User talk:Andy Dingley/Archive 2012

• January 2012
• February 2012
• March 2012
• April 2012
• May 2012
• June 2012
• July 2012

I've started a brief stub off on this. Please join in! Andy Dingley (talk) 11:10, 13 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Cheers Andy, while I have done a bit of editing I have never originated an article - quick stub or not! Pv=mrt (talk) 11:13, 13 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

See http://www.internalfire.com/phpbb/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=3503 Pv=mrt (talk) 11:49, 13 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi

As you might have understood, I haven't been through this process before. I've tried to clean up my mess. If there is anything else I can do, will you please notify me? benjamil ^talk/_edits 12:36, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

See here [1]. DieSwartzPunkt (talk) 15:59, 18 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I saw your post at

]

Oxy-fuel welding & cutting article

Hi, Andy

I'm happy you take an interest in the oxy-fuel welding and cutting article. Just wanted to take up a couple points, as you recently made a well-considered reversion of some changes I'd made.

I had altered the wording in one part to state that oxy-fuel is a common method for torch cutting "a certain range of ferrous metals" because it cannot be used for such ferrous metals as very-high-carbon steel and stainless steel.

I had altered the wording so as to use the term "common" instead of "ubiquitous". In a sense the oxy-fuel system (particularly oxy-acetlyene) is nearly ubiquitous - however it is steadily being replaced for certain kinds of work by plasma cutting. (Oh, yes... in my revision I had misspelled "certain" and put cetain by mistake.)

What do you think on these points? You can email me, answer here, or on my own talk page.

All the best from Canada.Joel Russ (talk) 01:14, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Joel,

It's those same old problems - who's the audience, and how do we trade precision vs. readability?

This is a very high level article. vaguely "oxy-fuel" and all processes. It's not even that clear if blown air is within the scope or not. So IMHO, this is an entry-level article for naive readers. The content must first of all be accessible to all, even if this involves compromise to some absolute precision or accuracy. We should judge quality by the results on the mind of the reader, not simply by what's written on the page. An article that gives our target reader a good understanding (even if imperfect on the details) is IMHO better than one that tries to become absolute exact in every detail, losing sight of the big picture as it does so. Ideally we achieve both, but that's not always possible.

We should certainly try to avoid error and inaccuracy, even within a compromise, but in practical terms for WP editing, the real trick is usually more about what we say and what we don't. There are some things that it's just not that important to mention (it's a huge topic, not all of it's core), and where mentioning them brings in this risk of compromise. If it's hard to say something, there's no need to say something (it's a tiny topic within a huge one), and we can't say something without generating confusion, then we're best off just not mentioning it.

Silver soldering

was one I thought hard about. I didn't like the notion of shipyard gas axe wielders also knocking out a little bit of jewellery over their breaks. Yes, it's true that oxy-fuel torches are used here, but they're not the same torch as used for demolition, so that's a wrong impression to leave in the reader's mind. Also, most jewellers who are silver soldering don't bother to use ox- torches anyway, as free air or blown air is plenty. Oxy-fuel is thus not a requirement for silver soldering, mentioning it is more likely to confuse than to clarify, so I took it out again.

Oxy-fuel cutting can be used to cut pretty much any steel, except some of the refractory high nickels. The results aren't pretty, and this is just for scrapyard work, but "oxy-fuel" can still "cut" it. Yes, plasma is used increasingly - but our main goal here always has to be explaining oxy-fuel to a naive readership. We should be very careful about going outside article scope, as it rarely makes for a more educational article.

I'm not rigid about any of these wording issues, but I hope this explains where I'm coming from. Andy Dingley (talk) 10:10, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You have deleted my page : http://www.skjapp.com/html5-canvas listed in External Links section in HTML 5 Canvas page. Your comment is that my page is 'spam'. Can you give me reasons why my page is spam. Many people have told me that my examples are very good on HTML 5 Canvas. Why did you find those examples as spam. Or is it just allergy to new people when you have links from Mozilla, Opera and W3Schools. Send me an explanation to saurabh (at) skjapp.com . Otherwise I will take this matter to senior Wikipedia people.

I will take this matter to senior Wikipedia people.

Please do. Maybe start at

WP:COI that you're adding ELs to what is obviously your own site. Your past editing history is mostly about the same types of link, to your own content. The purpose of Wikipedia is to host content here, not to be a directory of external content. Andy Dingley (talk) 09:24, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply

]

I think the quality of content at my site is better than quality of some of the links you have put in external links section. In that case I think you should remove those external links also. For example https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Canvas_tutorial is a very bad page for external links section. Please remove that. I have read the external links guidelines and the content seems appropriate. The only issue is that this is my site so I cannot add myself. I would like you to consider the quality of my content and add the link. I have given lots of examples with description. It is difficult for people to get simple examples with descriptions. I have built the site due to that. I do not display even ads on my site. I want to help people. For example I have given example of Ellipse API which is a new API and is not currently in browsers also. No major site has example for that. I have added example of requestAnimationFrame API which is difficult to understand on all other sites. I have added support information for mobile platforms also which is missing on most HTML 5 example sites. So I think my content has merit.

Firstly, you changed my edit and reinstated links that are no longer working, which means that they are absolutely pointless when they're on a encyclopaedia. Secondly, if they are recoverable, then why haven't you done it? Now, I'm going to redo my edit and delete those links, and you are going to replace them with links that actually work. Because if you don't, then you're just putting up information that is not just wasting my time, but everyone else's when they read that article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JRGregory (talk • contribs) 07:20, 5 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You've blanked the entire ELs section four times now, despite being reverted by others. You've then switched to insulting other editors as 'idiots'. You've done nothing to fix these 404'ed links.

If you paid a little more attention, instead of bloviating to waste the time of others, you might note that I updated the links to use archive copies some time ago.Andy Dingley (talk) 10:43, 5 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I disappointed in you. [2] is not a correction. It is just your (and Globbet's) personal taste, we do not like these disambiguation guidelines. When, sooner or later, the nutation article became decontaminated… I'll just revert you, or even somebody else will do it. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 09:39, 7 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

BTW, you have a possibility to say some words in defence of your action. Incnis Mrsi (talk)

The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:41, 9 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Bushranger _{One ping only} 22:16, 9 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Bicycle Shaped Object is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bicycle Shaped Object (2nd nomination) until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 02:00, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your feedback. I am afraid, that I am finding Wtshymanski just frustrating. He is up to his old habit of tryiing to hammer a 'fact' into an article come hell or high water. He is claiming a limitation on induction technology but is determined to include it despite not having produced a reference proving the impossibility of alternate metals working (

). I know from your comment in the article that you are aware of this and even contributed that it is (or may be?) possible. There is anecdotal evidence from several editors that there is no such limitation and that any historical limitation was a limit of the available technology.

In under one week he has altered or deleted a comment from me twice in the same article. Wtshymanski shows no past history of 'mistakes' of this kind (I have checked). One mistake I would have accepted (and did - for a while). But two 'mistakes' - no way. I do not believe Wtshymanski's explanation, especially given that he does have a history of deleting comments he does not like. 86.156.154.237 (talk) 11:16, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Wtshymanski on this one. A "simple" aluminium pan doesn't work. Just what is needed, and sourcing this, is beyond my knowledge and free time right now, but I'm not going to argue with him when I suspect that he's right all along.

Picking him up for trivial edit conflicts just trivialises the real issues here. If you were to open an RFC on him now saying "Tar and feather this dreadful editor!!", then it would rightly be closed as nit-picking. Andy Dingley (talk) 11:25, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The point being made here (and I am not the only one making it), is that technology moves on. Wtshymanski is relying on a 2006 reference that says non ferrous pans do not work. That might have been an accurate statement in 2006. But the anecdotal evidence (at present) is suggesting that that is not the case in 2012. Wtshymanski's case is that it is impossible for non ferrous pans to work with any induction system developed very recently or even in the future. He has not provided a reference that proves that point. He is making the claim, the

burden of reference is on him, not on those that don't know for sure. It is not possible to prove that something is possible, except by actually doing it. 86.156.154.237 (talk) 15:31, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply

]

No, the burden of proof is to show that other things work too. If you're claiming a change in recent years, then this is especially true. Andy Dingley (talk) 15:34, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I wonder if perhaps you have missed the point. If Wtshymanski were claiming that non ferrous pans do not work at present, but some future development may change that, then I would agree with you because the statement about non ferrous pans not working at present is somewhat non specific. A previous edit made this point in the article. But, no: Wtshymanski wasn't having any of it. Wtshymanski's position always has been that it is impossible for non ferrous pans to work with any induction system. That is a specific claim and thus, in my view, requires a reference to support it. The only evidence supplied by Wtshymanski so far is

original research (though to be fair, Wtshymanski has not denied this). DieSwartzPunkt (talk) 17:38, 17 August 2012 (UTC)[reply

]

I have repeated your comments on the talk page of the article.Talk:Victor Poor--68.231.15.56 (talk) 15:06, 18 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Andy. I've just noticed one or your modifications to List of vehicles at the National Motor Museum, Beaulieu on 09-Aug-2012. Are you sure that it's Chitty Chitty Bang Bang (from the film set) that's in the museum, and not the veteran car that inspired the story? (I pose this question without knowing the answer... I've not been in to them museum to check... so your answer could well be a "yes"... in which case, please forgive me for having questioned you). TheAMmollusc (talk) 07:27, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The original car (

Babs

. That's kept at Pendine, although I think it also goes to Goodwood for part of the year. The car at Beaulieu, from their website photos, is clearly either one of the several film cars, or possibly one of the many replica film cars.

There's also an issue with Bluebird. Beaulieu has two of Campbells' Bluebirds: Malcolm Campbell's early

Bluebird CN7. Andy Dingley (talk) 10:04, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply

]

OK, thanks for the explanation. Yes, I agree with your observation of 'issue'... and it's not the only one in that list. Hopefully, they will gradually get ironed out... some of them by me, if I have sufficient confidence. I narrowly missed an opportunity to visit the museum in the week before last... maybe next year :-) Meanwhile, I have just created an article for Pope-Tribune. If you get the chance, would you be able to visit it, and make any improvements that you see fit. Thanks in advance. TheAMmollusc (talk) 11:12, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I had a look at Pope-Tribune, but there's little I can add as it's a bit earlier than my main interests and it's also US, which I know very little about.

