User talk:Andy Dingley/Archive 2010 January

Some questions: surely it is better to avoid adding red links to a featured article? According to [[1]] Featured articles are supposed to be free of edit wars so please, instead of simply adding contested material, discuss it first

was High Speed Alloys the name of the manufacturer in 1931? A quick google says yes High Duty Alloys history

Okay, why not create a page for this? There are links to other manufacturers in the text eg Lodge spark plugs, so it seems reasonable to mention High Speed Alloys even if it is in a note, rather than being part of the main text. Just some thoughts...Cheers Minorhistorian (talk) 23:17, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. The article wasn't about Miller Electric, but about a specific product of theirs—the Millermatic, an all-in-one MIG welder that combines a MIG welding power source and a wire feed system/MIG gun into a single unit. (I don't know if that means anything to you; I'm out of my league here.) The article was very promotional in tone (one example: "Learn more about Auto-Set" [a Millermatic feature] with a link to the Miller website).

If you think the Millermatic is a notable product and would like to try to fix the old article, let me know and I'll restore it to your userspace. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 22:22, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. On the whole, I think this would even justify a return to mainspace. It's not my work, I don't want to be seen as claiming to

WP:OWN it. If it was userfied (please), I'd clean it up just barely as needed, then shift it back to mainspace ASAP. It's quite possible that it would be better as a section within the company article? The point about the Millermatic is that these things are common as muck these days, but the Millermatic was the very first of its type, something like 40 years ago. Andy Dingley (talk) 22:47, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply

]

The article is at User:Andy Dingley/Millermatic. Re-reading the article in light of what you wrote, I can see the historic significance of the Millermatic. The article probably just needs to have the promotional material deleted. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 23:27, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the message on my talk page. This is new to me, and I will now familiarize myself with it.

Please see the discussion I am trying to start at Talk:Eric's_Club#Edit_War -- Foetusized (talk) 13:17, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I can read but can't (easily) write today, until I sort out some computer rack problems (and why I have no mouse through my KVM). When I've done that, I'll be taking this to AN/3RR. The past AfDs on the RJN & MAR articles are relevant. Andy Dingley (talk) 13:39, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Andy. I'm not a Wikipedia expert do I don't know what to do about this - but I seem to also be caught in the Rapido priate radio war. After two attempts by Rapido at deletion of the Thameside Radio entry in 2005 and 2006 Rapido has now edited it down to the point where shows almost no importance or relevance. Given the article has been there for a number of years without complaint this does seem to be a crusade that does not make a positive contribution to Wikipedia. Aleksdeg (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 12:07, 13 January 2010 (UTC).[reply]

I share your concerns. I would suggest raising this at

WP:RFC

.

I dislike all "crusade" based editing like this: although most of those pirate stations were indeed non-notable, the risk of all such widespread campaigns is that they lose track of individuality and start ignoring any evidence on particular cases. RJN & MAR have been AfDed repeatedly, each time by Rapido. Despite the obvious that several different people keep seeking to recreate it, and that several different sources have been provided, they still have only the same rubber-stamp response and clearly just aren't listening to any voices to the contrary.

I can believe that their initial intention was good, but personally I stopped assuming good faith in their actions when they started removing references to those articles from other articles, while an AfD debate was still ongoing (afterwards would be another matter). That's just trying to stack the deck against the AfD, an attack on the very community consensus process we're supposed to follow - it's not about maintaining accuracy of the encyclopedia, it's about removing background evidence before other AfD commenters can see it. Similarly their half-dozen {{

cn}} tags on ever sentence of Radio Invicta is just petulant childish editing by someone who thinks that the AfD gave the "wrong" answer and they're still going to push their own agenda despite. Andy Dingley (talk) 18:13, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply

]

Hi Andy, Thanks for the advice. I see that AfD needs two names before an issue is taised. Are you happy to be another name as you have a lot of background with Wikipedia and can probably explain clearly what is going wrong. I'm really a newbie here. Aleks Aleksdeg (talk) 21:47, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Andy Dingley. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at

Hello, Andy Dingley. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at

Wikipedia:Wikiquette alerts regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Rapido (talk) 21:44, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply

]

