User talk:Andy Dingley/Archive 7

Thanks for adding the ref to List of Peckett and Sons railway locomotives. Your Swedish is obviously better than mine. Could you do the same thing on Peckett and Sons where I also removed the uncited claim. Thanks— Rod ^talk 16:53, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

There is no reliable source cited for Saddam Hussein's wording being the inspiration for Steven Levy's quote. In the absence of such a source, it's SYNTH for us to say how he came up with the term. That it was coined in 1994 is not in dispute. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 22:00, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

I'm against this title for the whole article. It would be UNDUE to turn it into an article on etymology rather than this demo. But if we must use such a retrospective title, we should at least give the context for it. I've no idea how old either of you are, but this as a term that came out of nowhere in 1991, directly from the Baghdad use. It was unheard of (in English at least) before this. Andy Dingley (talk) 22:08, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

I don't disagree that the article should maybe be titled something entirely different. What do most of the reliable sources call it? NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 22:17, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

I think they call it this, because very little attention was paid to it by name except for the 1994 comment. I don't like this name, but I don't know of a better one myself. Andy Dingley (talk) 22:33, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

I've checked and, to my knowledge, the revisions I made were accurate between the 810 and 812 models being either natural or supercharged. I also tried to insert the appropriate references and sources proving the differences between the models. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tholloht (talk • contribs) 03:11, 25 December 2015 (UTC)

"I have a magic invisible reference that proves me right, but I'm not going to say what it is."

The 810/812 was the model year change. No 810s were supercharged, most 812s were supercharged, but not all 812s were. Many simplistic websites get this wrong. Andy Dingley (talk) 10:09, 25 December 2015 (UTC)

http://www.classic-auctions.com/Auctions/02-10-2002-ThePavilionGardens-1064/1937Cord812PhaetonConvertible-9431.aspx

"One of 404 unsupercharged 812s" Andy Dingley (talk) 11:36, 25 December 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for correcting me in the most douche chilling way possible. This site is no better than the immature twelve year olds on youtube. Merry Christmas. http://www.conceptcarz.com/vehicle/chassisNum.aspx?carid=10031&idNumID=11645 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tholloht (talk • contribs) 15:54, 25 December 2015 (UTC)

Dude, it's Christmas but still, basic sourcing applies. Quoting the sort of website that can't even spell "cars" (and admits it's sourced from Wikipedia) isn't a convincing claim. Andy Dingley (talk) 22:23, 25 December 2015 (UTC)

Hi Andy, As part of my new years resolutions I'm again visiting some of the tagged articles on my watchlist and wondered if you had time to revisit Talk:Victoria Bridge, Bath and respond to he comments by User:Anmccaff about how we should properly describe the bridge?— Rod ^talk 07:59, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

I'd love to, Rod. If only there was some sort of midwinter holiday when I wasn't working and could sit down to look at such things. So far Christmas has been different bits of socialising every day - I've barely sat down!

As to the bridge, then I think the best direction is to add a whole new section treating Dredge's bridges as a distinct type, based on the paper that's already there. They're a smart idea, it warrants a specific explanation. Andy Dingley (talk) 11:19, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

Hi Andy, I'm surprised that you consider a claim of bright and showroom-shiny sourced to a quote by its inventor to be NPOV, encyclopaedic and acceptable. To me, it's the inventor making an otherwise unverified claim using weasel words. Still, if you think it's OK, I can't be bothered to make an issue of it. Jimfbleak - talk to me? 15:04, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

Tone down (or quote-mark) the "bright and showroom shiny" by all means, but the point is that he spent government dollars trying to clean up hazchem problems, then discovered he'd also invented a car wheel cleaner. That much is worth preserving. Andy Dingley (talk) 17:35, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

Dear Andy, The Slavic etymology proposed by an anonymous editor contradicts the accepted academic knowledge of the language. No Slavic languages have been ever recorded in the area, whereas the words "Gobannos", "nanto", "dobnos"/"domnos" are well-known in Celtic. "Interpreting" various ancient inscriptions as Slavic is quite common among nationalistic pseudo-scientists here in Russia.

"Slavic" doesn't appear in the article, or in the section you deleted. Gaulish does, and that has a much closer relationship to Celtic. So I don't really see how your point (which may be valid - I'm no linguist) relates to this edit? If you're objecting to particular words, then why not remove them, not the whole section?

Mostly though, unexplained deletions like this resemble simple vandalism. If there is a reason to delete it, then please use an

edit summary to explain why. If it's complicated, or likely to be restored, then maybe make a comment on the Talk: page. Andy Dingley (talk

) 19:31, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

Yes, it does not appear in the article, but "govno"="shit" and "davno"="long ago", which are proposed by the author, are Russian words. I understand you and I will add my comments to the original article. Thank you!

I removed the sentence referencing TTT sheet plastination because it didn't appear to add anything to the article, it merely referenced a specific type of plastination and mentioned that it was used in teaching, which the rest of the section already appeared to discuss. The sentence was almost like an advertisement for TTT plastination and gave no further information on the technique or any other uses for this form of plastination. It also lacked a citation.CV99 (talk) 00:44, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

You went through the article changing refs for "New York" to "Mega York". So don't tell me that's a constructive change. Andy Dingley (talk) 01:06, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

Also [2] Andy Dingley (talk) 01:07, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

Now maybe, stretching

WP:AGF to the limit, you've got some sort of accidental JavaScript running in your browser, or some sort of trojan. In which case, it's your responsibility to fix it and stop doing that before editing further. Andy Dingley (talk

) 01:09, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

Sorry, I thought it was an issue with the edit I made instead of what appeared to be a blatant case of vandalism. The change was done by a browser extension of mine, XKCD substitutions. I had it set to replace new with mega. I had an issue with it before, though it was a one time thing; I do note that the burden of insuring that this browser extension does not make changes in the editing window lies with me. I typically turn if off when editing, and I usually do catch the times that I do make mistakes (though in this case I should have as it would have created red links). I have now set to turned off on the english wikipedia. I hope that this resolves the issue. CV99 (talk) 01:28, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

We've had far too many problems with XKCD before. I know he has some sort of issue with Wikipedia, but if you choose to run such an extension configured to auto-vandalise wikipedia, you're the one responsible for it. Andy Dingley (talk) 01:43, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

I saw your comments on the AfD for this. Now it's getting blanked anyway [3]. Any thoughts?

I like the idea of expanding why test and conditional branches changed the nature of scripting. Do you have anything to expand that with? Viam Ferream (talk) 10:25, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

I would support trimming it, but yes, that was too far.

This is an encyclopedia. It's supposed to be self-contained, but not isolated. We need enough manual to make the article stand up, but there's no need to replace the manuals. Anyone who wants a manual still has access to them - we might even link them.

So the command should be covered, and the syntax of how to use it, but there's no need for the parameter switches. I think anything here that explains itself in prose is probably useful, anything that's a list of sub-word flags doesn't belong.

Beware anyone quoting ALLCAPS. That's never a good sign. There's an old joke about drunks hanging onto lampposts for support more than illumination - WP policy is all too often used like that. Nor am I happy with Intgr quoting me right out of context on the Schilly AfD 8-( Andy Dingley (talk) 18:40, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

I have been consistent in giving a reason for each edit. If you mean that no reason was recorded, this must be due to some technical factor, as I gave the same reason for each of these edits: "no link," meaning that a term such as "Ford," "coal" or "air pressure" is assumed to need no further explanation via a linked Wiki article. I thought this excess linking was considered a detriment to Wikipedia, and went out of my way to amend it.--71.214.81.136 (talk) 02:48, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

Blanking all the links from an article and "explaining" this as "no link" is not a constructive edit.

If you think these links don't belong here, then go to

WP:BRD. Repeatedly removing them over and over instead will not be seen as constructive. Andy Dingley (talk

) 11:26, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

What do you mean by "all"? I left the links to articles on more obscure topics, which was a distinct minority of the links. I have been using the reason "no link" for several years, with no complaints. Is "unlinked excess Wikilinks" an acceptable wording for my reason?--71.214.81.136 (talk) 20:46, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

You removed

mold as a link (amongst others), from an article on casting. If you think that's a good change, take it to the article talk: page and see if you can get any support. I rather think not. Andy Dingley (talk

) 21:11, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

Andy, have you seen the article at Bellfounding? It uses a sand casting process, though not always with sand. You might consider either a link or a else short precis with a hat note. Martin of Sheffield (talk) 09:29, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

Yes, not a bad article that. Could use more on Chinese bells though - they're significantly different and cast differently (try old Sci Am articles for a good one). Certainly it deserves trailing from the main casting article.Andy Dingley (talk) 00:41, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

Hello, I'm Stesmo. I wanted to let you know that I removed one or more external links you added to the main body of Graph database. Generally, any relevant external links should be listed in an "External links" section at the end of the article and meet the external links guidelines. Links within the body of an article should be internal Wikilinks. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. Stesmo (talk) 17:01, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

The page has now been protected, but with the incorrect spelling of "fuse". Would you mind starting an RfC or something along those lines? I'm unfamiliar with the process and the trolls are winning.142.105.159.60 (talk) 18:42, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

It's just the usual wiki stupidity: admins without language skills making decisions about subtle language issues. For Ymblanter to let themself be trolled so obviously is unusually careless, but when do we ever expect any better? Andy Dingley (talk) 18:56, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

The spelling isn't wrong, of course, but I'm surprised that "editors" are being described as trolls merely for making an edit and supporting it with reliable references. Making accusations and being abusive isn't an appropriate reaction to simply having made a mistake. But anyway, these linguistic subtleties can, indeed, be sorted out, provided the necessary language skills are present: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Renault_FT#Nomenclature Hengistmate (talk) 22:15, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

You are nothing more than a troll. Andy Dingley (talk) 22:37, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

Ignore him and start up a RfC. I'd do it, but I'm afraid of screwing it up.142.105.159.60 (talk) 19:28, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

" Almost all of the content is already in the turboshaft article,"

It's usually considered a good idea to read the article in question before advocating its deletion.

Also, aren't you just pissed that I reverted your blanking at Cementation process Andy Dingley (talk) 00:59, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

Mr Dingley,

• First I would like to point out that I didn't advocate it's deletion, I advocated its MERGER. Perhaps you are the one who should read more carefully.
• Second I noticed that it's deletion would remove almost no data from Wikipedia, and noted that for the record.
• Third I actually supported your perspective directly IN THIS ARTICLE:

  First I'd like to say that Andy (opposed, above) has a point:

  So I would hope that you would infer (and I now state) that I bore no lasting ill will for reverting my premature deletion.

• Fourth I think it's possible (I am not sure) that a snarky "Aren't you really just pissed" kind of addition to my own user page might have resulted in a "revert, attack page" response. I has in the past. Please note that I didn't do that - more evidence that I'm NOT baiting you or angry with you.

Please delete this once you've read it. It is NOT my intent to smear you or irritate you, but I thought that your dragging this conversation out into the talk page was inappropriate and that it was reasonable to reply. Perhaps, if you agree, you will re-edit the talk page to remove the more personal parts of your contribution.

Riventree (talk) 03:15, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

[4] "Having said all that, I think [Gradebo] you're right and it should be deleted. "

Andy Dingley (talk) 07:45, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

There are about three sentences in the lead where turboshaft and free-turbine turboshaft overlap. That's all.

I think a lot of the trouble here is because turboshaft has so little in it. It's like a plane-spotter's notebook, just busy name-checking someone's favourite plane to squeeze in a link to it. That explains nothing about turboshaft engines. I think Andy's point here is that the free-turbine article says something about them and why they're different. if you read that article, you might learn something. You're not going to learn much from reading turboshaft. Maybe they're better merged to a big section, but deleting it would be crazy (and you did say "it should be deleted") Why is WP always so keen to find a reason why to make things worse? Will people just stop finding excuses why some other editor deserves to be scrubbbed out and see about making stuff better instead?

Why does free-turbing say "Motorcycle engines" ? They aren't mentioned.

Don't turboshaft engines go back to pre-war stuff and big static power turbines, long before Whittle? They should be included too. Were they free-turbine or single shaft? Viam Ferream (talk) 09:56, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

Just for you, Andy. [5]. Kendall-K1 (talk) 16:01, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

Hi Andy, I just updated this image [6], but it remains with the border, does it take a while for the servers to catch up?Rstory (talk) 13:12, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

Its updated nowRstory (talk) 13:15, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

Hello Andy. I wanted to follow up with you personally regarding recent changes to the British shadow factories article. JIMDO hosted websites are self-published, user-generated. Is there a more appropriate source available for this material? Regards, Yamaguchi先生 (talk) 23:43, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

We should always look at stuff like self-publishing carefully, with an editorial view, otherwise we're just being 'bots.

This source is trivial (if it has a problem), more than problematic for being self-published. It says too little, not too much to stand. I see no reason to question it, although better sourcing is certainly needed. There's nothing in the Acocks Green site that isn't backed up my a myriad other sources, mostly because it's simply so bland. It's also a local history group and the tendency for those in the UK is to be pretty solid as sources (obviously with a somewhat critical eye).

In general, there's surprisingly little published about the shadow factories. There were two sorts in practice: the large above-ground ones that built everything important, and mostly became car or washing machine factories post war. These are largely ignored. Then the handful of underground plants, which because of the "bunker" aspects get huge amounts of coverage, mostly from Nick McCamley (who is certainly RS on such). However these factories also had very little influence on wartime production. Andy Dingley (talk) 16:30, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

		100000 Edits
		Congratulations on reaching 100000 edits. You have achieved a milestone that only 360 editors have been able to accomplish. The Wikipedia Community thanks you for your continuing efforts. Keep up the good work!

If you like you can add this template to your page.

This user has been awarded with the 100000 Edits award.

 Buster Seven Talk 12:56, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

Ye Gods! Congrats! I'm gobsmacked by the idea of that many edits.

Riventree (talk) 02:12, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

Yes, it's a bit pathetic really, isn't it. So much more useful stuff I ought to have been doing. Andy Dingley (talk) 16:30, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

Awesome edit count! Deep respect and congratulations. Robevans123 (talk) 20:26, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

Well done, Andy. That's a lot. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:33, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

Andy, are you aware of this Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Andy Dingley and just as importantly Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Hengistmate#01 March 2016. The latter was raised when another of Hengistmate's IP socks attempted to close your AN3 case as stale (shortly before an admin blocked for 48 hours). In view of [[User:Burninthruthesky|Burninthruthesky]'s continued attempts to defend Hengistmate, I decided to lump him in with the SPI complaint. A CU will decide it one way or the other. 86.153.133.193 (talk) 14:15, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

I'm so sorry this has gone this way and thanks for your support at the SPI - I saw it briefly before it was blanked. I can't imagine what Bbb23 was doing here, shooting the messenger like this. 8-( Of course, raising an SPI against me is no problem, he even gave Burninthruthesky a nice little note that no action would be taken for it. Andy Dingley (talk) 02:32, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

Bbb23 added an explanatory note at my talk page. He does say that he did not regard my SPI report against Burninthruthesky as retaliatory. In which case it is not clear why he applied the block. Anyway, he has now lifted the block so all's well that ends well. The original problem seems to have gone quiet for now.

Following the experience, I decided to register an account. Am I allowed to move the barnstar? Anyway, thanks for your support. I am now Elektrik Fanne (talk) 15:21, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

With this edit you removed referenced information and restored a paragraph referenced solely to someone's alleged personal reminiscences. Why should standards on reliable sourcing be ignored in this case?Nigel Ish (talk) 13:48, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

March 2016

Andy , I have no reference for my warning on Antilock brakes and cold temperatures. It is a real problem if you care to research it. From personal experience my antilock brakes did lock up at -31C. When ABS came out the US NHTSA was left without a good brake standard for them because the valves in ABS sytems are narrower and thus vulnerable to restriction in cold weather. They had to come up with the DOT 5.1 standard. They couldn't name it DOT 5 because they had reserved that for the new silicone fluid which they named DOT 5.0 Your description of scaremongering and action of deleting my edit could lead to potential accidents. I only used the word potential so as to make drivers aware of a life threatening dangerous situation with using DOT3 or DOT 4 with ABS brakes and extreme cold weather. The DOT 5.1 standard was specifically developed for use with ABS which your present wiki article doesn't deal with.

Alan Tomalty 99.246.26.238 (talk) 19:33, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

First thing, this is unsourced, thus falls foul of

WP:V

, as far as WP is concerned.

My main point was to question the idea of using DOT 3 with ABS at -30C and then a failure being unexpected. DOT 3 has been superseded, if not obsolete, for years. Besides which, it's not the DOT 3 that gets you, it's the age and the moisture content of the DOT 3 (anyone changing their fluid as appropriate is unlikely to still be using DOT 3). To use it on an ABS system in such a climate is downright risky. Yes, this is a "problem", but it's so much of a problem that it's almost expected and we shouldn't present this in such a scare-mongering fashion. There's also DOT 1 and DOT 2 fluid (on paper at least) - should we warn about those too?

• DOT 4 is even worse in cold weather than DOT 3. Source?
• DOT 5.1 is hard to acquire though because very few manufacturers of brake fluid have been able to meet the standard. I only need one manufacturer. I can buy DOT 5.1 at my local spares shop (but I can't get Honda gearbox oil). It's not impossible. Andy Dingley (talk) 20:50, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

Good Morning Andy,

I was somewhat dismayed to note that the old myth regarding which way coping saw blades face has re-emerged :-( I refer you to our previous exchanges at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Andy_Dingley/Archive_5#Coping_Saw and within it the excellent Blog post you put me on to at http://www.popularwoodworking.com/woodworking-blogs/chris-schwarz-blog/coping-saws-from-bricks-to-fretwork-frogs

It is not worth 'going to the stake over' but all reversions cite TechnologyStudent.com as the definitive reference. V.Ryan's website is a most commendable effort by a practising D&T teacher in the north of England on behalf of his and other's students - and just as prone as anyone else to this perpetuated myth.

I can only repeat my evidence from 2014 - i.e. "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 [or Piercing Saw] 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 [and Scroll Saws] have teeth pointing downwards so the line is not obscured by waste during cutting."

Christopher Schwarz in his Blog cites several references to support this by clarifying "downward stroke" and only a “Band Saw Handbook” - the actual focus of which is perhaps another tool all together.

Is there no way we can remedy this once and for all? I would be very happy to write the necessary text but have no wish to star another round of confusing changes. I would cite “Trade Foundations”, “The Essential Woodworker”, “Tools for Woodwork”, “Carpentry & Construction” from the Blog (www.popularwoodworking.com) and http://wiki.dtonline.org. I only take issue with Christopher Schwarz in his comment that opinion is so divided - from what he cites there is clear consensus that blades only face the handle if they are pulled downwards - in normal use, the reverse is the case.