As to suggestions, then I think it would be good to bring the Pope group articles a bit closer together - maybe a navbox for them? Also why did he have so many brand names? Were these different companies or different models? Were different investors involved in each one? Was the progression between them because he was doing well and innovating new vehicles, or because he was burning through successive piles of Other People's Money - both of these were happening in the car industry around this time. It would also be good to get some rough figures for the numbers of cars made. Andy Dingley (talk) 11:36, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

OK, thanks for the suggestions. (I will have to look up how to create navboxes... but it is a good idea, thanks). Just to answer your question: it seems that he was eagerly buying up companies (and inserting 'Pope-' on the front of the company name each time he did so); so, they are all very distinct models. Thanks once again... I will look into all that, as and when I am able. TheAMmollusc (talk) 12:49, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved.    Thank you.

Maury Markowitz (talk) 15:34, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Andy, The changes I made to the article on the 1798 Rebellion were to better reflect the actual views of all those involved. The Ulster Presbyterians were uniting against a discriminatory Parliament in Dublin dominated by the Anglo-Irish/Anglican elite. I made a change to the name of the Rebellion because here in Ireland where I live, people from all sides call it the 1798 Rebellion. Some people also call it the '98 and others particularly in Antrim and Down, call it the Turn Out (or Turn Oot in Ulster Scots). No-one calls it the Irish Rebellion of 1798, which makes the article read like it has been written by someone who is talking about a place apart from where they are.

The United Irishmen were indeed inspired by the ideas of the Scottish Enlightenment, particularly those of the Ulster Scot Frances Hutcheson (originally from Saintfield in Co Down) who was one of the intellectual heavyweights of the Enlightenment. Presbyterian Ministers who Hutcheson taught in Glasgow were among those who taught the ideas to the founding fathers of the United States, a fact that I also referred to in my amendment.

I am new to editing on wikipedia, so you are assisting with my education. Can you explain if you are a sort of moderator, or another punter like me. Any guidance would be appreciated.

The Twain The Twain (talk) 22:20, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Andy,

In the absence of any response from you to my earlier comments, which you requested, I have reverted the article to my earlier edit. I am happy to discuss, but would appreciate if you would do the same, rather than simply revert my edit and insert a pejorative comment in the edit summary.

The Twain

The Twain (talk) 21:52, 22 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Andy, I take on board your comment about the need for an explanatory comment. However I think that the amendments I have are appropriate and should stand for the following reasons:

Inclusion of a reference to the Hamilton and Mongtomery Settlements of Antrim and Down is historically and linguistically accurate as the principal areas of Ulster Scots speech are in Antrim and Down, which was not settled as part of the Plantation of Ulster referred to in the article.

I deleted the reference to the Ulster Scots speaking community in the Laggan Valley area of East Donegal being Catholic because it isn't true. The Ulster Scots community in East Donegal is largely Presbyterian in faith.

I deleted the reference to politics because I don't think it is appropriate for people to post material attempting to ascribe political motivations for people other than themselves (bearing in mind your earlier comments about a balanced view I would hope this is something you could support).

Best regards,

The Twain

The Twain (talk) 22:47, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Andy,

I have made some new amendments and explained them in the edit summary this time. Perhaps if you have a view this time you will discuss rather than simply reverting my edit, which is intended to clarify the article, add some additional detail and ensure that it represents a fair view. This edit is made in good faith and cannot possibly be construed as vandalism, so I would appreciate if you would attempt to discuss rather than simply reversing my edit.

The Twain — Preceding unsigned comment added by The Twain (talk • contribs) 21:48, 22 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies, I forgot to sign the last comment.

The Twain

The Twain (talk) 21:53, 22 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Your edit to

WP:POV removal of a sourced viewpoint that presumably you disagree with. It removed three points: two of which I have no great question over (one of these is indeed unsourced, although as it was only tagged as such a month ago, then it might be considered excessive to remove it entirely already). However the viewpoint that it's a made-up language, " only out of a sense of cultural rivalry among some Protestants and unionists

, keen to counter-balance the onward march of the Irish language movement." is an important (and widely held) one, even though it's far from complimentary.

Your edit to Irish Rebellion of 1798 was an unsourced addition (and I note that your other edit was to be quite firm on the removal of unsourced content). It's not a period I'm particularly familiar with, and it may even be entirely correct - without any sourcing this is hard to judge. However when your only other edit was so obviously biased and unexplained, I'm disinclined to take such assumptions on trust. Andy Dingley (talk) 22:04, 22 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

See Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Computing#User:Matthew Anthony Smith. —Ruud 21:10, 22 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Andy, regarding the VP WQA thread, did you see the notes at the top of the proposal? (That mention the third opinion project, etc)

]

I don't see 3O as being quite the same thing as WQA (as it's primarily about content more than behaviour). I also note several calls that would turn WQA pretty much into a direct redirect to ANI.

I think WQA has a role - there are some editors, pretty much only new ones, where their behaviour is inappropriate and they're not prepared to listen to one editor telling them this. However a number of editors telling them the same thing can have some influence - at least, for the newer editors that aren't yet quite so recalcitrant. Andy Dingley (talk) 12:23, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

3O and WQA are different - but consider, many conduct disputes have an underlying content cause - 3O addresses that, but will also be expanding their scope to deal with any minor quibbles. There's pretty much no way in my mind that WQA will be redirected to ANI - I'll block that action personally if someone implements it - WQA would be marked historical and people directed to the DR page which will have more self-help (not the crap that's there now) and if that's unsuccessful, 3O offered as a first step.

Help resolve disputes! 12:30, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply

]

A problem with that is that it turns 3O into a WQ issue. 3O has a role for content disputes (see

Acrow prop that recently ended up at ANI of all places) because there are only two editors involved and there is a balanced impasse. This is a reasonable state for GF editors to be in and we shouldn't start lumping it along with WQA issues. I've had long-running trouble with Wtshymanski, but this has been over both content and WQ issues. Some recent content problems (see Talk:Electric stove) have been treated by other editors as WQ issues (an easy confusion with a habitually cussed editor) and that has confused everything to such a point that an article is going astray because of crying wolf and a refusal to believe that an unpopular editor might be right for once. Andy Dingley (talk) 12:39, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply

]

Drug Court

Hi Andy,

I am a novice to Wikipedia, but help to maintain a few topics I have knowledge of as best as I can. One of these is called Drug Court. A gentlemen recently edited the website, some Wiki expert, but not an expert in the topic area. I find his edit annoying, as when you go to drug court, you now see a bunch of categories, but very little information like one used to - for instance, all you really see now is "drug court in australia," "drug court in us," "drug court in uk," and on, and on, and on. I saw in your talks you had an exchange over this categorization on other sites.

I wanted to know what you thought of this as more of an expert than I, and if it could be revert or some compromise made that actually put a real level on info on the main "drug court" page... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.36.79.59 (talk) 05:01, 1 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I guess you mean these edits. At first sight they're a reasonable split of a large article - moving content (not deleting it) to new articles at Drug courts in Australia etc. Just read these linked articles - all your content is still there, just re-arranged.

WP has an international audience. Many readers will be interested in a topic in general, or that topic in their country, but may not be so interested in that topic everywhere in the world. This new structure makes it easier for readers to see the overall topic, and they can still read the per-country articles if they're interested.

Perhaps this should have been discussed better beforehand at

WP:CONSENSUS

, asking the community for an overall opinion is also accepting that you're going to follow that consensus opinion, even if it disagrees with your standpoint.

I've not read these articles in detail, so I could be missing some key point where they only make sense if read as one overall article: perhaps the Australian coverage makes detailed reference to the American content, or US policy was itself based on some earlier trials in Australia. Those could be valid reasons as to why a single article is clearly better. However in general, this is just the sort of article situation that's improved by a split like this, and so I'd support Alan's changes (even though I have a history of disagreeing with him over categorization). Andy Dingley (talk) 09:39, 1 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

One comment on the readability of the drug court article is that, as you seem to be concerned, it may indeed have lost readability because content has moved to Drug courts in the United States. Now Drug courts in Australia isn't a problem - that's a simple (and quite dry) article that merely lists their use and distribution. However the US article includes some important history of how drug courts developed, and detail of their differences from other courts. This needs to appear in drug court itself.

There would seem to be three options here:

• Duplicate this background content into both the US and the overall drug court articles. Duplication is OK between such articles (although both sections should be carefully edited, so that they include only the content relevant to that article. NB this doesn't mean "content relevant to only that article"! - there will still be overlap)
• Move the content back to the overall article. That may leave the US article a little bare, and some of this content is still highly relevant to the US article specifically.
• Reverse the split. This is after all simple. Nor is the un-split article too big to remain as a single article.

Overall I'm on the fence here. I began by seeing this as a legitimate split, I now see it as having damaged the drug court article and must be fixed. I think that a split article could be repaired without too much effort, probably by some duplication. If a good fix isn't forthcoming though, I would support simply undoing the split as the way to achieve an acceptable article. Andy Dingley (talk) 09:53, 1 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion should be taking place at Talk:Drug court. I will start a thread there. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 21:39, 1 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Relocated to Talk:Drug_court#Article_splitting Andy Dingley (talk) 01:38, 3 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Andy. May I please ask why you reverted my removal of some of the external links at Corliss steam engine? I was trying to cleanup the external links and it would be helpful to have some feedback as to why you disapproved of the change. Thanks. Michael Anon 07:23, 1 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Look at your (brief) contributions history - it's shameful. Vast swathes of deletion with no positive contribution that I can see. "Cleanup" is one thing, but you regard this as "I get to delete stuff everywhere and it's so easy!!". This is especially the case when you're clearly happy to edit across any topic, whatever the subject and your scant knowledge of it. Andy Dingley (talk) 09:24, 1 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm simply trying to work through the backlog of pages that require cleanup of external links and to get the sections to comply with policy. This will inevitably involve deletion because the common problem seems to be that there are too many external links in the first place. I also don't see how my contributions history relates to validity of the edit or understand what was specifically wrong with the removal of external links from Corliss steam engine. Michael Anon 10:19, 1 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Andy,

the page I put a link in the article http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steel_rule (http://www.stefanelli.eng.br/en/steel-ruler-millimeter.html) is not in text form, is a page with a simulator of use.

