User talk:Andy Dingley/Archive 2017

Some time ago you added this to the MCLOS article:

The Vickers Vigilant attempted to solve this by using a 'velocity control' method with an on-board gyroscope, rather than simpler 'acceleration control'.

Do you recall the source? I would like to expand that article but I cannot find any mention of this. Maury Markowitz (talk) 14:47, 21 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That would be Forbat's book - The 'Secret' World of Vickers Guided Weapons, J. Forbat, Tempus, 2006,

ISBN 0-7524-3769-0 - which is well worth the read. He was a Vickers development engineer and there's some good obscure hands-on stuff in there. Andy Dingley (talk) 20:15, 21 February 2017 (UTC)[reply

]

HL

In what way do you mean accumulator would be more "misleading" than indirect address? HL holds direct addresses, just like all other 16-bit registers in the Z80 (BC,DE,IX,IY,SP,PC). Also, we cannot possibly source every single word... Note, I'm in no way not out for a fight here... but a honest discussion. :)

/Sven Ekeberg

But none of that is the function of the accumulator?

A Z80 has one accumulator, the A register. This is the only register with full access to the ALU. That's the meaning of "accumulator". Andy Dingley (talk) 23:38, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Pardon my rhetoric tone, but in what way would HL be more "indirect" than BC/DE? I'm not really expecting an answer, so let me just say that it is used for the exact same type of adressing as BC/DE, i.e. direct addressing, using a (variable) direct address stored in a register.

The HL register was actually a rudimentary 16-bit accumulator already in the 8080 (not in the 8008). But it was intended for address calculations and therefore did not affected the sign-, zero- or the (non existent) overflow flag. The 8080 also had 16-bit addition only, no subtraction, and no support for signed numbers, it did not even set the sign flag for 16-bit numbers.

The Z80 changed this though! It not only incorporated a signed overflow flag but also new instructions, ADC HL,reg and SBC HL,reg that adjusts the full array of flags: sign, carry, zero, negative, and the new overflow flag, just like 8-bit arithmetics do. So the HL register is indeed a real accumulator in the Z80. The fact that it has fewer addressing modes than 8-bit operations does not change this fact.

Speaking of the ALU. The Z80 was implemented with a 4-bit wide ALU (making it different enough from the 8080 in order to avoid a lawsuit from Intel). As you may know we now have a very deep technical reference for this (more so than my 1980s engineer hearsay and the Faggin/Shima Z80 oral history), so I will probably add a paragraph on that and other interesting aspects of the implementation, as soon as I get the time to do it. Hope you don't mind? (This narrow ALU is why an ADD HL,rr takes 11 cycles on the Z80 but only 10 on the 8080, btw, although some other instructions became faster.)

I let you have your "indirect address" though... it's not really that important that everything in an article is 100% correct. But it's mostly because I really hate meningless time consuming fights. Life is far to short for that. :)

Take care. /Sven Ekeberg — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.245.25.115 (talk) 01:30, 26 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Andy,

I'm glad as you referenced to created by me Wiki-article dedicated "Gear bearings". Could you present on ‪Kingsgate Bridge‬ -page or at least send on my email: [email protected] any clearly stated photo of used in this bridge mechanism with mentioned linear gear bearing.

Best regards, Sergiy Sheyko — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sergiy Sheyko (talk • contribs) 19:28, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I don't have one to hand. I've just been rooting through old photos (it's some years since I was in Durham) to try and find one. It's a very elegant mechanism.

Here are some nice photos, including the joint: "Durham Bridges: 1. Kingsgate Bridge". The Happy Pontist. 28 November 2013.

Andy Dingley (talk) 19:48, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You and I seem to have simultaneously focused on the same new IMR Legendary Powders article with somewhat different ideas to merge it into current content. Would you have any objection or suggested improvements to my proposal? Thewellman (talk) 01:44, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You said "the idea that condensers are there primarily to save on water consumption is just wrong". The article previously said "or efficiency, as well as conserving feedwater, marine engines have usually been condensing engines". Doesn't that sentence mean that one of the two reasons for using condensing engine is to conserve feedwater? I agree that it might not be the primary reason (I make no claim either way). But otherwise I don't understand the logic of this paragraph and especially its context of an article about evaporators (rather than engine efficiency). DMacks (talk) 20:41, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"Efficiency" is itself a weak term. It might even be justified as "the only way to make a workable marine stream engine before about 1850 was to make it condensing". This is a very strong requirement, not just a minor bit of fuel saving. If anything, the previous wording should be strengthened, not weakened to imply a balance of fuel efficiency and reduced water consumption. Andy Dingley (talk) 10:04, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You state (per the following diff) that wiki guidelines prefer "World War II" over "Second World War", could you please point to the relevant policy (as I have not been aware of such a policy in over ten years of editing, is it new?)? In addition, you may note (on the aforementioned diff) I edited the article for consistency. You will note that both terms are used within the article; I would suggest editing the article for consistency rather than just reverting edits. Kind regards, Todayis03032017 (talk) 01:17, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Not really my party this one, try asking at WP:MILHIST, but a month or so back there was a big push to make articles match the name at World War II as canon, rather than the previous mixture. As you're the one pushing to change this, it's your turn to justify it. Andy Dingley (talk) 10:18, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Raised at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Military_history#World_War_II_.2F_WWII_.2F_WW2_.2F_Second_World_War_.3F Andy Dingley (talk) 10:14, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I realise that you posted this question five years ago, but I updated the article on the weekend, and can confirm from Wynn, Moore and Stoddart that the RAF was indeed supplied with the Mark 5. Hawkeye7 (talk) 09:49, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, that's a pretty major expansion. I look forward to reading it all in depth. Andy Dingley (talk) 10:28, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Andy, please stop undoing the edits on ZX81, I'll only have to put them back again if it's to be correct. Before you do, can you explain what your motive was and what 'bizarre' is supposed to mean? Thanks.--ToaneeM (talk) 13:29, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please look at

WP:V

. This stuff needs to be sourced, and given in greater detail, if it's to stay. I've expanded it a bit myself, but it's relying on just the one source I've added.

As to "bizarre", then it's a long time since I've used a ZX81, but I don't remember them running at anything like 300 bps (compared to Kansas City on other contemporary systems). It needs robust sourcing to change the article from 50 to 300. Also it's almost never useful to use baud for anything, bps is far clearer. Perhaps this original "50" figure stems from that? Andy Dingley (talk) 13:35, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I agree to need to add a source for the bitrate and that it should be a bitrate, not a baud rate by their definitions. But the speeds are spot on, not least because I double-checked them against the ROM listing. I did post that in the change notes...had you sorta glibly assumed I was lying or something? I did so because I remembered the ZX81->Spectrum speed listed as 4x faster and the latter was 1200 bps. I also remember it being a lot faster than the 6 bytes per second - that's a crazy claim. You realise that you're endorsing hopelessly wrong figures with these blind 'undo's. Successive improvement is better and what Wikipedia's for - add 'reference needed' instead and I'll gladly do it. Please follow that co-operative route, not the "my article, I decide" approach that one occasionally gets dragged down by around here :-)

Was "Such limitations, however, achieved Sinclair's objective of keeping the cost of the machine as low as possible. Its distinctive design brought its designer, Rick Dickinson, a Design Council award." Design-designer-design...ah, design of what - circuitry...software...oh, the case, how obvious :-) Fixed. C'mon Andy, work with us here --ToaneeM (talk) 14:11, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Dude, I'm the one doing the legwork and adding the references. Andy Dingley (talk) 14:15, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Dear boy, how hopelessly absurd - you're the one breaking it and reinstating text that's wrong. You do realise the article does not belong to you, that you're not in charge of it, right? I understand this computer very, very well so I like it being correct. What's your motive - plain old interfering?--ToaneeM (talk) 14:39, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Have you ever edited here before under another name? Factor-h for instance. You're starting to sound awfully familiar. Andy Dingley (talk) 14:52, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No, never. Have you stopped breaking things? The joy of conversing with the pointlessly obstinate has faded... --ToaneeM (talk) 15:03, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

GAR process is started. Direct all future GAR process comment in talk page at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Good_article_reassessment/Transformer/1Cblambert (talk) 19:46, 12 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm new to Wikipedia jargon Sisima70 (talk) 19:48, 14 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Location? - Talk:Quartz, I presume.

