User talk:Andy Dingley/Archive 2019

I saw that you just undid my revision at Karman line, stating that it was "clearer" before. I wonder if I could trouble you to take a look at the comment I put on the talk page shortly before I made that revision; there, I explain why I made the revision. The thing is, it's not about which is more clear; it's about which is actually correct. The article as it stood before my revision--and as it stands now--says that the equation gives the lift REQUIRED. Well, the lift REQUIRED is equal to the weight of what's being lifted--the aircraft. What that equation calculates is, how much lift a give wing will provide under various conditions. That's not the same as how much is needed. Uporządnicki (talk) 19:33, 2 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I already read that comment, and replied, where this thread belongs. Andy Dingley (talk) 19:44, 2 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Why do you feel that the article is improved by reverting my deletion? The claim that it is "much less dangerous to use" is unverfied, so should be removed. The remainig claim that liquid metal will burn you is completely trivial. With the statement in place it misleadingly suggests that there's something special about liquid Field's metal that causes it to burn, instead of just because it's hot. If we take the position that this is notable information, it should be added to the article for every material with a melting point above 45 Celcius. OrangeDog (τ • ε) 13:59, 2 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Feel free to do the legwork and source it. But there's no reason to keep removing it. Molten metals are dangerous to handle because of two factors: their temperature (if they're molten and they're not gallium, then they're going to be hot) and also their volume heat capacity (product of their specific heat capacity and their density). So the melting point for these low-melting alloys is below the temperature of boiling water (some are below a decent cup of tea) but as their density is so much higher, even though their SHC is lower than that of water (water is anomalously high), they're a greater hazard than many other objects will be at 62ºC. And yet, their melting point being so low (especially if we compare this as their melting point relative to body temperature) the temperature of molten aluminium or lead is so much greater that those metals are still a far greater hazard. Aluminium especially – hobbyist foundrymen get more injuries from aluminium than they do from other metals, because of their assumption that it's 'safer' than others and so excuses sloppy working.

This isn't specific to Field's metal. There's a table there of the common low-melting alloys, and the same safety issue applies to most of them. These are low-melting alloys, but they (mostly - some really are just body temperature) will still cause real injuries. None of this is contentious, and although it does still need sourcing, that is no reason to run around removing it over and over.

Also, your claim that Alnico magnets don't need keepers is nonsense. This is WP and subject experience is no substitute for good secondary sourcing. But it still beats dogma and ignorance.Andy Dingley (talk) 14:52, 2 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You forgot Mercury--can be molten AND very cold!

Burden of sources is on those who want to add information. Because it's not specific to Field's metal it's also not notable, as well as being poorly verified.

Neither do I claim that alcino magnets don't need keepers. I removed the (again unsourced) assertion that it's because they have low coercivity, when most sources and articles say they have high coercivity. OrangeDog (τ • ε) 16:38, 3 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The trouble with Alnico (capitalised, not "Alcino") magnets is that clearly you just don't know anything about them, but you've found some big WP:ALLCAPS pages instead. It shows. Andy Dingley (talk) 16:41, 3 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The engines of Saro Princess should be 710 and 700 series instead of 610 and 600 series.

http://tieba.baidu.com/p/5680359024 http://tieba.baidu.com/p/5698394880

The photos from Saunders-Roe Company and UK A.I.D. clearly showed that they were 710 and 700. Besides, the Flight Journal also showed that the Princess used Proteus 3 engines. And Proteus 3 engines was renamed the Proteus 700 series, which is showed in Wikipedia. GUNDAM123dx (talk) 10:53, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

A quite remarkable choice of referencing...

It used 600 engines. It might have been planned to use 700s, but I don't know of any indication that it did so. More to the point, your change was sloppy in that it removed the link altogether. Andy Dingley (talk) 10:56, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'm recovering from an operation and not very active at present, so really appreciate your recent edits. best regards Mztourist (talk) 05:24, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome - hope the recovery goes well.

Also - run away from this place! It's not healthy. Maybe (as an interim) go and research something new and work offline for a bit? Good luck Andy Dingley (talk) 10:31, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Good advice! Thanks. Mztourist (talk) 07:33, 11 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Stop adding back the link for a page that doesnt exist, this link can be misleading to people and makes absolutely no sense at all. Why have a link for a page that doesnt exist unless you know where the page is and can fix the link. In the meantime stop adding a link for a page that doesnt exist.

Maybe read

WP:REDLINK? You've been pointed at it enough. But then, you clearly have zero interest in how WP works. Andy Dingley (talk) 23:55, 11 January 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

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. Andy Dingley (talk) 00:28, 12 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

And here we see Andy Dingley harassing another person and starting a war. Dingley should be blocked for repeatedly falsely reporting 3RR when he in fact is the one who did 3RR and the other didn't. He is a long term menace to Wikipedia, the communist "fake encyclopedia" 96.246.100.188 (talk) 16:01, 12 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps you're unaware of the editor's ongoing obsession with that subject, and how he's been called on it numerous times by various users. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 12:59, 16 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I'm unaware of any such. So the response now is WP:SNARK?

If it's that bad, such that DENY kicks in, then we blank and ignore it. We don't start snarky insults, especially not in such a public space. Andy Dingley (talk) 13:02, 16 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I deleted my comment. I think if you want further info, you could ask Jayron32, as I think he was one who took the user to task (though I could be remembering incorrectly). ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 13:06, 16 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Andy Dingley (talk) 13:07, 16 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

thanks for the heads up there - I was sure it was self evident - it sure is now with bells and whistles - cheers JarrahTree 00:19, 20 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'm still not convinced (I haven't had time to read those reports fully) that the commission was looking at the ASGs specifically in relation to use in tunnels. Andy Dingley (talk) 10:51, 20 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

In AGF I give up - if you cannot take my word or read it - lets leave it at that - there was a major strike over the issue - and the royal commissioner actually is reported as interested in going into the tunnel to see the conditions - if that doesnt do it for you, please leave the judgement clear until you re-read the article - if that doesnt do it - please get someone else to explain - or look at the trove newspaper reports. JarrahTree 11:03, 20 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

There's a commission about the locos being unpopular with their crews – I don't know why as yet. There's a past claim in this article that the problem was making as escape past the cylinders, because the cylinders were hot. Yet cylinders just aren't hot enough for that to be a problem. It's more plausible that the cylinders were too wide, if anything. All I've read so far in the commission report was about the cabs being enclosed. Andy Dingley (talk) 11:13, 20 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• BTW: Wikipedia:Reference desk/Science#Preventing another Balvano Andy Dingley (talk) 11:14, 20 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for that link: the whole eastern railway thing was always defacto catching up - I could literally write pages in a blog (some rs very hard to find for some aspects for wp en) where eastern railway one had reverse inclines which severely limited the locos in use in the 1880s - eastern railway two had the tunnel (solved by the extra external deviation) and eastern railway three was/has been rising issues free for the almost 50 years in operation... due to its low gradients and massive curves and clearances JarrahTree 12:10, 20 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The whole royal commission was a set up by the unions to flex their power post war (oliver and others at the lower part of the article), and they were able to get the commisioner to get carried away with technical details to try to get the asgs off the track - asgs failed completely in queensland but were very successful on the emu bay in tasmania - the politics of the rail unions is vital to understand the 'forced' direction of the commisioner - the flangeless forward bogies (in my mind from my involvement and conversations with people who were alive when it was going on local rail heritage circles for about 5 years up until recently) were as bizarre as anything. If you got suffocated in the tunnel unpopular might be an understatement... it happened more than once see my trove items added. the cylinder stuff is simple sideline. The point is I have had first hand conversations with people who are the last word on the oral traditions from this era, and it is correlated with the trove reports - I have no interest in putting anything that cannot be verified - it was a tight fit, the asg's were so close to not fitting through the tunnel and they slowed down horribly on the up journeys that I am surprised more dirvers of the asgs werent completely suffocated. The royal commision report had to pursue the technical issues raised as the unions wanted the locos off the track.. when I was very young I was given permission to go into a yard in Midland where at least 10 of them had been stored (1954-1965) as no one wanted to actually scrap them early on as there were two threads of the whole wagr management system that - even kept U and other locos on hold in case there were any issues where spare horsepower was needed - etc etc JarrahTree 11:46, 20 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Can you elaborate more on what references are needed? Other articles on football league seasons have just one reference. I've now put two references on this page which point to the same information. EddersGTI (talk) 16:39, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't know. I know nothing about footie. I described it as 'sparsely' referenced (there's only one) in contrast to the way it had been tagged as unreferenced, which seemed to be a mistake from not having noticed the ELs being inlined. If one is typical practice for these, and that compendium ref is trusted adequately, then it's probably fine. Andy Dingley (talk) 16:51, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, regarding your reverting of my edit "To decrease the volatility of Armstrong mixture, oil can be added." back to "To improve the insensibility of Armstrong mixture, oil can be added and to keep maintaining the explode velocity." please explain how 'Volitility' is the wrong word to use when speaking of explosives, and further explain how the phrase "and to keep maintaining the explode velocity" makes any sense within the context of the sentence. Additionally, to say "Improve the insensitivity" is just as moronic as saying "lengthening the shortness" or "expanding the smallness", I mean, really... C. J. T. T. Wilson (talk) 08:08, 24 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I presume you mean "volatility". Which refers to a substance ease of vaporising, not exploding or igniting. "Insensibility" is correct, although a little archaic, and "sensitivity" is the more usual term today.

I'm not defending the original wording, but "volatility" is quite wrong. Andy Dingley (talk) 11:03, 24 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect

]

Notability

Hello Andy Dingley, you were involved in an AfD whose result presumed notability for all railway stations, just as we previously did for schools. You might be interested in this one: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hapa Road railway station. There are currently 2,800 articles written about the 8,500 railway stations in India. Two thousand of those are stubs and several hundred are single-source sub-stubs. The inclusionists point to Wikipedia:Notability_(Railway_lines_and_stations)#Stations as policy that mandates notability, but I don't read it that way. Rhadow (talk) 16:00, 30 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

What does it mean? cy:Trwnc doesn't exist. At least in my mind, it doesn't seem good form to begin a lead-image caption with a foreign term that looks like a typo or vandalism, unless the term is explained and highly relevant to the subject of the article. Nyttend (talk) 00:38, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing exists on the Welsh language wp. I believe that (literally) it means "trout", but that's of no relevance. A closer-related, English language, word is tronc, but you won't find that easily either (it's an obscure accounting term related to the division (and taxation) of shared tips in restaurants – but its etymology is from the same Welsh root as these inclines, and tied up with the 'bargain' system).

These trwnc inclines could use more explanation, but the term should stay as an important sub-type in mineral-working inclines. Especially as they were mostly a Welsh type. It refers to an incline where the incline carriage is of wide gauge and doesn't carry any cargo directly, but instead has a pair of rails or plates set crossways across a horiontal platform, and these rails carry one or more trams. So it needs the combination of work with small trams, and the need for cable-worked inclines. They were used for coal in a few places, but weren't common. Andy Dingley (talk) 00:52, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, but my concern remains, since trwnc probably isn't known by most Clapham-omnibus riders. incline at the Vivian Quarry showing two permanently attached platform wagons. Slate trucks were pushed onto the horizontal tops of these wagons to travel on the incline doesn't seem wrong; do we need to use a specialised term in such a situation? But if it's necessary to say trwnc incline with this image, could we change lead images? I just figure that an introductory image ought not introduce specialist concepts unless they're so central to the article that they need to be mentioned in the introductory text, and it doesn't look like that's the situation here. Nyttend (talk) 01:11, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I see you reverted my edit on Landing Vehicle Tracked. Your comment was "rv more inappropriate conversions". Your previous comment on an edit of mine was "Policy and practice here is generally in favor of using unit conversions. If you want to change this to remove them, then it's up to you to justify this. There is certainly no excuse for simply reverting and edit-warring other editors without doing so" In one statement you support the convert template and in the other you don't support it, instead reverting edits that you disagree with, in other words contradicting the statements you've made in your quoted statement above. 95% of the planet uses the System International. The other 5% use imperial or US customary. Here we have a unit that is in decimal inches and you think it's inappropriate to include millimetres? Especially when it's included in much of the text further down. It appears it's you doing edit warring with no discussion, despite the merits of the edit. Avi8tor (talk) 16:38, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm sorry that you think the world is so simple that one simple rule would cover all situations. You will be disappointed in that.