Scroll down to the bottom and drag to scale the surface to see the value of the measure. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Edustefa (talk • contribs) 19:41, 2 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I added policy reasons to the delete page for IVOD [[3]]. I thought it was obvious just by looking at the page. Anyway it's now explicit that it is not notable and is basically an advertisement for a 2010 tradeshow Bhny (talk) 15:24, 3 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to the first edition of The Olive Branch. This will be a place to semi-regularly update editors active in

.

In this issue:

• Background: A brief overview of the DR ecosystem.
• Research: The most recent DR data
• Survey results: Highlights from Steven Zhang's April 2012 survey
• Activity analysis: Where DR happened, broken down by the top DR forums
• DR Noticeboard comparison: How the newest DR forum has progressed between May and August
• Discussion update: Checking up on the Wikiquette Assistance close debate
• Proposal: It's time to close the Geopolitical, ethnic, and religious conflicts noticeboard. Agree or disagree?

--The Olive Branch 18:47, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

Hi Andy, Could you reply on Talk:Diesel_engine#Compressor.28s.29_needed_for_compression_ignition In addition, I was looking at the option of preheating the fuel line (between straight vegetable oil tank and the jerk?/helix piston pumps of the governor, aswell as the line after the pumps to the engine). Rather than using the cooling water, I'm looking at using a simple wire heater (as found in toasters). However, I'm not sure how to adress heat losses at certain points of the wire that don't need to be heated. I'm thinking of just increasing the wire diameter here, thinking that this would prevent heat buildup at that point (as there's less resistance). An alternative would be to use a pipe around the heating coils filled with oil, but I rather use the first method if possible. Let me know whether this works.

Thanks,

]

Use the water (or maybe oil). That's free heat you otherwise need to get rid of. Electrical heating means more generator load, and you have to pay for that. Andy Dingley (talk) 08:17, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Andy,

I knew the coolant water was used as it (normally) uses waste heat. However, since I allready combined the Diesel engine with a Stirling engine, I'm allready using the waste heat, so using the coolant water actually also reduces my system's efficiency (as less heat is available to run the Stirling engine). As such, a electrical system isn't less efficient in my system, and actually has a benefit to me as it allows to reduce the complexity. Can you tell me whether the thickening of the wire at parts that don't need to be heated works ?

91.182.46.186 (talk) 09:20, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As you still refuse to learn any thermodynamics, you are limited to repeatedly talking nonsense.

Thickening the wire would have the physical effect you seek, but in practical engineering it's mostly done by changing the

resistivity of the wire's metal. The heating parts would be thin nichrome

wire, the non-heating parts would be thicker copper.

Although this sort of trace heating is commonly used for many pipes, I've never seen it on a diesel. Diesels with biofuel use a small header tank before the pump, and this tank is heated. You don't need to heat the injection lines. Also it wouldn't be reliable to heat the injection lines - mechanical shocks in these lines tend to break anything that's attached to them. I've used clip-on piezo sensors in the past to measure injection timing and these were unreliable long-term, as the mechanical shocks (from the sudden "water hammer" of injection) damaged them. Andy Dingley (talk) 09:27, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

re your edit [4], while opinions may differ that "unique or extremely rare circumstances of death" may be satisified by adding more and more levels of distinctions (the only one that occurred in Europe in May utilizing lighter fluid on a night of a full moon on a street in front of a house of Parliament while wearing boxer shorts with a smiley face), one cannot dispute the fact that you

Please revert yourself or provide an appropriate source. -- The Red Pen of Doom 01:41, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well Hi!. Everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia. However, talk pages are meant to be a record of a discussion; deleting or editing legitimate comments, as you did at

)

Live eBay links? This is just spam, even on a talk page Andy Dingley (talk) 16:48, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The links refer to Mincraft Merchandise, again this is a valid argument and Talk pages are ment to Talk about things like this. ►Skyshadow382◄ 16:50, 10 September 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Skyshadow382 (talk • contribs)

Whatever bot you're using to edit quick-firing gun (hist) - please turn it off, it's making the article look stupid. 85.113.197.170 (talk) 11:58, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No, just stop trying to write France out of the picture.

Maybe the Russians had an early QF gun. Russian language sources, so I can't check this. However this article is not "Who invented it first?", so even if this is a Russian first invention, that's still no reason to remove the well-known and well-sourced French use of them. Andy Dingley (talk) 09:20, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Andy:

I noticed you edited the Differential (mechanical device) page to correct the spelling of the word "net", meaning a total amount, to "nett". I've seen this word edited several times by people who think it should be spelled one way or the other.

According to the Concise Oxford Dictionary, both spellings are acceptable.

DOwenWilliams (talk) 02:09, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As the discussion on

]

Question for the template guru

Hello Andy,

I haven't looked into Wikipedia template programming, but I wonder if there's an easy way of checking if the many language-related templates like template:lang and template:CJKV actually embed the W3C language codes in the page (without actually trying all the templates out one by one and looking at the page source code). As you know, in Europe—and in many countries outside Europe—there are accessibility laws that require proper semantic markup, but there seems to be little awareness of this on Wikipedia. People are very often not using the templates when embedding foreign languages in Wikipedia. Regards. LittleBen (talk) 18:55, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

First of all, I know of no government or legal standards that require "accessibility" in a useful way. The UK DDA (1995) is pretty toothless, vague and technically inept. Certainly the idea of semantic markup as a requirement is just bizarre. If UK government ever did get to such a point, it would probably be some ugly bastard child of microformats and Microsoft, as re-invented by KPMG.

The technical aspects are part of MediaWiki, not Wikipedia. It has an extensive wiki and most things are discussed quite well there.

There are three "programming languages"

• Wikitext and parser functions

This is what you put in the Wikipedia edit box. It includes template calls, and the innards of templates. Mostly it's a twisty maze of curly brackets and intermittent whitespace sensitivity. One restriction is that you can basically only generate wikitext with it, which includes only some raw HTML, but does include any installed extension calls you want.

• MediaWiki extensions

PHP unfortunately. This is what MediaWiki itself is written in. It also has a rather neat, modular and well-behaved extension mechanism built in. If you can code it in PHP, you can add it to a MediaWiki wiki. There are many extensions already available and described on the MediaWiki wiki, however Wikipedia has almost none of them installed, for performance and (allegedly) stability reasons. I don't edit Wikipedia much, mostly I do corporate intranet wikis and these use a lot of extensions. There's also a 'skinning' process for MediaWiki that has its own set of page generation hook points. Most MediaWiki skinning is done through this, not just through CSS.

A useful extension is "Widgets". This allows HTML to be embedded into MediaWiki, without having to either pass through the wikitext parser (and its limited HTML acceptance subset) or to generate the HTML by writing a whole new PHP extension. It's particularly good for things like an embedded Twitter or RSS feed, as it allows pass-through when you already have HTML source (or are making it via pre-existing XSLT)

• Lua

The replacement for parser functions. Not one I know as yet.

So, language markup. Is this for HTML elements, or for HTML pages? If you're just doing elements (ideally small, but it could be near a whole page) then raw-HTML-in-wikitext route works. You can also simplify using this by using the templates

Raw Welsh

<span lang="cy" >Sosban fach yn berwi ar y tân</span>

gives:

Sosban fach yn berwi ar y tân

<span xml:lang="cy" lang="cy" >Sosban fach yn berwi ar y tân</span>

Some Klingon:

{{lang|tlh|Hab SoSlI' Quch!}}

gives:

Hab SoSlI' Quch!

<span xml:lang="tlh" lang="tlh">Hab SoSlI' Quch!</span>

Japanese:

{{CJKV|j=石の上に三年}}

gives:

Japanese: 石の上に三年

<span xml:lang="ja" lang="ja">石の上に三年</span>

If you're trying to mark-up a page, then you ought to address the HTTP headers, not just the resultant HTML. You can do this from MediaWiki extensions or through the MediaWiki skinning process. Of course that also means that you need control over the MediaWiki install, so it's not possible for Wikimedia projects like Wikipedia. Andy Dingley (talk) 20:52, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Andy, many thanks for the detailed reply.
• I have done a bit of PHP programming, and reworked a couple of Expression Engine sites.
• The Wikipedia page on web accessibility says that the UK and Australia are particularly strict—particularly as regards sites run by public entities, but I think I read somewhere on Wikipedia that Target (a huge Australian supermarket chain) was prosecuted and fined over web accessibility. LittleBen (talk) 11:03, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• There is no specific UK law on web accessibility, it's just some overspill from the general DDA. So there's as much in there about wheelchair ramps as there is about accessibility techniques. There's also the problem that the DDA is largely unenforced. UK web is thus both vague and unimplemented. In the absence of concrete good advice, we see a fallback onto horribly flawed approaches like the
  WCAG, or defaulting to the US Section 508. This isn't helped by WP spreading untruths like, "If your website does not meet the Accessibility Guidelines, then the website owner could be sued for discrimination." This also leaves an opening for useless snake oil like BrowseAloud
  . Site operators (not unsurprisingly) expect a general legal requirement to be expressed as specific prescriptive instructions instead. So operators always look for the first instruction that looks like "You must do this", "You must pay your poll tax", "You must add a cookie warning pop-up to your site" rather than the more general and useful goal-centred requirement like "Don't snoop with cookies without explaining to your users just how intrusive you're being". So tell an operator anything that can be interpreted as "Here's a thing, it's a thing you must do." and they'll grab at it.

(Fortunately) there is no additional UK strictness on sites run by public entities. Why should there be? Do private companies get a free pass? If accessibility is good and is important enough to make a legal requirement, then we should require it wherever it's required, not just according to the site operator. As usual though, UK public web sites are over-complex, yet deliver little. Years of sweetheart deals with incompetent favoured suppliers, no feedback according to commercial success of "the business" (If Amazon have a site that can't be used, they die - a local council just spends even more money on it). Weak management in government IT leads to its seemingly inevitable waste and incompetence. The pressure on UK government web sites is to be seen to be _doing_ something, not to _achieve_ something.

