User talk:Andy Dingley/Archive 2013

You inappropriately reverted thoughtful edits I made to Aaron Swartz. I explained these edits carefully on the article's talk page. It is not even close to vandalism. In your comment, you question my removal of one source; that source was inaccessible, and it is not clear what it said. In any event, the thrust of my edit was not to remove sources. It was instead, as I clearly indicated, to remove unsourced disputed material, which you have now inappropriately restored. Antiselfpromotion (talk) 00:07, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Your edits were about as thoughtful as your rather obvious special-interest username. It was hardly vandalism, so I don't see why you need to compare it to that – However by immediately repeating your edits you are clearly happy to begin edit warring. You deleted a number of refs from established authorities (JSTOR and boston.com), then deleted the rest of the content on the grounds that it was now unsourced. You deleted a number of refs from Aaron's own site, owing to your misunderstanding of policy:

WP:RS is not a requirement that all references meet RS, or a ban upon self-published sources in addition – there was no reason whatsoever to blank these references. Of course you didn't consider using any of the tools like archive.org or boston.com itself (try [1]

) to retrieve old copies of now-dead URLs.

You blanked the section about the 14 year old Aaron Swartz and his work with the W3C, which is one of the most well-known things about him. You made zero effort to source this (the W3C would, I think, be considered a RS and their archives are pretty accessible [2]). I was part of the RSS & RDF working groups at this time - Swartz had a big influence and left a big recorded footprint. One of the refs you read (you did read them didn't you?) even includes a photo of the (I think) 15 year old Swartz with Larry Lessig.

Strangely you left recent refs that related to the hacking incident, and that were critical of him, intact. You might wish to review

WP:NPOV

. You were also quite happy to swap "asked to resign" (which I understand to be the case) with "fired", presumably on the basis that "Fired" and "Wired" make a better pun for a T shirt.

You claimed, "much of it is disputed, and the subject appears to inflate his credentials in many contexts that have been subject to dispute." which isn't even OR it's just sheer WP:MADEUP on your part. The only real issue about which that sort of statement could be made is the credit for Reddit, a topic where some quite possibly overblown claims have been made, but far less from Swartz than they have from outside commentators.

Removing self promotion is of course a valuable goal that we all support. Two hundred edits? I think I hit that in a good week. This though was a poorly done hatchet job. Andy Dingley (talk) 01:03, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Your tone here is strange and hostile. You repeatedly call me 'lazy' and my work 'poorly done', but this is not about me or you. I'm not in competition with you or the number of edits you've made. You have, however, simply mischaracterized my edits. It is patently unfair to suggest I removed sources and then claimed material was unsourced, for example. Indeed, I explained this in my comments on the talk page.

I can respond to each of the various things you suggest, but I'm not sure you're considering what I'm saying in a fair spirit. For example, I replaced 'asked to resign' with 'fired' because the only source on the matter (the subject's own) uses that word. It is also the word used in the article on Reddit. The pun was his, not mine, but it is still the word he used, and elaborated, in the one cited reference on the topic. His connection with the PCCC, outside claims that originate with him, are unclear, and I was unable to find reliable sources on the matter. This is something about which we should be very careful, as they are a political action committee and we are claiming a link with someone charged with federal felonies.

I'm not clear what else in what you've written merits response; none of it seems germane to the reasons I offered on the article's talk page or to any of the specific edits that I spent time making. You seem to assume I have some animosity toward the subject, which I don't. My comments on the talk page concerning notability are not affected by whether he once worked with Larry Lessig or not.

I'm sure you're more experienced with Wikipedia than I am, but the policies in question on this matter are clear: 'Sometimes editors will disagree on whether material is verifiable. The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material, and is satisfied by providing a reliable source that directly supports the material.'

WP:BURDEN. This is why I will revert your hostile, knee-jerk reversion of my edits once again. My understanding is that you are the one engaging in an 'edit war', having reverted careful edits and restored disputed unreferenced material without cause using Twinkle. I am unclear precisely how to escalate the matter, but I will do that instead if you prefer, and if you or someone else instructs me how. In any case, I suggest that if you really think my edits are inappropriate, you leave them to someone else to revert, after they read this discussion and the comments I have made on the article's discussion page. Antiselfpromotion (talk) 01:23, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply

]

A minor update: I was prepared to restore my edits per

WP:BURDEN, for the reasons I described. But this was unnecessary because a significantly more experienced editor than I already did so on the same grounds. I have no personal stake in this matter, but I do not think that the way you have characterized my edits is fair, and I just want to state so for the record. Antiselfpromotion (talk) 01:29, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply

]

Programmable logic controller

I noticed your revert, and I'm curious to know where you got the idea that pre-PLC automation required complete panel rewiring for tooling changeovers. I've been working in the field for eons and can't think of any time this has occurred. Some parts of the circuit need rewiring, sure. But never "each and every relay". Most automotive tooling is virtually identical control wise (sensors, actuators, etc) from year to year, even though the mechanical work has major differences. Perhaps you've worked at a plant that does things differently? Krushia (talk) 16:49, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think you're right - I'd undone this on the basis of your edit summary, not your relatively minor change. Removing that "each and every" is reasonable. The point I really took issue with was the comment about electricians not working on cams. Firstly these cams are mostly as cam timers (certainly electrician's work), rather than cams working mechanical actuators; secondly that the few purely mechanical programmable cam systems I've encountered (programmable spring and metal clip benders) were also re-set by the plant electricians (superb bits of 1950s engineering they were too). Andy Dingley (talk) 17:01, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I was recently watching some experiments on

]

Was that an article title or is he keeping score of his deletions now?

I just try not to think about him. If they're articles I've not worked on myself, I don't have the time or inclination to keep wasting my time on this place. Andy Dingley (talk) 20:39, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The insulting IP is back screwing up the article. Happy New Year?   LittleBen (talk) 12:50, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've dropped a warning onto his talk. It's ineffectual, but it might come in handy in the future re blocks or page protection, in case someone then whines "But you never even warned the poor innocent lamb".

Mostly though there's little I can add here because I just don't know the subject. I'm a past expert at CSS, but I'm out of date on CSS3 and it's a couple of years since I followed things seriously. So when it comes to media queries, I don't know the tech and I certainly don't know the structures built up around them such, as where responsive design has got to in the last few years.

It's also difficult to cover anything software related competently on WP, because the very sources that form the corpus of good practice are those that are non-RS, per the teenadmin's simplistic view of "all blogs are bad" and "the interwebs are unreliable (unless they're published by Disney or M$)". Andy Dingley (talk) 13:08, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

hello Andy, I got your message, I was in the process of adding my reasons to the talk page. I have been in extensive arguments of late on the world of tanks forum regarding this claim and I came across this post which looks suspiciously like the work of the main protagonist, there have been many attempts to create fictional history regarding German weapons development, often claiming that modern weapons were actually designs stolen or claimed from captured german technology but for some reason done so in conspiratorial secrecy unlike all the things we actually know about. The claim that Germany not only developed APFSDS in the early days of ww2 but actually used it in combat runs counter to accepted history and adding SIC to the end of the post does not cut it — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kyphen (talk • contribs) 16:03, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Some points:

• Vandals blank sections without explanation. So if you blank sections without explanation, you look like a vandal. Please use edit summaries, this makes it clearer for readers.
• If a section is contested, then write a sourced rebuttal of it and add that. If the rebuttal is more convincing than the initial claims made, then you might even remove those.
• Add the rebuttal before, or when, you blank the old content. There's no good reason to blank before this, and it looks a lot like vandalism.
• It's rarely a good idea to blank sections that are "well known", even when they're wrong. Encyclopedias need to explain misunderstandings too, so it's usually better to state what's commonly believed, then to debunk it. Give the good sources for the true story, explain (with sources) why and how these misunderstandings came about.
• If you can't answer a question completely, then leave both sides of the argument behind. We're not expected to be infallible and certainly not to make judgements by original research. If two credible authors claim opposite stories, then include both, source both, and leave the reader to decide.

Andy Dingley (talk) 16:45, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I Understand the recommendations butt is hard to find sourced evidence for claims which have no academic rebuttals as there is no evidence of the claims ever being made in academic circles at all. I did not want the main page turning into a debate so I put it in the talk page the claim does not exist on any of the related pages, the shell page is an overview, the pages dedicated to APDS APFSDS kinetic energy penatrators, anti tank pages and so on never mention this. the claim on the main page itself was made just over 3 months ago by an unsigned user. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kyphen (talk • contribs) 17:43, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Andy Currently there's a link to C strut on the M strut page, which is a redicrect back to M. I don't know how to sort that out. Why did you delete the reffed para on c strut? Greglocock (talk) 01:08, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Because it was nonsense. A Chapman strut isn't just a MacPherson with no steering swivel. Read the big article. Andy Dingley (talk) 01:21, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've just noticed that some GF Editor had blanked the whole article. 8-( Andy Dingley (talk) 13:15, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Wadyamean Stephenson's gear does not notch-up? Tell that to Mr Churchward. Globbet (talk) 14:54, 11 January 2013 (UTC) & 15:34, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Of course it can be notched up, the problem is that notching up changes the travel, rather than the timing. This can give problems with slower valve opening and reduced total opening, and in turn the problem of wire-drawing (throttling of steam supply). This was recognised in the late 19th century, although it was a purely theoretical issue, at least for locomotives, as the rest of port design wasn't anywhere near good enough for the valve's limits to show up. This is mentioned in Expansion valve (steam engine)#Link valve gears, but it still needs expansion for the Stephenson article itself.

I don't think Churchward paid too much heed to this issue, but Collet did with the Swindon test plant. Andy Dingley (talk) 23:33, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Harmonic valve gears driving a single valve achieve earlier cut-off at the expense of valve opening, and other problems like early release. Phase and amplitude are inextricably linked. Stephenson's is no different in this respect. Neglecting inaccuracies due to rod angularity and the like, any harmonic valve gear, at any cutoff setting, moves the valve with SHM. It was Churchward who introduced long-travel, large-lap valve gears and free breathing to the UK, and who had great pains taken in the drawing office to tweak valve gear geometries to get the events as even as possible at both ends. Globbet (talk) 18:28, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Rule zero (AfD discussion)

Enjoy. Uncle G (talk) 21:54, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! I could use another opinion at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style#Is "an HTTP" or "a HTTP" correct?. Could you take a look? Thanks! --Guy Macon (talk) 23:06, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm English so I don't get an opinion on en:WP. Just look it up in Strunk & White or Chicago. They might even agree. Andy Dingley (talk) 23:11, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Welsh Not? Martinevans123 (talk) 21:58, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Twin-turbo#Terminology: "twin" and "sequential" looks to me to be right up your alley, care to lend a hand? Andrewa (talk) 19:04, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Why did you undo my revision today to Web development? The industry section is filled with incorrect, unsubstantiated facts which I attempted to correct. --Matt Schwartz (talk) 18:51, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The article needs work, admittedly. However conflating dynamic websites in general and web 2.0 is hardly an improvement. Andy Dingley (talk) 18:55, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I changed more than just that. And the point of "web 2.0" is sites became dynamic. It's the first sentence of the web 2.0 article: "Web 2.0 was coined in 1999 to describe web sites that use technology beyond the static pages of earlier web sites." I was trying to clarify what I think was the intent of the original author. I put back my edits without the reference to web 2.0. --Matt Schwartz (talk) 19:18, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

1. Dynamic web sites aren't the same thing as Web 2.0. Although 2.0 sites are dynamic, not all dynamic sites meet the meaning of a web 2.0 site: content editing via the web interface (rather than through the filesystem) and thus opening the route to user-generated content. Historically, dynamic sites (publishing pre-2.0, publisher-supplied, centrally-added content) pre-date Web 2.0 by several years.
2. WP is never
   WP:RS
   for other WP articles. Much of WP is just wrong, and it shouldn't be propagated, to avoid propagating such errors.
3. It doesn't matter what either of us think, because nothing should be in these articles unless it's reliably sourced from off-wiki, and from outside the heads of WP editors. Andy Dingley (talk) 19:34, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Andy, I agree that my addition was uncited, as is most of the material in the Saab 96 article, however it is correct. Here's why: Until the implementation of oil injection in the model, oil lubrication was delivered by mixing 1 qt of 2-cycle oil with eight (US) gallons of gasoline. So, a high throttle setting causes an increase of gasoline-borne lubrication and increasing RPM. Unfortunately, the reverse doesn't apply. High RPM requires but doesn't achieve the commensurate level of lubrication when decelerating or descending a hill with engine braking. With freewheeling, the engine returns to idle under those circumstances and receives the lubrication required as it is not under load from the drivetrain. The V-4 retained freewheeling not for the reason cited here (or as frequently claimed for gas economy—a function of throttle setting), but to improve its emissions, which become worse when engine braking is in effect. Having owned a 1964 Saab 96, a 1963 oil-injected Saab GT850 (a.k.a "Sport" in Europe), and a 1968 four-stroke Saab V-4, when I was an MIT student, I was well informed on this subject. Prior to my post, I looked for some citable information on this topic. My contribution was simply an attempt to explain what the previous entry means, i.e."To overcome the problems of overrun for the two-stroke engine,..." which is not explained—it could refer to the noises and backfiring that can occur from two-cycles or it could refer to oil starvation while under load or both.

I should answer your question, "how does a freewheel allow idling at low rpm?". Think of riding a bicycle, the freewheel allows your legs to "idle", rather than be dragged around by the speed of the wheels through the drivetrain.

I'll continue looking for a better citation before taking a better run at this. In the meantime, if you find my explanation persuasive, you could consider restoring the thrust of my contribution. Sincerely, User:HopsonRoad 01:07, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I was a bit heavy-handed in reverting that.

The Saab freewheel (and for that matter, the Rover freewheel too) needs an explanation, because these are rare devices and they're not generally understood. However your addition was uncited and I found it confusingly unreadable. In particular, it didn't distinguish clearly enough between engine speed, transmission speed and throttle opening. Especially, which of these is causing the demand for lubrication, and which of them provides the lubrication supply? Andy Dingley (talk) 11:54, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your thoughtful reply, Andy. I spent a lot of time on line in a futile search for a good reference. The Freewheel article has no refs, whatever, so I agree that some help is needed. My brother may have a relic, known as a book, with some citable material in it. He, too, was a Saab nut. I'll be out of town foe three weeks, so Ill try to help out upon my return. In the meantime, if you can compose something clearer and mark it^{[citation needed]}, that might not be amiss! Cheers, User:HopsonRoad 14:23, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I see that you already did! Thanks! User:HopsonRoad 14:27, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Andy. I was just skimming the ANI board regarding the issues with Cantaloupe2. You can count me as a fourth (or probably tenth really) editor with similar experiences of hounding, battlegrounding, etc.. I will participate in the RfCU in any way that is helpful. DGG has worked with this editor across multiple disputes with various editors and may be helpful as well. You'll see from the edit-warring post I put in the RFCU that he was previously warned by an admin of potential admin action if he did not stop hounding me, which did not dissuade him. I think his edit-warring over adding a personal blog with negative content where I have a disclosed COI is the most obvious and compelling evidence one could ever expect to get of Cantaloupe being a bad-faith editor, considering his track-record of contesting sources.

This is a significant retention issue and I hope it can get resolved before more editors are discouraged from editing here. I know there are at least a couple articles I would be improving if it weren't for a desire to avoid him. I have no experience with the dispute resolution processes, so please let me know if/when/what may be needed from me as it goes down the process. CorporateM (Talk) 17:15, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Related comment: Hi Andy, are you interested in participating in the RfCU drafting process (User:Dreamyshade/RFCU)? YuMaNuMa made a good-faith addition of your username due to involvement at AN/I, but I don't know if you're explicitly interested in being included. If you'd prefer not to be listed, feel free to remove yourself (or let me know and I'll remove you). Thanks! Dreamyshade (talk) 02:39, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm disinclined to. Cantaloupe2 is one of those editors who is prepared to edit far into the realm of their personal ignorance, and thus causes considerable damage. However WP is "the encyclopedia that anyone can edit", and such editors are thus constitutionally protected. I support your attempts here, but I've rarely seen them succeed. Certainly count me as a supporter, but I doubt there's much I can add. Maybe re Sheldon Brown or Bicycle wheel (AndrewDressel has had more involvement there). Andy Dingley (talk) 03:23, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

OK, it sounds like you might be interested in just being listed under "Additional users endorsing this cause for concern" and leaving it at that - is that right? Dreamyshade (talk) 03:38, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'll keep an eye on it and might comment, certainly list me as a supporter, but I really don't have the enthusiasm for pushing the minority view that

WP:COMPETENCE is needed. There are just too many admins out there who find it easier to judge by counting policy citations. Andy Dingley (talk) 11:00, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply

]

Carmen Ortiz

The issue over inclusion of Linus comments had been raised to the Noticeboard for discussion by another user. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard#Carmen_Ortiz Request your attention. thanks

]

Steam engine

Hi Andy, "The steam engine was an essential component of the Industrial Revolution" is written in past tense. So it describes the development form a pre-industrial way of life to a stage, when almost everything was produced by engines. That stage already was reached about eighty years ago. And from the first third of 19th centrury to the first third of 20th century, the steam engine was essential, indeed. (copy from Talk:Steam engine) --Ulamm (talk) 17:00, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'd agree your first sentence, except that this wasn't the Industrial Revolution. The first industrial revolution broadly pre-dates the steam engine. It encompasses water-powered textile mills, ironmaking on a large industrial scale, particularly when it started using coke rather than charcoal, canal transport and also industrialisation of mining. Of these four, only mining is making any use of early steam power. By the time the steam engine starts to make any significant contribution (mid 18th century), even if we include early crude atmospheric engines as "steam" engines, then the industrial revolution has already been up and running for half a century, using water power. The claim that "the industrial revolution couldn't have happened without steam" (which is what "essential" means) is made demonstrably false as soon as you look at the first big silk mills in Derbyshire, or at Coalbrookdale. Andy Dingley (talk) 17:13, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Water power was used for some important steps of technical progress, e.g. water powered hammer works in metal production. But just textile production, before the use of steam engines, in many regions was mainly cottage industry. Cottage spinners and weavers could live from their handicraft before steam age, but they lost competition, when the large plants began to use steam engines. (That's the economic history of my place of birth)--Ulamm (talk) 18:07, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No. Your chronology (at least if it's applied nationally) is out. You're missing the era of the large water-powered mills (which is why I mentioned Derbyshire in particular). They pre-date steam, but they still made hand-spinning uneconomic. Andy Dingley (talk) 18:10, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

When in 16th century steel production in hilltop sites decayed in favor of sites, where water power was available, that's an early industrial feature, before industrial revolution.

I won't deny the inventions of Derbyshire, but they didn't become an existential danger for continental textile producers before 1800.--Ulamm (talk) 18:30, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Andy, Just a quick note to say I've just reverted the link you put in at

]

That was a deliberate link. We don't have an article on "black and tan (concept)", although the beer article is also a reasonable attempt at explaining this. It's certainly better than a link to the disambig page. There is a significant cultural meaning to the phrase, at least in the UK & Ireland. Clearly, given embarrassing product adverts by Nike and Ben & Jerry's, it's not known in the USA. Andy Dingley (talk) 16:01, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No probs, my mistake, I reverted back, apologies!

SagaciousPhil - Chat 16:20, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply

]

Thanks, I hope it makes it a little clearer why "black and tan" is a colour combination that has a ready concept, and so gets discussed readily as a combination. Andy Dingley (talk) 11:17, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

From Filmdoctor 1: read my most recent comments on my page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Filmdoctor1 (talk • contribs) 05:35, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'll take another look. BTW - did you know we have an easy {{

tb}} template for talkback like this? Andy Dingley (talk) 11:17, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply

]

An image created by you has been promoted to featured picture status Your image, File:Barrow Offshore wind turbines NR.jpg, was nominated on Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates, gained a consensus of support, and has been promoted. If you would like to nominate an image, please do so at Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates. Thank you for your contribution! Armbrust The Homunculus 12:41, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Andy I've reverted you're revert of my revert of the adding of Java (programming language) to 'Programming languages' as it's already in other sub-categories, such as:

C programming language family (−) (±) Class-based programming languages (−) (±) Concurrent programming languages (−) (±) Java programming language (−) (±) JVM programming languages (−) (±) Object-oriented programming languages (−) (±) Programming languages created in 1995 (−) (±)

According to

"A page or category should rarely be placed in both a category and a subcategory or parent category (supercategory) of that category (however, see directly below). For example, the article "Paris" need only be placed in "Category:Cities in France", not in both "Category:Cities in France" and "Category:Populated places in France". Since the first category is in the second category, readers are already given the information that Paris is a populated place in France by it being a city in France."

