User talk:Andy Dingley/Archive 2010 November

Hi Andy. Interesting topic. I've fixed a couple of typos in passing, but there are a couple of sentences in the 'Advantages' section whose meaning is not clear and need a little attention.

In the introduction to Advantages it might make sense to list what these are. The standard formatting of H3 vs H4 headings is unhelpful here, so mentioning them first will help. Also "...the advantage of auto-loaders not living up to their promise..." seems 'wrong' (correct adjectives are escaping me this morning!) -- don't understand how something not living up to its promise is an advantage.

Lastly, the final sentence "The 120mm for the AMX-50 was simply unreliable, with a round of such weight." seems to be incomplete, especially as the weight is not mentioned.

EdJogg (talk) 08:45, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Ed, It's a sloppy article, I just hacked it together yesterday afternoon to get rid of a {{clarify}} tag on one of the linking articles. I'm surprised it wasn't speedied! Yes, copy-editing will certainly be needed on there, I just threw it down as it came.

If you're looking for interesting articles in dire need of copyediting, this looks promising: Resonance method of ice destruction (also Viktor Kozin its inventor). It's an auto-translated paste from the Russian wiki, and looks like it. Interesting idea though. Andy Dingley (talk) 09:33, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It is an interesting idea, although one might question whether it is more efficient to just use a hovercraft to float over the ice than to use it to break the ice and float through on the water.

When I see an article in need of a lot of work, if it is out of my usual topic areas I usually leave it alone, since fixing it 'just a bit' may obscure the scale of the changes needed. I'm not short of stuff to do, but your 'articles created' pop-up in my watchlist and I'll often give them a quick proof-read if they spark an interest... -- EdJogg (talk) 12:11, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's intended as a serious means of icebreaking, so that other boats can pass through behind. Icebreaking by traditional means is horribly slow and also fuel inefficient, why the Soviets bothered to build nuclear ships for it. I think the hovercraft approach may actually be cheaper. (Any sentence with "hovercraft" and "cheaper" in it is automatically notable.) Andy Dingley (talk) 12:14, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

...and then there's

Elastic coupling, a fine specimen of pidgin German. Andy Dingley (talk) 11:33, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply

]

Hi Andy, I have no idea whether you would be interested in this topic or not, but if you have some time, could you give it a look-see? The reasoning behind the article is that it represents a possible United States Air Force hypersonic spy plane. I trust that with your rapier-like intelligence and wit, you could make a determination over some of the contentious aspects of the article. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 14:22, 9 November 2010 (UTC).[reply]

Whoops, a fellow editor has already done a major pruning on the article, but again, he hit on only one of the problems, i.e. fanboy attention. Bzuk (talk) 14:26, 9 November 2010 (UTC).[reply]

You mean my years of Usenet kookery and my ownership of a green crayon? I'll take a look. Andy Dingley (talk) 14:30, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

From a quick look it isn't too bad an article and what it needs is stylistic copyediting, rather than technical input. Like the Bermuda Triangle, this topic is highly notable, but only from the viewpoint that it's a heavily-discussed non-event. The aircraft still appears to have never existed, but it would be lax of the military-industrial skunkplex if they hadn't been working on an SR-71 replacement and certainly at the time of its major sightings there was huge discussion of it. These claims should be recorded, but the encyclopedic tone used is where the trouble lies. We have to be neutral, recording their details whilst never supporting their further claims as to what was actually behind them.