In this particular case, you're claiming that the M2 Browning, .30 Browninget al. should be re-named from 0.50 calibre to 12.7 mm, and from .30 or .30-06 to 7.62 mm. This is wrong on two counts. Firstly, this is not a measurement, as already pointed out at Landing Vehicle Tracked that these are "things where they're more ordinal than dimensional". ".30" isn't a size, it's a name. It implies a whole slew of dimensions and precise gauge measurements, and these cannot be replaced by "7.62 mm". It's not even possible to interchange .30-06 with .303, and these are different in origin, not interchangeable and vary in a whole range of subtle dimensions. More importantly, "7.62 mm", as a bland, unannotated term like that tends to imply 7.62×51mm NATO, which is the modern equivalent but different again.

If this was an article about the weapon then there would be some need to explain the size in metric units too. But even then there's a problem: many such calibre names are not even accurate or simple measurements. Look at .38 vs .357 - they're actually the same size. In this article though, there is no benefit to explaining the details of two very well-known weapons, merely to identify them clearly and concisely as having been fitted to this vehicle.

As such, these are not appropriate places to use a conversion. Andy Dingley (talk) 19:22, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The world is complicated not simple. If everyone was on the same measurement system it would be simpler! In the article you quote .30-06 Springfield, it states "The ".30" refers to the caliber of the bullet in inches". The -06 is the year. What I did was add a convert template to give non inch users the millimetre size of the bullet. This is what the Manual of Style mandates. This does not change the name of the rifle. Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style#Units_of_measurement The main unit in which a quantity is expressed should generally be an SI unit or non-SI unit officially accepted for use with the SI. However, In non-scientific articles relating to the United States, the main unit is generally a U.S. customary unit (22 pounds (10 kg)).

In non-scientific articles relating to the United Kingdom, although the main unit is generally a metric unit (10 kilograms (22 lb)), imperial units are still used as the main units in some contexts (7 miles (11 km) by road). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Avi8tor (talk • contribs)

• DO NOT [1] edit my posts to make it look like I'm agreeing with you. Andy Dingley (talk) 14:48, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Avi8tor: In this case, we are dealing with names, not units of measurement. This means that a conversion is neither required nor useful. In fact, the names are a bit misleading, but unfortunately, that is how it is. The figures are usually rounded. For instance: a .30-06 Springfield bullet does not have a diameter of 0.3 in. Instead, the diameter is 0.308 in = 7.8 mm. A .50 BMG measures 0.51 in = 13 mm and not 0.5 in = 12.7 mm. You should listen to Andy. Best regards, --Johannes Maximilian (talk) 15:00, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Obviously you replied before reading what I had written. If you read the Wikipedia article on the Springfield Rifle it does state "The ".30" refers to the caliber of the bullet in inches. Avi8tor (talk) 15:07, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The calibre = bullet diameter of a .30 bullet is not .30 in. --Johannes Maximilian (talk) 15:13, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• You still seem very literal minded. This is likely to be a problem if you plan on editing here. I would also suggest that you read the
  .30-03 Springfield, and that's a slightly different chamber size). So I don't know where you're getting this ".30-06 Springfield is 0.30 in diameter", but you want to check that again, because it isn't. Andy Dingley (talk) 15:15, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply
  ]

I suggest you go to .30-06 Springfield 3rd line down, (it might be a different line in your browser)".30" refers to the caliber of the bullet in inches. This is not about editing the Springfield rifle, it's about me putting in a convert template for Landing Vehicle Tracked which Andy Digley reverted. I did take a screenshot of the Springfield article! Avi8tor (talk) 15:42, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• "refers to" is accurate, albeit unclear enough that you have failed to understand it. However it does not mean "the diameter is [.30]". Andy Dingley (talk) 15:58, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry Andy but that was the example you provide to argue your point. Perhaps you had better update the article? Whether it's 0.30 inches or 0,301 or whatever, all I want on the Landing vehicle tracked page and any other page missing SI is the convert template showing an approximate equivalent size in millimetres for those of us reading the article in countries that use SI. Avi8tor (talk) 17:33, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I note your edit summary at

]

OK, I now see that you have posted on the talk page of another article about this, which I hadn't noticed when I posted the above message. I will comment there. The editor who uses the pseudonym "

]

M10 TD

You're right, it's a M10 and not a M36, I always indentified them by the back of the turret, but I knew about the manlet difference and when you said it I noticed. Thanks for clearing things up, I'll remember the details!

]

Hi Andy... please reverse to the 882830528 by StraussInTheHouse revision because Rackspace is actually selling bare metal servers. It shouldn't be included as source. Same thing for Internap which is Inap which also sells bare metal servers. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.106.124.191 (talk) 17:07, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Use Talk:Bare-metal server to discuss this, not just edit-war over it. In particular, having one ref (which you added) removed, warring to re-add it, then starting to delete other unrelated refs (and you've been doing this across a number of articles) looks particularly bad.

There is no rule "commercial sites may not be used as references". However we do look at the quality of that reference, and the content it delivers, in relation to the promotional value with it. The Rackspace ref here is quite different, and better, than the BigStep ref. You might well find something, maybe under here: https://bigstep.com/uk/resources where BigStep offer something more detailed, not merely a sales page. If so, I'd support using it. Andy Dingley (talk) 17:14, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Andy.. Let's be fair. My contribution and Rackspace reference are not competing. I provided more information than just "The term is used nowadays to distinguish it from modern forms of virtualization and cloud hosting." (Rackspace reference) Please adjust my contribution as you like, but please admit that it is more informative than the statement above and this is why we should keep it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.106.124.191 (talk) 17:27, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Andy,

I am currently trying to clean up the Diesel engine article, and I wanted to properly explain the coherence of torque and power. I was unhappy with the former unreferenced sections, so I tried to re-write them from scratch. Being someone who likes sticking to high quality sources, I did not really want to write something that was not given in the book that I used; the result (for torque and power) is this. I am not quite sure whether or not it is deemed understandable, however, I could not come up with something that is considerably better. Do you have any suggestions or recommendations? What would you do about it? Improve it, or leave it as it is? I mean, I know how the concept works, but the problem is, at University, I wasn't quite taught the English way, and there seem to be differences between English and Austrian ways of describing the same thing. I have basically asked the same question at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Physics, but considering your skills and experience, I think asking you too is a good idea. Best regards, --Johannes Maximilian (talk) 15:29, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry to butt in, but what I would try to clarify there is that torque is a measure of force, in particular, an angular force at some radial distance. As such, it is a product of energy/work, and therefore is a measure of quantity thus is independent of time. On the other hand, power is energy divided by time, and as such it is a measure of intensity. For example, I can power a flashtube with a capacitor charged to 100 joules of energy. No matter what the charging time, the energy used is always 100 joules. If I release that energy in one second, it is 100 watts of power. However, if I release that energy is 1 microsecond, it is 100,000,000 watts of power, but either way, only 100 joules of work is able to be done. If you can explain it like that, but in terms of diesel engines, I think it will better help the layperson understand. I hope that helps. Zaereth (talk) 01:38, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, there sure is a huge difference. Linguistics is a hobby of mine, and while I can't speak German, Swedish, Norse, French or Italian, I can sure read them because English is made from all of them. I read somewhere that if you want to understand a peoples, their thought processes and how their minds work, first understand their language, then understand their mythology. Zaereth (talk) 02:09, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I think there is a difference. I was taught that the Newtonmetre can be used to describe mechanical work, because it has the same dimension: 1 J = 1 N m = 1 W s. Work and torque are not the same, but in this case, they are somewhat interchangable. Your example is easy to understand, you are taking a look at it from the work perspective. Let me change it to the time perspective: The capacitor is charged to 100 J. Within 1 ms, you release 100 J, resulting in 100,000 W of power. In the next "experiment", you release only 0.1 J per 1 ms (or 100 J per 1 s). Within 1 ms, you will get 100 W. What you have done is leaving the work unchanged but reducing the time to one thousandth, meaning that you perform 1000 times as much work within the same time period of 1 s. What I want to express in the Diesel engine article is that the power remains the same, but due to limited time, the engine has to perform more work; in terms of our capacitor: We want 100 W. In the first experiment, the capacitor is charged to 100 J and we have 1 s of time, which will work out just fine. In the next experiment, we still want 100 W, but we can only use half of a second, which means that we have to charge the capacitor to 200 J; it has to perform twice as much work, because there is only has half of the time available. --Johannes Maximilian (talk) 09:19, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• I would remove this section almost entirely. We're hypertext. Many readers will already understand torque, those who don't can go and read an article about it. A section in this article should be restricted to "torque, as it applies to diesel engines". So it should note that the "torque curve" (and also the efficiency curve) is flatter for diesel engines than for petrol, and explain why (a diesel's ability for retaining good efficiency at part-power settings is a large advantage over petrol, but almost never explained). Andy Dingley (talk) 10:08, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Andy, thanks for your reply. The Diesel engine's ability to retain good efficiency at low and medium load is mostly due to low charge exchange losses. An Otto cycle engine requires throttling to obtain a stable engine speed under all circumstances, however, this increases these undesired losses. This is why engineers put so much effort into getting rid of the Otto engine's throttling. But back to the torque: Diesel engines have a limited time window to perform work, due to the ignition delay: The ignition delay limits the rotational speed of the crankshaft (the fuel cannot ignite infinitely fast), and the crankshaft's speed can be expressed as time raised to the power of -1. As power is the quotient of work and time, multiplying crankshaft speed, torque ("=work") and 2×Pi results in power (crankshaft speed is raised to the power of -1, and a multiplication with a multiplicand raised to the power of -1 doesn't form a product, but a quotient.) The huge amount of torque is therefore not caused by higher efficiency or anything like that, it is much simpler: The Diesel engine crankshaft speed is limited. Very old Diesel engines prove this very well: Their chrankshaft speed is very limited, and a 13 kW Diesel engine that is limited to 150 min⁻¹ has to produce over 800 N·m (0.8 kN·m) of torque: ${\displaystyle 0.8\cdot 150\cdot 60^{-1}\cdot 2\cdot \pi \approx 12.6}$. Torque "correlates" with displacement, which is why very old Diesel engines are so big. Generating much power quickly is an advantage for heavy duty applications, as this results in lower fuel consumption, which is why industrial Diesel engines produce so much torque. The flat torque curves that you describe correlate with the Diesel engine, but they are not caused by the Diesel principle. Designing Otto cycle engines with similar torque curves is not a problem (and it was especially common with Eastern bloc military engines). The other way around is a bit more difficult, because of the limited time window. The result is more torque. I hope this was not too complicated or too didactic, but is it understandable that way? This is the explanation I read in most books that address this. Best regards, --Johannes Maximilian (talk) 14:34, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That's an M60 Field Handling Trainer, not an FIM-92 Stinger. You can tell because if you look by his thumb you can see the top of the letters M and Y on the gripstock, which is from the word "DUMMY." An FIM-92 doesn't have anything written there. Bones Jones (talk) 20:13, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Which is giving a clearer impression to the reader? I see your point, but even with that, it's a clearer image than the previous one. If that one was a trainer, we wouldn't even be able to tell. Andy Dingley (talk) 20:40, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Would you be happy (as it is now) with the trainer image and it clarified in the caption? Andy Dingley (talk) 20:46, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Well we can tell that one's not a trainer because the image is sourced to a work that says it's the first one off the production line. I have clarified the caption, I just think it's best to start the article on the Stinger with a picture of a real one. Bones Jones (talk) 20:56, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

We need to work with what we have, or can get (but the US military love photos and federal public domain is generous, so the second of those is promising). Secondly we should give the best result for the reader that we can achieve: so clarity is often more useful than perfect accuracy. Thirdly we can start to think about which would be the absolute best subject to show. But those first two still have to come before that. Andy Dingley (talk) 01:39, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You should start the article with a picture of the real thing, not a pretty picture of something different. If I may use an analogy, Jayne Mansfield was hot, Marilyn Monroe was hotter, but they both looked a bit like each other. We don't start the article on Jayne with a photo of Marilyn, even if the photo of Marilyn is a nice photo and looks almost like Jayne anyway. Tony May (talk) 06:26, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Andy I have read your comment on my attempt to having a page created. It is my pleasure to inform you that everthing said in the content of the text. Please get back in touch on this email [email protected] or call 447784081927 ZIDAGO1 (talk) 18:12, 2 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Andy,

I saw on your Talk page that you stated this:

There is no rule "commercial sites may not be used as references". However we do look at the quality of that reference, and the content it delivers, in relation to the promotional value with it. The Rackspace ref here is quite different, and better, than the BigStep ref. You might well find something, maybe under here: https://bigstep.com/uk/resources where BigStep offer something more detailed, not merely a sales page. If so, I'd support using it. Andy Dingley (talk) 17:14, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

I've cited the API documents page. I trust that you will support me as you stated. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chesidie (talk • contribs) 09:46, 6 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

My comment to your additions [2] [3] was "Copyvio, unclear, fails WP:NOTHOWTO and certainly misplaced. "

You added this:

"During the deploy phase,	bare metal	servers are allocated to Instances, server interfaces are attached to networks, disk space is allocated, operating system templates are copied, and public IP addresses are allocated to subnets."
"During the deploy phase,	...	servers are allocated to Instances, server interfaces are attached to networks, disk space is allocated, operating system templates are copied, and public IP addresses are allocated to subnets." https://fullmetal.bigstep.com/docs#documents/49

That's a simple copy from the source web page.

