User talk:Andy Dingley/Archive 5

) 16:02, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

Question

It seems that IP 98.179.149.193 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) has been causing trouble. I am wondering if (And how) to bring this to a Administrator.

Thanks, Happy_Attack_Dog "The Ultimate Wikipedia Guard Dog" (talk) 15:35, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

Don't worry about it, I've already raised them at Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism. Takes a while, but it'll get there. Read the links at the top of that page if you're interested in more detail. Andy Dingley (talk) 15:42, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

Hello Andy, Regarding the edits to the "futurist meals" page, I actually provided an explanation twice when I edited the page. You reverted the changes twice, although I appreciate that you sent a message the second time and explained the reason for the reversion. I removed the following sentence: "This is one of the few palatable dishes in Marinetti's Futurist Cookbook." As I explained twice, this statement is purely subjective. The author cannot make judgments about whether something is one of the only tasty dishes from a cookbook.

As well, the word "this" always requires a subject right next to it, so it's not even a well-expressed personal opinion that wouldn't belong there anyway. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.35.210.254 (talk) 15:26, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

Have you read the book? Have you seen the ingredients for the other recipes? It's hardly subjective to consider ball bearings (with or without chicken) as unpalatable.

For not realising that you were the same editor when you removed it a second time, unexplained, then I apologise – but we also call that kind of behaviour sockpuppeting. Andy Dingley (talk) 15:52, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

It's a matter of opinion whether almond paste with black pepper is palatable or not and it would be best to quote a secondary source if one could be found; if not, describe without comment. (I have read La Cucina Futurista, btw.) Cheers! Pelarmian (talk) 15:33, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

The palatability of adding pepper to a desert is, I would contest, within the bounds of reasonable culinary art. After all, there are plenty of chocolate recipes doing it. The point for this article though is that this is a rare example where the ingredients are even edible, let alone palatable. It's not about whether this one is too weird, it's that it's the only one that's not clearly too weird. Andy Dingley (talk) 16:19, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

Hi Andy,

I have realised you have undone our edits on the Web conferencing and List of collaborative software pages. I feel Drum should be placed here. Could you please inform me if I doing something wrong or the reasons behind the edit being undone?

Thanks

Laurence Laurence Drum (talk) 11:15, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

Please read some of the following:

Originally,

WP:NOTDIR

Now,

WP:BRD

In detail, you have added inlined ELs (external links) to a See-also section listing other Wikipedia articles. Drum does not have a Wikipedia article.

Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a directory (the web is full of directories and there are also search engines). Wikipedia is not here to boost SEO. What does adding a link to an article add to that article? Wikipedia is constitutionally disinterested in "making a better list" or "helping people to find our product" (those are jobs for search engines). Wikipedia is only here to make good self-contained and trustworthy encyclopedia articles, hosted here on WP. Adding an external link to a product site doesn't help that, because the link is undiscussed and unexplained further (WP has no content on Drum). It's also untrusted (Drum can be assumed to say "Drum is great", but we need instead some external and reliable or objective commentator to say "Drum is good/bad/set fire to my cat").

There are two things you could do here:

• Find a list of collaborative software (maybe one of the articles here meets this). Add Drum to that list, but do so in a way that meets
  WP:RS
  : adding citations to reliable sources (credible 3rd parties, such as magazine reviews) to demonstrate that Drum is indeed a credible piece of such software.
• Write a WP article on Drum. It would have to meet
  WP:N
  .

You might also wish to read

WP:COI

, especially in reference to your user name.

Good luck with it. I'm not here to "deny access to Drum", but I am here to work on an encyclopedia, rather than a directory. I want to offer a service to readers reading just the pages here, I don't care (I am literally uninterested) in whether they read your Drum website beyond that. Andy Dingley (talk) 11:36, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for getting back to me. There is a review about Drum on Web RTC insights (http://webrtcinsights.quadrigaconsulting.co.uk/index.php/drum-an-interview-with-the-ceo/), is this the type of link we could be including? Or does the link have to stay within Wikipedia? Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Laurence Drum (talk • contribs) 12:24, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

That's the sort of thing - although WP typically prefers text to video. Find a couple of those and write

WP:AFD for past computing deletions and see just what sort of hurdles are out there, how to pass them and what things are failed for. Andy Dingley (talk

) 12:43, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

OK, I will find some content out there on Drum and then link it in. I will also check out those past deletions, thanks! Laurence Drum (talk) 09:38, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

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

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:11, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

Category:Automobiles powered by mid-mounted 4-cylinder engines, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 19:44, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for your congratulations. English is not my first language, please keep it simple. "If you can extrapolate your ability to work with him into the non-existence of a larger group of people who have found it impossible (and hence the topic ban), then you might have a point." - I don't know what you want to say there, sorry. I am not disputing that there is a topic ban, and will not question its justification, not with the current arbitrators, it seems a waste of time. I am disputing that Andy is "sticking two fingers", trying to reduce the enormous number of different infobox templates, - he is simply continuing what he did before the case, as much as possible. - Example: {{

) 12:11, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

Comment: Perhaps you are able to work with him. Many cannot. He is restricted and banned because of his inability to work with the majority.

I have two concerns here:

• It's common on WP for topic banned or warned editors to afterwards still stick very close to the core of their previous ban. I've not seen this work out well for either party.
• I dispute a large number of these template deletions as simply poorly chosen. Andy Dingley (talk) 12:47, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

Why he is restricted I don't know, not much of recent evidence was given, it seems to have to do with a past that I don't know. Why I am restricted I don't know, not much of evidence was given, but see above, waste of time. I supply infoboxes to my own articles because I believe they are good for them, and leave others alone, is that what you call "stick to the core"? I hope the arbitrators didn't expect me to change

my quality standards, same for Andy ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk

) 12:58, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

You who know so much about why a restriction is given, could you point me at an instance of my bad behaviour, please? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:20, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

? Sorry? I know of no bad behaviour on your part. Sorry if I've ever given that impression. Andy Dingley (talk) 12:44, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

No, you didn't give the impression you thought something about me. You only gave the impression that you know so certainly (and even used the term "proven") why someone is restricted. I am, and I can tell you, I don't know why (other than for defending Andy). While you were able to say several negative things about a fellow editor in one paragraph, I don't recall that I ever did that in four years here (and if I did I would like to know and go and apologize). I was in no edit war, - if you look at

Kafka ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk

) 14:00, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

I presume you mean, "it has already proven impossible for a substantial majority to do so [work with Andy Mabbett]", a statement that I would stand by. If you disagree with that, perhaps you would like to raise his topic ban for withdrawal as unwarranted. As also noted, I happen to agree with you and Andy on the value of adding infoboxes (yes, even the "invisible" infoboxes). However I still support his topic ban, as I've found him impossible to work with for years pre-WP, to the limits of my experience with him. Andy Dingley (talk) 14:18, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

As said above, I will not raise anything with the current arbs. I asked them, as you may know, to permit Andy to add infoboxes to his own articles, where there's certainly no conflict with anybody else, - denied, - kafkaesque, if you ask me ;) - If you look at my much shorter history (linked above, "quality standards"), you see the link to my first encounter with Andy, - I was against infoboxes then, but liked his sense of humour ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:33, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

Dear Andy Dingley ,thank U very much For your advice.I am a Telugu Wikipedia member,I write in telugu regularly.Palagiri (talk) 12:32, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

Hi Andy. I have removed the manual links from article Vehicle frame because they are already correctly linked to the Body-on-frame article. The way it was (and now it is back that way), it is referencing different subjects in other languages to the same article in english. Regards. --MarcRic::Ruby (talk) 23:44, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

Please don't add "citation needed" to quotations THAT ARE CLEARLY CITED AT THE END OF THE SENTENCE, and follow

) 12:21, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

Kinetsu and you appear incapable of looking at the reference at the end of the sentence. After this has been pointed out SEVERAL times re-adding the tags to something that is fully cited is merely disruptive. Don't ask me what is going on, try looking at the actual passage in question. The style of the first note is fully MOS-compliant, and your preferred style should not be introduced at whim without discussion. I expect this kind of behaviour from him, but not you. PLEASE REVERT YOURSELF AT ONCE. Johnbod (talk) 12:29, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

Apart from the ALLCAPS shouting, I'm sure that WP:CITE doesn't suggest bulk reversion of changes just to restore a broken URL. Andy Dingley (talk) 12:26, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

Will you actually look at the article please? Johnbod (talk) 12:46, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

Rather obviously, of course I've already looked at the article (and a fine article it is too). However will you please stop talking down to other editors. It's not your article alone and these other editors might just possibly have valid points. Andy Dingley (talk) 12:49, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

John, I've raised the specific issues on the article (where everyone can more easily see them) and at your talk page, but you've chosen to ignore those and START SHOUTING all over my talk page.

Kintetsubuffalo does have the weight of policy behind them. There are peacock terms in the opening sentence. We don't in general like such things. Now I think they're probably fine to be there, but they should have cites close enough to them to support those specific terms, if they're being used as direct quotes like this, contra to PEACOCK. I believe that you are able to add such cites. I am not. The source ref is apparently an hour-long YouTube video, which I simply don't have time to watch, but I believe that you already have (Some of us have day jobs, and today I have three of them).

My terrible change to the ref was to fix the broken URL that you had put into it. If you don't like cite format changes, then I can understand that, but you're on firmer ground for complaining about other editors when your links actually work in the first place. As to my other changes, then I see these as very minor and justifiable formatting improvements, per our usual practices, and there is no reason to bulk revert them other than an obvious and growing problem with

WP:OWN

. There is no reason for you to behave so badly here (because both of you belong at ANEW already).

I am also profoundly sorry to see someone behaving in such a way when they're part of GLAM and now supposed to be WiR to the Royal Society. Why is GLAM seemingly run on the regular basis of editors who can't keep their toys in the pram? Some of us have to work with those museums IRL and I'm getting tired of having to hide my own editing on WP because I don't want to be associated with the bad press of the WP prima donnas they've met already. Andy Dingley (talk) 12:47, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

What is it about "Sickman, 200; Rawson, 159, both quoted" that you don't understand? What other quotes might be being referred to? That has always been there. I have now had to point this out several times in several places. The lecture is clearly used to ref the next sentence, and is nothing to do with the issue here. You are just not looking at the article with any degree of attention. I put in the new link that works, which you have chosen to put into your preferred format, inconsistent with the other references, clearly against

WP:CITE. If you don't have time to edit properly, then don't edit at all. Johnbod (talk

) 12:58, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

What don't I understand? Perhaps the part where your claimed ref for this [31] was just a run-on sentence tacked onto the end of a footnote about naming: "<ref>Art history sources mostly use "Yixian", though "Yi xian" appears more correct; Sickman, 200; Rawson, 159, both quoted</ref>". Andy Dingley (talk) 13:11, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

Huh? "just a run-on sentence", "claimed"? You're just being childish now. However I will change the sequence if it bothers you. There is no justification for changing the note formats (introducing inconsistency again) without discussion. Johnbod (talk) 13:24, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

Your last version left the rest of the sentence unreferenced, wrongly attributed both quoted words to both sources, placed the refs contrary to MOS, not to mention using a pointy ref name. The text is fine now; please resist the urge to fiddle further without discussion on the talk page. Johnbod (talk) 13:33, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

Hi Andy -- Thanks for commenting at the Chorley and District natural historical society AFD. I'd be fine with your recommendation there. I do think that having a list of natural history societies would be good. As it happens i can't easily start articles (am under a restriction); i can start articles via AFC but that is a random process that hasn't been working properly IMHO. If you agree that having a List of natural history societies would be good, and would create the article as a stub, I would like to develop it, with focus on those having Wikipedia articles (so demonstrated to be individual notable). By the way, i rather think that they'll mostly be in the U.K.; while regular historical societies are common across the pond, where i am, I don't know of many. --doncram 20:13, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

You recently reverted my edit in the article Mach Speed. The reason you gave makes no sense to me and I do not know what it means. AustralianPope (talk) 23:21, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, I've reverted my edit here.

The purpose of hatnotes like that is to "rescue" readers who've searched for something but ended up in the wrong place. These hatnotes are there to link articles with similar names, not articles that are about similar concepts. Someone looking for

Mach speed to Mach number, so it's plausible that they could enter "Speed" but end up at "Number" (and so your hatnote would be appropriate). Andy Dingley (talk

) 23:44, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

Sorry it spilled over onto you...

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.--Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 03:38, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

Hi Andy, I removed the livelink to Strategic Materials because no Article on that subject exists. Are you planning to write one? Otherwise, I recommend you should agree to my removal of the square brackets around the term. Best Wishes.Dendrotek 22:55, 20 December 2013 (UTC) — Preceding

)

Please read

WP:REDLINK Andy Dingley (talk

) 23:10, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

Yes, Andy, I've read that. So again, my question - are you going to write an article on Strategic Materials? I might also add, is this an online encyclopedia, or trying to be a rival to the Oxford English Dictionary?!Dendrotek 21:21, 21 December 2013 (UTC) — Preceding

)

I've also removed a few red links. It's good form to write the article first, then link it. Thanks. Magnolia677 (talk) 16:17, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

Either of you are free to write the article yourselves, if you're so keen. Don't let me stand in your way.

If you're so against redlinks, and our long-established practice in this area, then I suggest you take that up at Wikipedia talk:Red link or even Wikipedia:Miscellany for Deletion/Wikipedia:Red link. Andy Dingley (talk) 19:23, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

I looked at the "what links here" on the "strategic materials" red-link article, and every page linking to it is yours. Doing this is not "long-established practice". Please take a moment to read

WP:RED, particularly "do not overlink in the mainspace solely for use as an article creation guide. Instead, editors are encouraged to consider Write the article first, or to use WikiProjects or user spaces to keep track of unwritten articles." Thank you. Magnolia677 (talk

) 20:49, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

I have to agree with the others. It's a bit questionable to extensively redlink an article you haven't yet written. . --Yaush (talk) 16:45, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

< It's much worse to redlink an article you have no plans to write > I'm confused.

