You inappropriately reverted thoughtful edits I made to Aaron Swartz. I explained these edits carefully on the article's talk page. It is not even close to vandalism. In your comment, you question my removal of one source; that source was inaccessible, and it is not clear what it said. In any event, the thrust of my edit was not to remove sources. It was instead, as I clearly indicated, to remove unsourced disputed material, which you have now inappropriately restored. Antiselfpromotion ( talk) 00:07, 3 January 2013 (UTC)
I noticed your revert, and I'm curious to know where you got the idea that pre-PLC automation required complete panel rewiring for tooling changeovers. I've been working in the field for eons and can't think of any time this has occurred. Some parts of the circuit need rewiring, sure. But never "each and every relay". Most automotive tooling is virtually identical control wise (sensors, actuators, etc) from year to year, even though the mechanical work has major differences. Perhaps you've worked at a plant that does things differently? Krushia ( talk) 16:49, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
I was recently watching some experiments on Mythbusters in which they tested the workshop adage that striking two hammers together will generate deadly shrapnel. That didn't pan out — the shafts tended to bend or break instead. Anyway, TPH seems to be loose again but hasn't responded to my gentle suggestions following the snow close of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Eight-thousander. You made a valiant effort to do something about this at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/TenPoundHammer so I'm wondering if there's anything more we might do? Warden ( talk) 19:46, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
The insulting IP is back screwing up the article. Happy New Year? LittleBen ( talk) 12:50, 7 January 2013 (UTC)
hello Andy, I got your message, I was in the process of adding my reasons to the talk page. I have been in extensive arguments of late on the world of tanks forum regarding this claim and I came across this post which looks suspiciously like the work of the main protagonist, there have been many attempts to create fictional history regarding German weapons development, often claiming that modern weapons were actually designs stolen or claimed from captured german technology but for some reason done so in conspiratorial secrecy unlike all the things we actually know about. The claim that Germany not only developed APFSDS in the early days of ww2 but actually used it in combat runs counter to accepted history and adding SIC to the end of the post does not cut it — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kyphen ( talk • contribs) 16:03, 8 January 2013 (UTC)
I Understand the recommendations butt is hard to find sourced evidence for claims which have no academic rebuttals as there is no evidence of the claims ever being made in academic circles at all. I did not want the main page turning into a debate so I put it in the talk page the claim does not exist on any of the related pages, the shell page is an overview, the pages dedicated to APDS APFSDS kinetic energy penatrators, anti tank pages and so on never mention this.
the claim on the main page itself was made just over 3 months ago by an unsigned user. — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
Kyphen (
talk •
contribs) 17:43, 8 January 2013 (UTC)
Hi Andy Currently there's a link to C strut on the M strut page, which is a redicrect back to M. I don't know how to sort that out. Why did you delete the reffed para on c strut? Greglocock ( talk) 01:08, 11 January 2013 (UTC)
Wadyamean Stephenson's gear does not notch-up? Tell that to Mr Churchward. Globbet ( talk) 14:54, 11 January 2013 (UTC) & 15:34, 11 January 2013 (UTC)
Enjoy. Uncle G ( talk) 21:54, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
Hi! I could use another opinion at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style#Is "an HTTP" or "a HTTP" correct?. Could you take a look? Thanks! -- Guy Macon ( talk) 23:06, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
Talk:Twin-turbo#Terminology: "twin" and "sequential" looks to me to be right up your alley, care to lend a hand? Andrewa ( talk) 19:04, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
Why did you undo my revision today to Web development? The industry section is filled with incorrect, unsubstantiated facts which I attempted to correct. -- Matt Schwartz ( talk) 18:51, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
Hi Andy, I agree that my addition was uncited, as is most of the material in the Saab 96 article, however it is correct. Here's why: Until the implementation of oil injection in the model, oil lubrication was delivered by mixing 1 qt of 2-cycle oil with eight (US) gallons of gasoline. So, a high throttle setting causes an increase of gasoline-borne lubrication and increasing RPM. Unfortunately, the reverse doesn't apply. High RPM requires but doesn't achieve the commensurate level of lubrication when decelerating or descending a hill with engine braking. With freewheeling, the engine returns to idle under those circumstances and receives the lubrication required as it is not under load from the drivetrain. The V-4 retained freewheeling not for the reason cited here (or as frequently claimed for gas economy—a function of throttle setting), but to improve its emissions, which become worse when engine braking is in effect. Having owned a 1964 Saab 96, a 1963 oil-injected Saab GT850 (a.k.a "Sport" in Europe), and a 1968 four-stroke Saab V-4, when I was an MIT student, I was well informed on this subject. Prior to my post, I looked for some citable information on this topic. My contribution was simply an attempt to explain what the previous entry means, i.e."To overcome the problems of overrun for the two-stroke engine,..." which is not explained—it could refer to the noises and backfiring that can occur from two-cycles or it could refer to oil starvation while under load or both.
I should answer your question, "how does a freewheel allow idling at low rpm?". Think of riding a bicycle, the freewheel allows your legs to "idle", rather than be dragged around by the speed of the wheels through the drivetrain.
I'll continue looking for a better citation before taking a better run at this. In the meantime, if you find my explanation persuasive, you could consider restoring the thrust of my contribution. Sincerely, User:HopsonRoad 01:07, 26 January 2013 (UTC)
Hi Andy. I was just skimming the ANI board regarding the issues with Cantaloupe2. You can count me as a fourth (or probably tenth really) editor with similar experiences of hounding, battlegrounding, etc.. I will participate in the RfCU in any way that is helpful. DGG has worked with this editor across multiple disputes with various editors and may be helpful as well. You'll see from the edit-warring post I put in the RFCU that he was previously warned by an admin of potential admin action if he did not stop hounding me, which did not dissuade him. I think his edit-warring over adding a personal blog with negative content where I have a disclosed COI is the most obvious and compelling evidence one could ever expect to get of Cantaloupe being a bad-faith editor, considering his track-record of contesting sources.
This is a significant retention issue and I hope it can get resolved before more editors are discouraged from editing here. I know there are at least a couple articles I would be improving if it weren't for a desire to avoid him. I have no experience with the dispute resolution processes, so please let me know if/when/what may be needed from me as it goes down the process. CorporateM ( Talk) 17:15, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
The issue over inclusion of Linus comments had been raised to the Noticeboard for discussion by another user. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard#Carmen_Ortiz Request your attention. thanks Prodigyhk ( talk) 04:28, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
Hi Andy, "The steam engine was an essential component of the Industrial Revolution" is written in past tense. So it describes the development form a pre-industrial way of life to a stage, when almost everything was produced by engines. That stage already was reached about eighty years ago. And from the first third of 19th centrury to the first third of 20th century, the steam engine was essential, indeed. (copy from Talk:Steam engine) -- Ulamm ( talk) 17:00, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
Hi Andy,
Just a quick note to say I've just reverted the link you put in at
Gordon Setter........the link goes to 'black and tan' as in a beer; the breed was previously known by that name because of the dogs colour combination, although I'm sure some of them may well have driven owners to the 'demon drink'. It did make me smile on a very wet and miserable afternoon in the middle of trying to do the dreaded tax returns though!