WP:COPYVIO

. Absolutely not permissible here, we just can't do that.

Now, I could have edited that to solve the copyvio problem. But the problem is then the other problems with that addition. The text is a very generalised description of deploying any cloud-based or instance-based server, whether physical (bare metal) or virtual. It just doesn't do anything encyclopedic to explain what a bare-metal server is (i.e. what a bare-metal server is and how it differs from other means of providing resources). If such text is justified (maybe there's use in explaining generic server provisioning to those who are really unfamiliar with it) then it doesn't belong right in the lead like this. Nor is it even well-written. What does " servers are allocated to Instances" mean? I've always allocated instances to servers! What does "operating system templates are copied" mean? I've never heard of an "operating system template" and if you mean an image of one, isn't that what we just did with the instances?

Now it looks like BigStep are in the bare-metal cloud-hosting business. That's relevant. I have no problem with using BigStep as a source. But it needs to be something which is relevant to this article (and not just an excuse to add a link to one's own company). Surely BigStep have some sort of white paper online which explains the advantages of choosing their bare-metal approach for one's hosting needs? Andy Dingley (talk) 11:52, 6 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah....you’re right... Acemaster77 (talk) 10:06, 10 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

They're quite easy.

WP:BLOCK. Andy Dingley (talk) 10:09, 10 March 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

Removed edit on a wiki page in serious need of updating

I saw that you removed the edit on al-Julani’s wiki page but I think I might revert the edit. His wiki page is in dire need of an update and considering that I literally put in the most recent news about him (along with a reference link) I’ll probably reinstate it sometime in the future. Acemaster77 (talk) 10:41, 10 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Andy, thanks for your input on this. You're quite right about not wanting to fight the "battle of Scunthorpe" again; but, to give the delta-quad-bot system creators some credit, that's exactly why accounts matching this pattern are put on a list for human review, rather than autoblocked. -- The Anome (talk) 19:31, 17 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Please

]

An obvious disruptive 2RR [4], [5] and then a misleading ANI "Nothing to do with me, guv" comment at ANI [6]? You suggested that I file an SPI, but I think ANEW or ANI would be perfectly able to cope. Andy Dingley (talk) 00:48, 18 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I reverted some of your recent changes to

state that boxes to sister projects should be placed in an "External links" section, but that they should be converted to inline elements if there's no other content in that section.

In my recent edits (the creation of a "Further reading" section), I hadn't noticed that the citation in the "References" section was the full citation for partial citations in the body of the article. I moved it to a separate section to make this distinction clearer.

Let me know if you object to these changes.

- Heddles (talk) 23:22, 20 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Of course I object. This is a perennial misreading of

WP:MOS, although I recognise that is badly written and unclear. Please restore it properly. Andy Dingley (talk) 23:28, 20 March 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

Which part exactly do you object to? The "External links" section or the "References" section? And can you back up your objections with the appropriate sections from

WP:MOS? Heddles (talk) 23:52, 20 March 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

]

I apologize for offending you, that was not my intention. I have only recently started fixing what I thought were layout issues (after reading through

MOS:LAYOUTEL

states: "If box-type templates are not good, either because they result in a long sequence of right-aligned boxes hanging off the bottom of the article, or because there are no external links except sister project ones, then consider using "inline" templates, such as {Commons category-inline} in the "External links" section, so that links to sister projects appear as list items."

In this case, the wikicommons link is the only sister project link and there are no external website links, so I believe I was correct in converting it to an inline link in a new "External links" section. What am I missing? Why should the wikicommons link be a box at the end of the article? Heddles (talk) 00:46, 21 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

As I said, the wording is awful. We also have it stated in at least four places, and inconsistently.

Yes, consider switching to the inline form. If the lower part of the article is cluttered, then that may be appropriate.

But the inline forms exist so that they can be used in lists, where articles link to many such projects, wikibooks, wikivoyage etc. Otherwise, we train our readers to recognise a distinctive box template as a Commons link (and Commons is by far the most common of these, and the one used most often on its own). It is thus significantly negative to switch away from using the familiar Commons box, and to use the almost always overlooked inline form.

Even worse, is the nonsensical creation of an empty External links section, just to hold entries that aren't external links. This arises from a technical issue in the use of CSS to float the box(es) to the side of the page. By sheer coincidence, no more, that last section was canonically for External links, and now the misconception that sister project links are external links has sprung up. Andy Dingley (talk) 00:53, 21 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect

]

Section headings and anchors

You reverted my addition of an anchor to fuel oil, noting in your edit summary that 'It's a heading, it's already an anchor.' Should the heading change, e.g. to 'bunker oil', the anchor will be broken. See the documentation for Template:Anchor: The use of anchors can make for a cleaner, more efficient Wikipedia reading experience where section headings are changed—which they not infrequently are. BlackcurrantTea (talk) 10:40, 22 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Then we fix the anchors. This does happen occasionally, but it's no big deal. If you want to make this clearer, then the usual practice is to add a comment, indicating that there are incoming links.

If you really want to, then use {{Anchor}} or {{Visible anchor}}. But embedding raw HTML markup into article text is pretty strongly discouraged.

'Bunker oil' would be wrong anyway. Bunker oil isn't the same thing as bunker fuel. Andy Dingley (talk) 10:43, 22 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I did use {{Anchor}}; I subst'd it, as suggested in the template docs.

I didn't think I needed to explain that I was creating an anchor to use for an incoming link. Why else would someone create an anchor? As to whether 'bunker oil' would be an appropriate heading, I was using it as an easy example. There's a hatnote on the section saying '"Bunker oil" redirects here.' BlackcurrantTea (talk) 11:17, 22 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Well, choose your poisson. If you use {{anchor}} it works fine as is, except that templates (and a lot of markup) in section headings break the edit-section links. So you can subst it instead, and generate HTML. Neither of these are a good idea, when the id is the same as the section title, and they're totally superfluous (they're just generating the same ID that's there anyway). Also, what happens if someone edits it and they "update" the ID to "match" the new title? A comment is not only simpler, it's our best defence against that happening. Andy Dingley (talk) 12:35, 22 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Andy

Have noticed you have removed a photo I uploaded due to it being a ‘duplicate’. The photo was supposed to be a duplicate as the equipment it shows is listed twice in the article as it was used for two different purposes.

I will be adding it back and moving the photo showing the Radiac Meter MkVI back where it belongs.

Alistair. Pilot25dmc (talk) 11:57, 2 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I added text to alleviate the problem. Pilot25dmc (talk) 12:23, 2 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

We don't need two identical images in the same article. I don't mind what solution you find to this, so long as it avoids the duplication. Andy Dingley (talk) 14:21, 2 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry Andy, I wasn't aware of that MOS on pic sizes - was going on what layout looks best avoiding orphaned pics in one corner. Regards80.229.34.113 (talk) 12:16, 12 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. The trouble with absolute sizes in pixels is the old web design one of "Well it looks great on my screen". For the mobile WP, I think they're ignored anyway. |upright= can help if you do need to adjust stuff. Andy Dingley (talk) 12:59, 12 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Are you in the process of translating the link for the German article on this page? Because the former link is broken.Snowdawg (talk) 22:52, 13 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It's not broken, it's a

WP:REDLINK. Andy Dingley (talk) 23:38, 13 April 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

A suggestion

A little while ago I dealt with a report of yours at

]

RfA? I wouldn't touch that with a bargepole. Thanks for the suggestion though. Andy Dingley (talk) 22:08, 16 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

OK. I admit I didn't totally enjoy my RfA, but it was just a few days, and fairly insignificant in proportion to the amount of time I have been an admin. However, it is of course up to you, and if you don't fancy it that's your decision. The editor who uses the pseudonym "

talk) 14:15, 17 April 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

WP:SQUAT

Hiya i was wondering if you had time/energy to get

]

Reversion

Hi, I saw that you reverted my revision to the article about the Crusader tank. Could you please explain why you reverted? I'm guessing it has to do with differences between American and British English, but it is kind of confusing to me why the edit was reverted. Thanks, Jeb³_{Talk at me here} 15:00, 24 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Grammar. Unless American is stranger than I believe, this is horrible either way,

"The main armament, as in other British tanks of the period, was balanced so that the gunner could control its elevation through a padded shaft against his right shoulder rather than using a geared mechanism. This fit well with the British doctrine of firing accurately on the move."

"This fitted well" (as before) works, as does "This would fit well...", but "This fit well..." is a disagreement in tense between subject and verb. Andy Dingley (talk) 15:14, 24 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I've seen it said that something "fit well" with something else, used to main that the object in question goes well with the other object. In addition, I've never seen "fitted" used in any way other than saying that the subject "is fitted for..." something else. Jeb³_{Talk at me here} 15:16, 24 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Fitted, passive

modal implying that it would work, if done in the future. I don't know what, "This fit well..." means. It's implying a present tense (from the simple "This") but in which case the infinitive "fit" is incorrect. Andy Dingley (talk) 15:21, 24 April 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

If it helps, the problem is not so much tense as it is pluralization. Nouns don't have any tense, so that is solely determined by the verbs. Many people don't realize that both nouns and verbs can be singular or plural, but denoting them as such is done in opposite ways. To make a noun plural you often add an "s" to the end, but to make a verb plural you remove the "s". (The use of "s" for this purpose is most certainly of Scandinavian origin.) "This" is a singular pronoun, so to make the verb singular you would need to use "fits" ("This fits"), whereas if the pronoun were plural, then "fit" would be appropriate (These fit).

In the case of tense, that depends on context, with "fit" being present tense, "fitted" being past tense, and "would fit" being perfect tense. I hope that helps. Zaereth (talk) 17:32, 24 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Andy, this is LetinAR Intern, who made an edit in the optical mounted head display page. First of all, thank you for your welcoming and advice. I am sorry for the mistake I have made. I understand that the article I have uploaded might have a conflict of interest. The draft of the article I have uploaded is this:

In October 2016, the Korean startup LetinAR Inc. was founded by Jaehyeok Kim and Jeonghun Ha to develop smart glasses lens that can overcome the problems existing smart glasses had. At the 2018 CES and MWC, LetinAR demonstrated its PinMR™ AR Lens, which was a prototype that applied the ‘Pinhole Effect’. The PinMR™ AR Lens has tiny mirrors, smaller than human pupils, embedded into the lens, which is where the pinhole effect takes place. Respective mirrors reflect the light from a micro-display and guide the light to human pupils. If existing smart glasses lens had to enlarge its size to increase its performance in depth of field or color expression, LetinAR PinMR™ AR Lens simply needed to add mirrors. Because of such advantage, unlike other existing smart glasses, PinMR™ AR Lens can be designed in a smaller, lighter fashion, just like a normal pair of glasses. At the 2019 CES and MWC, LetinAR introduced its PinMR™ Smart glasses and 8K Wide FoV AR demo, which had a better performance than its demo shown in 2018.