It's not a WP term, I think it's mostly British slang. Andy Dingley (talk) 20:03, 14 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Andy, please help me understand why you moving hammer mill articles from the category designed for them to "power hammers" which is more generic. Are you planning to delete Category:Hammer mills and, if so, why?--Bermicourt (talk) 17:22, 15 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This seems to be a language variation between German sites being called "hammer mills" and the WP term at hammer mill.

A

smelter

.

These sites are not of that type or function. Instead they are what are more widely known as "battery mills", where a battery (like artillery, a group of individuals) of power hammers, usually water-powered trip hammers are used for metalworking of metal (i.e. metal after refining from ore). This includes large blacksmithing operations to make blades, or brass mills to produce sheet brass or 'battery brass'.

As usual, there is some overlap with historical names. But these German sites are of the metalworking type (a few tilt hammers) and neither stamp mills not hammer mills. We definitely should not link to hammer mill, we ought to reword for clarity. Andy Dingley (talk) 17:30, 15 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I think the confusion is that the term "hammer mill" may be variously used. It is certainly used in English sources for the historic German forges, but here's an example of it being used for an English forge: Abinger Hammer Mill which appears to have had just one hammer. I haven't got time to research further this week, but it seems, therefore, that "hammer mill" can also be a forge using a trip hammer. Let's not make any more changes until further research has been done and we can agree a way to handle the different usages. --Bermicourt (talk) 20:33, 15 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

this and this is a continuation of the behavior that got you blocked once already. I am now requesting a one-way Iban. That is it. -- Jytdog (talk) 20:15, 18 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Jytdog (talk) 20:35, 18 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for clarifying, I was trying to work out what it was and didn't think it looked much like a facecloth, but thought maybe that was what was meant, (as I was reading the two words together) and thought maybe it was one of those stealth anonymous edits where someone sneaks a random word into the middle of a sentence that tends to pass unnoticed for months/years. The note/definition is REALLY helpful, thanks - I couldn't find anything on quick searches for blind cloth (apart from fabric for roller blinds). Am more of a fashion historian than a textiles specialist, so sometimes these fine distinctions are alien to me.... Mabalu (talk) 11:04, 17 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome - it's impossible to search for this, owing to the false positives and the number of novels about blind weavers (really!). If I can tidy the study enough to reach the piles of bookshelves behind the piles of book boxes behind the piles of books I might even get to a "dictionary of tailoring terms" or something. Andy Dingley (talk) 11:14, 17 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I just did some quick reading to try and clarify what was with this "cotton broadcloth" weirdness and discovered that it's an Americanism for poplin. Should there be a hatnote at the top to redirect people looking for American broadcloth to poplin? I've added referenced notes to both pages to explain this. Mabalu (talk) 16:19, 17 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Probably. It's usually better to over-explain than under-explain. Not being American I'm unfamiliar with this, but I know that "poplin" has a lot of local differences in its meanings. Andy Dingley (talk) 18:09, 17 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

For what it's worth, @Mabalu:, that's simply untrue. Here's Bennett's Cotton Fabric Glossary, showing USAnian use a decade before. Anmccaff (talk) 19:22, 17 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

(Also, "poplin" remains the dominant name for cotton plainweave used for better men's shirts.) Anmccaff (talk) 19:23, 17 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Anmccaff. Thanks for that link, but I'm a bit confused because when I tried to search for broadcloth or broad cloth in that book nothing came up. How does it prove that broadcloth was used to describe shirt quality poplin 10 years before the early 1920s? Mabalu (talk) 12:24, 18 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't. It shows that cotton poplin was available and known as such; has been continuously. Not something that was introduced in the twenties.

"Cotton broadcloth" was, and is, a term so all-encompassing as to to be almost meaningless. From the twenties, the USDA proposed standards for the term, and much US and some Canadian (and a surprising amount of British, BTW) usage later consolidated around those standards. Here's their take from 1938: Broadcloth is another fabric that has been lowered in quality until the word means nothing at the present time. An analysis of a great variety of fabrics sold as broadcloths discloses that constructions vary from those originally associated with the word to fabrics more like muslin than broadcloth. In the twenties, "cotton broadcloth" did not mean "cotton poplin", necessarily. It could be anything from a short-napped blind face fabric that looked and felt a good deal like the original all the way down to bad muslin. Anmccaff (talk) 16:10, 18 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It's clearly quite a minefield, but as it is, the current edits (even if I say so myself) are an improvement on the previous version that had cotton quite early on, with a rather sketchy cite. Incidentally, should we move this discussion over to Talk:Broadcloth? I'm inclined to trust the Fairchild given that it is considered an industry standard text and is edited by two established experts/academics in the field. Of course, experts make mistakes too, but they are certainly very specific on the question. They even use an illustration of a man's cotton shirt as the leading image under broadcloth, which does make me raise an eyebrow, but if the "industry standard for textile terminology" is so explicit, then I guess they've a reason for that. We may disagree with them (I certainly think they should have wool broadcloth as the primary definition, not definition no.4(!)) but it's not a source we can justifiably discredit/ignore even if we know better. Mabalu (talk) 19:11, 18 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, if no one (I guess that would be Brother Dingley, in this case) objects, xfering it intact to broadcloth makes good sense. To add a little more to be transferred over, one thing which the Fairchild cite does not make clear is that the so-called "English Broadcloth" (which appears to often have hailed from Scotland, just to compound the mess) was a very heavily callendered cloth, that came close to a uniform, threadless appearance in the way that the broadcloths do. Note the plural; a big part of the reason why broadcloth shows up less in later years is that specific variants of the technique were beginning to be seen more as their own selves. Melton, duffel, mackinac, or brushed wool serge (as opposed to woolen or unbrushed worsted serge) would be described as such, and woolen and brushed wool serge had pretty well taken over the old broadcloth turf, except for the areas where weather resistance was paramount, and then the cloth was more likely to be called melton. Anmccaff (talk) 19:42, 18 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Have boldly transferred discussion to Talk:Broadcloth, leaving this as a record. Its up to User:Andy Dingley if he wants to archive or delete the thread now it has been relocated. Mabalu (talk) 12:52, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, that makes sense. Andy Dingley (talk) 13:01, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I've witnessed his feisty behavior firsthand as an IP, but that's anecdotal. Have a drink and just hope it ends in a favorable way. Good luck Yukari Yakumo (talk) 15:45, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! I'll feed it to my ulcer. Andy Dingley (talk) 16:19, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You must be hungry after working hard to make sure the Spoken Wikipedia section doesn't spiral out of control. Here's a treat for you! Thanks! Lionsdude148 (talk) Lionsdude148 (talk) 02:42, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I might even dust off a microphone and join in. Andy Dingley (talk) 10:01, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Andy Dingley. NeilN ^{talk to me} 14:51, 29 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Oh no, not again. --Border of Phantasm (Complaint Center) 17:18, 29 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You really ought look at the help and the many times used before nominating someone's tool for deletion. What kind of person takes away another persons tools? They'll kill you if you try that on a blue collar work site! I will state categorically, if you win this, my 13 years wading through poorly written prose by academically limited and overly inexperienced writers too lazy to run down a cite like this fix are over, including and especially those taking days to prep, such as take hundreds of characters. Thanks for the hostile environment. // FrankB 20:25, 29 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry you reverted my edit on Midland Bridge, because some of the information now in the article is simply wrong. The bridge does not allow access to the Midland station (Green Park) for the S&D, and certainly didn't in 1870, because the S&D didn't start running trains into Bath until 1874. I think in any case that you are confusing the Midland road Bridge with the Midland Railway Bridge. The junction between the S&D and the Midland was about a mile west of the station (near the present Windsor bridge). The S&D had running rights over Midland metals into Green Park from that junction eastwards, and that included running over the Midland Railway Bridge (a different bridge between the station on the east bank and the approach line and other facilities, including goods and loco sheds, on the west bank, and now the link bridge into Sainsbury's supermarket). The Midland Railway Bridge is the one referred to in the first reference as part of the composite tender put in by the station contractor. It may well be that the first Midland road Bridge was put up at the same time; Buchanan (reference 2) seems to imply that the bridge put up in 1905 was the first on that site, but the 1880s Ordnance Survey map of that area clearly shows a road bridge in place. I don't know whether Sanders would have been responsible for the earlier Midland road Bridge (although it is likely he was responsible for the Midland Railway Bridge), but it is impossible for him to have been responsible for the 1905 bridge, which the article as amended by you now implies, because he'd been dead 21 years before it was built. There's significant scope for confusion in all of this: the original road bridge was moved, as the article says, across Bath to a site further west, confusingly linking a road called "Midland Road" to the north bank, by the old Destructor works. The road on which the current bridge stands is called "Midland Bridge Road". I drove along it today. Johnlp (talk) 21:08, 30 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Have you seen the discussion at Talk:Midland Bridge just now? Andy Dingley (talk) 21:10, 30 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