WP:RED also says In general, a red link should be allowed to remain in an article if it links to a term that could plausibly sustain an article 86.168.89.147 (talk

) 04:57, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

I see no confusion here,

WP:REDLINK is quite clear. Andy Dingley (talk

) 10:33, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

Clear space on Vincent article

ThanQ for your undo and explanation - I was more concerned about the previous changes where a blog site was introduced into this article by the site owner. I'm using a very old 4:3 laptop and my eyes are not so good now, hence I need the text zoomed, so I don't always realise what everyone else is seeing!--Rocknrollmancer (talk) 10:41, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

It's one of those problems that only happens at some screen widths. However using the clear fixes it reliably for everyone. Andy Dingley (talk) 10:43, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

I've also had difficulty with cache - when updating an existing image it looked the same. I thought I'd maybe uploaded the same thing again but when re-uploading with a different filename all three versions still came out the same - on my screen. That's when the penny dropped. Both newer versions were 'correct', ie. improved and different to the original which was the point of uploading them. No harm done, tiny file sizes. That's another to remember for the future 8¬) --Rocknrollmancer (talk) 12:29, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

Sourced by myself and new and did anybody doubt the content that turbines are also working with refrigerants like CO2 with very high vapour pressure at low temperatures in combination with centrifugal compressor instead condensor. Actually I did also reinvent the mercury turbine not knowing about it`s historical existence after found inside only english Wikipedia with predicted behavior. Also reinvented was the centrifugal compressor because not found inside german Wikipedia and Brockhaus and Yahoo searching under compressor but actually also blowers are already CFC and own type was "Fächerkammerfliehkraftkompressor" with# side inlet that makes also pumping and sucking and a bootom with a hole inside inner chambers inside again in enclosing chamber with central outlet maybe sometimes anyway better. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.230.46.223 (talk) 20:02, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

Hi Comrade, I updated all the raw URL references on the Gary Gabelich and Blue Flame pages as promised. I would have done it sooner but my father passed away around xmas/new year last year. Anyway, it's good to be back and gee I tought I was having a hard time with the old man not being around, looks like you've got a bit yourself here :(. Regards, Emir ☭ irongron ☭ (talk) 10:53, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

I noticed, thanks for those. Andy Dingley (talk) 10:44, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

np mate! I have since realised that citing page footers is not neccessary in citations, I should have checked as I got this from another editor when helping with the Lockheed A-12 article... "→‎SAM evasion: footer text from web site is not relevant to cite". I'll go through and correct the citations and remove any website footers I put in. Regards, Emir ☭ irongron ☭ (talk) 06:17, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

Explained is same sourced for new construction nand who else could not read that english like in 1000 Wikipedia entries before and the english be improved by everybody but not the content ?! Also the mercury vapour turbine entry is by myself and sure better coal power plant than just coal plant in english. First and important special for atomic reactor security is the content with Kayturbine already inside there before and shorter with link to turbine section etc. Looks like you are just deleting but not reading taking out also:

(about 580°C) or 

"problem is that" without sentence was wrong left because of no time for finish and more coming

high critical point

for more easy heating up undercritical, low specific heat capacity 140 J/(kg*K), low thermal conductivity 8.3 W/(m*K) for a metal not water 0,597 W/(m·K), density 13.5459 g/ccm. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.88.168.40 (talk) 17:15, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

Good point. Thanks Andy. Glad someone is looking at what I'm doing.Pieter1963 (talk) 02:10, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

Of course not good english beacuse adding more and more in the sentences that can be rearranged and shortend later. Of course I`m understanding fully the mercury turbine because I did reinvent not knowing about historical existemce. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.230.34.18 (talk) 18:36, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

Per my past message on one of your several talk pages, please take this to Talk:Turbine Andy Dingley (talk) 20:35, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

Well, technically they followed your instructions. But I agree with your hat and edit summary that it's not terrible useful. On a related note, the poster included their email address in the talk page posting (commented out so it's not immediately visible) as well is in the attempted edits to the page.... do you think that rises to the level of needing oversighting? Sailsbystars (talk) 22:34, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Destructive_editing_by_TheRedPenOfDoom

Andy, it looks to me that all of the content removed from this article is easily sourced based on this Google Scholar search here. Cheers. I am One of Many (talk) 05:59, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

"Easily sourced" if you're firstly inclined to even try (Red Pen never does, content work is beneath him) and secondly have the time to spend improving the site (which will always take longer than simply deleting chunks). How can a well-intentioned content creator compete on speed with deletions like this, even if there is sourcing around to do so? Andy Dingley (talk) 09:40, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

And as usual, closed within an hour or two. 8-( Andy Dingley (talk) 09:42, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

I'm a bit busy now, but I'll keep it on my agenda and try to source it and restore the content in a couple of weeks. Generally, robot such as this one will have a number of articles published and articles on each version as it is developed. So, you were certainly correct that non-source content should not be removed from articles on robotics unless the content seems "off" or an academic-level search yields no sources. Now that it has been shortened so much, maybe when I get around to sourcing it, I'll be able to nominate it for a DYK! Cheers.

Hi Andy. I requested a

) 10:28, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

JB-2 Loon

Hi Andy. The categorisations on

00:11, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

1. There is no requirement to only categorise one entry.
2. The
   WP:COMMONNAME for this was the 'Loon'. That redirect is the only Loon in that category
   .
3. If you have an issue with 'JB-2 Loon' together, then that's a problem of naming, not categorization.

Andy Dingley (talk) 00:13, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

1. is

WP:COMMONSENSE that you don't put the same subject twice in the same category. I'd argue 2., especially with regards to the necessity of having it in that category; as for 3., good point and I'm off to RfD. - The Bushranger _{One ping only}

02:55, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

As a compromise, would having

LTV-N-2 Loon in those categories instead of "JB-2 Loon" work? - The Bushranger _{One ping only}

03:00, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

There is no reason at all to not list the same name for an item multiple times in the same category, if those names are sufficiently different that someone reading the category would either not see them as related, or if there are multiple commonnames (as in this case) that need to be presented in such a category. It doesn't matter that they will all redirect to the same place, the category listing is about presentation of their names, not their articles. If the names are usefully distinct (and in this case, there's a need to present at least one discernible as 'Loon'), then they are justified to be listed. Andy Dingley (talk) 09:59, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

When you removed the previous notice [32], I [[WP:AGF|assumed that you were working providing the in line citations for the challenged content that you had restored to the article with this edit [33] and that in doing so you would be addressing the issues raised in the flags that you removed by providing non primary reliable sources that would establish the notability of the subject. Perhaps you got distracted, but I am waiting for you to either provide sources shortly or else remove the content that had been challenged and restore the flags until such time as you are able to

01:04, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

I was the one who edited to improve the content (one section at least) and add some sourcing. You immediately reverted it.

In what way are you thus "working to improve the encyclopedia" as you so high-handedly lecture others? Yet again, your actions are more about displaying your ego and less about anything constructive. Andy Dingley (talk) 01:15, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

following the policy

WP:BURDEN

is not optional. editing against policy is not improving the encyclopedia. returning an article to a promotional catalog is not improving the encyclopedia. removing clean up tags without addressing the issues identified is not improving the encyclopedia. making personal attacks against another editor is not improving the encyclopedia.

the question is: are you going to meet your

policy requirement by providing inline sources within the next couple of hours or are you intending to revert your reinsertion of unsourced content? -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom

02:07, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

The reason Gary's ancestry is not in the lede is because he is famous for setting the

) 12:40, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

Idiocy?

Please stop In case you were not aware, this was rude and inappropriate. Why do you think that linking directly to a redirect is a good idea? Please use {{

☯ 16:43, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

WP:NOTBROKEN. I would strongly suggest that both of you stop edit-warring over it.—Kww(talk

) 17:02, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

Source? What, in principle, would be a source for my change...? (This is re: the boilerplate message you just left on my talk). —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 20:44, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

Clarification Since you've provided a follow-up on my talk... My claim is not that the company/entity/site has always been named "DMOZ" but that the thing in question is at an article which is presently entitled "DMOZ". Similarly, there is a rapper whose legal name is Sean Combs and has sometimes used the stage name "Puff Daddy" or "P. Diddy" or somesuch. If I make a link to his article, I'm just discussing this topic, not necessarily the name he used at a given juncture. And if I do make a link to text which includes "Puff Daddy" I will not link to the redirect

Puff Daddy (why would I ?) but use a pipe to link directly to Sean Combs. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M

☯ 20:48, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

What relevance does a rapper have to anything?

You are making, and repeating, a series of unsourced changes that the Netscape company, commonly known as Mozilla, bought another project that was named Mozilla, before they bought it. They did not. They bought another project, then they renamed it.

You also seem to be unaware of redirects.

Andy Dingley (talk) 21:06, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

Sure My reference to Sean "Puff Daddy" Combs was that there can be two+ names for the same thing. Why link

NewHoo? Also, what exactly is the problem with [[DMOZ|NewHoo]]? I eagerly await your response. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M

☯ 21:12, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

Please, you are making changes to the presented text. You are removing redirects because you seem to have some issue in case they stop working, or some other idiocy. Then you edit war to reinstate this nonsense. Andy Dingley (talk) 21:31, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

I have no clue what you're going on about. This is the last edit I made. What is the problem with it, Andy? How is it "idiocy"? —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 21:47, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

really don't have a clue, do you. Stick to your rappers. Andy Dingley (talk) 00:00, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

Hi Andy, On the Airship article, you are insisting that a blimp is distinct from an airship. Every RS I have ever seen (e.g. the Goodyear Blimp website) notes that "blimp" is a descriptive term for what is technically a non-rigid airship, and the article itself bears this out. Would you mind explaining your rationale for reverting my edit. I'd suggest opening a discussion at Talk:Airship, or would you like me to start it? Many thanks. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 10:09, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

There are three uses of the word "airship" and it's important for an encyclopedia to distinguish them. It's an example where one word both encompasses the whole, and also names one distinct group within that whole. These two meanings are not the same, even though the word is. There is a group (blimps or non-rigid airships) that are 'part of "airships {overall}" but that also exists in distinction from "airships {rigid}". Then there is the word "airship" itself, just as a piece of lexical text.

Encyclopedic writing requires a careful distinction between all three.

In the case of "airships {rigid}" we have to distinguish these from blimps. In the case of "airships {overall}" the term encompasses both. As the terms are not clear to naive readers first encountering them, we often have to hint as just which meaning we're using. We should also rarely use both meanings at once! Encyclopedias are about conceptual topics, not words, and a well-structured encyclopedia will keep its "airships {rigid}" topic clearly distinct from its "airships {overall}".

When we use the word, such as for disambiguations, then the same problem arises that it's completely unclear which term is needed and so we have to signpost both.

In this case, although the topic was about "airships {overall}" there was still the lingusitic ambiguity that it's not obviously not referring to "airships {rigid}" instead. In the lexical context we can't just assume "blimps are a sort of airship" because it's not yet clear that we mean "airships {overall}" rather than "airships {rigid}" and so the contextual relationship between blimps and the topic (and the topic in the reader's mind, which might not even be the same one) isn't yet clearly defined.

Structuralism considers this problem in great detail, but it's not popular bedside reading for the Aviation project. Andy Dingley (talk) 11:55, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

It's OK anyway, the Aviation project cabal has now decided that blimps are the same thing as barrage balloons. Way to go guys. Andy Dingley (talk) 12:29, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

Well, it is in reliable sources like Wragg's Historical dictionary of aviation. Guess you could always take it up with him. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 14:21, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

1. That's a bloody useless book, fit only for those pile-em-high "book shops" you find in cheap shopping malls.
2. Blimps are still not barrage balloons. If you have a source that says so, see #1.

Andy Dingley (talk) 14:30, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

So clearly, the Oxford English Dictionary, Manchester University and the British Broadcasting Corporation are all bloody useless. Wow!

• blimp, Pronunciation: /blɪmp, noun, informal, 1 (also Colonel Blimp) British A pompous, reactionary type of person, 2 A small airship or barrage balloon, 2.1 North American A fat person,..." Oxford English Dictionary online.[34]
• Paris, M.; From the Wright Brothers to Top Gun: Aviation, Nationalism, and Popular Cinema, Manchester University Press, 1995, Page 127: "A novel and highly visible form of defence was the barrage balloon, the 'blimp', flown over a potential target...."[35]
• Follow that Blimp, WW2 People's War, BBC: "He was armed with a rifle and chasing an escaped barrage balloon which drifted overhead." [36]

Guess you could always take it up with them. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 18:46, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

Sometimes I do raise technical terms with the OED. Sometimes they even follow my advice. A general audience dictionary like the OED is strong on historical etymology, but it doesn't over-rule a technical term within its own field. If you really think that blimps and barrage balloons become the same thing because the OED says so, then please be happy to believe so, but stop writing an encyclopedia to repeat such a mistake. Andy Dingley (talk) 02:17, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

Absolutely beautiful set of photographs. Many thanks. KJP1 (talk) 05:36, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

Hi Andy Dingley, I'm sending you this message because you're one of about 300 users who have recently edited an article in the umbrella category of

) 20:35, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

Talkback

The Bushranger _{One ping only} 07:08, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

Hi, Did you, as I requested, read the argument I made on the talk page before reverting my edit (again)? Of course, I accept WP:BURDEN, but why not give an edit a chance. Your reasons "Parallel valve stems are rare in either (as they give poor valve placement for flow), .... Stem parallelism just isn't significantly dependent on 4 vs 5 valves)" are questionable. Would you like to comply with WP:BURDEN in respect of those points? (The standard car 4-valve head tends to be a

) 11:24, 27 April 2014 (UTC).