I wrote this referring to other companies' explanation in the section, and after reading the conflict of interest page you have sent me, I thought my article isn't as biased as your concern. The explanation I have wrote is our company's official information uploaded in our website, Linkedin page, facebook, and other online platforms. To prove neutrality, I'd like to attach a news article that introduced our company. I do not know how other companies uploaded their information, but from what I read, their information was also seemed to be based in their other online platforms. Although I am a person connected to the company, please consider that I didn't violate anything related to the wikipedia COI policy nor did I even intend to. Please let me know if there are still existing problems. Thank you very much. https://www.roadtovr.com/letinar-pinhole-effect-optics-larger-fov-mwc-2019/ https://www.androidheadlines.com/2019/02/letinar-8k-smart-glasses-mwc-2019.html https://www.linkedin.com/company/letinar/

LetinAR Intern (talk) 02:49, 26 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. See Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Boomerang_check_for_User:Andy_Dingley,_please. -DePiep (talk) 22:41, 29 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Andy Dingley, there's a discussion at Talk:Tire#Void space where you may be able help two editors come to a consensus. Cheers, HopsonRoad (talk) 20:58, 30 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for raising the BITE issue. I see that kind of thing way way too often (I'm about ready to write off NPP entire for that very reason), and yet they wonder why we're not recruiting new editors and certainly not more diverse editors. *sigh* I think it's a "staring into the abyss" thing: if you spend all your time dealing with spam and vandalism then those become your frame of reference and you begin to evaluate everything on those terms. See for example the "they'er adults, we shouldn't worry about their feelings" argument in that discussion: eminently appropriate for the mass of of bad-faith editors spamming ads or racist screeds or whatever, but so massively inappropriate and out of touch if the default assumption is a good-faith editor that may be confused or has made a mistake. I swear lack of understanding of and adherence to BITE (or even just plain AGF) is what will eventually kill this project. Your efforts today did more to stave that off than a thousand patrolled and blocked spammed links to whatever pills the cheap online pharmacies have on offer today. Thank you! --Xover (talk) 18:31, 9 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

thanks for editing it and making it way better

You're welcome. Andy Dingley (talk) 16:18, 15 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Andy, I have inserted the short description as all articles need short description - see

]

Wouldn't it be a good idea to read the article before writing it? Andy Dingley (talk) 12:00, 16 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

		The Special Barnstar
		For your patience in dealing with the slower-witted among your colleagues, i.e. me. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 11:59, 23 May 2019 (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 126.209.22.197 problematic editing. Jayjg ^(talk) 19:21, 23 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your constructive comment. I'm grateful for constructive comments. Tony May (talk) 03:19, 30 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sir all my edits are according to the sources we are related to cad, cam and cae software that's why added an external link. Don't know what is the issue can you please explain. Ashwin suresh94 (talk) 14:13, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You didn't even look to see what a cam was, but you still spammed to it. Andy Dingley (talk) 14:25, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Andy Dingley, I made my edits to

]

I'd agree with you re the redlink and the reference, although that entry is still not even linking the term "Beautiful Soup".

For the other two, the additional text (which is short, no more than a sub-single-line sentence) gives a context as to why these disparate terms are on the same disambig. The lead is there because Beautiful Soup is no longer in Alice's Adventures in Wonderland, a terrible article which conveys almost nothing about the book. We need something which explains this, and the Alice article fails. Andy Dingley (talk) 15:12, 7 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your answer. I have no problem with the lead; multiple links are common there and I didn't change that. I don't entirely agree with your most recent changes, but it's a compromise and I can live with that. Leschnei (talk) 15:38, 7 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Andy, according to sources I've found (as well as the current content of

]

I had to improve the pages so that they can be more accurate

I had to edit the pages in a way so that they can be more accurate. The numbers before the editing were actually inaccurate and false, leading me to improving them so that they'd be more accurate.

Plus one of the sources on one of the articles (Yard Globe) changed and the maximum size was erased off the main page [1] and revealed in another page, indicating a typing error they made, so in actually the 70 foot rating was exaggerated by a factor of 10, meaning only 7 feet in reality from them, so the 70 foot diameter one doesn't exist after all. The largest is confirmed to be 10 meters from a Chinese company, Mao Ping. ^[2]

Kin balls are actually 1.2192 m or 121.92 cm in diameter and 1.22 m or 122 cm is slightly larger than 4 feet, yet 20 meters is actually less than 65 1/2 feet, so closer to that or 65 feet than to 66 feet.

Like how are inaccurate pages any helpful?

Yet some of those pages were especially very inaccurate in the past and underwent a number of edits from many people. As you know Wikipedia is where people contribute to their own work and edit, therefore making it unreliable to look up information on. Edits improve accuracy if done right, but don't make the wiki site completely reliable.

I was doing the right thing and got blamed by you for it.

It's like being blamed for telling the truth when lying is in fact the wrong thing to do.

I hope you read this and understand why these precise so called improvements were neccessary.

As one example, at

Avogadro project

. The number you have added is simply nonsense.

I am fairly sure that you already know this. Either you know this, and are making these changes deliberately to be disruptive. That is

WP:DISRUPTIVE

.

Or else you do not understand them, and so that is a failure of

WP:COMPETENCE

. Please do not make these changes any more - they are inappropriate.

Or else you have some unfathomable compulsion to keep adding these changes. Which is unfortunate, and WP is not the place for you, see

WP:NOTTHERAPY

.

But what we do not with certainty is that these changes are neither appropriate here, nor going to stay around. Please stop making them, because the next action is to seek a block of you at

WP:ANI. Andy Dingley (talk) 01:11, 12 June 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

I presume that you're now editing as NelsonEN24 (talk · contribs). Andy Dingley (talk) 01:17, 12 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Actually you’re pretty much wrong on some parts. The difference between 30 cm & 12 inches is 1.6%, which is much greater difference than the difference from roundness of the gyros.

A so called ball that deviates by 1.6% is definitely visibly out of round, and the gyros differ by 1.8 x 10-7 of their diameter, which is a FAR smaller percentage than 1.6%. Any difference that exists is important, and when you increase size factors the difference adds up. The gyros precision was far more precise than even the difference between 1.2192 and 1.22 meters for kin balls.

Like I said, 3,048 km is 48 km larger than 3,000 km and 30,480 km is 480 km larger than 30,000 km, and 304,800 km is 4,800 km larger than 300,000 km and 3,048,000 km is 48,000 km larger than 3,000,000, and so forth. You can clearly fit the diameter of Uranus within that difference and still have room to spare.

That difference is actually significant and of you place a 300 mm ball next to a 304.8 mm ball side by side, the naked eye can definitely detect the difference (albeit a small one) and therefore the difference is substantial.

Precision is important for pretty much everything in life, even more than some people think.

Yet if anyone were to swim 1 km and only swam 999 meters, then he/she would be 1 meter from the finish line and if he/she were to swim 1,000 km and only swam 999 km, then he/she would still be 1 km or a whole 1000 meters from the finish line, which is much more than the length of a recreational swimming pool and a significant factor in swim distance. Yet sport ball size precision is definitely important in gameplay as rules state. Go,f balls used to come in 2 different sizes and the R&A was ever so slightly smaller than the USGA, and that had a profound effect in tolerance.

Yet saying a so called negligible difference isn’t important or non existent is almost like saying microbes and germs don’t exist, yet they exist and we can’t see them, yet they profoundly affect our bodies. Bad germs make us sick as our body fights them and again we can’t see them.

Once again 1.6% is not really negligible but noticeable and substantial.

The thing is that precision is more necessary than you think and is important for pretty much anything in life. Now there are such things as tolerances and that’s what may be the thing here, as tolerance is a necessary variation that doesn’t break limits, such as with pool balls, as they have a tolerance of +/- 0.005”, and any ball exceeding the tolerance is off limits in billiards. Yet a size 7 basketball is anywhere from 749 to 780 mm in circumference, meaning a 31 mm tolerance, so should not exceed 780 mm in circumference.

Precision is important in practically everything.

Just wanted to let you understand that reverting to inaccurate values is actually a real mistake and keeping the values precise helps more people understand. We know the pages aren’t just for you to see, they’re for everyone to see. NelsonEN24 (talk) 08:44, 12 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

When I’ve been fixing pages to improve them, I’ve been cyber bullied by you.

Nobody else seeing the pages I edited for improvement treated me so aggressively like you did.

You said mean things to me and act like anything considered an error isn’t important whatsoever when in fact it affects everything in life. That’s like saying I’m making everything worse by improving them, and improvements do good whereas inaccuracies mess them up.

I was trying to edit the pages so a multitude of people reading them can understand what’s true.

For example, 12 inches is actually 304.8 mm and 300 mm is 11.811023622047244 inches, so 12 inches is 4 mm 8/10 of a mm larger than 300 mm, so 300 mm is 11.811023622047244 inches, not 12 inches.

Yet 3 meters is 118.11023622047244 inches or 9 feet 10.11023622047244 inches, so 1.88976377953 inches (close to 2 inches) less than 10 feet. A profound difference.

People agree the La Géode in the Parc de la Villette in Paris France is 36 meters or just slightly over 118 feet in width, and if you say 300 mm is 12 inches or 1 foot, that’s like saying 36 meters is 120 feet, which is totally inaccurate by nearly 2 feet. A difference of 1.6% may be small, but it’s significant, and profound on everything in existence.

It's just like saying Earth's equatorial diameter is the same as its polar diameter when it's in fact 42 km 796 meters 40 cm wider at its equator, meaning its polar diameter is 12,713 km 504 meters 60 cm and its equatorial diameter is 12,756 km 274 meters, due to its rotation, and almost everybody knows that. It's also like saying Earth doesn't have mountains or plate tectonics when in fact it does.

All of this likely indicates poor memory in math from you and I’ve done math before and taken many math tests with excellent grades, so I know my math. Yet 50 cm is 1.64042 feet and 20 inches is 50 cm 8 mm or 1.666666 feet, which is 8 mm greater than half a meter. That’s also like saying 20 inches is 2 feet when in fact 24 inches is 2 feet, though both 20 and 24 inches are fairly close in size to each other but do not match.

The thing is that I’m being aggressively yelled at and harassed by you just for editing the pages to improve them.

Precision may seem ridiculous and far fetched and beyond one’s mind and perspective, but it’s honest and helpful in life. Also, like if you wanted to fill a cup for a bowl to make food the water level has to measure accurately in line on the cup, and one tiny mishap leads to a poor result in the finished meal.

What you’re doing is really the real

deal and causing me to feel bad about myself showing everyone you’re bullying me with your words and quotes.

Cyber bullying is illegal and will get not only a person like you blocked, but arrested. Cyber bullying is not gonna get you the degree in knowledge but instead a block and arrest.

It’s sad that people become bullies because they’ve been treated bad in their life and show us them becoming more heartless, because we need to all agree what’s truly honest because constant disagreement is one way to fuel and promote bullying which you should stop. Bullying does not make people like you smart, it’s dumb and extremely inappropriate (MUCH more so than my so-called “precision edits” that you call my edits).

When you do math, you got to be accurate because one little error will completely affect the results. 1 + 1 is 2 and not 2.1, and when you say 12 inches is 300 mm, that’s just like saying 1 + 1 is 3, which is totally inaccurate.

Why do pages have to be inaccurate? Pages are for millions and billions of people to see and not just 1 person like you. Yet if you ever played sport, you gotta agree with the rules which involve precision such as ball size and throw distance as that helps determine performance and game and score results.

There, end of story, long story, but I hope you agree what you did to me was horrible and unlawful, yet abusive, exposing readers to lies and showing us lack of precision in math, yet imprecision prevents students like you from getting an A+ in math, which I’ve gotten many times. Gotta have knowledge to live with in life.

I hope you owe me a HUGE sincere apology for your words and reversions to false measurements because the reversions and false measurements are a huge mistake that cause chaos in everything including us. Most of all, an apology for making me feel bad about myself and likely causing others to see me as a bad person. Remember cyber bullying is wrong and illegal. NelsonEN24 (talk) 09:55, 12 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• As you've raised this at
  WP:ANI#Andy Dingley is a Cyber Bully I'll be responding there, not here. Please don't bother responding here, if I do reply it will be at ANI instead. Andy Dingley (talk) 10:47, 12 June 2019 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Disambiguation link notification for June 14

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Horsebus, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Omnibus (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 16:23, 14 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Blame the portal. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:19, 16 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

 There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. --TREKphiler any time you're ready, Uhura 14:43, 17 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

BilCat (talk) 03:32, 19 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I understand your feelings, and they do you credit, but I'm not sure I agree. I did think about whether to indef the master and decided it was appropriate for a number of reasons I'd rather not go into.

Your presentation of evidence was outstanding. It's rare for a wall of text at SPI to be readable and informative. Makes my job a lot easier. One small point. You said that the rather significant article intersection between the two accounts wasn't that important and compared it to the intersection between you and Trekphiler (which I didn't attempt to verify). In this instance, it is important. You and Trekphiler have about 114K edits and 63K edits respectively. The sock has only 96.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:49, 20 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Can we have computer-generated fan art? It doesn't seem appropriate to me at all when photographs are available.

I really don't want to upset anyone's feelings.

Someone must have spent hours and hours in MS paint producing various livery diagrams. Hours of work, that the author would be proud of. I applaud them for their mousework.

I guess the line of least resistance is to acquiesce and give the artist free reign to insert whatever he likes, so as to not upset his feelings. But are these actually professional or informative in any way? Do they add anything to the article? Or do they detract?

Do we accept that they detract, but acquiesce because feelings? But does that encourage others? Is this a slippery slope? Tony May (talk) 14:21, 24 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That belongs at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_UK_Railways#Continual_criticisms_by_Tony_May, not here. Andy Dingley (talk) 16:18, 24 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Andy. I'm not sure it does, need discussing actually, but in a grown up way that certain users are incapable of - obviously your contributions generally are sound. I've apparently upset a few people, for various different reasons, mostly removing their poor quality contributions. I think it probably best if we leave the issue of the awful fan art for a while and let it all calm down and then have a discussion on its merits at a later date. Unfortunately the articles will look crap with them, and they may proliferate. As usual on Wikipedia, who is aggressive gets their way, and I fear if I try to start a sensible discussion on fan art it will quickly spiral into infantile personal attacks against me which will prevent the discussion of original thread. Tony May (talk) 16:30, 24 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, PS - Had I wanted to canvas you, I would have gone through the email backchannel. Your opinion is respected, nevertheless. Tony May (talk) 16:55, 24 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I apologize for the language but you have to realize that the gurgel g800 page took me several hours to do and it was extremely hard to find citations. I appreciate you checking my pages but I will say that it does hurt a lot when you say something like that. Aidansteffen (talk) 20:01, 6 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Something like what? That unsourced content needs sources? That's policy here:

WP:RS

.