If you disagree and still think it should be linked, no problem!
SagaciousPhil -
Chat 15:57, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
From Filmdoctor 1: read my most recent comments on my page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Filmdoctor1 ( talk • contribs) 05:35, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
![]() |
Hi Andy I've reverted you're revert of my revert of the adding of Java (programming language) to 'Programming languages' as it's already in other sub-categories, such as:
C programming language family (−) (±) Class-based programming languages (−) (±) Concurrent programming languages (−) (±) Java programming language (−) (±) JVM programming languages (−) (±) Object-oriented programming languages (−) (±) Programming languages created in 1995 (−) (±)
According to WP:SUBCAT
Note that it's not in debate that Java is a major programming language (it is).
peterl ( talk) 00:09, 1 February 2013 (UTC)
Andy, do you want to do the honours and take this to Afd now that the PROD has been removed? If not, I am happy to. It's been spamfestering (I just made that up and I like it!) for too long.-- ukexpat ( talk) 15:32, 1 February 2013 (UTC)
Hello I'm wondering why you removed my website: PeopleWiki from the page Website Like its not a illegal website, it's just a site where people can write about themself like on here, except you don't have to be famous :) 222.152.0.209 ( talk) 04:24, 10 February 2013 (UTC)
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Parkend Ironworks, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Engine house ( check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot ( talk) 11:22, 10 February 2013 (UTC)
Category:Rainbow Codes, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. The Bushranger One ping only 08:27, 11 February 2013 (UTC)
Hi Andy
Spotted your comment on person who edited the Doble steam car. From the bits and pieces I have gleaned, the car could be powered by one of the Doble Steam engines he created while in Germany. There is a photo of Goering in a real Doble. I would really like to replace the photo as this red car does not do credit to those Doble made, but there is only one in my country and, while it has been reported in a classic car magazine here, I have not seen it yet. Most of the existing cars are in the States, one is in Australia, and I think there could be one in England. I have yet to find anything that is out of copyright, but our laws differ from some countries in that regard. NealeFamily ( talk) 09:10, 12 February 2013 (UTC)
Your recent editing history at Automobile shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. Being involved in an edit war can result in you 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.
To avoid being blocked, instead of reverting please consider using the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. See BRD for how this is done. You can post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection. Ahendrl ( talk) 00:47, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you. Ahendrl ( talk) 01:10, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
Hi Andy,
Why did you remove the link to my new CVT technology??
please read it again, or explain to me how to put a link in the CVT wiki, or a description or drawings?
I have a well working machine!! its not a spam!!
the link was: cvt without friction — Preceding unsigned comment added by Yves mag ( talk • contribs) 17:44, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
TransporterMan ( TALK) 15:25, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
Shouldn't it be Category:Wikipedia Reference desk rather than have double colons? I've never seen a category like that.... The Rambling Man ( talk) 21:28, 21 February 2013 (UTC)
In the article, the WCAG says the blink element can cause seizures. The blinking part is not staying in the article.— chbarts ( talk) 00:05, 22 February 2013 (UTC)
Hi Andy. I know you are not happy about the measurements being put in metric first, but the Good Article assessor is demanding that either all measurements be in metric first or in imperial first. As we have no source for some of the measurements in imperial, they can only go in metric. What else would you like me to do? Skinsmoke ( talk) 23:35, 22 February 2013 (UTC)
{{
convert}}
, and if that measurement be metric, add |disp=flip
so that the imperial is displayed first. For example, {{
convert|1|kg|lb|disp=flip}}
yields 2.2 pounds (1 kg) --
Redrose64 (
talk) 07:26, 23 February 2013 (UTC)
That's some rather pointy editing at Aaron Schwartz, considering most if not all of the roles are detailed and cited in the article text itself. Roles are not generally cited individually in the filmography section, as they are easily verifiable at IMDb and other filmography sites. Yworo ( talk) 18:25, 24 February 2013 (UTC)
The pages in Category:Wikipedia reference desk need removal from Category:Wikipedia help forums. Thanks. -- Alan Liefting ( talk - contribs) 20:15, 24 February 2013 (UTC)
Do you have a reason for changing the title? It is described as Fairbottom Bobs in the Henry Ford Museum and in this document which appears to be a reliable source. J3Mrs ( talk) 22:42, 28 February 2013 (UTC)
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Fairbottom Bobs, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Engine house ( check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot ( talk) 11:25, 1 March 2013 (UTC)
I think you are being disengenuous sir. Admittedly that one edit was an issue but Seal Transportation is a serious issue and I strongly object to being called 'dubious'. Anthony Seldon ( talk) 15:20, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
Andy, I am not going to get into an edit war with you ... but I do want to explain. It may seem obvious to you that any potential users wishing to edit the table would know that one must look for Template:Engine thrust to weight table. Well, I have been a user for a considerable time and had forgotten how to find a template and had to spend considerable time finding the template in order to remove 2 broken/inactive references. I am quite sure that many new users would not know how to find a template. In fact, they might not even know that the curly brackets surrounding the table name indicates a template. So what harm does it do to include explicit instructions as a hidden comment on the edit page? Perhaps the template itself should include creating the instruction as a hidden comment? Regards, mbeychok ( talk) 18:57, 7 March 2013 (UTC)
Hey. I've seen you around quite a long time now, and noticed your name come up as an admin possibility. While I'm sure you've been asked before, I'm wondering if you've given the possibility of running for adminship any thought. Wizardman 20:02, 7 March 2013 (UTC)
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Floating dock (impounded), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Caisson ( check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot ( talk) 10:52, 8 March 2013 (UTC)
Hi, Thanks for your comments about the Clifton Suspension Bridge. I've expanded the section dealing with both competitions & found several references for the design by his father. Could you take another look and see if there is anything else you feel is needed?— Rod talk 11:33, 10 March 2013 (UTC)
Dear Andy,
You seem to be very keen to get me blocked, making frequent suggestions on various pages and drawing attentions to my contributions. Why are you so edgy about this? Is it perhaps that you are alarmed that I am getting too close to the truth?
Anthony Seldon ( talk) 10:34, 11 March 2013 (UTC)
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Warm glass is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Warm glass until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Anthony Seldon ( talk) 10:39, 11 March 2013 (UTC)
Hello Andy !