OK. It looks as though it's moving towards my view there. I'll join in if that'd help. Johnlp (talk) 21:17, 30 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for drawing my attention to that connection. I'll keep an eye open for them. Cabayi (talk) 11:39, 10 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi

]

• WP:SPIs are. Andy Dingley (talk) 12:09, 10 April 2017 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Criminal Behave

Hi Andy Dingley, This is criminal to stay on Wikipedia just to attack on a specific person. I have noticed you are doing nothing. Justing attacking on my profile and content. Macrolancer (talk) 16:21, 10 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sporange. Ghmyrtle (talk) 14:42, 16 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'd heard that (in Blaenavon, naturally), but only for it being rejected as too latin and too made-up. Andy Dingley (talk) 16:59, 16 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

In what way is this mot a duplicate of Warren truss, which is largely about bridges???TheLongTone (talk) 15:40, 21 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

See Talk:Warren Truss Bridge where I've already explained this.

Also please stop adding CSD tags to it. If it's challenged, you can't re-request speedies over and over. Please discuss at talk:, or else use AfD.

First of all, I'm not looking at if "it's a duplicate", it's about a longer-term view as to whether the organisation of trusses and Warren trusses is best in the list articles or split into a separate one. I'd support the separate one - especially as the truss list is tiny and the truss bridges list isn't a good place for a description of three uses of the truss when 2/3rd aren't bridges. Andy Dingley (talk) 15:44, 21 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I see your point, but the article needs to be rewritten. Or written; there is zip about bridges here. As it stands there is a brief explanation of the principle of the Warren Truss, followed by a lot of stuff about its use in aircraft. It seems bizarre to have not a single illustration of a bridge but two of aircraft.TheLongTone (talk) 13:18, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• This belongs at Talk:Warren Truss Bridge, not here - I'll copy it over.

I don't think it needs rewriting, so much as renaming. The scope should be that of the warren truss, not just the bridges.

The deleted content ought to be restored, as relevant to the broader truss scope. It can't be restored to the truss bridges article, as it was, as that's the place that is limited to bridge scope. Andy Dingley (talk) 09:32, 23 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Re: this edit: Can you point me to the specific MOS provision you're referring to? Thanks. — Ipoellet (talk) 20:52, 23 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for this BTW, I hadn't noticed the accent.

The MOS guidelines (there are several overlapping, many of which contradict) are poorly written and are often misinterpreted. It states, and should be read as, "Use the box format to link to Commons. Place this box in the last section, don't create a new empty section just for the box." The problem is that this keeps getting mis-read as "If there is some minor formatting issue, such as a dangling RHS of boxes, then completely change the format used for linking to Commons to make it unfamiliar, unrecognised and too small to even notice." Some editors insist on this, but it's still deeply unhelpful to our readers to flip formats. Andy Dingley (talk) 21:25, 23 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Andy. If you look at

]

Then the others need to be added. It's ridiculous to have something obscure like the

WP:SUBCAT overruling truth and accuracy, yet again. Andy Dingley (talk) 16:10, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply

]

I agree; it's a mess. There aren't so many microprocessors that a big category of ~500 would be a problem, and it's easy to have sub-categories for large families if needed. Dgpop (talk) 02:10, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Also, I fixed the 8080 categories. The x86 category, unexpectedly, comes from using the template "Intel processors|discontinued". Dgpop (talk) 02:20, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That's great, thanks. Andy Dingley (talk) 09:18, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Andy, my thinking is that since the handle of the quern is fixed in place it offers no rotational translation. It is merely a guide for the hand which is providing all the rotational force, cheers Unibond (talk) 19:08, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This belongs at Talk:Crank, not here. I can see two issues - one is the need for a connecting rod: There are enough "crank" mechanisms widely described that either don't use them, or use the human arm or leg as one, that we might separate sections in the article for the two forms, but we definitely have to include them.

Secondly, this idea here that a fixed crank without an inherent rotating sleeve isn't a crank. Again, examples without are widespread and we simply use a loose hand grip to take its place. Andy Dingley (talk) 10:09, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I still think it's not a crank mechanism, maybe because the handle is being mistaken for an axle, but you are right, it is a can of worms, I shall leave it alone, cheers Unibond (talk) 01:50, 6 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

but if Kim and Aggie are ever let loose on loose respirable alpha contam, I hope they at least go at it with bucket and mop rather than a vacuum cleaner ('a leaf-blower with filtration' as it may or may not have been described to me once by a professional health physicist - not one of the amateur ones that frequent the DU talk page) In fact I would expect any method statement to note in large bold type that vacuum cleaners must not be used. Best practice would be to immobilise the activity and then shovel it up (although once it's immobilised a JCB is probably quicker and cheaper than two women with Marigolds). Rjccumbria (talk) 21:56, 14 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Andy,

I am confused by the reversal of my edit to the welding page. The reason given is: (rv unsourced claim that flux is there to stabilise the arc. Undid revision 780799836 by Waynems (talk))

The two sections below say exactly the same thing, in that one of the things flux does is stabilize the arc. My change simply makes the sentence less awkward.

Please explain your reasoning.

MY EDIT It was largely replaced with arc welding, as advances in metal coverings (known as flux) were made. Flux covering the electrode stabilizes the arc, and shields the base material from impurities.^[1]

ORIGINAL It was largely replaced with arc welding, as metal coverings (known as flux) for the electrode that stabilize the arc and shield the base material from impurities continued to be developed.^[1]

Thanks!

Michael S Wayne 03:13, 18 May 2017 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Waynems (talk • contribs)

Sorry, my mistake - it was pretty bad beforehand. The idea of the flux stabilising the arc is the problem. This just doesn't happen. At most it has a minor role in the establishment of the arc (not a positive one - just that a damaged rod can strike sideways), but stability after that is electromagnetic. Hafergut showed this in the 1960s. Andy Dingley (talk) 05:47, 18 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the response, and the additional information. Best. Michael S Wayne 00:22, 19 May 2017 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Waynems (talk • contribs)

BTW, see firecracker welding. When this was developed it was realised that the arc would happily go right through the flux coating sideways. Andy Dingley (talk) 08:29, 19 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Andy please explain why you reverted my change on the Web Developer page? My addition was completely relevant and cited from the source of a web developer. Nothing posted violated any terms of use and was completely relevant to the subject at hand. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Webtrex (talk • contribs) 02:58, 19 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"Webtrex", posting links to "Trex technologies"? Andy Dingley (talk) 08:30, 19 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I still fail to see how this violated any policies and wasn't a true statement of fact regarding the topic at hand and very much related to the education and skills that a web developer should possess? Webtrex (talk)

Then please read

WP:SPAM. Andy Dingley (talk) 14:25, 19 May 2017 (UTC)[reply

]

FYI

You almost certainly know better than me, as I generally treat Commons as a fetid swamp into which the editors of the Wikipedias are occasionally obliged to venture, rather than somewhere to visit through choice; can the various other files at

]

Adding a list of files with a related problem is certainly a recognised response, when the problem is broader than a single image. As to the efficacy of Commons debate, it really depends on how many people show up from the small pool there. And being such a small pool, it does tend to be dominated by the handful of loudest voices. The spectacle of half a dozen Germans with "professional levels of the English language" arguing over basic English grammar or convention is a regular favourite.

In this case, I'd agree that they're too much of a selfie and not enough of anything illustrative for clothing - also the problems of poor quality and poor focus. This week (and broadly against policy) Commons is deleting on the basis of "quality" (which really means IDONTLIKEIT).

