User talk:Andy Dingley/Archive 2011 January

His changes don't seem too bad, to be honest. He can reshuffle his own deckchairs as much as he likes, so long as he doesn't climb out of the pen and start causing trouble on those articles themselves. Andy Dingley (talk) 17:12, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I see that you have added a second clarification tag, one that had already been attended to and removed, to the W & J Galloway & Sons article. Just what, exactly, would you like me to clarify? Weiterbewegung (talk) 16:40, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Shouldn't we use your reversion of 27 Dec as the baseline version- see and check for any potential phopahs before putting back any substantial chunks of text or images. --ClemRutter (talk) 13:38, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

AIUI, Laser Brain had already (5th Jan) taken it back to the June version, on just those grounds. I haven't had time to see if there are any useful edits since June that warrant re-applying. EdJogg had done some editing, but the likelihood is (given the relative sizes) that this was to the problematic content anyway. Andy Dingley (talk) 13:41, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

One thing we probably should do is to go to the "best" version and copy any references across to the new version. As non original work these aren't so problematic for copyright. The editor causing all this isn't too knowledgeable about copyright anyway, so they're unlikely to make much of a case against this under "sweat of the brow" or database right claims. Andy Dingley (talk) 13:45, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

My changes were all corrections to the 'problem' text (although, of course, it wasn't a problem at the time!), so don't worry about hanging on to them. BTW the June version was also mine... EdJogg (talk) 17:02, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I shouldn't think there are any more articles to consider looking at his contribution history. The ones you listed at ANI are the only ones that his is the major contibution to. NtheP (talk) 20:01, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As per discussions: [2]. I'm sorry, for this! I really did hope that we can continue the discussions just on technical level, without any kind of personal attacks.--Lsorin (talk) 19:24, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Closed as no violation. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:26, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I am coming to you with a concern. Everytime that I search for something on wikipedia, and I am not logged in, I am told that I have a new message in my talk tube. I open it and it says that IP user 75.105.128.54 has been blocked due to vandalism. I am not this IP user as I found out recently, but my IP number is similar but different than that which was stated..I was hoping that you or some one could look into this matter and hopefully stop my computer from recieving these messages.RedWings ninety one (talk) 06:05, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi RedWings,

My apologies for the message you've been receiving. I see that you're a university user, so the chance is that your IP is blocked for vandalism — It happens, don't worry about it, we know it's not you. I'd think (I'm not too familiar with the mechanics of this, but it's how I think this works) that this will (deliberately) block you from editing, unless you're logged in. There's also a further block level which would lock you out from that IP whether you were logged in or not, but that's rarely used. If you have your "own" computer to use, this isn't too much of a problem, just stay logged in. If you're sharing them in the library etc., then I see that it would be (obviously you don't want to leave your login left behind, or someone else can get access to it).

I'm a little puzzled in that

WP:AN

.

Really though, the best option is just to log in. It works better that way - you get watchlists and other editors can see who you are. Andy Dingley (talk) 12:15, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The IP has been blocked again. I don't think RedWings account, however, is disabled. The administrator handling this was HJ Mitchell (talk · contribs). Jsayre64 (talk) 03:15, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I thought the Fairburns both belonged to the Mahers, one each to Austin & Charlie?

Is there any citation for the (quite ludicrous, even in the mid-70s) "scheme" to reconnect through Greenodd?

Is it time we had a category of "British railway preservationists" (ideas?) for articles like your (most welcome) Peter Beet, Eric Treacy et al.? Andy Dingley (talk) 03:38, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, hope this finds you well! I thought that as well re the Fairburns, but this pdf (Googlised quick-cache version) from an official GCR press-release for 42085 suggests otherwise. Yes, I think there is a need for a category along the lines of British steam preservationaists: perhaps start as a list? Rgds, --Trident13 (talk) 03:42, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sold to Charlie in the mid 70s, per the last line of that press release. The bit about LRS members wanting to volunteer to work for Stephen Maher made me laugh (rather hollowly) though!

What's this about "motorways" too? There's no motorways up that way.