The infamous Machrihanish sightings are the usual howler. There were sightings of flying skunks around Machrihanish (ten thousand foot runway, which is Fairford sized) and also the very well-known "refuelling" over the North Sea. The Atlantically-challenged cousins have thus put two and two together to claim that this was done for secrecy, not realising the difference between the Atlantic and the North Sea, or that the likely flightpaths here went right over Edinburgh. Also (against some other claims) while KC-135s might have flown North and could even have carried hose pods to feed a thirsty Nimrod, the idea of Lossiemouth having something fitted with a NASCAR-spec boom doesn't really fly either. Besides which, it's still 1989 and no-one is going to test their favourite new toy by flying it out of Machrihanish and turniing it East, into Bear country. What was it? I've no idea. XH558? F-111 at a funny angle? Another of NASA's F-111s with extra bits of wing stuck to it that week? But I find it utterly incredible that a M3+ aircraft is tooling around slow & low in that neck of the woods. Besides which, what are F111s doing out at sea, up North? If the Yanks needed chase planes, F15s were still in country and the F111 is famously bad as a camera ship, as the "backseater" sits in a cupboard with portholes, looking out to just one side.

Personally I think Aurora probably was the codename for the unobtainium cupholders on the B2. Such names do leak out (that's why we have them) and if they have cupholders, they had to call them something and file paperwork through the Pentagon. Doesn't mean they're flying saucers though.

Was there a post-SR-71? Of course there was. And I'd lay money it was tiny, went very fast, very high, and didn't stop over oilrigs. Although it's an even call in 1989, it was probably unmanned too, and was either pre-programmed (like the D-21) or else a remote-targeted UAV with some facility for changing mission on the hoof, but basically flying itself (which isn't too hard at speed, as you're avoiding the terrain, not poking at it). Buggers forgot to send me the manual for it though, so that's all I know.

Bob Lazar is of course the greatest living expert on

psychoceramic theories. He'd be written-off as a mere kook if it wasn't for the simple provability of his Los Alamos connections and that Honda. Still, even the likes of Oppenheimer only got to know one big secret at a time (just don't mention RV Jones!). Lazar seems to get invites to every new one. Andy Dingley (talk) 15:06, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply

]

Regards Roddy Macleod (talk) 14:34, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That's interesting - I've read about the axle, but never seen a photo of it. Pretty much everything I have seen is at Commons:Category:White Triplex. Is this photo onn-line anywhere? The Triplex didn't have a "driveshaft" AFAIK: the three engines drove the axle through three final drives, although just one of them would have been sufficient for reverse. Given this, and also the need for a reversing gear, your description makes a lot of sense. Andy Dingley (talk) 18:35, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• http://s169.photobucket.com/albums/u240/ariebras/Various%20LSR/?action=view&current=1928WhiteTriplex-02.jpg#!oZZ24QQcurrentZZhttp%3A%2F%2Fs169.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fu240%2Fariebras%2FVarious%2520LSR%2F%3Faction%3Dview%26current%3D1928WhiteTriplex-02.jpg%26

• http://s169.photobucket.com/albums/u240/ariebras/Various%20LSR/?action=view&current=1928WhiteTriplex-02.jpg#!oZZ26QQcurrentZZhttp%3A%2F%2Fs169.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fu240%2Fariebras%2FVarious%2520LSR%2F%3Faction%3Dview%26current%3D1928WhiteTriplex-03.jpg%26

• http://hooniverse.com/2010/02/25/white-triplex-81000-cc-of-doom/

White Triplex Reversing Set-up

There are a couple of photos in these links: http://theselvedgeyard.wordpress.com/2009/12/28/the-white-triplex-three-engines-1500-hp-and-one-tragic-result/ http://www.nieworld.com/special/racing/gallery2.htm The original/permanent wheels are the rearmost set. Close examination of the side-on view seems to suggest that the tyres are in contact. As you say, they might have run just one engine...and for the few yards necessary to prove the point, might even have left the others connected (as with the earlier electric motor rig), using their compression to slow the whole, hairy operation down. Roddy Macleod (talk) 10:37, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well if nothing else today, I've found some new photos of the Triplex!