Kind regards.

DTOnline (talk) 08:27, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

Is there anything you would like to discuss with me? I'm asking based on your recent postings at ANI about me. Am really asking. Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 20:52, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

That would belong at Talk:RepRap I see your edit-warring over this as already being block-worthy and far from giving a good result content-wise. This was a poor article to begin with, with many of the problems you complain of. But some of the content you've removed was a highly subjective judgement as to what is important or not. There are a continual stream of spammy articles on 3D print startups all wanting coverage here - but RepRap is one of the four big names (MakerBot, Shapeways, Stratsys) that really do have a significant and decade-long history in the field.

Also removing such an extensive proportion of any article in one edit is just never a good edit, procedure wise. It makes it hard for other editors to work with such a monolithic change and it positively encourages a simple blanket reversion.

WP seems incapable of handling 3D printing as a topic area though (not the first such area). Andy Dingley (talk) 21:00, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

I hear you on problems with 3D printing generally in WP - like many DIY/internet thing, we get tons of crappy edits. Thanks for your feedback. Just to be clear, I wrote here to see if you had anything more global to say to me, not about reprap in particular. anyway, thanks again for replying! Jytdog (talk) 21:13, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

Well see ANI then, just now. You are still making some very thinly-veiled attacks on CaptainYuge. Andy Dingley (talk) 21:15, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

Wow.

RepRap are (almost) visible from my window, so I know a bit about the project.

Also Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Andy Dingley (now deleted). Did Jytdog really raise an SPI on you?! Viam Ferream^Talk 13:42, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

That was a different car crash. See Talk:Plasticine (of all things!). Andy Dingley (talk) 19:02, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

Do you know anything about RepRapPro? I know they shut up shop early this year (sadly!) and I even did some work for them once, but what's with the "no connection to RepRap" that has seen the coverage of this pulled from the article? Surely that belongs in there? Just what was their relation to RepRap in Bath? Andy Dingley (talk) 20:54, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

Hi Andy,

Thanks for checking out the Anjan Contractor page. I'll add sources. And remove what you pointed out as promotional. Let me know if you can withdraw your deletion request.3Dnasa (talk) 21:35, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

You are obviously Anjan Contractor himself. We discourage autobiography. Andy Dingley (talk) 22:37, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

Hi Andy, thanks but I am definitely not Anjan Contractor. I did used to work with him though and, as part of what is called a "Maker lab" he has one heck of a name in the 3D printing space. He has a significant amount of press on him, including near-daily articles. You're correct to point out that some are blogs and so on, but that's irrelevant. Wired has written about him as has Fox News, NBC, NPR, PBS, PC Mag and so on.

If you think the writing is promotional, then add an advertising flag. But going the route of notability just doesn't make sense given the sheer volume of coverage of what he's done, when and how particularly in the 3D printing space. He did receive the grant from NASA to create a 3D food printer. That got press. The actual finished product got a ton of press. And later developments, like commercializing it got press. I've added a number of other sources on the subject. Happy to find more-- and in other languages as this is a worldwide topic with him at the dead center of it. I respectfully request that you withdraw the deletion nomination. If it needs more work or "cut down" on promotion, then that's the path forward.3Dnasa (talk) 00:05, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

The nicest alerts to receive are thanks for a correction; so thank you. Sir Harry Ricardo mentioned briefly in "Memories and Machines" (his autobiography) that he had developed a flexible hydraulic network for riveting in constructing Indian railway bridges (c1905). I have not got my copy to hand to check, but I would guess steam was used for the power. Unfortunately I have found little else as a source for flexible networks. The science museum in London had almost nothing when I checked ten years ago. SovalValtos (talk) 20:12, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

See hydraulic intensifier. It's not a "network" as such, as it didn't spread across further than the jobsite.

Thanks for the correction. I was unaware of the Geneva system, but if anywhere was going to have hydro right next to its consumers, I guess it would be Geneva. Andy Dingley (talk) 20:15, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

Many thanks for restoring my admittedly clumsily worded and poorly typed addition (and faith in human nature): I hold my hand up to not providing citations but I was doing just that when I got an edit conflict and started over, hopefully improving on the first effort. (As a newbie I assumed, maybe naively, that the term 'citation needed' means 'please add a citation' rather than a slash-and burn notice, but I'll be wiser next time.)

So, just between us, do you have any idea what unecyclopedic means? I'm serious, I've had various WP yellow cards re. typography, what side of the Atlantic the article belongs on, the gold standard for articles etc, but un-encyclopedic isn't even in the dictionary: when I checked my Kindle I got 'unending', 'unendowed' and 'unendurable', while 'encyclopedic' means 'comprehensive in terms of information' so I'm beginning to suspect it was actually an encylopedia joke.

Getting back to the plot if you have time could you check out the new version and see if it makes sense?

The whole point of my addition was to place bald (but incomplete) facts into a context that makes sense of what the article previously implied was an example of typically British muddled thinking. Since there demonstrably was a logical underpinning that explains why a turret fighter might possibly be operated by the pilot in the direct fire role I thought it at least worth airing, with the side-benefit of eliminating the vastly irritating if unvoiced 'Wow, crazy, huh?' conclusion.

The (apparently) contentious aspect of the entire turret fighter imbroglio seems (to me at least) to revolve around the wider issue of responding to the entirely unprecedented new reality of 'lightning war'... so I can't help wondering if there is mileage in mentioning somewhere that in the context of the fall of France all bets were off. If that seems blindingly obvious as matters stand various articles seem to omit the words

'Because no one anticipated that within the design-life of this aircraft, conceived of five years earlier, swarms of high-performance enemy aircraft would be within in range of - to pluck an example out of the ether, London Docks, that's why'.

If that's a little parochial-sounding in mitigation I plead that being an ethnic cockney who grew up on a street in East London with vacant lots nearby called 'bomb sites' I don't find the Blitz the least bit amusing, so the silent snarking was - to say the least - annoying, as is a general trend towards ahistoric revisionism based on twenty-twenty hindsight that is, for the want of a better term, 'unencyclopedic'. As such perhaps the business about the new realities of air defence circa 1939 demands a separate article?

Or addressed in a pre-existing article, assuming it's not already there and only needs finding and linking?

Having fallen foul of the dread guardians of all things Wiki that fly without flapping their wings because I didn't use the right template to describe an aircaft that never got off the drawing board I'm loath to stick my head up over the parapet again (at least until I've done a lot of homework) so for now I hope my revised version is authoritative, well-reasoned and objective, and sufficiently complete it stands alone, rather than being merely as a footnote to the seldom-referenced Schräge Musik article.

~~Ebookomane~~ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ebookomane (talk • contribs) 15:24, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

I have no idea. I barely care. I might even agree with them.

My point is though that we should try to move forwards. Your addition was unsourced, and that's a real problem. This vague handwave of "not encyclopedic" though? If they'd tagged it as uncited I'd have supported that. If they'd said it was unclear I'd have agreed. Even if they'd removed it as unsourced, I'd have had no good argument against that. To simply dismiss it like this though, on an aircraft that's all about the unorthodox approach to gunnery - makes no sense to me. Whatever should be done with this, it needs to make some attempt to make things better, not conveniently worse.

As for most people, I know little of the Defiant. I'd appreciate more coverage on a few things: was it bad or was it mis-used? Was it competent at attacking unescorted He111 and could it have taken the Hurricane's BoB role? Did it have any place with the BEF, or did this merely lose aircraft in a contest it was inappropriate for? How did it stand against the Roc? No-one has a god thing to say about the Roc (except Wikipedia, who once credited it with the first airborne kill!), but there is a viewpoint (minority?) that the Defiant did have some uses. Andy Dingley (talk) 15:36, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

I'm trying to find sources and expand citations made since your reply (arguably my alterations should have been completely authoritative but it's a pain when disparaging comments - themselves unsourced - seem to have buried the subject matter) but I'll keep on digging and hopefully answer your points.

While my gut says the type was thrown into a conflict for which it wasn't designed and was tragically ill-suited as a panic measure I can't find anything to back it up, so it's sitting in the wings (pun intended) until I can quote chapter and verse.

Something that bugs me about this specific aircraft is why there was no serious attempt improve the type by removing the turrets. Okay, they were the whole point of the design but it's not unusual for a decent airframe to be re-purposed (and not just as target tugs):

As drop-in systems the turrets could have been hoiked out, the existing guns mounted for 'zero deflection shooting' in the vacant space, the gap faired-over and the things flown as single-seat interceptors. I'm astonished I can't find any evidence the option was mentioned, mighty odd for a time when biplanes were being retrofitted as wing-and-a-prayer attack planes but in context there was a lot going on...

~~Ebookomane~~ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ebookomane (talk • contribs) 10:06, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

Your comments here and here are inappropriate for an article Talk page. You seem to be more focused on me than on the actual sources and contents there - you have not dealt with what the GE reference actually says and what its purpose is, which is to make some argument about when and if Be was used in fluorescent light bulbs, which is not what citations are for in Wikipedia.

You appear to have been attracted to the Talk page via the Talk page of Wtshymansk where I had left an left] a 3RR notice, which appears to be on your watchlist as you have commented there many times; as shortly after I left that you came to the article, which you had never edited before, and reverted me and then shortly after that responded to me at W's Talk page here. That is blatant HOUNDING.

As I did at W's talk page, I will warn you again not to turn Wikipedia into a

You're right - they clearly belong at ANI. I'll copy them over. Andy Dingley (talk) 18:37, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

Do as you will. Going to ANI with unclean hands is foolish, and this will boomerang on you, even if you get me chastised - which I will acknowledge even now is not unlikely. I know I am too harsh sometimes - this is not some big revelation. Your turning an article Talk page into a battleground and screwing up an article is a much worse offense, in my mind. The article is about a medical condition and you are going all ballistic on something OFFTOPIC. It is completely inappropriate and just

WP:POINTy. Unclean hands you have. Jytdog (talk

) 18:40, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

You suggest I need a "Moron Diploma", and then you accuse other editors of having "unclean hands"? Andy Dingley (talk) 20:22, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

a) what I had written was if you accept the one source you should accept the other - perfect parallel construction; b) I removed that (I disowned it - because it is clearly inflammatory and there is no point in going there) and my final comment is here; while your inappropriate comments still stand and you are fully owning them. And it is bad sign when people go digging through edit versions for dirt. You are really battlefielding this Andy, and yes it is frustrating me and i am allowing myself to write some unhelpful things. But i am catching myself. Jytdog (talk) 20:52, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

WP:ANI#More WP:BATTLEGROUND from Jytdog at Berylliosis

Andy Dingley (talk) 21:13, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

Something went weird on my edit to 76 mm gun M1, can you check it is as you expect it to be? Maury Markowitz (talk) 13:43, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

Looks fine now. I think we agree that the 17 pdr belongs on a list of comparable main guns.

Was this a Twinkle edit or similar? I've seen a few of these happening recently where sensible editors have restored clear nonsense that had already been restored once, and they unintentionally un-restored it. I don't know if the wheels have come off one of the scripts or the like? Maybe see if Village Pump is reporting this as a generalised problem. Andy Dingley (talk) 13:50, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

No, when I went to the diff it said the section in question was removed. And then when I was trying to fix that I managed to undo the edit, at which point it really disappeared. I rolled back, hoping that fixed it. Maury Markowitz (talk) 22:05, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Berylliosis. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Please be particularly aware that Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states:

1. Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made.
2. Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing.— Cirt (talk) 02:11, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

This still belongs at Commons:Commons:Deletion requests/File:Heidi Cruz MontTXFundraiser Feb 27 2016--two3.jpg, not at en:WP. Andy Dingley (talk) 09:50, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

Please see my proposal to speedily rename Category:Defunct villages by country and subcategories to Category:Former villages by country etc. Hugo999 (talk) 18:43, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

Don't care - either would work. Andy Dingley (talk) 19:49, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

I noticed an edit of yours to the talk page of this article questioning Marc's relevance to WikiProject Railwats or some such. I'd agree, but what struck me is that of all the Wikiprojects he is 'of interest to' there does not seem to be any that relate to the block-making machinery, which to my mind is undoubtedly the most significant of all the many things he worked on. I'm not familiar with all the wikeprojects...any suggestions?TheLongTone (talk) 13:01, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

I've no great faith in WikiProjects. Most are inactive, the active ones are largely dramaboards, there are some obvious ones missing. "Engineering History" would be such a project. If you created it, I'd join it - but given the lack of benefit from other projects, I've not worried about it.

As to "his greatest project", then it was a time of polymaths, not specialists. I couldn't distinguish between the block-making or the civil engineering. Andy Dingley (talk) 13:04, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

I keep the hammer in my pants. ;P (Apologies if you don't appreciate toilet humor, I just couldn't resist.) MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 21:10, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Andy Dingley. 62.255.240.157 (talk) 11:26, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for that. This is very obviously related to

WP:ANI#More WP:BATTLEGROUND from Jytdog_at Berylliosis Andy Dingley (talk

) 12:00, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

Some dim sum for you!

Thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia. North America1000 09:08, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

Thanks! Andy Dingley (talk) 11:29, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

Dear Andy Dingley,

Thank you very much for your comments about me at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#Cirt and your recent comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jenna Fife.

I really appreciate it.

Very much.

I'm quite sorry if we got off on the wrong foot lately.

I've been thinking about it a lot lately. I entered into the scene at Commons regarding that deletion debate with the sole intention of using

I hope perhaps you and I can start afresh and anew.

Thank you very much,

— Cirt (talk) 12:48, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

You're welcome. Too much of WP is based on old grudges. Andy Dingley (talk) 12:52, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

You rock. Once again I apologize for the way things went down lately. I'm glad you were determined not to be a sock of anyone. I hope maybe we can work together in the future collaboratively on a quality improvement project. My favorite activity on Wikipedia is to take articles from

WP:FA. — Cirt (talk

) 12:53, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

You did this, twice, at DIFF 1 and again at DIFF 2.

Please stop.

Please instead post, in your own comment, at the bottom of the sect in chronological order.

Thank you,

— Cirt (talk) 14:52, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

You continue to make a false statement about Jytdog. My addendum to this was clearly noted as such, and signed. Not was it (arguably) "within" your comment, as it was between paras and it has long been accepted that additions there whilst not ideal are no breach of WP:TPO.

This is unlike your behaviour at Commons, where you have three times now edited my commments in the related threads, and not once have you even signed them:

• https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=File_talk:HeidiCruzTheWoodlandsTXMeet%26Greet27Feb2016-2.jpg&diff=191699378&oldid=191699035
• https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=File_talk:HeidiCruzTheWoodlandsTXMeet%26Greet27Feb2016-2.jpg&diff=191746780&oldid=191742363
• https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Heidi_Cruz_MontTXFundraiser_Feb_27_2016--two3.jpg&diff=191750749&oldid=191748238

Andy Dingley (talk) 15:07, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

Different issue. You falsely used quotations to fraudulently imply I said something that I did not. You did this again using quotations at ANI. Please stop. — Cirt (talk) 15:13, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

You see that word "paraphrasing" before it? Do you understand what it means?

If you felt the urge to edit my talk: comments, why did you not at least sign your own edits?

You did support two deletion requests on the grounds that, "Both the images in question are low resolution less than sixty (60) kilobytes." and no other stated reason. You seem to think that small images imply a copyvio, and that OTRS can resolve authorship disputes. Neither is correct. Andy Dingley (talk) 15:30, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

Wrong. It is false to say you are "paraphrasing" when you wrongly put them in quotations with quotation marks. Please do not use quotation marks like that. Please stop it. — Cirt (talk) 15:39, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

I don't know what your native language is, so I cannot judge your English language skills. However such marks have different uses, beyond those of simple direct quotation. One of those is irony, much as you just used them around paraphrasing above. Perhaps you'd like to read the article you just linked? Andy Dingley (talk) 15:42, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

Paraphrasing does not use quotation marks. — Cirt (talk

) 15:44, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

I just stumbled across this and wanted to weigh in: Quotation marks are commonly used for a variety of purposes in English. They can be used to indicate disagreement with a phrase (e.g. 'His claims of "Victimhood" are rather inconsistent'), to indicate the fact that a phrase must be complete to be meaningful (e.g. 'This is what's known as a "Trial by public sentiment." '), or to distance the author from the phrase, as would be the case with paraphrasing (e.g. 'He was all like, "Whoah! Not cool!" and I was like, "Crazy, man!" and the other dude just got all technical and said something about "Well Bayesian reasoning tells us that the probability is something math, something statistics, something something else, and blah blah blah..." '). As long as it's specifically identified as being a paraphrase, no reasonable person would assume it was a direct quote. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 19:00, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

The Hitler reference was auto-generated. I was editing on Firefox and I personally installed a script that changed certain words on a page to "Hitler". This was a joke meant for another site and I didn't pay attention. I will do anything to prove that this was the reason https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/foxreplace/

Yeah, yeah, yeah, I'm tired of this "I installed an XKCD joke script to break WP articles and now I'm surprised when that's what it went and did." excuse. You're not the first, it's still not funny. Andy Dingley (talk) 00:42, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

same thing posted at my Talk page, and i gave the same answer. Jytdog (talk) 00:44, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

That said, it's still no justification for a topic ban. Andy Dingley (talk) 00:48, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

This editor has a history of disruptive editing on ASD articles, that you are perhaps not aware of. This is perhaps the ugliest thing they have done... a new low. And obviously they are passionate on the topic - the note on my page said they enabled that extension to actually use on other sites and just forgot to turn it off when they came here. They have brought some of that approach here. Jytdog (talk) 00:55, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

Hi Andy, Many people seems to have complaints about you,that you unnecessary revert the edits, please stop this, if you continue this you may be blocked by the Administrator. Best regards Aftab Banoori ^(Talk) 14:54, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Edit_warring#User:Aftabbanoori_reported_by_User:Andy_Dingley_.28Result:_.29 Andy Dingley (talk) 15:18, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

Hello. I noticed that Aftabbanoori got blocked for edit-warring over a low quality snapshot of theirs they were trying to get into an article, so I thought I'd show you that they've been doing this for years, and can't claim they don't know what the rules and standards here are. See this since removed message I posted on their talk page two years ago, after they'd been edit-warring on multiple articles to get a vacation snapshot of theirs into them... Thomas.W ^talk 14:00, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

I hadn't noticed, thanks. They're not the first to do this though. I ought to clean up the non-English WPs too, because that really just isn't a good enough photo to use, given how many better ones there are. Andy Dingley (talk) 14:03, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

Andy - many thanks for looking at the page I created. I have added a couple of citations in the article. Do you think that is enough? There aren't articles about the group or the person that I can cite easily and that are available online. John Grubb 54 (talk) 15:44, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

Hi Andy - problems uploading this image file as the server did not update very quickly.