Note that it's not in debate that Java is a major programming language (it is).

peterl (talk) 00:09, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yet again, OVERCAT is one of the more inappropriately over-used of WP's policies. Categories exist to make navigational pathways for our readers. Surprisingly they do not (although it's not really the issue in this case) exist to categorize or define their members. MediaWiki categorization just isn't up to doing that as an ontological task. The value is the value the category browsing adds.

Browsing the big Programming languages category should take readers past Java (and PHP, and C++, and a few others). Not because it's the only place they belong, not because there's nowhere better they could also exist, but because that's where readers are looking for them. We exist to feed readers. There is no other direct value to being here. Andy Dingley (talk) 01:32, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

So why are there so many programming languages missing from there? Say Perl, Python, C, C#, etc etc etc? There must be literally hundereds of programming languages that people would look for there; should they all be added as well?

peterl (talk) 04:44, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I see that someone has now pretty much emptied the category, on the grounds that being in the programming-language-stubs cat over-rules being categorized as a programming-language! There really is increasingly little point in bothering with anything. Andy Dingley (talk) 11:25, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Andy, do you want to do the honours and take this to Afd now that the PROD has been removed? If not, I am happy to. It's been spamfestering (I just made that up and I like it!) for too long.--ukexpat (talk) 15:32, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Probably more convincing if someone else does it, rather than the prodder. Also Tally Definition Language TDL, which is how I found it. I was going to suggest merging TDL, but couldn't even see notability for the parent company. Andy Dingley (talk) 15:34, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello I'm wondering why you removed my website: PeopleWiki from the page Website Like its not a illegal website, it's just a site where people can write about themself like on here, except you don't have to be famous :) 222.152.0.209 (talk) 04:24, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

WP:ELNO #11 & #12 mostly, but most of WP:ELNO also applies. Andy Dingley (talk) 10:55, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply

]

Disambiguation link notification for February 10

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Parkend Ironworks, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Engine house (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) 11:22, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Rainbow Codes, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 08:27, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Andy

Spotted your comment on person who edited the

]

February 2013

Your recent editing history at

reverts

on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.

To avoid being blocked, instead of reverting please consider using the article's

]

Andy isn't edit-warring here, Ahendrl: You are. Also, you (Ahendrl) just violated the 3RR with this edit. Please stop edit warring. J.delanoy^gabs_adds 00:51, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you. Ahendrl (talk) 01:10, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Andy,

Why did you remove the link to my new CVT technology??

please read it again, or explain to me how to put a link in the CVT wiki, or a description or drawings?

I have a well working machine!! its not a spam!!

the link was: cvt without friction — Preceding unsigned comment added by Yves mag (talk • contribs) 17:44, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, where to start... 8-(

• You drop in out of nowhere and your first act is to add ELs to your own site. You've clearly never read
  WP:COI
  or any guidance on basic editing
• You didn't add any content, you just spammed two unannotated links.
• You placed them at the head of the article, before any mass-produced CVTs in widespread use already
• Your ELs are in French, not predominantly in English, contrary to
  WP:ELNO
• You added your own ELs, not any notable content where attention has been paid to it by independent
  WP:RS
• Your design is not original. Constantinescu did it a hundred years ago.
• Your design certainly isn't "without friction" That sliding joint is really ugly, in engineering terms. Constantinescu's was much better thought out.

Andy Dingley (talk) 18:57, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

TransporterMan (TALK) 15:25, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Shouldn't it be Category:Wikipedia Reference desk rather than have double colons? I've never seen a category like that.... The Rambling Man (talk) 21:28, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

See User_talk:Alan_Liefting#Need_a_category

Technically, it's not a problem. It's a colon after an explicit namespace, so MediaWiki doesn't mind. However now we can have a nice argument over Category:Wikipedia Reference desk vs. Category:Wikipedia reference deskAndy Dingley (talk) 21:30, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No, I was just looking for consistency across Wikipedia. I'm not here to argue with anyone. If you can show me another Wikipedia space category like this, I'd be surprised. We normally would see "Wikipedia Reference desk" or something as a category, not the double colon. Why this should be any different, I have no idea. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:32, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Glad we got there in the end!! The Rambling Man (talk) 21:46, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

In the article, the WCAG says the blink element can cause seizures. The blinking part is not staying in the article.—chbarts (talk) 00:05, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Andy. I know you are not happy about the measurements being put in metric first, but the Good Article assessor is demanding that either all measurements be in metric first or in imperial first. As we have no source for some of the measurements in imperial, they can only go in metric. What else would you like me to do? Skinsmoke (talk) 23:35, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page stalker) Personally I would put the sourced measurement into {{convert}}, and if that measurement be metric, add |disp=flip so that the imperial is displayed first. For example, {{convert|1|kg|lb|disp=flip}} yields 2.2 pounds (1 kg) --Redrose64 (talk) 07:26, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for that. I've asked the assessor for advice on this one, and will add this suggestion to my question. Skinsmoke (talk) 11:25, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That's some rather

]

I haven't finished yet. There are cites in the intro, but we should use them in the later lists too. It's just copyediting.

Also I do rather resent having my edits described as "pointy" given some of the out and out disruption that has gone on at this article! Andy Dingley (talk) 18:28, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Whatever, I guess you better request cites for every film

talk) 18:31, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply

]

Nicole Kidman hasn't just gone through a disruptive AfD where it was claimed she was playing a doctor aged 8. Andy Dingley (talk) 18:33, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

And that's been fixed. What you are doing is ridiculous and unnecessary.

talk) 18:35, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply

]

No-one is asking you to help. Andy Dingley (talk) 18:36, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The pages in Category:Wikipedia reference desk need removal from Category:Wikipedia help forums. Thanks. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 20:15, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have a reason for changing the title? It is described as Fairbottom Bobs in the Henry Ford Museum and in this document which appears to be a reliable source. J3Mrs (talk) 22:42, 28 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

TE Crowley has it singular and I can't find anything from Henry Ford that even describes just how many UK beam engines they have in their collection. If you're convinced it should be plural, then I'm happy to put it back. Andy Dingley (talk) 23:11, 28 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have the Preece book you cited and it is definitely "Bobs". I have visited the Henry Ford but my photographs of it are appalling. This book might be of interest to you. [3]. J3Mrs (talk) 23:16, 28 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You added a dubious tag to The Henry Ford but didn't discuss anything on the talk page. (Aside: Most of my photos from the museum are bad to due to the low lighting they use throughout.) Rmhermen (talk) 03:02, 1 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Fairbottom Bob(s) didn't come from Cobb's Engine House Andy Dingley (talk) 03:09, 1 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have no knowledge of the issue, but the place to discuss it is on the talk page. But I notice that you are the one who changed it to saying Fairbottom Bobs. Are you certain there isn't another engine at the museum from the referenced place? Rmhermen (talk) 04:08, 1 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There are several UK beam engines at the Ford Museum. However the one which we shall call "Bob" didn't come from Cobb's. There is an unfortunate lack of access to any sort of complete & robust cat for the Ford Museum. Andy Dingley (talk) 10:25, 1 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, that was quick! well done. Looks like there is some confusion caused by Sandwell Council. J3Mrs (talk) 11:00, 1 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There's something wrong there, because "1831 - winding engine of Newcomen type" has several raised eyebrows to it. However they don't seem to be the source of the Fairbottom confusion (which might be a pure WP invention), and we do know that Ford collected several early beam engines. Andy Dingley (talk) 11:14, 1 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Fairbottom Bobs, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Engine house (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) 11:25, 1 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think you are being disengenuous sir. Admittedly that one edit was an issue but

]

There's not one genuine edit from you so far. An article that discusses the virtues of sending seals by post doesn't change that opinion. Andy Dingley (talk) 15:24, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Andy, I am not going to get into an edit war with you ... but I do want to explain. It may seem obvious to you that any potential users wishing to edit the table would know that one must look for Template:Engine thrust to weight table. Well, I have been a user for a considerable time and had forgotten how to find a template and had to spend considerable time finding the template in order to remove 2 broken/inactive references. I am quite sure that many new users would not know how to find a template. In fact, they might not even know that the curly brackets surrounding the table name indicates a template. So what harm does it do to include explicit instructions as a hidden comment on the edit page? Perhaps the template itself should include creating the instruction as a hidden comment? Regards, mbeychok (talk) 18:57, 7 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You're adding text with the identical template name, right next to the template itself. This conveys nothing new in addition. Andy Dingley (talk) 20:38, 7 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Andy, with all due respect, I did not merely "add text with the identical template name, right next to the template itself" as you put it. What I did do was instruct users on how to find the table so that they could edit it when needed ... this is exactly what I added as a hidden comment: <!--To edit this table, go to Template:Engine thrust to weight table-->.

In hindsite, perhaps this would have been even better: <!--To edit this table, enter "Template:Engine thrust to weight table" (without the quote marks) into the search box in the left-hand, vertical navigation column.-->. mbeychok (talk) 23:44, 7 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hey. I've seen you around quite a long time now, and noticed your name come up as an admin possibility. While I'm sure you've been asked before, I'm wondering if you've given the possibility of running for adminship any thought. Wizardman 20:02, 7 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, but why the hell would anyone go near RfA? I have little enough enthusiasm left for WP and I'm borderline from quitting altogether (should go, probably won't, same as everyone). Setting myself up for a bunch of teenagers to fling rocks at is no encouragement to waste any more time. Andy Dingley (talk) 21:15, 7 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That I definitely get. Stopped nomming users myself a couple years back when I realized I was probably contributing to retirements, only restarting now. Wizardman 03:21, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Floating dock (impounded), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Caisson (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) 10:52, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Thanks for your comments about the Clifton Suspension Bridge. I've expanded the section dealing with both competitions & found several references for the design by his father. Could you take another look and see if there is anything else you feel is needed?— Rod ^talk 11:33, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks,

I don't think Marc's design is all that important – it's Telford's that are the bigger part of it.

Marc's design (AIUI, I haven't taken a tape measure to it) is somewhat idealised. It's, I think, the only design based on a single central tower. The problem is that (AIUI) Marc Brunel never visited the site to survey it (like most non-local entrants other than IKB and Telford). His sketch of the groundplan is somewhat inaccurate because although the gorge is asymmetric at this point, there isn't space for a central tower - it would involve placing the foundations between the high & low water marks into what is deep mud. Of course it could be done - the Brunels had more experience of working in submerged mud than anyone else, but it's a much more complicated approach than that sketch suggests. Central tower designs were not a new approach to making wide suspension bridges, but this site just doesn't suit one. Another possibility was to move the Bristol-side anchorage away from the nearest point (the Leigh Woods anchorage is on the only solid ground at high level, but the Bristol side is a longer cliff and it's less critical where it's placed), to somewhere where the centre of the span was then over solid ground, but this lengthens the overall spans. What couldn't be done with the MB design is to place the tower asymmetrically, as this produces a side-load on the tower.

Telford's design is the thing that's missing from the article at present. This is interesting for two reasons: firstly that Telford produced a design at all, having been initially an impartial judge in the process. He was the name in bridge design, although past his prime by now and also seen increasingly as a 'mechanic' rather than an engineer with the analytical maths skills that were becoming important. This second-step design was a major slap in the face to all other bridge designers and this upstart new generation in particular. Secondly his design was for the epitome of "conventional" suspension bridge design at this time, trading the massive cost of its substantial masonry to reduce the spans to levels within past achievements. Andy Dingley (talk) 11:54, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks - could you add the content re Telfords design, that you think is the missing bit, to the article?— Rod ^talk 12:21, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Andy,

You seem to be very keen to get me blocked, making frequent suggestions on various pages and drawing attentions to my contributions. Why are you so edgy about this? Is it perhaps that you are alarmed that I am getting too close to the truth?

]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Warm glass 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/Warm glass 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 notice from the top of the article.

]

Quoting from Old Books (50's and 70's)

Hello Andy !

I am starting again to write an article on the concept of Corner Tube Boilers. I am writing to you as I have a query regarding quoting the article. I have found the exact source but the books are really old from the 50's and 70's which are available in the library in Berlin. To which extent is the article verifiable in such a case ? (Ghorpaapi (talk) 09:07, 11 March 2013 (UTC))[reply]

This isn't a problem. Just use the books as references and give detailed references, including year, publisher and ISBN (if there is one). It's accepted, per

WP:AGF

that a credible book is considered to be a valid reference, even without a reviewing author having a copy of it. This works best if you use well-known books, where possible. For fields like this, there are often "standard textbooks" that most people working in a field would have access to, and even some WP editors. For boiler stuff, I often use the Royal Navy Stoker's Handbook or the multi-volume sets by Rankin Kennedy, just because they're well-known and commonplace even today. See Commons for some scans of these.

1950s books are a little awkward, as they're old enough to be obscure and hard to find, but new enough to still be in copyright. 1900 is easier, as it's usually possible to scan in great chunks of such books and place them on Commons or Wikisource.

It's worth finding your way around the {{

harvnb}} etc. These can make formatted, detailed cites and refs easy to handle, once you've got the hang of them. Andy Dingley (talk) 11:00, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply

]

Thank a lot for the info and help Andy Dingley. Ghorpaapi (talk) 09:35, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Andy. I noticed you recently reverted my reversion of a contribution by a sockpuppet of Noodleki on the grounds that it was a "kosher edit". I hope this means that you checked the contribution for potential copyright infringement—the sock master was blocked indefinitely for persistent copyright violations. All contributions of substantial amounts of text should be considered suspect and checked carefully. Rather than add to the sizeable list at Wikipedia:Contributor copyright investigations/Noodleki, I have been doing blanket rollbacks and CSD G5's, though of course anyone is free to undo the rollbacks and contest the CSDs in the event that the contribution turns out to be legitimate. —Psychonaut (talk) 14:01, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This content is sourced and is very obviously based on the source cited (it includes minor points that the source does, where most of the many other sources don't specifically mention them). However the editor has clearly made efforts to rewrite it to the level necessary for WP and it's very far from a copy-paste job. It's possible that it's a copyvio from elsewhere, but not anywhere that simple phrase googling picks up. Andy Dingley (talk) 14:22, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

OK, thanks. I just wanted to make sure you'd checked the text, as the initial reversions were about potential copyright problems as opposed to

WP:DENY. —Psychonaut (talk

)

Edits by Shanker Pur

1. You have reverted my edit to the article

which added that a spirit level may be used to check for horizontality. I think that an early mention of the spirit level in the article is natural. It is the obvious instrument to use to check if a plane is horizontal. 2. You have also reverted the diagrams I added to the article. I believe that the diagrams increased the clarity and accessibility of the article, an article aimed at reducing the misconceptions surrounding the concept of horizontality. (In general, Wiki needs more diagrams, I believe, not less). Can you throw some light on the matter? 94.175.116.15 (talk) 15:08, 11 March 2013 (UTC)The previous unsigned edit was by Shanker Pur (talk) 15:17, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This whole article is nonsense. Andy Dingley (talk) 15:30, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply

]

I asked you to tell me why you reverted my edits to the article

Horizontal plane? Would you mind telling me why you reverted my edits to that article? Shanker Pur (talk) 17:40, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply

]

This image is unreadable, useless nonsense. (Anyone care to guess what it is?) Let alone the massive

WP:OR problem to all of this. Andy Dingley (talk) 18:02, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply

]

1.Thank you for your reply and I shall try to improve the image. But let me first reproduce it here as I left it in the article, not the way you have shown it, truncated and thus making it unreadable. As my edit said, the object is meant to be a knobbly, non homogenous, planet. Those bits of white, red and blue in the diagram are meant to illustrate the heterogeneity of the thing. The curved lines are meant to be lines of field and the whole point as explained in the main text of the article is that verticals may not even be straight. 2. Can you please tell me why you removed my reference to the spirit level? The spirit level is an obvious tool to check if a plane is horizontal. So why did you remove that reference? 3. You mention "a massive

]

Shanker Pur - I took a quick look at the article and note that Andy is right in challenging it under

talk) 20:19, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply

]

hello NealeFamily. Good to get a wider view. Are you proposing that the article

WP:OR. In any case, I do not think it right that my illustrations be selectively removed by Andy Dingley even if the rest of the article was under suspicion of [[WP:OR}}. I think the article is fine and says things equivalent to "Paris is the capital of France" i.e attributable, even if not attributed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shanker Pur (talk • contribs) 21:47, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply

]

It's not

Horizontal versus vertical. Andy Dingley (talk) 22:54, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply

]

But it is from the article

Horizontal plane? Shanker Pur (talk) 00:24, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply

]

Although with your recent additions,

Horizontal plane is getting to be nearly as bad. Andy Dingley (talk) 00:24, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply

]

Perhaps, you could help improve it. Shanker Pur (talk) 01:30, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

My suggestion if you, Shanker Pur, want to improve the article - cite references that support the facts as stated. I guess you could sum up the reason with the statement prove it. Probably that may be to simple - more like prove that some authority/reference work agrees with the statements made. To give you an example of what I mean, take a look at the article

talk) 07:40, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply

]

Anthony Seldon

I suggest

]

Three hoax articles: two deleted already, one userified and still advising the sending of seals by post. Two nonsense redirects, which at RfD were advised as "should be speedy". Some simple vandalism to an existing article. An attack page and a retalitory AfD. So far I see one positive edit alone. How much clearer a sign would you like? Andy Dingley (talk) 16:12, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If you feel so strongly about it, perhaps action at

WP:ANI is more appropriate. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 16:26, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply

]

Article Feedback deployment

Hey Andy Dingley; I'm dropping you this note because you've used

]

Andy, I'm trying to understand some of the basic features of Wikipedia...sorry to hit you with this question, but if you would indulge I will be grateful. Recently, an edit was done to the Bugatti page deleting a reference to Steve Jobs. I believe the edit to have been correct (though I could be wrong). My purpose for writing you is that, even though the history indicates that you reverted the edit in question (at least that's my reading of it), the reference to Steve Jobs remains unseen. Am I misunderstanding the history? Shaypic (talk) 01:04, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

What relevance does Steve Jobs have to Bugatti? Andy Dingley (talk) 01:21, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

We don't need an article that says, "TV screens weren't actually blank for this period, but there's nothing worth saying about what was broadcast".

		The Barnstar of Good Humor
		Methinks thou hast spoken sooth, dude. Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 02:33, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You asked me to come talk to you, and then you put the twinkle remover so my comments will automatically be removed. Wanted to post one last message to say that I tried to come talk to you.

If you ever decided that you want to get into sailing, you know where to find duckers. They are all over the world, I am sure some are close to where you live and they will welcome you with open arms. Maybe after you build your own boat and met with other duckers to go sailing, you would see what a wonderful experience it is and want to help the cause. With your help, other new people wanting to get into sailing can also know who duckers are and where to find them.

Cheap, creative and having fun on the water. -- Buthsop (talk) 15:06, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, thanks for dropping by.

I'm sorry that you think I'm some evil deletionist out to wipe your article – I'm not. I don't even have a problem with Puddle Duck Racer as it was, before Bilby improved it. As you say, not my area of knowledge, so I tend to be generous with such things. However there is no way that such a minor vessel can be relevant to the valuable real estate at Boat. It was your edit-warring over this that led to the initial reversions, not the notability of the Puddle Duck.