I don't know Australian accessibility law. Closest I've come was New Zealand, which like the UK has more paperwork about minority languages (I was doing banking and debt control in te reo Māori) than it does about general markup techniques. Also the banking client simply told us to ignore the requirements anyway, if it was to cost them anything (Of course I ignored this - I'm a geek and it sounded interesting. Never tell me not to do something interesting). Andy Dingley (talk) 12:08, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Quote: "I'm a geek and it sounded interesting. Never tell me not to do something interesting"—that's my problem too ;-) LittleBen (talk) 12:23, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! The article was really interesting to write. Pkeets (talk) 16:09, 22 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not the one being disruptive or trying to make a point, & I don't appreciate you making false accusations. So why don't you just shut up about it? TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 01:14, 23 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I chose to edit your articles to demonstrate my skills as a copy editor. If you'll look at my contributions, you'll see that most of what I do is copy editing. This is not "stalking" this is constructive editing. You, on the other hand, have a most unconstructive attitude towards other editing your work. Your attitude violates the spirit of Wikipedia. ¶ I'm willing to defend every single edit as simplifying and clarifying your prose. I would ask that you look at my edits as an attempt to help you produce better Wikipedia content and not as some kind of edit war. Isaac Rabinovitch (talk) 01:24, 22 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Now that I think of it, I have another motive for editing your articles. You write interesting articles about the history of technology. Copy editing of articles I enjoy reading is always more fun. Isaac Rabinovitch (talk) 01:38, 22 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've no problem with copy editing, no matter who does it. However copy editing is never an excuse for introducing basic errors of fact, such as, "Cast iron is easily bent". The stuff I write about is generally obscure (otherwise I don't bother) and contains many unfamiliar bits of technology. Copy edit by all means, this is the WP way, but please don't introduce inaccuracies like this. Andy Dingley (talk) 09:29, 22 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry if I introduced errors. But the way to deal with that is to fix the errors, not just roll back the entire edit. In the future I'll edit your pages in small bursts so you can review them more easily.Isaac Rabinovitch (talk) 19:18, 23 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Plan 9 from Outer Space, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Vampira (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:34, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Where exactly does this source state or imply anything unusual about the death?

is equally clear "This includes any analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to advance a position not advanced by the sources. To demonstrate that you are not adding OR, you must be able to cite reliable, published sources that are directly related to the topic of the article, and directly support the material being presented."

Please revert yourself or provide a specific source that does not violate

]

As this is an issue about the article, I suggest you raise this on the talk: page. You can see if you get any support for your repeated and obsessional deletions. Andy Dingley (talk) 21:50, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No, this is an issue of you not following basic policies, and I am allowing you to correct yourself. -- The Red Pen of Doom 22:11, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, this is a problem with your behaviour, Andy.

WP:V. Nothing in the source provided in the edit characterizes the death as "unusual" or any reasonable synonym thereof. Making disparaging comments about TheRedPenOfDoom in order to justify your violation of fundamental policy is grossly unacceptable behaviour. Don't repeat it.—Kww(talk) 22:16, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply

]

To amplify, you were quite adequately warned at http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Wikiquette_assistance&diff=prev&oldid=512410969, in response to a WQA that you opened, that behaving in the way you have is blockable behaviour. I'll simply revert you this time. If this happens again, you will be blocked.—Kww(talk) 22:23, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

[edit conflict]

Who made you the immediate arbiter of all content? We work by consensus here, not by

proof by authority

- even when RedPen runs off bleating to his favourite tame admin. Where is the consensus for RedPen deleting every item in this list as fast as he can think of new reasons to pick out each one? RedPen blanked this item as unsourced, then when it was promptly and easily sourced, he then complained that being stabbed by cosplay bears wasn't "unusual" enough.

Just look at the article history on this. Perseveration by RedPen or what?

Besides which, per Talk:Jimbo recently, we're now all about the Truth, not the almighty WP:V.

"Don't repeat it."

I also do not appreciate your rather obvious (and arrogant) threat of a block over a trivial content dispute. Andy Dingley (talk) 22:33, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Wow - a WQA that called for "any material challenged or likely to be challenged must be attributed to a reliable, published source using an inline citation" (your emphasis)

I added that citation - RedPen promptly reverted it. Or didn't you read that part of the edit history? Andy Dingley (talk) 22:35, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A WQA that emphasised "an inline citation, in the list, that supports the categorization of the death as "unusual"". Your inline citation did nothing of the sort. You really need to stop writing slurs against other editors and focus on your behaviour. I'm not anyone's pet admin, and yes, if you do that again, you will be blocked until you agree to stop doing it. Simple as that. No veiled threat at all: it's a simple statement of fact.—Kww(talk) 23:18, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

that supports the categorization of the death as "unusual"

A citation from a site generally regarded as acceptable on Swiss history, that says "an assassin dressed as a bear"

Now how many bear-costumed homicides do you know of? It's a new one on me. This is an unusual means of murder, this is a reference that supports it. Anything else is a matter for discussion and I'm always perfectly happy to discuss things, but you, even wearing your admin's mop, do not get to push your opinion of "unusual" over any single editor's, even the lowliest anon-IP, and certainly not if you're going to reinforce the point by threatening blocks over it.

"I'm not anyone's pet admin"

"Your assistance would be appreciated"

Followed by an immediate block threat. Now that's service! Andy Dingley (talk) 00:18, 26 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Andy,

I see you have removed the link that I posted in the Meta Refresh wikipedia page. The link I posted gives additional info regarding meta refresh. At least tell me what you think you found objectionable. Thanks in advance. j — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jlautier (talk • contribs) 14:27, 30 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No, I removed all four of your spam links, not just the one to meta refresh. Domain names that begin "earnmoneyonline...com" are such obviously inappropriate spam. Andy Dingley (talk) 16:56, 30 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding [5], I'm a little confused because none of the links in question are red yet. Which of the following did you want me to do (in no particular order of preference):

1. Add a red link somewhere on the disambiguation page
2. Nominate the disambiguation page for deletion (is the proper venue
   WP:MFD
   ?)
3. Redirect "Bronze disease" to
   nominate for deletion
   "Bronze disease (disambiguation)"
4. Move "Bronze disease" to "Bronze disease (disambiguation)," then
   nominate for deletion
   the redirect created by the move

SoledadKabocha (talk) 17:51, 30 September 2012 (UTC) (last edit 17:56, 30 September 2012 (UTC))[reply]

Sorry, I thought you'd removed the see also because it was a redlink, not because it was already a bluelink.(!)

I've now disambiguated the name. It's now an unambiguous redlink. Andy Dingley (talk) 17:56, 30 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Good catch - you're absolutely right, of course. I've even got one of the things apart on the bench at home :) - Alison ^❤ 00:13, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome. I've driven them, but never had one in bits. Andy Dingley (talk) 10:01, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the fix of the commons link - very long time no speak - I am sure somewhere in the last 6 years we have. I was on trains in the UK in 2009, and passed through Newcastle and York, and still havent got around to uploading anything. I do have a question - is there any particular reason why english rail enthusiasts havent utilised old postcards for views of older locations? Its just that I have come by a collection (very small) and havent seen much in commons or here on wp en... cheers

]

I've used some postcards for particular locomotives, mostly from a set I acquired of the 1925 Darlington Cavalcade. Lots of Commons uploads have been deleted though, as it's now claimed that PD-unknown (pre 1942) is unacceptable at Commons while there's still some future chance that their photographer might one day be identified (and shown to have died after 1942). I don't much bother any more, neither here nor there. Contribution seems equally unwelcome at either. Andy Dingley (talk) 15:04, 3 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm how disppointing... the stuff I have in hand is dated being used in 1913 (so is probably older in publication) - surely youd have to have non-human life spans or something like some astonishing detection skills to identify non attributed post cards (no publisher, no printer identified) to trounce items from that era?... oh well the late douglas adams obsession with improbability has invaded wiki world - something might one day be identified - not very likely I would have thought. Thanks again - good to hear from you after all these years - keep up the good fight... if I only I was in northern wales on those south african garratts again - I still feel strongly attracted to them - quite astonishing... three years gone and when I click on the images from then I get all goosebumped again... even the welsh mountains are better than the humps of hills where I am now... so much for nostalgia

Suro 15:16, 3 October 2012 (UTC)[reply

]

I was in Porthmadog over the Summer and saw one of those Garratts go by. I must organise time for a ride, next time I'm up there. Splendid machines.

Too much now is "administrivia for the sake of doing something", where people who've been given the capacity to do something are now short of "something"s to be doing, so are looking out for opportunities to exercise their powers, more than things that produce a benefit. We seem to have lost EdJogg too, a sore loss for those working on railway projects. Andy Dingley (talk) 16:05, 3 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have many photos of my trip and the SA one that was in action - however (K 1) was boxed up due to lack of power to pull revenue raisable consists (!) - but have no intention of making them free to use and abuse... yeah ed rates are down everywhere...

Suro 23:36, 3 October 2012 (UTC)[reply

]

No issues from me with deletion of above named article. I had been cleaning up some bios of policemen and the above was originally titled Textsherpa or some such nonsense. I just updated for clarity as it was appearing in a list.