[7], I managed to make a fine mess of this one - the current image should be the cropped version. Do you have the access rights to fix it? CheersRstory (talk) 15:25, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

I think it's OK already, with your last revert. You have to watch the list of versions, as the main image itself gets cached all over the place and can take an hour or two to update. Andy Dingley (talk) 16:46, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for looking, I spotted another gaff on this one

[8] where the file name should be '...No.3026...' to match the engine number. How do I fix than one!Rstory (talk) 18:11, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

There's a Move tab at Commons, if you have the qualifying number of edits. It's now at File:LNWR engine No.3026, First compound 4-2-2-0 tank.jpg Andy Dingley (talk) 18:39, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

Hey, i know you don't like me, but this was unhelpful to that editor. Instead of pointing them to where they could get what they wanted, you just "stirred the pot." You feel how you feel about me, but please don't let that get in the way of actually helping people who need it. Jytdog (talk) 17:31, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

Unhelpful?

gloating over your CSD of this article (the word is linked to make it absolutely clear). But you'd prefer to keep the creating editor in the dark over this deletion? Your WP:OWN problems are far in excess of any editor I've seen previously, this was just the latest. This article needed work, not deletion. Andy Dingley (talk

) 17:51, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

You came within an inch of getting an i-ban at ANI. Now you wrote this, after the CU had been endorsed here. That is two HOUNDING events today. The first of which actually confused a new user. Do it once more, I go back to ANI, and I will get you blocked and I will get an I-ban against you. I am not chasing you around Wikipedia. Enough. Jytdog (talk) 20:14, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

You have a big mouth, Jytdog, and it's very good at intimidating new users - a tactic you use a lot. I've seen you file three fatuous SPIs with no credibility, just to harass other editors. If you want to rant about "HOUNDING", then take it to ANI and see just how far you get. Andy Dingley (talk) 21:08, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

I reverted my comment; you restored it. more drama. not interesting. i'll take action if i want, when i want, if you keep stirring. Jytdog (talk) 22:23, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

note Jytdog (talk) 17:36, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

Thanks Andy Dingley (talk) 18:23, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

More biscuittin socks. many, many more.

I will say this again: "Any evidence that these were connected to Biscuittin, or were you just trawling again?"

These are socks, they probably have the same sockmaster (although there are simply so many that a team could be more likely). Yet why would we claim that they are Biscuittin?, someone who had previously been a constructive editor; until they were recently tarred and feathered for "outing" someone by threatening to repost information which that person had already put on their own userpage? I still see no reason to accuse Biscuittin over this. I would also note, again, that this is the third fatuous and totally without merit SPI which you have filed. Andy Dingley (talk) 18:51, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

Hi Andy, thanks for raising that. At the moment I'm going from List of rivers of England, but am open to improving on that. BTW you may be interested in a discussion questioning these catchment/basin categories at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Rivers. --Bermicourt (talk) 07:31, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

I notice that you keep reverting my edits to a talk page, with no attempt to discuss your rationale for re-adding the deleted entries, which are clearly not pertinent to the talk page in question, so I've reverted your edits ~dom Kaos~ (talk) 13:08, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

WP:TPO

is very clear on this. We might hat off-topic threads, but we are very reluctant to delete anything, unless it's outright NPA territory. These, obviously, are not. It's a several-years-stale discussion of the subject, not the article. Very minor stuff.

You are now at 3RR, BTW. Andy Dingley (talk) 13:13, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

"...the left 12.5-inch gun in the forward turret exploded during gunnery practice". Histories state that this was in fact a 12.5 inch gun bored to 12 inches, designated "12-inch 38-ton gun". Your thoughts ? It wouldn't make sense to have different calibre main guns. Rod. Rcbutcher (talk) 04:41, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

Winfield & Lyon, p. 255, state that the source of Thunderer's guns being 12 inch vice 12.5 inch is from King's report on European navies, but they say 12.5, as does Parkes. Conway's, OTOH, says 12 inches. Sadly, Campbell doesn't start his series on British guns until the 1880 models. Do any manuals say that there was a 12-inch 38-ton gun?--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 05:36, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

I just noticed that Winfield & Lyon state that the ship had four 12.5-inch guns, not just in the forward turret like everybody else. Hmmm....--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 05:38, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

This belong on the article talk: page, not here. I'll move it over. Andy Dingley (talk) 09:27, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

Dude, why did you undo my revision on B-Dienst, specifically putting the link back in for British Naval Cypher No. 3 ? scope_creep (talk) 17:22:38, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

WP:REDLINK

But what the hell, you just edit-warred over it anyway. Andy Dingley (talk) 23:28, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

That may be the case, but you usually it is good form to inform the editor who is improving, or created the article at the time, perhaps do some collaboration, maybe. If you look at British Naval Cypher No. 3 for instance, there is no information about it, excluding some evidence of it's use in operations, and when and by whom broke it. So I think it is bit foolish to blithely redlink an article, (particularly when WP guideline state not to redlink until you ready to create the article) assumung is going to be created about in future, without doing the investigatory work to determine if it can make well ref'd article.

I see you've created a few articles, I'm looking for somebody to create this article, AA/Pers Z: (AA) Auswärtiges Amt (Department of State) (Pers Z) Sonderdient (Special sets) The Foreign Office cipher bureau decrypting diplomatic signals. There is a load of information on it. It's a important, heavy weight encyclopedic article, probably would take 3-6 months to complete, to accurately pull all the information together. Also, this: OKL-Stelle: The OKL/Chi cipher bureau for high command of the Luftwaffe. These both need completed to re-balance the coverage for German cryptographic efforts during World War II against Allied efforts. scope_creep (talk) 13:23:38, 02 May 2016 (UTC)

I don't want to write an article on British Naval cyphers, I want to read it. I know nothing about them - I know plenty about German cyphers and British analysis of them, but so little about the opposite direction.

If the No. 3 cypher was important enough in B-Dienst's efforts to be mentioned so early on, then it deserves an article, or at least the REDLINKed possibility of an article. I would like to read that article. Even if it's only a very short article, it could give some indication of how it worked (pencil and paper? Giant book? Machine?), how competent it was as a cypher compared to German efforts, and its strategic role in the war: when was it used, when was it out of use, was any compromised use of it militarily important? Just answering those would be valuable. Andy Dingley (talk) 15:14, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

All things being equal, I think that the point you made was distinct from the rest of the thread and was closed prematurely. The original complaint might have been settled; but yours was a new aspect, and should have been kept open for community discussion. Especially as it specifically related to editor retention- something we are all meant to be concerned about right now! Best,

Thanks. We are supposed to be encouraging new editors like this, and we have recognised ways of working around the (very real) issues of licensing and balance. Stefan though edits like a 'bot, with a fixation on one aspect and absolutely no sense of judgement. It was interesting to see the chorus of other editors who'd had just the same experience. Andy Dingley (talk) 19:37, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

Exactly. Perhaps a new thread?

^{Imperatrix Mundi}

19:58, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

Leave it for a minute. Floquenbeam has just unblocked him. Maybe we can sort this out. Andy Dingley (talk) 20:09, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

Hi Andy,

What you thought was an improvement for Baldwin Locomotive Works' "Electric Locomotives" section where you changed N.V.Heemaf had the opposite effect--for it went from "blue" back to "red". I do not like taking issue with sanctioned Wikipedia editors (since a number of them cannot take constructive criticism) but the best method or means of accessing foreign entities is still through the followingrepeat foreign entity,e.g.N.V.Heemaf. What you did worked for Werkspoor but it did not for N.V. Heemaf so the standard means, as delineated for you supra, is more reliable. Just thought I'd pass it on to you although when you made the change you should have caught what I am now writing to you about. Let me underscore here that before you made the change there wasn't a need for making it since both N.V. Heemaf and Werkspoor both were coming up blue. Why toy with something when there is actually no need for it. Have a great day.

P.S. I noticed when I "save" the foregoing, the "method/means" which I am referring to disappears. If you hit "Edit", you will gain a full understanding of what I am referencing.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by SPELMARK6798 (talk • contribs) 17:58, 21 May 2016 (UTC) 

This is the English Wikipedia. You will find a large number of editors here who will simply remove your links to nl:WP altogether, because they see (and not without reason) that a link to an article in a foreign language to be useless. I find {{

illm}} to be a useful compromise. Andy Dingley (talk

) 18:42, 21 May 2016 (UTC)

• Aluminium (native): IMA1980-085a and steinhardtite (IMA2014-036)
• Titanium (native): IMA2010-044
• With electron microprobe strange things are possible. Regards --Chris.urs-o (talk) 03:06, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

This belongs at the category Talk:, not here. Andy Dingley (talk) 08:49, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

Hi Andy! More problems on the World Wide Web page - uncited revisions referring to articles in other languages. The same pattern as before. I would be grateful if you have time if you could take a look. I have a lot on my plate at the moment. Would recommend Binkerstenet as an admin if you need advice.

All the best,

(Etheldavis (talk) 16:13, 26 May 2016 (UTC))

Hi again, Andy! I have contacted Binksternet as Musik Bot, the editor who removed the "pp sock" is on holiday until 30 May. As I say, if you can keep an eye, I would appreciate it.

(Etheldavis (talk) 16:23, 26 May 2016 (UTC))

Just found this from Tim Berners-Lee, Andy:

After all the conversation on here, I have found this from Tim Berners-Lee himself:

"Some commentators suggest that Robert co-invented the WWW. To set this straight, he did not invent it. It wasn't his idea. He did not write the specifications for UDIs (later to be URLs, then URIs), or for HTML, the hypertext language, nor HTTP, the protocol, or the code of the original implementation. More than a year after my original proposal (March 1989), while I was working on the code, he wrote a proposal to CERN proposing some staff be allocated to the project. This was a brave thing to do, as CERN was always chronically short of manpower for the huge challenges it had taken on. So Robert put himself out there to claim that effort on WWW was worth it."

https://www.w3.org/People/Berners-Lee/FAQ.html (scroll down to section "Robert Cailliau's Role")

(Etheldavis (talk) 16:55, 26 May 2016 (UTC))

Hello. Could you provide an evidence for your statement Fursuits are broader than furry fandom though, and sports mascots are still part of this article's scope ? — WBR, Postoronniy-13 (talk) 14:59, 28 May 2016 (UTC)

The article's scope obviously includes costumes being worn as sporting mascots or other promotions. If you include them in the article you can't then claim that they're not to appear in the lead. Andy Dingley (talk) 17:12, 29 May 2016 (UTC)

Hi Andy, Having done a bit of reading about them I was thinking about creating a wp article on the Purton hulks and when searching came across User:Andy Dingley/My created pages/Purton hulks. Are you planning on developing this?— Rod ^talk 20:37, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

In practical terms, no. It would be nice to, but the usual queue of stuff is likely to get in the way. If it's any use as a starting point, help yourself.

I photographed all of them, one by one, when the new outdoor labels went up. Then had a HD crash just hours after uploading the images, before the overnight backup ran, and lost nearly all of them.

If you're ever tempted to go photographing them for yourself, go when the reeds are low! Andy Dingley (talk) 20:47, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

Thanks - I've copied your outline to my sandbox to play around with. I've added loads of pics to the attached commons cat from geograph. I might get to visit & do some photos as we are currently buying a narrowboat moored on the Gloucester and Sharpness Canal.— Rod ^talk 08:52, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

If you've not been before, find some nice weather (the mud is deep otherwise!) and take the walk from Purton, along the foreshore and the hulks, down to the Sharpness bridge tower and the old dock, then back along the canal towpath. It can be a good place for dragonflies too.

I still think the pub in Purton is a Local Pub for Local People though and wouldn't like to think on what nasty things they might have in their woodshed. Andy Dingley (talk) 08:57, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

I've done some stuff in my sandbox (a couple more days before moving to mainspace). You said you "lost nearly all of" your photos if you have any of those in the table which don't yet have any (or can identify them from the commons cat) that would be great.— Rod ^talk 18:45, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

I'll have a look, but I think I'd more or less uploaded a couple on LiveJournal and here, then lost everything.

I think it's worth emphasising the history of the ferrocement barges. These were novel at the time, their hulking was somewhat puzzling (they were the newest boats and in good condition) and today they're the best survivors.

Shouldn't the history go into Concrete ship rather than here? You are welcome to add the bit about being newest & best survivors but I may get to this when I do FCBs in the list.— Rod ^talk 19:57, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

There's an article (if anyone has the urge) on the ferrocement barges used on the Severn. They were an unusual design and built in some numbers, making this a significant part of the history for ferrocement shipping. Be careful when describing them though, because "reinforced" in this sense is a lot less so than the pre-tensioned reinforcement used for buildings. One of the newspaper articles on Purton got this quite wrong. Andy Dingley (talk) 20:09, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

The Fell's Patent Knees[9] on the iron/wood

composite hull of Dispatch [10] are worth a note too. Andy Dingley (talk

) 19:37, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

I'm not sure what they are but are they specifically relevant to these specific hulks or were they more widely used?— Rod ^talk 19:57, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

They're rare, I think these are now the only survivors. They're rusty, but still quite visible, and on the most prominent of the survivors. Andy Dingley (talk) 20:09, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

I've now done about as much as I can on this and I'm happy to move it to an article, unless there is anything you would like to add/edit first?— Rod ^talk 17:58, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

Great stuff - much quicker turnaround than I ever manage! I'd go live with it. Changes can always be made later - it's the encyclopedia that anyone can edit, don'tcha know. I've a few suggestions, but I'll put them on Talk: Andy Dingley (talk) 18:15, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

See Purton Hulks.— Rod ^talk 18:30, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

Can you tell me if File:Purton Hulks Dispatch knee.jpg is what Fell's patent knees look like?— Rod ^talk 20:38, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

That's the ticket. The hex nut to the right is the tensioning bolt, used to pull them tight afterwards.

Thanks - feel free to use it anywhere. I looked for Knee (shipbuilding) and ended up at Knee (construction) - is that right?— Rod ^talk 21:20, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

That's the same thing. Could use more ship, rather less of building construction. Probably a few links to cruck-framed timber framing too. Andy Dingley (talk) 21:36, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

You didn't by any chance see a long-haired chap wandering around there today? Mate of mine was also taking knee photos there. Andy Dingley (talk) 20:52, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

Several blokes with long hair & several with beards (including me).— Rod ^talk 21:20, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

	The Editor's Barnstar
	Thanks for editing the page on Yoke coil newly created by me. RIT RAJARSHI (talk) 18:25, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

The Board of Trustees of the Wikimedia Foundation has appointed a committee to lead the search for the foundation’s next Executive Director. One of our first tasks is to write the job description of the executive director position, and we are asking for input from the Wikimedia community. Please take a few minutes and complete this survey to help us better understand community and staff expectations for the Wikimedia Foundation Executive Director.

• Survey, (hosted by Qualtrics)

Thank you, The Wikimedia Foundation Executive Director Search Steering Committee via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 21:48, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

Over on Wikibooks, I was attempting to write some "pages" that could form the basis of a "free" replacement for an ancient Ladybird book I had called "The Story of Railways".

As I would prefer not to write this entirely myself I was wondering if you were willing to help. At the very least it would be appreciated if you could help review pages (which I've mostly carefully paraphrased from relevant Wikipedia Articles, or my own memory.).

The pages are in my Userspace at Wikibooks - https://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/User:ShakespeareFan00/Rail_Transport_in_Britan

I approached you, as when we had a previous disscussion on something you seemed to be knowledgeable in the rail field.ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 17:13, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

I am not a 'disruptive editor'. I am removing unreferenced material, material that is repetitive, wrong, biased and some that is not even worthy of being in a travel guide - lists of fast food outlets for example. You revert these edits, why? The material removed is simply poor, unrequired and often wrong.

I urge you to stop reverting and add good quality and well sourced and referenced material instead of your current actions which I now consider to be disruptive. 80.195.100.70 (talk) 13:42, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

You have been repeatedly blocked for exactly this small series of disruptive edits. You make no other edits, you contribute nothing, you bulk-blank content making it impractical for other editors to keep up. You do it all from a disposable IP address just so that you are impossible to sanction. Andy Dingley (talk) 13:47, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

Talk:M4 Sherman --MaxRavenclaw (talk) 10:56, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

You reverted the whole edit for objection to one phrase. Did you find any value in the parts of the edit? Grammar's Li'l Helper ^Talk 16:20, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

I think it would be best if the two were merged. Andy Dingley (talk) 17:30, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

Hello, Andy Dingley. I see that you've reverted my addition of saw to the "See also" section on the grounds that it was "Already linked". You are correct. I have just now noticed that it was linked in the first paragraph of the article.

I've also noticed that Japanese carpentry is linked in that first paragraph as well. Do you think that it should also be removed from the "See also" section? Thank you for your attention. Akhooha (talk) 20:10, 18 June 2016 (UTC)

Probably, although the case for that is less strong.

It is not clear what a "See also" section is for. There are two valid opinions, with no clear consensus to favour one over the other.

One is that "See also" is a last chance to link things that clearly ought to be linked, but that haven't yet been managed to link from within the main article body. Ideally these would all be worked into the article and the section blanked.

The other is that it forms a "Further reading" list of obvious navigation targets.

In the first of these, anything linked in the body text should be removed from the list - including Japanese carpentry. In the second, then it's a valid link for the list and it's still obscure enough that it's worth us listing it. "Saw" is obvious, so isn't. "Japanese carpentry" is more obscure - the concept is obviously significant, but do readers benefit from having it presented to them in its obvious form (rather than "Japanese woodworking" or other forms we might have equally used)?

It's up to you, but I think there's a case for either one. Andy Dingley (talk) 20:29, 18 June 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for your quick reply. My own opinion (a third one, but no less valid) is that the "See also" section is a bit like "If you've enjoyed or found this article useful, here are some other articles that may interest you (even though you may have overlooked their previous linking)". "Saw" may indeed be obvious if one were to assume that the article was merely a definition of "saw", but if one had not known about the history of saws, their manufacture, the materials from which they've been made, etc., then one might find that article useful or just plain interesting. I like to think that one of the functions of Wikipedia is to point readers to further knowledge, and that the "See also" section, in focusing attention on related topics, promotes this, even if the subjects have been previously linked. So many WP articles are full of really useless links in the body of the article that I think most WP users ignore them as they read, and will rarely return to them. However, I bow to your judgement, as it seems to me you've been working with WP much longer than I have. Thanks again for your reply. Akhooha (talk) 21:34, 18 June 2016 (UTC)

"Saw" is a common word though and unambiguous. A reader looking for it would find it. If we had an article on "History of saws" then that would be a harder title to guess at, and there would be value in linking it. Andy Dingley (talk) 21:53, 18 June 2016 (UTC)

Mr Andy, on you insisting edits of Jupiter Ace page, pushing unproved data into the article, also irrelevant as specification for a computer:

Please do not push data not relevant to a section, nor opinions that cannot be proved, nor information not related to an item. You have been informed, you have ignored the information given, and have made accusations only reflecting your own which to "mark a point". Such is not the purpose of that item page. That was a re-incidence and opposite to all you stated here in this entry.