Puddle Duck looks like its relevance to other articles is most about dinghy sailing. So how about working on dinghy to improve that? There's scope for a section in there about low-budget entry-level sailing. There might even be scope for a section on the Puddle Duck racing series, if this is taking off as a one-marque series.

WP:OSE might answer the question you're already thinking. Why is Puddle Duck being picked on from Boat when there are other low-significance links still in there? The answer is simple: some editors saw Puddle Duck, no-one has yet dealt with the others. Maybe that's something you'd be interested in working on too? One of WP's problems is that specific, named vessels get good coverage, but broad articles like Boat or (Steamboat / Steamship / Steam yacht

) have really poor coverage. There's lot of scope for improvement to these and, as you noted, it's helpful to have this from people who know the subject.

As to sailing personally, that's unlikely. I live on the world's second highest tidal range and it's not dinghy territory out there (see Severn bore). My great-grandfather drowned in it, and he had an engine room. If I was going to build a boat, it would be an Edwardian steam yacht, with enough surplus power to make headway against a tide! Andy Dingley (talk) 16:03, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"Why is Puddle Duck being picked on from Boat when there are other low-significance links still in there?" You got it buddy! Now that you have become familiar with the duck and it's goal of bringing boating to the masses in a way that is free, also with the goal of being an introductory boat (not meant to exclude any other boats), plus it's undisputed title of being the easiest boat in the world to build, surely it would warrant consideration for being included on the boat page. These elements combined with your immense skill at editing here on wikipedia could result in helping thousands of people.

Due to my limited understanding of technology, I am very limited in what I can do here. You, with your great skill, could be a champion of duckers everywhere. They are real people, every single one of them has uploaded a picture of their boat, many of them are in the picture with their boat and have additional pictures of themselves and stories of stuff they have done in the duck community.

I understand the need to clean up and remove garbage, organize in a logical manner. This is an opportunity for you to help create, to bring notice to something that deserves to be noticed, an effort that brings people together to accomplish fun times together in the real world. So how about it, will you make the effort to get viewers of the boat page to talk about considering the idea of having the Puddle Duck Racer link on the boat page? Buthsop (talk) 16:53, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Talking about that steam powered boat you would like to build, something you could do is put a steam powered engine in a puddle duck. I looked up where you live, there are thousands of kilometers of canals and waterways that surround you, and what fun times it would be to explore those in your steam powere duck. To celebrate the launching of your duck, you could invite the other duckers to come meet you with their ducks to get out on the water together, surely would be the start of new friendships. Going further beyond that, you could explore those canals with other duckers and even spend the night aboard your duck. Another ducker near you in England uses a Seagull outboard, I am sure he would enjoy coming along with you, and that engine is rich in English history.

To know of all this potential fun and to meet other duckers, would need to know the link to the website.

To sum up your efforts so far, you have deleted the link to the puddle duck racer, nominated the club's wiki page for deletion, submitted me for removal from wikipedia. After Bilby cleaned up the pdracer page, you went there to delete a red line, and delete a link from the puddle duck page to the daysailor page. You have also made it clear that you will delete any attempt I make to try and help get more visibility for the puddle ducks, and you have setup automatic robots to delete the contributions that I make.

You explain above that the only reason for your efforts to delete are because you viewed me as warring, and now you can see the value of the puddle duck. So I ask, at what point are you going to contribute? Buthsop (talk) 14:46, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Buthsop. Instaead of making (false) accusations and assuming bad faith, you should ask yourself why a total of 5 experienced editors have removed your link at the boat page. Is the whole wiki-world against you or might it be that you're simply wrong and it's up to you to change your approach? On WP we don't promote things; we don't promote a single dingy design and we don't promote sailing in general.

talk) 15:52, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply

]

Yes, 5 people deleted the link, 0 have talked about the merits of the link and whether it deserves to be included. That would mean... 5 deletionists went about their ways of deleting stuff, just for the sake of deleting. As far as my summary of your actions, anyone can see the accuracy of my statements by viewing our respective logs.

Anyone with common sense knows the purpose of Wikipedia is to collect and share information. But just in case, I read the purpose of wikipedia page and it confirmed this.

The Puddle Duck Racer is unique in that it is the easiest boat in the world to build. There is a page here called boat, surely that boat page should somehow include information about the easiest one to build. I freely admit I am an idiot, do not know the ways of wikipedia, and I am probably including the information on the page in an improper manner. You agreed with me in your statements above, the pdracer does have merit. Looking at the history of the boat page, you have edited it over the years and even made edits that subsequently include the pdracer link, so that in itself says you do approve of the link. The question now is, how should it be properly included on the boat page?

There is a section called boat materials, but not really a section on the page that explains there is a HUGE movement of people that build their own boats (numerous examples), so do you think this new section should be included? You mention you are not happy with some of the other sections of the page and can see it needs to be cleaned up in other ways too. I ask you (clearly an expert, great skill and power in this wiki realm), will you now help contribute to the knowledge that Wikipedia, the greatest website on the planet, which wishes to collect and share with the world? Surely for someone of your skill, finding the proper way to include the puddle duck information on the boat page would be a trivial matter, and you would be able to maintain that information for a length of time and prevent it from whisked away by deletionists.

As you pointed out, the deletionists out number me and my efforts are easily swept away. But at least I tried to contribute. And the people I tried to help are real, some of them live very close to where you live. When they stumble upon this conversation, they will see that I tried to help them. Buthsop (talk) 16:53, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Andy, You seem to have endorsed the Meccano robot in Industrial_robot. But does it truly meet the ISO criterion of being reprogrammable? George Devol's first industrial robot had a computer and a programming language. I'm worried about this. A big paragraph and possibly trivial? Robotics1 (talk) 20:42, 17 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oh just delete the thing. The robotics project is so far up its own arse I no longer give a damn. Inventing your own post facto definitions and applying them years out of context grows tiresome after so many times around the block.

ooh! I understand how you feel. It's been abandoned by all the serious editors. I was kind of thinking of the industrial robot article as being the one page you could rely on as factually correct, a rock amongst all that enthusiast crp. The ISO definition is genuine though isn't it? I remember checking it a while back. I'll give it some thought before I do anything drastic. I'll see if I can find anything as a citation. Robotics1 (talk) 21:00, 17 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't abandon robotics articles, I was attacked for doing big rewrites on some articles that desperately needed it, because "I wasn't a member of the robotics project". Fuck that.

who are the members of the robotics project? Is Chaosdruid a member? Apart from him they are fictitious ghosts in the background. I added the paragraphs on repeatability that were desperately needed and some other small edits but never had contact with anyone. The robotics project page has not been touched for a year. People move on. Me too but still keep an eye on the industrial robot page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Robotics1 (talk • contribs) 21:42, 17 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, could you please provide a source for the 30 ml which you reinstated in your revert? The only source I could find was a removed paragraph in the page history that had a "citation needed" flag. --Janschejbal (talk)

Look at the page history, this was just a vandalism revert. If you wish to restore the vandalism, please go ahead. Also please explain how you get 10g of gum arabic to dissolve in 3ml of water, an aspect that's known to be so difficult in practice that most mixers add alcohol to assist it. The Cube Cola recipe (see

open source cola) needs 40ml to achieve solution. Andy Dingley (talk) 09:54, 21 March 2013 (UTC)[reply

]

I had already reverted the vandalism before, and I provided a source for the 3 ml. The original source as archived on archive.org matches that, too. Thanks for the new revert, I am fine with the current version (3 ml + note that it probably should be 30 ml) and I hope noone deletes that section again due to being "unencyclopedic". --Janschejbal (talk)

Thanks. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 13:47, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Would you mind not uncentring the image captions? They're much tidier when centred.Keith-264 (talk) 18:59, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

(

MOS:CAPTION states "The text of captions should not be specially formatted (with italics, for example), except in ways that would apply if it occurred in the main text." Therefore, if the captions are to be centred, the main text must also be. --Redrose64 (talk) 20:03, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply

]

Centring a caption isn't special, it's conventional.Keith-264 (talk) 22:06, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Image captions should be coded as their default rendering (otherwise we demand a vast amount of pointless work). If you believe that captions are best centred (which is a reasonable POV), then this should be achieved by changing the image's behaviour, within MediaWiki and the WP CSS skins, not having to code each one indivdually in articles. Andy Dingley (talk) 14:23, 24 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks that's helpful, er how is it done?Keith-264 (talk) 14:38, 24 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The idea of getting MediaWiki to change anything presentational like this is "intimidating" to say the least. If this did happen, it would almost certainly happen through the WP CSS (which would be dead easy). I'd suggest raising this at the talk for

WP:Village Pump (Technical)

.

On the whole though, I think you're trying to change something with major established inertia behind it. That's not going to be easy. Andy Dingley (talk) 14:45, 24 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Here's me thinking it was a simple matter of aesthetics, I thought I was doing everyone a favour. "the WP CSS skins, not having to code each one indivdually", I haven't got a clue what this means, I assume it's a technical term for people who can programme a computer.Keith-264 (talk) 17:11, 24 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It is undesirable to have a few pages inconsistent with the majority. It is also a huge task to add <center>...</center> to several million individual image captions - it is far more efficient to make the change centrally. Files such as this one (there are several others) contain the styling for all of Wikipedia; the styling is put into centralised files so that the whole site may have a consistent appearance. It's the class combination .mw-content-ltr .thumbcaption that would need to be amended; it presently has the property text-align:left; but we could make the change for the whole of English Wikipedia at one stroke by adding one line to MediaWiki:Common.css:

.mw-content-ltr .thumbcaption { text-align:center; }

You can test its effect by adding exactly the same line to Special:MyPage/common.css, as I did here. That will centre the captions for every thumb image (and many infobox images as well), but it would affect yourself only - nobody else. --Redrose64 (talk) 18:10, 24 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like a good idea, where would I start?Keith-264 (talk) 18:56, 24 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Andy Dingley suggests raising it at

WP:MULTI it's best to have just one discussion, but that doesn't stop you from putting notices on the other page(s) directing people to the main thread. In that main thread, it's probably a good idea to add a link back to this thread so that others may see where the idea originated. --Redrose64 (talk) 20:08, 24 March 2013 (UTC)[reply

]

Steam engines

It bis clear on the steam engine talk page that you do not have miuch of a technically. That is a fact by your writings. You think you an authority on this subject which is laughable. You are reverting on YOUR POV not fact or references. Leave the article alone. 188.223.226.180 (talk) 14:18, 24 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The links you deleted on Lake District by making a rollback of my edits are not spam, so please selfrevert. One of the links leads to a *.gov.uk site belonging to the Lake District National Park and was restored to the page by me after someone else deleted it, and the link to Visitcumbria.com isn't spam either, as you could see on the Village Pump and my talk page (which you must have read or you wouldn't have found the discussion on/at the Village Pump). Thomas.W (talk) 19:34, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

How does this EL meet

WP:EL ? Andy Dingley (talk) 20:50, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply

]

Have you even visited the site? Or rather the sites, in plural, since you removed two links, one of them being a link to the official website of the Lake District National Park (Lake District National Park is a redirect to the article named Lake District), a type of external link that is expressly allowed. Which you would have known if you yourself had read

WP:Village Pump (policy). Thomas.W (talk) 21:26, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply

]

HTML is extended from SGMLguid, not SGML. It is an SGML application. SGML itself is not a markup language at all, like HTML, but a language to write markup language definitions in. SGMLguid is not "one of arguably many precursors to HTML". It is the one and only markup language that HTML was extended from, initially by adding the anchor tag. See http://infomesh.net/html/history/early/ --rtc (talk) 18:35, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Andy. You're the expert on tubular bridges and I'm not, but it seemed to me that some mention should be made of the Chepstow bridge in that article. I hope you can tweak it, if it needs to be rewritten to make more sense. Ghmyrtle (talk) 15:49, 31 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I need to finish off the

tubular girder bridge by many measures, but it's still a long way from being a tubular bridge by the Stephenson standards of Conwy or Menai. Chepstow, especially in comparison to the Royal Albert Bridge, is still a suspension bridge, albeit an unusual form of one. If you can wait a couple of days, I'll make Brunel truss live. Andy Dingley (talk) 21:11, 31 March 2013 (UTC)[reply

]

Ivor Waters' Chepstow Miscellany has a map annotated as "Tubular Bridge". I still wouldn't use this term, as confusion with the clearly distinctive Stephenson tubes would be bad, but it shows that the sources do exist for this. Andy Dingley (talk) 21:19, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sure that the Chepstow bridge was described at the time of its construction, and later, as a "tubular" bridge. I don't think it's just Waters' name for it, though he did write a booklet called "Brunel's Tubular Suspension Bridge", which is the terminology I've seen repeated elsewhere. I could check sources in the library if it helps. Ghmyrtle (talk) 21:53, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Named cranes, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. DexDor (talk) 05:38, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I was just looking at the recent edits to Wikipedia:Pledges and found one by an editor named Rememberway, which seemed quite impractical to me, as I couldn't see anyone following it. I wanted to ask Rememberway, but when I saw that he is now blocked, I considered removing it. But then, I saw you speak up for him on his talk page, despite differences you had, and felt that incidentally you were acting in the same selfless spirit as Rememberway's pledge. So I decided to ask your opinion, first. Do you think it is a practical pledge that we should keep in the essay? — Sebastian 02:12, 7 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Andy ! if you remember you are the first person to welcome me on wikipedia in Jan 2013 . I would like to ask you for a favour if you are willing to spend some time on me and my edits in the field of engineering particularly. and later on adopt me or suggest me an adoptee who is experienced particularly in thermal and mechanical engineering ? Thank you for your time and effort in advance Ghorpaapi (talk) 12:34, 11 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Ghorpaapi, I'm happy to cast an eye over the article you're working on. As to adoption, then there are other people who do more of this than I do – I see that some have already popped up on your talk page. Worm That Turned also has a good reputation for adoption and mentoring. Any specific questions you have though, just ask away. Andy Dingley (talk) 10:58, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Andy, for the suggestions. I guess I will work on the articles in the beginning preferably before being adopted. Ghorpaapi (talk) 07:24, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ghorpaapi (talk) 10:18, 19 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Andy,
Please see User talk:Peter Horn#Nameplate. Peter Horn User talk 01:33, 20 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The guidelines are quite clear in regards to unsourced material; Any material lacking a reliable source directly supporting it may be removed. The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material. ChakaKong^talk 14:06, 20 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This change can make connections safer. Also, this change doesn't make anything goes wrong, it's harmless to any users. --Someone's Moving Castle 02:09, 21 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sorted. --Redrose64 (talk) 09:49, 21 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• I have opened a discussion at
  talk) 14:48, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply
  ]

There is no conceivable NPOV reason to exempt only the ARRL from the provision to use DMOZ for all external links on that article. If the ARRL is allowed to be listed outside of DMOZ then all national amateur radio societies are also entitled to be listed in the same way. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 20:47, 24 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Half a second of navigation within the DMOZ listing yields a comprehensive list of amateur radio societies: [4]. Keeps the EL section of the article from becoming a dumping ground for everybody's favorite ham org. or link. - LuckyLouie (talk) 20:53, 24 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The difference is that the ARRL (and also the RSGB) are not only a national membership organisation, but they've also taken a leading technical role in developing amateur radio itself.

DMOZ is just a dead project and best ignored. Andy Dingley (talk) 21:15, 24 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm trying to improve Help:Searching, but another user who has added an excess of disorganized geek detail (written in not-so-good English) seems to think that he owns the page. I told him that he can "own" the geek detail, but I want to fix the overview summary (intro.) at the top of the page. I'd appreciate 3rd opinions. LittleBen (talk) 18:06, 27 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

We appear to be having a minor edit war. There used to be an article titled "Plain Old Semantic HTML" (POSH). This described how POSH was the use of HTML for content, and not for presentation. POSH includes avoiding <b>, <i>, <br>, tables for presentation, etc. In 2010, the article was converted to a #REDIRECT to a section in the article Microformat. In 2011, this section was deleted. Since then, as far as I can tell, the only place POSH is defined is on the disambiguation page, POSH#Computing. A reader searching for "Plain Old Semantic HTML" will want to read a description of what it is. Pointing readers to a disambiguation page seems strange but, I would suggest, this is the best way to help readers. A better way would be to mention POSH on the page Semantic HTML. The problem with this, however, is that POSH is not notable, only ever having been used by the microformats community. Let me know what you think. (Please respond here.) HairyWombat 18:33, 28 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Later. Don't respond here. See you at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion. HairyWombat 18:47, 28 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Andy - you tagged this article over two years ago but there has been little improvement. I have raised it as non-notable WP:Notability/Noticeboard#Hovercraft_.22Dragonfly.22 and I think it should be deleted, but your input would be welcome. Wikiwayman (talk) 13:33, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Andy, I have just added my support for your comments on Admin Notice Board. It does seem that this unregistered editor will not listen to consensus and had made some nasty comments on the contribution of the Free French and others. I really fail to see why he cannot abide by Wikipedia rules and conduct. Regards, David, David J Johnson (talk) 22:39, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited

.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 15:00, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If I recall correctly, I deleted this material as spam because it appeared to have been added by the publisher as part of a campaign to add links and "references" to his own self-published material in many different articles. ElKevbo (talk) 15:54, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

But did you read it?

If we are to see publishers as "the enemy", then the risk is that we create yet another group that's antagonistic to WP. We do quite enough of this already.

There is no

WP:EL (and this one does, there's a substantial portion of a relevant, copyrighted, book made available to us), then it shouldn't make any difference to us how many links they post – indeed, the more they have to offer, the more gracious and grateful we ought to be. If any of these are "spam", then we have to judge that per link, based on the value of the material they add. Andy Dingley (talk) 16:38, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply

]

I think the burden is on those who believe that resources added en mass by an editor with a

COI

are indeed useful resources for readers. This is particularly true when the editor who added the resource has made no other significant edits aside from adding such materials, actions that are indistinguishable from someone interested more in self-promotion than in contributing to encyclopedia articles. This, of course, sets aside any discussion of whether such a resource is better used to actually add material to the article instead of being (often lazily, IMHO) added to an ever-growing list of "Further reading" resources that have no clear criteria for inclusion.

In any case, I have no objection if you believe this particular book is added to the article but I am assuming that your edit is an endorsement of the material and that you yourself have evaluated it as a useful addition to the article. ElKevbo (talk) 17:39, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

WP is far to quick to see an "interest" and assume that is implicitly a "conflict of interest". There is content that we can benefit from and we should welcome it: sometimes as article content, but it's also valid to add useful ELs (and yes, I'm familiar with EL). We shouldn't be too quick to attack content suppliers who add too much, simply for adding too much of it. Andy Dingley (talk) 18:00, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Hovercraft "Dragonfly" 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/Hovercraft "Dragonfly" 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 notice from the top of the article. Wikiwayman (talk) 14:54, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I responded to your revert on the talk page. LFaraone 00:47, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

]

I'm aware of trademarks, although I'm not even sure this is registered as one. We're describing it as a technology article, not specifically as an ARM trademark and a commercial issue. Also MOS TM is widely ignored when it suits the massed fanboys: iPad etc. being the most obvious.

The reason for keeping it on

big.Little even in compliance with strict MOS/TM either. Andy Dingley (talk) 08:57, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply

]

thanks :)

Been dealing with that clown on the sandpaper article for about 5min ... went to report him and see u already did. - thank u — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kap 7 (talk • contribs) 11:02, 7 May 2013 (UTC) Kap 7 (talk) 11:04, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ordinary locomotives are hot at one and cold the the other.

If such a locomotive stalls in a tunnel such as Swan View Tunnel, the crew can "always" escape via the cold end.

locomotives are hot at both ends, and if such a locomotive stalls in a tunnel, escape is problematic.

Hot would mean the temperature of water boiling at pressure, which may well exceed 100 degrees.

Articles about tunnels and Garratts do not explain this in so many words, because it is reasonably "bleeding obvious."

The big ordinary 57 class also had restrictions about running through small single line tunnels such as the Coal Cliff tunnel.