I am starting again to write an article on the concept of Corner Tube Boilers. I am writing to you as I have a query regarding quoting the article. I have found the exact source but the books are really old from the 50's and 70's which are available in the library in Berlin. To which extent is the article verifiable in such a case ? ( Ghorpaapi ( talk) 09:07, 11 March 2013 (UTC))
Hi Andy. I noticed you recently reverted my reversion of a contribution by a sockpuppet of Noodleki on the grounds that it was a "kosher edit". I hope this means that you checked the contribution for potential copyright infringement—the sock master was blocked indefinitely for persistent copyright violations. All contributions of substantial amounts of text should be considered suspect and checked carefully. Rather than add to the sizeable list at Wikipedia:Contributor copyright investigations/Noodleki, I have been doing blanket rollbacks and CSD G5's, though of course anyone is free to undo the rollbacks and contest the CSDs in the event that the contribution turns out to be legitimate. — Psychonaut ( talk) 14:01, 11 March 2013 (UTC)
1. You have reverted my edit to the article Horizontal plane which added that a spirit level may be used to check for horizontality. I think that an early mention of the spirit level in the article is natural. It is the obvious instrument to use to check if a plane is horizontal. 2. You have also reverted the diagrams I added to the article. I believe that the diagrams increased the clarity and accessibility of the article, an article aimed at reducing the misconceptions surrounding the concept of horizontality. (In general, Wiki needs more diagrams, I believe, not less). Can you throw some light on the matter? 94.175.116.15 ( talk) 15:08, 11 March 2013 (UTC)The previous unsigned edit was by Shanker Pur ( talk) 15:17, 11 March 2013 (UTC)
1.Thank you for your reply and I shall try to improve the image. But let me first reproduce it here as I left it in the article, not the way you have shown it, truncated and thus making it unreadable. As my edit said, the object is meant to be a knobbly, non homogenous, planet. Those bits of white, red and blue in the diagram are meant to illustrate the heterogeneity of the thing. The curved lines are meant to be lines of field and the whole point as explained in the main text of the article is that verticals may not even be straight. 2. Can you please tell me why you removed my reference to the spirit level? The spirit level is an obvious tool to check if a plane is horizontal. So why did you remove that reference? 3. You mention "a massive WP:OR problem to all of this". Are you saying that my illustrations to the article under discussion - which is the Horizontal plane article fall foul of this requirement? Are you saying that the illustration of a spirit level, a mention of its use to determine horilzontality, is an example of original research? The article has been in wiki for a long time and I don't see how my illustrations make it original research. Shanker Pur ( talk) 18:46, 11 March 2013 (UTC)
I suggest calming down about Anthony Seldon ( talk · contribs). This remark is a bit inflammatory, given that Seldon has only really created two questionable articles. Assuming good faith, I think we should keep quiet and watch, but not inflame. WikiDan61 ChatMe! ReadMe!! 16:05, 11 March 2013 (UTC)
Hey Andy Dingley; I'm dropping you this note because you've used the article feedback tool in the last month or so. On Thursday and Friday the tool will be down for a major deployment; it should be up by Saturday, failing anything going wrong, and by Monday if something does :). Thanks, Okeyes (WMF) ( talk) 21:40, 13 March 2013 (UTC)
Andy, I'm trying to understand some of the basic features of Wikipedia...sorry to hit you with this question, but if you would indulge I will be grateful. Recently, an edit was done to the Bugatti page deleting a reference to Steve Jobs. I believe the edit to have been correct (though I could be wrong). My purpose for writing you is that, even though the history indicates that you reverted the edit in question (at least that's my reading of it), the reference to Steve Jobs remains unseen. Am I misunderstanding the history? Shaypic ( talk) 01:04, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
![]() |
The Barnstar of Good Humor | |
Methinks thou hast spoken sooth, dude. Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 02:33, 15 March 2013 (UTC) |
You asked me to come talk to you, and then you put the twinkle remover so my comments will automatically be removed. Wanted to post one last message to say that I tried to come talk to you.
If you ever decided that you want to get into sailing, you know where to find duckers. They are all over the world, I am sure some are close to where you live and they will welcome you with open arms. Maybe after you build your own boat and met with other duckers to go sailing, you would see what a wonderful experience it is and want to help the cause. With your help, other new people wanting to get into sailing can also know who duckers are and where to find them.
Cheap, creative and having fun on the water. -- Buthsop ( talk) 15:06, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
Yes, 5 people deleted the link, 0 have talked about the merits of the link and whether it deserves to be included. That would mean... 5 deletionists went about their ways of deleting stuff, just for the sake of deleting. As far as my summary of your actions, anyone can see the accuracy of my statements by viewing our respective logs.
Anyone with common sense knows the purpose of Wikipedia is to collect and share information. But just in case, I read the purpose of wikipedia page and it confirmed this.
The Puddle Duck Racer is unique in that it is the easiest boat in the world to build. There is a page here called boat, surely that boat page should somehow include information about the easiest one to build. I freely admit I am an idiot, do not know the ways of wikipedia, and I am probably including the information on the page in an improper manner. You agreed with me in your statements above, the pdracer does have merit. Looking at the history of the boat page, you have edited it over the years and even made edits that subsequently include the pdracer link, so that in itself says you do approve of the link. The question now is, how should it be properly included on the boat page?
There is a section called boat materials, but not really a section on the page that explains there is a HUGE movement of people that build their own boats (numerous examples), so do you think this new section should be included? You mention you are not happy with some of the other sections of the page and can see it needs to be cleaned up in other ways too. I ask you (clearly an expert, great skill and power in this wiki realm), will you now help contribute to the knowledge that Wikipedia, the greatest website on the planet, which wishes to collect and share with the world? Surely for someone of your skill, finding the proper way to include the puddle duck information on the boat page would be a trivial matter, and you would be able to maintain that information for a length of time and prevent it from whisked away by deletionists.