Canberra external link

Andy, probably not good form to add this while still under discussion on the talk page, thanks. MilborneOne (talk) 18:12, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

If the current 3:1 consensus overturns, then you will undoubtedly not hesitate to remove it from the article. For once, WP gets an EL of some value added to it. Why so against it? Andy Dingley (talk) 18:18, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

[[

File:Barrow Offshore wind turbines NR.jpg|thumb|100px|right|POTD]]

Hi Andy,

Just to let you know that the Featured Picture File:Barrow Offshore wind turbines NR.jpg is due to make an appearance as Picture of the Day on May 20, 2014. If you get a chance, you can check and improve the caption at Template:POTD/2014-05-20. Thank you for all of your contributions! — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:11, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

I really don't need this shit. Is there any way to get it deleted once and for all? I am so tired of this bloody picture and being told over and over how crap it is. Andy Dingley (talk) 00:12, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

• 1) Consensus seems to disagree that this a "crap" picture. 2) If you want it to be deleted, you can nominate for deletion at Commons. I give 10-to-1 odds of deletion, maybe, as Commons doesn't have a "uploader request" criteria like we do. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 07:42, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

Read the past long debate about this image and why it's necessary to edit it to be bright purple instead.

Hi Andy,

Can you explain why you reverted my edit on spark plugs? The electrode that emits electrons would be the anode (positive current enters the anode), not the cathode. Apologies in advance if this is the incorrect method of messaging for this sort of thing.

Fromeout11 (talk) 13:26, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

First of all, on WP sourcing is paramount. Otherwise it just degenerates into "I know this is right". What's your source that states "anode"?

Secondly, what are we disagreeing on? That it's the negative electrode and emits electrons? Or that such a negative electrode is called a cathode? Remember that this is a device consuming power, not generating it, and we're talking about an electron flow into it (down the lead and then across the gap) rather than a conventional current. Andy Dingley (talk) 13:46, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

As you might know, the burden is on the editor to explain how the category is relevant to the article (preferably with reliable sources), and not on the one who challenges it. ... discospinster _talk 17:40, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

We also have policies on edit-warring and constructive editing. If it offends you so much, you're welcome to expand it as much as you like. Andy Dingley (talk) 17:55, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

I don't see any edit warring. And there's no reason for me to expand the article when the issue is a category that doesn't necessarily belong there. ... discospinster _talk 19:03, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

Could you please tell me the reason why you reverted my changes to Components of jet engines ? I have been a WP since 2004 and this is useful link, not a spam, thanks Khalid hassani (talk) 16:51, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

In what way does the unsourced, unreliable and basically trivial content from about.com (any topic) meet

WP:EL? Andy Dingley (talk

) 19:06, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

Categorization

Hi, Andy.
I list here my considerations about this contribution:

• Category:Mechanical engineering and Category:Gas technologies - they are subcategories of Category:Turbomachinery, so I think it is redundant.
• Category:Turbines: Turbines are just some types ot turbomachineries, so this categorization it make no sense.

For the first point, I am not sure what is correct to do to follow the rules of en.wikipedia, while for the second point I am sure is a wrong categorization. Please let me know what you think about it. --

) 16:12, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

Let's assume that for a general topic ${\displaystyle T}$ we're agreed that it has a set of parent categories ${\displaystyle \{PC\}}$. I don't think we're disagreeing on these, for this particular case.

If there was an article ${\displaystyle A}$, we would categorise it with all of ${\displaystyle \{PC\}}$.

If coverage of the topic expands to several articles, we might introduce an

eponymous category

, ${\displaystyle C}$. We will categorize that category under most of the same members of ${\displaystyle \subseteq \{PC\}}$. We will still categorize the lead article under its same categories as before; why should we change them? If their categorization was appropriate before, what relevant factor has changed? The need for readers to navigate in and out of that lead article is just the same as before. The lead article is categorized under the superset ${\displaystyle \{\subseteq \{PC\}\cup C\}}$ with the eponymous cat, and that conventionally has a space for its cat sort, so as to place the lead article at its start.

Pragmatically, we do all this because "average readers" just don't understand the distinction between articles and categories and so keeping both of these in the visible navigation paths improves usability. Even expert readers should still be able to navigate from a lead article to a parent cat in one click, not two.

In detail, there may be some pruning of the category set for both page and category and they may differ. See

WP:EPONYMOUS. Many very specific cats are appropriate to specific articles, but not to broader categories. In practice, as the category expands from one article, these may need to be removed from both the lead and the cat and they are moved to particular and specifically relevant articles within the cat, as they are written. For "Kilns", then Category:History of technology starts out as highly important to the overall topic, but would be best placed on a History of kilns article, when available. Andy Dingley (talk

) 17:15, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

Maybe I was not clear: Turbines are turbomachineries, but Not all the turbomachineries are turbines! For this reason, it is appropriate to categorize the turbines as turbomachineries, instead is not appropriate at all to categorize the pages regarding turbomachineries in general as turbines, otherwise we have also to categorize

talk

) 12:11, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

(Note: category tag fixed. DexDor (talk) 20:03, 9 May 2014 (UTC))

OK, if this is a question of definition or (as it seems in this case) hierarchy, then yes, I'd agree with you.

One thing to remember is that MediaWiki categorization is primarily navigational, not defining. There are many cases where we might include for categorization something (and usually a set or subcat) where there isn't a defining relation across each and every member of that set. Andy Dingley (talk) 13:53, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

Can you give me some examples, so I can persuade myself about it? --

talk

) 14:23, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

Since you seem to disagree with my disambiguation of the term overheating as used in this article, it would be great if you could fix the link. Cheers! bd2412 T 23:47, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

I've redlinked it. We have no article on overheating.

Thanks! I'd be glad to help put together an article on engine overheating. bd2412 T 00:42, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

As you seem to be more experienced, perhaps you could cast a cautious over these with a view to 'rescuing' some of them?Sfan00 IMG (talk) 12:37, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

I have warned you before to stop enabling that sock troll by reposting their material. The troll is clearly engaging in a wiki-hounding agenda, and by colluding with them you are contributing to that wiki-hounding. Proxying for block-evading socks is not legitimate. This goes for any place, including your own talk page. If I see you doing this again, I will block you. Fut.Perf. ☼ 04:01, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

And that is the biggest assumption of bad faith I have ever seen. tu quoquo? Si Trew (talk) 21:57, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

Hi Andy, I'm the Marketing Intern from Kane Is Able and was authorized to update the wikipedia page with information from our website. I was wondering if you could further explain why all of my edits were deleted and now that page is being removed totally? Thanks for your help. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Colleen.carter (talk • contribs) 15:26, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

I suggest asking this at

Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions

Beforehand, please read

WP:PROD. Sorry for the alphabet soup, but it's how things work round here. Andy Dingley (talk

) 15:59, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

I got a tin of

were all the letter O. What's the chances of that happening? Si Trew (talk

) 22:03, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

DYK for truss girder bridges/lattice bridges

I'm only a software engineer and an electrical engineer, not a civil engineer (I can be a very uncivil engineer at times!) but I think your five points here have hit the nail on the thumbhead, sorry to quote your own words but as you said (mine indented, technically incorrect but trying for once to be as brief as you have done:

From an engineering standpoint, it's hard to see how DYK could be designed to be any worse.

• Only use new and unreviewed content

• The five-day limit encourages that.

• Favour content from a single author

• One cannot, and the Wikimedia Privacy Policy does not allow (can't find section), contributions to be jointly attributed. This is not simply a problem for engineering articles but e.g. translations: my wife and I typically translate from Hungarian to English, or vice versa, together since she is native in one and I in the other: jointly we may check a third or fourth language if in doubt.^{When I have mentioned that my wife contributed, another editor has complained that I have been "bragging that I have a wife", when of course it is just giving joint attribution just as an author thanks contributors on the preface/acknowledgements on a book: if I was legally tied at the altar I can be tied on Wikipedia, and so can any other group contribution be tied together if Wikimedia let you: I know man do because I can see the difference in style between individuals; if they go through the same routers (e.g. housemates) it is almost impossible for WP to tell; so it is a matter of personal honesty. I have on occasion accidentally written on User:Monkap's name not realising she wa logged on, but I will tend to revert that and reassign to mine exactly for that reason. I am sure we are not the only collective editors on the whole Wikipedia.}

• Deliberately avoid the subject competent or knowledgeable, particularly article authors

• Probably covered by above point.
  WP:RS
  also implies this.

• Incentivise production of more DYKs, as fast as possible

• ...and discincentivise their review by new or occasional contributors: QPQ is too onerous after a long slog on an article.

• Ignore DYK quality

• Implicitly, with no policy but how it seems to be,
  WP:FA and so on: reviewers don't just point out errors, minor ones are fixed so as not to waste time (as I am no doubt doing). Si Trew (talk
  )

I agree entirely: or rather we should have their opposites stated as clearly on DYK's guidelines as you do above.

More verbose discussion of these but you can skip it

The last two might be combined. I'd happily bung in to a WP:ESSAY with you on this. I write very "hooky" (another author said) DYKs but the are technically correct and referenced, just that they draw you in like a

WP:PRIMARY

but of course people write about what they know: and the encyclopaedia would not get very far if they didn't.

For example, I translated Josiah Marshall Heath in late January 2014 ago and got him to DYK, he patented addition of manganize oxide to crucible steel, but I have never been happy with that DYK since the article was tagged as needing translation from French, which I did, but the quotes are back-translations from the French. Now, I know how to translate French but have never heard about him before – but with an expert in iron and steel it can get scrubbed and improved but then wouldn't meet DYK since that would take the expert some time to look it up and the DYK deadline would likely be exceeded (5 days). I don't know how much you know about the founding of ferrous metals, but I should be very grateful if you would cast your ironeye over it and if I have any obvious mistakes, or you can find better references, I should be delighted. I tried to look up the patent in English but it does not appear to be online – so back-translated the French into kinda Dickensian English as best I could manage. If nothing else, it is more grist to your mill that I think I was the only contributor (there have been a couple of bot or tool edits since but no content changes to speak of). It's better to have the article and reasonably referenced than not at all, but if those doing the blue pencil (editing) bothered to check up they might find better than I managed.

I am sorry I pack the maximum amount of words into the minimum amount of thought. Best wishes; I do see your name from time to time as I gnome about, but I tend to gnome elsewhere now exactly because of your stated reasons for DYK. The Heath one I got "This is your last freebie": Hang on, I thought everyone's contributions here at WP were made freely? I didn't realise I now had a WP overdraft. In my opinion I think the "QPQ" results in a backlog: one spends days – sometimes weeks – writing an article or series of them, getting pictures, doing cartography, technical drawings or whatever and then is told as a penance one has to do a review of someone else's and at exactly the time that one has just finished an article (well

to do the washing up, feed the cat, bury the grandmother, and so on.

One thing you didn't mention –

• The DYK 5-day time limit for new contributions encourages both editors and reiewers to be hasty. Si Trew (talk) 21:04, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, as Pascal said, "I have only made this letter longer since I have not had time to make it shorter". "Brevity is the soul of all wit" and stuff like that, but I am on your side but didn't want to introduce all my verbiage into an already-too-long discussion at WP:DYK when you are

<large>PATENTLY RIGHT</large>.

Si Trew (talk) 21:10, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

I am so sorry to ramble, but Andrew Lang said "he uses arguments as a drunk uses a lamp-post, not so much for illumination as for support"? I am giving you some arguments more that I have had four G and Ts while I have written what amounts to a very bad first draft on an essa, in your support. Anything you want to quote from it at the DYK go ahead, but I thought it better to put it first here because you may disagree and certainly can hone. Si Trew (talk) 21:40, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

• Thanks Si, I doubt if anything will happen with DYK, as those who own it are so tightly wedded to proving that everyone else are merely suppressive persons, rather than looking at what's going wrong with it (See User talk:Rjccumbria re the problems that the perverse incentive of Wikicup causes for it). I've never liked DYK, but I could happily ignore it if it wasn't such a direct route onto the main page (with all the past potential for spammed abuse that has caused). Roger Bamkin seems more keen on shooting the messenger than anything else. Another brief conversation in Chepstow last night turned into "So, who do we pay to buy our Wikipedia coverage?" yet again. Andy Dingley (talk) 10:03, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

Nicely done about the issue with men's shed being usined as a synomyn - didn't understand that until you pointed it out - so THANKS!!! X-mass (talk) 04:46, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

Hi, Andy. I just saw your edit (revert) on Jaguar V12 engine and realized that I don't know much about May Head. I agree describing it a stratified charge is inaccurate, but is "high swirl" more accurate than "squish" or "high squish"? Is his description on patent papers (was it patented?) the issue here, or the combustion chamber actually create a strong swirl or many of them? Could you enlighten me? I don't even know if the distinction between swirl and squish existed at the time, and I would think a proper observation/analysis method did not exist. Further, I'd think the uncontrolled creation of many micro-swirls in a turbulence by squish is a different concept (now) to creating a strong or many (more or less controlled) swirls. Yiba (talk | contribs) 00:10, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

Swirl and squish , as we know them today, date from Ricardo's work in the '20s. To understand the history here, you really do have to read a few volumes of Ricardo.

Swirl and squish are different. However some not-infrequent head designs (and this is one) use squish to produce high swirl in a suitably shaped combustion chamber. Others don't, they do it instead just with tangential flow from the ports. Squish-to-swirl designs are usually bowl-in-piston designs, typically the Saurer-style double-circulation toroid for a direct injection diesel. Revolutionary in its day, common from the '60s onwards. Most of the petrol bowl-in-piston designs are also there so that squish gets converted into swirl, but they're a simpler bowl shape, not the toroid.

