User talk:Andy Dingley/Archive 2011 March

Sorry if I hit a nerve with you on this article. How's this talk page comment relevant to improving the article? --

There's a good article waiting somewhere on the "21st century electronics hobbyist resurgence". In the '70s, I was an electronics hobbyist. So were many people, it was a widespread hobby. In the '80s it stopped. Hobby couldn't compete with factories any more. Making something "interesting" became impossibly hard when the average dime store offered something just as impressive for peanuts. At the high end, home computers, video games and music devices were around and these were too sophisticated for most hobbyists, certainly those starting out, to make. So the hobby died and also school teaching of electronics died. This in turn affected universities and industry, as entrants to this commercial field no longer had the past amateur background to build upon. Towards 2000, electronics really had become a "black art" and there was a serious question as to where the next generation of professional designers would come from.

This has now changed to a revolutionary level. Tonight is a local

Hackspace meeting, where a community shared workshop meets once a week to show off projects, share knowledge, advice and testgear. Local Dorkbot groups do work of staggering impressiveness. (Look up both of these groups online, you might have one local). Make (magazine)

has re-kindled the old enthusiasm for making such projects, amongst a wide range. So what changed?

Several things changed. Of course these big shifts never come from just one source. DIY web publishing, blogging, Web 2.0 community content sites all played a part. So have "scenes" like Burning Man and Steampunk, where self construction is pretty much expected. The odd Goth would sew, but how many ever built a steam-powered mobile house and took it to Glastonbury? For the electronics aspect, the key seems to be the advent of useful, cheap microcontrollers like the Arduino, where the entry-cost (including development kit and learning time) is low, yet the end results are powerful. Arduino are ubiquitous at Hackspaces, the others (like the PIC, mbed or Dwengo are rare in comparison). This hardware needs to be acquired from somewhere, and that means web-hosted retail, again a post-2000 development. You can't run a store front retail outfit with this technology, it moves too fast, you can't afford old stock, or too much stock held in multiple locations. Unlike the 1990s, when much the same controllers were avaialable (with a commercial pricetag), we're no longer dealing with a commercial-only reseller like RS, where you have to have a trade account and order in industrial quantities. This hobbyist revolution is symbiotic with companies like Sparkfun, Adafruit, Cool Components, Oomlout, Seeed Studio and a few others. The hobbyists and small scale innovators create a market that wasn't there before (low volume retail of very high tech in a few narrow niches). The hobby in turn relies on web hosted narrow-focus retail that accepts small orders with low overheads. None of this existed before 2000, although similar trades did on paper catalogues for hobbies like kitemaking and model aircraft. For these though, the technology is slower-changing, even for esoteric materials like carbon fibre spars.

As to the talk page comment, then of course it's not helpful. However it's not required to be so. We only remove talkpage comments for heavyweight vandalism, possibly

WP:FORUM, and it's neither of those. It's a good faith rant about the subject of the article, on a relevant point, even if it's not contributing much to a discussion or coverage of that point. Andy Dingley (talk) 10:59, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply

]

Please stop libeling me by restoring the tags. Thank you Enemy of the Daleks (talk) 10:51, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your message. I used to feel sorry that CoM had been blocked for what I regard as an excessive time. However this sort of fooling (assume you're really CoM and not just someone else trolling to cause trouble for him) is exactly how to get your block reset until next year. You know this, you know how your sock account (this is far from a legitimate alt account and will never be seen as one) will be regarded. However if that's what you really want, I'm sure you can have it. Andy Dingley (talk) 12:22, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The bit about elephants on Tsunami warning system is intriguing, but unreferenced. It's amazing to think that elephants can hear down to 0.001 Hz. I couldn't find any material on the subject, but you said it was "well attested". Do you have a reference on hand that can be used in the article? Spiel496 (talk) 01:23, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The claim needs citation, but it was tagged as such only a couple of weeks ago, so it's premature to delete the whole section as yet. The claim of 0.001Hz is unbelievable (and also fairly meaningless to most readers, as we just have no hands-on personal knowledge of such frequencies - this is, after all, about an oscillation every quarter-hour!) and removing that would be reasonable, but it's still no reason to delete the whole para.

I'm no elephant specialist, nor even a biologist. As a physicist though, I can make some estimates (following Pennycuick's general estimating technique for limb natural frequencies) of what an elephant might be able to sense, and 0.1Hz is credible as an order of magnitude lower limit. That's not to say that they could hear down to this, just that it's hard to see how an elephant built like an elephant could be able to sense anything below this.