As you pointed out, the deletionists out number me and my efforts are easily swept away. But at least I tried to contribute. And the people I tried to help are real, some of them live very close to where you live. When they stumble upon this conversation, they will see that I tried to help them. Buthsop ( talk) 16:53, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
Hi Andy, You seem to have endorsed the Meccano robot in Industrial_robot. But does it truly meet the ISO criterion of being reprogrammable? George Devol's first industrial robot had a computer and a programming language. I'm worried about this. A big paragraph and possibly trivial? Robotics1 ( talk) 20:42, 17 March 2013 (UTC)
Hi, could you please provide a source for the 30 ml which you reinstated in your revert? The only source I could find was a removed paragraph in the page history that had a "citation needed" flag. -- Janschejbal ( talk)
Thanks. Sfan00 IMG ( talk) 13:47, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
Would you mind not uncentring the image captions? They're much tidier when centred. Keith-264 ( talk) 18:59, 23 March 2013 (UTC)
<center>...</center>
to several million individual image captions - it is far more efficient to make the change centrally. Files such as
this one (there are several others) contain the styling for all of Wikipedia; the styling is put into centralised files so that the whole site may have a consistent appearance. It's the class combination .mw-content-ltr .thumbcaption
that would need to be amended; it presently has the property text-align:left;
but we could make the change for the whole of English Wikipedia at one stroke by adding one line to
MediaWiki:Common.css: .mw-content-ltr .thumbcaption { text-align:center; }
It bis clear on the steam engine talk page that you do not have miuch of a technically. That is a fact by your writings. You think you an authority on this subject which is laughable. You are reverting on YOUR POV not fact or references. Leave the article alone. 188.223.226.180 ( talk) 14:18, 24 March 2013 (UTC)
The links you deleted on Lake District by making a rollback of my edits are not spam, so please selfrevert. One of the links leads to a *.gov.uk site belonging to the Lake District National Park and was restored to the page by me after someone else deleted it, and the link to Visitcumbria.com isn't spam either, as you could see on the Village Pump and my talk page (which you must have read or you wouldn't have found the discussion on/at the Village Pump). Thomas.W ( talk) 19:34, 28 March 2013 (UTC)
HTML is extended from SGMLguid, not SGML. It is an SGML application. SGML itself is not a markup language at all, like HTML, but a language to write markup language definitions in. SGMLguid is not "one of arguably many precursors to HTML". It is the one and only markup language that HTML was extended from, initially by adding the anchor tag. See http://infomesh.net/html/history/early/ -- rtc ( talk) 18:35, 1 April 2013 (UTC)
Hi Andy. You're the expert on tubular bridges and I'm not, but it seemed to me that some mention should be made of the Chepstow bridge in that article. I hope you can tweak it, if it needs to be rewritten to make more sense. Ghmyrtle ( talk) 15:49, 31 March 2013 (UTC)
Category:Named cranes, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. DexDor ( talk) 05:38, 6 April 2013 (UTC)
I was just looking at the recent edits to Wikipedia:Pledges and found one by an editor named Rememberway, which seemed quite impractical to me, as I couldn't see anyone following it. I wanted to ask Rememberway, but when I saw that he is now blocked, I considered removing it. But then, I saw you speak up for him on his talk page, despite differences you had, and felt that incidentally you were acting in the same selfless spirit as Rememberway's pledge. So I decided to ask your opinion, first. Do you think it is a practical pledge that we should keep in the essay? — Sebastian 02:12, 7 April 2013 (UTC)
Hello Andy !
if you remember you are the first person to welcome me on wikipedia in Jan 2013 . I would like to ask you for a favour if you are willing to spend some time on me and my edits in the field of engineering particularly. and later on adopt me or suggest me an adoptee who is experienced particularly in thermal and mechanical engineering ? Thank you for your time and effort in advance
Ghorpaapi (
talk) 12:34, 11 April 2013 (UTC)
Ghorpaapi ( talk) 10:18, 19 April 2013 (UTC)
Andy,
Please see
User talk:Peter Horn#Nameplate.
Peter Horn
User talk 01:33, 20 April 2013 (UTC)
The guidelines are quite clear in regards to unsourced material; Any material lacking a reliable source directly supporting it may be removed. The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material. ChakaKong talk 14:06, 20 April 2013 (UTC)
This change can make connections safer. Also, this change doesn't make anything goes wrong, it's harmless to any users. -- Someone's Moving Castle 02:09, 21 April 2013 (UTC)
There is no conceivable NPOV reason to exempt only the ARRL from the provision to use DMOZ for all external links on that article. If the ARRL is allowed to be listed outside of DMOZ then all national amateur radio societies are also entitled to be listed in the same way. Roger (Dodger67) ( talk) 20:47, 24 April 2013 (UTC)
I'm trying to improve Help:Searching, but another user who has added an excess of disorganized geek detail (written in not-so-good English) seems to think that he owns the page. I told him that he can "own" the geek detail, but I want to fix the overview summary (intro.) at the top of the page. I'd appreciate 3rd opinions. LittleBen ( talk) 18:06, 27 April 2013 (UTC)
We appear to be having a minor edit war. There used to be an article titled "Plain Old Semantic HTML" (POSH). This described how POSH was the use of HTML for content, and not for presentation. POSH includes avoiding <b>, <i>, <br>, tables for presentation, etc. In 2010, the article was converted to a #REDIRECT to a section in the article Microformat. In 2011, this section was deleted. Since then, as far as I can tell, the only place POSH is defined is on the disambiguation page, POSH#Computing. A reader searching for "Plain Old Semantic HTML" will want to read a description of what it is. Pointing readers to a disambiguation page seems strange but, I would suggest, this is the best way to help readers. A better way would be to mention POSH on the page Semantic HTML. The problem with this, however, is that POSH is not notable, only ever having been used by the microformats community. Let me know what you think. (Please respond here.) HairyWombat 18:33, 28 April 2013 (UTC)
Later. Don't respond here. See you at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion. HairyWombat 18:47, 28 April 2013 (UTC)
Hi Andy - you tagged this article over two years ago but there has been little improvement. I have raised it as non-notable WP:Notability/Noticeboard#Hovercraft_.22Dragonfly.22 and I think it should be deleted, but your input would be welcome. Wikiwayman ( talk) 13:33, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
Hello Andy, I have just added my support for your comments on Admin Notice Board. It does seem that this unregistered editor will not listen to consensus and had made some nasty comments on the contribution of the Free French and others. I really fail to see why he cannot abide by Wikipedia rules and conduct. Regards, David, David J Johnson ( talk) 22:39, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Humphrey Pump, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Del Rio ( check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot ( talk) 15:00, 4 May 2013 (UTC)
If I recall correctly, I deleted this material as spam because it appeared to have been added by the publisher as part of a campaign to add links and "references" to his own self-published material in many different articles. ElKevbo ( talk) 15:54, 4 May 2013 (UTC)
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Hovercraft "Dragonfly" is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hovercraft "Dragonfly" until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Wikiwayman ( talk) 14:54, 7 May 2013 (UTC)
I responded to your revert on the talk page. L Faraone 00:47, 6 May 2013 (UTC)
WP:MOS/TM says "Follow standard English text formatting and capitalization rules, even if the trademark owner considers nonstandard formatting 'official'", per this, it has to be big.Little. I don't see how the other form is correct in relation. ViperSnake151 Talk 01:55, 6 May 2013 (UTC)
Been dealing with that clown on the sandpaper article for about 5min ... went to report him and see u already did. - thank u — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kap 7 ( talk • contribs) 11:02, 7 May 2013 (UTC) Kap 7 ( talk) 11:04, 7 May 2013 (UTC)
Ordinary locomotives are hot at one and cold the the other.
If such a locomotive stalls in a tunnel such as Swan View Tunnel, the crew can "always" escape via the cold end.
Garratt locomotives are hot at both ends, and if such a locomotive stalls in a tunnel, escape is problematic.
Hot would mean the temperature of water boiling at pressure, which may well exceed 100 degrees.