Andy, there are two things that are going on, one is the overwriting of citations already in place, the other being introducing a new style when an established style is already being used. I can suggest correcting the template errors but it is often faster to simply write out the citations correctly. FWiW, I will correct at least the date inconsistencies for now and go to the talk page. I don't really mind templates but the inconsistencies of two different styles is disconcerting. Bzuk (talk) 03:41, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well that's better, if you are keeping tabs on my comings and goings, such as in this image challenge, at least you played a helpful role here. (LOL- tongue firmly in cheek, but thanx nonetheless) FWiW Bzuk (talk) 13:08, 13 January 2010 (UTC).[reply]

Sheer coincidence actually, moderated by some obvious interests in common. I've been photographing some old

Dinky Toys lately, including this King's Flight Envoy. Andy Dingley (talk) 13:34, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply

]

• Isn't that a
  Dingley Toy? LOL. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 01:34, 14 January 2010 (UTC).[reply
  ]

All articulated locomotive including the Fairlie would appear to have this problem, as the crew are in the middle with hot parts at both ends blocking the only escape routes.

You, have however decided to TOTALLY PURGE everything as if nothing matters. You could have at least left a cross reference to the

Come to think of it, articulated locomotives may also have a safety issue where there is insufficient space along side the engines to walk past, such as some kinds of bridges.

Tabletop (talk) 23:42, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Fairlies aren't Garratts. Whilst no accident with a boiler in a tunnel is going to be pleasant, any claim like this needs to have some citation to a source behind it, if you're claiming a hazard of this severity. Otherwise it's

WP:OR

. Besides which, you've a 50:50 chance with a non-articulated locomotive anyway as to whether you need to pass by the cylinders, and your chances in a tunnel accident are generally poor anyway. Of the many risks involved (accident itself, scalding, firebox spill, secondary fire), "walking past hot cylinders" is pretty minor. Cylinders _aren't_ that hot externally, nor for that matter are boilers (smokeboxes, OTOH). Have you never wiped down oil over the paintwork while a loco is still in steam? It would be unpleasant to hold your hand there for minutes, but passing by is no sort of barrier.

Finally, Fairlies aren't Garratts. There were no Fairlies built of the size of the largest Garratts. By the nature of the Fairlie design, you can't fit such proportionately big cylinders to it either. There were no huge Fairlies that put their huge cylinders so close to the limits of a tunnel loading gauge as the big Garratts did. Andy Dingley (talk) 09:49, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

FYI - just noticed this thread - Swan view tunnel was the issue - as well as the ASG (the bodies were designed for standard gauage limits not 3'6) - and there was a royal commision and a strike as well - it is in the swan view tunnel article and the garratt article clearly cited - so the uncited part of garratt is repeating material already in the ASG article with cites that I put in :)

I know nothing of the Swan View tunnel accident - although 1:49 is a steep tunnel, and small tunnels on gradients have always been a problem for smoke.

In the Swan View case, would a non-Garratt have fared any better? Is it really credible that the crew would have left a moving train (i.e. a still-movable train) to escape? Surely the quickest way out would be to continue by train, or even (in extremis) to reverse and leave downhill, and rather faster? Then there's the issue that any train capable of slowing down a Garratt would otherwise need to be double headed, with the same access problem. It seems decreasingly credible that this accident was owing to the fact that it was a Garratt, rather than it being due to a heavy train in a small, steep tunnel.

As for the Fairlie question, then see above. You can't blame all articulated loco types for one accident with one type, when it seems the cause wasn't even particularly due to the articulation of the locomotive involved. Andy Dingley (talk) 11:08, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with undue - the swan view tunnel was the only one in steam era western australia - the thing about the strike and the royal commision - the ASG was in general too large for the 3'6 clearances of the WAGR system (it wasnt that it was just a garratt - it was a one size fits all design that was for both standard and narrow gauge) - I should know - as a young boy I was given permission to take photos of the ones on the scrap row at Midland Workshops - somewhere in my photo collection I still have the photos from then - just before the time they were cut up for scrap. They were massive in comparison to the other engines in the yard.

