User talk:Andy Dingley/Archive 2011 February

Page contents not supported in other languages.
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.

AFD

I do have references to hand and checked for nominating for CSD - did you not note my edit summary. Googling is always good for spotting obvious hoaxes. Wee Curry Monster talk 13:29, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Mechanical stoker

Hi. Recently been playing with Ellenroad Ring Mill Engine (and its new parent, Ellenroad Mill) in conjunction with Clem. There are a couple of pictures of the Lancashire boilers on Commons which may be of interest to you. "Fueled up and ready to go" shows the boiler with a pair of mechanical stokers attached. These are driven by small electric motors, so might be relatively modern. "Warming up" shows a close-up of the same boiler, with a man holding the door open (not such a good pic, but gives a good indication of size). What might also be of interest is that the boilers are shown built into the side of the building -- other Commons pics show a boiler-height wall (if any).

At present, mechanical stoker redirects to a single paragraph in fireman (steam engine), so there is great scope for expansion there... (Just in case you'd run out of things to do :o) )

EdJogg 13:40, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Ed, yes, stokers want a look at sometime. I really ought to finish boiler stays (Aargh!) and the remarkably interesting (but as yet just a bag of good refs) GPCS first.
The boiler photos are interesting. Surely those stoker hoppers are only big enough for "display" purposes, not running a whole cotton mill?
Do you know anything about Foden's pistol boiler, or the Garratt curved-crown stayless firebox? Garratt seem to have used this on the smaller portables and not some of the large road engines, but where was the split? Andy Dingley (talk) 00:38, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Stoker photos: The engines are still steamed once a month, so maybe this was a good idea to avoid some poor 'volunteer' spending a day shovelling coal? They certainly look 'preservation era'. With a 3000IHP engine I think you'd need a direct feed from the coal pile if running the entire mill!
Boilers: wish I could help you. You're confusing interest with knowledge -- ie I have great interest in such steam vehicles, but precious little knowledge! I'll see if I can find time to look in a couple of the books I have, although my gut feeling is they won't be detailed enough for what you want. (It's not an extensive library. My expenditure on ebay was starting to become noticeable, and I realised I was buying books mainly so I could edit here, but I can't afford to do that at the moment.)
EdJogg (talk) 13:09, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ownership

Listen, if you are going to accuse someone of

The'FortyFive' 00:31, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply
]

Ownership? Take a look at the edit history sometime.
Now most of this is pretty good stuff - filtering out the rubbish. But the 2009 Sherlock Holmes film barely had a mention in any press that didn't have the word "steampunk" all over it. Claiming that it was a poor ref as given is one thing, but removing it altogether is just lazy. A moment's looking turns up not just one ref for this as a deliberately steampunk-themed version, but dozens of the things. Andy Dingley (talk) 00:34, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The main article about the film should mention steampunk somewhere, which it does not. This very telling. Did the filmmakers intend it as steampunk, or did someone simply interpret it that way? And ownership is not simply a matter of the number of edits one makes, it is a matter of the attitude evinced, of not allowing others to make edits. I have never evinced such an attitude, and I am not going to be accused of such by you. ---
The'FortyFive' 01:30, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply
]
The "main article" ? So you're trying to use Wikipedia as a source here?

Steam Locomotive Components

By separating smokebox and blower in Steam locomotive components, you have caused all of the labels to become misaligned. I am re-merging them so the subsequent components are recognizable by their numbers on the diagram, just as user:Audriusa tried to do. Unless you are willing to go over every label on the image and re-number them, please do not revert this change. Having components identifiable in the diagram is far more important than your personal opinions on smokeboxes and blowers. Also, the problem would have been apparent had you previewed it. Scarlet (talk) 21:31, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry about that, I hadn't realised that the image was keyed to the para numbers.
The real fix here is to ditch auto-numbering (this is almost never a good idea) and to hard-code the numbers onto the paras. As we're relying on the number, hard-coding is better than auto-allocating them. Andy Dingley (talk) 17:48, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Pronunciation of 'Cawl'

In the article headed 'Cawl' you say the word cawl rhymes with 'cowl'. This suggests the 'a' in cawl is pronounced as the 'u' in 'but'. I am not familiar with this pronounciation of the vowel 'a' in Welsh.