That your Gurgel article has some unclear (and yet very obvious) points to it, such as when in the last four decades was this thing built?

That "news" content about De Tomaso needs to be sourced too, because if it's 'news' today, then you must have read that somewhere and you should pass that on as a citation.

Or that the

WP:EXTRAORDINARY

that they will require very robust and secondary sources before we can say so here.

Also, BTW, describing other editors as 'dipshits' is outside

WP:NPA and you're likely to end up blocked for that. Andy Dingley (talk) 20:09, 6 July 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

AFD notice

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tox (Python testing wrapper) has now been closed as speedy keep/bad-faith reprisal nomination. This is not an endorsement of the article, which is not in great shape. I would recommend improving the sourcing. Stifle (talk) 09:22, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, that was a big mistake of mine. I didn't realised until now and I regret reverting it. I forgot to restore the previously correct content back on the Opel Corsa page. I dunno why I got the two models so mixed up. --Vauxford (talk) 13:04, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

By your own admission. There was no citation to Claire Fox’s thoughts on child porn. I am surprised that you have allowed this to be added previously. As it is such a sensitive subject, it seems only natural that there is an effective citation from a very vague one attributed to the Morning Star. Antifascistprotectionrampart (talk) 00:28, 11 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You deleted sourced content. There was a reference there (actually three of them), you removed it. I made no "admission" of anything.

Her views on this have been clear (although poorly reported by most of our admittedly trashy press). Andy Dingley (talk) 00:30, 11 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

There is no actual sourced content. There is a vague reference, to what I am sure, was a more nuanced debate on the Moral Maze on Radio 4 (no audio). The sources and subsequent sources are based on nothing more than a recollection of a debate. If you are going to continue this slur on the site, I feel the least you could do was publish a direct quote from the original debate. Antifascistprotectionrampart (talk) 00:49, 11 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

“Your” meaning Wikipedia. Antifascistprotectionrampart (talk) 00:50, 11 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The Grauniad uses the literal text, " she has stood up for Gary Glitter’s right to download child porn,"[7] I don't know how much clearer they can make it for you. Andy Dingley (talk) 00:53, 11 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The Guardian could actually make it much clearer, by attributing a quote. I can only presume that the lack of direct quotes from The Guardian as part of “our trashy press”. There is nothing in your biog of Claire Fox that, as other of the chair of The Moral Maze, she may have made an intellectual, admittedly provocative (but that is the point of the show), against censorship in all forms. As you are well aware, a reference to defence of child porn; which I am absolutely certain is not Claire Fox’s belief; is misleading in itself and betrays the “neutralism” of which you referred to in your original communication and betrays the very heart of Wikipedia’s principles. Antifascistprotectionrampart (talk) 01:05, 11 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

"which I am absolutely certain " is what we refer to as

WP:OR

. We work by the Graudian's independent comment instead.

If you wish, raise this at

WP:ANI. Andy Dingley (talk) 01:19, 11 July 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

A barnstar for you!

	The Original Barnstar
	Just to thank you for the magnificent reply on the Science Reference Desk regarding carbon dioxide from vinegar and baking soda (I'm not the person who asked the question, but I had to thank you regardless) Willbb234 (talk) 12:05, 15 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Summer kigo, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies with the categorization guidelines. 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. —⁠andrybak (talk) 05:11, 21 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, re this revert - thanks for that, I wrote the passage concerned and sourced it at the time; most of the article was my work. You may not have realised, but

]

I've seen their additions lately from a few IPs. Hard to call them out as absolutely wrong, but

WP:COMPETENCE does require basic literacy and this isn't good enough. I've no idea how much involvement Gresley had (I know nothing about the GCR other than Peter Denny's models) but couldn't make any more sense from what they wrote. Andy Dingley (talk) 21:26, 25 July 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

RS

Why do you think

]

The place to discuss this is at Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Global_ban_on_non-RS?, not here. Andy Dingley (talk) 11:52, 26 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

When I revert somebody's edits using the vandal rollback option, it does not automatically open their talkpage for me. Are you experiencing this issue too?

Isn't that what it's meant to do? One of the options rolls back, the other rolls back and opens the talkpage.

Try it. Just sit on recent changes for a bit and catch some obvious vandalism.

I tend to not bother warning on large IP or mobile ISPs much, at least not for first offences, as they're too transitory. Andy Dingley (talk) 13:17, 26 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

What I am saying is that it does NOT automatically open the talkpage for me. It was working fine yesterday. CLCStudent (talk) 13:53, 26 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Well, try both options. But AFAIK it works and works OK on one of them, and that's as much Twinkle as I know. If it's broken,

WP:VP/T is probably the place to go. Andy Dingley (talk) 14:18, 26 July 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

Your revert without giving a reason

Reverting without giving a reason is, well, at least not very polite; many consider that as vandalism.

But just as a matter of interest: The category "Twin-engined tractor aircraft" has been here during the last six years and more than 100 edits, so why haven't you changed or deleted it during that very long time ? --Uli Elch (talk) 12:02, 27 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Because a moment's study of the Fairey Rotodyne will show that it doesn't belong there. It is not a fixed wing aircraft, it is an (admittedly obscure) derivative of rotary wing aircraft, i.e. helicopters.

If you think it's vandalism, then take it to ANI. But

WP:COMPETENCE is required, and if you're going to do these massive and previously contentious categorisation runs, then the BURDEN is on you to get it right, and certainly not to complain too loudly when someone else has to clean up your errors. Andy Dingley (talk) 12:22, 27 July 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

"errors" (plural) might have to be proven by you, and if you quote

WP:COMPETENCE

please note:

Be cautious when referencing this page, particularly when involved in a dispute with another editor, as it could be considered a personal attack .

But you appear to be unwilling or unable to answer my question: Why do you make such a noise just now instead of quietly correcting it between 2013 and now - during more than 100 edits you left it undisputed. When looking at that as a neutral observer someone else might think of possible Wikipedia:Hounding. --Uli Elch (talk) 12:32, 27 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Take this to ANI, or drop it. Andy Dingley (talk) 18:21, 27 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Someone evidently missed these Tweets... the whole 'crowdfunded private prosecution' lark made even your own favourite Twitter QC (an actual legal professional) embarrassed!

https://twitter.com/JolyonMaugham/status/1136979975830216704
https://twitter.com/JolyonMaugham/status/1136983352186232834
https://twitter.com/JolyonMaugham/status/1136987911398801408
https://twitter.com/JolyonMaugham/status/1079764703260393472
https://twitter.com/JolyonMaugham/status/1110088421467475969
"Marcus Ball should never have brought that case which has no realistic prospect of succeeding and I implore people not to waste their money on it and whatever Marcus takes from it." (25 Mar 2019)
194.207.146.167 (talk) 05:08, 28 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the

. Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you! — Ƶ§œš¹ _{[lɛts b̥iː pʰəˈlaɪˀt]} 16:31, 28 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You might want to refrain from talking about Jytdog, as you clearly did here. C. W. Gilmore was indeffed partly for violating his IBAN with a sitebanned editor, and Jytdog's ban had nothing to do with you and so could not by any stretch be considered to have invalidated your IBAN. Pinging User:Ivanvector who closed the IBAN discussion and User:Bishonen who proposed it. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 12:26, 26 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Noting since I was pinged that I have seen this and am not taking any action. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 12:50, 26 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page stalker)Does this meav that you are comfortable leaving the oppose struck, or that you see no objection to removing the strike? (Either interpretation is possible.) Qwirkle (talk) 20:05, 27 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Ivanvector:, it would be good to hear an answer to this before the dicussion closes. Qwirkle (talk) 02:40, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

(responding to ping) Only one interpretation should be drawn from my comment, and that is that I am not taking any action. Anything else is putting words in my mouth. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 03:00, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It's an LTA, hence my revert. Praxidicae (talk) 19:35, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Even so, you still have to let the rest of us know what's going on. Why leave their mainspace edits in place, but remove their talk: additions? Especially when there's no evident non-GF issue with them? Andy Dingley (talk) 19:37, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Raising in relation to allegations at Talk:Jessica Yaniv genital waxing case and Talk:British_Columbia_Human_Rights_Tribunal#Proposed_merge_with_Jessica_Yaniv_genital_waxing_case --Fæ (talk) 23:43, 3 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Andy. I realise you have a dislike for the Whyte template. But your edit summary when you reverted my change to

]

I hadn't checked those two specifically, but my understanding was that for most of the tank loco articles we either had two separate articles, or (mostly) two clear sections within an article. The tank redir can thus go to a more specific target – and the Whyte template breaks that.

Looking at these, that's not working here. So if you want to revert it, go for it. I still think the redir is a better link (because we can improve its target, and not have to go back and change the links), but then much the same thing could be said about the template. However as it is, I hate that template implementation. Andy Dingley (talk) 21:59, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I perfectly understand what you are saying, but the problem with your edit is that the sources you are referring to are not stating that it WAS 'Burevestnik' that exploded. They are just ASSUMING it was "Burevestnik" based on some intelligence data (satellite imagery with the launching site similar to the old one) and a general distrust towards Russian officials, which, of course, is not misplaced in many cases, but is still not a sufficient reason for putting something in Wikipedia. At least, in my opinion. My solution to this problem would be strictly following the official information and then, if overwhelming proof of the opposite is provided, making the required edits. And I also don't agree with you on the "offensive" part, because those who are willing to be offended, will be. Besides, I don't quite understand how you can edit something on Wikipedia, not being at least somewhat familiar with the topic, because confusing RITEG with a nuclear reactor is just not serious. Also, your definition of "trusted" source is somewhat vague. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nicholas Velasquez (talk • contribs) 17:42, 10 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• This might be better in one place, at the 9M730 Burevestnik talk: page.

This is not perfect. But it is how we work. It is clearly better than a lot of voices all shouting "I know more about this topic than you do!" because that's what we'd have otherwise. If you discuss the issue, then a lot more progress can be made.

I do not know what the accident was. I do not know what the Burevestnik is. I do not know if it was Burevestnik which exploded. I certainly do not trust Russian news media, either for technical accuracy in translation, nor for simple honesty and lack of bias. I have yet to hear anything from Bellona, who I would trust rather more. I do not believe the story that James Bond blew it up, mostly because I no longer believe in the UK capacity to do such a thing.

I too have no idea how you power a cruise missile with an isotope source. But then, given how difficult it proved to be in the 1950s, I don't know how you do one with a reactor either.

My comment re keeping and correcting those references, as we learn more, rather than simply dismissing them immediately would still stand. Mostly because we have to think of our audience: many readers are likely to come to this article because of the Gruadian and like articles (Just look at the pageviews spiking). We have to answer their questions, even when they're not related. At the most extreme, sometimes our role here is to debunk falsehoods more than simply giving a truth. Andy Dingley (talk) 17:52, 10 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Burevestnik, last version.