Your are invited to reconsider your actions, so to be more close to your statements above. A third time will force a formal complaint against those actions. You have been fairly warned. Sign: Factor-h (on a lend computer) 79.168.135.176

Sockpuppetting to repeatedly push your view is not accepted here. See Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/3RRArchive316#User:Factor-h_reported_by_User:Andy_Dingley_.28Result:_Warned.29

You have also not yet given any reason why the use of a particular character set on an early home computer is an irrelevance to be deleted. Andy Dingley (talk) 09:15, 19 June 2016 (UTC)

Hi there,

I thought I'd give you a link to the section of the MOS that I was talking about in regards to my edit to the Benghazi burner article, just so you can be sure the my edits were well thought-out, and not some random off-hand edit:

Basically, the gist of the guideline is that redirects are generally preferable to piped links (more detail is given in the linked section).

InternetMeme (talk) 11:16, 19 June 2016 (UTC)

Piped links are not broken. WP does not have articles under every precise name. A valid use for piping links can be to give a more accurate name for presentation, like "pressure stove". The point in this case is that it was pressure stoves which were such a problem beforehand, as they relied on a small pressure jet which was prone to blocking by dirt. "Portable stove" alone is much less meaningful. Andy Dingley (talk) 14:18, 19 June 2016 (UTC)

Err, did you read the link above? You don't seem to have taken the information on board. InternetMeme (talk) 13:39, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

Just do not add invented nonsense about "gas pressure" to an article on petrol stoves. Andy Dingley (talk) 17:10, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

I'd appreciate an apology for that insult. Describing another editor's edit as "nonsense" is bad form.

Anyway, I've found what is probably the best sentence from the MoS link above to explain what I'm trying to say: "... make sure that it is still clear what the link refers to without having to follow the link". The problem with the way you want to word it is that many people don't know that a pressure stove is a portable stove. In fact, many people don't know what "pressure stove" even means. Hence, we need to either use the term "portable stove", or we need to use the term "pressure stove", with an explanation in brackets. It's all in the MoS link above.

InternetMeme (talk) 17:19, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

Okay, I've fixed it for you. The thing you need to learn is that wikilinks should be worded in such a way that the reader will know what article the link points to without having to check.

Since not everyone knows that a pressure stove is a portable stove, the wording you were using was incorrect. The correct procedure is to create an article called "pressure stove", and make it redirect to the relevant section of the "portable stove" article. It's all explained in the MoS link above.

InternetMeme (talk) 17:35, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

Create a specific redirect if you like, but do not (as you did repeatedly) replace the existing specific and piped link with a vague generic link alone. Also do not add unsourced and erroneous content (or "nonsense" for short) to articles. Andy Dingley (talk) 17:52, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

All of my edits were in line with the style guidelines. Your reversions were not. Also, I find it hard to believe that you're unaware that describing someone's words as "nonsense" is offensive, but if you want to claim ignorance, I'll accept that.

As I said, read the style guidelines. If you were aware of them in the first place, you wouldn't have kept reverting my edits.

InternetMeme (talk) 18:12, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

The lock in Hull was not too short. It was too small.

Locks regularly are wider than their lock gates, so two or more ships fit inside next to each other, so that is why the width is relevant. The depth over the sill is relevant too. Ocean going ships of that time barely fit over the sill at a neap high tide, so could traverse the lock only for a very short time each day (if they fit at all).

--2001:980:4818:1:200:FF:FE4E:353A (talk) 13:27, 22 June 2016 (UTC) (Martijn Verwijmeren)

Source? What I've read on this is critical about the size because, although adequate at the time it was built, ships becoming larger (and specifically longer, with greater fineness) made it unworkable.

The sill doesn't work because it's on the East coast, so there's hardly any tide (I live on the Severn). The early Hull dock was in large part still "a half tide dock with added gates", rather than a floating dock designed from scratch as such, with appropriate dimensions and faith in the sealing of the gates. Andy Dingley (talk) 13:35, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

What specific fact do you want a source for? The fact that you can fit ships side by side in a wide lock, so you can pass more ships at once? Where is your source for the fact that the length is the only problem? ("I have read somewhere" is not a source.) The original sentence was (emphasis mine): "This size limited the number of ships passing through it." It was not "This size limited the kind of ships able to pass through it."

Any lock has two sills. It is the hard floor under the gates.

--2001:980:4818:1:200:FF:FE4E:353A (talk) 15:39, 22 June 2016 (UTC) (Martijn Verwijmeren)

I note that you gave WilliamJE a uw-ew, which he deleted. I've also given him one too. I've added an infobox and navbox to the article. Mjroots (talk) 18:27, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

	The Anti-Vandalism Barnstar
	Thank you for reverting the vandal who undos my recent edits. Sro23 (talk) 15:29, 1 July 2016 (UTC)

Thanks! Getting a bit tired of it though, after three years of Europefan Andy Dingley (talk) 16:47, 1 July 2016 (UTC)

I have restored the latest edit by the Faust Vrančić sock. The image being replaced is more of a cable-stayed design (with the deck having to withstand compression forces longitudinally) than a pure suspension bridge. The new image is of a pure suspension bridge and is a much more appropriate image. I have verified that the image caption is accurate (it is his work and it was published in 1595). Please consider this my edit now rather than an edit by a block evading sock. Meters (talk) 00:48, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

Hi Andy.

Can you please explain your revert of my edit on this page. As it stands you look to have restored some incorrect information that I removed.

The pages as it stands suggests:

1. The US used the M10 Wolverine
2. The British used the 17pdr Achilles, and not the 3in M10

There are a number of problems with this statement:

1. The M10 was never called the "Wolverine", either by the US or the British. It's a post-war invention of dubious origin and shouldn't be used in an encyclopedia
2. The British used two versions of the M10: the basic 3in M10 (officially: "3in SP M10 Achilles") and the 17pdr M10C ("17pdr SP M10C Achilles"). Officially both versions were called the Achilles, but this name wasn't in widespread use during the war.

My edit cleared up this whole mess by simply stating that the M10 tank destroyer (all versions) was based on the M4 chassis, without any of the misnomers and confusion. I realise that the whole M10 = Wolverine, 17pdr M10 = Achilles misconception is really, really widespread but Wikipedia is exactly the kind of place we should be clearing up these kinds of common misconceptions. Thanks. 2p0rk (talk) 18:44, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

Why are you constantly dedicating yourself from preventing the balkan region from receiving credit for inventions. You are a biggot and fascist. O12j3x (talk) 14:34, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

Not to mention you are reverting edits on other cultures to keep dubious and unsourced claims under their Category. It's sickening O12j3x (talk) 14:36, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

You are a sock of Filipz123 (talk · contribs). If you are not, then make the case at WP:SPI/Filipz123. As a sock of a banned user, you don't get to make any edits. Andy Dingley (talk) 14:39, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

I don't know what you are talking about. I just registered to Wikipedia I don't know what you mean by make a case. For what? What is going on? — Preceding unsigned comment added by O12j3x (talk • contribs) 14:43, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

Do you happen to have more of these? Thanks for uploading!

There were some more, but they were all deleted from Commons. I don't use Commons any more.

Doug Self's "Loco loco" website is worth a look. Andy Dingley (talk) 12:01, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

Why were they deleted?

talk

) 12:51, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

I annoyed someone on Wikipediocracy, so they had their admin friends go after me. Andy Dingley (talk) 14:23, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

Oh. Sorry.

talk

) 19:24, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

I'm not going to get into an edit war over a dumb category, that would be silly of me. But it WAS removed by socks: see [11], [12] etc. But if consensus is to remove than I will leave it alone. Sro23 (talk) 12:26, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

Likewise. But I can't objectively justify it being there and if another GF editor wants it gone, I'm happy with that. I haven't looked to see when it was added, but it was there in 2014. BTW - Special:CentralAuth/Yoho66 for another incarnation of everyone's favourite hosiery. Andy Dingley (talk) 14:25, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

Just added a note to the talk page about hendos - it seems we are both right, there are versions of the slogan with the "a" and versions without! Not sure how that should be represented on the page. Auto98uk (talk) 21:31, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

Categorizing systems that use the 6502 under the category for those processors is a bad idea for the obvious reason I had for my edits. And I did not edit-war with you, as per

The application is a subset of the processor. Making the processor a subset of the application implies that the only function of the processor is to be used for that one application. Andy Dingley (talk) 21:17, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

I presume you have heard about The West Country Challenge?

The The West Country Challenge will take place from 8 to 28 August 2016. The idea is to create and improve articles about Bristol, Somerset, Devon, Cornwall and the Isles of Scilly, Dorset, Wiltshire and Gloucestershire.

The format will be based on Wales's successful Awaken the Dragon which saw over 1000 article improvements and creations and 65 GAs/FAs. As with the Dragon contest, the focus is more on improving core articles and breathing new life into those older stale articles and stubs which might otherwise not get edited in years. All contributions, including new articles, are welcome though.

Work on any of the items at:

• Core articles
• Missing article hotlist
• Missing photograph hotlist

or other articles relating to the area.

There will be sub contests focusing on particular areas:

• Bristol (Day 1-3)
• Cornwall and Scilly (Day 4-6)
• Devon (Day 7-9)
• Dorset (Day 10-12)
• Gloucestershire (Day 13-15)
• Somerset (Day 16-18)
• Wiltshire (Day 19-21)

To sign up or get more information visit the contest pages at Wikipedia:WikiProject England/The West Country Challenge.— Rod ^talk 17:17, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

Hi! your message lead me towards here :) and yes WP is all about users, its like "What we do makes us learn", and this is what inspire me again and again to do WP editing, and to share knowledge and to dig more to know more. :) Here a yummy one for you. keep WP-ing up! Cheers :))))) Abhidwip (talk) 07:14, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing me at WP:ENGVAR -- I'd like to clear up the Z80 and ZX Spectrum articles accordingly... the ZX Spectrum one has a UK pronunciation marked as such. How do I generate those and how best to add it to the ZX Spectrum article, given it is a point of contention? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mattl (talk • contribs) 17:26, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

I don't think anything needs to be added to either. The ZX Spectrum is strongly UK-based, the Z80 is international (most were made in Japan). I'm not seeing a pressing need to add pronunciation to any of these, as they're hardly difficult, but I wouldn't argue if someone has already added it to the Speccie. I can't see any need to add a US pronunciation to an article on a UK computer. Andy Dingley (talk) 18:38, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

Hello,

Thanks for correcting this apparent error [14]. It appears that Clue bot previously reverted this same edit by this same IP [15]. So, I figured Clue bot was correct. I guess not ---Steve Quinn (talk) 02:07, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

I'm interested in your recent statement on the Science RefDesk:

Victorian dustbinmen (at least in Britain) didn't collect night soil. They were two separate trades, and turf was fought over. Particularly in South Bristol, where night soil was something of a local specialty trade (Night soil from the whole city went out through Bedminster, towards the market gardening areas beyond.)

Do you have sources for this? As I mentioned, I've been working on the toilet-related articles, and more information would be handy. Thanks! Carbon Caryatid (talk) 13:45, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

I knew there was a reason I stalked Andy's page! I saw a documentary a while ago on the building and development of the Leeds-Liverpool Canal (and the moving of nightsoil out from Liverpool). A google search produced some interesting articles, here, here, and finally here. Interesting stuff on demand, economics, quantity etc. I was also reminded of a cesspit emptying tanker I used to see regularly on the road between Malmesbury and Swindon which had two bumper stickers: "You dump, we pump" and "No jobbie too big or too small". Robevans123 (talk) 15:16, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

• Oh, Liverpool? And haulage in North Liverpool, especially relating to cabbages? In which case I probably had a distant uncle or two with a hand in it. One of them invented the Brussels sprout (the first practical commercially growable sprout in West Lancashire. "Spencer's Supreme" or something). Most of them were some sort of scrap merchant / demolition. Yes, the one on the Irish side was a horse trader, and one was a copper. Like your very own domestic Peaky Blinders, but with different accents. Andy Dingley (talk) 15:30, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

• Not for years I'm afraid. Somewhere in Victorian Bristol's court reports there are a series of appearances for an extended family who "owned" the Bristol nightsoil trade and made good money from it. They were violent to any other nightsoil collectors, or those who weren't either part of their gang or were paying the appropriate rake off. For reasons, probably rooted in medieval Bristol, it was forbidden to take night soil through the gates of the city. Except that (as was always the case for Bristol) the part of the city South of the Avon and the harbour was controlled by the bishop of Bath and Wells instead, and had its own rules. So Bedminster developed the trade which the snooty main city North of the harbour didn't want. This in turn encouraged / was encouraged by the development of market gardening and smallholdings on the flatter land out towards Dundry.

Dustmen in Bristol seem to have been based on the back of the old harbour, around Castle Green and Temple Meads. Much of it was collected by boat, sorted in yards around Old Market, then the ashes part of it moved up the Avon to brickworks around Hanham and Kingswood. These bricks never had the same reputation for strength as the high quality bricks from Cattybrook! (If looking on old maps, note that a "pottery" around Bristol usually meant a tile works or brick works, not other pottery vessels.)

I came across this stuff around 2000, when there were projects to digitise many old paper records, such as court records. They ended up with one of the museum bodies in Bristol, probably the records office in the vast brick warehouse out by the Create Centre. Or the M Shed Museum might know - but I rather cut my ties with Bristol Museums when the Industrial Museum was closed. Andy Dingley (talk) 15:25, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

Thanks both for your responses. I'm reading Living in Liverpool: fascinating, and I never would have found it, but for your tip. Too bad teh Bristol material languishes in store-rooms. Carbon Caryatid (talk) 18:47, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

G'day, I can easily find scholarly references for the use of "they" in its various forms in referring to an organization in spoken English - and do it myself all the time. I cannot find references stating it is acceptable in written English and can find plenty stating that it is not; in other words, "them" and its variants is colloquial English. If you can find somewhere that states we write in colloquial English, or that "them" is acceptable in formal English, I will happily stop spending time making the change. Just as an aside, apparently the Financial Times invariably uses "it" when describing organisations. YSSYguy (talk) 01:41, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

We use British English, and this article is about British English in the 1950s. "

Napiers

" were always referred to (per COMMONNAME) in the plural (that's not a possessive), about as much as "Rolls-Royce" (originally a partnership) were always phrased as singular. If you think of what the term "a company" means, its plural origin is obvious, even though seen as anachronistic today. For reliable descriptions on Napiers' products at this time, such as from Flight, the plural form is the one commonly used. I'm not claiming that this is universal for companies, or even for companies of that period, but it is how some companies (Napiers, Armstrongs) were commonly referred to.

But I see you've already proceeded to Bold-Revert-Edit war it again-Lecture. It's not "Discussion" if you've already reinstated your change anyway. Andy Dingley (talk) 09:33, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

As you can see from the diff and my edit summary, there was more to the edit than "them-vs-it", and the sentence "They moved to Lambeth, South London in 1830" might well have referred to the family Napier and not the company. I was genuinely surprised that anyone would undo such an edit. "A company" is a collective singular, like a flock, a mob or a herd, a herd of cattle is one gathering of bovine mammals (actually "bovine mammals" seems somewhat appropriate - here we are arguing over them-vs-it, what a first world problem; feel free to change it back, but turboprop engines are definitely not used in helicopters and there is one sentence in the article which was rendered "Napier was...their..." which is having it both ways). YSSYguy (talk) 14:31, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

Yes, a company is a collective singular. And I have often brought a herd of cows in because they needed milking, not because I had one giant herd-sized milking cup to put the whole lot into! Both forms are used, particularly have been used, and in the context of Napiers it was commonplace for them to be described (note the use of "Napiers", as if plural) in the plural form.

As to engines, then turboprop was deliberate. Napier only developed turboprops. They had no turbojet engines, no turbofan engines. In fact their real reputation was in turbochargers for large static and marine diesels. Their initial turbine engine developments were focussed on the Naiad and then the Eland. These were classic turboprops, with predominantly shaft output and relatively small jet thrust. As such, the Eland was ideal for the Rotodyne compound helicopter. It was even used for the Westland Westminster, ostensibly a pure helicopter, although making use of significant jet thrust from the Elands. The Napier Oryx was an obscure dead-end, a gas generator for the flying [sic] ocarina, another tip-jet helicopter. Unlike most tip-jets though, such as those driven by the better known Palouste, this was not a turbofan or a turbojet with a bleed air tapping, this was Napier's small turboprop design for the Gyrodyne, with an additional compressor fastened to the propeller shaft instead. Napier's one commercially successful gas turbine aircraft engine was the Gazelle: which was a scaling up of the 700bhp NOr.2 (the Oryx development) to 1,100bhp. In the process of fitting it to helicopter use the free turbine was redesigned and this engine could now be seen as a vertical turboshaft, yet its compressor and core are still those from the turboprop. To describe Napiers broadly as engine designers, "turboprop" is by far the more appropriate term. Andy Dingley (talk) 10:23, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

Looking at your talk page here with all the other posts of people upset at your demeanor, it's all too evident that you have serious personal issues. Does agitating wiki contributors by removing their educational contributions give you some sort of sick pleasure?

You senselessly removed my post on the Graphite page while offering only this explanation: "This is worse than it was when added"

If you can't make useful contributions and don't have a life of your own, then look for it elsewhere outside Wikipedia, and refrain from harassing others who are sane and helpful contributors. You apparently don't even know how to make a meaningful sentence based on your comment. Who put you in charge of editing? (The shaman poet (talk) 00:50, 11 July 2016 (UTC))

You added this section twice in 2014 [16] "repaired undo done by ignorance". It was promptly removed by Vsmith (an editor who is familiar with mineralogy) both times. You've now waited a while and just re-added it again. This is very slow, but it's still heading to edit-warring. The section added yesterday wasn't even as good as the original section, as it had lost the links. It was still unsourced. It still had the glaringly misleadingly opening "being composed mainly of the same element". This was just not an addition strong enough to stand. And did I mention that it was completely unsourced? See also your new unsourced article at [17].