Where, by the way, is 'round here'. Are you a Welsh speaker yourself ? Astroboz (talk) 02:11, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm in Rogiet, which is barely into Wales! (South East corner). I have an odd interest in cawl recipes though, so I'm always looking for it wherever I travel in Wales - Pembrokeshire seems like the best place to find it, not so much further North. Now I'd thought it should be pronounced as you say, but whenever I talk to people, Welsh speakers or not, I hear it as "cowl".
I may be wrong here - feel free to change it however you see fit. Andy Dingley (talk) 02:25, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Andy. Hearing it as 'cowl' is common among non-Welsh-speakers (no, I'm not having a pop, lol). Purely for your information, the 'a' in Welsh is always pronounced flat as in 'cat'. As a 56 year old who has been practically fed intravenously with cawl since the age of three I can recommend it to anyone, Welsh-speaking or not! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Astroboz (talk • contribs) 02:41, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

OK then, here's a question.
Cheese as an ingredient. Right or wrong? Recipes? Andy Dingley (talk) 02:50, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Slurp. Let me know if the outcome of this is tasty, Andy. My Welsh-Italian sister-in-law makes it, though she's a veggie herself. Cheese is a thought - I shall hint strongly next time I'm in Talgarth. Sitush (talk) 12:45, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, me again. I've remembered why I came here in the first place. Saw something on the noticeboards about you defaming some dead "inventor". I can't think of a country where it is legally possible to defame the dead - is this some weird WP policy that I need to be careful about? Sitush (talk) 12:51, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Ah yes,
Coanda-1910. There's a swamp and no mistake. 8-( No, you can't libel the dead, nor does what Lsorin claim to have read even claim what he thinks it does. Andy Dingley (talk) 13:07, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply
]

Gilding

I'm confused why this diff is unfathomable. If the article is main article for the category and the category has all of those parental categories, then those same cats can be removed from the article because of redundancy. Wizard191 (talk) 19:04, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This is the lead article for a category. Both it, and the category, should be categorized appropriately to place the concept in the overall tree. The main article also needs to be placed in the category and sorted to the lead position.
In a few cases, biographies are one, we strip the categorization from the category. We still leave the full categorization on the article though. Categorization is largely a navigation feature for browsing, and most slightly-familiar users are navigating to look for articles, not categories. Andy Dingley (talk) 22:29, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Kinetic wotsit

I've redirected to to Kinetic energy. Saves hassle and it's a plausible search term. Peridon (talk) 16:20, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

RfA

  • thud* Yes, I did fall off my chair... Can't thank you enough for your support, despite the fact that the RfA doesn't have much of a chance left. It says a lot about you that you can support me despite the problems we've had in the past. I wish I could say the same for some other editors. Thanks again.
    chat 17:04, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply
    ]
You're welcome. It's not about me, it's about recognising that your behaviour has indeed changed from back on that Bose AfD. Just don't expect flowers, OK? Andy Dingley (talk) 17:15, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Contact fuse#Spelling in article

You should be aware of the above discussion I've started. Your comments would be appreciated if we are to sort out this disagreement. Dpmuk (talk) 14:32, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

IP different

Hi Andy, I noticed you left a comment here for that school. The IP is different but I agree it is the same school...I was actually predicting a long block for the commenting IP as I was chasing down their vandalism...they remain unblocked but I'd love to see them receive a long one. Here's their contribs. I wasn't sure if you were aware of this (in case you wanted to relocate your comments). Your help is greatly appreciated, btw.
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► ((⊕)) 20:31, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, thanks - I hadn't noticed that it wasn't their own talk page they were editing. They each seem to be interested in Forsyth Central High School and North Forsyth High School (Georgia), but don't overlap too much otherwise, except for the talk pages. Blocking might be justified to save further pointless workload, but I'm sure that simple "rendering unto Caesar" will get all those necessary blocked in time, as they deserve. Andy Dingley (talk) 21:20, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Semantic Web

Please see Talk:Semantic Web.--Michael WhiteT·C 23:05, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Andy_Dingley/Archive_2011_February&oldid=1141280624"