The last version of your passage is satisfactory. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nicholas Velasquez (talk • contribs) 17:44, 10 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

And now, because you posted here rather than at the talk: page, another editor has undone it all. That's why discussions like this belong on article talk pages, where they're clearly visible to all concerned. Andy Dingley (talk) 09:41, 11 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Burevestnik

What you are basically saying is "I don't know what I am editing, I just grab the sources and throw them at readers". Well, I think I am missing the point of Wikipedia then, because all that time I thought it was something more than a news aggregator. Of course, I am not saying you have to be an expert in the field, or possess a technical degree in order to make edits there, but even the most basic research into the topic would have spared you of the embarrassing mistake of confusing a RITEG with a nuclear reactor. But, anyway, your latest edit is quite pretty, so enough with that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nicholas Velasquez (talk • contribs) 18:31, 10 August 2019 (UTC) There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Amisom (talk) 14:03, 12 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You are a good editor. I have seen your hard work on the project and I want to say I appreciate you. The editor who is coming after you is the same one who follows me and harasses me. My suggestion to you is to ignore this editor and keep going with your valuable contributions. The editor looks for areas where drama and friction occur, and I know that is not your purpose on the project. Lightburst (talk) 20:55, 26 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. You seem to be one of the competent editors amongst all editors that I have encountered on Wikipedia. I also really appreciate that you have helped me with "Wikipedia rehabilitation" back in Summer 2018. --Johannes (Talk) (Contribs) (Articles) 09:17, 27 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

People like you Andy. Please stop being so antagonistic towards me. I have not done so towards you. Tony May (talk) 14:05, 20 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_UK_Railways#(draft)_RFC_on_the_use_on_livery_art_and_other_editor-constructed_diagrams_in_articles. Please help complete it or tell me if I'm missing key issues. Dicklyon (talk) 15:12, 20 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

If Dickylon is doing this well then I don't need to involve myself too much. Tony May (talk) 15:17, 20 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You might be the strongest or only voice on one side of the question, so your participation could be valuable. Please help complete the RFC if interested. I will be studiously neutral on these questions, since I can't see supporting either one of you at this point. Dicklyon (talk) 15:21, 20 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Are you ready for comments yet? If not, please ping when you are. Thanks for drafting this. Andy Dingley (talk) 16:05, 20 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Andy,

Thank you for your comments on the pages I added content to. You mentioned copyright violations. If you look at my email, I actually work for Tektronix, so I have permission to quote directly as a source. A lot of the information I was trying to add was to breakdown the exiting information on the pages (such as Multimeter , Oscilloscope , and Signal Generator ) Would you like me to rephrase the information instead and then cite it via footnotes? Thanks again! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Laurendevera (talk • contribs) 17:45, 20 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Lauren, I'll reply on your talk (but might be a little while) Andy Dingley (talk) 17:49, 20 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Andy,

You have accused me of calling multiple people sockpuppets. I'm happy to confirm to you, that this, like most of the basis of your unnecessarily confrontational attitude towards me, is not the case.

I have raised concerns about one editor. I'm not used to dealing with this sort of thing, I don't even know how to file a request for a sockpuppet check. So I'd like to confirm what you would think about an editor who has (1) made about 11 total edits, 10 of those in December 2018 - 9 of which were in the article namespace and 1 of which was in the Template namespace, and who (2) suddenly shows up into a comment on a talk page of a minor article and posts a message about content. I will of course assume in good faith, that he's not your sockpuppet. Am I right in thinking I should therefore accept and stretch my good faith to consider that this arrangement was entirely coincidental?

Would you be kind enough to withdraw your comment that I have been "attacking/accusing multiple editors of being sockpuppets" because it is simply not true. I have raised tentative concerns about one editor, which I admit may be wrong, and I am trying to stick to policy and content discussions. I'd be glad if you were to try to stick to truths rather than personally attack me.

I'd be grateful if you could please also limit yourself to the discussion of the point I have raised, and not try to deflect the issue by taking the discussion off on an unnecessary tangent. Tony May (talk) 14:54, 22 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

WP:SPI should see you right. You might even like WP:SPI/Andy Dingley. Help yourself. But either raise a reasonable and appropriate SPI, don't just insinuate in content disputes. Andy Dingley (talk) 15:32, 22 August 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

DAB of a photo caption?

Hi Andy! I just saw this question at the Trains Wikiproject talk page. The reference is to a caption for a photo you scanned and uploaded to Commons. Are you able to disambiguate the link to the word indicator? I'm not sure what it is referring to. Thanks. --Tkynerd (talk) 10:30, 23 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi again! Just wanted to say thanks for clarifying that reference. --Tkynerd (talk) 08:55, 26 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like we had an edit conflict there - I don't mind if you want to remove my trimmed version. The new editor may appreciate a touch of guidance, methinks.

]

We should cover this – maybe even link the most workable of the surviving websites – we need one! But the app-spamming here? Far too much. And what use is an app? Andy Dingley (talk) 10:44, 28 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Quite. Amend my wording however you like (within reason!) Ghmyrtle (talk) 11:34, 28 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

10:24, 29 August 2019‎ Andy Dingley talk contribs‎ 22,716 bytes -1,750‎ rv - unsourced, sources used are vague and don't cover the specific claims made. I can't think offhand of any turbocharged Schneider entries and although hugely influential on fuel chemistry and valve cooling, there was no direct influence on supercharger design or their metallurgy undothank Tags: Undo PHP7

@Andy Dingley The contribution to Aircraft engine development and aircraft design from air races in general and specifically the highly prized international Schneider Trophy is widely acknowledged and not in dispute.

You are mistaken if you say there weren't any turbocharged Schneider racers. The Rolls Royce R was specifically developed for the Schneider races and was most certainly Supercharged and was the envy of other nations. The later Fiat AS.6 in the Macchi 72 was also supercharged.

Road vehicles could carry the extra weight of a bigger normally aspirated engine easily but planes where much more sensitive to additional weight and this is why they were a much bigger impetus with aircraft engine development and the why the Schneider race was where the extra performance was most vital.

I believe this is a valid entry in this page. I could be more correct in stating that by the late 1920's the aircraft where the effort was spent in supercharging had an obvious clear advantage over the opposition. In the run-up to the second WW aircraft engine manufacturers put great effort into supercharging because the Schneider Trophy winner had made clear it was the future.

The book "Schneider-Trophy-Races by Ralph-Barker deals in depth with supercharging efforts by Rolls Royce and the catch-up played by the other main countries in also developing the metallurgy for the compressor blades to survive in a supercharger. The same technology essential to jet engine turbine blades. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tadpolefarm (talk • contribs) 11:00, 29 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This belongs on the article talk: page, not here. Andy Dingley (talk) 11:13, 29 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello.

You reverted my edit giving the reason as rv - hydrogen peroxide first.

Why should hydrogen peroxide be mentioned first?

I mean, yes, that type of rocket engine generally gets thought of as a hydrogen peroxide engine; but on the other hand, when mentioning rocket fuel components the order is generally fuel and then oxidiser. Indeed, the article section linked to by the text hydrogen peroxide / kerosene propellant is

article.

Do you have any reference to suggest that hydrogen peroxide should be mentioned first, rather than sticking with the order as used in the Gamma engine article?

From my point of view, the sentence: It was fuelled by hydrogen peroxide / kerosene propellant chemistry. is very clumsy and if nothing else, needs the spaces either side of the slash taken out.

Michael F 1967 (talk) 21:10, 1 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

"that type of rocket engine generally gets thought of as a hydrogen peroxide engine;"

That'll be why then.

The use of hydrogen peroxide is the defining characteristic of this whole group of particularly British engines. Whereas everything worldwide uses kerosene. This is why this group is described as hydrogen peroxide engines primarily. Look at how they are described in the RS literature: [8]. Secondly, WP isn't RS, see

WP:OSE, and also, more subtly, that's not even what the Gamma article means (maybe it needs to be dumbed down further for the WP audience). In general (and in the context of the Stentor article) these are HTP engines. However there are also two HTP engine cycles, the "cold" (which is hot) using HTP and the "hot" (which is very hot) using both HTP and kero. In the narrow context of UK HTP-based rocket engines of this period, it's reasonable to describe the hot cycle engines, such as the Gamma, as kero/HTP engines – but only when this is as a contrast to the cold cycle engines, within a clear overall context of British HTP engines. So that's OK for a section within the Gamma article, but it would be wrong in the lead. Andy Dingley (talk) 21:49, 1 September 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

"The use of hydrogen peroxide is the defining characteristic of this whole group of particularly British engines. Whereas everything worldwide uses kerosene."

Hang on a bit - you know perfectly well that hot HTP engines generally use kerosene fuel with HTP oxidiser while the oxidiser generally used with kerosene is liquid oxygen. But no-one talks about liquid oxygen rockets, do they?

Then again, the catalytic decomposition of the HTP does provide a fair bit of thrust by itself, so it's not just an oxidiser (if you see what I mean).

Then again, the disputed sentence isn't in the article's lead. And everything about the chemistry in the Gamma article puts kerosene before hydrogen peroxide, even in the chemical equations.

Then again, the Flight article referenced does state: "Few details of the Stentor may be published, but it can be stated that this engine operates on HTP and kerosine."

I've had a thought and tried something else. If you don't like it, please don't just revert to the clumsy "It was fuelled by hydrogen peroxide / kerosene propellant chemistry" version. propellant chemistry is just pointless guff, surely? Michael F 1967 (talk) 23:07, 1 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

And while I'm at it, would you mind letting me know what you mean by "the RS literature"?

Ta. Michael F 1967 (talk) 23:12, 1 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

"the RS literature"? You know about

WP:RS

, right?

"the Flight article referenced does state: "Few details of the Stentor may be published, but it can be stated that this engine operates on HTP and kerosine."" Yes, this is the point!

WP:RS

, of which Flight is certainly one, use "HTP and kerosene", not "kerosene and HTP".

Incidentally, kerosene has been used as a fuel with almost any of the oxidisers. LOX, yes, but also both nitric acid and nitrogen tetroxide. In liquid rocketry, it's normal that many fuels are workable, but the oxidisers are much harder to find a workable system for them. This is one reason why most of them (except cryogenics) are described primarily by their oxidisers, rather than their fuels. Andy Dingley (talk) 23:19, 1 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

No, I didn't know about

WP:RS

. There is not enough time to read all Wikipedia guidance, and in any case I'm not very good with initialisms - overloaded things, they are. I see RS, I think of the firm that used to be called Radio Spares (I've still got some Radio Spares branded reels of wire hanging around), or perhaps the Royal Society. Now I've got another one to remember, if I can...

Certainly Flight is a reliable source. Should we therefore change the spelling of kerosine to follow its lead? A single mention of " this engine operates on HTP and kerosine" (note: kerosine not kerosene) doesn't strike me as holy writ for this sort of thing.

From what I've read, liquid rocket engines are generally described by both (or all, in the case of triple propellants) fuel components. Do you have a reliable source indicating anything to the contrary?

And reverting rather than fixing clumsy language - did you really have to do it like that?

Michael F 1967 (talk) 00:08, 2 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I had a look in some books I've got. See the quotation from the reference I used for specific impulse in Special:Permalink/913591044#Performance. Okay, okay, I'm convinced: it's HTP first... They're all mad, though, mad as hatters, the lot of 'em.

Please also note the other reliable source justifying describing the Stentor as an HTP engine. Michael F 1967 (talk) 01:11, 2 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Andy,

You recently correctly removed a couple of links added to images on https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Load_cell. Although I definitely agree with undoing the link addition, all the images on the mentioned page are clearly trying to make a free marketing/product advertisement by not removing brand from the images and falsely pointing the images as being of personal creation from a particular user, by even placing image EXIF information. I recommend removing the images completely or editing them to completely remove brand references, which is definitely appropriate for an encyclopedia.

Apereira1308 (talk) 15:07, 2 September 2019 (UTC)Apereira1308[reply]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voltage_optimisation#Phase_voltage_imbalance

At the moment, that information remains at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Motor_controller#Phase_Voltage_Unbalance_and_AC_Motors Ingalls.Arkansas.QNX 17:19, 4 September 2019 (UTC)

Sorry, but your point is unclear? At motor controller, this does seem to have some relevance, as it's referring to phase imbalance. Everywhere else you've put it though, the issue has been something like brownout, which is an overall undervoltage. Andy Dingley (talk) 17:22, 4 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. --ɱ (talk) 15:04, 14 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The Anti-Vandalism Barnstar

From ZombieGizzard - I don't know how to communicate with you other than this so I am sorry for using this Barnstar for this reason but I was just warned about me being banned from editing wikipedia if I vandalize again, and this was after an edit I made to the wikipedia of pencil sharpener. I agree that some of my first edits on wikipedia were vandalism, but I feel like my recent edit to pencil sharpener was not vandalism. I was simply trying to keep people interested in the article and to make people laugh a little. I did not delete or change any of the current information on the article, and all I wanted to do was make a slightly more enjoyable experience for anyone that happened to read the article. I do not understand how it was vandalism so could you please explain to me how or put it back up? Thanks! Have a great day! ZombieGizzard (talk) 19:16, 18 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

QuackGuru (talk) 14:28, 26 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

 You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#User:DonnieJack1. Jalen Folf (talk) 20:20, 28 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I am sure you would appreciate that it takes time to familiarise with the 'W' guidelines. I also understand that you are trying to certify edits by peer editors the way it should be. Yet I do not think you reversal of my added edits were right. Can you review this in light of the fact that SAKO TECHNOLOGIES LIMITED is the Internet authority from which all Internet Certificates are delivered to current users? Despite everything going on at the moment within the industry, I deserve that my contributions command respect and treated sensitively. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ZIDAGO1 (talk • contribs) 17:16, 29 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• I haven't reversed any of your edits: others did that. All I did was tag you user: page for deletion as an advert. I've seen your additions though and I would be happy to revert them in the future, if other editors don't get to them first.

