over whether the Daily Mail is "tabloid journalism"? If that's the case, fair enough. --McGeddon (talk) 11:42, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Categorization

What's the rationale on categorization of categories for articles that are just associated with a topic?--Frysch (talk) 15:05, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

Categorization is a navigational convenience, not a definition. So if there is a useful navigational use case from one to the other, we should categorize. Andy Dingley (talk) 15:22, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

Noticeboard report

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Natural Ratio (talk) 18:53, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

Stirling_engine

Please, do not simply reverse a patrolled review. Explain, justify and source your addition. The comment section and the Article's Talk Pages serve those purposes. We appreciate your addition, but we do not have any other way of verification but the one you provide. Thanks. Historiador (talk) 12:05, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

Hey, you're the one blanking sourced content, 'you explain yourself. Andy Dingley (talk) 12:07, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

Every addition should be explained and sourced. It is simple Historiador (talk) 12:14, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

It has been sourced since the outset. Read the reference. First page. You have removed it three times now, contra two other editors.

Now put it back, or I'll raise this at ANEW. Andy Dingley (talk) 12:16, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

@Andy Dingley: Look again. Please, just explain. We are working for the same side. Historiador (talk) 12:33, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

You have added a {{citation needed}} tag next to the citation that already references this. Please explain yourself at WP:ANEW. Andy Dingley (talk) 12:40, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

Mortise lock

I wasn't referring to you as the SPA. I was talking about (LOJackDaniels) whose only contributions include adding that same link to multiple articles. The username also provides further evidence: LO = "locks online" and on the website there is a web developer named "Jack" which corresponds to LOJackDaniel's userpage information. Regardless, I don't know how you could argue that the link is even close to passing WP:RS guidelines. -KH-1 (talk) 12:37, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

So take it up at RSN.

This is a commercial site. We do not have a blanket ban on linking to commercial sites. Sometimes commercial sites publish useful information (and explaining BS3621 is needed here). This ref is not overly promotional. Which product is it pushing? Andy Dingley (talk) 12:39, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

I never said that there was a blanket ban. In this case they are advertising their own products. Did you read the part where it says "Compare your dimensions with the products listed in our inventory" and at the top it reads "Premier supplier of security products". It's not even subtle. -KH-1 (talk) 12:51, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

Tyne Bridge

Your complete reversion of my edit to this article is inconsiderate. Can you tell me what "The Tyne Bridge was designed by Mott, Hay and Anderson, comparably to their Sydney Harbour Bridge version" actually means? And why was the internal link to "Movietone News" removed? How is that incorrect?

Tullyvallin (talk) 07:20, 4 December 2015 (UTC) Tullyvallin

It's a sad thing that the BBC in the digital era are no longer a simple bye for WP:RS, but that's what we get when they have media studies grads writing somewhat technical content. There are a few big differences between the Sydney Harbour and the Tyne bridges - size of the span for one, and in this case about where the side loads from the arch are taken. Sydney uses vast towers that share the load with the outer spans (Hell Gate does much the same). The Tyne though is narrower, and the arch much less deep (radially). As a result, its forces are taken by the hinge joints at the arch foot, not the tower. The Tyne towers are hollow boxes, with little strength needed compared to the costly Sydney structures. They're actually quite impressive inside for how empty they are - at one time there was a plan to rent them as warehouses, then as offices, then as luxury flats.

By all means restore this, but that "who based their design on the Sydney Harbour Bridge" is inaccurate, even when the BBC casually says so. Andy Dingley (talk) 10:53, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

Gas generator

Hello. This edit didn't really address my concerns at all. Would you be willing to take the time to give this another look? I still think my clarify text was adequate but I'll rephrase my concerns anyway in the hope that will help:

The text states that hydrazine is used as a gas generator in small rocket engines. Is this correct?
- Presumably the F-16 EPU is not a rocket engine, so it is irrelevant to this point.
- If a simple pressure-fed attitude-control or terminal-descent hydrazine engine counts as a gas generator (or as containing one) then obviously yes, and examples are easy, but nothing in the article says that this is the case and to me, the article lead implies the opposite. Is the article sufficiently clear about the relationship between a small low-performance rocket engine and a gas generator?
- If a simple pressure-fed attitude-control or terminal-descent hydrazine engine does not count as a gas generator then shouldn't the reference to small rocket engines be removed?
I initially thought that the text was claiming that the shuttle uses hydrazine monopropellant in both its APU and its "small rocket engines", which would be OMS and/or RCS. In this case the "small rocket engines" bit would be a false statement. Is the text sufficiently clear that "shuttle" applies only to "APU" and not to "small rocket engines"?

I realise this is a bit wordy but I don't particularly need a detailed response, I'd just like to be confident that my concerns were properly understood before I drop them for good.

TuxLibNit (talk) 23:42, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

Yes, I think you're right. This is very narrow wording, and I can't think of an example of, "a hydrazine gas generator in a small rocket engines".

There are starters and emergency APUs with gas generators and turbines. A few of these have used hydrazine (1950s British ones also used AVPIN, which is probably more hazardous). The Shuttle uses hydrazine as a gas generator, but that's not a "small" rocket engine. The B-61 free-fall bomb is spin-stabilised by small rocket motors that for political reasons are called a gas generator rather than "rockets", but for storability these are solids rather than liquid. There were even hydrazine gas generators and turbines used for one-off satellite deployment, such as extending large solar panel booms, as they had high power, low energy and light weight well suited to a one-off use. But these still aren't "rocket engines".

I can't find examples of this narrow combination of gas generator, hydrazine and small rockets, all in one. Andy Dingley (talk) 14:21, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

Lola LC88

Adding a MfD tag to Lola LC88 is pointy. You know full well that the correct venue is a WP:AfD. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 23:11, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

The correct venue for a bundled deletion is wherever it has already been started: in this case, MfD. Andy Dingley (talk) 02:01, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

You are welcome to ask at the Help Desk whether deletions across multiple spaces can be bundled. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:03, 7 December 2015 (UTC)