Articles about tunnels and Garratts do not explain this in so many words, because it is reasonably "bleeding obvious."
The big ordinary 57 class also had restrictions about running through small single line tunnels such as the Coal Cliff tunnel.
Please therefore unrevert your changes to the article. Tabletop ( talk) 23:12, 7 May 2013 (UTC)
You accuse me of "POV pushing". Do you really believe that some guy on an online forum known only as "aargee" is a reliable source? Sincerely, SamBlob ( talk) 03:00, 8 May 2013 (UTC)
Could you take a look a this edit in particular and perhaps the recent changes to List of Intel microprocessors, 1-bit architecture and Intel MCS-51 in general? It looks to me like he is confusing the bit addressing instructions ("Boolean processor") here with the actual 8051 architecture, which is of course 8-bit. Before I jump into correcting this, I would like a second opinion. Thanks! -- Guy Macon ( talk) 17:43, 8 May 2013 (UTC)
I have just acquired a secondhand copy of the above booklet by Bayley. It is a very environmentally friendly booklet, since to reduce the number of trees that have to be chopped down for its paper, and to reduce deadweight, it doesn't have a list of contents, or an index. Nor is there a blank page to write one's own contents or index, other than by using a loose shhet they would easily get lost.
The Swan View Tunnel is mentioned on page 54, and it says that:
... Wartime traffic in 1945 demanded more effective facilities and it was decided to build an additional line around the hill pierced by the old tunnel, involving a cutting 34 feet deep...
The book does not explain which war was meant by "1945 war".
It will also be necessary to read the tea-leaves to ascertain what "additional line" means. Maybe he means cable haulage on the 1 in 48 of the Wapping Tunnel of 1830 on the Liverpool and Manchester Railway (See same book p3). Tabletop ( talk) 10:17, 11 May 2013 (UTC)
Hi, you added an SPI notice to this users talk page but have not added the user to the SPI page for investigation. noq ( talk) 14:28, 20 May 2013 (UTC)
Hi. It's a problem (of style and of notability) because we are in talk page discussing about merge the article, and this repetition of info from another article (the one proposed to be merged in) don't help to centre de discussion in the relevant issues of the biography itself. -- Sageo ( talk) 18:00, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
....an article you prodded some months ago: the prod has been contested, and the article has duly been restored. Cheers. Lectonar ( talk) 13:34, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
Category:Domestic heating, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. DexDor ( talk) 05:48, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
Hi Andy, I obviously stimulated interest in the list. I understand what you are trying to do but qusestion whether the list is actually improved by separating the diameter attribute, especially when it would sort by Diameter anyway (as long as Diameter given first. I am adding some more info to some entries and will post it in the old format. Please do not take it personally , but I think you will agree that the list as a whole will probably be better with the dimensions in a single column-- Petebutt ( talk) 23:17, 28 May 2013 (UTC)
I'm not sure what was up with her, she sounded healthy as she passed me at Condover so I'm not sure... CrossHouses ( talk) 19:59, 2 June 2013 (UTC)
Hi Andy
My apologies if I am stepping on any toes in editing this article. I have an experience based understanding surrounding the topic, but am attempting to gain more of an academic knowledge on the finer points of HTML. All I hope to achieve is to make a meaningful contribution to the greater knowledge base on the topic. I am not trying to start an edit war, but simply hope to improve on what is already being said :) One way I hope to do so is to rewrite the article in a standardized language format. I see now that in my attempt to do this, I have been inadvertently mucking up some of the finer points surrounding the lingo. I apologize for this, and will cease to do so immediately. I do however ask that you allow me to make some mistakes, and to learn from them. Your corrections have already sent me scouring the internet for more in-depth reading on topics I thought I understood well, and if that is all I take away form this, it would have been time well spent. In any event, I will continue to enhance the article as I see fit, with the understanding that you and other editors will alert me if my edits are causing any misinformation to slip into the article. If you would be so kind as to consider each edit before reverting all my edits at once, or helping me correct my mistakes, I would be ever grateful. — Preceding unsigned comment added by PhunderMerwe ( talk • contribs) 17:57, 3 June 2013 (UTC)
Andy,
About
dolly (trailer) please see my replies at
User talk:Peter Horn#June 2013.
Peter Horn
User talk 14:35, 4 June 2013 (UTC)
Hi - I am putting together an article on the Coultershaw Beam Pump but am slightly confused by the technology. I see that you have previously commented on Talk:Beam engine#"steam engine" so I hope you don't mind me asking you for advice. Can you explain (in simple terms) the difference between a Beam engine and a Beam pump? I had originally linked to the latter in my draft introduction, but this re-directs to Pumpjack which is a "nodding donkey" type of engine. Also, the Beam engine article starts by saying "A beam engine is a type of steam engine" whereas the one at Coultershaw is operated from a waterwheel. I am rather confused. Thanks for any help and advice. I have also posed this question to User:EdJogg and User:Parrot of Doom who also commented in that thread. -- Daemonic Kangaroo ( talk) 07:17, 7 June 2013 (UTC)
Thanks guys for your very interesting and helpful comments. I have changed the re-direct on Beam pump to point to Beam engine as this seems more appropriate, especially in view of what (few) links there were to it. As for the article title, as every source I have gives it in Title Case, that's what I'll stick with. Likewise, the site is known for the Beam Pump rather than the (ugly) mill building that was pulled down in the 1970s. I plan to include a history section which will trace the history of Petworth's water supply as well as the mill buildings and machinery right up to the recent addition of an Archimedes screw. -- Daemonic Kangaroo ( talk) 06:21, 8 June 2013 (UTC)
Hello Andy,
Would
this be acceptable?
Peter Horn
User talk 20:19, 7 June 2013 (UTC)
Hi Andy, I assure you that I am taking your comments on board with each edit. Could you please stick to discussing the text, and avoid personal attacks? I find the repeated accusations of edit warring and comments such as "WTF", "edit warring tendentious vandal", "get something resembling a technical clue", "A random rag-bag of Google-droppings with no coherent thought" and "you have the nerve to start hatcheting other articles" quite hurtful. Regards, 1292simon ( talk) 23:18, 7 June 2013 (UTC)
G'day from Oz; your edit to Titanine Ltd. added a ref from Flight magazine, but the URL is for an advertisement for a fire tender. Leaving aside the issue of the suitability of using an advertisement as a ref (presuming it was an ad for Titanine that you wanted to link), you'd better find the correct page and redo the reflink. Cheers YSSYguy ( talk) 08:06, 12 June 2013 (UTC)
Andy, thanks for your comments. You might want to consider what is going on in the context of this - Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Europefan. -- Biker Biker ( talk) 12:30, 12 June 2013 (UTC)
Andy : have you ever cut a gear ? I've been doing this for, oh ... 38 years. I *have* cut continuous-tooth herringbone gears as well as double-helicals (which have a clearance groove down the center.) If you look in Dudley (Handbook of Modern Gear Design ? I am in China now and don't have access to my books)you will see that this is the accepted terminology by people who know what they are talking about.