Suro 14:37, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply

]

Hi Andy, Synagogues? Regards, Ericoides (talk) 16:05, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm assuming that this category would include (hypothetical, I don't know UK examples) "religious buildings" that weren't "churches". Certainly there's a sub-cat structure of Category:Lists of churches in the United Kingdom /

Category:Lists of religious buildings and structures ... for the buildings in general, so bomb damage ought to reflect the same inclusion criteria. Naming might need to reflect this, but two-levels of categorization would be overboard. Andy Dingley (talk) 16:12, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Direct Current Electric meter was invented by Siemens in 1870. http://books.google.com/books?id=maoRNK7JOLAC&pg=PA275&lpg=PA275&dq=%22Siemens+electro+dynamometer%22&source=bl&ots=0Q-0TPsMeb&sig=-rjq1Eiz16swL639zoG1cf8kAt4&hl=hu&ei=E8VUS6mKN5GUnwOJ9rybCg&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=3&ved=0CBAQ6AEwAg#v=onepage&q=%22Siemens%20electro%20dynamometer%22&f=false

The ancestor of present-day AC electric meter based on the inventions of Otto Bláthy in >>>

The 1870 Siemens meter is an irrelevance for this purpose, as it's a direct-reading power meter, not a recording energy consumption meter. Arons' patent appears to be 8 years before the Bláthy meter illustrated (1891), or 6 years before the unreferenced claim that Bláthy invented it in 1889. Bláthy probably was the first AC consumption meter, but that's not the first meter. Andy Dingley (talk) 20:59, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Again, Aron's patent is not a real invention ith scientific sense. He paired a power meter with a clock mechanism. Bláthy's Wattmeter is the most prevalent meter until this day. It based on new physical phenomenon and mathematic relationship in 1888. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.182.75.48 (talk) 18:07, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand what "is not a real invention ith scientific sense." means. He invented something, he was granted a patent on it,

GEC

made a successful business out of selling it as the first commercial electricity meter.

This was of course on a DC system. For DC there's no problem of power factor, so "pairing a power meter with a clock mechanism" is a reasonable way to make a usable electricity meter. Whilst I agree with you that Bláthy's Wattmeter was the first AC consumption meter, and is still the most prevalent type (although that is now changing), that makes it the first AC consumption meter, not the first consumption meter or the first used commercially. Andy Dingley (talk) 18:13, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

at the NB AfD. Kudos for not letting your feelings about the subject interfere w/your feelings as to the article's notability -- am not sure all are as able as you in this regard.--Epeefleche (talk) 22:49, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome. I really don't know whether I think this article is justified or not, but I cannot find any reason according to our policy that it shouldn't be there. With the amount of axe grinding at that AfD though, you could fell a forest. Andy Dingley (talk) 22:52, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yep. My sense, which of course could be wrong, is that editors there are voting in part or full against him because they don't like his views or, more commonly, don't like him because he wants an article about himself. That is interfering IMHO w/application of our policy.--Epeefleche (talk) 22:56, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And you continue to make some sound points there.--Epeefleche (talk) 12:45, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Andy: I'd appreciate your comment at Talk:Baldwin 60000#Water tube boiler, etc. reversion. Thanks, . . . . Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk • contribs) 14:56, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I wish I'd looked at User:Andy Dingley/My created pages before saying anything about that boiler; I might have tread a lot more carefully. I also note your template expertise -- I was very frustrated several months ago trying to make a new template do what I wanted -- I solved it another way. I find the documentation very scant, particularly regarding scope of parameters and passing of parameters to subroutines, so if I get stuck I may cry to you for help. Thanks for your catching my goof. . . . . Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk • contribs) 17:50, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Your removal here was quite uncalled for and in clear breach of policy such as [[WP:IMPERFECT}]. You should withdraw it before you make such further improvements as you have planned. MalcolmMcDonald (talk) 13:44, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I boldly reverted the addition of three uncited errors. If you want to add uncited content, at least make it correct. Andy Dingley (talk) 13:52, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Andy, I recently edited the first few lines of the Blimp article. Please read them again and find the repetition that is confusion. I took it out. Please consider those edits for a simpler introduction to Blimp. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.95.153.165 (talk) 01:06, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed, and although I might not agree with your edit I certainly didn't see it as "vandalism" as another editor did - hence them reverting it and leaving you a warning. I merely removed their warning, as I considered it excessive. Give me a moment to finish reading their contribs (I'm not certain about a few of those) and I'll be leaving them a message themselves.

Don't worry about people reverting your edits. It happens.... Andy Dingley (talk) 01:35, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]