As to your linked image, then I think that is there mostly to justify the existence of Category:Nude or partially nude women with purple hair, Category:Cereals in art & Category:Handbras, by one's own hands, let alone their intersection. Andy Dingley (talk) 20:07, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Consider me duly unshocked to see Neelix was the creator of

Iridescent 20:20, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply

]

Commons used to be a bit more chilled out than WP. Now it just seems to have so few active editors that nearly every one is some sort of monomaniac. Andy Dingley (talk) 20:25, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Andy,

You undid a change I made on the solder page without comment. This makes it nearly impossible to determine your intent. Per Wikipedia guidelines, the comment is requested as it helps in further edits and prevents "revision wars." I have changed the article to better reflect the subject and context of the original change.

Prosecreator (talk) 13:22, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Not all of us live in the USA. Your change assumes that we do, and that US policy applies everywhere. Lead-based solder is still widely used, and if withdrawn or formally forbidden, that is still largely restricted to potable water.

Your first change was to remove a qualification to potable water that had been added by an IP. A correct and useful qualification - we need more of that. Your reason was, "Copper is not used for drain lines, so the comment makes no sense." which is inaccurate on all three counts: the qualification might be incorrect (but still makes sense), copper is used for drainage lines (it's expensive so it's rarely used, but it is still used when the aesthetics justify it. My whole bathtub is copper, so I'm not plumbing that in with plastic), most importantly heating pipework is still substantially in copper - and soldered with a lead-tin solder.

This section should be expanded to indicate that lead is certainly shrinking, but that it went from potable water first, and its withdrawal generally is not internationally consistent. Whenever the US did fully withdraw leaded solder (if indeed it has yet), that doesn't mean it no longer needs to be covered in an international encyclopedia. Andy Dingley (talk) 15:02, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the response. It would have been great to include a bit of this in the comment for your revision. That was my suggestion.

Your point is valid, I have changed the article a bit. In the U.S. one cannot even purchase leaded plumbing solder anymore, it disappeared decades ago, thanks to the SDWA.

Prosecreator (talk) 20:08, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. --Reaganomics88 (talk) 10:59, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Why do you think ANI would be at all interested in your year and a half old content dispute? Andy Dingley (talk) 11:17, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi I do not think that my link is irrelevant. One of the paragraphs make references to calculate the torque required by a bolted joint. And this is what the web page I linked does. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fonebone83 (talk • contribs) 18:48, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If you read articles, rather than just spammed links into them, you'd discover that a bolted joint isn't what you think it is.

Your calculator (which is still largely in Spanish, not English) relates tightening torque to bolt tension. It does nothing in relation to the shear forces that are most relevant here. Andy Dingley (talk) 18:56, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Patience Andy, patience. I'm only just starting, there is much goodness to come. Maury Markowitz (talk) 14:02, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Andy. You reverted a change I made on this page regarding universal joint types. I'm confused about the revert because "universal joint" refers to the type of joint that Hooke invented, and not any other type (such as CV or rag joints). Or I should say, in the U.S. that's true, and Universal joint supports that. I notice you're from the UK, so perhaps you're used to a different usage of the term.

In any case, it's not great to have a link labeled "Hooke" (with no supporting documentation) redirecting to the universal joint page, where one can find no reason for the "Hooke" distinction - in fact, Hooke isn't even credited with the invention. Further, neither of the links in the Goggomobil section (Goggomobil and Drive_shaft) contain any mention of a Hooke joint. Indeed, the drive shaft page uses the term "universal".

The inconsistency is quite undesirable (which is what prompted my edit), and I think the simplest way to fix it is to just use the term "universal joint". Otherwise, the universal joint page should be updated to describe the distinction, and there should be a reference supporting the use of a Hooke joint in the Goggomobil suspension. Glenebob (talk) 00:09, 8 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hooke joints are only one form of universal joint. CV, giubos and rag joints (which all regularly get described as universal joints by our readership, even if some sources might exclude them) are commonly used for axle halfshafts, Hooke joints less so, yet Goggomobil were using Hooke joints (they also used rag joints, but not in this case). This is a distinction worth keeping. Admittedly it's less important for RWD, but Hooke joints in FWD are such a problem that they're exceptional by this time, except in 4WD vehicles.

As to the redirect, then see

WP:EASTEREGG

).

Limitations of other articles are a problem for those pages, not this one. Andy Dingley (talk) 00:19, 8 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Universal joint also happens to describe "Cardan joints" which is not a term I've heard before. Famously Cardano didn't invent any sort of shaft joint, but invented the basic mechanism as a gimbal. Then Hooke applied it to a shaft, as a universal joint. Hooke also realised that a pair of them could address the CV problem, through a mechanism we do know today as the Cardan shaft, even though this much was entirely Hooke's idea.

But hey, it's an article with bundled refs, so it's unworkable. Andy Dingley (talk) 00:28, 8 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

After doing some more reading, I'm even more confused. Depending where you look, the Hooke joint is either a single Cardan joint (that's the more common tern here in the U.S., after simply "universal"), or it is a Double Cardan joint (the nearly exclusively used term here for a pseudo-CV joint). Which are you referring to in the Goggomobil, the single or double joint? The Universal_joint page clearly needs some cleanup.

Glenebob (talk) 00:42, 8 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Goggomobil used swing axles, so obviously this is a single joint. Andy Dingley (talk) 00:58, 8 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, that doesn't seem very obvious. A single joint on a swing axle would cause the exact rotational problem Hooke discovered! The early VW beetle also used swing arms, but with CV joints. However, I have found pictorial evidence that you are correct. I still don't know for sure whether the Hooke joint is single, or actually the so-called Double Cardan. I'll keep looking. Thanks! Glenebob (talk) 01:25, 8 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Andy, I noticed that you removed my addition on recycled carpentry as self-promotion. Assuming this is understood that way by others, I appreciate your fixing that. I still need to learn what is acceptable and what not. In this specific case, had someone else done that, would that be fine? And if so, how to distinguish? Thanks, Boaz Boaz.tsaban (talk) 13:28, 8 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello again, I understand the problem was with the link I provided, so I will next add the line without the link Boaz.tsaban (talk) 17:27, 8 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Finally, do you think you could edit your comment in "Articles for deletion/Boaz Tsaban" to be more precise/factual? The article was not self-written but self-edited, and the author was not "busy spamming" but rather added links to a website of his in this article and in another (which BTW I removed following your advice). Your choice; it is ok if you cannot change this, since the replies clarify matters. (As long as I write, I would appreciate your considering implementing the change I propose in the talk page of the article, which I cannot implement on my own.) Boaz.tsaban (talk) 17:27, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

about this comment you made, please see here. done. nice to agree sometimes! :) Jytdog (talk) 04:36, 18 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Andy, I've begun expanding the Category:Locomotives by wheel arrangement by creating sub-categories for Category:Whyte notation, Category:UIC classification, Category:AAR arrangement and Category:Commonwealth classification, the latter named Commonwealth classification for lack of an existing (known to me) name and covering the British (and SA and the rest of the old Empire's) way of describing electric and diesel-electric loco wheel arrangements. The idea is to create some order while also covering the other three widely-used arrangements. Present Whyte-type wheel arrangements will eventually all be categorised under Category:Whyte notation, similarly for the at present still sparsely populated UIC, AAR and "Commonwealth" arrangements - it may take a while since I'm doing it as I work through loco articles. This is why I'll be reverting your edit on 0-4-2 of this morning. Keep well! - André Kritzinger (talk) 13:37, 19 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

OK, so long as it stays somewhere. Andy Dingley (talk) 14:12, 19 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You have previously discussed the title of the

]

Thanks, Andy Dingley (talk) 21:31, 19 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Andy, it seems that you are not happy with the section. As per Wikipedia article guidelines, gallery is an important aspect of article. The gallery is been prepared accordingly. If you have any issues, please discuss on the talk page but do not revert again. Kautuk1 (talk) 03:27, 30 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Galleries are almost always a bad thing and a poor way to display images. This one is especially poor. Also you've added it three times now, despite being reverted, so please see

WP:3RR. Andy Dingley (talk) 08:53, 30 June 2017 (UTC)[reply

]

Excalibur

Barring any updates from Hey or Hecht, who I've been corresponding with, I think the history section is getting close to being done. Would you mind fine-tooth-combing it? Maury Markowitz (talk) 13:49, 1 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

On the talk page, you asked for supporting evidence that the Char B2 was the origin of the development of gun-laying suspension, which I gave without further comment from you. After close to a year without any objections I made the changes, then you come and revert the changes without any discussion, and then accuse me of trolling. Mind if we get things settled in a civilized manner? If the two of us can not reach agreement on what the term "Comparable vehicles" mean, I suggest we use the steps given in Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution to solve the issue. That keeps things from getting personal, which would be really silly since we both take an apparent interest in military history and strive to make good articles better. BP OMowe (talk) 18:55, 5 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for the blanking of River Gaunless. Thing is, I only started Wikipedia 10 days ago, and I really need a bit of help getting to know Wikipedia. RullRatbwan (talk) 13:51, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. But big,

BOLD changes like that aren't the best thing to start with. Try talking to people at the Teahouse for more of a suggestion. Andy Dingley (talk) 13:53, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply

]

But SamRathbone (talk · contribs) makes it impossible to trust you. Andy Dingley (talk) 14:12, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please see Locomotives of the Stockton and Darlington Railway. Roberttherambler (talk) 20:54, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please look again at my edit to the Gray code article, which you undid. My provided code re-write still makes use of doubling the shift at each step, just like the replaced code. I think that is the point you refer to in your edit comment. My edit just reverses the order of the XORs, which is legitimate, and puts them in a loop that self-detects when it can stop. Thank you -- 64.132.59.226 (talk) 16:28, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Read the edit summary, "rv - missing the point of that whole example."