As it happens, I agree with you. A section comparing diamond to graphite would be a good thing. I would like to see you re-add this section, as it was originally with the links, with sourcing (it is not hard to source this stuff), and with only a few edits to the text. As it has been removed repeatedly by separate editors though, you're going to have to discuss this through the article talk page first. As noted, I would support having this section, but it needs to be a better section.

As to your comments here, then how's that working out for you? You're reverted, and not for the first time, so you turn on the editor doing it. Way to go! And now you're going to be looking for support for this section over at the article? Would you expect me to still support its addition in that case? (of course I will, it would be an improvement to the article, see Talk:Graphite#Comparison w/ diamond). Why are you calling yourself a "shaman" when you are so attached to ego? Andy Dingley (talk) 08:40, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

In response

I've been away for a while, particularly cause Vsmith also agitated me as you did for not using his head, where ever it was stuck up in! Don't look over other people's shoulder when making decisions and learn to think independently.

As for providing sources, you apparently didn't get good quality education if you think sourcing is required for making comparisons. That's called analytical thinking. Make a note of it. The facts stated within the comparisons are in the Diamond and Graphite articles. Why are you so clueless?

Please do the right thing and replace my contribution. It is not meant for my ego. It was meant to intrigue the reader about the vast contrasts or natural irony created by the mineral's environment of formation, as was stated. (The shaman poet (talk) 02:39, 12 July 2016 (UTC))

There are a lot of problems with your approach here, at that article, and at

WP:SYNTH

are just the beginning of it. Your style of editing, where "[no] sourcing is required for making comparisons." is not how we have chosen to work here.

Also you are way into

WP:NPA territory. You've been blocked for that before, I expect to see you blocked for it again before long. I have a thick skin, others don't. Andy Dingley (talk

) 09:02, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

I'll leave you to your self pleasure. — Preceding unsigned comment added by The shaman poet (talk • contribs) 00:26, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

A very interesting observation by The shaman poet. I recognise parallels in my post here, [18]. Not good for Wikipedia. -DePiep (talk) 22:04, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

You might note that the shaman poet was indef blocked for those comments. You might do well to keep your trolling to yourself if you don't want to go the same way. Andy Dingley (talk) 22:15, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

OOOOh, I get scared. The observation was soooo bad. No recognition at all. How could it come to my mind. By reading it? -DePiep (talk)

All fun aside: they was not blocked for what they wrote here, you did not respond consistently to my talk above, and the analysis were to the point. So far, so clear (and another case showing that you do not actually respond). But. The more serious point you state is your accusation that I "keep your trolling to yourself if you don't want to go the same way". That is a threat, bad faith, and a PA. I suggest strongly you withdraw that. -DePiep (talk) 22:46, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

re your reversal [19] and similar ones. In the es you refer to "per our policy for lead articles in eponymous categories". However, this categorisation is not putting the eponymous article in the eponymous category. (The eponymous category is

This is an old, old issue. For eponymous categories with a clear lead article, the primary categorization belongs on the article not the category. This gives readers a navigational structure at Category:Miniature railways by size where the list of pages offers useful navigation.

The eponymous category should be categorized too, but only in those which has a primary role for it. Andy Dingley (talk) 09:21, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

What is "primary categorization"? What is "Categorization ... on"? -DePiep (talk) 13:51, 19 June 2016 (UTC)

Please. -DePiep (talk) 19:15, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

For lead articles in eponymous categories, categorization should be applied to the article, not the category. Apply all the categories which make sense, per our normal practices.

For the eponymous category itself, apply those categories where it would be an omission to not include them. These categories will almost always also be applied to the article.

In many cases, there is no need to apply all of the article categories to the category. Only if there is a useful navigational structure by this, or if the category would be an obvious omission, are they needed. Usually this means that one or two of the most important categories for the article are used.

DO NOT simply place the lead article in the eponymous category, strip all other categories and then categorise the category alone. This confuses readers: they look for an article in categories where they expect to find it, then when it is not there they do not realise they need to look for categories too. Andy Dingley (talk) 19:51, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

You are patronising (and not answering my Q: What is "primary categorization"? What is "Categorization ... on"?).

My actual point is: OK for article to be in the eponymous cat. But. As

WP:EPONYMOUS says: "There are three options: ...". That is my question about: you do not respond to the actual options. -DePiep (talk

) 22:58, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

Don't you think so? -DePiep (talk) 23:52, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

Do you have any problems with anything I have done at Semi-trailer truck other than numbers? Sammy D III (talk) 17:30, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

Hello, Andy Dingley. You have new messages at Talk:Ruler.
Message added 19:30, 3 August 2016 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Laber□^T 19:30, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

Hi, I see you are a top contributor in "List of Arduino boards and compatible systems" How about including List of Arduino boards in Wikidata?

This would let to structure all this information because we should be able to use propierties like these https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Wikidata:WikiProject_Objects.

Maybe would be good to add a new column in tables with the links to wikidata items like this https://tools.wmflabs.org/reasonator/?q=Q25814150 or create list directly from wikidata

I start creating some list examples:

• Example : List of arduino official boards Here, using Wikidata Query Service is possible to query "items manufactured by Arduino LCC company" equivalent to said "offical arduino boards"
• Example : List of arduino compatible boards Using Reasonator you can see all items that are instance of "Arduino Compatible board" item (source: Arduino-compatible_boards).
• Example : List of arduino compatible shields Same as above but this time value for "instance of" is "Arduino Compatible Shield"(source: http://shieldlist.org/).

If you like, you can get more info in the WikiObject project proposal https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/WikiObject.

Qupro (talk) 13:17, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

)

sincerely

LookingGlass (talk) 15:45, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

If you disrupt this SPI again, you risk being blocked.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:00, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#SPI - Triumph of bureaucracy over effectiveness? Andy Dingley (talk) 18:32, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

Hi Andy, would you mind reviewing RiskAoA as a candidate for keeping/deletion? Thanks. 74.96.151.44 (talk) 03:00, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

Andy, I'd be happy to tell you everything I can about RiskAoA, unfortunately it can't be much over the wikisite. [email protected]. GESICC (talk) 22:45, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

why did you do thisVarunFEB2003 ^{I am Offline} 13:52, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

Because the long-established hatnote belongs there, as an aid to editors seeking how to embed HTML within WP wikitext. Why did you remove it? Andy Dingley (talk) 14:57, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

See the edit summary and I find my point still valid! It's an article not a base for guiding users, articles should not even contain a hint about Wikipedia's working! VarunFEB2003 ^{I am Offline} 11:22, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

Of course it should contain a hint - or in this case, a hatnote. The problem is that people searching tend to end up searching mainspace, as that's how MediaWiki works. If they want to embed HTML within wikitext, then they're going to end up first of all at HTML. They actually need to be at Help:HTML in wikitext. So a hatnote gives them an obvious navigation route. Hatnotes are brief and clearly formatted to be outside the main article content space, so they're hardly confusing. Andy Dingley (talk) 11:36, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

@

Tea house for other examples. There are many others. --NeilN ^{talk to me}

11:39, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

Ok I get it. Thanks all! VarunFEB2003 ^{I am Offline} 11:40, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

I was wondering if there is any way that you and I could become civil in this life time and work together? Perhaps discuss my Contributions. I'm sure many times you will be able to prove against my claims and that would teach me. I don't understand why there has to be so much animosity. Everything I add is researched and sourced. If I or my source is mistaken at times, I appreciate the advice. Is there a chance of this or am I going for a long shot? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.114.54.122 (talk) 11:49, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

Thankyou for starting this discussion. I would suggest that you read the comments at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Filipz123 again. They have already said pretty much everything that needs to be said. The SPI page might also be a better place to post this sort of discussion.

There are three problems:

1. Your past editing has ranged from the unsourced to the inaccurate and the biased. This is why you were first seen as a problem editor.
2. You are banned. As of now, you simply cannot edit here. Even if you're right, even if you're adding a good edit, you are no longer permitted to do it. Yes, WP "suffers" from this dreadful loss. But WP chooses to accept that, as it's seen as less of a problem than your edits otherwise.
3. You are disruptive and still disruptive. You are continually socking to restore the same edits. You did one from this same IP just minutes before posting this discussion! You are a bad faith editor in almost every way: even when asking to have permissions restored you seemingly can't stop yourself from doing the same things that got you into trouble initially.

If you fix this, I think they need to be fixed in the opposite order to above. First of all, stop making it worse. Until you do this much, there is absolutely no way that the restrictions might be lifted. Then see about becoming unbanned. Then (and only then) you might get to make some edits.

Note the "reverse order" part. Do not try to argue that "You will make useful edits, thus this justifies socking". We are absolutely not interested in that.

I have some sympathy for your position. Despite your past abuse, I am not an anti-Croatian racist. I welcome editors wanting to expand coverage of these fields. However we are not so short of editors that an editor who behaves as badly as you continue to do so is going to be tolerated.

I wish you luck with this - but I have little hope, I'm afraid, as you seem incapable of stopping. Andy Dingley (talk) 12:11, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

Special:Contributions/24.114.54.113, yes you seem incapable of stopping, even for a day. Andy Dingley (talk) 13:02, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

I'm not sure why you refuse to acknowledge Brayton's contributions to the development of the diesel engine? These are documented contributions... Imotorhead64 (talk · contribs) 18:02, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

This belongs at Talk:Diesel engine, where you might notice my comments on this subject from some months ago. For clarity to everyone involved, please take it there instead. Andy Dingley (talk) 18:03, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

Hi Andy, I'm not trying to get into an edit war here... I merely wanted to add some missing information regarding Brayton and his contribution's The history is very clear.. If you require some cited references please let me know... Thanks John

Brayton's contributions to the Diesel engine

In 1890 Brayton patented a 4 stroke engine with an air blast fuel injection system that would contribute greatly to the development of the first Diesel engine. Diesel's first engines used an air blast atomization system that was very similar to Brayton's . Unlike Diesel's engine Brayton's engine was fairly low compression. The ignition source was a constantly glowing mesh of platinum. Later Diesel engines used a system of high pressure fuel injection nearly identical to Brayton's 1887 engine where the fuel was admitted into the combustion area as it passed through a spring loaded relief nozzle, This caused the fuel to become much more combustable. Here is the discovery in Brayton's own words " “I have discovered that heavy oils can be mechanically converted into a finely-divided condition within a firing portion of the cylinder, or in a communicating firing chamber.” Another part reads “I have for the first time, so far as my knowledge extends, regulated speed by variably controlling the direct discharge of liquid fuel into the combustion chamber or cylinder into a finely-divided condition highly favorable to immediate combustion.”

Hello. Dear Andy leather is not only Important in Kermanshah province. it's a souvenir. --Hosseiniran (talk) 10:15, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

that when you message an admin about the actions of an admin, or those of an established editor, you never get a reply. When I was blocked due to the blocking admin miscounting the amount of reverts that I made, it took a report on ANI to get some acknowledgement of my existence.

Wikipedia used to be a good place. Spacecowboy420 (talk) 13:59, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

I was blocked for reverting an obvious technical error 3 times. Never got even an explanation for that. Andy Dingley (talk) 14:17, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

I suggest you read it. Your tagging on John's talk page was unnessersary. Cassianto^Talk 20:54, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

But you think John's edit-warring, abuse of other editors, lying about other editors, his attack on me, and his general utter disregard for any other editors who disagree with him is OK... Andy Dingley (talk) 20:58, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

So in your world, two wrongs make a right? Cassianto^Talk 06:46, 25 August 2016 (UTC).

I warned John for attacking other editors. He is also at AN/EW for his edit-warring. I raised another issue at RS/N, didn't even mention him by name, and he attacked me for it.

But he's an admin, and he has friends like you, so of course you defend him regardless. The action at AN/EW was to protect the article - which doesn't affect John, as he's an admin and had already edited the article through its protection. Andy Dingley (talk) 09:08, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

I do not defend someone because they are an administrator. You are more than welcome to check my block log where you will see various incidents where I have been on the receiving end of policy-pissed admins. John is not one of them and is one of only a few admins who I trust around here. Cassianto^Talk 10:52, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

Cassianto, I assume if you are handing out warnings for templating regulars, then you also put a similar message on John's page for the following...

[[20]]

[[21]]

[[22]]

Spacecowboy420 (talk) 10:23, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

The diffs you've linked to were made in an editorial position. The tag AD used was designed simply to piss John off. There's a stark difference. Cassianto^Talk 10:28, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

Firstly, congratulations on having the ability to read minds. It's truly impressive that you are able to know the motivation behind other editors using templates.

Secondly, I didn't really see which part of

WP:DTTR differentiated between regulars being templated for "editorial positions" and John being templated just to piss him off. I must have missed that part in my rush to finish my coffee or something... could you point it out to me, please? Spacecowboy420 (talk

) 10:39, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

Firstly, please extend your congratulations to AD for being able to read my mind by saying this: "But you think John's edit-warring, abuse of other editors, lying about other editors, his attack on me, and his general utter disregard for any other editors who disagree with him is OK." You don't have to be Theodore Annemann to work out the motives behind AD's tag. It's a well-used tactic in disputes to prod someone into incivility.

Secondly, common fucking sense would tell you not to tag another user - especially an admin and someone who has been around for donkey's years - as that just escalates problems. The tags John used were to warn someone about their incivility (a requirement before they are blocked) another to advice about the requirement to use reliable sources, and another to use sources to correctly verify the information being added. It is not usual to check the wikiservice of an editor before posting these tags; but AD and John, I am sure, are known to each other both here and in past interactions. Which leads me to believe that the tag was used to prod rather than to warn. Cassianto^Talk 11:04, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

• Common sense should tell an editor, especially an experienced editor or admin, not to make the sort of snide carping, or the veiled threats of blocks, that are John's stoock in trade. I templated him in the hope that the standard and officially sanctioned warning would be seen as a bit more neutral than some prose of my own, but of course he didn't take it that way. I've no interest in "prodding him into incivility", he does it pretty well on his own. Of course I can't know your intentions on ignoring John's behaviour, but I can observe that you do ignore it. Andy Dingley (talk) 12:17, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

• While opting to use a neutrally worded tag rather than a potentially uncivil line is highly magnanimous, I, for one, don't buy into it. I suspect a more sinister motive and think this was nothing more than a double-edged sword. I think you were well-aware of what you were doing. Cassianto^Talk 12:36, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Cassianto, The same "common .. sense" would tell you that tagging someone else, three times in a short period of time, is just as provocative as tagging an admin. BTW, civility rules apply to edit summaries, judging from your block list, you're more than aware of civility rules, I guess I don't have to template you...this time. Spacecowboy420 (talk) 12:23, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

Your above post is incoherent as it reflects upon nothing which I have said above. I would suggest that you go away, wipe the shit out of your eyes, and come back to re-read my comments again. You will then see that what I have said is that AD's use of a civility tag was used outside of the DTTR guideline. He even intimated to me that he was well-aware of this in his first response to my first comment. Again, and I don't want to labour the point, but he and John are well aware of each other. It is unknown if John and the editor to whom all this concerns, are actually known to each other. We have to AGF that they aren't.

I should remind you that owing to your last post initimating your future use of a tag on my page, and bearing in mind this discussion about that very subject, I will call you out for being a troll and revert you on sight. I will also consider reporting you for harassment. But go ahead and see where it gets you. Cassianto^Talk 12:54, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

But, to make the same point again, that sort of "I will be watching you" rhetoric is absolutely typical of John's behaviour (repeated in recent days) and he threatens blocks to go with it. Yet you choose to make no comment on it, when John does it. Any reason why? Andy Dingley (talk) 12:59, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

There is no smoke without fire. Cassianto^Talk 14:46, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

What does that even mean? You ignore John's bad behaviour because you are friends, or at least share a clique. There is a problem rife on WP of ssuch behaviour, making excuses for the worst excesses of a handful of "tenured" editors, some but not all of whom are admins.

Our standards are supposed to be objective, they are anything but. Enforcement of such standards is done by admins. And so enforcement on those admins themselves is, unsurprisingly, almost absent. If you want to post trite cliches, a better one would be, Quis custodiet... Andy Dingley (talk) 15:11, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

Cassianto I said that I don't need to template you. There is no need to get defensive over a non-existent possible future template. The idea of you calling someone a troll is funny. You jumped into something that didn't concern you, and started moaning about DTTR on a user's talk page. Who's the troll? Spacecowboy420 (talk) 13:23, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

John didn't need templating either, yet AD continued to do it. No word on that, Spacecowboy420? I didn't call you a troll - dear god, do keep up - I said you would be if you templated me knowing we've had this discussion. Again, only reading what you want to read! Cassianto^Talk 14:46, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

"continued to do it" ? Your freedom with accuracy in reporting other's actions is as far from the truth as John's. I posted one template to John. Andy Dingley (talk) 15:07, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

"continued to do it" refers to you presumably knowing what you were about to do and then continuing to do it. I was not sequentially speaking. Cassianto^Talk 15:13, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

Sorry, no offense meant. Some people might like to know the actual name of the school that they are referencing. Maybe not quite the way some people at a fine northern California school feel about people calling it Berzerkeley, but Caltech people like to see the name the right way. But maybe you were talking about some other school that I don't know about. Gah4 (talk) 17:20, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

It's not about that, it's about the fact that many editors get annoyed (really annoyed) if their comments are refactored. Especially if it's a significant change, but almost as much if it's a minor typo correction. Some people will see this as needlessly finding fault with them, and get angry on that basis. As a result, we just don't do this. We really don't do this. Even if it's a formatting error which breaks the page and makes it unusable, be really careful about this sort of thing. Andy Dingley (talk) 17:26, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

Again, sorry. Is there a way to nicely hint to someone, yet without making it look like an insult? Seems to me somewhere between a minor typo (Clatech) and a major change (maybe Berkeley instead). Gah4 (talk) 17:50, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

In article space I'd simply change it. Especially if linked, this is enough to show which we're using. In Talk: space though, I'd really just ignore it. Only change stuff in Talk: if there is some real concrete benefit to doing so and you're happy to back this up if an argument kicks off.