It's the same for May's 'Fireball' head in the '81 Jag HE. An unusual shape (I can't think of another similar) as it's all happening in the head, not the piston (AIUI, there just isn't enough depth in the piston above the crankpin). It's not merely an efficient design, it's very much the result of its circumstances: take an existing engine and radically change it, but don't cost much in terms of re-engineering it. Even the camshaft and valve actuation stays in place! For an engine that began as a sports car engine at the profligate time of high-octane 5 star petrol, it's remarkable that when it was re-designed for better mid-throttle efficiency at the end of the '70s, the compression ratio rose. This wasn't needed in the '60s – performance was everything, not efficiency. It could have been achieved in the '60s, but only with high octane and following aircraft engine practice – probably twin plugs. Doing it without chemistry needed genius and the sort of smarter engine management that was beginning to be available (at a cost and with hideous long-term unreliability) at the start of the '80s. In essence, it's a 1920s design - pure Ricardo, more than ever seen elsewhere. If you get a small and well shaped combustion chamber, then swirl the bejeezus out of it, you can work wonders.

Sadly it's not an engine I know too well. I think I've only ever had the heads off one of them. I worked on ECU software for them at one time but even the serious tuners (TWR) left the head largely alone, there just wasn't much scope to improve it.

As to stratified charge, it's nonsense. I did work on the edges of the great late-80s snake oil scam (I designed dyno systems) and some companies fell for it, but not Jag. I suspect it has arisen by recursive wikisourcing from the Michael May (racing driver) article, which needs fixing but it's too late for me tonight.

What's the best book out there as a technical history of the Jag V12 lump ? I haven't time to read it, but that never stops me buying yet more books. Andy Dingley (talk) 01:36, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

Thank you very much as always. I have owned/used a 6L version for the last 10 years or so, but never have learned the details of '81 HE version or about May's contribution to it. As the 6L is known to be one of the toughest engines to pull the heads (seems the gasket has some "glueing" properties) without a specifically made puller contraption, I am hoping that I won't have to pull them in the foreseeable future.

One of the better materials on the history of Jag V12 seems the 12 pages following: http://www.jagweb.com/jagworld/v12-engine/ with a strong caution that I suspect if the author, a Roger Bywater, ever had training on mechanical engineering beyond being a good mechanic working in the engine development dept at Jag, and seems to show dubious (or, lacking) understanding of the theories behind. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pPxpPYLW4kw is an interesting interview on Walter Hassan and Harry Mundy, the link to it I have added to Jaguar V12 engine, in which the bowl in piston squish (intended or not) arrangement of the original 5.3L version is shown. Yiba (talk | contribs) 10:11, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

Perhaps you could weigh in your comments here again. Thank you. 50.53.15.59 (talk) 01:08, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the tip on your update. Nice job mate!! Regards Hans 86.92.147.4 (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 17:05, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

Hi Andy, I was looking at Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2014_April_24#Category:Hydrogen_rocket_engines to close it, but I could not figure out whether you oppose the longer form "Rocket engines using xxx propellant". Would you mind making your position clearer there? – Fayenatic London 05:15, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

In the absence of any further clarification, I closed it as Rename to that form. – Fayenatic London 14:16, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

When did

) 23:32, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for your message - in light of your tone, can you please read

WP:AGF. The WP:MOS note re cats on redirect pages came in over 2 years ago. I used to add cats onto such, but someone who was trying to be an admin quickly pointed out the change to me. Secondly, the categories that you are trying to add back are all presently listed in the article to which the redirect points to. Hence, both the redirect and the actual article are listed in all three cats (where I found the problem/hence removed the cats from the redirect). The WP:MOS directive says that you should only add cats if the redirect name adds to the wider categorisation of the subject. As the three cats are replicated, what's the point? Hope that you understand hence why I removed them, and see no sense on either a WP:MOS or logical level to add them back. Rgds, --Trident13 (talk

) 10:39, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

The creator of this article doesn't seem to realise that these aren't unique to the UD DoD. I'm not sure what to do about it.

) 12:55, 5 June 2014 (UTC)a

As far as I'm aware (which is negligible), they are unique to the DoD and its partners. Everyone else calls them KPIs. There is some question as to whether they even are strictly parameters (i.e. an independent and prescribed requirement) or rather they're indicators (a measured performance).

DoD KPP is a narrow niche article, but I think it's a valid one (ie WP:N). There should probably be relevant linkage between the two though. Andy Dingley (talk) 13:01, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

talk

) 14:48, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

) 20:44, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

I thought the same thing about the category and appropriate subcategories, but they've got a hatnote at the top of the listing -- all American films get put in the category "for convenience". – S. Rich (talk) 20:53, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

OK, I'm rather surprised as that must make for one enormous and unwieldy category! Andy Dingley (talk) 21:12, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

Yup! 20,000+ – S. Rich (talk) 21:39, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

Per your most recent comment at

) 19:07, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

Why do you continue to support the overt socking of a long-banned user? Betacommand is Werieth. No-one seriously disputes this, but a number of admins who either share his view of NFC, or at least find him a convenient stooge for bad-hand operations, find it convenient to permit him to continue. Some of these admins even go so far as to block other editors on sight, as soon as they post substantiating evidence of Betacommand being Werieth. Wikipedia-l recognises this, even Wikipediocracy recognises this. Please, when you're threatening me with a block for disagreeing with your convenient status quo, at least be honest enough to say so. This has been raised at SPI repeatedly already and discussion there is stifled by either saying "no evidence!" or by blocking the editors who post such evidence. Repeatedly.

Why are you supporting this banned editor? You must admit, he's a convenient stooge for your own position on NFC. Are you a wandering independent editor seeing a poor innocent slighted? Or are you someone whose editing history is already deeply intertwined with Werieth and his NFC issues?

Why are you supporting an editor who right now is at NFCR mis-representing our clear policy to push his "delete everything" agenda; as is his only form of editing, as was Betacommand's only form of editing.

As to accusations of socking, then I don't believe I've ever wrongly accused an editor of socking. I don't believe I've ever accused any editor, other than Betacommand / Werieth thus far, of socking who hasn't then been blocked as a sock per community consensus. You're right, I don't like socking. However I'm actually quite reluctant to throw such accusations around and have, if anything, a track record of excusing other editors when accused as socks, until the evidence is overwhelming and damning (as it is for Betacommand / Werieth). As to your allegations of "too many years" (and "multiple editors"), then I'd not even heard of Werieth until October or so last year, and I kept thankfully well away from Betacommand and his other acknowledged socks. Andy Dingley (talk) 20:02, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

I'm not supporting anyone, but I'm frankly disappointed in you. The next time you claim someone is an sock of Betacommand without evidence and without opening an

WP:SPI, I will take action as you are blatantly harassing and attacking other editor(s). This is your final warning. TLSuda (talk

) 23:22, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

And yet your other Betacommand-supporting NFC-opposed admin immediately blocks every user who does post the evidence against Werieth.

I had thought you were better than them, evidently you're just the same. You're both just a bully whose first reaction is to threaten other editors, not to consider the evidence you've repeatedly been shown (and then blanked or revdeled).

Why are you supporting this banned editor? Andy Dingley (talk) 23:29, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

Hello Andy.

I just changed some lines in the page "Internal combustion engine". According to my own calculations and a refference website, the efficiency of a diesel engine can be over 60%. Why is there written on the page that is is only 20%?

My calculation: I have a 1 kW diesel generator that uses 0,35 liter/hour. In other units, it uses 0,35 liter/hour to produce 3,6 MJ of electricity. With an energy value of diesel of 17,447 MJ/liter, 6,106 MJ of diesel is needed to produce 3,6 MJ of electricity. This makes an efficiency of 59%.

The website: http://large.stanford.edu/courses/2011/ph240/goldenstein2/

Ruudburger (talk) 14:19, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

This belongs at Talk:internal combustion engine, not on a user page

You're citing an undergraduate course paper as

WP:RS

. It's not reliable, it's certainly not well written.

That paper confuses Carnot's idealised heat engine with a practical internal combustion engine. It's an inappropriate comparison to then take that and present it as if "a competently efficient IC engine ought to be approaching the Carnot figure". At the very most, only the work-doing expansion part of the IC engine cycle might approach this (ignoring mechanical losses). As the IC cycle also has to include combustion, gas flow and compression processes, before even reaching the start point of any comparable Carnot cycle, then this is unrealistic. Also citing Carnot's efficiency limit as being a magical 83% figure is to misunderstand it. That's only the limit for a combustion temperature of 1723K. If the combustion process gives a lower temperature, then this gives a lower Carnot limit. Yet engine efficiency as an engineering proceeds in both directions: hotter engines with better Carnot limits (and more difficult engineering) and also lower burn temperatures that achieve more efficient combustion to achieve a greater proportion of what's a lower Carnot limit. Modern engines are chasing both these goals. Yet to present Carnot as a simple limit on IC engines is a gross over-simplification, especially at this point in the article.

This article needs improvement certainly. Thermodynamics on WP is generally OK in pure science articles, falling apart when it comes to engineering applications. Such improvement needs a better basis than a lazy student paper though. Andy Dingley (talk) 15:07, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

Thanks a lot Andy for the detailed reply! I am new here in editing, but I like to do more in future. When I was reading the page "Internal combustion engine", I was confused about the efficiency part. That's why I edited it after some research. But I am not a professional, so I hope someone else can improve that part by extending it.

Ruudburger (talk) 22:06, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

Hi Andy

Thank you for your words of wisdom. I would have no problem with the removal of NFC image that I had included in the list, and would not have minded it being removed from my sandbox following some dialog with the objector. What I object to is the complete absence of good faith which Stefan2 has shown me. He should be the one threatened with a block for his behaviour. He should be reminded that an article being prepared in a sandbox is a draught and may not actually be created as an article. I will in future check the licence of any image I include as I have no wish to get involved in a dispute with people like Stefan2.Cheeseladder (talk) 09:51, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

Hello Andy, could you please explain me which point of the external links guideline violated the links I added? thank you fgkh — Preceding undated comment added 22:17, 12 June 2014 (UTC).

Please read

WP:NOTDIR

.

This is an encyclopedia, not a directory. The purpose is to write self-contained articles, not to link onwards. We should only link onwards to resources that really do add something to an article that can't be achieved otherwise. None of the ELs you added (All very obviously from your own "fgkh" site) met this. Apart from being barely trivial JavaScript calculator up from the usual blog post spam, yours land on a page with a large empty box labelled "There is supposed to be an advert here, but we haven't even got that much working yet". Andy Dingley (talk) 22:22, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

On 17 June 2014, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Eat Frozen Pork, which you recently nominated. The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Eat Frozen Pork. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, live views, daily totals), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

Allen3 ^talk 13:59, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

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

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:48, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

Please contribute to the discussion on steam injectors! You have reverted my changes to the article, but I cannot find any explaination in which way steam injectors take advantage of the latent heat released by condensation (except for preheating the water)! –Hokanomono ✉ 08:50, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

This isn't to do with injectors in general, but specifically for the Giffard boiler feedwater injector. This manages the "impossible" trick of injecting water under pressure by using a lower supply pressure than that in the boiler (or at least, one that is no higher). The extra energy needed to achieve this comes from condensing some of the steam supplied to drive the injector, releasing its latent heat. Incidentally it's well-known that locomotive injectors stop working with hot feedwater - the reason (far less commonly known) is that they're now too hot to condense some of the supply steam and thus release the energy needed.

Unfortunately WP has lost the previous article on boiler feedwater injectors, as one editor took it upon themselves to rewrite injector from the narrow POV of the chemical industry, and the assumption that a supply pressure can always be available which is higher than the delivery pressure needed. The current article is now unreadable, inaccurate and unsourced crap, guarded by a dedicated edit warrior.

If you're after a technical discussion of feedwater injectors, I'd suggest Semmens & Goldfinch's How Steam Locomotives Really Work as one of the most recent and probably most accurate explanations. Andy Dingley (talk) 15:02, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

Evidently WP's a good platform for publicising their self-published book though: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fundamentals of Stack Gas Dispersion Andy Dingley (talk) 15:07, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

Your second change is quite wrong too. The purpose of this excess energy (and why it's needed at all) is to increase the pressure of the injector delivery, such that it exceeds the boiler pressure. It has nothing to do with preheating the feedwater. Andy Dingley (talk) 15:39, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

Let's continue the discussion at Talk:Injector#Steam injector --Hokanomono ✉ 08:41, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia:MOSDAB#Where_piping_may_be_appropriate

When the link is part of the description, rather than the actual entry name, piping can be used more freely. However, the text of the link should still be very similar to the title of the target article

Can you spot what is wrong with what you did :

The Old Dock, Hull in Kingston upon Hull, England ..

hint -repetition of the town's name-Prof.Haddock (talk) 00:38, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

In a disambig between three things, all called "Old Dock"? We need those disambiguators to be visible. Copyedit it so that the city name isn't repeated if you wish (although the city isn't called Hull and the short form wasn't even in common use at the time of this dock), but presenting the undisambiguated version of the names on a disambiguation page makes the whole page rather pointless.

Besides which, there are two other errors in the version you've now 3RRed. Andy Dingley (talk) 00:57, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

Prof.Haddock, also note that the link there is not part of the description, so piping should not be used. -- JHunterJ (talk) 10:57, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

A Prime mover (locomotive), as shown in the article, is rather too large to fit under the floor of the likes of a Budd Rail Diesel Car. The article should mention and show the smaller diesel engines to be found under the floors of railcars. Peter Horn User talk 23:10, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

They're still prime movers though, whatever their size. As they're normally beneath the floor, it's also hard to find clear photos of them.Andy Dingley (talk) 23:24, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

Hello,

used to be a separate article but it was merged into the other article but it still had the same category so I removed the redundant categorization. My thinking is that, since both entries in the category will go to the same place, it doesn't aid navigation and adds clutter.

Can you give me a little background on why you reverted that edit? Are you looking to expand that redirect to be a separate article again?

Thanks. RevelationDirect (talk) 02:49, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

The point about categorization is that it's primarily for finding things, less for worrying about where they end up. We have two concepts, VVT & CVVT, and readers can be looking for what content we have on either. If we have any content on CVVT, even enough for a small section in another article and so enough to justify a redirect, then that's enough to justify publicising that inbound link by categorizing it. If the concepts or names vary (the aspect that's visible in the category), then we justify having them both in the category, even if they land up at sections within the same article.