]

Hello, with the removal of the unsourced content, it is not really a list any more. Are you intending to add sourced items back to create a list or would it be better to rename to just Fictional police states? -- The Red Pen of Doom 13:58, 4 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Is the article a list, or is it an encyclopedic discussion of police states in fiction? Andy Dingley (talk) 14:04, 4 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It is a removal of crap from

Police states and as far as I am concerned can take whatever format or direction that would improve the encyclopedia, as long as the crap does not end up back in the main article. -- The Red Pen of Doom 14:27, 4 October 2012 (UTC)[reply

]

Of course the list of badgers is better now than after I'd removed all of the non-notable and unsourced content, but I was always intending that sourced items should be added back to the list to improve it. Anyway although the article has clearly improved, I think the main improvement comes from the properly sourced lede and not from the list of what I see as essentially crap (AKA pure trivia). As I indicated in talk, I'm happy to abide by the decision to maintain the list according to the local consensus, and I'm not pushing for a change, but it does seem silly to suggest that the reason the article has improved is due to the re-addition of the entire woodland menagerie of non-notable trivia and cruft. Anyway since you asked, that's my view on it. -Thibbs (talk) 01:19, 13 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

WebPlatform.org is a new "Wikipedia for web geeks" recently set up by big names like W3C, Adobe, Microsoft, Mozilla, Opera, HP, Facebook and the like (as you can see by looking at the bottom of the home page). As such, it's likely to become an increasingly useful reference in the very near future. LittleBen (talk) 01:18, 14 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

At present it dumps HTML5 features like <header> into its introductory tutorial and it can't even get the element/tag distinction correct. Besides which, a wiki would fall clearly under

WP:ELNO#12, unless it had already established itself as substantial and trustworthy. Andy Dingley (talk) 01:25, 14 October 2012 (UTC)[reply

]

• Treehouse is widely recommended. Although they offer non-free registered-user plans, a lot of stuff (like HTML and CSS tutorials, and basic web design tutorials) is available for free, without requiring registration. LittleBen (talk) 01:34, 14 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I was adding my two cents at this debate and I noticed that you said "Recreated after speedy" but the logs aren't showing any previous deletions. Would you clarify this? SwisterTwister talk 22:31, 14 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I may be mistaken in this, as I'm not an admin so can't see the logs. However as I recall it, I saw the article in New Pages, and watched it, although it was already speedied. I then lost track of it, but saw it re-appear later when tagged for notability. It no longer seemed to be speedied, or to have ever been speedied, but then had a very recent creation date. Having seen this previously, the most likely explanation would have been that it was deleted under the speedy, then recreated. Or else I've simply been mistaken, Andy Dingley (talk) 23:03, 14 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Andy, I appreciate your work, but can't you leave the UML correct. The clearer picture does not carry the static information.

HenrikKronborgPedersen (talk) 10:12, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Easiest thing might just be to fix your picture, so that it doesn't have an entirely transparent background (the box innards are transparent too). Also images like this ought to be in SVG, as it scales better. Andy Dingley (talk) 10:26, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Could you explain what reason Stringer (slag) should not be merged with Wrought iron? After all, it starts with Stringers are filaments of slag left in wrought iron... so it's not talking about anythign else but stringers in wrought iron. Since these are a notable property of wrought iron and not found in other types of steel, maybe it would be best to give all the wrought iron facts together in one place? --Wtshymanski (talk) 15:45, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

replied at User talk:Wtshymanski

Andy, I left a comment for both you and Wtshymanski at User talk:Wtshymanski#October 2012 about your dispute over the Stringer (slag) merge. --A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 18:22, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, another bridge lover, I see. Good to work with you. Best regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 15:34, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, hope you like the articles - some more on the way too. I'm lucky enough to live near the Newport Transporter Bridge. If I'm really lucky, it's working too. Andy Dingley (talk) 11:15, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Andy, I note that you are engaged in an edit wat with our mutual friend over an amateur radio article. Were you aware that Wtshymanski has had the cuffs slapped on restrictions imposed over his staggering merger record (I make it over 2 dozen merges in not that many more hours). Although Wtshymanski has cleared his talk page, you can read it all here. Although you,

]

Andy, I left you another note on User talk:Wtshymanski (permanent link). I'm concerned about your recent actions, especially that warning you gave Wtshymanski.

86.159.159.194, I'd prefer other language than "cuffs slapped on". I've expressed no opinion as to whether his actions have been correct or not from an editorial sense -- just told him to restrict his actions in the interests of harmony here.

--A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 15:00, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

replied at User talk:Wtshymanski

I'm concerned about Wtshymanski's recent actions, especially the one that engendered a duplicate warning of yesterday's, even after you'd warned him too not to repeat it. Andy Dingley (talk) 15:13, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I've toned it down to match what you said. 86.159.159.194 (talk) 15:29, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your input on the pending arbitration motion. However, you inadvertently posted it in the voting section, which is used only by the arbitrators. I've taken the liberty of moving it to the appropriate section higher on the page, and just wanted to let you know. (I'm not commenting here on the merits of the case, this is just a clerical type action.) Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 16:48, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Brad. Sorry I posted in the wrong place, but I'm not familiar with this, and just as I was writing it there was someone at the door. Thanks for moving it. Andy Dingley (talk) 19:25, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Why are you restoring

]

I revert a lot of vandalism. Andy Dingley (talk) 01:37, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

So, you're equating the restoration of personal attacks with the removal of vandalism? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 01:50, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It's only a personal attack if its against one of his buddies.--MONGO 01:57, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

IPs are editors too. We do not blank talk or other discussions except in the most extreme of cases and this was trivial. MONGO's blanking of content in a closed ANI discussion was both a 4RR and also a clear breach of NPA. "Vandalism" is close enough for jazz. Andy Dingley (talk) 01:59, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It might have not been the worst PA in the world, but it's still not a good idea to restore it. That just escalates tensions. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 02:02, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Meh...we're going to let it stand since personal attacks are okay, especially by IP's that are trolling.--MONGO 02:23, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No, personal attacks are not OK - but we don't use that to excuse further bright-line breaches of 3RR.Andy Dingley (talk) 02:25, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Bad MONGO...bad, bad, bad.--MONGO 02:48, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes..I see you defend Malleus...and the IP was definitely trolling. It's okay for personal attacks to stand so long as it is someone that isn't your buddy.--MONGO 01:56, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have never defended Malleus. As a Scouse Git, I am forbidden by tribal taboo from ever defending a Manc. Should I ever be found doing so, I would be expelled from our tented village of burnt out Escorts and shell suit fabric and made to live somewhere in the Eastern badlands, maybe as far as St Helens. Nor have I ever had any contact with Malleus that hasn't ended with him insulting me, either in far stronger terms that the terrible insult the German IP delivered to you, or in far stronger language. Malleus is firmly deserving of an extensive block, although it would still be preferable if some diplomatic genius could find a better solution.

My comments re Arbcom et al have not been in defence of Malleus, but rather they have been in exasperation at how badly some other editors, admins and arbitrators have behaved as well. Maybe I'll get round to Malleus later.

My comments re your actions have not been in defence of Malleus either, but rather because your actions, of themselves, are so obviously contrary to policy and practice. This is a closed discussion, a trivial insult, a 4RR on your part and your rounded it off with a worse insult of your own. For the 4RR alone, you should be blocked forthwith, although in the circumstances any further escalation would be unhelpful all round. Andy Dingley (talk) 02:06, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've reverted it myself, as at best it was insulting and at a minimum, a borderline personal attack that adds nothing to the discussion. Reverting it is an exception to 3rr in this admin's eyes. No matter how we feel about other topics, purely disruptive material doesn't help reduce drama at ANI, and that is always my goal. And it is fine if we disagree on this as well, I don't take it personal, but it is an admin board to deal with problems, not a pub for people to jab insults at each other, so removing it is a normal function of clerking the admin board. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 02:18, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Just a heads up. I have added

]

Southernmost Settlement?

If my wording is wrong, please correct it; but the basic premise of the articles is absurd. The southernmost settlements in the world should be in Australia or New Zealand, if not Antarctica. The articles are completely misleading. Please recheck your geography and correct the language rather than doing summary `undo.' Thank you. 117.197.56.83 (talk) 04:49, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You could try reading Wikipedia to discover that in South America

the southernmost settlements in the world are around 55°, whilst New Zealand has Dunedin

at 46°, a considerable distance North of this. Your geography is just plain wrong.

Also we read that "[Southern Fuegian Railway] is considered the southernmost functioning railway in the world.", where your additions are charitably nonsense, or cynically edit-warring, soapboxing and vandalism.

"(Australia doesn't have a functioning railway)"

"but not by the even smaller Australia and New Zealand)."

Please do not repeat any of these. Andy Dingley (talk) 08:59, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hey thanks, man! My geography really sucks. 117.197.56.181 (talk) 05:50, 26 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

--Redrose64 (talk) 13:06, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have a source for the first rail station? In doing some digging, it seems that Wikipedia may be missing an article on this station, and clearly we need an article on this. This should be mentioned in

]

First define 'station'. The first railways were coal carriers, so would we describe them as having "stations"? The first passenger station is generally given as Manchester's Liverpool Road, although the other stations on the line are obviously relevant. Andy Dingley (talk) 20:36, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

From the article, a railway facility where trains regularly stop to load or unload passengers or freight. Vegaswikian (talk) 23:24, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

See Swansea and Mumbles Railway. DOwenWilliams (talk) 04:10, 26 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Horse hauled train? The things you learn! Anyway was there a name or location of the first station? Of the year opened/built or what ever. I may have missed that in the article. Vegaswikian (talk) 06:18, 26 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The ten stations shown in the RDT top right of Swansea and Mumbles Railway and also listed at Swansea and Mumbles Railway#Stations are all listed in

• OL 11956311M
  .

and nine of these are given precise opening dates. Seven (Rutland Street, St Helens, Brynmill, Blackpill, West Cross, Norton Road, Oystermouth) are shown as opening 25 March 1807; Southend opened 6 May 1893; Mumbles Pier 10 May 1898; but no opening date is given for Ashleigh Road. --Redrose64 (talk) 12:49, 26 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited List of GWR broad gauge locomotives, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page William Dean (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:55, 28 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

—Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 18:13, 28 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, re this revert: it is true that the coloured disc denotes

]

Red stuff

Re: this, seems I have read 'bout redlinks: "...as well as in "See also" sections, are meant to serve a navigational purpose. Red links are useless in these contexts; if possible they should be replaced by a functioning link, or else be removed." from

]

These aren't "See also" links though, i.e. purely navigational. They have at least some additional content. Maybe rename the section (and tidy it) to "Comparable plastics" or "Contemporary plastics"? BioBakelite looks awfully spammy, but

Condensite is a significant plastic of this period, as a competitor to Bakelite. They're often confused within the antique trade and we would benefit from having an article on it, or at least (as here) mentioning it within the Bakelite article. Andy Dingley (talk) 20:33, 29 October 2012 (UTC)[reply

]

Ah ... OK just renamed the section, feel free to jigger it and deal with the spammy stuff. Vsmith (talk) 21:29, 29 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I just noticed that the category "Steampunk Music" has been deleted. This just orphaned a host of musicians related solely by the sub-genre. I'm surprised this wasn't more openly debated and the regular moderators of the subculture weren't directly notified of this action. Can we create a new category then, and call it "Steampunk Musicians", and regroup them again? Someone can object to there being a category for the music, which can't really be defined, but certainly there can't be an objection to grouping the musicians that define their music as such. --Jonnybgoode44 (talk) 03:23, 30 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There is some rationale for this: There are several "musicians" rather than "music" categories, and the Folk musicians category has a "Folk musicians by genre" sub-category, which lists all the various styles of folk music; the same could also be done for steampunk music, as well as listing the musicians/bands. If you think this might fly, I can start work on indexing the page tomorrow. --Jonnybgoode44 (talk) 05:46, 30 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I commented at the CfD. I'd suggest asking BrownHairedGirl, or taking this to DRV. The idea that categories should be deleted unless they have a main article is nonsense.