Your change is both unencyclopedic, and it misses the point of that whole example. This is not a coding cookbook of examples, it's not a coding tutorial. We're not looking for good coding here, we're looking for good explanations of Gray code itself. The version without the explicit stated shifts is much clearer for that. There's also a loop-based example immediately preceding it. Andy Dingley (talk) 16:41, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for clarifying which point you are making. However, since your note is brief, I am not completely sure that you understand the point I am making. At the risk of repeating something that is already obvious to you ... my point is that the grayToBinary example uses a loop that shifts one position at time. The grayToBinary32 example (both as originally and as I have edited it) instead doubles the shift each time. To me, that is the defining difference between these two examples, rather than that one is a loop and that the other is an unrolled loop. Unfortunately, the existing grayToBinary32 has a shortfall, in that it assumes sizeof(unsigned int) == 4, which can silently change if code is moved from one computer to another. It was my hope to repair that shortfall. Can you think of an approach that repairs the shortfall while maintaining the clarity you hope to see? Thank you for entertaining my questions and considering my perspective. 64.132.59.226 (talk) 17:04, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This is not a coding tutorial. This is an explanation of Gray code. It needs to be the clearest explanation of Gray code that is can be, not the most optimised (for size or run time) code fragment. That alone is reason to keep the original example.

Secondly, this is a Gray code. I've never seen a 32 bit Gray code. I cannot imagine a use for a 32 bit Gray code, at least not out in the physical world of encoders. I once had a very expensive problem where a machine had been fitted with a 7 bit Gray code encoder when it needed a 9 bit encoder. We couldn't afford this (we could, but I was told we couldn't, after wasting far more chasing the problem of using a 7 bit code) and I had to make it work with a 8 bit encoder instead. Now imagine how impossible it would be to rule a grating for a 32 bit Gray code! Two billion increments! Andy Dingley (talk) 17:21, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Moved to Talk:Gray_code#Gray_code_code_example_changes Andy Dingley (talk) 17:23, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I removed the category from the duck article because it's already in

]

No. As already raised, you just shouldn't even be emptying this category during a deletion discussion on it. That is simply trying to stack the deck against it.

Also this is not merely a robotic animal, it is a biomorphic robotic animal, owing to its claim that it actually worked by a biological or biomorphic process, rather than just being clockwork in feathers.

SUBCAT is regularly harmful when over-used by those who don't understand its limitations, MediaWiki's limitations, or the limitations of over-trusting a simplistic tree-based taxonomy and confusing it with ontology. The inappropriate subcat relationship between robotic animals and biomorphic robots just makes this worse. Andy Dingley (talk) 15:30, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed that

]

The script did seem to barf a bit when I posted it. Andy Dingley (talk) 11:36, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I've expanded Locomotives of the Stockton and Darlington Railway. Would you mind formatting the references? I always get in a terrible mess when I try to do it. Roberttherambler (talk) 22:25, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Not tonight, but I'll take a look. There's some more in the Thomas Hackworth book too. Andy Dingley (talk) 22:30, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Andy Thanks for your thoughtful and helpful comments on the Talk page on the AWS Wikipedia page. I would appreciate any help you can provide. Would it be possible for you to email me (I'm assuming that's okay to ask)? Our corporate VPN is blocked for editing Wiki pages. I also want more info on what happened with the AWS Icon Set - I'll chase it down on this side and see if I can get it fixed. For the logo, I was told it was freely licensed, but I'm confirming that as well. My email is [email protected].

KevinJGoddard (talk) 19:09, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Andy. I know your opinion of me, no problem. And I am swearing again. We are discussing whether the brand of trucks built by International Harvester Company are branded "International" or "International Harvester". It is long, I would like you to note a line of sources I left, and anything else that interests you. I am asking you to make an objective opinion on the name only. There is also a lot of crud, whatever you want to say. Thank you. EDIT: I forgot the link:[1]Sammy D III (talk) 02:56, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but I really know little about US trucks and nothing about International Harvester. Although general principles for clarity would make me favour a fuller "International Harvester" rather than an ambiguous "International", even if somewhat out of date. Andy Dingley (talk) 09:41, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Clearly not the answer I wanted, but exactly what I asked for. I would have prefered a judgement on the actual name, but I did think of "I" vs."i". Thank you. Sammy D III (talk) 11:40, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the improvements you made to the

]

Can you move

?

Thanks.

Tony May (talk) 19:57, 25 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No, it seems not. I guess the target must have been edited since. If you post it at

WP:RM/TR an admin should do it, usually fairly quickly. Andy Dingley (talk) 20:00, 25 September 2017 (UTC)[reply

]

Query

Was your edit summary here intended to be funny? If so, it misses the mark. --John (talk) 19:54, 26 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• And here we are again. Are you confusing me with someone you bear a grudge against or something? In any case you're at risk of slightly making a fool of yourself if you carry on like this. --John (talk) 20:07, 26 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Andy,

I notice that you've been wikilinking "viewer" to "colliery viewer" on several articles but there is actually no such page. Are you planning to write one, link to a more general colliery organisation or just hoping someone else will get fed up with red links?

Regards, Martin of Sheffield (talk) 09:57, 27 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Just working on it. Also WP:REDLINK.

"Coal viewer" vs. "colliery viewer" is one question though. Andy Dingley (talk) 10:11, 27 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

OK, thanks. (BTW, my instinct is that a viewer is overseeing the colliery, not sitting looking at a lump of coal - if that helps!) Martin of Sheffield (talk) 10:20, 27 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It seems to depend on the age a bit. The eighteenth century favoured "coal". Andy Dingley (talk) 10:23, 27 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I have reverted your edit. Back in the 1980s Daisy Wheel printers were widely used to produce ASCII art. Stub Mandrel (talk) 18:49, 2 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Your edit is poorly written, unsourced and most of all it duplicates what comes before it. No-one is disputing that daisy wheels were used for graphics, the question is how to express this. Andy Dingley (talk) 21:07, 2 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Andy, from the discussion above, you appear to know that we don't keep unreferenced content, especially that which isn't sourced to

]

So what useful contributions have you made today, other than blanking a bunch of articles and doing nothing yourself about adding the sources you're demanding? Andy Dingley (talk) 17:00, 4 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There's no way you stalked my contribs to make four successive and unrelated reverts but didn't note that I wrote the entirety of

Catalan general strike... But physician, heal thyself—what do you have to show for your own work, apart from belittling others? Show your sources and lay down the personal attacks—you're on the fast track to ANI czar 18:50, 4 October 2017 (UTC)[reply

]

Since you objected to the PROD on Olympia Nelson, I wanted to encourage you to offer an opinion in the deletion discussion. World's Lamest Critic (talk) 15:21, 8 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I have no opinion on it. I'm inclined to a keep, but find the arguments both ways to be substantial (BLP1E vs the significance of her own later writing). Andy Dingley (talk) 17:07, 8 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, re this revert. This means that the image is in the article twice: it was already in the "

]

see talk: there. Andy Dingley (talk) 23:10, 12 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Go ahead & take it to ANI. See if I give a damn. TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 23:10, 15 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