Even worse is *this* - "the alignment may be staggered, so that tooth tip meets tooth trough. The latter alignment is the unique defining characteristic of a Wuest type herringbone gear, named after its inventor." How can you even call that a herringbone ? The teeth are offset by half a tooth space and don't even resemble herringbones. I won't go into what a dumb design the "wuest" is but anyhow, it's going to be about as popular as the novikoff and wildhaber non-conjugate forms that never took off. If you want to talk weird crap, there's plenty of that in the gear world but it's my own opinion that wikipedia should stick to mainstream designs when discussing mainstream topics. If someone wants to create an article about the "wuest gear" that sounds fine but they are not herringbone gears anymore than a spiral bevel is a wormgear just because the teeth are curved. Different animules ....
If you cut gears, a continuous tooth gear is called a herringbone (or sometimes a Sykes gear, after the most common machines they were made on) and an opposed-helix 30* right-and-left helical with a clearance gap in the center is a double helical. (They don't have to be 30* helicals but they almost always are.)
I'm not going to fight over it but if people who know anything read the article, they will be snickering.
Added: Looked a little deeper - the other reversions you made are not correct either. On the other hand, my changes were not all that great so I'm not what you'd call upset. The entire article is not very accurate. The "smoothness" of a helical is NOT because "multiple teeth enter and exit simultaneously" - if that happend there would be vibration up the kazoo. And in fact, if you draw the line of action you will see this is not possible. What happens with a well-designed helical is two things - one is that the contact ratio stays over 2, so you always have at least two teeth in mesh. That has several good effects which I'm not going to type here, it'd take me all night. The oother positive feature of helicals is that the teeth slide into mesh across the face, rather than bang bang bang across the entire face width at one time. Teeth bend under load so the unloaded teeth are not in the correct position relative to each other when the gearset is loaded. At the initial point of contact they actually hit each other (across the full face width in the case of spur gears)unless you have tip and root relief. This creates rough running. And if you do have tip and root relief, they don't mesh nicely when UNloaded. Can't win for losing :)
Anyway, I didn't want to rewrite the entire article but as it is, it's not very accurate.
210.22.142.82 ( talk) 14:17, 11 June 2013 (UTC)
Why did you redirect the term floating dry dock in the HMS Agincourt article, which redirected exactly to the place it was supposed to, to floating dock, which is itself a DAB?-- Sturmvogel 66 ( talk) 21:46, 13 June 2013 (UTC)
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Kings Weston Action Group is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kings Weston Action Group until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. SP-KP ( talk) 11:22, 16 June 2013 (UTC)
Hi Andy, I read a comment in the talk section for the metal we're calling "Gilding Metal" and I think we're calling it the wrong thing. Other sources are calling it "Gliding Metal", which I think is the right name. It is the alloy used for parts that glide past each other. Please take a look at some of the material on the web and see if you agree. Longinus876 ( talk) 22:00, 16 June 2013 (UTC)
It isnt a nationality, its an ethnic group. Any ideas why you call it a nationality? Please expand..... Murry1975 ( talk) 19:28, 11 June 2013 (UTC)
ethnicity
' parameter in this template. However there is a nationality
parameter.
Andy Dingley (
talk) 19:42, 11 June 2013 (UTC)
ethnicity
' parameter in the template {{
Infobox scientist}}. If someone has added one to the article text that's optimistic of them, but (for the third time) there is no 'ethnicity
' parameter in this template and it ain't going to work.
Andy Dingley (
talk) 19:51, 11 June 2013 (UTC)
It's not even an ethnic group. It's a socio-economic classification. You might as well say that his nationality was "landed gentry" or "robber baron" or "plantation owner". The Science Museum describes him as English, the American Society of Mechanical Engineers calls him British, Britannica calls him British, Cambridge University describes him as " one of the greatest engineers that this country has ever produced". I'm not sure that his (or anyone's) nationality is particularly relevant, but why is his social stratum "even more" relevant? He was born in London, and spent a couple of years in Ireland but the rest of his life in England. Any Irish ethnicity, if it can be established, might be worth a passing mention in his biog, but it's not relevant to his invention and is certainly not his nationality. You could hardly find a better example of Anglo-Irish Protestant Ascendancy than the Dublin-born Duke of Wellington, and Wikipedia describes him as "British". Parsons was even more so. Amandabum ( talk) 12:16, 15 June 2013 (UTC)
Even better. The Parsons family was of English descent, so Irish ethnicity don't enter into it. Bit like saying someone is Anglo-Spanish because they've got a timeshare. Amandabum ( talk) 12:39, 15 June 2013 (UTC)
That link describes the Anglo-Irish as a "privileged social class", which isn't a million miles from "socio-economic classification", if you ask me. It says it right there. There's no suggestion they were an ethnic group. Privileged social classes enjoy certain advantages, but that doesn't make them an ethnic group. The Dook could claim to be both British and Irish, in view of the year of his birth. Sure, the article mentions the Anglo-Irish but doesn't make out a case for ethnicity. It says on more than one occasion that Wellington was British. But there's no point in arguing about ethnicity. The issue is that they're not a nationality. References to Parsons's nationality being Anglo-Irish seem to be largely based on the Wiki article, which isn't usually a good omen. Parsons was British, and Andy's got it wrong. Amandabum ( talk) 10:23, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult for editors. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help find a resolution. The thread is " deadmaus, deadmau5". Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you! EarwigBot operator / talk 03:11, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
There is currently a discussion at ANI. AN3 admins may be reluctant to get into the matter when those at ANI have already looked at it. Would you consider withdrawing the AN3 complaint? Thanks, EdJohnston ( talk) 23:33, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
Kindly be specific. WHERE did I describe you as an "asshole"? Anywhere? Ever? Nope, I don't think so. I have said absolutely NOTHING about you anywhere ever at all at any time. Please leave your WikiLawyering to someone else's Talk Page, I'm not interested in your speculations. =//= Johnny Squeaky 21:48, 23 June 2013 (UTC)
Hi Andy, I'm not sure where you got the idea I called you an "asshole", I just don't see that anywhere. Can you provide a reference where I called you an "asshole"? Not really sure what you're talking about, but really, I think you and "Span" need to step back and take a deep breath. I really think you need to take a look at your own ego trip and personal motivations in "pounding" my talk page with such unkind and quite frankly, aggressive comments. Seriously, Andy, I'm sure you can round up an Admin to "slap" me for you, but really, what you need to do is step back and take a deep breath and devote your energies to something worthwhile. By the way, I am not really impressed with WikiLawyering, really you should make your case with common sense, if you can. Listen, "Andy", if you can not be a gentleman, don't post on my Talk Page again. I'll simply delete it without reading it, your efforts wasted. By far the best way to work out disputes is to have CIVIL dialog. If you can't do that, go gripe someplace else. =//= Johnny Squeaky 22:36, 23 June 2013 (UTC)
Hi there,
I recently added an external link to both Piston & solenoid valves. I am not quite sure why they are deemed as spammy like you said, one is a link to a tutorial on solenoid valves, furthering the readers knowledge with the second being a look at Piston Valves, have you clicked through to the articles or just seen the name 'forum' in the URL and deemed it as spam? I can assure you it isn't.