These are odd. I agree with you that the rear axle is the main drive axle, as it matches the four-wheeler photos and is also in position to take drive from the rear engines. Yet there are a couple of photos here that show the middle axle lowered, the rear axle raised, and yet the car's apparently travelling at speed! Did they fire this thing up and do backward runs for the camera?! Even around probably the hairiest LSR car ever, driving it backwards fast must have been terrifying! Andy Dingley (talk) 11:46, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Triplex

Apologies; I didn't check out your links first, and you had found more photo's of the six wheeled arrangement than me. Hard to tell if those were taken at speed or not..could have been just wheel tracks on the sand and a grainy exposure (I think I can see spokes on one of them, which I doubt a camera of the time could have frozen). Looking at pics of the 4 wheeled configuration, the rear axle is mounted above the line of the chassis. If I had been them, I wouldn't have bothered with any raising/lowering mechanism; simply mounted the extra wheels, either with an axle or mounted on the chassis, proved it could reverse, then removed them. Perhaps we'll never know! Many thanks for producing some links I hadn't found. RegardsRoddy Macleod (talk) 15:12, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You're right - looking again at them, the wheel spokes are too sharp and the "dust cloud" I thought I was seeing around the wheels isn't convincing. I think what we might be seeing, given the driven wheels' permanent link to the engines, is just that they found it easier to push around the pits on its "reverse" wheels rather than its forward wheels. This would depend though on a clutch in reverse, or at least the ability to drop the reverse wheels without engaging them against the drive wheels (which sounds credible). Andy Dingley (talk) 16:33, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Triplex

Or maybe just reduce the tyre pressures, to remove meaningful contact between the wheel sets?Roddy Macleod (talk) 16:59, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure at these rather lower speeds, but centrifugal force changes the shape of 200mph+ tyres considerably and the wheels increase in diameter appreciably. This was a big problem for Segrave in the red slug and those after him. Andy Dingley (talk) 21:07, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I don't have much insight on him. Have a look here [1]. This site lists him as a member of the Luftwaffe, which was an error on my part, good spot! I found a number of book hits by Thamm in the internet. I may try to order the book. MisterBee1966 (talk) 12:11, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Andy. I'm requesting your assistance/advice regarding the submission of a complaint about Sfan00_IMG. Please see his Talk page (which is where I found your name) and specifically the image tag discussion he initiated with me today. I don't know my way around the Wikipedia procedures but I do know a wind-up merchant when I see one. I saw your reference to RfC/U. Is there another less taxing method of approaching this? Rubywine (talk) 14:48, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

RFC/U is the way to go here.

Sfan seems very "keen", but has difficulties in understanding the subtleties of policy, or any circumstance that runs outside the simple and clearly documented situation on the policy pages. They think everything really is as simple as they think, and their only reaction is to either repeat themselves over and over or (probably quite soon) archive their talk page once again and immediately close any continuing threads! They're one of a number of editors who fail to recognise the difference between actions that are merely correct and those that are useful. There are many "correct" actions to a non-conformant image, such as a broken FUR. One is to delete it, another is to fix it. Some editors fail to appreciate that one is rather more helpful.

As far as I can see, this is a classic case of fair use album cover. It's a little unusual in that such an artist's website has now evaporated, but our correct behaviour then is to tag it as a dead link, but still preserve it in case it re-appears or moves (this happens quite frequently).

Sfan has no more authority than any other editor. Provided that your images do meet our communal policies (a common issue with Sfan is 2005-ish images being re-judged to today's tighter standards), then feel free to remove their tags, including those for "auto-delete in 7 days". If they list an image on a deletion noticeboard, then don't just revert (this gets judged very badly) but go to the noticeboard and argue its case. More and wiser heads see it there and images are rarely deleted by this route except for either good reason, or inaction. Andy Dingley (talk) 21:05, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Okay thanks for your advice. I get the impression you think Sfan is acting in good faith. I cannot agree. I think they have deliberately chosen to undertake edits which are "correct" but not useful, and to do so in a manner calculated to be annoying, i.e. templating regulars, and nitpicking. I can't believe that anyone acting in good faith would try to open the argument that a base domain without index.html is not a valid URL. It is regrettable that the only route to raising a question about Sfan's activities is an RFC/U submission. Like you, I really don't have the time for that. Anyway thanks again. Rubywine (talk) 08:42, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Whether I think Sfan is acting in good faith or not is something of an irrelevance, as I'm still required to act as if they are, no matter what I think. There's also the question of bad faith vs. cluelessness. Your point about the URLs seems quite relevant here! Andy Dingley (talk) 11:27, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Quite so. And your point is taken. I did not meet the requirement to demonstrate the assumption of good faith. I will amend my discussion with Sfan. Rubywine (talk) 15:07, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Do you think the AFD for Triumph Group should be closed per