Your edits are highly promotional, unsourced and unencyclopedic. They add nothing of value, and it's not

Reliable Sources to confirm them. Mostly though, they just add a vague claim that your company has done something, but it doesn't say what. This is an encyclopedia, not a trade directory: we're about the what, not the who. Andy Dingley (talk) 17:19, 29 September 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

SAKO TECHNOLOGIES LIMITED as the Internet Certificates Authority whose views and added comments are treated unfairly by an editor. The relevant reverted edits cannot be seen as a LTA but an issue that requires the whole of Internet industry's attention.— Preceding unsigned comment added by ZIDAGO1 (talk • contribs)

Please learn to edit other user's talk: pages without making a complete mess of them. I'm not going to tidy your edits up any more, I'll just revert them.

Your company is not credible for having had any influence to the web, now, in the past or in the likely future. If it has and I've missed it, please post

WP:RS to show this. Andy Dingley (talk) 18:28, 29 September 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

Dr. Foster's Magic Purple Pills

Probably the most succinct example of the applicability of MEDRS v. RS I have seen anywhere, thank you. Guy (help!) 13:59, 2 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I don't believe the one intervening edit is relevant

• [see here]

Riventree (talk) 08:47, 3 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You could try answering

WP:BURDEN might help. Andy Dingley (talk) 08:56, 3 October 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

There is no burden. A wikipedia statement "there were three cows^[1] and two dogs^[2] in the pasture. The police decided that five animals was too many" does not need BURDEN to add two and three to get to five. Likewise, there's no need to explain that something freefalling in earth's gravity well will accelerate at 1g.

I point out that your wording, "reviewing

WP:BURDEN

might help" is both hostile (snide) and unhelpful, since it's not clearly relevant.

Riventree (talk) 09:07, 3 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Andy, thank you for reverting my edits. I was not sure if it was true. Please leave a message on my talk page about how reverting edits work. Yours sincerley, Northernrailwaysfan — Preceding unsigned comment added by Northernrailwaysfan (talk • contribs) 17:52, 16 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The entry for cold-formed steel seems to have been vandalized recently: I would like to AGF, but these changes (taken as a whole) look pretty malicious. "Gentility in weight"?!? The word-for-word changes look reasonable too, but the resultant text is pretty bad.

I'm not sure how to rollback a batch of older edits. Do you have any thoughts?

Riventree (talk) 13:57, 18 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Yes, that all looks bad. Nuke it.

Here's how it was: [9] 3rd April

Here's any GF changes since [10], which are pretty small.

So I'd just revert to the first, then manually re-apply whatever of the second still looks either necessary or useful. Andy Dingley (talk) 14:04, 18 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know how to "revert to point X", so I just copied and pasted.The result seems ok, and includes the better book reference.

Aside: That vandalism is the "oldest" I've seen: June-through-late-October!

Thank you.

Riventree (talk) 18:32, 19 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 08:33, 3 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This is a warning, if you two continue to disrupt RSN with comments about each other I will take it to ANI. Comment on content not users.Slatersteven (talk) 15:15, 6 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sure you know where ANI is. Feel free. Andy Dingley (talk) 15:18, 6 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Sans Forgetica font sample.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for discussion. Please see the discussion to see why it has been listed (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry). Feel free to add your opinion on the matter below the nomination. Thank you. Jonatan Svensson Glad (talk) 01:03, 8 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The image has no valid license to my opinion, but anyway... Greetings Paul Hermans (talk) 20:36, 11 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The place to raise that would be at Commons:File:Comet tank 1.jpg. What do you see as a problem? Andy Dingley (talk) 20:39, 11 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

hi Andy Dingley, just wondering why you reverted my edit that was correcting a typo, here. Before i made the change i did a gsearch for what "siliced" is and was unable to actually find a definition (lots of pages on a Spanish/Italian word translate to "silica", a medical page here that has it ie. "Effect of notch1,2,3 genes silicing on NF-κB signaling pathway of macrophages in patients with atherosclerosis." but no defintion there). On the other hand, polysilican is "sliced" for use in the electronic/computing industry. Anyway, if you can provide any insights into what the word "siliced" means that would be appreciated, also, an article footnote of the word's meaning may be appropriate for the less technical wikireader (like myself:)), thanks. Coolabahapple (talk) 01:14, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it needs explanation, probably even rewording. The word used is correct, but certainly obscure. But the slightest knowledge of

polyfuses, or even just reading the whole paragraph should make it clear. See silicide. Andy Dingley (talk) 01:24, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

I'm thinking you meant silicided, so I changed it to that. Dicklyon (talk) 04:28, 12 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello!

The Wikimedia Foundation is seeking to improve the community consultation outreach process for Foundation policies, and we are interested in why you didn't participate

you’ve been part of.

Please fill out this short survey to help us improve our community consultation process for the future. It should only take about three minutes.

The privacy policy for this survey is here. This survey is a one-off request from us related to this unique topic.

Thank you for your participation, Kbrown (WMF) 10:44, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I have recently come across several aerospace related articles where you have removed information because you either do not understand what was said, or failed to read the information before reverting.

Please do not revert pages if you cannot be bothered to actually read or understand what is being written. Just because you do not know or do not understand something does not make it incorrect, it means you need to familiarize yourself with the information or otherwise refrain from making reverts.

Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1014:b10b:3cdf:44c8:2168:a0c8:9566 (talk • contribs)

This is Area rule ? Also Supersonic speed?

It would help, when complaining of edits to an article, to note the name of the article. Also, please

WP:SIGN

your posts. You might even like to think about creating an account, as it makes your edits easier to follow.

This is not the place to discuss content issues. That would be Talk:Area rule. But your edits are still the same and have two glaring problems: they're quite wrong, and they're completely unsourced.

The

F-106 Delta Dart used different engines, the J57 and the J75. It doesn't matter which of theses engines you claim they both used, you're still wrong. Andy Dingley (talk) 11:25, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

ArbCom 2019 election voter message

2019 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 on Monday, 2 December 2019. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2019 election, please review NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:09, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply ]

Gerard's mass removals

Andy, thanks for standing up for common sense against Gerard's ongoing removal of usable information in his mass purge of references using The Sun and other sources deprecated (or in reality, "advised as deprecated in most circumstances"). Often this purge is simply removing completely uncontroversial material entirely. His edit summaries are often patently false and I've asked him to stop, but he continues regardless. The more of us that reject this approach, the better. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 15:47, 22 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello,

Google Code-In, Google-organized contest in which the Wikimedia Foundation participates, starts in a few weeks. This contest is about taking high school students into the world of opensource. I'm sending you this message because you recently edited a documentation page at the English Wikipedia.

I would like to ask you to take part in Google Code-In as a mentor. That would mean to prepare at least one task (it can be documentation related, or something else - the other categories are Code, Design, Quality Assurance and Outreach) for the participants, and help the student to complete it. Please sign up at the contest page and send us your Google account address to [email protected], so we can invite you in!

From my own experience, Google Code-In can be fun, you can make several new friends, attract new people to your wiki and make them part of your community.

If you have any questions, please let us know at [email protected].

Thank you!

--User:Martin Urbanec (talk) 21:58, 23 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You are continuing to add deprecated sources to Wikipedia articles, e.g.: [11] [12] [13] [14] - despite the deprecation of the Daily Mail as a source in two RFCs and The Sun as a source in one RFC.

From the 2017

RFC: "its use as a reference is to be generally prohibited, especially when other more reliable sources exist. As a result, the Daily Mail should not be used for determining notability, nor should it be used as a source in articles."

From the 2019 Sun RFC: "References from the Sun shall be actively discouraged from being used in any article and they shall neither be used for determining the notability of any subject."

I appreciate that you personally disagree with the removal of deprecated sources. However, as

describes it: "Deprecation is a formalization that arises from Wikipedia’s normal processes for evaluating sources. It primarily exists so that we can save time by not repeatedly discussing or explaining the same issues, and to increase awareness among editors of the status of the sources in question." Demanding repeated relitigation of the deprecation of a source such as the Daily Mail is a waste of other editors' time.

As you have noted in previous discussions, the deprecation does not forbid all use of the Daily Mail as a source in articles. However, the two RFCs show a strong general consensus that its use is "generally prohibited". This means that any use of it needs a strong consensus - and not just a

.

I also appreciate that you feel your edits were completely correct and appropriate. However, you still need to obtain consensus for such inherently controversial edits, per

WP:ONUS

- which is policy - "While information must be verifiable to be included in an article, all verifiable information need not be included in an article. Consensus may determine that certain information does not improve an article, and that it should be omitted or presented instead in a different article. The onus to achieve consensus for inclusion is upon those seeking to include disputed content."

The Daily Mail has been ruled a generally prohibited source in two RFCs; as such, the onus is upon you to seek a general level of consensus to override the general consensus of those two RFCs, before adding deprecated sources to Wikipedia articles.

Nor can you claim that you do not understand that adding deprecated sources to a Wikipedia article is controversial - one administrator noted in a recent discussion at WT:RSN that he would have blocked you for one of the edits listed above had he not been in a direct conflict with you at the time. While I further appreciate that you would consider this an unjust block, you cannot reasonably claim that repeatedly adding deprecated sources to Wikipedia articles is an uncontroversial action.

I ask that you undertake to stop adding sources that have been deprecated to Wikipedia articles without first obtaining a sufficient level of general consensus for each edit to override the general prohibition, obtained in a suitable venue.

- David Gerard (talk) 20:03, 24 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's highly disingenuous for a so-called admin to claim that sources are being "added" when in actual fact, they are simply being restored. Gerrard has a history now of fallacious and misleading edit summaries and demonstrates a complete disregard for

WP:ADMINACCT. I would simply ignore this pointless threat from an involved current admin and suggest it's taken to ANI where we can examine the behaviour of this individual in more detail. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 20:11, 24 November 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

• Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#UK newspaper sources and how to handle deprecated sources? Andy Dingley (talk) 20:29, 24 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  Thank you Andy. And a very well phrased opening statement too. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 20:49, 24 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. . Guy (help!) 22:22, 24 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Anytime I'm reverted, it's you, Andy.

No, Brown's gas is not real. Premixed Hydrogen and oxygen? Yes. That exists and is used, but that's not what the term "brown's gas" MEANS anymore. Google it. It's exclusively used (now, today) as snake-oil "magnecule" foolishness.

Please do one of the following:

1. Revert your revert,
2. Better yet DISCUSS, as in revert-AND-DISCUSS
3. Better still, FIX THE ENTRY and prove me wrong. Add something CITEABLE about Brown's Gas and show me how right you are about it being "real".

In 48 hours I will revert your revert, and we will be 2/3 the way to our SECOND OUTSTANDING triple revert in need of arbitration.

Riventree (talk) 01:18, 25 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

So what is your problem with what was there before? It was a reasonably detailed, correct throughout, examination of just what's wrong with the Brown's gas nonsense. And you left it with one trivial sentence, and even that little was unsourced. Andy Dingley (talk) 01:20, 25 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Please do one of the following:

1. Revert your revert,
2. Better yet DISCUSS, as in revert-AND-DISCUSS
3. Better still, FIX THE ENTRY and prove me wrong. Add something CITEABLE about Brown's Gas and show me how right you are about it being "real".

Riventree (talk) 02:21, 25 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It's already cited. You removed all the citations. Andy Dingley (talk) 11:06, 25 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, you said in your revert of my edit:

rv misunderstanding. 1.5A is the minimum value (worst case device) for the maximum output current.

Actually that was also my understanding (and that's why I made the edit). Mathematically, the minimum of a set of maxima is NOT the maximum of the set (in general), therefore it is mathematically not correct to say that the maximum current is 1.5 A when in fact 1.5 A is the minimal maximum.

Of course I could have misunderstood the topic (I'm no electronics expert). Did you mean that 1.5 A is the "maximum current" because there is no guarantee for more than that? ʘχ (talk) 08:46, 28 November 2019 (UTC) edited for clarification: ʘχ (talk) 08:50, 28 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

1.5A is the maximum current. It is the opposite meaning of minimum current. It is correct to say "1.5A maximum", if that's as small a wording as we can fit. Otherwise it would have to be more complicated (maybe a footnote).

Your mathematical argument there doesn't apply because it's not comparing the same things: safe ratings vs. currents in use.

The LM317 is designed as a "high current" voltage regulator. At the time, for this type of circuit, 1.5A was high current (it needed a big metal-backed package). Owing to manufacturing tolerances, most of them would be happy at 2A, some could handle more, but the worst case manufactured LM317 was "guaranteed" to work with at least 1.5A, so that was what the designer would generally assume as a "maximum load current" figure, as we have written it here in the simple encyclopedia version.