Obviously the VVT articles are all a bit thin at present and could still use a lot of expansion all round.

Also I've opposed the merge of variator (variable valve timing) and variable valve lift – variators change the timing, not the lift. These are quite different things. Andy Dingley (talk) 08:54, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for clarifying. I withdrew the article merger proposal based on your clarification. As for listing the same article more than once in the same category, we'll have to agree to disagree. Thanks. RevelationDirect (talk) 03:00, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

Hi Andy Dingley. Because you participated in Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2014 June 19#Jacob Barnett, you may be interested in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jacob Barnett (2nd nomination). Cunard (talk) 16:50, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

There's a few things in this post that you're probably interested in. GoFormer (talk) 14:47, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Werieth (talk) 15:29, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

I should have thought that an editor of your experience would apply

) 10:50, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

I think you need to look at our standards for "temporary" notability (it isn't) a bit more closely.

You made the newbie error of blanking references because their host website had since 404'ed, which you then compounded by blanking the para they supported. We don't do this, we tag refs with {{dead link}} and then (or simultaneously) we see if they're recoverable. Both of these were trivially so. It took me less time to do this useful minor task than it did to revert your edit warring and pointless argument here.

If the situation has changed, then by all means update the statement about the current state of the bridge. That might use these refs, it might not. However blanking sections because of a 404 is never the way to progress forwards.

I do not have any special connection with either the bridge, Runcorn or the YMCA. Nor am I required to have them before editing this article. Andy Dingley (talk) 10:57, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

Of course not, but I just wondered why you expended so much trouble on a peripheral aspect relating to what was once a rather important structure. Anyway thanks for updating Ref 16. But the current refs do not say that it "is no longer in use". I suppose that by adding this you could say, by exclusion, that it is no longer in use. What do you think? --Peter I. Vardy (talk) 18:17, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

On second thoughts, let's go back to the beginning. This is an article about a bridge. Our debate is about a building. The article says it was a former office building for the bridge - so what? Where does the reference say that? It was used by the Halton YMCA, but isn't now - so what? Ref 16 confirms it was used by the YMCA; what confirms it isn't used now?

I deleted the sentence, not because of the dead link (only ref 16 was dead; ref 17 is still alive, and you had no need to "retrieve" it from archive), but because of its irrelevance to the article, IMO, (and also compounded by the dead link). I did not delete it because of the 404. I am just as capable as you of retrieving dead links, and the reference to "newbie" is snotty under the belt. I am also aware of the {{dead link}} template.

You have no interest to the bridge, Runcorn, or the YMCA. I do have an interest in the first two, and respect the work of the last. But where the YMCA was located, and isn't now, is hardly of relevance to the Transporter Bridge. In conclusion I disagree with you. I see no point in retaining this sentence. It adds nothing to the information about the subject of the article, it's pretty irrelevant anyway, and despite amending the references, they still do not confirm all that is in the sentence. --Peter I. Vardy (talk) 20:33, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

The relevant sentence in the article is now "properly" referenced, and IMO looks silly. As it is irrelevant anyway, I intend to delete it (again), unless you can persuade me otherwise. --Peter I. Vardy (talk) 16:49, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

Thanks Andy, for your thanks on my Model engineering edits. So far nobody has slapped a notification banner across the top for unreferenced material. Perhaps it is not on a regular policing beat because of the (slightly harsh?) Low-importance_Metalworking_articles rating. Hopefully the article can move from C-Class_Metalworking_articles to B-Class_Metalworking_articles. Though I wouldn't even know how, despite any conflict of interest I would have. Stringybark (talk) 23:00, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

Hi Andy,

Pls do let me know the reason for removing the edits that I had created in the Theremin>>TV section.

Thanks, Nishant — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nishantkashyap23 (talk • contribs) 12:49, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

Did you read the vast past discussion of this on the talk: page? Andy Dingley (talk) 14:39, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

No can you pls direct me to that page? Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nishantkashyap23 (talk • contribs) 07:05, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

Hi Andy, your response is very vague - I am not sure which page you are talking about - would be great if you can be more specific...thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nishantkashyap23 (talk • contribs) 07:13, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

(

sign your posts, either by typing four tildes (~), like this: ~~~~, or by clicking the signature icon: . --Redrose64 (talk

) 12:04, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

Thanks!!--Nishantkashyap23 (talk) 08:48, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

As I now notice your recent behaviour has been in obvious contravention of a very clear final warning given you by yet another uninvolved administrator less than a month ago [39], I have gone ahead in accordance with his warning and blocked you for harassment, for one week. Fut.Perf. ☼ 16:41, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

I have unblocked you early, because the issue appears in the meantime to have become moot – Werieth has been blocked as a sock on the basis of new evidence. Note that, even though this may look as if it proves you right in retrospect, this unblock does not come as a sign of your vindication – it is still true that your behaviour, of persistently casting aspersions without such new evidence and of enabling and supporting obvious harassment socks, was reprehensible and deserved sanctions, so the block was justified at the time it was done. It's just that at the present time there's no point for it to continue further, so having it run on would be merely punitive. Fut.Perf. ☼ 14:52, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

		The Original Barnstar
		For maintaining the courage of your convictions. The SPI process did not work in the current situation and that had to be frustrating. While you may have overstepped and certainly incurred the wrath of those who thought you did, you didn't flinch. Ultimately, the truth became known and your position, while not fully excused, was vindicated. Thanks for demonstrating courage, hopefully lessons have been learned by all involved. Carrite (talk) 15:50, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

	The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar
	It seems vindication looks different from different points of view. (Also, what Tim said.) -- talk ) 16:10, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

Yes Andy, sorry to see you banned for being correct Mosfetfaser (talk) 19:35, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

	The Barnstar of Diligence
	For going above and beyond the call of duty to expose a notorious sockpuppeteer. MinoanX (talk) 19:40, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

• +1 -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 11:13, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

I rewrote basically the entire article of

) 02:18, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

Move proposal: template {RailGauge} into {Track gauge}

I initiated this move proposal in

) 00:14, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

The article Transmission brake has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Unreferenced content indicating original research and/or copyvio from single contributor/editor. Failure to provide sourcing suggests possible abuse of autopatrolled privelege‎

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be

.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. 81.103.181.43 (talk) 22:17, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

Category:Bugatti engines, which you created, has been nominated for Deleting with Dual Upmerge to Category:Bugatti and Category:Volkswagen engines. 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.RevelationDirect (talk) 15:46, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

Hi, I have recently expanded and rewritten the

) 07:16, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

Acrow props

In the last two years you have failed to provide any evidence that the Acrow prop is any different than the many different varieties of props. The reference on props that you quote doesn't even have the term anywhere in it. Unless you provide evidence along the lines outlined in the talk page, that is, a reference that clearly states that an Acrow prop is somehow materially different than a jack post and not simply a UK-ish name for the same thing, I will be merging the pages shortly. Maury Markowitz (talk) 13:43, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

Category:Volkswagen diesel engines, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 11:28, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

Hi Andy, we know Wikipedia sucks. I just wanted to let you know I miss you, and I want you back quick. Specifically, I'd like to have your opinion on the term 'turbo-compounding' used in Formula One engines. To some, you are precious. Yiba (talk | contribs) 04:06, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

The rest of humanity hasn't matured enough for something so simple. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.62.189.7 (talk) 01:58, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

This might interest you and you are most welcome to adjust it as you wish. Eddaido (talk) 04:17, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

Thought you quit. Nevertheless, welcome back to en.wiki. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 10:29, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

Oh, I quit, I just came back to leave a message. Thanks though. Andy Dingley (talk) 10:30, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for the reality check about primary sources (apropos of Keswick, Cumbria). One feels under the cosh sometimes at FAC, and outbreaks of common sense as here are a great relief! Tim riley talk 21:02, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

You're welcome. I don't dispute your action in removing it, because the likelihood is that knee-jerk reactions by reviewers will take against it in just that manner.

Yet when did "write a featured article" come to mean removing good sources? If we start making reactions like that, it's time to look at the fundamental goals and very hard at any secondary practices that have come to limit us in achieving them. Andy Dingley (talk) 21:06, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

Quite so! Just such flak has had me adding links to local newspaper reports, many of which, you can bet, were entirely drawn from press releases issued by the scorned primary sources. But such is WP! Tim riley talk 21:13, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

Many thanks! Gordo (talk) 10:20, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

You're welcome. That has been a missing piece for some time now. Andy Dingley (talk) 10:46, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

Many thanks, I'll try and integrate the Belarusian connection into the article.

) 15:58, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

Hello Andy I hope I am putting this in the right place. I am new to editing Wikipedia and it is certainly not my intention to engage in any 'edit wars' :-) The issue regarding which way coping saw blades face has raged for a generation - at least! My intention was to edit in such a way as to leave the question open. My belief however is that it all depends on how they are used, i.e. if pulled down on to a V board then, yes, backwards as with a fretsaw for the same reason, but if used more normally with work held in a vice then if cutting on the back stroke sawn waste would obscure the line being followed - and is unnecessarily uncomfortable to do. My evidence is in every B&Q store – the manufacturers Eclipse package their fret saws with blades facing the handle but they package coping saws with them facing forwards. Note also that jigsaws have teeth pointing downwards so the line is not obscured by waste during cutting. With regard to the often quoted matter of blade tension this really is not the issue. A coping saw frame is completely symetrical and the nature of the forces on the blade will be the same whether the frame pushed or pulled - ie if pulled then the vertical side of the fame next to handle will be leading and pulling but if pushed then the vertical side away from the handle will be leading and pulling - it is the spring of the frame that provides tension either way. I should end by saying that I have a background of some 50 years in technology education and my concern is that I am currently creating DT Online and wish to make links to the many excellent contributions in Wikipedia – you will understand my wish to avoid contradictions between the two sites.DTOnline (talk) 12:06, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

A coping saw blog Could be a useful starting point when we get round to reffing and expanding the ==History== b(stalking)-- Clem Rutter (talk) 17:54, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

What an excellent blog and thorough research. Could we cite this in the Coping Saw article? I find myself agreeing with all of it and quite regretting I had not come across it earlier in my technology education career - but then we would have had to find something else to discuss over a beer :-) DTOnline (talk) 09:55, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

OK, I did some research and I see that many websites do mention plumbers tape as equivalent to PTFE tape. Though I am no plumber I've been a homeowner for a long time and have come across plumbers tape as being a metallic strap. This is the more conventional and (before pop culture took over the Internet) the more accepted use of the term in the trade as far as I can tell. So it depends if the encyclopedia should reflect pop culture or the industry. This is sort of like defining fruits versus vegetables. (talk) 15 October 2014 15:45 UTC

Even if steel tape (what's sold here as "builder's band") is termed plumber's tape, that still doesn't change that some markets refer to PTFE tape as plumber's tape too. Clarification is always good, but that shouldn't remove what is a recorded use and pretty widespread, even if not in some countries. Andy Dingley (talk) 09:30, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

I see nothing to be gained from discussing Eric at any "noisy" forum such as the noticeboards or Jimbo's talk page, where he has an entourage. The question is whether the ArbCom should be asked to deal with him. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:56, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

One might say that there is little to be gained by discussing Eric anywhere. My confidence in Arbcom is however exceeded by the effort needed to file with them. Andy Dingley (talk) 18:02, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is New editor making usual edits to political party categories. Sock?. Thank you. - MrX 14:04, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

Hello - I wanted to touch base with you about

) 17:49, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

It was fine as it was. "steel helmet" is a very common generic term for the subject we have at

steel helmet. The Steel Helmet though is a minor film and just one very narrow and specific use of the term. Andy Dingley (talk

) 17:59, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

You made a mistake here

You recent revert here is incorrect. I explained reason for removal here, the user added data from a soruce that discusses the item, but the source is the website which created the item. So therfore it is not a third party soruce. Secondly the person failed to prove it is notable. I have checked on google and cant find notable websites discussing this item. I have therfore reverted your edit for now. The user also created this article about the item: Draft:Raptor Grip M500,which was declined on the same ground that it was not notable--Misconceptions2 (talk) 14:00, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

A link to the notable 3d pritned articles were added to those articless because they are relevant e.g landing gear--->there is 3d pritned landing gear in the article. Panavia Tornado ---> there is 3d pritned tornado parts in the article--Misconceptions2 (talk) 14:48, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

"It's a derringer, not a pepperbox" the reliable sources like wired and guns.com says its a pepperbox--Misconceptions2 (talk) 15:43, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

Could you please elaborate on why you just reverted again here?

  4    15:07, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

As your own message stated, this is a box-type template, which is the template we use for per-article links to sister projects such as Commons.

Why do you think the small inline version of this template is appropriate instead? That is used for inline links, or at least links within blocks of text. Andy Dingley (talk) 15:25, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

Erm, you are wrong.

Commonscat}} template was not displayed next to the external links, so I replaced it with a very common template that does.    FDMS

  4    00:23, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

That page is poorly worded and is unclear in one slightly obscure situation. However that situation is not relevant here.

Nor is there "a long sequence of right-aligned boxes" hanging off the end of the article: there is only one.

The purpose of the Commons link box is to give easy visual recognition to readers. It does this through recognisable consistency between its use on various pages. Are you saying that in some obscure cases we should abandon this useful benefit and switch to using a barely visible and certainly unrecognised inline version? Just because the number of images exceeds some arbitrary threshold? Andy Dingley (talk) 00:42, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

This is not an obscure case – there are 46524 transclusions and {{

WP:LAY or a RFD on the template itself (or do you really think it is intended to be used inline in content sections?).    FDMS

  4    01:43, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

Python, Cython and Category:C_programming_language_family

If Dart, Go, and ECMAScript are appropriate for https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:C_programming_language_family , Python (CPython) and Cython are appropriate for https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:C_programming_language_family ; as well as https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Free_software_programmed_in_C .