As a !voter in it, I'm probably not allowed an opinion. However I can't see much point in prolonging the inevitable. Andy Dingley (talk) 02:32, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Concur. - BilCat (talk) 06:20, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed that Colonel Warden has recreated Aircraft design process as a stub. I'm ont sure that's allowed during an AFD, since it's a fork, but they keep changeing guidelines so much on WP nowadays that I never know what's still allowed and what isn't! Do you know? - BilCat (talk) 06:20, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

AIUI, he shouldn't even have stubbed it during the AfD, but should have let debate conclude first. I'm going to move to close the AfD, on the grounds that anything it was discussing has now become moot and so we should, if anyone feels the need, start again with another one. Andy Dingley (talk) 10:20, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(This comment is being posted to several editors who were involved in the

I’ve just noticed the now-closed AFD for this article, and the concerns that were raised in it about WeijiBaikeBianji’s possible conflict of interest on IQ-related articles. I’ve also had some concerns about WeijiBaikeBianji’s editing behavior on these articles, and so have a few other editors who weren’t involved in the AFD, so I recently brought up this issue with Coren, one of the arbitrators. The discussion about this is here. Coren is offering some advice about how this issue ought to be handled, so he suggested that I contact the other editors who’ve been concerned about this possible COI.

One thing that Coren is suggesting is to start an RFC about WeijiBaikeBianji. Whether you agree with that suggestion or not, I think it would be a good idea for any of you to participate in the discussion in Coren’s user talk, in order to help figure out what the best way is to deal with this situation. --Captain Occam (talk) 18:10, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am far from happy with this article, with WeijiBaikeBianji's behaviour over it in the past, and particularly for AfDing it. Whilst his actions are "correct", they're far from appropriate or constructive - particularly as regards the COI issue. I'm very, very tired of editors working this way - there seems to be a rash of them at present. I would have filed this at RFC myself (along with a couple of others), but I really don't have the time and to be honest, I just don't care that much about the quality of this article. It's better, to my interests, to try and walk away from this, even if it means him ruining an article, and to spend time on articles I care more about.

However if you do take it to RFC, please give me a shout and I'll fire up my pitchfork. Andy Dingley (talk) 21:06, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Even if you aren’t going to post the RFC, I think it would still be helpful if you could participate in the discussion about this in Coren’s user talk. That’s where I expect other editors will be discussing how to handle this issue, and I think it would be beneficial for them to have your input about it. --Captain Occam (talk) 01:50, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I was hoping someone else would do the RFU/C but it looks like no one has time for it....I have time for it, though I don't know anything about going about it. Can someone point me in the right direction? I've never been involved in dispute resolution at wikipedia before. Also, if anyone can help me find diffs from parts of this dispute I wasn’t involved in, such as the high IQ society article, that would be helpful. Not really sure where to start here...-SightWatcher (talk) 04:01, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What I’d recommend doing is creating a draft for the RFC/U on a page in your userspace (something like User:SightWatcher/WeijiBaikeBianji), and editors who’ve been involved in other disputes with WeijiBaikeBianji can gradually contribute diffs there until you’re ready to actually start the RFC.

Making the RFC will take a little longer that way, but there’s no hurry. I can see that WBB is still edit warring over the human intelligence template, and we should at least wait until the current episode of this is finished before starting the RFC, because what he’s doing currently will probably be worth including in it.