I'd re-create it at Steampunk music rather than Steampunk musicians. This was a bad deletion, so challenge it directly. Creating "end runs" like "musicians" though is seen as disrtuptive and not worshipping the almighty wikidogma, so it's seen as a personal action that's treating by blocking or banning the editor as a

suppresive person. Andy Dingley (talk) 09:09, 30 October 2012 (UTC)[reply

]

Page re-added. Also added a couple of other musicians that had not found their way to the list. --Jonnybgoode44 (talk) 13:11, 30 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Koavf has just speedied it, almost inevitably. If it is deleted again, I'll take it to DRV. Andy Dingley (talk) 19:10, 30 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Andy,

In the current version of the Earthsea article, there's a section discussing the "true name" vs. "use name". The article correctly states that a "use name" is for everyday usage (e.g. what your neighbor might call you), and a "true name" is reserved for those people that someone would trust implicitly (e.g. lover, best friend, mentor). In the Earthsea mythology, "Ged" is very clearly the character's USE NAME, whereas "Sparrowhawk" is the TRUE NAME he gives only to his most intimate relations. I don't have any citations for this, unfortunately... but in another Wikipedia article about a particular book in the Earthsea series, "Ged" is described as the protagonist's name, while his "wizard" (or true) name is listed as "Sparrowhawk": http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_Wizard_of_Earthsea#Major_characters

24.62.132.93 (talk) 08:36, 31 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No, you're just the wrong way round with this. The true name is Ged, the use name Sparrohawk. Either read the text itself, or see Ged (Earthsea) Andy Dingley (talk) 09:08, 31 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hey there. I've had a discussion with the closer of that CfD, and I think it should be possible to satisfy her request in order to restore the category. Take a look here and see if you can add anything. Thanks. —Torchiest ^talk_edits 17:22, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! What's your take on the following?

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Motor&diff=prev&oldid=520987914

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Engine&diff=prev&oldid=520988387

I would have thought that separating motors and engines would be a no-brainer. I suspect that the edit was reverted for reasons other than improving the encyclopedia and that there may be behavioral issues here that need to be reported. --Guy Macon (talk) 22:40, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Motors / engines is a question that depends a lot on context. For rockets it's a well-known and well-defined distinction (broadly solid vs liquid, based on the need for complex or moving parts, so hybrids fall neatly under engines too), although Wikipedia will undoubtedly invent its own new meaning. Electrical "engines" are possibly an obscure anachronism, but not something we should encourage. Internal combustion engines cheerfully use both; although "motor" is perhaps less common overall, it's certainly well-established. Ever heard of an "outboard engine"? Steam is confusing: engine is general, but steam motor has a documented niche as the term applied to a narrow and specific use, we even have an article on it. It will be a shame for WP to extend this broad argument to break that article when it scrapes up some crappy sub-reference to "source" the use of "motor" when applied to the steam engines of Albania in the Ottoman period.

Taking the broad meanings of them, it's hard to be dogmatic either way, but there's certainly an association between "engine" and "prime mover" to distinguish it from "motor". Andy Dingley (talk) 19:16, 3 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Andy,

I am not sure if I come to the right place. I have a question not concerning wiki but it is connected with electronic circuit.

I am studying electronic circuit recently and was looking for a proof of the torque speed curve of Synchronous motor, I did quite a bit search on google and the model calculations I found based on equivalent circuit of a transformer are not good enough to me.

http://www.uotechnology.edu.iq/dep-eee/lectures/3rd/Electrical/Machines%202/IV_I.Machines.pdf

http://www.scribd.com/doc/18815834/188/Equivalent-Circuit-of-3-Phase-Induction-Motor-at-Any-Slip

http://www.scribd.com/doc/27304673/Torque-Slip-Characteristics

http://www.ece.ualberta.ca/~knight/electrical_machines/induction/basics/trq_speed.html

http://what-when-how.com/induction-motor/developed-torque-induction-motor/

I am a physicist but not at all familiar with electronic circuit (except from those from college physics textbook), so I actually tried to write down a proof by myself (a model of course, which reproduces the main feature of the observed torque-speed curve) and it turned out to be very different from what I got from google. If possible, would you please point to me some source where I may find a well-established and well-recognized explanation, thank you for you time in advance.

Edit: I put some discussions into the talk page, if it makes any sense to you. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Induction_motor#Torque-speed_curve.2C_discussion_of_its_derivation

Gamebm (talk) 14:26, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Andy, you recently nuked the page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Nic-o-boli I fear you made a huge mistake. This food item is extremely notable and arguably one of the most famous food items on the eastern seaboard of the United States. It's even considered a must-eat item in guide books from Washington DC to Philadelphia PA and Nicola Pizza (the home of this food item) is literally hundreds of miles away. As I posted on the talk page, please check out some of these links. I'm sorry you didn't find these when you searched. At least contact me and let's have a two-sided conversation about this before the uprising mounts to bring the page back :)

• DailyMotion (news video): http://www.dailymotion.com/video/xflocy_nicola-pizza-famous-for-nic-o-boli_travel
• Yelp (read the comments): http://www.yelp.com/biz/nicola-pizza-rehoboth-beach
• TripAdvisor ("World Famous"): http://www.tripadvisor.com/ShowUserReviews-g34048-d396003-r118653677-Nicola_Pizza-Rehoboth_Beach_Delaware.html
• 3,800+ videos on YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=nic-o-boli&oq=nic-o-boli
• Books on Amazon, including guide books for Washington DC and Philadelphia PA: http://www.amazon.com/s/ref=nb_sb_noss?url=search-alias%3Daps&field-keywords=nic-o-boli — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kaplansa (talk • contribs) 03:39, 9 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Andy Dingley. Perhaps you'd be interested in giving a statement in this discussion, especially since you also objected to removal of medical information from the section in question and I mentioned that in the discussion? 134.255.247.88 (talk) 19:10, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Steampunk music was nominated for deletion at WP:CFD October 4, and the discusison was closed by me as "delete".

Following further discussion with interested editors, I have re-listed the discussion at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2012 November 14#Category:Steampunk_music, where your comments will be welcome.

This notice is being sent to all the editors who participated in the original discussion, and also to those who posted on my talk page aboutr the closure. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:14, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What was that about? There's no need to duplicate information like that in such a short article. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 11:33, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It's called editing and clarity in writing. Having the pro/con section as a short bulleted list is readable and easily comprehensible. There may indeed be overlap between the two sections: that is not a bad thing. We're not short on bytes, we are short on reader comprehension effort. Make it easy for them, don't force them to suffer for the sake of your dogma. Andy Dingley (talk) 12:51, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The place for summaries is the lead section: bulleted points of what's just been covered belong in textbooks, not articles. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 13:50, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for this [7] edit. I went through and added categories on Commons to all of the images on the page/their upper category today and completely forgot about adding the link. I do appreciate it :) --

]

I'm just sub-cating the international section too. Andy Dingley (talk) 22:10, 17 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Dang. Maybe I should've reached out to you before doing all of the work I did. Would've saved you time. When I started today, there were only 7 cats and 7 images in that Commons category. I totally should've done my due diligence and realized it would've been smarter to separate them at the time. Sorry I've created more work (as opposed to helping). This was my first time categorizing so many things, but it was fun. If you need help with projects like this, let me know! My next project is moving images to Commons from that list page that aren't already there. --

ЛееСуда. 22:16, 17 November 2012 (UTC)[reply

]

Hi Andy,

Not sure how exactly to add the games properly. Sundance and War of the Worlds have been there for over a year without any issues. I changed the names to Sundance 2011 and War of the Worlds 2011 because these are the full titles, also true with Warrior 2012, as I thought the issue was the fact that they were being linked to Wikipedia pages about the original arcade games. Much like other newer games on the system (Omega Chase, for example), these are new versions of classic arcade games. I have several other games listed (like Zantis, for example), and there seems to be no problem there. At this point, you have removed the titles, so the list is incomplete. War of the Worlds, Sundance, and Warrior are all very popular homebrew games for the Vectrex system. They can be Googled easily for verification. I am the author of these new Vectrex games. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.146.29.115 (talk) 08:58, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Saw your comment "Uncited, unlinked, dubious - Is anyone really doing Vectrex ports this late on?"

Yes, well, strange as I am for programming new games for Vectrex ;) I find it equally strange that someone takes the time to correct the game list ;)

As it stands, there's no mention of Vectrex in the game articles. We need to have this much at least:

• Some explanation added to the game articles to mention the Vectrex port
• A link to the Vectrex port
• A link to independent
  WP:RS
  that refer to the port.

Policy demands all three. Most editors would want at least the first two (it's then sourced, but it would still only be a "primary source"). It must have the first one at least, just so that it's adding any useful content for the reader. Andy Dingley (talk) 10:33, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I appreciate the response. I had removed any links by changing the names (ex. Sundance to Sundance 2011). My concern is that almost the entire list would need to be redone, and many of those games were added several years ago without any corrections or complaints in all this time. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.146.29.115 (talk) 18:03, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I suggested deleting the whole article a while back, for much the same reason. Certainly each entry ought to be (at least) either linked or referenced. As it is, the information content is negligible and what is there is highly dubious. Andy Dingley (talk) 18:10, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Re SS Badger:

We don't remove valid contributions from editors who contributed before they were blocked, but this is a sock of an established blocked (IP) editor operating out of western Michigan. See User:Arthur Rubin/IP list for some of the IPs used by what is obviously the same person. Furthermore, his references are often irrelevant to the topic. In this case, it seems relevant, so, if you want to take credit/blame for the addition, go ahead. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 01:58, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Did you even watch the added ref? It's credible (WSJ), it's topical (possibly the end of the Badger) and it's recent. Andy Dingley (talk) 09:53, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It's usually not worth checking his refs. They are usually completely irrelevant. He's not a vandal per se; his goals are orthogonal to improving Wikipedia, so that (perhaps by accident) some of his edits are reasonable and constructive. However, he is a sock of a blocked editor, so that his edits can be summarily reverted, and should only be restored if the reviewing editor wants to take credit/blame for the edit. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 07:06, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Responding to your message - Responsive Web Design

This is in response to the block and with due respect we need to ascertain that the link placed was for an important aspect related to the topic which is missed on the wiki. Responsive testing tool is important for any web designer or any webmaster to check the responsiveness of their website without using the real devices. It is a free tool and don't monetize it in any way. But if you are worried about anything in the said website link, we are sure to change it. If we give any responsive testing tool url in the external link, it can be seen as spam, because there will always a personal mention about them in the website. We request you to kindly re-cetgorize it as non spam and revert the edit. For that matter the blog link to socialdriver website given as the external link should first be categorized as spam. Thank you for your time. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 115.184.122.152 (talk) 03:33, 22 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You've added the same link, I think, four times now.