Do you happen to know who owns Leander now? Is that George Beet? Damn, this all makes me feel old. Andy Dingley (talk) 03:48, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Leander is presently owned by a Beet family trust, so they have thought about the tax. After the news re King Edward I, I found enough material to write an article on Jeremy Hosking. Any thoughts on that category name yet? Rgds, --Trident13 (talk) 00:16, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A small stream of gas at high velocity can be used to produce a larger flow in some other fluid. I agree with that, but what about the time-machine Coanda must have used to apply this principal on just about every locomotive of the late 19th century? (that's what makes the chugging sound, Andy). How is it justified to imply that he came up with something that was commonplace years before he was born? He didn't even originate it's application in aircraft(Maxim is an early, but not the sole, example of this), but that's a bit off the point unless some one tries to make an issue of it in the article.Ion G Nemes (talk) 18:00, 11 January 2011 (UTC) I have also removed your references to the avrocar because the description you present for it's mode of operation is completely wrong. If you had bothered to look at that diagram you restored to the page you'd see a large ducted fan in the center.Ion G Nemes (talk) 18:00, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Steam locomotive exhaust systems rely on Coanda effect? Simply put - No. If you want references, go and read Koopman's The Fire Burns Much Better, which is by far the most comprehensive study of both this, and the history of theories for how it worked. Sadly it's hand-printed by elves with a print run of a dozen (an MSc thesis) and damned hard to find a copy of, but it is the book on the subject. Livio Dante Porta, and of course Chapelon (I'm hoping you can read French, as you have an interest in Coanda), are also the usual texts on the subject. But no, it doesn't work by the Coanda effect.

As to the rest, then Coanda described the Coanda effect and the Chinese had probably been cursing the dribbling teapot quite well without for centuries beforehand. Discovery and description isn't, of course, invention.

For the

Avrocar, then the use of the fan for lift doesn't have much to do with the periphery jets and their use of Coanda for horizontal propulsion and control in all three axes. Andy Dingley (talk) 02:39, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply

]

Actually, I wasn't trying to suggest that forced-draft in locomotives used the Coanda effect(hence the question mark, and the complete lack of any such assertion in my post). I was trying to suggest that forced-draft in locomotives was produced by a small stream of gas at high velocity being used to produce a larger flow in some other fluid(Am I correct sir?). And that therefore the use of a small stream of gas at high velocity to produce a larger flow in some other fluid is not necessarily a consequence of Coanda's work(Am I correct sir?). Your edit gives the impression that it was giving credit to Coanda for the Idea that a small stream of gas at high velocity can be used to to produce a larger flow in some other fluid. Was this your intention? But perhaps this discussion would best be continued on the Coanda page.(By the way, In my ignorance I always thought teapots dribbled because of surface-tension effects, but your statement that the Coanda effect is actually responsible makes me appreciate yet again the true depth of your expertise. Thanks for the information, I love learning new things!)

As to the Avrocar: I see that you have recruited the aid of your old pal Lsorin for editing this page. What a nice gesture. That should certainly improve the discourse to no end. Maybe if you can track down that anonymous poster with the dynamic IP from the coanda 1910 page you'll bring him along too! Ion G Nemes (talk) 04:23, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Your revert removed my copyedit. Was this intentional? --John (talk) 16:10, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes and sort of. I crudely reverted a whole block of Lsorin's changes to take out the obvious problematic one. Now I'm off at AN/EW to try and get a block on him because I'm so tired of this same damned revert every time we turn our backs on it.

From first glance, your change appeared to relate to his prior changes, in which case it would now have become moot. Once I've done the AN/EW, I can have a better look and see if it's more general. If it is, of course I'd be delighted to restore it. I'd even restore some of Lsorin's edits, if they're like the recent ruddervator change. If of course you get to yours first, please feel free to put it back - I've no problem with it, if it's still relevant to the latest state of the article. Andy Dingley (talk) 16:15, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've re-added your text copy-editing. I've left the wikilinked Romanian in the head though, because I personally consider that it's a useful note and link (Coanda isn't too well known and he's a respected figure by the Romanians) and also, probably more importantly, because I don't wish to invoke an angry Dacian horde. If you really think it's better without, please feel free to remove it again. Andy Dingley (talk) 16:45, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Andy, why did you name the category "shot blasting" instead of "abrasive blasting", which is far more inclusive and commonly used. Honestly, I've never heard anyone use the term "shot blasting" before. Wizard191 (talk) 18:47, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Because I'm an idiot mostly, and I was doing it at the same time as shot peening. In the UK though, "shot blasting" is fairly common, second only to "sand blasting" (used for everything, from corncobs to steel) and grit- or abrasive- blasting are far behind. It ought to be renamed. Feel free, but I doubt I'll have time soon. Andy Dingley (talk) 19:03, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

OK, thanks for the clarification. I'll start a CfD. Wizard191 (talk) 19:24, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]