AIUI elephant hearing is a relatively new topic of study. The only book I have to hand is old: Estes Behaviour Guide to African Mammals of 1991 which notes that elephants obviously make loud infrasound noises (100+dB at 14Hz is cited) and that there's circumstantial evidence that elephants can communicate over several km, indicating that they're implicitly able to hear infrasound, although this ability hadn't really been studied in isolation. Another source would be Payne, K B; Langbauer, W R; Thomas, E M (1986). "Infrasonic calls of the Indian elephant". Behav. Ecol. Sociobiol. (18): 297–301., which again is observing some calls in the near-infrasound, rather than studying what elephants can actually sense. It's most likely that they sense really low frequencies through their feet (pachyderm feet are adapted in a way that also makes them surprisingly appropriate for this).

Much lower frequencies seem likely though, and I understand that this is what recent studies on sensing, rather than the obvious generation, are showing. I recall a piece in New Scientist just in the last few weeks.

Sorry I can't give any more detail, but it's not my field. However there clearly is more to it than warrants simple removal of a whole section. Andy Dingley (talk) 02:34, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi

"rv AWB damage, Will someone please fix that damned thing? and read MOS before they do it?"

AWB damage? I don't think so, it's not like AWB has a mind of it's own lol ... read MoS? I do, regularly.

The article is not titled "Parallel robot" and I moved it to second as there are many more uses for the parallel platform than the robot. The single quote ' was changed to ". I removed the italics from must as it does not really need emphasis as per MoS.

These were improvements IMO. If you do not think they were please explain how 'this' is better than "this", and why you need italics as emphasis. You certainly do not need to leave bizarre edit summaries, a note on my talk page will get better response...

Also, as you are not a member of the robotics project, can you explain why you changed the project banner on the talk page? If you simply wanted a reassessment due to the work you have done a request page is available Wikipedia:WikiProject_Robotics/Peer_review#Assessment_requests.

Now, last time we had a discussion you were a little confrontational, perhaps you can keep this one civil... Thanks Chaosdruid (talk) 22:37, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The article has two titles,

parallel robot and parallel manipulator

. It's hard to say which is the more significant, which should be the article's canonic title or even which order they should appear in. However it's pretty obvious that both are of comparable significance, such to warrant bolding.

As to the quote chars, then they're not direct quotations, so a single quote is more appropriate than a double quote.

Was this an AWB change (and thus AWB is getting too big for its bootloader) or a manual change? I have no idea, to any extent that I can really prove. But it's labelled with an edit summary for AWB, and it's typical of many other AWB edits that have applied similarly dogmatic, automatic and unhelpful changes.

No edits to the project box unless one is a sanctioned 'member' of the project?! You can blow that out your end effector.

As you clearly don't appreciate actual work, and writing a lead that is a vast improvement on that previously produced by the almighty robotics project (barely any better than the Glossary of robotics was, before it was AfDed), then good luck to you and enjoy your templates. Meanwhile there are useful edits to be done. Andy Dingley (talk) 23:57, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I suppose it was inevitable...No, I do appreciate actual work, where you got that idea from I... oh I see, you are just on a little wind up mission lol.

OK, the point is that members of the project should really only be the ones that change the project box. I invited you to join the Robotics project a long time ago but you chose not to. You can request at the page Wikipedia:WikiProject_Robotics/Peer_review#Assessment_requests as the edit summary seems to be a request for an assessment, why would you think it was ok to simply delete the class and hint in the edit summary that it might need reassessing?

I do not want you to think my end effector is blown out, maybe it is rather that your positronics are a little in need of calibration? Chaosdruid (talk) 00:19, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi again

Do you have any special interest in old aero-engines? I have been working on a page but need help from someone more knowledgeable, or at least with more access to resources, and wondered if you could help. I did ask a couple of other people but think maybe you are more a likely candidate.

The page is Beardmore Halford Pullinger. I have done some work on it but it could do with a lot more. I plan to get some material out of the Flight archive if possible.

Any chance you might want to collaborate a bit on that? Chaosdruid (talk) 23:18, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You must be joking. I'm not a member of the right project. Andy Dingley (talk) 23:44, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

So you are saying you have to be a member of a particular project to work on an article? Chaosdruid (talk) 00:06, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You've obviously forgotten your own patronising comments just a few lines above.

That was about a project assessment, not an article and I am not your father. Chaosdruid (talk) 00:19, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I will assume that collaboration is not your style then? (as we have once again gone off topic and into the realms of "I offered an olive branch but you broke it and stuck it in my eye") Chaosdruid (talk) 00:27, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Olive branch? Have you read your previous spiel?