--Wes Turner (talk) 11:49, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

WP:OSE The fact that Perl, Java, Ruby and JavaScript/ECMAScript are also (for the moment!) incorrectly described as "C family languages" (because you've just added them) does not mean that Python should be too. Please see Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2014_October_24#Category_talk:C_programming_language_family Andy Dingley (talk

) 12:17, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

Esteem

Dear Andy,

I have noticed that you have removed the edit I made on page for Furnaces. I have read further on your talk page and agree that maybe these links were not required and the data should rather be added to the page itself instead of creating an external link. You have also marked the page on 'Esteem_(Company)' for speedy deletion. Can you please elaborate on this. The content on all other companies' in that work in our field is similar and does not provide any out of the ordinary information. It only provide information about the company and about its work. I can take up time and add details of why Esteem is a good candidate for addition to wikipedia, but request for immediate deletion seems to be a bit harsh and discriminating.

I can see you are an experienced person on wikipedia and I have just started adding information. So your guidance will help me.

Please respond.

Monugeni (talk) 11:28, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

You are right, the image does not show unicorns. That is very observant of you. But neither does the text mention unicorns. Unicorns are not the issue. The text, however, does mention design elements affording retardation and self-erection . Unfortunately, anyone looking at the image might think either the description or the image wrong as these items are not shown in the picture. Therefore my edit actually provided a sensible explanation as to why others might have trouble interpreting the image. Thus my view is that your reversion of my edit is rather tendentious. I will not start an edit war, but would ask that you respond to this message here and, if you have not changed your mind, explain why you still think it appropriate to remove this potentially helpful information. ACCassidy (talk) 20:00, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

The image is the image we have. We do not have a complete submunition to photograph (at least I don't). The text describes the overall configuration, the caption describes what is visible in the image. There is no confusion here. If you can think of a clearer caption then by all means add it. Adding a note to the main text implying "the image is wrong" by describing what it isn't is unhelpful. The image is of the casing. It does show the shaping of the steel casing so as to produce the distinctive fragmentation pattern. Andy Dingley (talk) 20:07, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

Andy,
Please see my post at Talk:Jacobs bogie#Jacobs bogies and shared bogies for articulation. Peter Horn User talk 18:41, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

Category:Defunct villages in Wales, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. - Adam37 Talk 21:14, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is User:75.83.189.188 edit-warring, possible NLT. Thank you. DMacks (talk) 04:24, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

Hi. Regarding your comments at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Europefan, could you please point us to evidence that more explicitly suggests sockpuppetry? Comments like "Behaviour" or "Obvious edit warring over CSD" may point to disruptive editing, but they are not specifically sockpuppetry. The general standard at WP:SPI is that you need to present at least two "diffs" — one from the sockmaster, and one from the presumed sockpuppet — though more than this may sometimes be necessary in order to back up a suspicion that one person is using multiple accounts in an impermissible way. Other kinds of editing faux pas (not involving sockpuppetry) should not be reported at WP:SPI. Unless you can bolster your reports with clear evidence specifically pointing to sockpuppetry, this SPI is likely to be closed without any action being taken. — Richwales (no relation to Jimbo) 06:25, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

I don't know how I missed the fact that the IP edits were vandalism. Thanks for fixing this. Kendall-K1 (talk) 12:47, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

You're welcome. I always check histories, just to catch stuff like this. It's the sort of tedious donkeywork that makes these Indian college student test edits so damned annoying. Andy Dingley (talk) 12:51, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

Hello Mr. Dingley: Sorry for your concern regarding my recent entry for 3d Printing of electric motors and generators. I was only following the United Technologies example. However, after your comment, I understand the conflict. Instead, I would like to put the following into the section, "MotorPrinter is being used to manufacture the only brushless wound-rotor [synchronous] doubly-fed electric machine system known as Synchro-Sym to provide a range of electric motor and generator systems without RE-PM and with cost performance as never before seen" of course with links to "motorprinter", wound rotor doubly fed [Wikipedia], etc.

Is this okay? I am new to at least responding to users, so your response will let me know that I am doing at least this correctly.

Best Regards, Fred Klatt

Isn't a lack of notability the main reason for deleting an article? Rezin (talk) 23:17, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

Yes it is. However we judge notability by what independent sources say, such as the newspaper sources already in the article. Rocking up at a sourced article and saying "It's just not notable" doesn't change this. Andy Dingley (talk) 23:23, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

I don't know what "rocking up" means. :) In any case, there is one newspaper article that's reprinted in a second newspaper. This is about a homemade weapon of which there exists only one copy. Here is a translation of that article.[40] It doesn't even seem to mention the firearm, though maybe the translation is faulty. Other than that, there's a single blog citation.

My reading of WP:Notability is that there needs to be a greater depth of coverage of a topic for there to be an article. Am I misreading it? 23:32, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

It's probably worth adding that the article was posted by a blocked sock of an editor with a reputation for very poor work, including creating numerous articles on non-notable topics, made-up facts, and widespread copyright violations. I have been doing some work to clean up after the editor. Rezin (talk) 23:51, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

Hi. Have you had a chance to review the sources, contribution history, etc., regarding this article? If you really think it's a worthwhile article please let me know. Otherwise I'll proceed through the deletion process. Rezin (talk) 17:08, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

It's probably best as a section within a broader article on "Home made weapons and submarines of the Colombian cartels / FARC". Clearly it's not unique and the open bolt blowback SMG design is getting almost widespread [41]. The .50 cal one is quite fearsome.

However I wouldn't seek to delete this article, even in isolation. We meet

WP:V to show that the thing existed and we recognise that home-built weapons in Colombia are real, not insignificant aberrations, and have sourcing to show that much. From that point, we should try to move forwards, not simply find excuses to delete whatever we can. Andy Dingley (talk

) 17:16, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

Also, this belongs on the article talk:, not here. Andy Dingley (talk) 17:16, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

I've responded on the talk page about the content issue. But what does "rocking up" mean? You'll have to excuse my ignorance: I'm American and I'm not up to date with British idioms. Rezin (talk) 17:37, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

Just to show up unannounced or out of context. It's not pejorative, but it's in contrast to the other editors who have worked on this article over the past year. Andy Dingley (talk) 17:41, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

Ah, thanks. So you 'rocked up' to it too, I guess. ;)

For future reference, how do you think we should deal with articles written by editors who've created scores of sockpuppets and been blocked countless times, and who have specific histories of pasting copyrighted text from obscure sources, etc? Do we extend good faith to their contributions and assume it's worthwhile or do we scrutinize it more carefully? I ask because this particular user has created numerous articles many of which are of poor quality, many of which have been deleted. Should I continue to review them and try to fix them, or should I just leave the crappy stuff where I find it? I'm all in favor of retaining good content, but it seems like the average quality of Wikipedia articles can be improved by cutting out the junk. Rezin (talk) 17:57, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

I think I found it from the 3D printing aspect (see

List of notable 3D printed weapons and parts

) and the home-made category.

As to articles, then I'm in favour of going forwards. In most cases, this involves recovering what's there - if it can pass muster (much as if it doesn't fail

WP:DENY. Andy Dingley (talk

) 20:00, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

This editor's accounts are partly listed at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Ctway/Archive. He is really repetitive. Whether he's an outright troll depends on the definition of 'troll'. He is a serial producer of low quality articles, including copyright violations and seemingly made-up information. Rezin (talk) 22:54, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

That's a lot of socking!

WP:DENY would certainly be justified. I think there's an article on the overall situation in central and south America, maybe even a worldwide one. It would be a good article topic, but some work to write and if it's any good and explains why particular designs are favoured in some countries, then likely to be deleted as OR. Andy Dingley (talk

) 00:00, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

Reis telephone revert

Hi, why do you revert a true statement in the Reis telephone article? Reis was a German and his telephone thus was a german invention Schily (talk) 12:42, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

Primarily because of

WP:DENY of a banned disruptive troll. He's even banned on the German wikipedia. Please see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Europefan/Archive and also Talk:List of German inventions and discoveries#More missing German inventions and discoveries in list

.

Secondarily, because this claim is (as always) unsourced. No one had thought it necessary to add it beforehand (which is suspicious), it's unsourced when Europefan added it, and many, many of his nationalistic claims just don't stack up when examined closely. This is not some good-faith editor being hounded by British military homophobes (as I think his last lurid insult had it [42]), it's an editor who's somewhere between "outright troll" and "too careless to trust anyway".

If you wish to take this edit on yourself and you check sources that show this invention (i.e. a significant and innovative step) was produced by a German (i.e. someone who really is German, in Germany) then feel free to make it as your own edit, per

WP:DENY. Andy Dingley (talk

) 13:02, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

Being banned on the German Wikipedia is not something that is significant, there are strange admins. But do you really believe that Reis was not a German? Schily (talk) 18:31, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

I don't know that Reis was a German, and that the particular invention is significant. The troll's past record is so bad that I'm not inclined to spend my time and effort discovering and confirming this, one way or the other. I certainly know that the osteotome is Scottish, not German, despite his protestations to the contrary. Andy Dingley (talk) 19:03, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

I don't care who is writing something, I however care whether this is correct or not. The claim "German invention" looks correct, so what is your problem? btw: I cannot see any occurrence of the term "osteotome" in the article. Schily (talk) 11:21, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

"Looks correct" doesn't pass

WP:MEATPUPPET. If you haven't found osteotome then you clearly haven't bothered to read the two links I suggested, so I see little point in trying to discuss this with you further. Andy Dingley (talk

) 11:34, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

Reis is a German name and he presented the invention in Germany to Physikalischer Verein Frankfurt and to the Preußische Telegraphen Inspektion, see https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philipp_Reis. So what is your problem here? BTW: even the links you provided do not mention the IP 47.64..xx.xx, so what is the problem? Looking into the link you provided, there is indeed something that is strange as one important invention for the quartz clock has been done by people from Telefunken in Berlin: the temperature compensating cuts that made the quartz clock usable for enhanced precision. Schily (talk) 17:47, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

WP is not a

reliable source. Not even de:WP Andy Dingley (talk

) 19:13, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

This is why there are citations on WP articles. Did you check the related citations in the article? You may also look at: http://www.gelnhausen.de/Philipp-Reis-Preis.469.0.html or http://www.deutsches-telefon-museum.de/Philipp-Reis.htm I guess that you are willing to accept a web page from a museum. Schily (talk) 11:30, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for fixing Overcategorization with Category:Ship burials and Category:Viking ship burials. Have a nice weekend. Krakkos (talk) 20:42, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, I'm just a bit wary about the term "Viking". There are some Anglo-Saxon and early Russian burials here too (and of course, the Egyptians). Would it be better to go with some broader overall group? Not really my field. Andy Dingley (talk) 20:43, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

I support the way you're categorized it now, with a general Category:Ship burials and a Category:Viking ship burials as a subcategory. The Russian ship burials are however probably Varangian/Rus', so it's probably reasonable to add them tom Category:Viking ship burials. Krakkos (talk) 21:11, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

Hi, please make sure that you use |importance=mid and not |importance=med as you did at Talk:British Rail Class 81 - med isn't recognised so it's treated as |importance=unknown --Redrose64 (talk) 19:30, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, I don't use these things much. Maybe the template should recognise both? Andy Dingley (talk) 20:19, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

I could amend Template:WikiProject Trains, but that would make it inconsistent with all the other WikiProject banners. Or I could amend Template:Importance mask which would put nearly 5 million pages in the job queue. Best to leave it alone, I think. --Redrose64 (talk) 21:38, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

Andy, The list was of famous carpenters. Paulinho da Viola is listed there.Peter J. McGuire is a very famous carpenter in the U.S.Kmccook (talk) 17:12, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the pointer – I've removed Paulinho da Viola as there's no indication he's a carpenter. As to Peter J. McGuire, then he's a famous person who's a carpenter, but he's not famous for his carpentry. As a result, carpentry might have some relevance to his article, but his article isn't relevant to carpentry. Andy Dingley (talk) 17:17, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

Andy, really..founding the United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of America isn't enough? Dana Dorsey built the African-American community in Miami so I guess carpentry was his means. I see this. But McGuire is a hero to every carpenter I know! Here he is at the CIC site. http://www.cic-ubc.org/aboutus-ubc.htm I am going to put Peter back in after. After all, Jesus is there.I believe working carpenters are proud to claim PJM's influence on the trade.Kmccook (talk) 20:04, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

No, it isn't enough - he's a union leader and noted for such, not a carpenter. Andy Dingley (talk) 20:30, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

In regards to the Range Rover articles I merged, the TACR2 article is a stub, and I am personally quite surprised such an article actually exists. Since it is based on the Classic Range Rovers, I saw fit a merger. Yes, the merger was undiscussed, but seeing as it is tiny stub, a merger seems quite appropriate. It was performed in accordance with the "Be Bold" and Wiki:merging guidelines. Please recosider your reversion of my edits. Thank You. Stratocaster27^t@lk 20:55, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

If you want to merge it, I'm sure you know how to discuss it.

The TACR is a well-known Rangie variant with a substantial history and adequate sourcing. Merging because something is currently a stub is no reason. Andy Dingley (talk) 20:59, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

The TACR is simply the military name for a ambulance conversion, and apart from a paintjob, is nearly identical to any 'normal' after-factory ambulance conversion. This warrants an entire page? And TACR2 page text is almost verbatim copied from LR Mad UKsite, not "adequately sourced." Stratocaster27^t@lk 21:16, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

TACRs aren't even an ambulance, they're a fire engine. Care to stop now before you make a bigger fool of yourself? Andy Dingley (talk) 21:48, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

Enough with the edit-warring already. We have a policy: BRD - not just start edit-warring like a petulant child Andy Dingley (talk) 21:49, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

Pardon me, they are indeed fire engines. I apologize for the slip of the mind in naming them ambulances. However, this does not ignore the fact that "TACR" is just a name...I know this is the internet and personal qualification is unprovable, but trust me when I say that I have extensive knowledge of classic Range Rovers. Land Rover would build them, ship them to an independent coachbuilders, and then the finished vehicles could enter military service (and take on the name TACR) or become vehicles owned by local government. I am not making a fool of myself, merely trying to explain the lack of need for the existence of a TACR2 page in the first place. Also, ad hominem attacks do not get you anywhere. Stratocaster27^t@lk 22:08, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

This makes about as much sense as your claim that 6×6 Rangies are "common"! Have you ever even seen a classic-series Rangie? Especially a pre-'89? (You can't convert a pre-'89 as a 6×6 without replacing everything from the transfer case back.) There were only ever a handful of 6×6 Rangies - and (apart from the German ones with no Rangie parts in the powertrain at all) they're only drivable on sand.