Often "which we're using consistently" isn't objectively clear if there isn't some obvious reason why one is correct rather than the other. But there can still be some virtue to consistency, WP-wide. Watch out for

WP:ENGVAR though, and don't change subtle grammar (hyphens!) unless you're a linguistic expert. Andy Dingley (talk

) 18:06, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

"Didn't you notice my question? Your answer is very important for me, but for you - a native English speaker - should be very easy. Perhaps you ignore me, but why?
Regards. 85.193.252.33 (talk) 21:28, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

Sorry, I'm very busy at present. I have no time for Wikipedia (even on Saturday night on a bank holiday) and if I am on here, it's just as a displacement activity from what I ought to be doing. I'll give you a better answer presently. Andy Dingley (talk) 21:33, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

My wording "is being poured" emphasizes a continuous aspect of the process. After all a liquid material is being poured gradually. On the other hand such an emphasis may sound a bit artificial. So I am willing to agree with you. But what was wrong with grammar? 85.193.252.33 (talk) 01:20, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

The tenses are mixed, horribly so, but mostly this change moved even further from "simple English" and was no improvement. Andy Dingley (talk) 01:22, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

Would you mind explaining your statement?

The tenses are mixed, horribly so, but mostly this change [was (?)] moved even further from "simple English" and was no improvement.

What's the role of the words: "so", and "even further" in your statement? I'm not an English native speaker, but I know perfectly well both terms. With all due respect to your native knowledge of English your syntax not only looks weird to me, but I can't understand it. Did you use slang? I do well with informal English, unless I see something very rare.

You could have written:

"The tenses are horribly mixed" or "The tenses are mixed horribly" or "The tenses are mixed, horribly" to even more emphasize the word "horribly".

"but mostly this change was moved from "simple English", and was no improvement."

PS. I did not see this article in Simple English Wiki, but even so I wouldn't carelessly copy anything. Besides, the definition in SE Wiki was completely different. 85.193.252.33 (talk) 18:00, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

Sorry, this is my writing style, and my stream of consciousness writing style (I rarely edit afterwards, and almost never when just posting talk: comments). I do have a tendency to write very long and run-on sentences.

This sentence is two sentences lacking punctuation to split them. Consider them as two.

"The tenses are mixed, horribly so, " is a compound statement. Parse it as "The tenses are mixed. The degree of their mixture is so much as to be horrifying." Try reading the original in a Stephen Fry voice (probably as if Stephen Fry was reading Waugh or Wodehouse). It's quite an affected way of phrasing it, which is another habit. A Wodehouse character, of such an inclination, would indeed be horrified to encounter such a mixture of tenses.

Copy-editing is a good thing and articles should not be needlessly convoluted, in grammar terms. That said, this is not Simple Wikipedia. Nor can Simple Wikipedia decide whether it's about simple English, beginner's English, or simple concepts in English. It is not necessary for this Wikipedia to make articles meet any such standards. That said, improvements are welcome. This wasn't an improvement. Whatever variant of tense this hypothetical future-past "is being poured" was meant to be, introducing a complex tense doesn't make it simpler to understand, it makes it harder. Andy Dingley (talk) 21:56, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

Wow - I didn't expect such a comprehensive answer. I'm really impressed. I try to understand your (sometimes a bit chaotic) writing style, which - as you noticed - reflects your stream of consciousness. It happens to be exactly what I myself have been developing. And it's a big challenge and great intellectual adventure to me. I even feel as if I was born again in a second language. No joke, it really feels like this. So I'm very grateful for your answer and attention. As to Simple Wikipedia: Plain English does not mean Basic English - used in Simple Wikipedia, in no case.

P.S. Of course I wouldn't be myself if I didn't notice something strange in you writing. So please excuse my boldness, but what do you mean by "articles heed", "article's lead"? I bet the latter ;-) 85.193.252.33 (talk) 02:34, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

"heed" was just a typo. I also have a faulty keyboard which sometimes decides to pretend to be a mouse. If I don't notice immediately, I type into the wrong place. Andy Dingley (talk) 09:13, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

I was almost sure that it was a typo. 85.193.252.33 (talk) 17:32, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

I'm very, very sorry for adding an s to "verandas". TheGGoose (talk) 13:57, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

No problem. It's quite hard to read that sentence anyway and to see which way it ought to be. Andy Dingley (talk) 18:42, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

Yes, you're right and you're right again. I did follow through up to the Maybach Zeppelin. Its just I preferred the simple English. It always interests me the the clear visual links between the very big German cars and the English Daimlers, sometimes its almost down to small differences in the grille. Thanks, Eddaido (talk) 11:32, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

If you know a better English word for it, then use that - but this seems to be a "schadenfreude" or "zeitgeist", where there just wasn't an English word for the concept ("flagship" is the closest), but as soon as you see one, you realise that it's a recognised concept.

I first saw it in Ludvigsen's V12 book, which is something you'd probably enjoy getting copy of yourself. Andy Dingley (talk) 11:40, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

I added references to Paint robot that are published by corporations in the industry, but seem better than nothing for now. There were pre-existing links that seem like pure spam, as I mention on the article talk page. Could you look at the article and see if the references I added are worth while and what I consider spam should really be removed? - Fartherred (talk) 21:54, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

The four refs I can see look fine as refs. Their citations could be better, as they're so far just used to support a statement, "There are robots used for painting". There is content in there which could be used to improve the article considerably. Although commercial, they're from large well-established leaders in their field who don't need us for promotion. The Kawasaki ref is the weakest, as it is little more than a catalogue and isn't yet cited as anything more than an EL. If (and some editors would say only if) it was used as a ref to indicate the range of sizes produced, it would be justified.

http://www.roboticautomation.ca/ is a dead link, and another randomly dumped EL. The ABB one wants better formatting.

I can't see ELs that you removed? Andy Dingley (talk) 22:02, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

I did not remove any external links yet. I wanted to see what someone else thought about it. I guess I will take out Kawasaki Paint Robots and Industrial Paint Robots in Canada. I do not know much about formatting. Thanks for your help. - Fartherred (talk) 22:19, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

The links that I removed might have been better when they were added. Web pages that are linked to sometimes are changed without notifying Wikipedia. - Fartherred (talk) 22:39, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

See TALK page for article. 66.103.35.72 (talk) 13:03, 5 September 2016 (UTC) Update - Andy, look at my talk page, please. 66.103.35.72 (talk) 15:30, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Spindle turning, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Stool. 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) 09:34, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

Hi, You reverted Parallel twins usually have only two main bearings, and a crankshaft flywheel is usually mounted between the two crank throws. I rather thought that this was indeed the case for both traditional British 360° twins and the post-1965 Japanese 180° engines. Is this not so? Arrivisto (talk) 09:04, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

You know how WP works: show some reliable sourcing for this. It would have to support all of your claims here: that motorcycle engines use flywheels, that parallel twins do, that these flywheels are mounted between the cranks and that this is more common (i.e. "usually") than not. I see no reason to believe any one of these claims.

If you're specifically referring to 360º parallel twins (i.e. older British designs) then balance weights might be more use than flywheels - and some designs have added balance weights, such as rotating countershafts or BMW's reciprocating lever. But flywheels? Andy Dingley (talk) 09:22, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

Yes, flywheels. Kevin Cameron has written on the subject at length. Without flywheels a two-cylinder four-stroke would not even run.

And ALL designs have balance weights, not just some. I wouldn't dare make a claim about "most parallel twins only have two main bearings" because you'd better be able to back that up, but it is a common configuration with the Brit twins, at least.

Try to find a copy of Motorcycle Engineering, Phil Irving, that will clear up a lot of these subjects for you. 210.22.142.82 (talk) 13:37, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

Hi, did you notice that my edit, that you reverted, was itself a reversion of the addition of unsourced information earlier today? I've looked back through the page history, and far from being "incessant", the sentence concerned was first added on 23 January 2011 and stood completely unaltered (not even the vandals touched it) until today. --Redrose64 (talk) 20:23, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

This tale of the Rocket replica being incompetently made with a weak axle has circulated the anorak press for 35 years and there is no truth to it. The addition that you removed was a far more accurate version of it - although responsibility for the track at Bold not being in a condition to cope with the sudden influx of heavy locos will probably never be cleared up.

If you want to take a WP-hardline view that an unsourced addition needs to be removed then fine, that's WP policy. However you should not then restore an equally unsourced, untrue and defamatory story in its place. Why quote BLP when restoring it?

Overall, I'd question why this trivial detail (as noted, hard work overnight and the fact the axle wasn't damaged meant that it didn't have any effect on the cavalcade) is even in the article on the 1829 trials? When I saw this I thought at first it was an article on the 1980 event. Andy Dingley (talk) 21:26, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

Here's Rocket, running during the cavalcade. youtu.be/SsPWcFPM9Ac?t=3275

Here's the loco that did travel on a low loader, Novelty. youtu.be/SsPWcFPM9Ac?t=184

@Rbsb: Andy Dingley (talk) 21:40, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

I mentioned

WP:BLP because the version as edited by Rbsb names one person (Mike Sato) directly, as well as a named company (Sutton & Son St Helens Ltd) - we don't know if any of these people are alive or dead, so we must assume that they are alive; whereas the previous version did not name anybody, living or dead. --Redrose64 (talk

) 23:00, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

It's hardly an improvement per BLP to remove one set of accurate content mentioning him by name when it's replaced by something highly defamatory. Even if he's not mentioned, it's obvious who is intended, as the builder of the replica. Andy Dingley (talk) 16:10, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

So let's remove the whole thing, leaving only the sentence "A replica of Novelty was built for the event, which was also attended by replicas of Sans Pareil and Rocket (plus coach)." After all, the paragraph content after that point is both unsourced and disputed, so per

WP:V it "must include an inline citation that directly supports the material" - and failing that, may be removed. --Redrose64 (talk

) 22:12, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

I'd support deleting most of this article as irrelevant. Now it also seems to be collecting even more fabricated cruft. Andy Dingley (talk) 23:53, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

I removed the direct names and marked the rest as needing a source. --Redrose64 (talk) 07:42, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

I am now convinced that none of the socking I've seen is your responsibility, and I'm sorry about our past misunderstandings. I'm sure you have always acted in good faith, and I share your frustration that some characters appear to be given free rein to damage the project as much as they like. I hope some brownie will help relieve the smell of socks. Burninthruthesky (talk) 06:34, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

Thankyou for that, but do you see the corrosive effects that your continuing sock allegations are having? - even though you've now dropped me off your suspects list Andy Dingley (talk) 09:47, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

I do see some continuing noise. I do not intend to make any further reports unless new evidence emerges and I hope that won't be necessary. Burninthruthesky (talk) 10:24, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for your comment. If you don't mind, we can continue the discussion on my talkpage. --BjKa (talk) 13:02, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

I'll be away for a few days, so I can't continue the discussion right away, but I want to say thanks for engaging in a constructive dispute instead of just reverting. I find that kind of behaviour much too rarely. (see the latest version of the article and my talkpage) --BjKa (talk) 14:35, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

I'm back. Have you seen my proposal of 2016-09-09 ? --BjKa (talk) 08:34, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

Hi. You just reverted my edit in the HOTAS article. I noticed it was lacking images, and this one was the best that I could find. There's actually a lack of good photos of flight control sticks on Commons, and the few that are there don't illustrate the HOTAS concept very well. This schematic drawing of the F-16 control stick (with the F-16 being the only model mentioned twice in the text) does. You said "Wrong controller". I double-checked if the image actually shows the F-16's side conttol stick, and it does. So I don't understand the revert comment. Would you mind explaining it? Thank you. --YMS (talk) 22:50, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

This is an article on HOTAS - where the pilot places their left hand onto the throttle grip and keeps it there. This is a novel change: a new technique, and new designs for throttle grips, with additional controls on them.

This image is of an F-16's main joystick, not the throttle. Pilots have had joysticks in aircraft, and have used them with a similar grip, since the Wright brothers.

The article needs an image of a modern throttle grip, not a joystick. Andy Dingley (talk) 09:10, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Hi Andy. But the AS bit of HOTAS is "And Stick"? Ideally the article should show images of both a throttle and a stick. But these can't really illustrate the concept without some indication of control function. At least that diagram partly shows that? Or are you saying it's misleading just to have one without the other? Martinevans123 (talk) 09:15, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

The "And" though indicates the addition. The HOTAS article shouldn't be about "How to hold a plane to fly it", it should be about "How HOTAS is different from practice beforehand". That change is all about the left hand, not the right. Andy Dingley (talk) 09:17, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

I would hope that Commons:Category:Thrust levers (aircraft cockpits) might help, but it's unsorted and hard to find. I might have to take a camera into the workshop instead. Andy Dingley (talk) 09:18, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

Ah, yes ok, I see what you're saying. Although for most aircraft autopilot means the stick doesn't have to held to fly the aircraft. I'd say the HOTAS "concept" is to maximise hands on either control, not just on the throttle. I do hope you'll be able to

land your workshop successfully, especially while holding a camera. Martinevans123 (talk

) 09:29, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

There's just the same drawing for the F-16's throttle grip on Commons: File:F-16 Throttle.jpg. I did not add it originally as I thought the side stick would illustrate the concept better, as it offers much more control. If you say that the key in this concept is the throttle, would it help to add both images? --YMS (talk) 10:23, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

Yes. I'd suggest that any article called "HOTAS" should show a real throttle and a stick, ideally in a real cockpit, with them in situ, and with separate schematics, like yours, to show control allocation. The control functions themselves might well require some explanation, of course. Martinevans123 (talk) 10:32, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

I am not interested in your attitude [23]. And, the article is written like a tech manual - it is a really badly written article, just awful. I'll be giving the ALL the references a closer look now. In any case, please knock off the attitude. You're not better than everyone else. Steve Quinn (talk) 20:05, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

Then don't put ridiculous "notability" tags on articles with >10k page views a month.

This is not a good article. There are things wrong with it. But notability is not one of them, and this much is obvious. Andy Dingley (talk) 20:14, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

OK, you have a point there. Steve Quinn (talk) 21:08, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

I added a section at the top of the page, just after the introduction. I didn't change anything except for creating a new section. I would like you to check it out. If you don't like it, then I have no problem with you or anyone else changing it back. I think it is an improvement, but maybe it is not. Steve Quinn (talk)

• So what's wrong with this article? Is the topic wrong? Does the scope of the article match what it ought to? Does the content of the article meet that scope? Are things missing? Wrong? Poorly written?

This belongs at the article talk page, not here, but notifying @Tu,r6u.r68.r68: too. Andy Dingley (talk) 21:50, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

Hi Andy,

I've updated the talk page on AVRE with information and quotes from the references I added. I think you probably missed them and just saw the forum one, which I can understand you not liking. Can you take a look, and if you're happy reinstate the changes that I'd made (or at least give me a heads up) - there's no point in an undo-war. I'm looking at original documents from the source of the term, and I also have the one from the same time with the typo that caused the confusion over the term. Happy to share info.

Thanks, Lauren Lkchild (talk) 22:10, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

can u look at talk page there ? I found schematics for 10TP tank and told it was no Christie.... But with your clarification I am not so sure. Maybe they used unlicensed Christie afterall.... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.111.232.2 (talk) 20:37, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

I know little of Polish tanks, but as I understand it, they were one of the first adopters of the Christie design, around 1930, and they negotiated to buy a licence from Christie. Then something happened and the deal fell through. But Poland continued with the Christie design and produced one or more tank designs using it; using Christie's name for these tanks but without Christie's involvement. They even used the feature of wheel drive with the tracks removed. The Polish design also had a couple of improvements: the upper spring mount was placed on a swinging trunnion (this avoids sideways bending forces on a shock absorber placed within the spring) and they also lifted one of the centre wheels, when running in wheels mode (this made it more easily steerable).

I don't know the 10TP - but why wouldn't it be Christie? Andy Dingley (talk) 21:51, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

You know nothing about bridges and thus should not be reverting me. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.199.236.1 (talk) 12:44, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

1. This is Wikipedia.
   WP:RELIABLE SOURCES
   are necessary
2. As repeatedly invited, please discuss your changes. Maybe you're right, but you have to convince other editors first.
3. Don't
   WP:EDIT WAR
   . Otherwise you'll simply be blocked.

Andy Dingley (talk) 12:49, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

you're edit warring too by reverting me constantly. 50.199.236.1 (talk) 13:18, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

Then post this to

WP:BURDEN. Andy Dingley (talk

) 13:27, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

Your recent editing history at Drawbridge shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.

Stop reverting my good-faith edits to the page. I am an expert on bridges and you clearly are not. Please stop. 50.199.236.1 (talk) 14:19, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

Hi Andy, any idea how I get the citations in the Ex Links section to go up the page to References - I guess there must be a formatting trick somewhere? Many thanks 80.229.34.113 (talk) 11:13, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

How long have you got? This stuff isn't too hard in simple cases, but there's a huge depth to it if you dig further.

WP:REF

covers the basics. Let me do some typing...

• One way to do it (the basics) is to put "citations" inline in the text, then to use a {{reflist}} template in the References section. This does the listing and linking automatically (if you've ever had to write papers without this, you'll love easily how MediaWiki does it!).

A 'citation' is a pointer in the body text to a 'reference' which is some pre-existing external thing (although, as always, the names get mixed around in practice). Each citation looks like this: A claim in the text.<ref >Some stuff about an external source.</ref>

• Citations often point to specific page numbers in a reference book. Different citations use different pages, so keep them separate.
• You might use the same reference (to the page) in more than one citation (i.e. the same page too). This can be done like this:

Another claim in the text.<ref name="Bloggs, 23" >Bloggs, J. ''Witterings'', p.23</ref>

More claims.<ref name="Bloggs, 23" />

• I wouldn't do it this way for a long article, or with many references. It's easier to manage lots of refs if you use the multi-citation name= attribute (above) and use this to move all the refs themselves to one long list at the bottom, inside the {{reflist}}.

{{reflist |refs=

}}

Watch the closing slash in the <ref> tags! Citations will use an empty tag (with a slash at the end), <ref ... />

• Citations can be formatted with templates, like {{cite book}}. These are their own source of fun too.
• Commonly citations share the same book, but different pages. There are templates to deal with this too.

• Put the full {{cite book}} into the reference definition.
• Add |ref=harv into the {{cite book}}. This gives the reference an "internal" name which the citations can then use. |ref=harv is shorthand for |ref={{harvid|<Author surname>|<year of publication>}}

e.g. |ref={{harvid|Arkwright|1989}}

You need to use |last=Arkwright |first=J. not |author=Arkwright ,J.

If 'harv' doesn't work (e.g. no obvious author surname, or the year is better as an original publication, not the cheap modern edition, use {{

harvid

}} and control the params yourself, e.g. |ref={{harvid|Machinery's Handbook|1942}}.

• Now you can make citations that use this internal name. Speediest is {{sfnp|Arkwright|1989| page= 42 }}

{{sfnp}} is one of a bunch. {{sfnp}} takes the last unnamed parameter, assumes its a year and wraps it in brackets. Arkwright (1989), p. 42 harvp error: no target: CITEREFArkwright1989 (help)

{{sfn}} doesn't do the year thing, so it's good for bare titles, {{sfn|The Epic of Gilgamesh}}.