So do you still claim that shrapnel wasn't used in WWI? "shrapnel was not, rpt not, in current use in WW1" and "Shrapnel long since gone," ? What's going on here? Are you edit-warring in a falsehood because you don't know, because you disbelieve the sources, or that you know it's wrong and you're just doing it to revert me? Andy Dingley (talk) 23:16, 15 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

]

I'll keep an eye on it. It's not good, but they seem well enough intentioned otherwise that we can only hope for improvement. Andy Dingley (talk) 10:08, 17 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks; a few of the edits were sensible, so improvement might happen. Just plain Bill (talk) 13:04, 17 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There is currently a discussion at

]

Thanks, you just beat me to it - I've been filling out the ANEW (I'll paste it to the ANI). Andy Dingley (talk) 18:05, 17 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Amy. Firehoof. thanks. I added some thinking I'd be first.Dlohcierekim (talk) 18:05, 17 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Probably little point, SPIs take months. Andy Dingley (talk) 18:08, 17 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

While not nearly as popular as it once was (for the reasons stated in the edited passage), the product is still widely sold: http://www.acehardware.com/product/index.jsp?productId=53090276; http://www.homedepot.com/s/emery%20cloth?NCNI-5&gsitesearch. Yours, Wikiuser100 (talk) 22:31, 18 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Just to be clear, Andy (and I do admire the heck out your what, a couple hundred thousand contributions to the encylopedia), you will find a roll of 1" wide emery cloth in any working plumber's kit in the U.S., as well as a roll of 1" sandcloth, as they are still the go-to's for cleaning up the ends of copper tubing before soldering, as well as in the various kits of other working tradesmen.Wikiuser100 (talk) 22:39, 18 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• So what is "emery cloth"?

Yes, I can still buy it. But only from the 1/2" thick catalogue of abrasives. Emery paper I can't buy anywhere. We are quibbling here over minor terms like "remains popular" and "Emery paper, more commonly seen, ". I don't see either of these as credibly supportable.

Mostly,

glasspaper

. 3M still make emery cloth sheets (dark grey, 9064NA) for the US and Australia market, but you can't even buy it in Europe. The roll of 1" tape that, yes every plumber has in the van, will be brick red 314D "emery", and (being brick red) that's synthetic aluminium oxide, not emery. The USGS don't list emery as an abrasive material in their annual surveys of abrasive materials, just aluminium oxide and silicon carbide.

Also "emery cloth" has gone as a sheet material. We don't need it - wet & dry is ubiquitous and has the high tensile strength that the cloth had. So the only cloths left are as narrow tapes because they're rippable, or the remaining machine belts that are still cloth.

Emery still has its uses. It's softer than synthetic aluminium oxide. It's good for cleaning steam trains, because it's such a lousy abrasive - it blunts in no time so it polishes without scratching or by causing too much wear. Famously it's also "non-embedding", although what that means to post-war bearing designs isn't clear either. But even if you try to go and buy emery specifically, you can hardly get it - you'll be sold "emery", and it will be synthetic. Which is why I have a 1/2" thick abrasives catalogue handy.

What is this article about? Does it mean "emery" cloth, as a specific type of abrasive? In which case it has to recognise that emery is now scarce, largely obsolete and has been supplanted by aluminium oxide. I don't believe it can claim "remains popular" when it has a tiny market share, especially compared to what it was in the 1970s. Nor has emery paper been "more common" than emery cloth for a very long time.

Or should this article be merged into a more general one on coated sheet abrasives for hand use, under "sandpaper". (And if you want the extensive library on sandpaper vs. glasspaper, garnet or flint papers, then that's on the other shelves and goes back to the 17th century. Andy Dingley (talk) 23:38, 18 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Gee, Andy, it clearly is a mish-mash. The Ace product describes itself as "emery", as do the 3M and Norton items at Home Depot. The red tape is indeed aluminum oxide, as is at least some blue - which are described with terms like "abrasive" or "utility" cloth, though still called "emery cloth" colloquially here in the States. Perhaps the article just, at least, needs a statement to the effect that while traditional emery cloth and paper are still available, they have been generally displaced not merely by the changes in technology already stated but synthetic abrasives such as the above.

On a personal note, I was stunned when I looked it up after leaving my initial note to discover you have "only" made some 75-80,000 edits at Wikipedia, not the "hundreds of thousands" I had assumed. It seems I must have seen every one of them on a history page of some article I was at. Keep up the great work! Yours, Wikiuser100 (talk) 14:24, 19 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Blue abrasive grits will be aluminium zirconia. That's the main one I use (Hermes in Europe use it almost exclusively) as it lasts so much better than aluminium oxide.

I'm happy that "emery cloth" still belongs as an article, even more so that at least the photo shows some, but it does have to reflect that other abrasives have moved past it. Andy Dingley (talk) 14:34, 19 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Roger. Done. Yours, Wikiuser100 (talk) 16:13, 19 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, and thank you for your contributions. Please don't add sourcing derived from

]

re: [2] You undid my edit and gave 'No way do electric motors belong in the lead'as the reason. So I ask 'Why do mechanical and not electrical drives? If it does not belong in the lead then we could remove mechanical as well, but that would leave little introduction.

My only experience with electrically powered systems in on ships main diesel engines. These engines are designed with fuel efficiency as the no.1 criteria and to this end are optimised to run with a turbocharger, so much so that they cannot run properly without boost. When manouevring, when the turbo cannot provide sufficient air, the electrical superchargers are run up to provide the boost. In this situation they are known as auxiliary superchargers, or in general usage 'auxyblowers', but I'm sure this is not their only use. Again I do not know enough to expand the article properly and thought that best left to someone who does. But they are superchargers, so need to be included if the erticle on superchargers is to be comprehensive.

Also, you removed my edit that corrected an implied assumption that turbocharger are not superchargers. Supercharging is the process of boosting the air to the engine, not one particular type of kit to do it. Engineers recognise this fact before they choose the most appropriate means of powering the boost system, and the current choices are mechanical, electrical or exhaust gas turbine. Just because general (street) usage only has dropped the term does not change the reality. It is stated in the article that turbochargers used to be referred to as turbo superchargers, in the same way mechanically driven systems used to be known as mechanical superchargers. I recognise that things have moved on to the point where they have need of their own article, but I carefully worded my edit to accomodate all this i.e. acknowledge the fact that a turbocharger is, technically, a form of supercharger but further info is available on 'turbocharger's own page.

I would say that the article needs expansion with more detail, not cutting back to suit street slang. I am not sure how to do this, but that should not mean closing the door that I opened. kimdino (talk) 21:49, 22 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This belongs at Talk:Supercharger, rather than here.

We work here by

WP:V

. It matters not what you or I think, but only if we can source it reliably does it belong here.

There's also the question of

WP:LEAD

. We have to be even more careful with what's in the lead, because of its prominence and that its shortness doesn't allow for much subtlety of expression: if it's difficult, we should leave it to fuller coverage in the body.

Electric superchargers - show some sources for them. There are plenty of these for sale to the car tweaking crowd, and they're all charlatans. I know of one real electric supercharger, a really obscure Crossley diesel engine of the 1930s - an idea that did work, but they didn't persist with it.

Ships are a bit out of my knowledge, but I know they are using electric blowers in this way. However, AIUI, these came in a few years ago as part of environment rules and their purpose is to encourage clean burning and avoiding smoke, when the engine is idling at low power in port and the normal turbochargers are ineffective. Nor are they superchargers: they are at most

scavenge blowers

.

Superchargers take a lot of power. It's easy to make an electric one (that doesn't work, but is a device that is descriptively "a supercharger"), hard to make a worthwhile electric one, but impossible unless the engine is already generating a substantial amount of electrical power. So plausibly we might see them for generator sets, or

diesel-electric locomotives and ships, but not unless there is also that great big generator, and it's always going to be easier to drive mechanically or as a turbocharger. As to why turbochargers are used (especially for diesels), that's a whole different issue and tied up with the turbo-compound engine

, another article that needs to be better.

So electric superchargers are out on a limb. They are rare. If I missed them becoming un-rare, then show some sources to that effect, because until it's sourced that they really form an appreciable proportion, they ain't going in that lead.