• It has nothing to do with responsive web design
• It has nothing to do with testing.

It's a link to a commercial service for crude HTML coding, based on sliced-up PSDs. An old and obsolete technique that was a bad approach even a decade ago. Very little of what you've written here is anything close to truth - but then, spammers lie.

There are also the issues of edit warring and sockpuppettry. Andy Dingley (talk) 09:13, 22 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:NP Pacific.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Andy Dingley (talk) 17:59, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

— Thanks, Andy, for targeting my treasured photo of my grandfather. In my view, this is totally unnecessary. Sca (talk) 21:15, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Then do the OTRS stuff and it can be easily kept, for the cost of an email. However this is not your family photo album, and leaving images like this around with dubious copyright to them is harmful to the long-term goals of the project. Andy Dingley (talk) 22:45, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am removing the Requested move template from

]

Of course it's not possible, that's why I asked - there's a redirect in the way. So I've done it instead by copy-pasting. 8-( Andy Dingley (talk) 08:45, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

...and I see that you're not even an Admin, although you're happy to act like one trawling across unrelated pages de-tagging incorrectly as if you were. 8-( 8-( Andy Dingley (talk) 08:54, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The presence of a redirect does not in itself prevent a page move. Pages may be moved over redirects by non-admins; consider these twelve moves: six of them were over a redirect, but all were by a non-admin. The circumstances that may prevent that action would be that the redirect had been edited since its creation - the redirect in question had not been edited, so a move would have been possible. --Redrose64 (talk) 10:09, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Then please explain why you're correct to MediaWiki, which rejected the move, not to me. Please, don't patronise other editors. Consider that they might have already tried it before submitting it to WP:RM. Andy Dingley (talk) 20:34, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

WP:RM has two sections, one that is autoposted by substituting a requested move template on the talk page, for asking other editors to weigh in on the merits of the move and accepting or rejecting it. After a week someone not involved will evaluate the discussion and close the request, normally as either move or no move. I did not think waiting a week was warranted and was helping you by speeding up the process by suggesting that in this case it was the second section of

WP:Cut and paste move repair holding pen page. Apteva (talk) 19:09, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply

]

My other option would have been to just move the page for you, but I prefer to empower people by showing them how to do things instead of doing things for them. Unfortunately I was not easily able to confirm that it was a move that you could not make other than attempting the move and having it go through or not. Apteva (talk) 19:13, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please, never assume that you will now, or will ever be, in any position to "empower" me. Andy Dingley (talk) 19:22, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

And would it have been better for me to leave it at WP:RM for a week? Is that what you would prefer, instead of getting it moved right away? Apteva (talk) 21:00, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed your username commenting at an Arbcom discussion regarding civility. An effort is underway that would likely benifit if your views were included. I hope you will append regards at: Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Civility enforcement/Questionnaire Thank you for considering this request. My76Strat (talk) 10:51, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have taken heed of your comments and re-written Flash boiler and created Monotube steam generator. Please expand them if possible. Biscuittin (talk) 22:51, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. I've mentioned you following your comment on the related afd. Thank you. duffbeerforme (talk) 13:04, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Andy. A user asked a question on my talk page that regarded a matter you were involved in. I'd like to invite you to review my answer, and consider commenting there which could only enhance the answer, if not the question. I'm working the answer into an essay of sorts, (located here). Best regards, --My76Strat (talk) 08:49, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've just reverted an edit of yours on Tableless web design and wanted to clarify why that particular site was flagged by yourself as spam? I'm new to Wikipedia and might not fully understand the rules, but I would think that the link above it, titled "Three column tableless layout example" is more commercial/spammy in nature. I want to be active in the web design wikis so I need to make sure I understand fully the reasons.

LoveTuna (talk) 09:18, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You may wish to reply to my latest entry at Talk:Flash boiler. Biscuittin (talk) 15:44, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Another round of trivial linguistic sophistry because you've failed to understand the engineering? Why would I wish to waste my time? Andy Dingley (talk) 17:11, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think I'm the one using the sophistry. I admit that I have no engineering qualifications. Do you have any? Biscuittin (talk) 22:42, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You often claim that you are right and I am wrong. Why should I believe you? You often get your own way, not by providing references to support your case, but by blustering loudly. Bluster is not a substitute for references on Wikipedia. Biscuittin (talk) 10:23, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

At Boeing B-29 Superfortress#Specifications (B-29) it reads in part Powerplant: 4 × Wright R-3350-23 and 23A Duplex Cyclone turbosupercharged radial engines, 2,200 hp (1,640 kW) each (my emphasis) and links to turbocharger.

As far as I can tell, the

, and as such they wouldn't meet the normal definition of turbo charging, as the supercharger is drawing engine power. But it's a subtle distinction.

also currently redirects to turbocharger.

I'd like an opinion on the accuracy of this, and it's obviously in your area of interest. Andrewa (talk) 06:42, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't use this as a ref, as I haven't fact checked it, it's just from memory. There are three engines of interest here:

• The wartime B-29 and the Wright R-3350. This was supercharged by a mechanical supercharger. No turbines.
• The B-50, using the P&W R-4360. This was supercharged by either a mechanically driven centrifugal supercharger or (in the largest variant) by both mechanical and turbocharger (might have been two turbochargers?). I forget what this variant was fitted to, although I think it included the B-50. Note that "turbosupercharger" can either be an early name for exhaust driven superchargers (i.e. turbos), but it also seems to have been used by P&W specifically to indicate two stage supercharging by both systems.
• Post-war civilian aircraft, such as the Constellation, using the turbo-compound Wright R-3350. AFAIK, these weren't used either wartime or on the Superfortress (first flight 1949, AFAIR, so they might possibly have been used in Korea - the
  power eggs
  swap pretty easily), but they were used militarily post-war for long-range naval or AEW patrol at least. The turbo-compound R-3350 was still supercharged mechanically by the same mechanical centrifugal supercharger (although its impeller and gear ratios might be different, I don't know).

So the R-3350 was clearly something of a collage between an existing mechanically supercharged engine and a bolted-on PRT. It was already obvious (but needed major engine design effort) that the two systems could be combined, hence the later Nomad.

To understand turbo-compounds, particularly for aircraft, it's also important to understand the difference between a pressure turbine and a blowdown turbine. Andy Dingley (talk) 11:10, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes.

Blowdown turbine would be an excellent topic to add to Wikipedia IMO, or a redirect to a section if it's already covered somewhere. Pressure turbine is also a redlink I notice. Wikt:blowdown

second definition is a little helpful, it's not quite the right sense but similar. An update there would be good too.

It's mainly the R-3350 compound I'm interested in for the moment. The name Duplex Cyclone applies to all

Wright R-1820 Cyclone (which hasn't been moved to Wright R-1820 Cyclone

apparently) with two rows not one.

So knowing which R-3350 models were simple and which were turbo compound, and which models were used on which aircraft, would be a good start.

Wartime aircraft in particular underwent rapid development, with many undocumented field modifications and the ones that worked surviving, obviously. There's even a rumour that there was a DC-2½ flying at one stage with one wing from a

DC-3

. The problem is, a modern author (I won't say researcher) then examines a surviving aircraft, one of hundreds or thousands that saw service, and says "Oho, the engines used such-and-such a supercharger." That's not valid of course, all they've proved is that one aircraft ended up with those superchargers at the end of its service life.

Of course many good records are available, but there are also innumerable books that are intended for Christmas presents and coffee tables rather than history department reading-lists but which nevertheless meet our definition of reliable sources and are a lot more accessible than wartime records, which are in any case disparaged as being primary sources under overstrict application of

WP:OR

. So these coffee-table books are what then turn up in our reference lists, or are the sources for websites that are similarly cited.

Anyway, it sounds like the R-3350 compound is post-war, and the wartime R-3350-23 and R-3350-23A engines had no turbines of any sort despite being often described as turbosupercharged. Andrewa (talk) 06:36, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The article has been tagged for needing sources for well over six months now. At that point it seems appropriate to deal with entire sections lacking references by moving them to the Talk page. And yet when I do that and then revert someone who re-added the material and violated

]

I have requested the opinions of additional editors at WP:Editor assistance. You're welcome to contribute to the discussion here. Doniago (talk) 16:26, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

So do something useful and add some sources. This is trivial stuff. None of these are the "exceptional claims" that require exceptional sources. You have done no constructive editing to this or related articles and an 8k deletion of most of the article, no matter how superior your attitude, is no way to begin.

Wtshymanski reverted your change, and you repeated your blanking near-immediately. I rarely agree with him, so if you ever do see agreement between the two of us, it's a strong indication that something really is "self-evident". I see from your talk page that you're already collecting warning tags for edit-warring, just this month. Now you seem to have moved on to electrical articles and are repeating the same sort of behaviours there. Andy Dingley (talk) 16:58, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your "constructive" feedback. As I noted, I reverted Wtshymanki because re-adding the material without sourcing was a clear violation of

WP:BURDEN

, as the material had now been directly challenged.

I'm sure you won't be surprised if I opt to wait to hear from other editors that I've contacted. Might I ask whether you intend to add any sources yourself, or simply pass the buck onto other editors while leaving the article in its current poor condition? Doniago (talk) 18:59, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hey all :).