"Land Rover would build them," Err... No. (They aren't ambulances either). The TACR is not built on a Rangie chassis, it's built on the Carmichael Commando 6×4 chassis. Lots of Rangie parts, but they're built, chassis and all, by Carmichael. If you were advocating renaming this article to that as a name, then you might have a point (probably most surviving "TACRs" offered for sale are Commandos, but not TACRs) although

WP:COMMONNAME would still be against it. Andy Dingley (talk

) 23:49, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

A number of related terms such as "flexible (e.g. images or layouts)", "fluid" (e.g. grid layouts), "elastic", and "liquid" were being used to describe layouts. Ethan Marcotte coined, and strictly defined, the term responsive web design (RWD) = (flexible images, fluid grid) in a May 2010 article in A List Apart. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.132.211.166 (talk) 09:27, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

Yes, I agree completely. RWD begins with, and is defined by, Marcotte's post. Before that there was 5 years - a decade if you were good - of fluid layouts.

I removed your link because I saw the link contents as being too commercial. I would still stand by this: If we need a ref, it needs to be a better ref than that.

As to the content you added, then I would agree with it. If it had been added alone I'd have left it. In fact I've just re-added it, but without the ref.

I don't like this article. I see it as an important technique but one that WP is failing badly to explain. The article is inaccurate: Adams didn't invent fluid layouts in 2004, they were about 5 years older than that. Adams' contribution was to start using client-side JS to adapt image size, and things that couldn't be controlled under CSS2 alone, in addition to the previous fluid work. The article fails to clearly explain what RWD is and it fails to explain what either CSS2 fluid layout is, or how RWD goes beyond this. Andy Dingley (talk) 11:53, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

Adam's "fluid" is simply the idea of not using fixed-width tables but letting the width vary with viewport.

Your "Marcotte's techniques ... declarative styling ... direct control of the designer ... would be suitable" is wrong: layout is fluid and images are flexible, controlled by viewport size rather than the designer. The links in the Gillenwater list I provided cover techniques dating back to media queries (late 2008/early 2009) providing not only fluid/flexible (Marcotte's narrow definition) but also hybrid fluid/fixed layouts that support fixed-width ad banners. Gillenwater's 2008 Flexible book was pioneering, and her 2010 CSS3 book covers using media queries for RWD (before the term was coined). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.132.211.166 (talk) 12:26, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

This belongs at Talk:Responsive web design, not here. Andy Dingley (talk) 12:59, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

Will copy it over. (CSS2 "Liquid") — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.132.211.166 (talk) 13:03, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

Andy

I'm puzzled as to why you reverted my edit relating to the Brendon Hills at East Lyn Valley. Unless I'm missing some vital piece of information, the Brendon Hills are nowhere near the East Lyn Valley. The East Lyn flows down to the sea at Lynmouth having gathered waters from tributaries which rise on Exmoor to the south. In the eastern part of its catchment, these include (amongst others) the Oare Water, Weir Water and Chalk Water; the closest part of this catchment to the Brendon Hills is at about grid ref SS 846430 near Lucott Cross. On 25K OS mapping the name of the Brendon Hills is centred on grid ref ST 019348 some 19km distant.

English Heritage describe the Brendon Hills as lying to the east of Exmoor - see http://www.english-heritage.org.uk/professional/research/landscapes-and-areas/national-mapping-programme/brendon-hills-nmp/ There is a moderately deep gap between the mass of these hills and Exmoor which is exploited by the A396 at Wheddon Cross - I'd expect that all of the country to the west of this point cannot be considered to be part of the Brendon hills but of Exmoor. Wheddon cross is 9km ESE of Lucott Cross. I cannot see how the Brendon Hills can be described as forming a part of the East Lyn valley. They'll only be a distant feature in the view from the very edge of the east Lyn catchment.

thanks Geopersona (talk) 19:57, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

I think this comes down to how far West the Brendon Hills extend. I'd thought of them as going West past Wheddon Cross and Dunkery Beacon. In which case it's fair enough to consider them as part of the East Lyn scenery. The ridge is crossed by the River Avill down into Dunster, but geologically it's still the same ridge. Mind you, I can't find the western OS map for Watersmeet at present, let alone the geological. If you're convinced that the Brendons are defined to stop at Wheedon Cross then go ahead and remove it - I've no good source one way or the other. Andy Dingley (talk) 21:04, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

Indeed. If this range extended west of Wheddon then it would run into the higher ground of Dunkery Beacon which would then be the high point of the range which I don't think anyone has ever suggested - the article currently has it as Lype Hill which mwould confine the range to the east of Wheddon. The 'Brendon Common' in the East Lyn area is not related to the Brendon Hills but to the quite separate hamlet of Brendon at SS 769482. Also the Brendon Hills article has the range drained by the River Haddon - this only happens somewhat east of Wheddon. Geologically, the rocks responsible for the Brendon Hills run all the way to Devon's northwest coast as per the descriptions in my recent Exmoor Group page. What I don't have is any reference to actually say that the range stops at Wheedon Cross but nor is there anything that says that it continues and all other evidence seems to point to it not crossing that line. cheers Geopersona (talk) 21:19, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

I've had dealings with John before. Just so you know who you're speaking to:

• [43]
• [44]

And pay particular attention to this comment:

• [45]

"Pardon me for barging in, but I think that is a stupendous point PoD. To mention a topic is not to endorse it; we're a neutral resource and we don't take sides, just report what the sources say. When the BBC, respected aviation writers, or the US Government itself all discuss an aspect of a topic, it becomes notable. Indeed as I think HJM pointed out, to suppress (or appear to suppress) a particular POV may give more comfort to the supporters of the POV than to report on it dispassionately."

Parrot of Doom 10:30, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

Hi Andy. Just saw your edits on GWR saddle tanks surviving into nationalisation - very interesting - didn't know that any had survived. I was slightly thrown by No. 2048 though since that locomotive belonged to the 2021 class. I guess that Casserly is discussing all GWR saddle tanks. Do you think it worth clarifying? Maybe something like:

"Only three GWR saddle tank locomotives survived into nationalisation. Of these two were from the 850/1901 class, Nos. 1925 and 2007, which were scrapped in 1951 and 1949. The other was GWR class 2021 No. 2048 which was rebuilt as a pannier tank locomotive shortly after nationalisation and scrapped in 1952."

Probably worth adding to the 2021 article as well. Cheers. Robevans123 (talk) 19:28, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

Yes, Casserly treats the whole bunch as a swamp of indistinguishable saddle tanks. Which is a shame, as that (hugely useful) book tends to ration photos by sections, so a diverse class doesn't get as much coverage as one might otherwise like.

Clarify away, anything you can add. I hadn't really thought about the 2021s to be honest. I'm interested in the scrapping date as I hadn't seen that previously. Not long was it - maybe they already had spare boilers the right size and it was a "use it or lose it"? Andy Dingley (talk) 20:36, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

Done. Must get hold of a copy of Casserly. Yes - odd that it wasn't till 1948 that 2048 was fitted with panniers. Think the rest of the class had all been fitted by 1936. Someone must have forgotten it... Cheers. Robevans123 (talk) 19:49, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

Were any converted during the war? I rather doubt it. I expect it soldiered on as long as it could, then was ignored, then someone found a spare Belpaire boiler. Tanks are cheap and might not even have been new, if others were being scrapped. Even the boiler might have come from another scrapper, as it would have been much newer.

I've edited your note though - see edit summary. The 1361 saddles all survived into BR as well. Change the wording if you want. Andy Dingley (talk) 19:53, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

I didn't want to do a disruptive editing79.21.182.32 (talk) 20:52, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

Yes you did. You've done it repeatedly before and been told repeatedly that this is not how it works. Just stop it. Andy Dingley (talk) 20:54, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

Mr Dingly if you would like to. Check the group for Kestrel you will find the information readily available, which is why a link to the group was also posted, the information on the locomotive you already have is inconsistent and requires amendments, I will continue to change the information and post the link to the Project page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Byron polar (talk • contribs) 21:13, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

Please take a look at

WP:V

.

You're making a change that I find "implausible". Not impossible, but it raises an eyebrow. At the time Kestrel was built there was nowhere that it could run at that speed, as the signalling just wasn't set up for it. Now it's a powerful loco and it's an easy matter to make it run at such speeds, just change the traction motor gearing. Yet without a credible source, I'm not going to believe it. Facebook groups aren't such a source. I think I probably have a few RS sources myself, if I can be bothered to root through the bookshelves - is it in David Clough's book? Edit-warring though is only going to end with you getting blocked. Andy Dingley (talk) 21:29, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 07:41, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

Do you mean anything in particular, or are you just following John's attacks over Nick Griffin and calling me a "blackmailer"? Andy Dingley (talk) 07:59, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

Hi Andy. Last October you asked if I was happy for the above to be put forward for GA review and were kind enough to suggest it was of that standard. Have you done anything regarding this, of is it something you were expecting me to do? Since about 2/3 of the text is down to me I would be reluctant to put it forward myself. Regards, Martin of Sheffield (talk) 13:49, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

I'll happily nominate it if you wish. Finding a reviewer is another question - it's not quick, but someone will take a look at it after a while.

Personally I don't get involved with GA. When I've nominated engineering articles for it before the reviewers haven't been engineers and have suggested changes that really weren't appropriate.

I would suggest that you look directly for someone who might review it – someone with experience of GA reviews and some interest in engineering history. If I can be helpful at all, or if you want someone to nominate it, then I'm happy to do so. I've no experience at reviewing though and I'm in no hurry to bump up against another of the cliques and cabals. Andy Dingley (talk) 18:23, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

	The Editor's Barnstar
	Thanks for your great work here! talk ) 21:18, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#Admin_Guerillero_participating_in_private_board_for_off-wiki_targeting_of_article_and_abusing_admin_abilities_to_win_content_dispute

Evidence of administrator misconduct on Vani Hari.

I'll be back after my exam to discuss it further. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.7.135.136 (talk) 16:27, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

Do you have a link to the FB post? Andy Dingley (talk) 17:16, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

It's at http://www.facebook.com/groups/foodbabearmy/permalink/96423452359019 but you won't be able to see it unless their group admins make you a member. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.7.134.42 (talk) 17:56, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. Unfortunately I was banned from that group after two days. Not sure if it was my suggestion that vaccination was a better way to stop whooping cough than organic brand names, or else they recognised me from the WP article.

I do have concerns about the level of Hari's knowledge, but that's nothing compared to the outright chemtrail and anti-vaxxer lunacies demonstrated by her followers. Andy Dingley (talk) 17:59, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

The misconduct of guerillero and his fellow admins in the cover-up is all the proof I need that the coordination there to violate Wikipedia policy is real. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.7.134.42 (talk) 18:02, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

Fortunately WP is quite resistant to such off-wiki attacks. The problem is much more about biased admins that are already here, ready to use things like locking articles or threatening blocks to strong-arm content disputes. There is very little that can be done about such (just see the

WP:BLPN recently) as there is a shortage of decent admins with time to get involved. Andy Dingley (talk

) 18:07, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

Particle board

I wasn't aware that

) 21:47, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

Here's a novel idea: get off your arse, do something constructive for a change. You might even learn to like the novelty.

There is little wrong with the terrible section you complain of - just fix it, copyedit it and source it, like a better editor would. Andy Dingley (talk) 22:37, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

Or if it's so important to you, how about you fix it, if you're going to be so emphatic about what "good" editors do? Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 22:41, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

Andy, take a look at the M.O.A. of the editor who raised the issue at Village pump. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 02:23, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

While I understand your point in reverting the prior edit, reading the article, there are no citations to back up the racist/immigration adjective (although, I agree it could be inferred). Since this is a blp, possibly defamatory statements should be sourced. Or perhaps I simply missed it in reading the article.

Thank you! Onel5969 (talk) 11:58, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Electrolux_Ankarsrum_Assistent#Are_Quotes.2C_Parentheses_and.2For_Italics_allowed_to_be_embedded_in_an_article.27s_title.3F

LP-mn (talk) 02:38, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

Hi Mr Dingley, Firstly, let me explain that I am a total newby and just attempting to correct factual issues with the above page. I have noticed that, although the page has sat for a few years, it was not challenged. Now that I have attempted to edit it, it is drawing attention. One of my problems is that I am having trouble navigating around the site due to my lack of knowledge of the jargon, etc.

One of the banners states that the subject may not meet the requirements for notability. In Australian 4WD circles the Bush Ranger is well known through magazine articles and web pages, having being manufactured by John E Davis Motorworks since about 1997. It is a small volume kit car, but still relevant to the Australian motor industry on an historical basis.

The other banner asks for references. I have placed some references on the page.

Your suggestions as a moderator are greatly appreciated as I believe this page merits inclusion in the knowledge base. For you information, I am the current Heritage officer of the Gold Coast Land Rover Owners Club. --DRMBR (talk) 02:46, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

Hi, I'm not familiar with Australian off-roading. I've not encountered the Bush Ranger, but if you're sure it's significant, then let's go with it.

What it needs here is independent coverage. Coverage by its own makers is great, but it needs independent stuff - probably from the off-roading magazines - to really show notability.