Please therefore unrevert your changes to the article. Tabletop (talk) 23:12, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

which begs the question has Tabletop actually read the ASG royal commission report - in relation to the issues? if you know of an online copy - please share it with us... :) as for anything being bleeding obvious in relation to the ASG and the issues surrounding it - there is nothing in the archives that I work in , in Western Australia that has a reasonably succinct summary as to all of the issues of the reasons for the royal commission - or the later regulation upon the class of loco.

sats 02:16, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply

]

It's all nonsense, and it's just as much nonsense as it was last time Tabletop tried to push this invented claim everywhere.

First of all, per policy, it needs external sourcing. Not just Tabletop's opinion and, to be fair, not yours or mine either.

Secondly, I doubt that Tabletop has ever worked around steam engines. They're lagged. Boiler barrels and cylinders are just not that hot. I've walked closely past plenty of them, stuck my hand on plenty of them, and although I wouldn't recommend this long-term, there is no way that it's going to stop me escaping from a tunnel. Firebox sides and smokeboxes are a different matter, but they apply equally to other loco types too.

It's possible that there's simply a lack of physical space within the tunnel. These Garratts had wide cylinders, certainly, and it might be that the tunnel was simply very close to the loading gauge. Yet that definitely needs a supporting reference (presumably the commission's report would give this in detail, if it were relevant). Also it's not a Garratt-specific issue. It would apply equally well to any powerful loco in a narrow tunnel.

All in all, this is far from neutral axe-grinding with nothing to back it up. Andy Dingley (talk) 02:32, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am quoting from someone who seems to have vast and reliable knowledge about especially locomotive operations and has stacks and stack of books, magazines and other literature on the topic. These things mostly predate the internet and are not easy to wade through.

The Coal Cliff tunnel was no doubt built in the 1880s to the original narrower 1855 structure gauge, while the 57 and 60 classes were no doubt built to the wider 1910 loading gauge. However the tunnel does not appear to have been widened to suit. Since the change is only 12 inches, it is difficult to tell by looking from a moving train that the tunnel has been widened to suit the 57 class; you would have to be a civil (Perway) engineer with access to the plan room or survey's reports. Tabletop (talk) 09:54, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

My seemingly expert friend also mentioned a point (that you fail to mention at all) that non-garratt locomotives have some cool air under the footplate that covers the join between the loco and tender. This plate can be raised for some relief from the heat. A garratt has hot steam pipes under the footplate, and less cool air underneath. Tabletop (talk) 10:00, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You're perhaps "quoting" from someone, but you're not citing someone. The difference is that citations are checkable afterwards.

If there's an issue with cylinder size getting very close to the loading gauge, then this might indeed make access difficult. However that's not a problem specifically with Garratts. In fact the Garratt layout (more cylinders, so they're generally smaller) and easier access over the top of the tanks would improve access in such a case.

Also if it's "difficult to tell", then that makes it difficult to make such a claim. As the person making the claim, this is your problem. If you can't back a claim up, even if it's known to be "a truth universally acknowledged", then you might not ever get to make such a claim, and we're all the worse for it. That's a shame, but on the whole we work better that way, than by allowing unsubstantiated claims to be added all over the place. Andy Dingley (talk) 10:02, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Swan View Tunnel issues were such that an external up line was built around the hill to solve issues, and they were not Garratt related, the royal commission documentation is so littered with union posturing that it is worth half a years rendering it into wikisource I think... specially to dispel some of the claims that seem to arise from the florid press the various tunnel accidents seemed to get...

sats 10:07, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply

]

---

Today I bought a secondhand copy of the Victorian and NSW Curve and Gradient Books, which appear to show tunnels as well.

These NSW book has no ISBN.

The Victorian Book has no index.

The two(?) tunnels on Bendigo line are not shown because these page(s) are missing.

The NSW book appears to have a hand-made cover and binding, with the owner's name "K.J.Charlton" and title written by hand.

It does have an index.

The Coal Cliff tunnel is on page 10, but is hard to read because it is in the fold between pages 10 and 11.

Here are some useful facts:

The gradient through the Coal Cliff tunnel is 1 in 100 in the down direction.

The ruling gradient past Waterfall in both directions is 1 in 80 since no (significant) gradient is steeper.

Therefore the tunnel gradient is slightly less, 80%, of the ruling gradient.

The slope of the tunnel may favour the original flow of traffic, but not necessarily the later flow of traffic.

Past the tunnel the line drops, but it is hard to read because of small print and excessive detail in the fold mentioned above.

Superficially at least this tunnel could have been made more level if it had been a bit longer.

There are, however, no notices such as "By order" or "Copyright" that might indicate that this is in any way an official publication.

The gradient through short tunnels remains at the ruling grade of 1 in 80.

The gradient through the longish New Helensburg tunnel (say 600m) eases to 1 in 100.

I have never seen any Curve and Gradient books for the other smaller states, though they surely would have been useful to locomotive drivers.

Regarding the deviation around the Swan Hill tunnel, the whole line from Perth to Northam, perhaps 100 miles was duplicated at this time.

The Victoria C&G book has an ISBN, is published by the Association of Railway Enthusiasts, but shows nothing to indicate that it is official.

• So, nothing about the Garratt design then. Andy Dingley (talk) 11:42, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You accuse me of "POV pushing". Do you really believe that some guy on an online forum known only as "aargee" is a

]

aargee or aarrggh? "Aarrgghh" is a friend of mine and an expert on diesel motorbikes. "Ian the Animal" knows fork design better than anyone and has Japanese race teams pay him lots of money as a result. That's bikers for you – don't let the names fool you.

Of course I don't think this is WP:RS. However that's not an insurmountable problem. First of all if doesn't have to be RS. There is no blanket ban on non-RS sources being used, merely a requirement that claims are, or are also, supported by adequate RS. You were at liberty to find such RS, to add them or even to replace what's there. I'm not trying to defend that source – feel free to remove it, no complaints from me.

However when you removed the source, you also removed the claim. A claim that is very far from contentious and has many, many very RS sources available to back it up. You didn't use any of these, you just removed the statement altogether. Didn't even tag it (admittedly these things are a bit pointless) as requiring a source, lest it be removed imminently.

I still remember your actions, along with BikerBiker, when a new editor BridgeBoy was hounded off the project for editing around cylinder layouts. The actions of the two of you were a far from edifying spectacle: heavily POV, against all evidence to the contrary, using sources or their lack as a lever against other editors, rather than for illumination or to improve an article, and seemingly concerned far more about "winning the argument" against another editor than you were about producing good articles. Neither of your actions was up to the standard expected by the project and you should both be ashamed.

The issue here is that "parallel twin" is regularly used as an established term for 360º four-stroke engines with parallel piston movement, rather than merely parallel cylinders. This is easy to demonstrate (although you still seem keen to remove all mention of it). Now I've always use the term for such engines, and I was surprised to find out during the first set of changes that the term is also used substantially to describe the broader case of merely two parallel cylinders (of any timing). I'm thus happy to change my viewpoint and admit that we have to cover the term more broadly. I don't see why you, despite plentiful sources beyond the one you, quite rightly, complained about are still seeing to remove the term, not just this one source. Andy Dingley (talk) 09:56, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This is easy to demonstrate (although you still seem keen to remove all mention of it).

All well and good. Demonstrate it. The

onus

of providing verification is on the person adding the information, and online forums/fora/whatever the plural of "forum" is don't cut it.

I just double-checked: it's "aargee". Either way it doesn't matter, whethere it's "aargee", "aarghh", "SamBlob", or whatsoever, a handle on an online forum cannot be assumed to be an expert. Someone giving his full name and giving replies on behalf of a magazine (as in the new citation) is more likely to get the benefit of the doubt.

As for the earlier incident I don't know what regrets you think I should have about it, but I don't have them, and I don't care to acquire them. Bridge Boy chose the silver box and got what the silver box promised.

Actually, I am more likely to pull the trigger on unverified statements trying to introduce unfamiliar terminology because I cannot tell if it is another MalcolmMacdonald, TomRawlinson, M-72, R69S, Bridge Boy, or other miscreant trying to push their respective agenda.

Sincerely, SamBlob (talk) 17:18, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Could you take a look a this edit in particular and perhaps the recent changes to

]

I remember that freaky 1-bit MCU, because I bought one of them (1990?) and thought it would be a laugh to program it. It wasn't. I think it's still in the workshop though, doing timing on my UV EPROM eraser (which hasn't seen power in a decade or so either).

I'm not an 8051 expert, but I know it does (like most such) have good bit-based operations. These could certainly be said to emulate the 14500, but then so could any competent processor and I could probably even whittle one out of wood that did this much. AFAIR, the 8051 didn't have anything resembling a "1 bit processor" in its architecture and it didn't have any specific 1-bit bus features. All that it did have (and these were really quite neat and handy, I used them plenty myself) were a set of additional instruction opcodes of the form "Jump if bit n set", rather than just the usual JZ/JNZ/JC type stuff. What they meant was that a bit-test-and-jump instruction became a one-word opcode (didn't even need data to indicate the bit, there were separate opcodes for each), rather than a two instruction, three word opcode. They were indeed handy for high-speed serial bit-banging.

Is this an "embedded 1-bit processor"? No. Is this an "embedded 1-bit architecture"? No. At most, it's "extra opcodes to support bit operations". Worth a text note, but it's not a feature for architecture lists or defining categorization. Andy Dingley (talk) 18:14, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

See User talk:Tagremover#8031/8051: 1-bit architecture? --Guy Macon (talk) 00:56, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have just acquired a secondhand copy of the above booklet by Bayley. It is a very environmentally friendly booklet, since to reduce the number of trees that have to be chopped down for its paper, and to reduce deadweight, it doesn't have a list of contents, or an index. Nor is there a blank page to write one's own contents or index, other than by using a loose shhet they would easily get lost.

The Swan View Tunnel is mentioned on page 54, and it says that:

... Wartime traffic in 1945 demanded more effective facilities and it was decided to build an additional line around the hill pierced by the old tunnel, involving a cutting 34 feet deep...

The book does not explain which war was meant by "1945 war".

It will also be necessary to read the tea-leaves to ascertain what "additional line" means. Maybe he means cable haulage on the 1 in 48 of the Wapping Tunnel of 1830 on the Liverpool and Manchester Railway (See same book p3). Tabletop (talk) 10:17, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It's a bypass round a spur, branching off just before the tunnel and returning just after (going uphill), and is level. I've got some photos of the area if needed. "Roads of Leicester"? Made me laugh... Ning-ning (talk) 11:57, 17 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Call it "Road in Leicester" then. I just want to get something up for New Walk. I don't know if there are any others worth recording. Andy Dingley (talk) 12:06, 17 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, it wasn't the singularity I found funny! Anyway, Aylestone Road has an article- maybe Gallowtree Gate, Horsefair Street, Highcross Street and Sanvey Gate. I'll have a look later ( typing this on a furshlugginer iopd). Ning-ning (talk) 13:24, 17 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, you added an SPI notice to this users talk page but have not added the user to the SPI page for investigation. noq (talk) 14:28, 20 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Feel free to help! I'd rather been hoping that Twinkle would push the paperwork for me, but it seems not. See

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/HSRtrack and that old favourite, Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Tobias Conradi. Andy Dingley (talk) 16:24, 20 May 2013 (UTC)[reply

]

A problem

Hi. It's a problem (of style and of notability) because we are in talk page discussing about merge the article, and this repetition of info from another article (the one proposed to be merged in) don't help to centre de discussion in the relevant issues of the biography itself. --Sageo (talk) 18:00, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

....an article you prodded some months ago: the prod has been contested, and the article has duly been restored. Cheers. Lectonar (talk) 13:34, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Domestic heating, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. DexDor (talk) 05:48, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Andy, I obviously stimulated interest in the list. I understand what you are trying to do but qusestion whether the list is actually improved by separating the diameter attribute, especially when it would sort by Diameter anyway (as long as Diameter given first. I am adding some more info to some entries and will post it in the old format. Please do not take it personally , but I think you will agree that the list as a whole will probably be better with the dimensions in a single column--Petebutt (talk) 23:17, 28 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Much of this was inspired by simply wishing to lose the text "diameter" from the column itself, to save width on what's already a wide table.

I have little interest in their length or weight (mind you, someone, somewhere will want to use these) but diameter is pretty crucial to torpedoes and is one of their main groupings. Andy Dingley (talk) 23:51, 28 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately that has only increased pressure on the other columns. Lets see what it is like after I have finished what I am doing.--Petebutt (talk) 02:31, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure what was up with her, she sounded healthy as she passed me at Condover so I'm not sure... CrossHouses (talk) 19:59, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Andy

My apologies if I am stepping on any toes in editing this article. I have an experience based understanding surrounding the topic, but am attempting to gain more of an academic knowledge on the finer points of HTML. All I hope to achieve is to make a meaningful contribution to the greater knowledge base on the topic. I am not trying to start an edit war, but simply hope to improve on what is already being said :) One way I hope to do so is to rewrite the article in a standardized language format. I see now that in my attempt to do this, I have been inadvertently mucking up some of the finer points surrounding the lingo. I apologize for this, and will cease to do so immediately. I do however ask that you allow me to make some mistakes, and to learn from them. Your corrections have already sent me scouring the internet for more in-depth reading on topics I thought I understood well, and if that is all I take away form this, it would have been time well spent. In any event, I will continue to enhance the article as I see fit, with the understanding that you and other editors will alert me if my edits are causing any misinformation to slip into the article. If you would be so kind as to consider each edit before reverting all my edits at once, or helping me correct my mistakes, I would be ever grateful. — Preceding unsigned comment added by PhunderMerwe (talk • contribs) 17:57, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Everything you have added is wrong. You have added it repeatedly. If you do not understand the topic, and if you do not add any sourcing (as required per

WP:RS), then please do not add this incorrect content to it. Andy Dingley (talk) 23:17, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply

]

Refutal

Andy,
About dolly (trailer) please see my replies at User talk:Peter Horn#June 2013. Peter Horn User talk 14:35, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi - I am putting together an article on the

]

It sounds like Commons:Category:Water-powered beam engines is going to be involved here too.

I'd not heard of these things until recently. I knew of Wanlockhead, but that was the only one. Now we're up to at least four or five.

Don't worry about contradictions. We do tend to worry too much about consistency sometimes, and lose clarity as a result. Readers aren't stupid, they understand the limitations of language. A beam engine article that begins, "A beam engine is a type of steam engine" is a reasonable opening statement and we can clarify the exceptions later, or in the other articles. Mind you, I'd want to get "early" and "with a beam" into there, if it were me. Newcomen or water power don't invalidate this as an opening statement.

Write a good narrative. Write a "story" that takes a naive reader in at one end and leaves them at the other end having learned something solid that they can remember. Worry about what they retain afterwards, and achieve this by what and how you tell them. Don't worry about trifling consistency with other articles or uses of terms.

I would link to either

rotative beam engines (the use of linear motion to produce rotary motion) than they are to nodding donkeys

(the use of rotary motion to produce linear motion, in a culture that now has cheap, small rotary engines and motors available). That's the crucial aspect here - nodding donkeys are a hundred and twenty (-ish) years later.

For scope of your article, I'm not sure about

Coultershaw beam pump

- would it be better to describe the overall pumping station there, with a section on the beam pump? This allows much more context as to why there was a pump there, and what it supplied, not just the narrow technical aspect of the unusual pump. It would also be possible (and I'd certainly welcome it) to write an article on these water-powered pumps in general, as there seem to be a few around. That would be an article with a broader readership too, although I can see how the research would be harder across the separate sites. There's no reason why both articles can't exist.

Name should probably be

Coultershaw Beam Pump

(Title Case), unless you have sources for it being used as a proper noun.

I look forward to reading this, good luck with it. Andy Dingley (talk) 09:38, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Can't really add much more to this.

As Andy has hinted, a 'beam engine' is perhaps generally thought of as a steam (-powered) engine, possibly through lack of awareness of other power sources, possibly because there are more of them still in existence.

The way Wikipedia (and Wikimedia Commons) tend to like a hierarchy of articles/categories means that you can get tied-up in terminology trying to describe something literally (for Wikipedia) that people generally understand using less precise terms. The result is that article development can stall (as has happened at Beam engine, I guess).

Good luck with creating the article, and feel free to post on our talk pages when you want some proof-reading done!

EdJogg (talk) 13:21, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks guys for your very interesting and helpful comments. I have changed the re-direct on

]

Oh, this is the place with the screw turbine? Definitely cover that! Quite interesting gadget, I was looking at pics of it recently. Andy Dingley (talk) 09:51, 8 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Andy,
Would this be acceptable? Peter Horn User talk 20:19, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It's certainly better, but even here I'm not going to stand up and say, "Please add it".

This is just the wrong question. Asking "Of all the pages on this website, which one has the best chance of not being deleted on sight?" is clearly an action intended first and foremost to make that website appear as a link, more than it is about improving articles, or improving articles by adding relevant additional resources. As such it is clearly against the spirit of

WP:EL. We are not here to be a directory. We are certainly not here to be a forum for improving the visibility of any particular vendor. This is a game I simply refuse to engage with. Andy Dingley (talk) 21:04, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply

]

Problem is that verifiable technical info appears to be available from the manufacturers. See this one. Peter Horn User talk 02:04, 8 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Andy, I assure you that I am taking your comments on board with each edit. Could you please stick to discussing the text, and avoid personal attacks? I find the repeated accusations of edit warring and comments such as "WTF", "edit warring tendentious vandal", "get something resembling a technical clue", "A random rag-bag of Google-droppings with no coherent thought" and "you have the nerve to start hatcheting other articles" quite hurtful. Regards,

]

I find hatchet jobs on articles that don't deserve it pretty hurtful too. Not a great fan of edit-warring with no basis either. Andy Dingley (talk) 23:41, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

G'day from Oz; your edit to Titanine Ltd. added a ref from Flight magazine, but the URL is for an advertisement for a fire tender. Leaving aside the issue of the suitability of using an advertisement as a ref (presuming it was an ad for Titanine that you wanted to link), you'd better find the correct page and redo the reflink. Cheers YSSYguy (talk) 08:06, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, thanks. I added a bunch of links from Flight yesterday, must have pasted the wrong one.

Flight was pretty good on ads in this period. There's a tradition there of news-themed ads from plane makers. When an aircraft had its first flight, or some new record set, lots of the plane and component makers would do a one-off ad celebrating this. Andy Dingley (talk) 09:36, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Andy, thanks for your comments. You might want to consider what is going on in the context of this - Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Europefan. --Biker Biker (talk) 12:30, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You might note that I was one of those contributing to that SPI.

I'm less concerned about the sockpuppeting than I am about these nationalist categories in general. I've repeatedly tried to raise this issue across a range of WP:FORUMS, with no success. These things are always a nuisance and we still have no clear policy for several aspects of inclusion. Andy Dingley (talk) 12:33, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Andy : have you ever cut a gear ? I've been doing this for, oh ... 38 years. I *have* cut continuous-tooth herringbone gears as well as double-helicals (which have a clearance groove down the center.) If you look in Dudley (Handbook of Modern Gear Design ? I am in China now and don't have access to my books)you will see that this is the accepted terminology by people who know what they are talking about.

Even worse is *this* - "the alignment may be staggered, so that tooth tip meets tooth trough. The latter alignment is the unique defining characteristic of a Wuest type herringbone gear, named after its inventor." How can you even call that a herringbone ? The teeth are offset by half a tooth space and don't even resemble herringbones. I won't go into what a dumb design the "wuest" is but anyhow, it's going to be about as popular as the novikoff and wildhaber non-conjugate forms that never took off. If you want to talk weird crap, there's plenty of that in the gear world but it's my own opinion that wikipedia should stick to mainstream designs when discussing mainstream topics. If someone wants to create an article about the "wuest gear" that sounds fine but they are not herringbone gears anymore than a spiral bevel is a wormgear just because the teeth are curved. Different animules ....

If you cut gears, a continuous tooth gear is called a herringbone (or sometimes a Sykes gear, after the most common machines they were made on) and an opposed-helix 30* right-and-left helical with a clearance gap in the center is a double helical. (They don't have to be 30* helicals but they almost always are.)