I'm dropping you a note because you've been involved in dealing with feedback from the Article Feedback Tool. To get a better handle on the overall quality of comments now that the tool has become a more established part of the reader experience, we're undertaking a round of hand coding - basically, taking a sample of feedback and marking each piece as inappropriate, helpful, so on - and would like anyone interested in improving the tool to participate :).

You can code as many or as few pieces of feedback as you want: this page should explain how to use the system, and there is a demo here. Once you're comfortable with the task, just drop me an email at okeyeswikimedia.org and I'll set you up with an account :).

If you'd like to chat with us about the research, or want live tutoring on the software, there will be an office hours session on Monday 17 December at 23:00 UTC in #wikimedia-office ^connect. Hope to see some of you there! Thanks, Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 23:00, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Andy, regarding your revert of my adding Ryan Collinson as a notable person from Southport, he has or had the title/lead role in the professional musical Billy Elliot (with music by Elton John) in the West End. (If you have any interest, you can Google his name along with that of the musical and find several hits, including You Tube videos of parts of his performance.) If you disagree with me that that makes him notable (by Wiki standards), I’ll accept your judgment. However, it seems to me to be more or as notable than many subjects with entire articles about them (including other young Billy Elliot performers) and this is just a note on his hometown page. Please advise what you think. I didn’t know it was a requirement for such a notation/mention that the person has a Wiki article. Thanks, and best regards.HistoryBuff14 (talk) 00:01, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

He may indeed be notable. But you need to show that he's notable, and to do it in that article. If you can back your claims up with references, then add them and we can easily justify his inclusion here, even if it's a redlink to an unwritten article.

As to the other stuff, then I'd agree – but read

WP:OSE. Cleaning up one link doesn't stop because we have more links that need cleaning too. Andy Dingley (talk) 00:09, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply

]

Andy, thanks for the reply, I’ll re-revert your edit and add sourcing when I have time. In case you had any interest, this is to a You Tube video of his appearance on a TV show promoting the West End production and a Backstage episode link following. In the latter, he states he’s from Southport and he also wrote a brief bio as a promotional piece for the musical stating such again. He’s a tremendously talented kid with a bright future, a nice looking boy with tremendous athletic (gymnastic) ability. Thanks much:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tze8KfZQvkE

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IrnLKwtNvuY HistoryBuff14 (talk) 00:57, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop attacking other editors, as you did on Renault FT. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Please stop referring to other editor's contributions as "damage", e.g. "Repaired damage done by 71.95.133.142 and/or 68.185.89.83. " You might disagree with them, they might even be wrong, but

reserves accusations of deliberate vandalism or damage for only the clearest cases and these are far from it.

This is a long-term pattern in your editing behaviour, and your inclination to disparage and attack other editors. Such behaviour is not accepted here. You should know this already, and you've certainly been quick to complain of it in others. Andy Dingley (talk) 17:52, 28 November 2012 (UTC) Andy Dingley (talk) 17:52, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Is Andy Dingley joking? He is one of the worst offenders when it comes to "disparaging and attacking other editors". See, for example, his comment "Just plain wrong" when he reverted my edit of 2 Dec 2012 at Flash boiler. Biscuittin (talk) 18:11, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If you don't like your uncited additions being reverted, then I suggest that you make changes that aren't "just plain wrong". You added "(flash boiler), usually consisting of a single coiled tube (monotube).", which you even illustrated with a picture of Serpollet's multi-tube, straight-tube, cast iron flash boiler. Mostly though this is because your edit further propagated the wide misapprehension that confuses flash boilers and monotube bolers. I'd already removed a picture of White's non-flash boiler from this article, after you added it. A misapprehension you probably have because yet again you make uncited additions without any evidence that you've done any research on the subject beforehand or have any past familiarity with it.

Hengistmate has a habit of aggressive behaviour towards other editors (not just me, I don't care), but at least he usually seems to know his subject. Andy Dingley (talk) 13:30, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

_________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

I hope that I am entitled to defend myself against and refute the above without being deemed to have committed a personal attack. It seems to be a fine line. It's almost as if some sort of trap were being set.

Anyway, as you are aware, there is no personal attack on and no accusation of vandalism against another "editor". There's just valid criticism of poor, unnecessary, and sometimes wildly misinformed editing, some of which has put you to considerable trouble. Since you're policing Wikipedia, I suggest you do so less selectively, and deal with the ad hominem attack by the "editor" and sockpuppet 71.95.133.142/68.185.89.83 on the Renault FT Talk Page, which does not seem to have attracted your attention. I would also strongly suggest that you examine your own manner before criticising that of other "editors". There's a long and not very impressive history. I understand your unhappiness at having contested so many of my edits with so little success, but that happens. It's a little embarrassing, but I can assure you that my interest is not in being right, and that I do not resent being wrong. I am interested in the facts being right and I resent the facts being wrong. That's the difference. I'm not trying to build an encyclopaedia.

What can be done about feelings of being either patronised or attacked, I am not qualified to say. Your friend Mr. Macon's solution was to cease contact with me on health grounds (after defacing my Talk Page and refusing to reinstate it), and it strikes me that that might be a good idea, enabling me to carry on attempting to improve the Project without distractions such as this. I would also recommend a thorough rereading of Wikipedia:Etiquette.

In short, Mr. Dingley, I am under no obligation to accept your warning, and decline it on the grounds that it is baseless and prompted by malice. I desire only to continue to improve matters within the spirit of Wikipedia. I'm generally nice to people who are nice.

I don't know what happens now.

I hope I have avoided excessive or unwarranted subtlety of writing. Another difficult line to walk. Hengistmate (talk) 23:56, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You regularly manifest the same, "inclination to disparage and attack other editors. Such behaviour is not accepted here"

Just wind it down a notch. If you have the background knowledge and the sources to improve articles, then do so. Just do so, there's no need to use edit summaries as a chance to disparage other editors whilst you're doing it. Andy Dingley (talk) 02:52, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I obviously haven't made myself clear. I shall repeat part of my previous message: "I am under no obligation to accept your warning, and decline it on the grounds that it is baseless and prompted by malice." The hypocrisy aspect we can discuss on another occasion.

It is even more important that you absorb this: do not make defamatory statements about me to third parties, as you have here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Andy_Dingley#November_2012 Hengistmate (talk) 10:41, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Then I'm sorry I suggested to another editor that you might "know your subject"!

Your perpetually caustic manner to other editors (and needlessly so – at least save it for those editors making bad edits or comments) continues apace. Andy Dingley (talk) 10:53, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I would congratulate you on your wit, but I'm sure no congratulations of mine would come close to equalling your own. You have an impressive collection of Second Prizes (list available on request), to which I am happy to keep adding. Or we could both try to make this aspect of Wikipedia something approaching trustworthy. Up to you. Hengistmate (talk) 11:36, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Andy,

I just wanted to stop by and wish you a Merry Christmas. I've seen you around for a while, and its nice to meet people who have similar interests to mine. I hope the holiday season is a great one for you, and may the coming year bring you much happiness. Zaereth (talk) 02:01, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

To you and yours, Have a Merry ______ (fill in the blank) and Happy New Year! FWiW Bzuk (talk) 02:03, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading

).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "

talk) 04:03, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply

]

RFC/U for Apteva: move to close

I am notifying all participants in Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Apteva that Dicklyon has moved to close the RFC/U, with a summary on the talkpage. Editors may now support or oppose the motion, or add comments:

• Link to the move to close

Please consider adding your signature, so that the matter can be resolved.

Best wishes,

Noetica^Tea? 04:17, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

CorelDRAW/CorelDraw

Could you clarify why you reverted my move of

CorelDraw? I was following Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Trademarks

, specifically:

• Follow standard English text formatting and capitalization rules, even if the trademark owner considers nonstandard formatting "official," as long as this is a style already in use, rather than inventing a new one:
  • avoid: REALTOR®, TIME, KISS
  • instead, use: Realtor, Time, Kiss

As "DRAW" isn't an abbreviation or initialism, there is no real reason for it to be in all caps. Trivialist (talk) 15:55, 23 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

When did

CorelDraw is neither fish nor fowl – it's not how Corel style it, but nor is it how English would format it. As MOSTM itself notes, don't invent new styles. Andy Dingley (talk) 15:58, 23 December 2012 (UTC)[reply

]

Happy Holidays

Jonnybgoode44 (talk) is wishing you a Merry Christmas! This greeting (and season) promotes WikiLove and hopefully this note has made your day a little better. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Happy New Year!

Spread the cheer by adding {{subst:Xmas2}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

Have a happy holiday season! --Jonnybgoode44 (talk) 18:59, 25 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Guide me

	Guide me
	hi dear andy, how to edit properly, please guide me thanks Arishe (talk) 11:02, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

FYI

Talk:List of 7400 series integrated circuits#To Datasheet, Or Not To Datasheet; That Is The Question --Guy Macon (talk) 14:05, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply

]

DMU

Hi Andy,

some technical terms are hardly found in dictionaries. Sometimes I have to estimate the meaning from the contexts. And in http://www.railfaneurope.net/list_frameset.html, sometines the term "DMU1" is used. But I could imagine, if "DMU" is reserved for vehicles suitable for multiple traction.

Have a good turn of the year! --Ulamm (talk) 15:56, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think the crucial term in DMU is the M for "multiple". This means units that can operate indepedently or can be coupled in multiple, so as to both be controlled from a single driving cab. This needs control technology a little beyond what was generally used in 1910 (although steam railmotor sets had used it, and so did electric railcars). In general, this term was also applied to railcar sets such as the Flying Hamburger that remained permanently coupled into sets. The point was that each car (or a number of power cars) was powered separately, but controlled from one place.

Later developments (1950s in the UK) saw a massive expansion of DMUs where these were now seen as cheap, flexible units where the now cheap, common and reliable small engines in railcars could be coupled to make trains of self-powered cars, each just powerful enough to haul itself, and the numbers of these railcars could be allocated to make trains of varying length, according to passenger demand on particular services. Previously this not only needed loco haulage, but it would have required locos of either varying or excessive power and cost.

In a rare few cases, dead heading was used instead (so these are not multiple units) where a power car or loco was coupled at each end and only one was used in each direction, the other being towed inert (this is obviously inefficient, so it usually only happens in situations with a shortage of rolling stock). Andy Dingley (talk) 16:18, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]