It's also hard to measure this limit current and its variation. A tube of LM317 would all fail at the same values, it was more about supplies from different makers. This made it very hard to design for it around 2A, especially if the designer was divorced from the procurement and manufacturing process. I never did this myself for LM317s, but did have to do it sometimes for power transistors. It was a regular problem to have a factory's production all start to fail after a year of successful manufacture, then to find that "someone in purchasing" had changed the component supplier. High-end audio amplifier designers were famously obsessive over this and would usually do their own inbound testing on the main components.

In fact, I don't recall ever having much issue with current limits on the LM317. They were also limited by power dissipation (rather than current) and for V_I-V_O voltage differences >12V, the power limit was hit first. This was much harder to judge as it depended on the heatsink, so usually had to be determined by experiment, bonding a thermocouple to one and adding heatsink area until it stayed reasonably cool under load. Using them as 5V supplies from 48 or 50V rails was certainly chancy, but it was at least £10 cheaper than more robust ways, so it happened a lot.

Voltage regulators also have a minimum current, below which they don't guarantee their output voltage. The LM317 is fairly good for this, it only needs a few mA to be stable, but some designs (early switchmodes) were infamous for supplying output voltages up to the input rails, unless loaded. For that reason they mostly had a deliberate switch-off circuit, so they wouldn't supply any output unless it was enough. I've got a box of cheap Chinese 5V USB motor speed controllers here at the moment, which someone was using as LED dimmers. Turns out that they're fine running into a cooling fan, but when used for LEDs they put about 20V spikes out and kill the LEDs. The joy of internet-shopping as a design technique. Andy Dingley (talk) 11:32, 28 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Er ... so, basically, your answer to my question is "yes"?

1.5A is the maximum current.

I am trying to understand the official definition of the term "maximum current". According to the datasheets, 1.5 A is not the maximum current but the minimal maximum current -- that's what's written there. I just quote the sheets, it's not my wording, it's theirs. The only question is what it means.

Your mathematical argument there doesn't apply because it's not comparing the same things: safe ratings vs. currents in use.

I guess this statement has to do with my attempt to understand the official definitions. I understand that it is unsafe to use the LM317 beyond 1.5 A. Still, my question remains because the article does not say anything about safe ratings etc. ʘχ (talk) 14:57, 28 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Although you reverted your comment here,[15] I thought you made an important point. And then it crossed my mind that Anton edits mostly from an IP, just occasionally while logged in. There's a rule that anyone using multiple accounts is supposed to declare them. The question would be whether that rule applies in a case like this. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:54, 30 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's pretty much literally a loophole. Editors vaguely "ought not" to do this. However one who does has a cast-iron defence of "technical glitch" and that's so unchallengeable that nothing is ever done. Andy Dingley (talk) 10:29, 30 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The odd thing was that I had posted a couple of comments on his IP talk page (which was the only one I was aware of) and then he posted on my talk page using his logged-in account, telling me not to post on his talk page. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:27, 30 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

]

Asking permission

I would like to shut down the heated discussion at WP:RD/S about microwaving food. I can do this concisely by inserting two small words in your post so the sentence reads: "Dry food isn't heated so effectively by it, nor is ice." Will you permit me to add them? Best regards DroneB (talk) 20:29, 2 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the law. Andy Dingley (talk) 22:51, 2 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. DroneB (talk) 23:42, 2 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

 You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:In_the_news/Candidates#2019_Hyderabad_gang_rape. DBigXrayᗙ 13:50, 6 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

why the revert on the

)

See

WP:BURDEN

et al.

For decades, all sources said that the Schmalturm was intended for developments of the Panther. If you now "know" that it wasn't, you're going to have to provide some reliable sourcing to show that it wasn't. Until you do, even if you know you're right this isn't going to change. Andy Dingley (talk) 10:51, 5 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

See Talk:Panther II tank#Schmalturm, which has been there for a while, although you might not have noticed it yet. Andy Dingley (talk) 10:53, 5 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I FUCKING GAVE THE SOURCE, WHAT ELSE DO YOU WANT? EVERYTHING ELSE IN THE PAGE COMES FROM THE SAME AUTHORS. WHAT IS WRONG WITH YOU? WHAT MORE DO YOU WANT? DO YOU LIVE UNDER A ROCK? FOR YEARS THIS HAS BEEN DISPROVEN WITH THE RELAESE OF PANZER TRACTS...

]

temper, temper.TheLongTone (talk) 14:50, 7 December 2019 (UTC)±[reply]

also about the ratte, the source is Überschwere Panzerprojekte by Michael Fröhlich. add that in yourself if you want to. and you KNOW that the info is false in there, why the fuck do you want to revert it back to the incorrect version? makes no fucking sense, unless you think Ratte = size of city block destroy all tank and has 4 maus turret on top mega stronk?

]

Your edit warring complaint

You might like to consider in future that reverting an edit to a totally unsourced claim is less ideal than using a poor source for a claim - to my mind it classes as disruptive editing.

Do it again, and I'll report you immediately for disruptive editing.

Michael F 1967 (talk) 17:22, 7 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I've found something which indicates my memory of the Iron Bridge's construction was wrong - and also describes the bridge as an arch bridge.

Having a source calling it an arch bridge, that's the important thing. As well as remaining courteous.

See The Iron Bridge talk page sooner rather than later...

Observe: I have remained calm and courteous at all times.

Michael F 1967 (talk) 18:15, 7 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop it. Unsourced information should not be included on Wikipedia. Also, you should not be personally abusive towards other editors as you were towards me - rather gratuitously, I thought. Anger? Seriously? I'm just sticking to Wikipedia policy and explaining my actions in a calm and courteous fashion.

You've insisted on including unsourced information and you've levelled personal abuse at me. It doesn't matter that you incorrectly believe the Iron Bridge to be a true arch bridge: what matters is what can be found in reliable sources.

See

, etc.

Also:

, etc.

So stop making disruptive edits and remember to remain courteous at all times.

Michael F 1967 (talk) 18:02, 7 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I suppose what I'm thinking now is: I might well have been misled by a poor source and my poor memory, but you had no source at all.

WP:NPA

should have been in your mind.

Michael F 1967 (talk) 19:12, 7 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hiya. With regard to this edit, can you help me understand what I overlooked? We already have 4 images of the subject within the article itself, and more than 20 images of the

]

I was seeing this as the Gardai use of it, more than the Defender itself. The other EL that's there, the official tAerchór one is light on them. I'd also shift both to refs, rather than ELs. Also multiple angles is useful on aircraft. Andy Dingley (talk) 20:30, 7 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I don't think I'm following. Shifting the official Air Corps page to sit as a ref probably does make sense. Shifting the Flickr image to sit as a ref makes absolutely no sense to me. I do not understand how a photo of this type is useful as a reference. What part of the text does it support? (That isn't already supported by other verifiable/reliable/"textual" references). I also do not understand how "multiple angles" (or multiple images) is useful to the reader. What does the reader learn from that image exactly? That is not already covered elsewhere? (I am still clearly missing something here....) Guliolopez (talk) 21:39, 7 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not strongly attached to it. Remove it if you really don't like it. Andy Dingley (talk) 21:47, 7 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I don't. I have. Guliolopez (talk) 23:31, 7 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Austerity in the United Kingdom (1939–54), which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies with the categorization guidelines. 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. Rathfelder (talk) 20:24, 8 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Please self-revert your accusation of bad faith. Please also limit your AfD comments to content, not contributors. If you have a concern that needs to be raised at ANI, please limit your discussion of that concern to ANI or the concerned editor's talk page. AfD is not the place to discuss editor conduct. Thank you. –dlthewave ☎ 22:02, 8 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

No, wait for the ANI post. Or start it yourself. Your actions here, both deleting most of the article beforehand, and not linking to the previous kept AfD, are clearly extremely disruptive to an appropriate AfD. Andy Dingley (talk) 22:04, 8 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I've opened an ANI discussion here. –dlthewave ☎ 03:08, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Precious

Two years!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:02, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Andy,

This is Riventree, and I'm looking for "Wikipedia process" advice again. I'm proved wrong, by the way. I say this in good cheer with a smile on my face, no sarcasm intended: I've been reverted and it was not you.  :)

This looks like someone trying out a VPN for vandalizing wikipedia pages. A little poking around shows the edit came out of an otherwise unused IP address in Egypt, but on two very "American English" sentences, and neither revert makes sense. More, there are no other edits on these pages or by this author that are related. Is there something that should be done?

Riventree (talk) 18:36, 12 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• It would appear that you've done it. I don't think it's a VPN, just a mobile phone network. So random IPs and possible repeat edits from IP morphs are a possible, but it doesn't yet appear like organised vandalism. Andy Dingley (talk) 19:09, 12 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

OK. Thanks. Cheers.

Riventree (talk) 17:32, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

They are not an expert, they are adding ref spam here. Please revert it. We do not use individual companies or sellers to source broad subjects. Thanks. Praxidicae (talk) 21:31, 19 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

No. This is not the worst example of

WP:BITE I've seen lately, but it's one of the more stupid of them. This is an article tagged for ages as "needs citations" and "expert needed". When we get just such an expert, your response has been to try and report them as a "vandal" at AIV. Andy Dingley (talk) 21:39, 19 December 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

No they are spamming. We do not allow companies to throw their links all over broad articles. They qualify for AIV under "promo only account" and I suggest you let an admin handle it. Praxidicae (talk) 21:40, 19 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

And they aren't reliable sources, so please remove them immediately. Praxidicae (talk) 21:46, 19 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Andy.

In the "Helical Camshaft" page of wikipedia, there is an extensive presentation of the HC mechanism; this presentation, as it writes at the page header, is like an advertisement.

Advertisement or not, a reader "skilled in the art" of valvetrains, would have several questions to ask the Helical Camshaft creator (like, say, how the multi semi-camlobes are accurately controlled in an in-line engine, whether the control mechanism that displaces the semi-cam-lobes is more complicated than the Helical Camshaft itself, how much stiffer valve springs are required for the same rev limit when a conventional engine is modified to Helical Camshaft, etc).

The "skilled in the art" reader may laugh with the following claim in the "Applications" section: "The Helical Camshaft's typical 250 degree to 350 + degree duration range basically means that a suitably robust engine could “pull” strongly from about 1500 RPM to maybe 20,000 + RPM and still idle smoothly at 500 or 600 RPM", because he/she knows that a trapezoidal valve lift profile (as in the Suzuki helical cam - maximum duration plot, at the bottom of the page) cannot help creating extreme inertia loads as the revs increase and requires super-extra-stiff valve springs to keep the poppet valves from bouncing.

And here is what has to do with my deleted edit of the article:

In the practical considerations section it writes: "There is no physical reason why a Helical Camshaft could not be the “driving” cam in a Valvetronic-type oscillating cam setup. (But it would be quite complex and the Valvetronic part of the arrangement would limit the Helical Camshaft's high RPM capabilities). The result would be an almost unbelievable array of possible duration/lift combinations. "

Strictly technically speaking, this means that in order to vary independently both, the valve lift and the valve duration, it is required a combined VVA comprising the Helical Camshaft VVA "in series" with the BMW-valvetronic VVA. The result (i.e. the array of possible duration/lift profiles) would be, as it writes, "unbelievable", in expense of significant side effects.

The DVVA (Desmodromic Variable Valve Actuation), patented a decade ago in the US-PTO and in the EPO patent offices, provides alone, the above "unbelievable array of possible duration/lift combinations", being at the same time rid of valve springs (it not only opens positively the valves, but it also closes positively the valves), being at the same time rid of "oscillating cams".

Without an explanation / reference / link to the DVVA, the reader will remain with the wrong impression that in order to achieve the “unbelievable array of duration/lift combinations” there is no other solution than putting the Helical Camshaft in series with the BMW-valvetronic.

As the article is now, it is misleading. But the decision is yours.

By the way, shouldn't wikipedia have a similar article / presentation for the DVVA? If you study the DVVA mechanism at https://www.pattakon.com/pattakonDesmo.htm you will see that besides making a lot more than the Helical Camshaft and the BMW-valvetronic together, the DVVA is also more applicable in existing and future engines.

Have a nice day Manolis Pattakos — Preceding unsigned comment added by PattakonCom (talk • contribs) 13:01, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delivered by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) at 16:10, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for continuing to make Wikipedia the greatest project in the world. I hope you have an excellent holiday season. Lightburst (talk) 22:48, 21 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

FWiW Bzuk (talk) 01:06, 23 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Andy, thanks for all you do on Wikipedia, and in bringing your particular set of skills and expertise to help make this a better encyclopedia. My you have a wonderful Christmas and a Happy New Year. (and if you don't celebrate Christmas please feel free to take that as a Happy Hanukkah, a great Dhanu Sankranti, a blessed Hatsumode, or whatever holiday you want to insert there.) Zaereth (talk) 08:54, 25 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]