I'm not going to fight over it but if people who know anything read the article, they will be snickering.

Added: Looked a little deeper - the other reversions you made are not correct either. On the other hand, my changes were not all that great so I'm not what you'd call upset. The entire article is not very accurate. The "smoothness" of a helical is NOT because "multiple teeth enter and exit simultaneously" - if that happend there would be vibration up the kazoo. And in fact, if you draw the line of action you will see this is not possible. What happens with a well-designed helical is two things - one is that the contact ratio stays over 2, so you always have at least two teeth in mesh. That has several good effects which I'm not going to type here, it'd take me all night. The oother positive feature of helicals is that the teeth slide into mesh across the face, rather than bang bang bang across the entire face width at one time. Teeth bend under load so the unloaded teeth are not in the correct position relative to each other when the gearset is loaded. At the initial point of contact they actually hit each other (across the full face width in the case of spur gears)unless you have tip and root relief. This creates rough running. And if you do have tip and root relief, they don't mesh nicely when UNloaded. Can't win for losing :)

Anyway, I didn't want to rewrite the entire article but as it is, it's not very accurate.

210.22.142.82 (talk) 14:17, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Whether you or I have made gears just isn't the issue. Per policy, content in articles has to be independently sourced. Neither your or my prior knowledge counts for any of this. At most, such knowledge might produce a good article more quickly, but we still need to source externally for confirmation.

As it happens, I've cut only a handful of gears and not commercially. However I have also built production line machines that assembled and tested gears and gearboxes after their assembly, so I'm not entirely ignorant of them.

If you're going to change an article, go forwards with it. If it's wrong, fix it. Ideally with sources.

As to the specifics here, then I'd agree many of your points. Your phrasing change is better ("simultaneously" was certainly wrong) and if there really is a terminology difference for "double" and "grooved", then let's have that too.

As to the staggered form, then I know little of them. However they do exist, and they're within the scope of this article. Article titles are somewhat restrictive and it's common that scope will be wider than this. Add what you like here, but we can't just blank a section like this.

As to precision of the "solid V" form, then Citroen managed to make a rear axle bevel gear with them. They can't have been that crude - there's a bunch of sliding in such a gear and Citroen's lasted well. If you had any knowledge of their manufacture, I'd really love to hear it. Andy Dingley (talk) 02:01, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Citroen rear end gears would probaly not be called herringbone today ... although there's not much else that would describe them, either :) I would guess that the pinion was cut and the gears were cast. It is coneivable that you could cut something like that on a Sykes or Sunderland machine with a right-angle adapter but I'm not sure those existed then. How do you know how well a Citroen lasted ? have you ever owned one ? :)

Anyway, they are not a good example of anything because they were extremely rare. There were probably more Squires built. The Peugeout worm gear drive rear ends are more interesting and successful.

About the max accuracy you can expect from a Sykes machine is AGMA 9. Automotive gears today are commonly 10 or better. What is worse is that due to their shape the teeth are stiffer in the center than at the edges, so they don't bear the load evenly across the face no matter how accurate they might be. High performance double-helicals all have a center groove now for that reason, even if they could be made continuous-tooth. And of course you can't grind or shave or anything else on a tooth shaped like that. They used to lap them but that's not good, either. Lapping removes metal on the entering and exiting areas of the tooth face a lot more than it does around the pitch point because the rubbing speed is so much higher on entrance and exit.

Herringbones really aren't that good except for a few niche applications. Double helicals are much better. Check your Dudley :) (Darle Dudley, THE authority in the literature. There have probably been better gear engineers but Mr Dudley is the authority who did the most in print. He should have a wikipedia entry but I bet there isn't one ... even tho there is an entry for every rap song that placed above 50 on the pop charts. Encyclopedia, yeah :) )

I'm in the midst of installing two five-meter Maags for cutting double helicals right at this moment, so .... back to the shop. Enjoy yourself :) 210.22.142.82 (talk) 07:22, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

He won the Edward P. Connell award in 1958 from the American Gear Manufacturers Association, wrote "Practical Gear Design" first published 1954, and may or may not be the current president of Dudley Engineering- that appears to be the sum of searchable info. Maybe some trade mag gives a fuller bio (or he's acquired an obituary). I see the Marquese Scott article needs updating- apparently he's left Remote Kontrol. Ning-ning (talk) 07:43, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That Marquese Scott reference is pretty funny :) If I were god, that kind of thing would have no place in an encyclopaedia ... Dudley is not in that category, however. And as you noticed, it's not likely the one at Dudley Engineering is the original Dudley. That would make him ... oh, 90 years old at least. I think it's his son. Darle Original edited and wrote what were about the only reference books on gearing for decades. Analytical Mechanics of Gears by Buckingham was all math, the rest of the texts were all either edited or written by Darle D. Any gear shop that spoke English had a copy of Jones and Ryffel (Gear Design Simplified, I think) for a quick-n-dirty reference to the basic formulas and Gear Handbook and Handbook of Modern Gear Design (two separate reference books) by Dudley for deeper insight. A real gear person will recognize the name instantly.

But he dooesn't have a youtube channel :)

None of this makes a double-helical into a herringbone, by the way ... they are *not* the same thing. Nor does it make a Woosey-Goosey into a herringbone. Wikipedia has a tendency to be slipshod :( 210.22.142.82 (talk) 00:52, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A touch of confirmation : look at http://akrongear.com/cutting.html and notice how they specifically differentiate between "Sykes herringbone gears" and double helicals. This is common among people who actually cut gears. We get sick of people asking for the wrong thing. Amateurs, on the other hand .... 210.22.142.82 (talk) 04:33, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Why did you redirect the term

]

Read the edit and it should be obvious.

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article

.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kings Weston Action Group 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 notice from the top of the article. SP-KP (talk) 11:22, 16 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Andy, I read a comment in the talk section for the metal we're calling "Gilding Metal" and I think we're calling it the wrong thing. Other sources are calling it "Gliding Metal", which I think is the right name. It is the alloy used for parts that glide past each other. Please take a look at some of the material on the web and see if you agree.Longinus876 (talk) 22:00, 16 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"Other sources" - feel free to add them. Andy Dingley (talk) 22:04, 16 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It isnt a nationality, its an ethnic group. Any ideas why you call it a nationality? Please expand..... Murry1975 (talk) 19:28, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Why are you claiming that it doesn't exist? or that Parsons, and his family connection to the Lord of Rosse, doesn't meet it? The mere name of a template parameter is no RS for anything! Andy Dingley (talk) 19:30, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It is not a nationality, its an ethnicity, your edit is incorrect and misleading, the template has a parameter for ethnicity (its filled in with..... Anglo-Irish). Murry1975 (talk) 19:39, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There is no 'ethnicity' parameter in this template. However there is a nationality parameter. Andy Dingley (talk) 19:42, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Charles_Algernon_Parsons&oldid=559435047&diff=prev shows right below nationality- ethnicity-then fields. And again Anglo-Irish is not a nationality, and your edit is wrong. Murry1975 (talk) 19:47, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There is no 'ethnicity' parameter in the template {{Infobox scientist}}. If someone has added one to the article text that's optimistic of them, but (for the third time) there is no 'ethnicity' parameter in this template and it ain't going to work. Andy Dingley (talk) 19:51, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well then use his nationality in the nationality feild, that is what its there for. Not a ethnic group, as per

WP:MOSBIO. Murry1975 (talk) 19:59, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply

]

And from infobox scientist "citizenship= Scientist's citizenship. nationality= Use if nationality not the same as citizenship above". Murry1975 (talk) 20:06, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Anglo-Irish is more specific, clearer for our readers and more relevant for Parsons. Andy Dingley (talk) 20:31, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply

]

Its not a nationality.

Wipe your eyes and read. Murry1975 (talk) 20:35, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply

]

It's not even an ethnic group. It's a socio-economic classification. You might as well say that his nationality was "landed gentry" or "robber baron" or "plantation owner". The Science Museum describes him as English, the American Society of Mechanical Engineers calls him British, Britannica calls him British, Cambridge University describes him as " one of the greatest engineers that this country has ever produced". I'm not sure that his (or anyone's) nationality is particularly relevant, but why is his social stratum "even more" relevant? He was born in London, and spent a couple of years in Ireland but the rest of his life in England. Any Irish ethnicity, if it can be established, might be worth a passing mention in his biog, but it's not relevant to his invention and is certainly not his nationality. You could hardly find a better example of Anglo-Irish Protestant Ascendancy than the Dublin-born Duke of Wellington, and Wikipedia describes him as "British". Parsons was even more so. Amandabum (talk) 12:16, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Even better. The Parsons family was of English descent, so Irish ethnicity don't enter into it. Bit like saying someone is Anglo-Spanish because they've got a timeshare. Amandabum (talk) 12:39, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Anglo-Irish is a specific ethnic group, which included peers, lords and the upper class in Ireland at the time. It is commonly used where appropriate. It is not appropriate as a nationality, but it is notable as the ethnicicty of a person as it would contribute to is notability, most in his day would not have had the education or finances to be engineers or scientists. As for the Duke, in the very first line it indeed mentions Anglo-Irish. Murry1975 (talk) 13:17, 16 June 2013 (UTC)[reply

]

That link describes the Anglo-Irish as a "privileged social class", which isn't a million miles from "socio-economic classification", if you ask me. It says it right there. There's no suggestion they were an ethnic group. Privileged social classes enjoy certain advantages, but that doesn't make them an ethnic group. The Dook could claim to be both British and Irish, in view of the year of his birth. Sure, the article mentions the Anglo-Irish but doesn't make out a case for ethnicity. It says on more than one occasion that Wellington was British. But there's no point in arguing about ethnicity. The issue is that they're not a nationality. References to Parsons's nationality being Anglo-Irish seem to be largely based on the Wiki article, which isn't usually a good omen. Parsons was British, and Andy's got it wrong. Amandabum (talk) 10:23, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It's clearly an ethnic group, as they were of a distinct heritage and didn't intermarry locally. This group also carried privilege with it, although not to all of its members and its definition is broader and based on inheritance, rather than inherited wealth. Andy Dingley (talk) 10:30, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"It's clearly an ethnic group", as my point above why use it as his nationality, however I do agree that it is notable, again as I have mentioned above, and I do believe it should be in the lead.

@Amanda, please resolve through discussion and consensus (this could take a long time but thats how it works) instead of

edit warring, as your account seems new, and solely based on one edit style, discussion would be your best route. Murry1975 (talk) 17:31, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply

]

I feel no strong need to conform to a narrow definition of nationality vs ethnicity, just because of a template parameter name.

"British" is not an interesting nationality. There are plenty of Brits, very little value to enumerating them. However in some cases, Parsons is one, then there's a substantial additional value given to an article by highlighting some subdivision within this (which I'm happy to call "ethnicity") and doing so within the highlighted infobox, because it's that important. This applies to some of the Anglo-Irish, like Parsons or Wilde, it also applies too to

Ugandan Asians who form a distinct group within UK society that has a characteristic aspect with an interesting and encyclopedic history. These are just the sort of things that a good encyclopedia, as opposed to a formulaic one written by machine, would cover in detail. Andy Dingley (talk) 18:36, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply

]

But the parameter is there as qouted above about what should be filled in the nationlity field. A POV that ethnicity can be entered is incorrect, opposed to guidelines and consensus, just because you view it as more interesting. I am reverting as per consensus in biography articles. Any further discussion should take place at the relevant wiki project page, please inform me if you start a thread, thank you. Murry1975 (talk) 19:59, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult for editors. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help find a resolution. The thread is "deadmaus, deadmau5". Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you! EarwigBot ^{operator / talk} 03:11, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There is currently a discussion at ANI. AN3 admins may be reluctant to get into the matter when those at ANI have already looked at it. Would you consider withdrawing the AN3 complaint? Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 23:33, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

So not only does Malleus get a free pass for AN3, he gets one specifically because he's also on the carpet at ANI? Andy Dingley (talk) 23:35, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Dennis Brown surely knows how to count reverts if he thinks that a block for 3RR should be considered. Taking the same complaint to AN3 is like asking the other parent. I'm not impressed by the reported behavior, but we are used to thousands of words being spilled over trivia and maybe we don't have to do that this time. EdJohnston (talk) 23:44, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If m'learned friends at AN3 wish to close this, then so be it. Let them do so. Andy Dingley (talk) 23:54, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Kindly be specific. WHERE did I describe you as an "asshole"? Anywhere? Ever? Nope, I don't think so. I have said absolutely NOTHING about you anywhere ever at all at any time. Please leave your WikiLawyering to someone else's Talk Page, I'm not interested in your speculations. =//= Johnny Squeaky 21:48, 23 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

[5] Andy Dingley (talk) 23:09, 23 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Andy, I'm not sure where you got the idea I called you an "asshole", I just don't see that anywhere. Can you provide a reference where I called you an "asshole"? Not really sure what you're talking about, but really, I think you and "Span" need to step back and take a deep breath. I really think you need to take a look at your own ego trip and personal motivations in "pounding" my talk page with such unkind and quite frankly, aggressive comments. Seriously, Andy, I'm sure you can round up an Admin to "slap" me for you, but really, what you need to do is step back and take a deep breath and devote your energies to something worthwhile. By the way, I am not really impressed with WikiLawyering, really you should make your case with common sense, if you can. Listen, "Andy", if you can not be a gentleman, don't post on my Talk Page again. I'll simply delete it without reading it, your efforts wasted. By far the best way to work out disputes is to have CIVIL dialog. If you can't do that, go gripe someplace else. =//= Johnny Squeaky 22:36, 23 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there,

I recently added an external link to both Piston & solenoid valves. I am not quite sure why they are deemed as spammy like you said, one is a link to a tutorial on solenoid valves, furthering the readers knowledge with the second being a look at Piston Valves, have you clicked through to the articles or just seen the name 'forum' in the URL and deemed it as spam? I can assure you it isn't.

Regards

Alex Wall — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alexjwall91 (talk • contribs) 12:25, 27 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Alex, thanks for discussing this. Yes, I did read the articles. I always do. Please read

WP:EL

, as it explains the basis for when it's acceptable to add an EL. The confusion is usually that WP is not meant to be a directory of links, even good links. It's an encyclopedia: if something is worth saying, say it on the page. We should not link to stuff when it ought to be in the article anyway. Maybe some of this could be added to the article, then use the site as a reference (rather than an EL) to support it.

There are a few other issues.

WP:ELNO

has a real downer on any site calling itself a "forum". I don't see that as a big issue here, but others would. Also your own editing history - adding a bunch of links to the same site - is the same as that added by a lot of real spammers, so auto-sniffing your edits is likely to be flagged up by 'bots as suspicious.

I don't see your link additions as spammy, but I don't see them as being detailed enough to meet

WP:EL either. Maybe the butterfly valve one, which is why I left it. Piston valve and solenoid valve though, that sort of comment ought to go straight into our articles, rather than being linked, and the EL site can be used as a reference to support it. Andy Dingley (talk) 12:34, 27 June 2013 (UTC)[reply

]

Toynbee article

Terrible article, but I think you should remove the PROD as it is a known 'law'.[6] [7] (which calls it a well-known law). It is however a bad article, pov and written by an author with a COI.

]

Redirected to

talk) 14:33, 28 June 2013 (UTC)[reply

]

[ec]

I'm leaving it proded, because it's a bad article. I suspect that although Toynbee's law exists, I doubt if this article is a fair statement of it (I've researched enough to judge the first, but not the second). In the nature of such eponymous laws, they're going to be either little more than WP:MADEUP with elbow patches, or they'll be widespread and trivially sourceable. Although we should have an article on this, it's better (per

WP:V

) to have no article than an article so dubious, when it could easily be of at least an acceptable standard.

If this article was on the ethology of the sasquatch, I'd be happpier to leave it unsourced. That's a hard topic to find sources for. This is an easy topic to find sources for, and they should have been used by now. Andy Dingley (talk) 14:37, 28 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't replace un-cited and irrelevant material without an explanation. If you have questions about my edits, please post them to the article talk page or my own talk page. Or, at the very least, provide a useful edit summary. -- Mikeblas (talk) 03:22, 29 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You tagged the whole article for speedy deletion as a copyio, after one bad copy-paste edit by a passing IP. You've now repeatedly blanked the only sections in this article that add any content above that of a parts catalogue. You've made no positive edits to this article. Are you familiar with

WP:IMPERFECT? We don't expect all content to arrive fully sourced and perfectly written. When it isn't, we work to improve it, we don't simply blank it on a personal whim. We certainly don't repeat the same blankings over and over. Andy Dingley (talk) 07:57, 29 June 2013 (UTC)[reply

]

The sections that you were referring to are original research and have been uncited for more than two years. They're likely impossible to site since they're speculative and referenced. With those OR sections removed, more than half the article was copyvio. You removed the copyvio and reverted the edits while I was probing to see if the rest of the article was plagiarized. I've made several improvements to the article, but you've unilaterally reverted them when you decided to throw the baby out with the bathwater. Removing bad content is improving the corpus--it lets us focus on the topics that are savlabeable and meaningful, rather than the content that is hopelessly flawed and unrecoverable. -- Mikeblas (talk) 19:28, 29 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The page needs to be brought back to life. I don't think this needs much explanation...he's a Duke. I read the deletion thread and it doesn't look serious at all to me--can't a senior wikipedia editor override it?Zigzig20s (talk) 02:11, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I raised this at ANI last night, WP:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Alexander_Montagu.2C_13th_Duke_of_Manchester_and_canvassing_at_Wikipediocracy, mostly in regards to the talk: page reply to you having been deleted. The ANI thread was closed an hour after it was opened.

It seems a new problem that Wikipediocracy are calling the shots at WP. However there is still the old problem that admins are faultless, and any attempt to challenge that is resisted. Andy Dingley (talk) 09:55, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure why you contacted me about this. I've never heard of Chris Alexander (nothing against him). I edited content on the page for Cris Alexander -a different person. 68.8.57.249 (talk) 16:49, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No-one has touched the Cris Alexander page, nor is there any evidence that anyone has contacted you. Andy Dingley (talk) 17:22, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Tracked armoured recovery vehicles by country, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. DexDor (talk) 06:19, 13 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• As i suggested in my last revert. Lets not edit war here eh?
  talk) 00:32, 17 July 2013 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Parent cat

The parent category of a category is not added to a page. The page already is member of that parent categpory. -DePiep (talk) 13:09, 17 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Eponymous categories have their lead article page categorized, just as if the page was alone and there was no category. This gives consistent behaviour for pages, it gives a visible category browsing footer on the article page and it avoids a confusion where most readers get very confused about the difference between navigating to pages on a category page or navigating to categories. Andy Dingley (talk) 13:20, 17 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I see, this is an existing option. -DePiep (talk) 13:38, 17 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• re [8]: As I explained in the es: "cat:X gauge in country Y" have their own category tree: Category:Track gauge by country. The ".. in Britain" cat is now the only exception in the tree with sizes only (no other country is in there). And correctly, all its members (one page only) is in the "15in" category also. It should stay there. -DePiep (talk) 13:31, 17 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

	The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar
	For your great job defending Wikipedia against Wikipediocracy! LiquidWater 17:55, 17 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The best way to "defend the wiki" is to write and curate quality content. We at Wikipediocracy are merely loyal opposition, trying to improve the encyclopedia by finding its internal flaws. Although our founder is Gregory Kohs, we are not a moonlith of opinion; most of us believe that all efforts should be made to reform Wikipedia rather than destroy it. You, with your excessive bureaucracy and process, are the ones destroying the encyclopedia. LiquidWater, you have only written six stub articles. I have written twenty-one, all start-class or higher, and most members of the site that must not be named have even more content contributions than me. Wikipediocracy is the true defender of the wiki, outclassing you by orders of magnitude. Wer900 • talk 19:32, 17 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Not considering the fact that almost all of Wikipediocracy is harassment, trolling and outing, that is. LiquidWater 19:43, 17 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You're both welcome to join the forum and criticize our users. We are in favor of freedom of opinion. Wer900 • talk 19:51, 17 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• I've just re-closed that thread. We are in an impossible situation here. The community is divided over this, as is the oversight team, and ArbCom has refused to take a case on it. A thread at a noticeboard is unfortunately not going to change any of that. So, "regular" admins expect OS to do something, which we won't because arbcom, whose functionaries we are, refuses to give appropriate guidance. That leaves the broader community. I can't imagine a big policy RFC on this issue being anything but a complete three-ring-drama-circus but that would appear to be the only remaining option. I don't think I'll be doing that, I've had enough of giant RFCs for a while, but if you or anyone else is considering it I would advise you to read
  talk) 23:14, 17 July 2013 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Wikipediocracy

I agree. Unlike Encyclopedia Dramatica, what I have read of Wikipediocracy (which is only in Wikipedia) is not humorous; it is malicious. My own position is a minority position, which is that anyone posting a link to Wikipediocracy should be blocked temporarily as a warning. I would politely ask that you take down those links, because illustrating malicious behavior encourages it. Please do not feed the trolls. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:55, 17 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Is that a threat to block me for having raised this? Andy Dingley (talk) 01:01, 17 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I don't read it that way, but I think Robert has a point about not linking to the posts - the Streisand Effect of doing so outweighs any benefits. There's no point adding to the damage that's already being done. And on a related issue, please see your email. Prioryman (talk) 06:30, 17 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If I'd raised this issue without evidence it would have rightly been dismissed. Bollocks to this "Streisand Effect". That has already been used repeatedly to excuse Wikipediocracy and to stifle any attempt to rein them in. I was outed by them recently, and my complaints about it were dismissed because "I had a COI" if complaining about my own treatment. Yet the deletion on request of the Alexander Montagu, 13th Duke of Manchester article is seemingly OK and not a COI! So here, when I saw yet another pretty egregious piece of outing, I saw it as time to act against Wikipediocracy. This sort of trolling has gone on too far already.