The other issue is copy-editing (and I wouldn't have reverted for this). IMHE, it is easier to spoon-feed the reader: we get a more readable lead if we explain mechanically-driven superchargers in one paragraph, then extend this scope to turbochargers in the following paragraph. This is didactic prose: we are not judged on our success by the accuracy of the writing, but by the accuracy of the reader's retained impression after reading it. This is English language text, not formal mathematics or a propositional calculus. It is better for us to be clear and give a correct overall impression than to be formally correct in every single statement. English is imprecise and often contradictory. Our best route through that is with clarity and simplicity, not by making the first statement a complete enumeration of every possible variation. Sticking "electrically driven" in there because it was used once is not helpful. Nor is a liberal sprinkling of weasel concessions like "generally". The simpler, prior, version was correct overall and much clearer to read.

I'm sorry if you've been disgruntled by being reverted, I can understand that. And blanket reversion especially. I'd love to expand this article, and electric supercharger, with coverage of the marine stuff in particular. But we have to focus on being a generalist encyclopedia first, and initial readers have to walk away afterwards with the most accurate picture we can leave them, including how vanishingly rare electric drives are here. Andy Dingley (talk) 23:02, 22 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Andy Dingley. This is just a friendly notice that serves to remind you that Discretionary Sanctions are in place for BLP articles. I see you were notified, most recently in January, about DS in another area, so I won't send you the boilerplate notice. I will however assume that you understand what is permitted on BLPs and what isn't. If you need any help understanding this, just reply here. Best, --John (talk) 14:52, 22 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The patronising tone seems strange when addressing an editor with more than 125,000 edits. MPS1992 (talk) 21:26, 22 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Would you prefer the template? SPECIFICO talk 22:00, 22 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Are you asking me, kid, or the person whose talkpage this is? Get a grip of yourself.

By the way, this page is quite boring to me, so if you want or need my attention, be sure to ping me. Thanks. MPS1992 (talk) 22:13, 22 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Asking MPS1992, the one who apparently has an opinion on the subject of using the routine template vs. using a paraphrase of template. SPECIFICO talk 23:38, 22 October 2017 (UTC)C[reply]

I happened to stop by here this evening, so I can tell User:SPECIFICO that I have read his message. It has been suggested to me that if I tell him what I have done with it, I might be subject to sanctions from User:John or his friends. So I will not tell you that. MPS1992 (talk) 20:24, 23 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Andy. Your choice to continue to parade your (deliberate?) misunderstanding of

]

Factual error?

And perhaps you would care to join that discussion in the place for it. Andy Dingley (talk) 11:35, 24 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the mis-statement you made about me there. Perhaps, but I may not as I think you've already been answered satisfactorily there. --John (talk) 11:46, 24 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You may have missed this request so I will ask again. Please can you remove the mis-statement you made about me there? --John (talk) 17:05, 24 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Disappointed you didn't manage this yourself so I did it for you. Reinstate it and we're back at AN/I. You're so far into

WP:POINT territory that you are out the other side. --John (talk) 16:44, 25 October 2017 (UTC)[reply

]

Thankyou for finally clarifying what you were complaining about. A shame you couldn't do it within the mandatory 24 hour response time that you demand for user talk pages, but no matter.

So do I have this right? The one piece of vaguely clear and agreed consensus policy we have here,

WP:DAILYMAIL, was nothing to do with you and you haven't even done that much to clear up the issues you still persist in carping about? Thanks for clarifying. Andy Dingley (talk) 17:05, 25 October 2017 (UTC)[reply

]

Andy, it's bad writing. Please rewrite it if you don't like my edit, don't just revert it and claim I have a problem with my reading skills, which is quite beneath you. As is your attitude here, after working cooperatively on the

article. It is most uncalled for, and, in a word, bullying, for which there is a Wikipedia action page you are familiar with.

I would like to see a constructive edit on your part here. Yours, Wikiuser100 (talk) 11:42, 24 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

" They sought an optimal design for a of beam made of the new material of riveted wrought iron plates." is not just bad writing, it is gibberish. Please do not add, and re-add after being reverted, that sentence to the article.

Nor will I re-write it, as I consider it to be perfectly acceptable as it was before. It includes "efficiency" for one, which was a new concept in civil engineering at the time and was being expounded by this new generation of mathematically literate engineers, such as

WP:OVERLINK

is nominally against them.

Andy, first, the sentence as written is bad writing. That is not arguable. My edit is not, by any measure. It may not express whatever it is you are seeking so passionately to; fine, if you are aware of more nuance in that convoluted statement, as you appear to be, great, then rewrite it in good English.

Second, I am going to restore the link to

WP:OVERLINKing

: the term is linked once in the lead; I linked it in appropriate section of the body.

Third, I do not understand - nor appreciate - your aggressive (and at times demeaning) manner in all this. You are not being a very good Wikipedia citizen, and, honestly, I do not intent to be on the receiving end of it passively any longer. Yours, Wikiuser100 (talk) 12:13, 26 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Why are you wasting so much time and effort on defending such a clearly poor change? Take it to ANI if you wish. Andy Dingley (talk) 12:22, 26 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. How is the article more balanced? In all of the other missile articles, the claims are taken at face value but in this one they're purely reported as claims. How is that balanced? --110.93.236.75 (talk) 18:28, 29 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

WP:V

apply to all.

For the Ababeel, it has been demonstrated as a launcher (a missile took off). However it has yet to demonstrate the MIRV feature of the multiple returning warheads achieving their targets. That is a lot harder than simply being an enlarged launcher intended to be used for MIRV. We cannot take a claim that Ababeel is capable of this without some evidence to support that.

If you have complaints about other articles not being checked equally, then the place to raise that is on those articles, or at least tell us which ones. Andy Dingley (talk) 18:37, 29 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Also see

WP:EW. Andy Dingley (talk) 18:37, 29 October 2017 (UTC)[reply

]

16.67hz mains?

You flagged the number in "Mains electricity". Yeh, I think you're right - it was special usage. I've sort of rolled electricity generation into mains electricity. Would you buy 25hz instead? If not, what's the lower limit here? Sbalfour (talk) 23:24, 4 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I wouldn't know - maybe we go by what's sourceable instead?

But claiming 162⁄3 as "mains" frequency for a distribution network is obvious bollocks. Andy Dingley (talk) 23:27, 4 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Certainly 16 2/3 was used in industrial and railway applications in the electrical stone age, and continues in use today in railroads. Whether it was ever provided to less specialized customers I don't know. EEng 01:21, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

But that's the point: it was only used because powerful but compact motor technology (i.e. railways) required it. It was never used for the distribution networks, either industrial or domestic, and even most railways escaped it as fast as they could. Andy Dingley (talk) 01:26, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I remember the usage. What's a "mains"? If you worked for the railroard back then, the power was 16-2/3 hz. And then there were barely ten years when the proliferation of frequencies prevailed, so everybody 'escaped' or converted to something right quick. You're spot-on about sourcing such a definitive statement, so I've deleted it until I can source it. Sbalfour (talk) 02:46, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Well, be careful. Certainly railways used their traction power for extensive auxiliary applications we would think of as conventionally commercial or residential (stations, hotels, employee housing) so I'm not sure that saying "16 2/3 was never used for mains" is really justified. As Sbalfour says, it depends on that you think a mains is. EEng 03:34, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Their 162⁄3 power? Where?

"Mains" here means either a commodity distribution network, where customers are sold a fungible product according to their ad hoc demand, or else (post WWI) a distribution and load-balancing grid network. I know of no instances where railways did this with their 162⁄3 power. Maybe they did - Italy would be the most likely place for it to happen. The problem is that 162⁄3 doesn't distribute well - transformer losses are too great to move it long distances. This made its generation difficult and was the main reason why railways such as the French avoided it, even though they had to develop new traction equipment to do so. Andy Dingley (talk) 11:39, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Andy,

Shielded active-gas forge-welding (SAG-FW). See: https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s12289-010-0945-3 . I didn't put that link there, but I think someone got the idea from the forge welding article. (Just don't expect me to go write an article about it.) I hope that helps. Zaereth (talk) 02:57, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks - so the main aspect of that would seem to be as a sub type of forge welding, with added shielding gas? So the original redlink was also the wrong name. Seems like an interesting topic, but I'm not putting such an obscure link back into the lead of the main article, especially not when it's still red. Andy Dingley (talk) 10:28, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. It's a rather obscure and specializwd thing, used mainly for underwater pipelines. Zaereth (talk) 17:30, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please provide references to support your re-addition of unsourced trivia to the Zabriskie Point article. Pop culture sections tend to become repositories of trivia (often rather promotional) with little relevance to the subject of the article. So I tend to chop stuff that is lacking sources. Thanks, Vsmith (talk) 16:23, 9 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/List_of_pioneers_in_computer_science . Zazpot (talk) 20:14, 9 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I think we may have got our wires crossed here in an edit-clash type situation. I had already explained to the editor who originally added the "descriptive passage" why it wouldn't do (inaccurate) - new quick definition of what a rotary actually is was added as a compromise, but even this is not really necessary. For an article on a particular engine we assume, I think, that the reader will seek details afforded by more general articles covering type of engine. --Soundofmusicals (talk) 10:15, 10 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I read that. It's a better description. Andy Dingley (talk) 10:19, 10 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Just wanted to let you know that the fair use of images of living people generally fails