Regards
Alex Wall — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alexjwall91 ( talk • contribs) 12:25, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
Terrible article, but I think you should remove the PROD as it is a known 'law'. [6] [7] (which calls it a well-known law). It is however a bad article, pov and written by an author with a COI. Dougweller ( talk) 14:26, 28 June 2013 (UTC)
[ec]
Please don't replace un-cited and irrelevant material without an explanation. If you have questions about my edits, please post them to the article talk page or my own talk page. Or, at the very least, provide a useful edit summary. -- Mikeblas ( talk) 03:22, 29 June 2013 (UTC)
The page needs to be brought back to life. I don't think this needs much explanation...he's a Duke. I read the deletion thread and it doesn't look serious at all to me--can't a senior wikipedia editor override it? Zigzig20s ( talk) 02:11, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
Not sure why you contacted me about this. I've never heard of Chris Alexander (nothing against him). I edited content on the page for Cris Alexander -a different person. 68.8.57.249 ( talk) 16:49, 9 July 2013 (UTC)
Category:Tracked armoured recovery vehicles by country, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. DexDor ( talk) 06:19, 13 July 2013 (UTC)
The parent category of a category is not added to a page. The page already is member of that parent categpory. - DePiep ( talk) 13:09, 17 July 2013 (UTC)
![]() |
The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar |
For your great job defending Wikipedia against Wikipediocracy! Liquid Water 17:55, 17 July 2013 (UTC) |
I agree. Unlike Encyclopedia Dramatica, what I have read of Wikipediocracy (which is only in Wikipedia) is not humorous; it is malicious. My own position is a minority position, which is that anyone posting a link to Wikipediocracy should be blocked temporarily as a warning. I would politely ask that you take down those links, because illustrating malicious behavior encourages it. Please do not feed the trolls. Robert McClenon ( talk) 00:55, 17 July 2013 (UTC)
Also this:
Is interesting. Nice to put a face to one's trolls from time to time. Andy Dingley ( talk) 11:11, 17 July 2013 (UTC)
Hi Andy, I think you're raising some very good points about Wikipediocracy. I have been reading the site for about a month, and I'm really shocked by a lot of what's written by Wikipedia editors on that page. Why do they edit WP if they are constantly making allegations, outing and harassing editors? Doesn't sound too constructive to me. BTW, i'd be more than happy to assist you with setting up a case :) Liquid Water 16:05, 17 July 2013 (UTC)
I've restored it, but the big problem was that it read sort of like promotional material. Tokyogirl79 (。◕‿◕。) 10:10, 20 July 2013 (UTC)
Hey, thanks for reverting your revert. I realized that "postwar" might not be clear, so I added the date. When I started populating this list, way back when, it seemed clear that there needed to be some dividing line to keep the length manageable. Since automotive production was interrupted in much of the West during World War II, I thought it made sense to cut it off there, especially since the history of many early marques (and the question of what is a separate model) gets very blurry at times. So 1945 it is. I'm working on a list of post-'45 V-8 cars, too, but that will have to be its own page; it's wayyy too long. Anyway, thanks, and sorry for any confusion. I was not trying to be rude. Sacxpert ( talk) 18:47, 26 July 2013 (UTC)
I don't plan doing any further work on the Charles Pierre Melly article. I do have thoughts on doing articles on historic notables here in Bradford.
The reason I started it was because I recently came across a Charles P Melly (former) drinking fountain in Peel Park, Bradford close to where I live. I am interested in doing articles on parks and districts in Bradford and have done a few. Having updated the Peel Park page it left some red unlinked text and I thought the best way to get rid of it was to start the Charles P Melly page.
I have met few notable people but one such was George Melly himself (and John Chilton's? Foot-tappers) in Middlesbrough town hall crypt in 1979 (he'd been there before) when I was on the lighting crew. He insisted that during one of his songs that we avoid pulling the plug on the stroboscopic light he used during that routine - as that sometimes happened too early to everybody's embarrassment. I was on the plug, (there was no switch on the in-line socket) but fortunately it wasn't my decision - it was the local theatre's stage manager on the portable lighting desk who was making the decision as I was largely unsighted. Had it been down to me, he might have finished his song with a period of blackout. At the end of the concert he made a point of thanking us both for getting it right - but I kept quiet.
I recall George cautioning his audience against the lager as they would be not be buying it - merely renting it. I believe the lager there then was Stella Artois. - Stuffed cat ( talk) 13:58, 27 July 2013 (UTC)
Please explain (nicely) why you reverted my edit on the article Continuous track. The "Advantages" and "Disadvantages" sections are considered a pro-con list under WP:PROCON. I don't know all the rules and stuff yet so please explain. MopSeeker ( talk) 13:19, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
Your comments are noted.
Much apreciated if you could also have words with the operator of ContinuityBot, as that bot in particular does not seem to recognize the point of view you espouse, in relation to items tagged for commons.
Sfan00 IMG ( talk) 11:05, 3 August 2013 (UTC)
as concerns about ContinuityBot have been raised on it's Operator's talk page. (It was for example de-tagging FFD keeps, where there had been a reasonable consensus in SUPPORT of transfer) Sfan00 IMG ( talk) 11:12, 3 August 2013 (UTC)
post an 'edit war' message on my page that looks as if it came from an admin? I notice you don't have one on your page... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nitrobutane ( talk • contribs) 13:11, 3 August 2013 (UTC)
are you avoiding the question? why are you pretending to be an admin? this is unpleasant and vaguely menacing — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nitrobutane ( talk • contribs) 01:52, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
{{
unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}
. However, you should read the
guide to appealing blocks first.