As to "look at my email", then which one? My obvious email has been full for some weeks now with a troll spoofing supposed Wiki emails and usually calling for me to be blocked about twice a week. They don't seem to have caught this one yet though. Andy Dingley (talk) 09:09, 17 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I totally understand what you're saying and I agree that there is a viable arbitration enforcement issue here. However, Sandstein's comments on AN have convinced me that it needs to be dealt with by Arbcom rather than in public, to avoid further damaging the victim. I think as a matter of basic ethics it would be best to avoid causing further harm. I closed and hatted the AN thread you started (apologies for any treading on toes in the process) for precisely that reason. I'm not going to do the same with your AE request, but to avoid further damaging the victim's privacy I'd advise withdrawing it. The Wikipediocracy post was patently intended to stir up drama here; don't let that succeed. Sandstein is right - send your enforcement request to Arbcom and let them sort it out. Prioryman (talk) 10:35, 17 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have zero faith in Arbcom, the moment they get to close the door and discuss (or not) in camera. WP:AE has to get some sort of public response, email can just be ignored or flanneled. There comes a point (and Wikipediocracy is there) when we have to start standing up in public. Andy Dingley (talk) 11:08, 17 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Andy, I wholeheartedly agree. Not about ArbCom (for whom I have nothing but the deepest sympathy) but about standing up for what you value. I guess we just have different values. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 16:11, 17 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

What do you value? And if you value keeping Wikipedia going, you should not be making posts like you have made, about Wikipedians being racist Klu Klux Klan member batshit shitnuts. LiquidWater 16:47, 17 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I can't understand what you are trying to say, but I suspect it can safely be ignored. I think we both want the same thing - a WP where anyone can edit (except some people). We just disagree on which people. You think it should be me, and I think it should be people like the ones I write blog posts about. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 18:45, 17 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think people who repeatedly out and harass Wikipedians should edit WP. LiquidWater 18:57, 17 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

We probably agree over the virtues of motherhood and apple pie too, but don't pretend that means you're getting a Christmas card.

I see two regrettable aspects to your outing:

• We have no outlaws here (in the original and literal sense of the term). NPA, OUTING, CIVIL etc. all still apply, even to the most odious of editors. They do not stop applying because you find a specific editor, or their views, to be beyond the pale. This is one of the absolute pillars here and it is a crucial aspect of maintaining any sort of collegial editing environment.
• If an editor's behaviour does make them unfit to edit here, then raise it on WP. There are channels for doing so. If their behaviour breaks the accepted rules for WP (which do not include censorship of political views, no matter how much you dislike them), then they might warrant blocks, bans whatever. You could ask your colleagues at Wikipediocracy about this – after all, many of them are under just such bans.

Wikipediocracy rightly raises some valid criticisms of Wikipedia. However its methods for doing so have made it even worse itself. In no way do I support Wikipediocracy's unaccountable lynch mob mentality. Andy Dingley (talk) 17:43, 17 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It seems like many of the people who edit Wikipediocracy are just jealous and hateful of Wikipedia because of what it has accomplished. LiquidWater 17:54, 17 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Andy, I think you've just had firsthand experience of raising your concerns through the appropriate channels on WP. That should help you to understand why I have chosen to do things a different way. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 18:49, 17 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• The obvious reaction: http://wikipediocracy.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=8&t=2658 Andy Dingley (talk) 11:08, 17 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Also this:

• "Why does this Andy Dingleberry have such a hate boner for WO?"
• "Andy Dingleberry"
• Andy Dingleberry (talk · contribs)
• Vigilant (talk · contribs)
• Adny D1ngg1eb3rry (talk · contribs)

Is interesting. Nice to put a face to one's trolls from time to time. Andy Dingley (talk) 11:11, 17 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Nice to see you're not shy about linking to Wikipediocracy when it suits you. Lucky that Rich Farmborough is on an enforced vacation or he'd have you at ANI and would be screaming to have your talk page oversighted, like he did with me. It's a slippery slope with BADSITES link prohibitions, isn't it???Carrite (talk) 07:48, 18 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The cat is long out of the bag and there's little virtue in pretending that WO doesn't exist. The more editors who realise that there is a problem, the more hope we have that there will be a remedy. Andy Dingley (talk) 07:54, 18 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You're obviously not a big believer in the Streisand effect since you single-handedly restarted the latest permutation of shrieking and hand-wringing with your ill-considered AN thread, thereby providing massive publicity to that which you profess abhorrence. The fact is that it is Wikipedia's cult of anonymity that is out of step with the real world, not the real world that is out of step with Wikipedia. I reckon that is hard to see, but if you start talking to non-Wikipedians about "the encyclopedia anyone can edit without real life consequences," and the abuses inevitably flowing therefrom, it should become clear that "outing" is only part of the equation and the culture which allows abusive anonymous editing at least as much if not more of the problem. WP is miles and miles away from the real solution to this, which is real-name registration and sign-in-to-edit, but that is the solution and no amount of recycled BADSITES histrionics is going to do more than stick a bandaid on the problem, in my opinion... best, —Tim Davenport /// Carrite (talk) 20:00, 18 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Andy, I think you're raising some very good points about Wikipediocracy. I have been reading the site for about a month, and I'm really shocked by a lot of what's written by Wikipedia editors on that page. Why do they edit WP if they are constantly making allegations, outing and harassing editors? Doesn't sound too constructive to me. BTW, i'd be more than happy to assist you with setting up a case :) LiquidWater 16:05, 17 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

In general, they don't edit WP, as they've mostly been banned or indef blocked. Just cross-ref a few of the names. I expected a few, but I was surprised at just how many.

I can understand how already banned WP editors would wash up on "the island of broken toys", but I'm more concerned about those who still act as WP editors (even one admin), and who are seeking the very letter of the law in terms of some aspects of an AE ruling, whilst still feeling free to abuse every policy for collegial behaviour and using WO as a safe platform to do so. Andy Dingley (talk) 17:31, 17 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I totally agree. Who is the admin BTW? Just curious ;) LiquidWater 17:39, 17 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

(

talk 12:47, 18 July 2013 (UTC)[reply

]

Teh Communitah^TM is clearly not amused. Wer900 • talk 17:17, 18 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You given an honorable mention here. John lilburne (talk) 20:36, 18 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've restored it, but the big problem was that it read sort of like promotional material.

]

Then we need to fix it, but it's too big a subject to ignore. Thanks for restoring it. Andy Dingley (talk) 10:16, 20 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, thanks for reverting your revert. I realized that "postwar" might not be clear, so I added the date. When I started populating this list, way back when, it seemed clear that there needed to be some dividing line to keep the length manageable. Since automotive production was interrupted in much of the West during World War II, I thought it made sense to cut it off there, especially since the history of many early marques (and the question of what is a separate model) gets very blurry at times. So 1945 it is. I'm working on a list of post-'45 V-8 cars, too, but that will have to be its own page; it's wayyy too long. Anyway, thanks, and sorry for any confusion. I was not trying to be rude. Sacxpert (talk) 18:47, 26 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"Postwar" here means 1918 - read the article. The article scope and structure is now defined so that the 1930s, the heyday of the V12, are missing altogether.

I don't plan doing any further work on the Charles Pierre Melly article. I do have thoughts on doing articles on historic notables here in Bradford.

The reason I started it was because I recently came across a Charles P Melly (former) drinking fountain in Peel Park, Bradford close to where I live. I am interested in doing articles on parks and districts in Bradford and have done a few. Having updated the Peel Park page it left some red unlinked text and I thought the best way to get rid of it was to start the Charles P Melly page.

I have met few notable people but one such was George Melly himself (and John Chilton's? Foot-tappers) in Middlesbrough town hall crypt in 1979 (he'd been there before) when I was on the lighting crew. He insisted that during one of his songs that we avoid pulling the plug on the stroboscopic light he used during that routine - as that sometimes happened too early to everybody's embarrassment. I was on the plug, (there was no switch on the in-line socket) but fortunately it wasn't my decision - it was the local theatre's stage manager on the portable lighting desk who was making the decision as I was largely unsighted. Had it been down to me, he might have finished his song with a period of blackout. At the end of the concert he made a point of thanking us both for getting it right - but I kept quiet.

I recall George cautioning his audience against the lager as they would be not be buying it - merely renting it. I believe the lager there then was Stella Artois. - Stuffed cat (talk) 13:58, 27 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't know about drinking fountains in Bradford. He did though pay for a good many fountains in Liverpool - all very similar pink granite bowls. These are mostly unnamed, having lost their inscriptions, but they're still known as "Melly fountains". Andy Dingley (talk) 15:14, 27 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please explain (nicely) why you reverted my edit on the article Continuous track. The "Advantages" and "Disadvantages" sections are considered a pro-con list under

]

Evidently you aren't aware of

WP:EDITWARRING

or the convention of posting to the bottom of a talk page, not halfway through an archive list either.

Please read Wikipedia:Pro and con lists, the essay (not policy) that is pointed at by your added tag. This points out (controversially) the drawbacks of a "pro and con list", mostly related to their fragmentary nature, and how to avoid this by rewriting as prose rather than a list. Even more controversial is whether this is appropriate in all cases: in many cases, a list is simple and straightforward, without introducing the problem of fragmentation.

There is also the problem of drive-by tagging (as you're doing). Tags don't improve articles. Editors improve articles. If you have an issue with an article, you could of course have edited it to fix the problem, rather than just hanging an out of order sign on it.

Mostly though, read the essay that you linked to: lists are bad, prose is good. This article is already using prose. You've tagged it as, "This article sucks. It must be re-written to be like this article".

Andy Dingley (talk) 19:39, 30 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Your comments are noted.

Much apreciated if you could also have words with the operator of ContinuityBot, as that bot in particular does not seem to recognize the point of view you espouse, in relation to items tagged for commons.

Sfan00 IMG (talk) 11:05, 3 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not aware of ContinuityBot, thanks, but if something is hard to do (and has to be done on a case-by-case basis, not by blanket policy) then this is really not the sort of thing a 'bot should be doing. Andy Dingley (talk) 11:08, 3 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Example - http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=File:Challenge_vs_skill.jpg&action=history. I am getting tired of what seems to be turning into a slow motion edit-war with a bot. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 11:19, 3 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If you think that, than I would strongly suggest you raise it with the Bot Approvals Group,

as concerns about ContinuityBot have been raised on it's Operator's talk page. (It was for example de-tagging FFD keeps, where there had been a reasonable consensus in SUPPORT of transfer) Sfan00 IMG (talk) 11:12, 3 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The same view about case-by-case probably goes for 'pusedo-bots' as well. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 11:09, 3 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Side note. Any chance of updating FFD guidelines, along the lines of .. ".. mere obseletion of a file by a superior version is not automatic grounds for listing here. " Sfan00 IMG (talk) 11:12, 3 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

post an 'edit war' message on my page that looks as if it came from an admin? I notice you don't have one on your page... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nitrobutane (talk • contribs) 13:11, 3 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please, learn the differences between hydraulics and pneumatics. Andy Dingley (talk) 19:52, 3 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

are you avoiding the question? why are you pretending to be an admin? this is unpleasant and vaguely menacing — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nitrobutane (talk • contribs) 01:52, 4 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The creator of the page was User:PhilipHMitchell talk. I'm not sure what purpose an OTRS ticket would serve, since the text is promotional enough to be speedied on that account alone. I'm happy to sandbox the text to you, the creator of the article or both, but even if the dollops of spam and peacockery were sorted out, it would probably fail on notability, so I don't know whether it's worth the effort. Let me know what you think Jimfbleak - talk to me? 13:04, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have no problem with the spelling being corrected. It's the incorrect "FIAT" I'm concerned with. TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 21:17, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've never seen the FIAT attached, but if even Eldredge had no problem with it, & since even Autocar is using it, who am I to argue? Rv, but do spellcheck it to the Italian variant? TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 21:41, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. 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.

Webbing stretcher (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added links pointing to Staple, Fulcrum, Hessian and Tack

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:53, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for removing the PROD template from Circular arc hull, and apparently from other such articles, too. Please tell me just what you are doing, and how you decide. --DThomsen8 (talk) 00:31, 18 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. There is a discussion at AfD on the subject that you may be interested in. Thanks, Deadbeef 05:10, 18 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Mr. Dingley. I was reading your account of "Ramsbottom safety valves" in Wikipedia's article on safety valves, when the text suddenly broke off:

"Mis-assembly of just this nature led to a fatal boiler explosion in 1909 at Cardiff on the Rhymney Railway, even though the boiler was almost new, at only eight months old.[24] The report of the inquiry into this accident was … "

So, what follows "this accident was" ?

When you inserted your text on Ramsbottom safety valves (on 26 September 2012), you appear to have copied and pasted from a text that you'd prepared; however, you didn't copy the entire original text, since the words after "this accident was" are missing. I hope that you still have the original text, so that you can fill the gap in the article.

I was impressed by the fruits of your research. Many thanks for sharing them. Cwkmail (talk) 07:12, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry there's a bit missing. The article (as a userspace draft) was deleted some time ago as a "duplicate" and I lost some of it (one reason why I no longer edit articles on WP, I create them offline). Although I did still have a partial version, I did lose some (mostly the whole section on marine use, for high-pressure boilers). I'll see if I can work out what the missing piece was by looking at the sources I would have used. Andy Dingley (talk) 09:20, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the kind remarks. Although I live only a few miles from Coultershaw, I have yet to actually visit the site. I'm in Spain for several weeks - on my return, I'll try to get over there and get some photos. -- Daemonic Kangaroo (talk) 10:13, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I see that you have reversed my deletion of this inappropriate phrase (used incorrectly in the intro) within 7 minutes here. No adequate justification for your actions are stated, self-published 2000s sources such as commercial sites - Ace Cafe - are not acceptable or convincing, not quite spam but they have a vested interest in promoting their name and general hype.

ThanQ for confirming you are watching this page - I had always anticipated an edit-war with 2 or 3 individuals, but not with you! I have added 'better source' tags - I expect you will delete these, too??!! Remember, I am writing this record for admins. Cafe racers did not exist in the 1960s and 1970s UK, period, no arguments. If you have any proper, contemporary sources you should quote them. The periodicals would be

).

The earliest UK ref I know of is Clay, 1988, book. Anything later is simply repetitive gravy-train profiteering and irrelevant, as is the trashy TV show. Also largely-irrelevant is the argument about cafe, caff - spelling and pronunciation, etc. as the bikes and people weren't called that, there is no evidence that they were. They weren't necessarily called cafe races - they were known as something different, which I will not quote here.

My earliest UK motorcycling source for Café (with accent) is 1962, referring to the BUILDING, not the people or bikes - no mention of cafe racer in the article. Cafe Racer is a total Americanism, along with rice-burner, hog, that sort of thing which I assume you know-well to be entirely Americanisms. I have now been working with an acknowledged US expert on this for some months, but I am not prepared to quote any US hard-published sources presently (earliest is 1969) as the pages need a major re-write without the risk of potential outside interference.

Yes, my OR - proper research, not relying on much-repeated unsourced corruptions. Some of the stuff I'm seeing is outrageous "..they raced from Inn to Inn..." If you know anything about M/Cs you will be able to recognise the several errors/anomalies in the ref by a car-journalist, Wally Wyss, here in the 1973 Practical Mechanics US general household mag often quoted.

When I consult Wikipedia for info, I want it to be right, and written by an expert - not someone who thinks it's OK as someone else must have been right previously, even though there's no adequate sourcing for any of it.

If you can prove just ONE 1960s UK source then I will shout "I'm not worthy...."

By continuing the 'cafe racer' myth, you are corrupting Wikipedia - those who do not know better will asssume it's gospel. Users are charged with maintaining the integrity of the site. The fact that you have not improved this Triton page with period refs is substance enough. Unsourced material should be removed. I will provide at least 2 1960s refs for my (dealer-supplied complete bikes) edits in due course (I often do this so please don't jump on me, as I have a life outside). But I will not graft to justify the content of the entire, unsourced article which has no indication of origins.

I look forward to your justification for citing Ace Cafe - a completely modern site, not having any relevance to prove dubious, supposed-1960s clichés! Can't see any period page-scans showing Cafe Racer quotations in print on Ace Cafe!! Rocknrollmancer (talk) 15:01, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

TL;DR

If you spent a fraction as long contributing content as you did woffling above, then things would be better all round.

"reversed my deletion [...] within 7 minutes", could be better phrased as "added a source" or even "added a source in no time at all"

"I will provide at least 2 1960s refs for my [...] edits in due course", so you insist on sourcing from others, but for you it's just "manyana"

" citing Ace Cafe - a completely modern site, " I'm afraid my Telex is broken and I don't have access to the Ace's 1950 web site. However I will take the Ace as a source for UK biker culture any day over some random wiki editor with

WP:OWN issues. Andy Dingley (talk) 15:14, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply

]

Ferguson TE20

Re your reversion of my edit to

]

No, although it's a notable topic and I hope someone does – I'd enjoy reading it.

The point is that Coventry is dull. Almost all UK readers will know at least that Coventry is "a town in the Midlands". That's about all that's worth knowing. Factories have to go somewhere. Workforces have to live somewhere. This isn't Coventry Climax or their Godiva engine, where Coventry has some non-obvious relevance. What does have a relevance though (even if WP is playing catch-up) is Banner Lane. Even the technical design of the TE20 engine is only how it is because of Banner Lane and its past history. Andy Dingley (talk) 11:55, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's bad practice to create a red link unless you intend to create the article in the near future. I've seen lots of red links that later turn into something completely irrelevant. If Coventry is too dull to warrant a link, I'd rather remove the link altogether. Biscuittin (talk) 12:02, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I like red links, because per

WP:REDLINK it's an indication that there's a topic but there's no article. Grooming the What links here list also allows the redlinks to be grouped to the same name, avoiding some risk of multiple targets developing for the same topic. I know we've disagreed in the past as to whether it was better to turn redlinks into redirects, although as there's a pretty relevant redir target here, I think a redirect is a perfectly adequate state until someone writes a specific article on Banner Lane. Andy Dingley (talk) 12:06, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply

]

For information, please see Talk:Banner Lane, Coventry. Biscuittin (talk) 12:57, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Andy Dingley. I'm contacting you because you're involved in the

in some way, either as a previous newsletter recipient or as an active user of the system. As you might have heard, a user recently anonymously disabled the feedback tool on 2,000 pages. We were unable to track or prevent this due to the lack of logging feature in AFT5. We're deeply sorry for this, as we know that quite a few users found the software very useful, and were using it on their articles.