It would also be good to explain just what it is. How much Rangie is left? What's the chassis? Is the roll cage welded in integrally, or a bolt-on? Are the suspension links still Rangie, or extended? What are the axles (and how do you stop the flimsy Rangie diffs breaking)? Andy Dingley (talk) 12:26, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

To you and yours

FWiW Bzuk (talk) 14:23, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

--Kitchen Knife (talk) 18:37, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

Not sure what the etiquette is for this, so I thought I'd ask if you wanted to be listed as a creator of

) 21:00, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

I've had no significant involvement with that article and I want nothing to do with the rolling fiasco of DYK, so please don't put me anywhere near it. Andy Dingley (talk) 21:26, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

.. but you made some remarks in the section on Talk:City of Adelaide (1864) about the supposed "gender neutral" usage of "it" instead of "she" for ships. I have added some statistics to the relevant section of this talk page that show that Wikipedia usage in articles about tea clippers is overwhelmingly "she". From this I conclude that another Wikipedia article about a clipper (City of Adelaide) really ought to follow the same convention.

Since I am still trying to find my way through all the Wikipedia ways of doing things, is my opinion likely to make anything happen? Is there any point in trying to create a forum to consider this matter? If so, how do I do it?

Thanks ThoughtIdRetired (talk) 00:22, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

(

WP:S/HE, although I'd recommend not changing the article from one to the other.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk

) 18:15, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

Happy New Year!

Modelling the Broad Guage

I note you recently wrote an article about Narrow Gauge modelling scales.

Would you be willing to consider writing an article on 'Broad Guage' models, (I note your other article have included some GWR and SDR related content.)?

As I understood it there were some groups doing finescale 'broad-gauge' modelling in respect of Irish and Iberian protorypes? ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 14:09, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

In follow-up to this, [46] has some stuff on modelling the GWR Sfan00 IMG (talk) 00:00, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

It's an interesting idea, but there's a shortage of decent sources visible. Andy Dingley (talk) 00:01, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

That was my concern as well, at the very least (based on the link given) there's probably enough for a stub section in a relevant article. It seems from the article linked that most UK broad guage stuff is modelled to so-called 'finescale'.Sfan00 IMG (talk) 00:03, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

here, and adding your comments on the discussion page. Thank you. Sincerely, SamBlob (talk

) 13:10, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

Wabi-sabi

Although her volcanic glazes exhibit wabi-sabi characteristics, Lucie Rie is not the best example of the Japanese influence on studio pottery and Hans Coper owed more to Brancusi. Better examples would be Phil Rogers and Lisa Hammond. Pelarmian (talk) 13:10, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

PUFFS

How did it work out that we started editing this long-neglected article at the same time? I've saved my edits and will merge them with yours later. RobDuch (talk) 02:59, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

I know little about it, just from Alden, and I didn't even know there was such an article until I saw you add the link to the Tangs. Andy Dingley (talk) 03:37, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

City of Adelaide (1864)

You may be interested in the Style Proposal on Talk:City of Adelaide (1864)
ThoughtIdRetired (talk) 23:22, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

Magnalium

Mr. Dingley, I'm sorry about the change. It happened quite by mistake. I was using my dad's laptop to do a bit of studies and I saw the 'EDIT' button and thought I should check it out.... and one thing led to another and by the time I knew what I had done, I did'nt know how to repair it so just left it the way it was.

I am extremely sorry. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 120.61.90.232 (talk) 13:59, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

No problem, we've got to start learning somewhere. Andy Dingley (talk) 16:35, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

Someone you upset...?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/82.132.225.233 - reported/replied at https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrator_intervention_against_vandalism&oldid=641960369 Ronhjones  ^(Talk) 03:17, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

Oh, so the problem is that I upset them? Also see IDriveAStickShift, who has just been using Telefonica to hide behind, then had a bunch of obvious socks rejected because "he can't have been in both Utah and Spain at the same time". Andy Dingley (talk) 11:03, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

User:Dhdhdhdffx

Hi, User:Dhdhdhdffx to me looks to be the same as User:Dbdbbdq [47] which leads to User:Morcohen2 and all these socks. You may be on this already, I couldn't tell from the SPI. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 03:53, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

Definitely a prolific and persistent sock. I just added another registered name and five more IPs, a few of them old, to the SPI report. Drmies semi-protected IBM Personal Computer yesterday, allowing only autoconfirmed users allowed to edit or move. Should we make a list of the sock's current and recent targets? Jeh (talk) 07:52, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

User:Dhdhdhdffx was just the first I saw, I don't know about any preceding sockmasters. Merge away.

I saw this developing through

WP:COMPETENCE. Andy Dingley (talk

) 12:24, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

Issac Koga

Hi Andy - thanks. I am not an expert on Koga's work (I am a space physicist) and I spotted that he had been left out only because I am a recipient of the URSI medal that carries his name. The then president of URSI (A Canadian man called Jull) told me a lot about Koga but I have lost touch with him. Looking at the literature there seems to have been some discussion about if the Koga cut was optimum - but it seemed to me that not have him mentioned in the story at all had to be wrong. If you know more of the details then please do add them. Thanks Mike — Preceding unsigned comment added by MichaelLockwood (talk • contribs) 12:34, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

The Koga cut wasn't optimum - but he discovered it in the 1930s, and at that time it was the first practical way to make a crystal that was temperature stable enough to not need a temperature controlled oven (in laboratory timing uses), or to allow VHF radio with closely spaced channels. Such systems as WWII airborne radio, at least in single-seater aircraft, couldn't have worked without. I think "Koga cut" was a term used in the 1930s (at least in England), but like so many terms (Yagi antenna) it disappeared after Pearl Harbour.

Then in the 1960s he led the work (in the US) that found out much of his original theoretical work was significantly wrong. He published anyway. Can you imagine the embarrassment for a Japanese "national treasure" professor to admit such a thing, and to do so in a foreign (and recently an occupying) country? Can you imagine it happening today? Great guy. Andy Dingley (talk) 12:47, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

your revision

heya. I was under the impression that acronyms should not begin sentences or titles. "HESH" being an acronym (else it would be "hesh", no?) I expanded it when it was beginning sentences. Primergrey (talk) 13:02, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

It's a grey area, but HEAT & HESH are hugely common terms, in comparison to their full forms. The long forms are just barely used.

WP suffers from this a lot. When the simplistic blanket application of a minor formatting style turns up at a specialist article, with a widely used specialist vocabulary, then proceeds to trample all over an established and stable article, then something is wrong. Andy Dingley (talk) 13:13, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

I see now that this is not mentioned in the MOS. (I wonder now if that's a standard anywhere or if it came to me in a feverish dream) But it raises a question of sorts; if things like HEAT and HESH are to be taken as words unto themselves and not a series of letters (like FBI) then their being in all caps does go against our MOS. FYI (that's another one), I've got no preference per se on any style issues. I just want to see a similar style on every page here. Same as in my paper encyclopedia here at home. If S-Sm and Sm-Sz differed in their handling of dashes, quote-slant directions, or serial commas, it would only be because I had mixed up two different sets. Piece out. Primergrey (talk) 13:20, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

If WP insists that FBI now needs to become fbi or Fbi, then it's the MOS that's wrong. Andy Dingley (talk) 13:22, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

Sorry, no, that's not what I meant. The MOS advocates FBI, FYI, and MMA, but also advocates "laser" and "scuba" because they are read as words and not individual letters. Anyhow, do you really see my edits as "trampling all over" the article? I'm not trying to be a dick, I just stay so far away from changing content in articles that I didn't think I was capable of trampling, roughshod running, etc. Maybe I'm just dizzy from trying to wrap my head around "widely used specialist vocabulary". Primergrey (talk) 13:31, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

The dichotomy arises because WP has a broad scope. This means that it covers topics, such as HEAT, that have a very narrow application in the real world. Yet within that portion of the world where any reference to such things is made, HEAT is universal (and not heat either - even though laser, scuba, sonar, radar have achieved this). So "specialist" and "widely used" don't contradict, they merely recognise that there is a broad world (which WP inhabits) and narrow worlds (which WP writes about).

What's a mistake is to take WP's basic rules, a sensible set of defaults, and to think they are never to be over-ruled by well-established and documented practice within specialist fields. Just look at the mess over fuse / fuze. Andy Dingley (talk) 13:39, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

Hey again. You seem to be all business and I respect that, so I apologize for the "specialist-widely used" rib. You are probably used to tacit assertions being couched in seemingly innocent questions, but I can assure you I was not playing at that. I'm just a copyediting enthusiast who shattered his elbow and now has too much time on his hands, apparently, to remember that "heat" is a word that exists outside of its munitional(?) context, unlike "laser" and "scuba". Military pages are often an absolute minefield (haha) of inconsistent capitalization, which is mostly what I am trying to help standardize. Again, with no dog in the fight of what "should" be the standard. Primergrey (talk) 13:56, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

"DavidPatrck70"

You've stumbled over one of the common tricks of the abusive admin clique. Every few months one of them needs a new scapegoat in order to harass ip editors that don't agree with one of their friend's pov, so they pick out some poor soul and falsify some charges and then declare that anyone who agrees with them is a "sock puppet."

DavidPatrick70 never even edited about Vani Hari, but that doesn't stop the corrupt liars from faking things and making up bullshit all day long. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.87.121.109 (talk) 19:39, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

Also, MLPainless is a pretty obvious admin's sockpuppet, it edits every 3-5 days and it's first edit was an entire wikified paragraph followed by a 6 mpnth gap and then sporadic gaps after along with battleground mentality, regular edit warring, and talks about how things "used to be" despite being a barely 2 year old obvious sockpuppet. Most likely it's part of Guerillero's sockfarm. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.87.121.109 (talk) 19:48, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

One of your previous edits to "Pistol"

It seems that you were one of the last competent people to make an edit to the "pistol" page, since December another user has been making changes, and having it locked to prevent people from making it correct instead of a page based not in fact, but only on his views. I do not know if you ar an "autoconfirmed" user or not, but if you are and can revert the changes back to when it had all the relevant information, it would be awesome. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 180.87.192.43 (talk) 23:58, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

• It's a poor article with little useful content and a serious problem with
  WP:UNDUE
  .

That said, Luke's deletion of "revolver" is ridiculous. As is his assertion that "we have two articles; one on pistols, one on revolvers". Not only does this ignore the older forms from single-shot muzzle-loading flintlocks to turn-off barrel percussion pistols, it very obviously ignores

WP:RS

(oh such a convenient gift to the wikilawyer), but most of all because we already have separate articles for each and every subset of pistols, a fact he's conveniently ignoring. There is nothing exceptional about revolver in this.

The solution to all this is obvious. The lead should be tiny, little more than the first sentence, and the pistol / handgun / revolver / automatic distinction given its own section. WP's NPOV on this is clearly to state that there are two interpretations current and to source both. It should then scope this (inherently vague) article as covering all. Whatever we agree the correct definition to be (which obviously we can't) there is no reason at all to start removing revolvers from this (a question of our chosen scope, not implying that we're siding with one definition).

I've had negligible involvement with this article, some past involvement with Luke. I have no desperate wish to increase either. His vociferous defence of an indefensible position is characteristically expected, but it doesn't augur well for achieving a sensible resolution that benefits the encyclopedia. I would suggest talking to MaterialScientist. I expect that he's actioned the protection from a purely administrative role, rather than any interest in the content, but they are at least a good and neutral admin. Feel free to quote my comments here. Andy Dingley (talk) 01:14, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

Telescopic bridge

Re [48]:

talk

) 22:38, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

The box templates for sister projects aren't really in any section, as they're CSS floated (and so are outside the body text of the sections). What's important is that they are placed in the last section (whichever that is), not an earlier section, as otherwise they'd conflict with the headings.

The MOS also points out that a new section and heading should not be created solely to hold them. They're usually in the External links section (as this is the last section, if all are present) but it's the fact that it's the last section, not that ELs are particularly relevant to them. In this article, the last section (as is also common) is References, which is where the template now is.

The MOS also points out that the -inline form of the template is a condensed template for use in lists, not the default form when used in isolation (as here).

As to placement within the section, then it's by default to the top (which works with the float). However we also often encounter articles (like this) where the text is short and the stack of boxes on the right is long. In which case placing it at the end of the text, with |position=left works better. In a margina lcase like this, there's no need to go that far though. Andy Dingley (talk) 00:37, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

It looks like you moved the box. Thanks. —

talk

) 02:29, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

Caisson

Hi Andy. I reverted your change to

A10 for being a duplicate of Caisson lock. If you have any further questions please do not hesitate to let me know! RegistryKey^(RegEdit)

12:21, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

Caisson talk page

Andy, please see the above talk page. As I previously mentioned, Caisson (lock gate) is already discussed in detail on the page called Caisson lock, which is why Caisson (lock gate) was speedy deleted to begin with. RegistryKey^(RegEdit) 13:04, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

Why are you so keen to delete this entirely valid article? Andy Dingley (talk) 14:29, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

British nationalist

hy nice to see, that you are always a BRITISH NATIONALIST guy. 92.76.120.11 (talk) 20:12, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. The thread is Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:Andy_Dingley reported by User:RegistryKey (Result: ). Thank you. RegistryKey^(RegEdit) 12:34, 21 January 2015 (UTC) Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.132.233.233 (talk) 18:07, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

I've blocked the IP for disruption: the IP's AN3 report was in bad faith, and the address has a long history of problematic edits. Acroterion (talk) 18:25, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, this is the stuff that makes it all so worth while. 8-( Andy Dingley (talk) 20:12, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

I was about to comment on that 3RR report in support of AD but Acro got to it first. Maybe each of those articles needs a "not to be confused with (the other one)"? Jeh (talk) 04:27, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

January 2015

Watch out for

WP:3RR on Spark gap. Please read my earlier edit comment and Talk:Spark gap. Glrx (talk

) 02:17, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

"Watch out"? When you've already changed the spelling three times? Andy Dingley (talk) 10:51, 23 January 2015 (UTC)