I don't need to read them as I know what I said. I did not patronise you - maybe you can try and elucidate where you think that happened as it certainly was not intended, if you simply wish to not collaborate then fine. Chaosdruid (talk) 01:10, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You are involved in a recently-filed request for arbitration. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests#Henri Coanda defamation - second try and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. Additionally, the following resources may be of use—

• Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests#Requests for Arbitration;
• Wikipedia:Arbitration guide
  .

Thanks,--Lsorin (talk) 18:31, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You don't seem to know much about

Go read up on our referencing policy. If you've got refs to support what you claim, then show them. I wouldn't claim that inserts don't exist, but I've never seen one, I've seen plenty of metallised plastic printwheels (which you ignore), and you've shown no evidence for your claim of them. Andy Dingley (talk) 23:23, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Dear mr. Dingley, do you need any help in defending yourself in the arbitration case? If you contact me by mail, I will be able to take a look at your case. Sincerly, PaoloNapolitano. PaoloNapolitano (talk) 14:04, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thankyou for your offer, but I'm sure ArbCom can cope. Andy Dingley (talk) 02:18, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have removed the prod tag you placed on the subject article because it has been to AfD 3 times and per policy is permanently ineligible for prod. Compliance with policy is the only reason I did this; I have no comment one way or the other on the merits of deletion and no prejudice against opening another AfD. —KuyaBriBri^Talk 15:25, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spud_gun Half the sites in the External Links section sell products and advertise. The site (spudgundepot.com) I would like to add does not sell anything but gives valuable information, animations, and diagrams. Please revise this, Thank you. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:External_links#Advertising_and_conflicts_of_interest Wikimembr (talk) 20:15, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have some sympathy for your comment here, but there are two WP policies that are relevant. Please take a look.

• First of all
  WP:OSE
  . Other bad links are a reason to perhaps remove them, but it's never an excuse to add more links that don't meet policy. It often happens that new links are looked at more closely and thus get removed, whilst old bad links are ignored and stay. However the fix for that is to review the old links, not become lax on new links.
• Secondly,
  WP:EL
  (which no-one ever reads) makes it quite clear what the purpose of links is. They're not there to make a directory of links, or to link onwards from WP articles. Instead they're there to "fill in the cracks" of something that can't be placed inside a WP article. The better the article, the less need there is for external linking. Rather than adding a link, it's better to add content to the article.

Finally, and why I won't personally re-add these links (although I won't remove them again if you do re-add them) is that I consider the site to be offering dangerous advice. PVC tube is brittle and can explode under pressure, with hazardous shrapnel. It should not be used for making spud guns. Other non-brittle plastics, such as polypropylene, are just as easily available. Andy Dingley (talk) 21:17, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

An Arbitration case involving you has been opened, and is located here. Please add any evidence you may wish the Arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Henri Coanda/Evidence. Please submit your evidence within one week, if possible. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Henri Coanda/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Alexandr Dmitri (talk) 08:34, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There's no reason to make this personal, as you have on the Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2N3055 and at User talk:Wtshymanski. Let's see if we can focus on whether the article clears the bar for notability, not your opinions of the other editors in the discussion. Msnicki (talk) 23:03, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You type faster than I can raise you at WQA, but it doesn't mean you're right. Your last sarcastic comment (not even to a post of mine) was really unhelpful. Andy Dingley (talk) 23:07, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not attack other editors, as you did at User talk:Msnicki. Comment on content, not on contributors. Personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you. We do not decide notability based on what other contributions another editor has made. I've asked you to stop making this personal. You've ignored my request with your last edit to my talk page. This is unnecessary. Please stop. Msnicki (talk) 23:48, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Under a thousand edits and you're already at

WP:ANI? Andy Dingley (talk) 23:55, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply

]

Please do not attack other editors. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Enough is enough, Andy. I've asked you to stop. Msnicki (talk) 00:04, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Congratulations, you've found where the templates are kept.

I agree that this edit [1] is correct. It belongs in Category:Academic journal covers. The other categorization was probably an oversight. ---- Steve Quinn (talk) 02:48, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry about that. I meant to add the diff with the first edit. ---- Steve Quinn (talk) 02:55, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Full disclosure:

1) I am new to adding articles to Wiki.

2) Words on a page and/or screen can be misinterpreted.

My intent with my article is honest, forthright, and within the "Taste Test," of the 5 Pillars. I apologize if you impression of the article was that of nonsense.

Thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dannydohrmann (talk • contribs) 01:52, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]