We've now re-released the software, with the addition of a logging feature and restrictions on the ability to disable. Obviously, we're not going to automatically re-enable it on each article—we don't want to create a situation where it was enabled by users who have now moved on, and feedback would sit there unattended—but if you're interested in enabling it for your articles, it's pretty simple to do. Just go to the article you want to enable it on, click the "request feedback" link in the toolbox in the sidebar, and AFT5 will be enabled for that article.

Again, we're very sorry about this issue; hopefully it'll be smooth sailing after this :). If you have any questions, just

]

Helicopter

The edits I made were not utter trivia, The edits were just a ref — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.178.220.82 (talk) 18:01, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• It's trivia. Even for in-popular-culture literature, this is trivia. This is not literature based on helicopters, or with some memorable helicopterisation. This is not Apocalypse Now.
• It's unsourced. This needs secondary sourcing that says, "Artemis Fowl / Apocalypse Now represents a paradigm-shifting portrayal of the helicopter as an inherent part of the Vietnam / minor children's fiction popular perception."
• As always with IPC additions, it's not
  commutative
  . Any significance of helicopters to Artemis Fowl does not indicate a similar significance for Artemis Fowl to helicopters.

Andy Dingley (talk) 20:49, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there,

The changes I made to the Interpreter (computing) page, regarding CSS, was only to hide a non-constructive reference section from displaying on books/prints/pdfs. It was the suggested workaround (https://bugzilla.wikimedia.org/show_bug.cgi?id=48052). I hope I didn't do anything wrong (as I was planning to alter some other pages on compiler/programming languages in order to display them better on a print), and if I did, I'd like some guidance. :) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Paulo torrens (talk • contribs) 01:39, 9 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There is no reason to hard-code "do not print this" into sections of a page. These sections usually have an identifying class on them already, if not add one such as "sidebar" or "chapter-navbox" or whatever. Your CSS skin (which can also be easily customised per user as well) can then bind this class to the non-print behaviour. The difference is that this leaves the "sidebars shouldn't be printed" association in the hands of the presentation CSS (and its easy control by users), rather than making this an early and rigid decision that can't easily be altered.

As a particular issue, I not only don't see a need to not print external links, I'd actually recommend that the link URI becomes visible when printed. Paper obviously isn't a web browser, but the best fallback is to make the link visible, not to pretend there was no link in the first place.

Quite honestly, do whatever the hell you like. No one on WP understands CSS, or even cares to try and use it well. Andy Dingley (talk) 01:56, 9 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with you about the references; I actually did use the code to hide them because the links were not visible, because if they were it would be good even in a book. But on the Template:History_of_computing I really think it should be hidden, because that sidebar is not of any use in a book in any ways. Don't you agree? You seem to be experienced on editing here on Wikipedia, so I'd like to hear your opinion, because I don't wanna edit any pages if that won't be of any good to the community. :3 Paulo torrens (talk) 02:03, 9 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Whether a navbox like that should be printed depends on the context in which it is being read. Maybe sometimes it's useful – I can't know this, so I shouldn't try to make it impossible. There is certainly no need to make it impossible, but using markup like class=noprint does make it effectively unprintable in any context. It is much harder to reverse the effects of class=noprint for some particular context than it is to do it right in the first place.

Content and presentation should be separated and HTML / CSS does this fairly well, so long as self-taught web designers stop trying to break it. This has been around 15 years now – it is not rocket science or "unsupported in IE". Content should indicate "This is a sidebar". Presentation (user skin CSS) should map "sidebar" onto "no print". Just do it. It's not hard. This does not require widespread changes to deeply embedded WP templates to hard-code each one to be rigidly non-printing. Apart from anything else, it's far too much work to do it the wrong way (and to have to do it to each sidebar in turn). Andy Dingley (talk) 02:14, 9 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Got it. Thanks for the explanations, I will do as you said. Sorry for any inconveniences. :) Paulo torrens (talk) 02:32, 9 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Andy, I'm currently writing an article on the management of lists for the WikiProject Video Games Newsletter and in order to make it as neutral and helpful as possible, I was hoping to provide views from the other side of the spectrum from my own. Would you be interested in contributing a few paragraphs (1-2) to this article? It's due by October 3 so you have a little time to decide yet, but if you are interested then I'd be asking you to comment on how our discussion of the selection criteria used at "list of fictional badgers" and our inclusion of a lede works so well. If possible it might be nice to mention the praise we've received from The Guardian (linked at the article's talk page). You can see a draft of the article and where your contributions would be needed at User:Thibbs/Sandbox7 (just text search your username). Please let me know if you'd be willing to contribute to the newsletter. -Thibbs (talk) 15:03, 1 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello again, Andy. We're now entering the second half of September which leaves us with some 2.5 weeks until the newsletter is due to go out. Have you considered my request and does this seem like something you might be able to help with? It doesn't have to be very long - 1 paragraph or a couple of sentences would do. Either way, let me know so that I can try to make alternative arrangements before the deadline if need be. Thanks. -Thibbs (talk) 11:57, 15 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I don't disagree with your reasoning. However: (a) hydroforming _is_ used in connection with the press in one of the photos on the page; (b) I don't see the word 'ram' mentioned as being definitive for hydraulic presses in the article; and (c) it might be helpful to readers to make a constructive connection with hydroforming amongst the ways of forming materials.

SewerCat (talk) 17:58, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm glad that WP is now

WP:RS for its own articles. If you insist that hydroforming uses rams, then so be it.Andy Dingley (talk) 18:01, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply

]

As to the press illustrated, that's not a hydroforming press, it's a blocking press, which is often termed a hydroblocking press and is sometimes confused with hydroforming. Hydroforming sucks as a production process - it's slow to load the workpiece in and out around all the fluid seals etc. So a quick way for simple tooling, is to use a rubber block as a press tool instead. This flows like a liquid(sic), but doesn't need the seals. The die tooling, and the overall process, is otherwise like hydroforming - except that it can't handle quite such undercut dies. Blocking presses do use rams and this press clearly has rams. Andy Dingley (talk) 18:08, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hydraulic presses are rarely used for clinching either, as they're much slower than most mechanical presses and clinching doesn't need much force. Andy Dingley (talk) 18:22, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Industrial Robot was vandalised by 24.111.1.182, thanks for helping with the cleanup. Have you looked at his history? He's been a vandal since 2008. Can we block him? Robotics1 (talk) 20:52, 16 September 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Robotics1 (talk • contribs)

Yes, the topic of the planned film is getting and will likely continue to get lots of coverage, but when considering planned films we look to the

and consider whether or not that coverage gives us anything solid about the film itself... casting, production, plot, etc. To be fair to our readers, I think a temporary redirect to either

essay to keep readers informed. What'cha think? Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 02:30, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply

]

Deadline closing in

Hi again, Andy. I don't know if you noticed that I'd made a request above. If you don't want to help me or if you can't that's fine. Please let me know either way, though. I anticipate being rather busy offline in the next few weeks and I'd like to be able to complete this job as I've volunteered to do it by October 2. The sooner I can get your answer the better I can manage my time. Thanks in advance for your response. -Thibbs (talk) 00:21, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dataphor

I've added the information you requested on the Dataphor article. McKay (talk) 20:00, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Proposal for Deletion of Carol Kicinski page

Hi Andy, I wanted to let you know I went through the page and added references, links to other wikipedia pages and removed some statements. I am new to creating Wikipedia pages so I wanted to send you this message to make sure I corrected the page so it is no longer considered for deletion. I plan on creating some other pages and want to be sure I do those correctly based on the way I did this page.

Thank you.

--M.Renae (talk) 14:45, 24 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Re: "Wikigoggles"

Hi. I just wanted to say I absolutely agree with your point on Talk:Induction motor about the "Wikigoggles" effect, where an editor concentrates on one word or technical point, and inserts long exceptions/definitions/caveats which destroys the intelligibility of the text. That really irritates me too. I really don't think I was doing that in the Induction motor article; my only interest was in removing the one term synchronous motor. At least I hope I wasn't wearing "Wikigoggles"; I guess it's easy to do. Anyway, glad to hear someone shares that concern. My main focus on WP the last few years has been to try to make technically-oriented articles, particularly the introductions, more comprehensible to general readers. That often involves rewriting the tortured prose left after several rounds of the "Wikigoggles" effect you mention. Cheers --Chetvorno^TALK 20:32, 25 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I think I misunderstood the change you were planning on making. Andy Dingley (talk) 22:10, 25 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. Is there anything in the WP help files, cautioning editors to avoid this behavior? Might be worth adding something. --Chetvorno^TALK 05:24, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Help requested, AfD

I know you've been a fair editor of the Steampunk section for quite a long time now. The page for Dr. Steel's album, "Dr. Steel Read-Along", has been tagged for deletion, by an editor known to be hostile to Dr. Steel in particular and the genre in general. Please weigh in on the AfD discussion page. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Dr._Steel_Read-A-Long --Jonnybgoode44 (talk) 01:56, 28 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not terribly familiar with Dr Steel (US, don't think he's ever been over here), but I'll take a look. Andy Dingley (talk) 11:54, 28 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

French polish typo 'pad to fad'

Hi Andy, Was just wondering why a spelling typo was reverted on the french polishing page? 'fad' should be 'pad' when polishing, (you can check the resource linked to, it also uses the word 'pad').

Cheers for now Ianmanderson (talk) 10:11, 29 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

p.s. Kudos to the amazing amount you've added to wikipedia, however do you find the time?!

'Fad' is correct, as is 'tampon' (the technique is, obviously, French in origin and the early texts were French too). 'Fid' and 'tompion' are incorrect, but not uncommon. I really don't like 'pad' because it's too vague. There is an art to folding a proper fad and French polishing doesn't work without it. For French-style French polishing (with the abrasive on the fad, rather than used alternately) I've even made abrasion-resistant fads from Kevlar sheet and cotton waste. The idea that any sort of pad can be used, without the cover layer, is inaccurate for real polishing. French polishing isn't just the application of shellac to a surface – which I often do, but for that I use a mop (brush), not a pad.

Thanks for the compliment. I've given up adding anything here really, given up completely at Commons, as there's too much cliquey crap and too little interest in accuracy or knowledge. I'm self-employed these days and spend lots of time doing little more than fire-watching my laser cutter. The gaps aren't long enough to do much, but it's enough to fiddle on WP and fix vandalism. <Quick count> – 49 articles in the 'unpublished' morgue pile. Bit of a waste, but I really can't be arsed any more. Andy Dingley (talk) 02:48, 30 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Slide valve engine at Stationary steam engine

Your reason with reverting my caption edit is that these engines were obsolete in the mid-19th C? I was basically quoting Hunter and Bryant on this fact. They were cheap, although not very efficient and they did not have good speed control in response to changes in load. Corliss engines were expensive and tended to be in larger sizes. Hunter and Bryant said they were widely used until the end of the century.Phmoreno (talk) 20:15, 4 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Mill engine vs. stationary engine. Now stationary engines in general (and that's the subject of this article) certainly used slide valves (and only rarely piston valves), but mill engines were at the absolute peak of efficiency for stationary steam plants and they were in a profitable business that could afford the best. Despite WP's other unsupportable claims these weren't all Corliss valves either (most of them were drop valves with some sort of trip gear, not necessarily Corliss), but nor were they slide valves, and especially not slide valves of this early and simple pattern. Where they did use slide valves, they were using types like gridiron valves and the Ball balanced valve.

As to that image in particular, then it's also quite an early (or at least unsophisticated) engine. It's a simple engine, not a compound. It's exhausting to the air (through a small vertical pipe) rather than to a condenser. It has a Watt governor rather than a Porter or other loaded governor, and this is controlling a throttle valve rather than the valve timing – so the speed control under changing load will be too poor for a mill and the efficiency will also be poor. It's also (judging from the size of the stop valve handwheel) rather small for a mill.

This image is a good illustration of a typical stationary engine from the mid 19th century. But it's a brewery engine or a small workshop lineshaft engine. It's quite misrepresentative to describe it as a 'mill' engine.

Andy Dingley (talk) 21:10, 4 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

MOS?

Regarding this - I've been called on the carpet before for doing exactly that, having been told in no uncertain terms that (per MOS, I think it was even said, although it's been awhile) the Commonscat link always goes in "External links". Did that change, or was I just misinformed? - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:13, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

MOS is quite clear on this: Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Layout#External_links

• {{Commons}} is placed in the last section (for formatting reasons with the floated box), not necessarily External links.
• An otherwise-empty EL section should not be created solely for them.
• Inline boxes are used when there are multiple boxes and they should thus be formatted as a list, not to manage whitespace with long infoboxes. There is a |position=left that may be more useful in such a case.

Also please note the

opposed piston confusion. There's a lot of that in the aircraft articles. Andy Dingley (talk) 00:29, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply

]

Ahh, thanks for clearing that up! - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:47, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

He's wrong. It then goes on to say that you can use inline links in the external links section, just not boxes if there isn't room for them.

talk) 22:41, 4 October 2013 (UTC)[reply

]

What part of ". Do not make a section whose sole content is box-type templates." are you having the problem in understanding? Andy Dingley (talk) 22:46, 4 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This is what the MoS says, have you read it lately?

"If ... there are not any external links except sister project ones, then consider using "inline" templates, such as {{Commons-inline}} in the "External links" section, so that links to sister projects appear as list items, like this:"

• Media related to wikimedia foundation at Wikimedia Commons

It is entirely permissable.

talk) 22:54, 4 October 2013 (UTC)[reply

]

The "do not create a section for them" is said only in reference to boxes, not inline listings. Duh. Reading comprehension an issue for you?

talk) 22:56, 4 October 2013 (UTC)[reply

]

Consider", not mandate. Also this is in the context of links in the plural, whereas this is singular. The point is obviously to avoid the problem of box-stacking when there is an excess of such links, most commonly a problem for text-based articles where Wikisource etc. get involved too.

There is no way to interpret that guideline on the size of box to use as over-riding the earlier proscription on creating an EL section solely to hold a Commons link. Andy Dingley (talk) 22:56, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

"Do not make a section whose sole content is box-type templates." It does not say, don't make a section for solely for sister project links. You are misreading it. The prohibition on a "solely for" section only applies to BOXES.

talk) 23:01, 4 October 2013 (UTC)[reply

]

So what you're claiming is that articles should use the distinctive Commons box template, which floats to the right out of the normal body of text headings except when an article has no other external links, in which case the format of the Commons link should be changed radically to the barely discernable and unfamiliar inline, and then moved to a different location.

In what way does this assist reader legibility?

Congratulations, you've found an unclear minor guideline about a different problem (box stacking of sister links) and are now misinterpreting it to contradict a clear and obvious guideline (don't create an otherwise empty EL section solely for Commons) immediately before it. Why do you think this sort of dogmatic and unconstructive wikilawyering is at all useful? Andy Dingley (talk) 23:07, 4 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Boiling vessel

I was waxing lyrical on Wikipedia:Reference desk/Humanities about the role of our national beverage, and linked proudly to the Boiling vessel page, when I found that it was the thinnest stub I had ever seen. It wasn't too difficult to put right - all we need now is a picture. Alansplodge (talk) 23:27, 4 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have one, but it's two hundred miles away (they're a great way to kill a Landie alternator!) I'd wanted to expand this one myself for ages, but just couldn't find sources. Andy Dingley (talk) 23:31, 4 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Reason for reverting my edit

I had added a link on the Steam engine page but you have reverted it. I think that the link has important and valid materials pertaining to the topic and is no way promotion of any kind. May I know the reason for the revertion?

Furthermore, I would suggest that in case of your future edits/revertions or in case of your section edits, it would be highly appreciated if you leave a note in the edit summary mentioning what you have done or the reason behind your actions. Being an experienced editor you surely understand the utility of edit summaries

^Talk 05:13, 5 October 2013 (UTC)[reply

]

This is an encyclopedia, not a directory. In that sense it is not a usual web site, where onward linking is its own reward. The goal here is to make articles that work well on their own. We have a clear policy at

WP:EL

about the purpose of external links, and guidance as to how to achieve this. It's worth reading this in detail.

As to about.com, then there's no blanket prohibition on links to it, and it's certainly not promotional. However it's also very rare that an about.com link will meet WP:EL. About.com is in much the same business as WP. – it produces entry-level general articles on encyclopedia topics. It deliberately doesn't go into great depth about anything.

WP:EL only supports ELs if they go beyond what a WP article should contain inside itself. It even limits this to what an article at FA level should contain. Now personally I don't go that far: we have very few FAs, so I wouldn't remove links that add something not currently in an article. This is where about.com falls down. Their business is to contain information that is what a WP article would already contain at about C class – they don't even try to reach WP's GA level of detail. In general, if an about.com link contains something that isn't in the WP article already, then just add it directly right now and it won't even take more than 5 minutes.

In this specific case here, the about.com link is really thin. "The history of the steam engine was Savery, Newcomen and Watt" is just so partial that it's more misleading than anything: Savery was an inventor but his machines had little influence. Watt was a big influence in early days, but Trevithick's high-pressure engines, let alone compounding, soon had more influence over the majority of steam engines. This link adds nothing to the WP article, even though the WP article here is pretty poor at present. Our default position, per WP:EL, is that we favour articles without ELs, unless the EL starts to add something. This EL certainly doesn't. Andy Dingley (talk) 10:31, 5 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your reply. I will keep your words in mind. As such, the wikipedeia article on steam engine has no comparision to the about.com link that I had provided, but I felt it contained some information not contained in the article and so I wished to enrich it. I am running in scarcity of time and so wanted it to leave it for somebody else to do the job, or else I could return later to complete the task.

^Talk 12:39, 5 October 2013 (UTC)[reply

]

Merge discussion for British Racing Motors V16

here, and adding your comments on the discussion page. Thank you. Spiderlounge (talk) 13:11, 8 October 2013 (UTC)[reply

]

hahah

Ok have your way - still looks undue in a manner, if you were looking at from the other side of the planet the WA fairlies were a cumbersone oddity worthy of note :)

satusuro 11:38, 15 October 2013 (UTC)[reply

]

I agree that it looks like the usual fanboy inclusion of "My favourite band/game/locomotive", but the Ffestiniog was an early pioneer in such things and it had both the first examples of Fairlie's working design, and is still running with them today. The South Wales Fairlies were only slightly earlier and had boiler draughting problems. Andy Dingley (talk) 11:41, 15 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

their fate in west oz was that they were cumbersome and didnt last long - it is absolutley bizarre there is/are still live fairlies in in the uk - and as a consequence no probs... have a good whatever - cheers from west oz and all... !

satusuro 13:18, 15 October 2013 (UTC)[reply

]

Hello! There is a DR/N request you may have interest in.

This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult for editors. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help find a resolution. The thread is "Electric Current". Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you! EarwigBot ^{operator / talk} 14:00, 15 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Viz

Please don't add or restore unreferenced negative material on living people. You should know better. --John (talk) 10:16, 16 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"Viz makes joke of comedian", shock, horror! is hardly what BLP is trying to guard against. Also why are you edit-warring to repeat delete multiple sections, one of which has nothing to do with Jimmy Carr. BRD still applies, even when you're wearing your admin-pants. Andy Dingley (talk) 10:30, 16 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Request for comment

As you previously participated in related discussions you are invited to comment at the discussion at Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/RfC for AfC reviewer permission criteria. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 04:09, 18 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Aerotrain

Yeap I think you're correct, later Aerotrain prototypes used other means of propulsion than ducted fans, so it wouldn't be good to go to the article's lead section. It could however be mentioned elsewhere? Cogiati (talk) 18:25, 18 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Blue Flame

G'Day Andy, Do you happen to know off hand what criteria must be met before the bot will remove the 'need more citations" request tag on an article ? I think I must be getting close with the Blue Flame article. It would also be nice to have the Gary Gabelich page nominated as a wiki featured article on the anniversary date of his setting the world record on the 23rd of October. Alas this year would have been nice as it is the 20th anniversary of him losing the mile record to Thrust2 in 1983. How far off do you think the GG article is for nomination ? Can I make it by next year ? How much more work does it need ? Regards, Emir ☭ irongron ☭ (talk) 02:38, 20 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

AFAIK, they're removed by people rather than 'bots. I've just removed it – if there's anything specific there that needs better cites, then I'll tag them inline.