{{

harv

}} because "harv" was already in use.

• If you have an article with many citations to a few major books as references, then consider pulling these out into a Bibliography section. Use the {{Cite book}} template and the |ref=harv business.
• If you want to use "footnotes" (editorial commentary rather than referencing) as well as references, then use {{efn-lr}} and {{notelist-lr}}. These are simpler than old ways involving <ref> tags. You can also embed citations inside an {{efn-lr}}, so that you can source your comments.

Look at how other articles are doing things too. Better articles, that is!

Look at my recent changes to some of the cites on that article.

Ask if you want to know anything specific, otherwise this should get you started. Andy Dingley (talk) 12:09, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

I tried 2 experiments:

1. Defining a new ref name (<ref name='Great 293'>) in the body of the article and using it in the External links section - this failed.

2. Pasting the External links section above the References section - this succeeded resulting in 52 numbered citations.

It would seem therefore that citations inserted below the defined References section are not automatically sent back up the page and citations above the defined References section are sent down the page by default.

I can only guess there most be some code that switches the default of sending an instance down to up? Regards81.149.141.199 (talk) 18:10, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

The reflist must be after the places where the references are used, this is a system limitation. The "External links" section should be after the "References" section, see

MOS:ORDER. Individual external links are not given references of their own; their inclusion should be self-evident - if you feel that you need to justify inclusion, it may be a sign that the reason for inclusion is weak. Perhaps your explanatory notes could form part of the article text, where references are welcome. --Redrose64 (talk

) 19:13, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

{{Reflist}} doesn't necessarily list references, it actually lists citations, the points where those references are used in the body text. So it's not a limitation that the list has to appear afterwards/

If you use the split form of citations and references, with internal CITEREF names to link them, then the citation list can include the citations, but those citations link downwards to where the EL is.

In general though, we don't like ELs. (see

WP:EL - we're supposed to be a self-contained encyclopedia, not a directory) - they're just a compromise when we can't do anything better. If you're using the EL, then it might be better to simply treat them as normal refs. Andy Dingley (talk

) 19:19, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

Thanks to you both, I am working my way down the page by degrees.81.149.141.199 (talk) 10:03, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

You have created three categories Category:Rocket engines using hydrogen peroxide propellant, Category:Rocket engines using hot cycle hydrogen peroxide propellant and Category:Rocket engines using cold cycle hydrogen peroxide propellant. They have some issues that I would like to discuss with you.

First, and this is something I should rise on a more general forum, they categories under "by propellant" are wrong. A bi-propellant, has a fuel and an oxidizer. So in general, hydrogen, methane and kerosene categories are wrong. But at least they are consistent in that they are named by fuel, not oxidizer. Hydrogen Peroxide is the oxidizer, not the fuel. If so we should also add categories for oxygen and nitric acid. Which I don't think that it would be productive.

Then, there's the issue that you mixed "hot cycle" and "cold cycle" as sub categories. Again, two issues. First, that you are mixing cycle with propellant. And second that you haven't defined what is a hot cycle nor a cold cycle. There's not article and no literature. May be you meant by "hot cycle" the steam generator cycle, where H₂O₂ is decomposed by a catalyst? If so, I've meant to write about steam generators in general, but I was still trying to see if I should fit them within the gas-generator for the open cycles (like the RD-107) and within the staged generator for the closed cycles (like the Bristol Siddeley Gamma).

So, if you could explain me the rationale of your categories, I think we could do something to arrange them in a more logical way. – Baldusi (talk) 00:17, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

Do you have a point? Or are you just asserting ownership of the rocket engine sub-categories? Categories for LOX and nitric acid oxidisers would be an excellent idea too. Anyone adequately familiar with the technical field will know the difference between hot and cold cycle HTP engines. Nor are all cold cycle HTP engines using HTP as a monopropellant - many used a consumed liquid catalyst too, and these are considered as bipropellants, even though neither is fuel or oxidiser. Andy Dingley (talk) 01:38, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

First, yes, I could claim moral rights for categories I have created and all my edits, and you could perfectly well overwrite with new edits (those edits are yours obviously) and then we could very well get into an edit war. A more productive option, and frankly, what I would prefer, is for knowledgeable editors to work towards organizing categories in a consistent, encompassing and simple structure. I made not one but four points on consistency and order, that I was hoping you would discuss in good faith. If you don't want to, that's fine, we'll have a more populous discussion in

WP:CFD

. But I usually rather work with technically literate editors.

Regarding your assertion that everybody knows what's a hot and cold cycle for H₂O₂, I couldn't find a single mention of hot cycle, nor cold cycle on any Wikipedia article that I could find. Nor did I found any reference in Google, Sutton (7th edition) or other such literature. I did ask you if you meant for hot cycle as steam generation by H₂O₂ is decomposed by a catalyst. And it was called steam generator cycle by Von Braun, Sutton, Rocketdyne and such literature from 50s to the 80s. As I told you before, I was pondering if an article about the H₂O₂ catalysis should be written separately or within Gas-generator cycle and Staged combustion cycle, since categories and articles should be intimately related. So, do you want to discuss this in good faith not not? – Baldusi (talk) 14:14, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

HTP rocketry has largely been a European occupation, and particularly (as the chemistry is relatively innocuous) around manned aircraft. Sutton has always, and surprisingly, ignored it. So look to the 1950s, and British practice, or the earlier wartime work in Germany. One might include hot cycle HTP as "staged combustion" (no-one does), within WP's usual rigid and invented taxonomy, but as your article on it states, "Staged combustion [...] first proposed in 1949. " I don't know how you want to play this, but claiming that the main focus of work in two countries for decades doesn't exist, or that other editors aren't allowed to work in the same field because you don't consider them "knowledgeable" is no way to begin. Andy Dingley (talk) 16:29, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

English is not my mother tongue, but I still fail to see where I claim to have written the staged combustion article. I don't enjoy sophism, since I made a simple bibliographical request that you point me anywhere where cold and hot cycles for HTP is defined. I can't comment on thing I don't know, nor have found any literature. And I did quoted the Bristol Siddeley work on the very first post, and are pretty aware of its use by German and then Russian rockets. I understand the difference between using liquid HTP as oxidizer vs first catalyzing like the Gamma series of rockets did. I simply don't know, nor have I found any literature, on which is called a cold or hot cycle.

By the way, the earliest mention of "staged combustion" that I know of, is Isayev's. But they actually call it "gas generation with turbine gas afterburning in the combustion chamber". So any work on post combustion of HTP catalyzed gas would probably have been named differently and is very difficult to match. Also, the Russians think of closed and open cycles, and of injector state (like in liquid-liquid, liquid-gas and gas-gas). All those are possible and very valid ways to categorize engine cycles and an excellent target for inclusion in the Rocket engine. Yet, someone should do the bibliographical survey and actually add it to the article.

As you are well aware, in Wikipedia we can't do original research, and thus we should write only about what we can cite. I'm not making any judgment weather hot and cold cycle are an industry accepted standard for HTP rockets. I'm actually inquiring on what bibliographic citations can you supply so me or anyone can add it to the discussion of cycles, and to understand what would be the best way to present it, within its own article, or as different implementation of different articles. – Baldusi (talk) 17:20, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

Look at the early German history for "cold" vs "hot", both as engineering and as terminology. The first engines were for RATO with the cold cycle (a bipropellant with a consumable catalyst), the Me163 was the canonical example of the differences between cold and hot: the airframe first flew with the cold cycle engine, the production aircraft switched (delayed by the engine's availablity) to the hot cycle, where the hot and oxygen-rich exhaust of the cold cycle process was used as the oxidiser with kerosene. I don't know the German terms off-hand, but their general translation has been literally as "cold" and "hot", even though the cold cycle is obviously far from cold.

I have no refs to hand, as it's the weekend, but any decent history of the Me163 (rather than a specific rocketry text) will cover this. A Vertical Empire is the best history of British 1960s rocketry and the Bristol hot cycle engines. The British cold cycle work, much of which was by Armstrong-Siddeley, is quite well covered in Flight. All of these rocket engine articles are quite well sourced already. Andy Dingley (talk) 15:12, 1 October 2016 (UTC)

Hi, I disagree with you reverting my quite comprehensive edits. The articles were both terribly outdated and I have made an effort to improve them. I will continue to do this to the best of my ability with other Bristol and South Glos area articles. Your reversions do not help to improve the articles. If you want to join in and contribute positively that would be great, particularly finding some good references for both pages. Thanks :)Trunky (talk) 12:27, 1 October 2016 (UTC)

You have repeatedly deleted most of an article, across a range of sections throughout it. You are also claiming that geology has no relevance to Easton, when Easton originally developed as a coal-mining area. Were you also editing these articles (and much the same bulk deletions) as an IP editor? I would bring your attention to

WP:BRD: when you make a clearly controversial edit (and repeat it across several articles) and find yourself reverted by another editor, you are required to make some attempt to discuss this, not simply to edit-war and repeat it regardless. You will find yourself blocked for doing that. Andy Dingley (talk

) 15:04, 1 October 2016 (UTC)

Much of the Bristol area sits on coal strata, several areas were active in the mining of it. No other articles have a geology section. None. Please help and contribute rather than trashing my quite positive efforts. Trunky (talk) 07:07, 2 October 2016 (UTC) Addendum - I always edit as this ID, if you are accusing me of sock puppetry then I am quite offended. Trunky (talk) 07:08, 2 October 2016 (UTC)

Hello Andy, I am Kain, I am also from the

Gandalf the Wizard • Talk 9:07, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

Hi Gandalf / Kain. Thanks, but I've never wanted to be an admin. Also the process of applying is particularly unpleasant. Andy Dingley (talk) 12:52, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

	The Anti-Vandalism Barnstar
	For rescuing Edward Jenner's article from getting messed up. -- AI RPer (talk) 11:12, 6 October 2016 (UTC)

I suspect it's about time to knock out the issues with Victoria bridge. Want to take a pass at it? Anmccaff (talk) 18:04, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

Yes. good idea. Time is in short supply though. I'll try and draft something over the weekend. Andy Dingley (talk) 09:10, 7 October 2016 (UTC)

Re: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Request

There are many edits that require using an alternative account, and twelve are clearly outlined at

I have settled into a task far more important than being an admin and it is all consuming of my available wiki time for now. A picture is worth a thousand words. One of the SVGs I translated is used in 93 projects and is translated into about 150 languages. That one edit took me about four months to insert the roughly 7,500 word translations, but now that it is done can be used in each of those languages in native language, and it would probably not take more than an hour for anyone to add another language. Prior to that there were 39 languages that it were available in, in separate files. Now only one or a few of those are still necessary, as technical limitations prohibits including two variants of a language, such as Simplified and Traditional Chinese. Apteva (talk) 22:38, 6 October 2016 (UTC)

Sorry, but those still aren't credible reasons.

• Privacy. Yet you announce "I am Apteva" so widely everywhere. There is no privacy when you do that.
• Security. There is no security difference between these two accounts, as both have only basic privileges. Neither is an admin, or similar.
• Designated roles. You have no designated role. You're recently long-blocked, still under editing restrictions, it's a long time before you're Wikimedian-in-Residence anywhere.

Andy Dingley (talk) 08:57, 7 October 2016 (UTC)

• I think Calton has said it best though:

"You need to put some charts into an article, Apteva? Here's what you do: you put the damned charts in the damned articles. You have an account, so use it."

Andy Dingley (talk) 09:17, 7 October 2016 (UTC)

I don't think this is best known for, I think it's Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Mikemikev/Archive. Doug Weller talk 16:20, 8 October 2016 (UTC)

There's more of the damned things? 8-(

Not one I'm familiar with. The race articles do seem to fit though. Andy Dingley (talk) 18:46, 8 October 2016 (UTC)

You have observed that

You cache is stuck?

Bleed valve is a redirect to it, which I created recently. Andy Dingley (talk

) 16:13, 9 October 2016 (UTC)

No: something else is going on here. Even after an F5 cache flush, I still get a red link. I just tried creating the article as invited (with just one line). It created it and it replaced, not the redirect as one might expect, but the target article Bleed screw (well I was actually expecting an error message!). --Elektrik Fanne 16:20, 9 October 2016 (UTC)

The source is published on lulu.com, the well-known vanity press. The statement that running round a train has become known as running round a train, which is the obvious name that nobody had to coin because that was what it was always called, does not even need stating, let alone sourcing to a self-published book. Guy (Help!) 00:06, 12 October 2016 (UTC)

The lulu source is a separate question. But rather than tagging a statement (which is not self evident to a general readership) with {{

cn

}}, or noticing that there was already a second reference supporting it, you then blanked the whole statement. After being reverted by another editor, you then proceeded to edit-war without discussion to repeat it.

Would you prefer WP:RSN, WP:ANEW or WP:ANI, because the rules on basic editing still apply to admins, even you. Andy Dingley (talk) 00:22, 12 October 2016 (UTC)

Category:Lethbridge baronets, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. A discussion is taking place to see if it abides with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. HandsomeFella (talk) 19:02, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for reverting my bad river edit. Hmains (talk) 22:54, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

There is no such category. If you want to make one, that is fine, but nothing is achieved by putting a file in a non-existent category.Rathfelder (talk) 17:00, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

So why not do something useful with your time? Move it to Commons (that category is there because it's the Commons category, which as an image is what it needs and where it belongs. Or create the category on WP - it's a notable topic, with multiple articles after all. Or is this another of those "Only people in the robotics project can edit the robotics articles" things? Andy Dingley (talk) 17:04, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

I would welcome your contribution to my recent post on the talk page for this article. Pinkbeast (talk) 00:51, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

It's a dead article. Mbeychok used his vast personal knowledge (of just one application) to delete half of it, then edit-warred to maintain it that way. It's not worth the effort to argue with him. Is he still using WP to advertise his books? Andy Dingley (talk) 01:21, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

Just had a look at the recent stuff. Again, I can see no justfication for the deletions, but it's so bad already that it doesn't make much difference. It's hopelessly confused between injectors, ejectors and Giffard's feedwater injector. Let alone concepts like live steam vs. exhaust steam injectors. As to feedwater pumps though, it's easier to control the flowrate with a pump than an injector. Pumps usually have enough regulation that their flowrate can be adjusted to match connsumption, whilst an injector has only one efficient rate. Andy Dingley (talk) 02:01, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

He is not, no, still using WP to advertise his books; he died.

It is a bit of a mess but I still think it's worth stopping it getting any worse; could you possibly repeat this at the talk page (even the bit where you say I'm wrong)? Pinkbeast (talk) 11:31, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

Well in that case there's a bit more hope for it. I'd probably start at Boiler feedwater injector though. Andy Dingley (talk) 11:47, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

Injectors are strange devices, even though they have no moving parts (there's a series of hollow metal cones, some of which point in the opposite direction to the others). At one end, you feed in steam at a given pressure, mix that with cold water (at virtually zero pressure) and somehow this mixture of low-pressure steam and hot water manages to force its way past the overflow, out the other end, through the clacks and into the boiler - against steam or hot water that is clearly at a higher pressure than either of the two feeds. It shouldn't work, but it does. Black magic hasn't been discounted. --Redrose64 (talk) 14:35, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

The latent heat of vapourisation of the steam is released by condensation and accelerates the flow; the expanding cone converts this additional velocity into pressure. No magic. Pinkbeast (talk) 16:52, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for your support; unfortunately somebody seems to have nobbled the Department of Transport already, judging by a couple of recent Written Answers: Rolling Stock North West Railways: Overcrowding I haven't checked what the tale is on other lines/Lines. Rjccumbria (talk) 22:24, 5 November 2016 (UTC)

Andy, what do you think about the latest addition here: Model Engineering current version changes. I'm not too happy about it, because it seems to be too many words and puffery ('unique', 'the finest'). Also I don't think it is in the spirit of the section on 'information sources' (more about mags and shows), and perhaps ought to just go in as a brief mention along with the Internet Craftsmanship Museum, already listed under 'notable model engineers'. I don't want to be too "get off my turf", so What do you think? Stringybark (talk) 05:25, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

WP:EL

isn't a bad starting point. We're supposed to be writing an encyclopedia here, not a web directory. Articles are there to be self-contained. References are there to verify claims made in the text. ELs are there to link valuable encyclopedic content that we can't license or fit in to our own articles. We are not here to write an article on <foo>, then include the <Fooian museum of foo> in that article, unless that museum has some independent sourcing saying that the Fooian museum is itself an important collection on the topic of <foo>. So the Craftsmanship Museum (i.e. the physical place) doesn't seem to pass there.

However I would still include this as a stand-alone EL. As well as a physical collection, they also have some depth of web content. As "a resource we can't otherwise get to use", then I think this passes EL - although the labelling could be better. "Unique" and "finest" is just puffery and should go. Andy Dingley (talk) 09:29, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

"Tatutaki Maru class". May be right, but in the absence of a reference I don't understand your edit comment. Davidships (talk) 12:54, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

The class of vessel was identified through the periscope and this is sourced from the sub's war diary (which is covered in some of the Tang refs already there). However there's no (AFAIK) Japanese recognition of the sinking, thus no identification to a specific ship. Andy Dingley (talk) 15:49, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

So please add an in-line reference, then the tag can be removed. Davidships (talk) 09:51, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

Please stop undoing edits on Coanda's plane. His plane was powered by a centrifugal compressor. It's a completely different principle than that of a ducted fan, ff's sake! Check the drawings and pictures of Coanda's engine, then look at some ducted fans (propellers within a duct). A ducted fan can propel without the duct, a centrifugal compresson can not propel without one.

Edited, removed the uncivilites. My point still stays. Please avoid the classification "ducted fan" when it's not one. Please write arguments for why you think it's one, including at least one example of a similar ducted fan, before adding the text in the article. Thank you. Florinbaiduc 13:44, 11 November 2016 (UTC)

Hi Andy, do you have any idea whether Benjamin Hick's use of wheel discs (or disc wheels) on his 3 cylinder engine is the first aerodynamic device on a locomotive? I know wheel discs were used on Edwardian cars and aeroplanes. Regards80.229.34.113 (talk) 14:39, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

Offhand? No idea. This is very early, and I can't think of any aerodynamic attempts made so early. Nor is it obvious that wheel discs (rather than pointed rocket noses or bird shapes) would be where to start. AIUI, these were disc wheels though, and were made to avoid the problems of the day with thin spokes. The discs are structural, not aerodynamic.

I'll have a shufty in Ahrons & Nock tonight. Andy Dingley (talk) 15:57, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

The drawing doesn't show a side profile of the wheel that would perhaps show more of the intention. I did see a boat shape here [24] (Fig 5), it would seem to make sense to apply hydrodynamics to air flow on a locomotive.