]

ARBATC

I was going to leave a {{subst:DS/alert|at}} here, but you've received one within the last 12 months already. Comments like "Oh, make no question of it: it's just discomfort that's it's you doing it" (emphasis in original) is exactly the kind of uncivil personalization of titling disputes that led to

]

Sorry, was that not clear enough for you? Try reading the whole thread at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Trains#More_Line_capitalization_issues. It is high time that Dicklyon was topic banned from causing yet more trouble in this field, with his persistent, idiosyncratic and against policy renames. Andy Dingley (talk) 12:48, 11 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm responding here because your comment at AN didn't contain a question and I have stated there I wouldn't comment further unless a question was asked. My signature is now what it was when my 3-month block and the 0RR restriction were both imposed. What it had been for a year or more and no one mentioned it. Until yesterday. Just so you know... -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 15:45, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I am far from being interested enough to track just which version of your signature you're using with each particular edit (You are not that interesting to other editors. If you become that interesting to other editors, it is unlikely to have been for a good reason). I hope my concerns over your signature are clear enough (and if they're not, I'm not seeking to explain them further, just to have you blocked under

WP:CIR

).

Your signature exists to communicate to other editors. It should communicate your identity: your identity as represented in log files, so that we can cross-reference them; and to a tiny amount as a gesture of your individuality. It is not here to demonstrate CSS virtuosity. It is not here to hide the link between those two identities. It is also here to give a functioning link to a talk: page, which is both mandatory, useful to editors and also essential for keeping Talk: archiving properly.

You still seem to think that there is some great unfairness by other editors limiting your access. This is wrong. You have no right to be here at all, so do not demand one. You are tolerated here (same as everyone) if it's thought that you might contribute to the project. The project (in a corporate sense) might decide that it wants you. It doesn't matter if you want it, that's just not part of the agenda. Claiming or demanding that it is (and many have tried) leads to long blocks. Andy Dingley (talk) 16:28, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the comments and advice. Take care. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 16:45, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

So for the United States subsection under Production, what do you think we should name it? I believe we should keep it short and clear, maybe something like "United States" or "Production in the United States" will do. I don't think we need to specify that the production was attempted or failed, or specify if either the FT or M1917 was the focus, because the short paragraph itself explains that already. The title just needs to tell the reader what the content in that (sub)section is about.

]

Rhadow AFDs

I can't be bothered, but I think you would be correct to bring Rhadow to requests for Administrator Intervention. 198.58.171.47 (talk) 05:57, 24 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I've blocked to prevent further disruptive editing, but do not have time to review and revert, please take a look. -- ferret (talk) 14:35, 27 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The Wikimedia Foundation Community health initiative (led by the Safety and Support and Anti-Harassment Tools team) is conducting a survey for en.wikipedia contributors on their experience and satisfaction level with the Administrator’s Noticeboard/Incidents. This survey will be integral to gathering information about how this noticeboard works - which problems it deals with well, and which problems it struggles with.

The survey should take 10-20 minutes to answer, and your individual responses will not be made public. The survey is delivered through Google Forms. The privacy policy for the survey describes how and when Wikimedia collects, uses, and shares the information we receive from survey participants and can be found here:

• https://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/2017_AN/Incidents_Survey_Privacy_Statement

If you would like to take this survey, please sign up on this page, and a link for the survey will be mailed to you via Special:Emailuser.

• Sign up here to receive a link to a survey

Thank you on behalf of the Support & Safety and Anti-Harassment Tools Teams, Patrick Earley (WMF) talk 18:24, 1 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Andy, saw your recent edits, much appreciated. Do you know of a way of linking this Du Cane back to the family Du Cane which is so prominent and has a number of bios here? I failed miserably, although Google was my only research tool in short order.... The Rambling Man (talk) 21:13, 10 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but I know nothing about his personal life - just a bit about his technical work. Andy Dingley (talk) 21:26, 10 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, well thanks anyway. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:40, 10 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Is this a subject you have knowledge in? Please consider reverting your recent revert of me. I also just posted about this issue in talk, if you wish to discus there. Your revert of me was all to quick. Please slow it down :) 76.90.112.41 (talk) 19:59, 12 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I wasn't a member of "Dingly and his friends" (because of an old grudge of mine) but may become one ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:55, 13 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PIAT

You removed me edit stating it was used until '71. I'm a bit confused as it clearly states that it was used in the Indo-Pakistani war in '71. So, if it was used in '71 in Pakistan/India, how it is possible it was retired in 1950? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Old Ukraine (talk • contribs) 18:02, 23 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I know nothing of its use in that conflict, there's nothing in the article about that, and there's certainly no

sourcing

to back it up.

If you can source this, then go for it. But it does need sourcing first. Andy Dingley (talk) 11:40, 24 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hiya. With respect to this change. As you note, there is no policy that precludes the use of adjectives. However, if those adjectives represent an opinion, especially a subjective one, then there is a

]

But these adjectives are not excessive. Kings Weston House is built where it is because of the spectacular nature of its views (oddly there's no example on Commons). They form, literally, a spectacle. This is in the contemporary traditions of the picturesque and the (nearby) Wye Tour. I wouldn't object to replacing "spectacular" with "picturesque" (it's perhaps the more contemporary term) but "extensive" indicates nothing as to the subject matter (Have you seen the view from Kings Weston?). Any hill on the A19 approaching Middlesbrough is just as "extensive" (and perhaps "spectacular" too), but has nothing of the picturesque to it.

You replaced the brickwork description of 1/16" jointing as "exceptionally fine" with merely fine. This is wrong: brickwork handbooks regard 1/4" as "fine", 1/16" is exceptional in that it is literally and objectively so: such narrowness is otherwise unheard of (I've never seen it anywhere else, even for opus spicatum); it is the exception to all other fine brickwork jointing. This is what the sentence means, and we should keep that.

Replacing "it became a popular destination for artists" with merely "a destination for artists" makes it meaningless: artists go all over the place, to dentists and to canvas makers down industrial alleys. Only when qualified as popular does the sentence make sense, that this location became a destination chosen specifically on aesthetic grounds, for its virtues. This is not subjective (or at least, not our WP:OR subjectivity), but is recording the behaviour of a significant group which we can establish with some sense of objectivity.

These removals, as do all these crusade-based edits under WP:NOADJECTIVES do not improve articles. It is simplistic 'bot-based editing to think so. This is why human editors, with editorial judgement, are still needed. Andy Dingley (talk) 13:57, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

See this too. Andy Dingley (talk) 23:22, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed. Thanks. User Rjccumbria's changes, to attribute the perspective on the views (and clarify the attribution of other elements) are expertly done, and more than address my own concern. Thanks to you both. Guliolopez (talk) 16:03, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Apoloogies for intruding, but my concerns were not those of User:Guliolopez, perhaps because I read the original text slightly differently. The claim to be stood up - I thought - was not that the views are 'spectacular', but that the conventional wisdom in the late 18th century was that they were (much like West's officially admirable views from carefully prescribed 'viewing stations' in the Lake District, not all of which would now be thought particularily outstanding). Deleting 'spectacular' leaves us with a claim that the views were merely such as to make the viewpoint nationally famous. To my mind, that edit solves nothing: in either case there is (I feel) still a requirement to support the claim in some way. Contemporary quotes seem to be the official WP way of doing this (although strictly speaking they demonstrate only that some people held a view, not that it was generally accepted), and have duly been supplied: I feel a more convincing demonstration is that Jane Austen , far from 'describing the charms of the estate', assumed that her readers would know what they were. Anyway, a Happy New Year (or a happy new year for MoS devotees) to you both. Rjccumbria (talk) 20:54, 31 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]