Citation and ref formatting still needs work - lots of bare URLs at present.

There are Good Articles and Featured Articles. These two should get to GA status with some work, as the sources ought to be easily enough available to achieve this. FA is rather harder though. Neither of these are something I'm familiar with. I've found that GA is very uneven, according to who reviews it. Fairy Queen (locomotive) hit GA with hardly any work, despite still not having its key point for notability unsourced. Other technical articles though have been nominated for GA, only to have this turn into a merge/delete discussion. I'll take a look at both articles though and see what I can suggest.

One thing that a really good article needs, and is usually weak at WP, is an editorial narrative. What is the 'story' behind the article, and does the article tell it in a clear manner that readers can follow? The WP "throw sentences at the wall" won't produce this on its own. It needs an editor (in the original sense) to think of this story and to arrange the article so as to tell it. Andy Dingley (talk) 10:13, 20 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Books and Bytes: The Wikipedia Library Newsletter

Books and Bytes

Volume 1, Issue 1, October 2013

by The Interior (talk · contribs), Ocaasi (talk · contribs)

Greetings

Wikipedia Library members! Welcome to the inaugural edition of Books and Bytes, TWL’s monthly newsletter. We're sending you the first edition of this opt-in newsletter, because you signed up, or applied for a free research account: HighBeam, Credo, Questia, JSTOR, or Cochrane. To receive future updates of Books and Bytes, please add your name to the subscriber's list

. There's lots of news this month for the Wikipedia Library, including new accounts, upcoming events, and new ways to get involved...

New positions: Sign up to be a Wikipedia Visiting Scholar, or a Volunteer Wikipedia Librarian

Wikipedia Loves Libraries: Off to a roaring start this fall in the United States: 29 events are planned or have been hosted.

New subscription donations: Cochrane round 2; HighBeam round 8; Questia round 4... Can we partner with NY Times and Lexis-Nexis??

New ideas: OCLC innovations in the works; VisualEditor Reference Dialog Workshop; a photo contest idea emerges

News from the library world: Wikipedian joins the National Archives full time; the Getty Museum releases 4,500 images; CERN goes CC-BY

Announcing WikiProject Open: WikiProject Open kicked off in October, with several brainstorming and co-working sessions

New ways to get involved: Visiting scholar requirements; subject guides; room for library expansion and exploration

Read the full newsletter

Thanks for reading! All future newsletters will be opt-in only. Have an item for the next issue? Leave a note for the editor on the Suggestions page. --The Interior 21:01, 27 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Unilateral major deletion of content from MV Seaman Guard Ohio page

Hi, can you do something about the major deletion of content [9] from the MV Seaman Guard Ohio page by a user called TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom. This was done with total disregard to the comments left by several users including yourself on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/MV Seaman Guard Ohio incident. Thanks. 109.128.150.134 (talk) 12:34, 28 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This is just what that editor does. This is all that this editor does. Wikipedia offends him in some way and so it must be "improved" by deleting all of it step by step. Take a look at List of unusual deaths as well.

There is little that other editors can do. You might try

WP:RFC/U, but that's time consuming and toothless. He is however the perfect New Soviet man, per Wikipedia culture so remember that you are the one at fault here and so you will be blocked and banned for disagreeing with him. Andy Dingley (talk) 22:25, 28 October 2013 (UTC)[reply

]

I just restored the information. Otherwise the article is a bad state. I'm not going to revert the second time however... so it's up to you. I would nomiate the article back into deletion if this is the state this editor wants. Three paragraphs which are very small is not good, and I suggest someone else brings this up(no I'm not trying to edit war a proxy on my behalf) and I am sure it will be reverted very soon. Also, thinks for the comment on my page. --Pretty les♀, Dark Mistress, talk, 12:23, 29 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Revert

In reverting my edit to Christopher Blackett, you correctly re-introduced the archaic (but article-appropriate) spelling waggonway over my wagonway, but you reintroduced a comma splice error and a template format error. A simple spelling correction might have proven a better fix. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 20:48, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry about that, thanks for fixing it. Andy Dingley (talk) 20:53, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

October 2013 Tweenies

Thank you for contributing to Wikipedia. We always appreciate when users upload new images. However, it appears that one or more of the images you have recently uploaded or added to an article, specifically

Non-free image criteria. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Werieth (talk) 19:08, 29 October 2013 (UTC)[reply

]

Even under NFC, you're taking the piss if you blank images from an article without discussion, then tag them as "delete as unused".

FYI, I didn't upload these images originally, I merely moved them from Commons (where they were really pushing any notion of a free licence) to WP, where they could justifiably be held under fair-use.

Your only comment so far has been that these are not the subject of critical comment, per NFCC. I would suggest that you are firstly wrong on this (they are indeed discussed and always have been), secondly such is no reason to delete them anyway. It is trivially obvious that character images form an important part of kids cartoons or character shows. If an article isn't currently discussing the image's appearance, then the obvious recourse is to expand that important and necessary discussion, not merely to blank the image. Andy Dingley (talk) 19:17, 29 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Actually the files where removed because of

WP:NFLIST. We dont need a per character image. That is why they where removed. Werieth (talk) 19:29, 29 October 2013 (UTC)[reply

]

You appear to be confused as to what is a list article. Andy Dingley (talk) 21:04, 29 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It is a list of characters in a article. The principle is the same. See

WP:NFCC#3, those four images can be replaced with a single image. Werieth (talk) 21:06, 29 October 2013 (UTC)[reply

]

So replace them with a single image. Find a group cast image by all means. Even merge them into a composite. What is completely unconstructive is for you to simply edit-war by repeatedly blanking all the images for this article. Andy Dingley (talk) 21:08, 29 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It is the responsibility of those wanting to use non-free media to ensure that it complies with policy. I have proven 1 image can replace 4, and that it fails

WP:NFCC#3 and the 4 files need to be removed. Werieth (talk) 21:11, 29 October 2013 (UTC)[reply

]

You haven't "proven" anything. You've simply followed a simplistic piece of policy that you've found and latched onto.

Are you aware that this is an encyclopedia? Are you familiar with concepts like reader value, and whether this is a better article with or without illustration? Or do you really see simple-minded dogma as more valuable and important? Andy Dingley (talk) 21:15, 29 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I take the m:Mission very seriously. We specifically have a policy about character lists. use group shots. Werieth (talk) 21:17, 29 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

So either follow it and do exactly that, or else cite the policy that supports what you're currently doing: bulk deletions and edit-warring. Andy Dingley (talk) 21:21, 29 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have proven the files are replaceable and fail

WP:NFCC thus the files where removed. I dont have to provide the replacement, just establish that replacement is possible. Werieth (talk) 21:36, 29 October 2013 (UTC)[reply

]

In what way have you "proven" that they're replaceable? What constructive action have you taken at all? Andy Dingley (talk) 21:45, 29 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

WP:TPS copyright probably held by Google by now... or is it "rankopedia.com"..? Martinevans123 (talk) 21:22, 29 October 2013 (UTC) [reply

]

Hollow-Tweenies? Martinevans123 (talk) 22:21, 31 October 2013 (UTC) [reply

]

Eric Corbett: Unblockable User

Hello. I'm also having an issue with this user. He blatantly violated WP:3RR and was subsequently defended by his wiki-friends. Their excuse for not blocking him? I was somehow more in the wrong for not initiating discussion on the talk page. No word to him. See the ongoing discussion at my talk page and on Corbett's for further information. :bloodofox: (talk) 17:14, 1 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

As to this one, I'd take Eric's side for the changes. 3RR is rarely useful though. Andy Dingley (talk) 17:34, 1 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

What changes? Care to chime in on the talk page? :bloodofox: (talk) 17:35, 1 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Black Rock

..probably needs hiving off into its own article, don't you think? Ghmyrtle (talk) 07:44, 4 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No need just yet, but it certainly could support a couple of new articles there: the ferry / railway connection and also the lave nets. As there's so little to say otherwise about Portskewett though, I don't feel any strong need to do so. Andy Dingley (talk) 09:57, 4 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Wills Ring

Regarding the FWMV sealing issue, Des Hammill failed to recognise an important concept in the thermal dynamics of an engine. His "liners contracted more rapidly as engine load was reduced" should have been written as "liners contracted more rapidly as engine load was reversed, when a full-throttle condition is rapidly turned into trailing-throttle".

Engines drive a car, but the weight of the car and the residual inertia of rotating crankshaft 'drives' the engine in a long downhill or when the throttle is lifted. So the load on an engine swings from being positive to being negative as recognised in the expression "engine brake", and 'reduced' normally describes a condition where the amount of positive load is reduced (like accelerating with half-throttle instead of full), when liners "do not" contract.

Also, my use of terminology may be too exact much closer to engineering jargons, but "sealing the headgasket" sounds more like the function of supplementary Silicon sealant applied to headgasket to me. If you imagine an engine with cylinderhead-to-block seal done with many Cooper Rings on all the water/oil/drain passages as well as on combustion chambers without any ordinary gasket material, you see Cooper Ring is a form of gasket, and its function is to seal gas/water/oil, not to seal a gasket.

Oh well, I am not a native English speaker, and I'd leave these up to you on this article :) Yiba (talk) 03:56, 9 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The point about a Cooper ring, for all engines and not just Coventry Climax, is that the rings are themselves elastic. Elastomer O-rings are elastic too, but they can't handle combustion chamber temperatures. They can also, in some cases, work more rapidly than elastomers. Other head gaskets are made from something like stacked copper foils, which are compliant but largely inelastic. If an engine is non-rigid between the head and block, then a heatproof, compliant seal is required. Only Cooper rings are capable of this combination. Typically this is needed for tuned or aftermarket turbocharged engines, where a system of head bolts was adequate for the production engine, but not the blown version – under racing loads, the head bolts now have perceptible stretch, enough to de-compress a simple metal foil gasket.

The Coventry Climax problems were different (and there were two separate problems). The FWMV was thermal contraction (not really expansion) as the cooling system cooled and contracted the liner more quickly than the more massive block when the engine power was reduced (as Des Hammill's book notes). This has nothing to do with engine braking or a closed throttle. GP cars were not noted for coasting downhill! Also there is no significant longitudinal force on a cylinder liner, even during engine braking and certainly not of a magnitude that affects the clamping forces.

The Hillman Imp engine had a different problem. This was an open decked block, with the liners supported from the base, and the liners siamesed to make the seal area even smaller. This was not an engine designed to be tuned! It's remarkable it worked as well as it did. The liners just didn't have enough support in the first place, even before the FWMV thermal effects come into play. Comparing the two engines, the FWMV also places its head studs closer to the smaller bores and applies their force lower down in the head, below the camshaft level. The Imp's studs just don't clamp so well either. Renault had a similar engine layout at about this time (the "843" engine AFAIR, the 1300cc used in the 12 and 15). This was wet linered with an open deck, but the difference is that it had an iron block (still an aluminium head) and so suffered much less from thermal expansion. It blew the head gasket with the slightest overheating, owing to the thinness of the seal area, but it didn't have the same pressure problems. Andy Dingley (talk) 11:26, 9 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies

Sorry for bumping into you on IP 47.64.131.186's talk page. I saw that the comment the IP made was re-added and automatically assumed the IP did it, so I reverted again. After that I realized it was you, reverted myself and then realized it probably didn't belong anyways. I'll leave it to you. Don't worry, I have plenty of

TROUT handy. {_C  A S U K I T E  ^T} 22:56, 11 November 2013 (UTC)[reply

]

No problem. I'd thrown them to AIV, I just wanted to leave the evidence obviously visible. Andy Dingley (talk) 00:34, 12 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Owen Owen

The removal was not "unwarranted", the material violates

WP:BLP. I'd rather have a short but well-sourced article as opposed to a lengthy article which violates a number of policies. GiantSnowman 16:47, 13 November 2013 (UTC)[reply

]

Please read

WP:BLP

. Especially the part about "living".

"You" might rather have articles without content, but consensus (and

WP:IMPERFECT) has long been that while we aspire to well-sourced articles, we often have less than this. Where such content is uncontroversial and outside WP:BLP, then we do not act with the haste and rampant deletionism that we might rightly apply to a controversial biography. Andy Dingley (talk) 20:51, 13 November 2013 (UTC)[reply

]

Yes, living people - so you've just added unsourced information about living people such as Philip Green, David Thompson, the Esslemont family...kudos. GiantSnowman 20:57, 13 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Then are you going to start blanking Philip Green as well? Andy Dingley (talk) 21:12, 13 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, as I'm sure you're aware. Can you not provide an actual response? GiantSnowman 12:07, 14 November 2013 (UTC)[reply

]

Philip Green's and Arcadia's asset-stripping of Owen Owens was a huge story in the national financial press. It is not beyond the wit of man to source this. If you really object to the Philip Green coverage (which to be honest, I see you as clutching as fatuous straws to excuse your blanking), then you would be acting reasonably to remove that section. However what you did instead was to blanking an article covering a hundred years of history, all except the last few years having nothing to do with Philip Green. That's a very poor excuse to hide behind. Andy Dingley (talk) 13:20, 14 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No, I object to users who blindly revert and re-add unreferenced information to articles, including information about BLPs. If it's so easy to source why don't you do it then? GiantSnowman 13:23, 14 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Encaustic tiles

Your recent edit restored a reference that has no connection to the article's subject, the article is about encaustic tiles which are fired in a kiln, the reference [10] refers to cement tiles which are not fired and are an entirely different kettle of fish! I removed spam links by various other users in the past, it seems that rival makers are trying to get their links into the article? I have no connection with any of them as you will see from my extensive edit history. Kind regards.Theroadislong (talk) 14:06, 14 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe the article needs a new section on "Encaustic cement" tiles? Theroadislong (talk) 14:24, 14 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I see "encaustic tiles" as meaning "coloured tiles formed by a two part moulding process", not specifically fired clay.

If you exclude "encaustic cement tiles" from "encaustic tiles", then just what are you going to call them? What name do you have for this encaustic process, other than "encaustic"? Andy Dingley (talk) 14:37, 14 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

OK if the meaning of encaustic is wider than I thought, at least can your reference be used to back up the correct text, as cement tiles are most definitely not fired in a kiln and there is no mention of cement encaustic tiles in the article currently. Regards Theroadislong (talk) 14:41, 14 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I do not see why a commercial link should be put on a wikipedia page, There is no necessary information and also the information supplied is not correct, as There are many ways of making modern Encaustic tiles. When i first started in wikipedia i did not realise how i was ruining wikipedia by trying to insert my website link but have now realised that - I do not feel it fair to not be able to have an informative link from my website to wikipedia because another commercial website is adding incorrect information just to be able to have a no-follow link. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tachiflower (talk • contribs) 14:58, 17 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image File:Tweenies Milo.jpg

Thanks for uploading

claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media

).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the

ЛееСуда. 20:36, 17 November 2013 (UTC)[reply

]

Systems design

Hi Andy, could you assess this change, and comment here. Thank you. -- Mdd (talk) 12:00, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your feedback. -- Mdd (talk) 01:34, 19 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Website wireframe

So you think it better to ignore WP:EL, WP:LINKFARM? You'll note that

talk) 20:15, 20 November 2013 (UTC)[reply

]

I think your capslock is stuck.

I am _following_ the policies here. These are the main and most widely-used products for this product type, ELs are warranted exactly per WP:EL. Andy Dingley (talk) 20:19, 20 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, cute, and you're right up to 3RR already. Andy Dingley (talk) 20:19, 20 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

What policies are you following? --

talk) 20:21, 20 November 2013 (UTC)[reply

]

WP:N, or at least aren't interested in it other than mis-using it as an excuse. Andy Dingley (talk) 20:28, 20 November 2013 (UTC)[reply

]

I think you need to take a break. Come back to this later. You appear to be confusing me and my editing with someone else. For instance, I've not brought up WP:N that I'm aware. --

talk) 20:32, 20 November 2013 (UTC)[reply

]

[11] "not notable, linkspam"

It's going back a while, because your only visible contributions_(sic) to this article are to insist that there must be no

WP:ELs anywhere in it. Andy Dingley (talk) 20:37, 20 November 2013 (UTC)[reply

]

Wow! That link has absolutely nothing to do with this discussion. Like I said, take a break. --

talk) 21:18, 20 November 2013 (UTC)[reply

]

This is a topic you know nothing about, yet you've set yourself up as sole arbiter and decider that there must never be a single EL ever added to it. Why? Andy Dingley (talk) 21:23, 20 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Not spam?

Good catch, I didn't realize the existing link was broken. While that particular link is, on it's own merits, better than a dead link,

"Although the specific links may be allowed under some circumstances, repeatedly adding links will in most cases result in all of them being removed." I checked the majority of the links, and concluded that most of them had little to no academic value, and also served primarily to promote a particular companies products. You indicate that you believe a number of the links are appropriate, but, having double checked all of them, only the one you reverted stands out as having any meaningful encyclopedic content beyond what the article already has. Which others do you think are worth keeping? (For convenience: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12

). Even if the links are deemed appropriate,

for the purpose of promoting a website or a product" (and the first result of a quick Google search of the username

strongly suggest the link additions are of promotional intent)).

ʍw 13:22, 21 November 2013 (UTC)[reply

]

Citing sources

Please don't add or change content without

burden of proof is on you, please add the necessary references - Thank You FOX 52 (talk) 02:44, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply

]

Did you read what you deleted? And the text it already cited, even before the fatuous {{

cn}}? Andy Dingley (talk) 02:45, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply

]

If there is source information in the entry then it needs to be in a reference note - See: Wikipedia:Citing sources for further assistance. FOX 52 (talk) 03:01, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Feel free to

WP:SOFIXIT Andy Dingley (talk) 03:14, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply

]

Talkback

Hello, Andy Dingley. You have new messages at AdventurousSquirrel's talk page.
Message added 14:33, 25 November 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.[reply]

AdventurousSquirrel (talk) 14:33, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Confused :S

As you have already deleted my contributions to the Ormskirk page, i wanted to ask how i would be allowed to add studio odyssey to the page. As you are not from Ormskirk, you will not be aware that there is a high demand for tattoos and piercings. As there are other businesses such as Morrison's and Aldi on the Ormskirk page, I dont understand why you deleted the Studio Odyssey edit. Any information will be greatly appreciated. — Preceding unsigned comment added by AstroBachini (talk • contribs) 11:16, 26 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Take a look at

WP:RS

.

There are a lot of tattoo parlours in the world, even in places like Ormskirk. What makes this one special? To stand in the article it would have to show one of two things: significance of it to Ormskirk (I don't believe Ormskirk substantially notices that it's there) or else special significance of it amongst other tattoo parlours, i.e. is the tattooist personally famous or award winning. Sailor Jerry and Louis Molloy are notable tattooists, but I don't see them in Ormskirk. If we can say "It's just a shop, there are lots like it everywhere" then it doesn't belong in an encyclopedia article on what makes Ormskirk distinctive. Ormskirk has a Greggs too, but we aren't listing that. Andy Dingley (talk) 11:27, 26 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Final Warning

Given your behavior if you continue to revert my NFCC actions I will be forced to file for a topic/interaction ban. Werieth (talk) 16:37, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If you keep edit-warring against consensus, you're going to keep popping up at 3RR. Andy Dingley (talk) 16:40, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The next time you revert a NFCC action I will be forced to file for a NFCC topic ban for you. If you want to discuss a removal you know where my talk page is or you can file a

WP:NFCR Werieth (talk) 16:57, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply

]