Some examples here that do not look particularly aerodynamic: [25]80.229.34.113 (talk) 17:42, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

The Mather & Dixon GWR loco would be Ajax, which is widely reported but little understood. I think this site: http://spellerweb.net/rhindex/UKRH/GreatWestern/Broadgauge/BGLocos/Ajax.html is probably the best description of it. It used double skin disc wheels as the only practical way to achieve the huge diameter Brunel (a poor locomotive engineer) had requested. Later on it received the first wind-splitting body. It's a few years after this Hick loco though, and they were times of rapid changes in loco design. Note though (which I didn't know before) that they credit the wheel's design to B Hick, which is probably worth noting in that article.

The French seem to like this sort of vertical wedge splitter design. http://www.douglas-self.com/MUSEUM/LOCOLOCO/bec/bec.htm There was also the steam-electric Heilmann locomotive, with a similar shape. Also (around the same time) the McKeen railmotor did it too. Andy Dingley (talk) 18:15, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

John Speller's page seems to indicate the wheel was an aerodynamic device given the description and it's profile shown by the section drawing. The wheel design looks to have been more successful than the engines it was fitted to? 100mph c.1847 is fast. Shame Hick didn't last a bit longer.81.149.141.199 (talk) 19:44, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

Added for now to Benj Hick's page as "Aerodynamic disc wheel" - adjust as you see fit?Regards81.149.141.199 (talk) 13:43, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

I fished out Hick's patent [26], towards the end he states "Wheels for carts, waggons, coaches, timber carriages and for many other uses may be advantageously constructed on this principle". It does not take a great leap of imagination to see Hick's locomotive on road wheels and steering to the front wheels.81.149.141.199 (talk) 12:15, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

The biggest limit on road locomotives at that time was the state of the roads, and the weight of locomotives. They could probably have been built for some decades before they finally were (the portable engine had all the bits in place), but they'd just have bogged down.

I have heard the intriguing story that the first UK road locomotive (by putting a chain drive onto a commercial portable engine) was built by a naval dockyard, as a tractor for heavy cannon, and only had to operate across solid stone-built quays.

Timber carriages are interesting. More in the US than the UK (bigger trees), but some of these used huge diameter wheels to move the sort of tree that would become a ship's mast. These logging wheels (although the WP article is skewed to one maker) had some interesting technical designs to make them rigid enough, such as two row spoking. Andy Dingley (talk) 12:24, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

Another variation here [27]!80.229.34.113 (talk) 14:54, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

Further stretch of the imagination on Timber carriages - replace the log with a large cannon, include disc wheels and we have a semi armoured gun platform. Add two more wheels and a steam engine for a self-propelled version or the steam carriage as a tractor.81.149.141.199 (talk) 18:47, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

Even at that time it was recognised that artillery couldn't be carried on wheels (at least with that sort of tyre). Cugnot built the first steam road vehicle as an artillery tractor and its own weight did for it, as did the hammerblow on the driving wheel. In the late 19th century, Fowler's steam traction engines were hauling artillery on the same wide wheels that the engines themselves used. There were all manner of Pedrail and Diplock wheels used as well, particularly in Germany (although I've no idea what theirs were called).Andy Dingley (talk) 21:12, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

I was thinking of a wide tyre on a disc wheel or wheel covered with a disc - widen the wheel base from the conventional gun carriage and the crew could (in theory) work between the wheels with better protection?80.229.34.113 (talk) 20:59, 11 November 2016 (UTC)

Just because I'm interested, I get that Cumberland Basin was built to give straighter acess to the tidal Avon at its downriver end. What I'm a bit confused about is why there wasn't just a canal-and-locks dug through when the river was damned at Underfall creating the harbor? Was it to create more docks further down the harbor? From what I understand, it was originally built as its own lock as it was locked off at its eastern end, too, which also confuses me. --Criticalthinker (talk) 19:22, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

Not quite sure what your question is here? Why the basin was built where it was, or why a basin was built rather than a single lock gate?

A basin was needed because the tidal range makes access to the harbour so difficult. There's only time for one basinful of ships to leave in one group, make it down the Avon and then others to come back. So they need to assemble in the basin gradually, then leave as a group. Stragglers might get through the lock (as a lock) individually, but that wasn't quick enough to operate the port.

Putting the basin where it is made its river access more direct. It loses a sharp curve and also some length of the shallow tidal part. Joining the river below the harbour outfall allows a bit more scouring action too. There needs to be somewhere to put the basin too and Hotwells provided more space for this than pushing the river further south into Southville would have done (without even more curve). Andy Dingley (talk) 22:12, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

Reading back my questions, I see I wasn't as clear as I wanted to be. Yes, my question was more geared to the second one you stated. I can see why access back to the tidal river was moved to Hotwells after it was damned off at Underfall. I guess what has me a bit confused is why there is a basin, at all, instead of just a cut (canal-and-lock) from the harbor to the river since the basin doesn't speed entry to or from the harbor. Seems to me that unless it's because the habor itself wasn't large or deep enough to simply have the ships wait there to access the river, that it wouldn't make much difference whether there was a specific waiting area or not. And then after that, why the basin had a lock at both ends - one leading to the basin, itself, and then one leading to the harbor, which has since been taken out. It sounds at one time reading the description that the basin, itself was basically a second body of water that could be controlled independent of the harbor, a kind of half-step-down or half-step-up to the river. --Criticalthinker (talk) 17:16, 11 November 2016 (UTC)

Not controlled, as that would be a lock. More uncontrolled, like a

half-tide basin. The basin level is allowed to vary, so that when the tide is "deep enough", the outer locks can be opened and ships come and go freely in and out of the basin for as long as there's water depth. The basin follows the river height at this time. When the water level gets too low, the lock gates are closed and the basin brought to the main harbour level, allowing traffic in and out of the main docks. Anyone trying to move outside these times can use the locks, as locks. Andy Dingley (talk

) 17:41, 11 November 2016 (UTC)

Am I reading incorrectly, then, that there were also locks/a loack at the eastern end of the basin? --Criticalthinker (talk) 11:33, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

Two locks at each end. Now just one working at each end. Although these always seemed to be too small for the latest ships and were severally enlarged, one-by-one to keep an old lock still working. The project website for Brunel's Swivel Bridge is probably the best current source on the history of this part of the docks.

The trouble with locks is that they're slow and they only let a single ship through at a time. A

pound lock, which is what a basin acts as, can pass more ships more quickly, if there are many wishing to pass the same way. With a tidal river outside, especially one with such a high tide, the half-tide system makes the working time for an open basin longer around the high water. Andy Dingley (talk

) 02:12, 13 November 2016 (UTC)

OK, really last warning. Next time you do this i will seek, and will very likely get, a one-way interaction ban. Jytdog (talk) 01:53, 13 November 2016 (UTC)

Next time you go to 4RR edit warring, I will again advocate blocking you at ANEW. That is how ANEW works, and you ought to know that it applies to you too. And do not issue threats like this against other editors. Andy Dingley (talk) 01:57, 13 November 2016 (UTC)

just stop hounding me, please. it is a promise and a warning, not a threat. Jytdog (talk) 02:35, 13 November 2016 (UTC)

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 31 hours for persistently commenting on the contributor rather than the content. Your attacks on Jytdog have crossed the line.[28] I noticed Jytdog talked about an IBAN, but my experience of those is very discouraging, and I believe they should only be used in the most extreme situations, where nothing else has helped. Let's see what a short block will do. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may request an unblock by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.  Bishonen | talk 09:11, 13 November 2016 (UTC)

Hi Andy, this is Martin of Sheffield. In standard British English "orientated" would be used, see the etymology on the Wiktionary page. "Oriented" is a near synonym and would be the correct term for American English, but IKB was this side of the pond. Regards, Martin of Sheffield (talk) 00:06, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

Wiktionary as a source? Seriously?

I'll grant you that Fowler prefers orientate, but that was in 1926. One might as well take the original meaning of both and only use them when they literally mean "to point Eastwards". I still see orientate as an affectation, little more. Andy Dingley (talk) 00:18, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

I only used Wiktionary since my copy of the OED is at work. I must disagree though, both my wife and I found "orientated" much more natural in spoken English that "oriented". She's from north London and I'm from the Midlands and North East so you can't put that one down to regional affectations! I'll see what the OED says in the morning. I'm off to bed now - Goodnight. Regards, Martin of Sheffield (talk) 00:23, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

The OED says nothing (it never does). It never makes recommendations on current usage, only records early occurrence.

<pulls big blue thing off shelf>

Yes, they're both there. Nothing to favour one particularly over the other, unless you fancy trawling the footnotes on -ate. As I don't have online OED from home, I'm not going that far.

At least this is a good etymological use for this particular word, either variant. Andy Dingley (talk) 00:28, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

Hello, Andy Dingley. Voting in the

2016 Arbitration Committee elections

is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

The

topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy

describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for

I realize there's tension with the letter of

I would just ignore it - and at most, sort the talk: page's auto archiving, then let the 'bot deal with it.

If you want, you can simply manually archive it, by cut and pasting it. There's already an archive set up. Given the (surprising) lack of traffic on AVR issues, it's not a page volume which really needs auto-archiving.

Old speedy deletion notices aren't a big thing though. If they're past, they're past. Andy Dingley (talk) 21:54, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

As an editor who has been repeatedly blocked for harassment, I thought you might know the policy by now. Yesterday, a user was checkuser-blocked for sockpuppetry. You then posted this message on their talk page. See

You have made a particular habit of raising fatuous SPIs on no evidence, and that were rapidly thrown out and you were warned for harassing by them (of course you didn't stop). You did it to me, you did it to ElektrikFanne. Yet now you seem to have a rather thin skin on the subject? Andy Dingley (talk) 11:21, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

Your allegations have been dealt with in the ANI thread you linked, and in Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/I B Wright/Archive#06 December 2016. It's past time you stopped repeating them. Burninthruthesky (talk) 08:17, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

My "allegations" are in the open SPI thread here: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Bhtpbank Andy Dingley (talk) 10:16, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

It appears you are again repeating your allegation that my SPI report against I B Wright was unfounded (despite the fact it was upheld), in an unrelated SPI about a different master. That is liable to get you blocked. Burninthruthesky (talk) 11:18, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

Oh? I thought that Bbb23 was the SPI clerk who had closed the CU request as stale? Or are you now saying that you had some involvement in that? Because otherwise I don't see how that comment relates to you at all.

Your repeated warnings for harassment by SPI were for other filings. Andy Dingley (talk) 11:25, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

The 
guide to formal mediation
, please indicate in the "party agreement" section whether you agree to participate. Because requests must be responded to by the Mediation Committee within seven days, please respond to the request by 16 December 2016.

The 
mailing list. For more information on forms of dispute resolution, other than formal mediation, that are available, see Wikipedia:Dispute resolution
.

Is there a particular reason why Bastian Schweinsteiger is not allowed to be in the article? Kingjeff (talk) 22:12, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

I have, literally no idea why not. Thus I have no opinion either way.

But

WP:DENY

) to be the editor who makes such a change. This isn't about the content, it's about who's adding it.

If you wish to add this (subject to

WP:RS to confirm this. Don't just trust Europefan's word on it, because they are unreliable at adding such claims. Andy Dingley (talk

) 23:28, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

Hmmm..... I really don't know. I'd believe Tobias Conradi back again (haven't noticed him for ages), but I'd think better of DePiep. Andy Dingley (talk) 11:21, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

There is nothing to link TC as far as I can see in user compare.

Oculi (talk

) 13:14, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

Search the talk: archives for railway projects and the track gauge categories. He used many socks and was known as "Conradi" for historical reasons, but few of the edits were made from the original master account. Andy Dingley (talk) 13:19, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Please check this discussion. Thank you. DePiep (talk) 12:22, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

Hello

How do you do?

The is a point in the careers of all of us editor when we reach a point that we have to fill in a bunch of fields but doing so is too time-consuming. There are editors who leave the fields empty or write "{{

Now I don't normally go around Wikipedia saying these things; it is not very civil to put names on editors I never met. But when you perform a blanket revert in violation of

Best regards,
Codename Lisa (talk) 15:11, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

MOS:COMPUTING

doesn't seem to have the term "platform" used in this sense anywhere in it.

This is a term that is often used in a weasel-like manner, particularly by ad copywriters. However that does not mean that all uses of it are such. It is hard to describe a ferret if we have a blanket ban on any "weasel words".

Cross-platform

belongs strongly in the Ant article.

This same cross-platform issue is endemic to the field of build tools. Ant is not the only tool taking a similar approach. Now I can understand you not liking being bulk reverted, but when I see such a change as this - and replacing a valid use of

WP:BRD (which you seem unfamiliar with) it's your task to justify such changes. Andy Dingley (talk

) 17:02, 16 December 2016 (:)

Actually, a review of

BRD and frequently reminds others of it. The problem is that she thinks it applies to everyone but her. Her viewpoint on blanket reverts is similar; it is fine for her to revert any change with a bulk revert, but others are expected to perform only partial reverts of her delinquent edits. 98.244.77.73 (talk

) 17:49, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

And Andy, I don't want to have treated you like I treat this IP hopper, because you are an actual editor. So, you go ahead restore the table in List of build automation software article if you wish. To tell the truth, I don't mind much. Either way, the users won't know the actual operating systems, will they?

—Best regards,

Codename Lisa (talk) 10:06, 18 December 2016 (UTC)

It seems that instead of looking for a resolution, you are looking for fight. Revert #756027176 was a particularly mean display of contempt and had a

—Codename Lisa (talk) 07:31, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

When you're proceeding to edit war on the basis of an absolute prohibition in a style guide, then it helps your case if that style guide actually mentions what you claim. I started a discussion there, you refused to answer and all I get was your snarky friend telling me to "stop whining". You have repeatedly failed to give any reason why

cross-platform is an inappropriate term for a piece of software who's core function is to operate consistently cross-platform. Andy Dingley (talk

) 09:36, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

You have been given ample response in

MOS:COMPUTING

.

Also, please be sure to include the "snarky friend" part in your ANEW complaint!

—Codename Lisa (talk) 10:12, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

You have repeatedly cited that style guide. However that style guide does not even mention "cross-platform", let alone prohibit the term. Please point me to the place where it does so. Andy Dingley (talk) 10:15, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

As you are still refusing to either quote the style guide, or admit that it doesn't mention the term at all, I've restored the term. Please do not delete it again without being able to (truthfully) cite and quote the style guide prohibiting it. Andy Dingley (talk) 10:19, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

• As both you and FleetCommand are still claiming a falsehood and you're edit-warring on the back of it, I've opened Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Edit_warring#User:Codename_Lisa_reported_by_User:Andy_Dingley_.28Result:_.29 Andy Dingley (talk) 10:52, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

Andy, thanks for looking out for the Corvette Leaf Spring article. Sadly I think we are dealing with HughD's sock edits. I'm sure HughD isn't happy that I had a hand in his 6 month block (ends this month) as well as other editing restrictions. I noticed that the pattern of edits and edit comments on both the Corvette Leaf Spring article as well as the Eddie Eagle (NRA related) article were similar. The EE edits only started after I got involved with the page. The IP addresses were initially all from the Chicago area. Now we are seeing a number of "Amazon Technologies" IPs from around the world. The Amazon IPs are clear proxy. Anyway, I think proving that HughD is behind the IP edits would be hard but if this continues I think asking for semi-protected status would be the right thing in this case. Anyway, thanks for the reverts! Springee (talk) 19:03, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

I don't think I've any idea who HughD is anyway?

I think the ZF stuff still needs a better source. Generally if it has hit the blogs, then they got it from somewhere anyway. Andy Dingley (talk) 19:12, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

I agree, a better source could be found. I'll add these two as replacement references when I get the chance [[29]], [[30]] Springee (talk) 19:17, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

From the icy Canajian north; to you and yours! FWiW Bzuk (talk) 00:51, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

	Merry Christmas & Happy New Year!
	Thank you for helping make Wikipedia a better place. Blessings. May we all have peace in the coming year. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 00:53, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

Hi. Regarding the change to Slack Roman Fort ref Cambodunum to Camulodunum. Firstly thanks for making the change. Secondly Cambodunum (not Cambodonum) is mentioned by Pastscape here as a different fort entirely - hence me requiring citation originally. Thirdly the disambiguation page for Cambodunum needs to be updated accordingly or removed as it incorrectly cites Slack as Cambodunum. Wyrm (talk) 11:46, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

Actually, scratch that, there is conflicting evidence as to the name of the fort.Wyrm (talk) 18:50, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

Please see

I shall not revert your reversion as I have less than no interest in edit-warring, but I am curious what you think is misleading about the substance of my edit. From my perspective, at worst it clutters the lede slightly with qualifying language, but at best it eliminates the possible misconception in the reader that "HTML" is technically uniform. Perhaps we should ask Talk:HTML for their take? Arlo James Barnes 01:48, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

Thanks. This belong at Talk:HTML#'HTML standards' versus 'the HTML standard', so I'll move it there. Andy Dingley (talk) 10:59, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

I left some more questions for you at Wikipedia:Reference_desk/Science#What_is_string?. The Transhumanist 07:29, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

This message contains important information about an administrative situation on Wikipedia. It does not imply any misconduct regarding your own contributions to date.

Please carefully read this information:

The

discretionary sanctions to be used for pages regarding the English Wikipedia Manual of Style and article titles policy, a topic which you have edited. The Committee's decision is here

.

Discretionary sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimize disruption to controversial topics. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to the topic that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behavior, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. This message is to notify you that sanctions are authorised for the topic you are editing. Before continuing to edit this topic, please familiarise yourself with the discretionary sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions.

While I don't agree with the alarming wording/tone of this

It also doesn't even make sense: the ANI against Dicklyon and these moves has not concluded with any finding of any fault on that person's part, and is not likely to (and it has not been archived yet). It is also not about RM discussions like the one in which you are inappropriately venting; it is about manual, undiscussed moves.

You undid all of these changes, without explaining why. Your edit summary simply said "restore quote", which does not even explain why you did restore the quote, let alone why you felt it necessary to undo the other changes. If in the future you see a reason to undo someone's edit, please leave an adequate explanation. 128.40.9.164 (talk) 18:30, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

Yeah, well you mangled the readability of it too. Andy Dingley (talk) 18:34, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

No, I did not. I see your latest edit summary is simply obnoxious, and you haven't bothered to justify your previous actions. I suggest you read

WP:CIV carefully. 128.40.9.164 (talk

) 19:06, 18 January 2017 (UTC)