Some pages with instructions about how to make an RFC/U are

here showing the format it should have. You can also ask for advice about any aspects of the RFC/U process here. --Captain Occam (talk) 04:54, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply

]

I didn't provide evidence of notability or claim to, merely evidence that your AfD was ill thought out and premature. Andy Dingley (talk) 19:48, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Your error was understandable, there were three engine sheds in very close proximity, two of which were known as Battersea prior to 1923. Your picture was taken in front of the former LC&DR running shed, just before Stewart's Lane Junction. The LCDR main line to Victoria is visible over the bridge in the background. The building visible on the left is the Hampton's Repository, which forms the backdrop to a large number of Southern Railway locomotive portraits. I remember it from the 1960s and I believe it was still standing in the late 1970s.

Your picture is fairly close to Longhedge Works which was situated behind the LC&DR running shed, but is not really a part of it. I have thought about rewriting the Stewart's Lane TMD article and renaming it Stewart's Lane Motive Power Depot but have not yet got round to it. I don't think there is a WP article for the LB&SCR triple roundhouse which was still standing (a vehicle maintenance depot) in the 1980s and visible from the Brighton Main Line. If you want to forward me an email address I can send you part of a large scale map showing the three sheds and Hampton's Repository, but I can't put it on WP for copyright reasons. David --Das48 (talk) 15:32, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. That's rather clearer now. Andy Dingley (talk) 17:02, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You will now find a new article under Stewarts Lane, incorporating your photograph. I have also corrected the caption on Commons.--Das48 (talk) 16:00, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

TPH has NAC'd the

Hello, I’ve recently created a draft in my userspace for an RFC/U about WeijiBaikeBianji. [2] Before I start the RFC/U, I would appreciate you letting me know if you have any suggestions about additional information I should include, or anything else you think I should change about it. Since I haven’t been involved in the

Thanks for that. It has needed doing for a while.

I came to this article in April. Since then I've seen a stream of edits like "deleted spam links" where refs are removed on the spurious grounds that any SPS is spam to be removed, rather than an acceptable addition, even if the strictest policy interpretation might still require others in addition. The briefest loook at the article history shows them, as the summaries are clear. Clear POV-pushing IMHO, even before the admission of COI from one of these groups. Andy Dingley (talk) 19:32, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

RFC/U has been started here: [3]

This needs to be certified within 48 hours by other users who have tried to resolve this dispute with him, so it would be helpful if you could do that.-SightWatcher (talk) 05:02, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Are you going to participate in the RFC/U? When Coren originally suggested this idea, you told me (here) that I should let you know when it got posted because you’d want to participate. There wasn’t much trouble getting it certified, but I still find it a little strange that some of the people who were originally asking for this RFC aren’t participating in it now that it’s open. --Captain Occam (talk) 17:53, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. You inserted the invention of the neon lamp by Georges Claude in 1902 in the Timeline of historic inventions. Do you have a good reference for that? I've been working on Claude's article. Cheers, Easchiff (talk) 06:55, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not a good one, that was rather on the basis of self-sourcing from WP itself.

AIUI, the neon lamp (i.e. a glass thing that glowed) was demonstrated as a lab curiosity around 1902, but wasn't particularly useful. It was some years later (around 1910) that a use was found for it, with long shaped tubes for advertising displays. These are two separate inventions and were listed as such, until someone incorrectly removed them from the list article as duplicates, not realising the difference. I didn't add this, merely reverted its removal.

In terms of hard refs, the best I have on my own shelves is a 1903 electrical handbook that mentions the neon as a discharge lamp with no major current applications (nightlights are mentioned), so the lamp was clearly in existence by then, but the display use wasn't either invented or prominent enough to describe at that time. Andy Dingley (talk) 10:59, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your reply. In honor of the centennial of Claude's neon lighting demo in Paris, I've written a neon lighting article that summarizes what I've found out. I'd be happy to add your reference there, or you can do it if you prefer; maybe your source is digitized at books.google.com . There's lot of confusion about who invented what & when; Claude certainly established the neon lighting industry, in the same sense that Edison established the incandescent light industry. Cheers, Easchiff (talk) 17:10, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]