Jayron
32 03:51, 4 August 2013 (UTC)Andy Dingley ( block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser ( log))
Request reason:
FFS! It is hard to comprehend just what preventative measure Jayron thinks they're achieving here. For background, please see Hydraulic accumulator and Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Edit_warring#User:Nitrobutane_reported_by_User:Andy_Dingley_.28Result:_Both_blocked_.29. This is a long-term stable article of no evident controversy. Nitrobutane is making an off-the-wall change with no supporting evidence. That's OK, they're a new editor - we give allowances. However we don't break articles either, nor leave them broken. I do a lot of vandalism reversion and although this is clearly a GF change, it's also a mighty persistent one and it doesn't belong. Was the article unclear beforehand? Maybe – so I expanded it with a footnote, hoping to simply clarify the problem (this is the only forward-moving content edit that anyone has made in this whole mess). Could more have been done to patiently explain the issue? Of course - it always can - but there's a limit to anyone's patience and when confronted with undiscussed, stonewall removal of a significant and previously uncontested term. Nitrobutane doesn't appear to grasp the technical distinction between the compressibility of gases and liquids, and why this makes the hydraulic accumulator a necessary device. If so, he needs a textbook and to go and look it up, not to keep hacking on a WP article he doesn't understand. (If you're not technical, his assertion "slight compression of hydraulic fluid in the accumulator could store part of the energy, " is true enough in physics as a principle, but unworkable in engineering because the pressures needed would be vast - using a compressible gas allows the same thing to be done, but at a credible lower pressure.) Of course reversion ping-pong helps no-one. As it's a quiet article with no other active editors evident, it needed a new forum for this. WP:3O might have been possible (although that's not the most fast-reacting forum) but when dealing with five blankings already, that's close enough to 3RR that it's warranted to raise it as AN3. What was needed here was no more than a word from an unconnected 3rd party, even Jayron. No-one ought to have been blocked for this. I also note that Nitrobutane's reaction to the EW3 listing was to make a sixth deletion (and this is still a deletion of content that has been long stable per consensus). Jayron imposed a block with the article left in that state. So if there's any damage happening to the article (and blocks are being thrown around to prevent this) does this mean that Jayron is now wading in on the content issue too and claiming that Nitrobutane's version is now the correct one? There has been no bright-line 3RR here (until that last change). I half-expected to have this bounced off AN3 as "no breach". Double blocking is ridiculous. Andy Dingley ( talk) 10:15, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
Decline reason:
If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{ unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.
The creator of the page was User:PhilipHMitchell talk. I'm not sure what purpose an OTRS ticket would serve, since the text is promotional enough to be speedied on that account alone. I'm happy to sandbox the text to you, the creator of the article or both, but even if the dollops of spam and peacockery were sorted out, it would probably fail on notability, so I don't know whether it's worth the effort. Let me know what you think Jimfbleak - talk to me? 13:04, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
I have no problem with the spelling being corrected. It's the incorrect "FIAT" I'm concerned with. TREKphiler any time you're ready, Uhura 21:17, 13 August 2013 (UTC)
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot ( talk) 10:53, 16 August 2013 (UTC)
Thank you for removing the PROD template from Circular arc hull, and apparently from other such articles, too. Please tell me just what you are doing, and how you decide. -- DThomsen8 ( talk) 00:31, 18 August 2013 (UTC)
Hi, Mr. Dingley. I was reading your account of "Ramsbottom safety valves" in Wikipedia's article on safety valves, when the text suddenly broke off:
"Mis-assembly of just this nature led to a fatal boiler explosion in 1909 at Cardiff on the Rhymney Railway, even though the boiler was almost new, at only eight months old.[24] The report of the inquiry into this accident was … "
So, what follows "this accident was" ?
When you inserted your text on Ramsbottom safety valves (on 26 September 2012), you appear to have copied and pasted from a text that you'd prepared; however, you didn't copy the entire original text, since the words after "this accident was" are missing. I hope that you still have the original text, so that you can fill the gap in the article.
I was impressed by the fruits of your research. Many thanks for sharing them. Cwkmail ( talk) 07:12, 19 August 2013 (UTC)
Thanks for the kind remarks. Although I live only a few miles from Coultershaw, I have yet to actually visit the site. I'm in Spain for several weeks - on my return, I'll try to get over there and get some photos. -- Daemonic Kangaroo ( talk) 10:13, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
I see that you have reversed my deletion of this inappropriate phrase (used incorrectly in the intro) within 7 minutes here. No adequate justification for your actions are stated, self-published 2000s sources such as commercial sites - Ace Cafe - are not acceptable or convincing, not quite spam but they have a vested interest in promoting their name and general hype.
ThanQ for confirming you are watching this page - I had always anticipated an edit-war with 2 or 3 individuals, but not with you! I have added 'better source' tags - I expect you will delete these, too??!! Remember, I am writing this record for admins. Cafe racers did not exist in the 1960s and 1970s UK, period, no arguments. If you have any proper, contemporary sources you should quote them. The periodicals would be The Motor Cycle (magazine) (became Motor Cycle Weekly), Motor Cycle News, Motor Cycling (magazine), Motorcyclist Illustrated, Motorcycle Sport, Motorcycle Mechanics (not The Classic MotorCycle).
The earliest UK ref I know of is Clay, 1988, book. Anything later is simply repetitive gravy-train profiteering and irrelevant, as is the trashy TV show. Also largely-irrelevant is the argument about cafe, caff - spelling and pronunciation, etc. as the bikes and people weren't called that, there is no evidence that they were. They weren't necessarily called cafe races - they were known as something different, which I will not quote here.
My earliest UK motorcycling source for Café (with accent) is 1962, referring to the BUILDING, not the people or bikes - no mention of cafe racer in the article. Cafe Racer is a total Americanism, along with rice-burner, hog, that sort of thing which I assume you know-well to be entirely Americanisms. I have now been working with an acknowledged US expert on this for some months, but I am not prepared to quote any US hard-published sources presently (earliest is 1969) as the pages need a major re-write without the risk of potential outside interference.
Yes, my OR - proper research, not relying on much-repeated unsourced corruptions. Some of the stuff I'm seeing is outrageous "..they raced from Inn to Inn..." If you know anything about M/Cs you will be able to recognise the several errors/anomalies in the ref by a car-journalist, Wally Wyss, here in the 1973 Practical Mechanics US general household mag often quoted.
When I consult Wikipedia for info, I want it to be right, and written by an expert - not someone who thinks it's OK as someone else must have been right previously, even though there's no adequate sourcing for any of it.
If you can prove just ONE 1960s UK source then I will shout "I'm not worthy...."
By continuing the 'cafe racer' myth, you are corrupting Wikipedia - those who do not know better will asssume it's gospel. Users are charged with maintaining the integrity of the site. The fact that you have not improved this Triton page with period refs is substance enough. Unsourced material should be removed. I will provide at least 2 1960s refs for my (dealer-supplied complete bikes) edits in due course (I often do this so please don't jump on me, as I have a life outside). But I will not graft to justify the content of the entire, unsourced article which has no indication of origins.
I look forward to your justification for citing Ace Cafe - a completely modern site, not having any relevance to prove dubious, supposed-1960s clichés! Can't see any period page-scans showing Cafe Racer quotations in print on Ace Cafe!! Rocknrollmancer ( talk) 15:01, 28 August 2013 (UTC)
Re your reversion of my edit to Ferguson TE20, do you intend to create an article for Banner Lane, Coventry? Biscuittin ( talk) 11:35, 29 August 2013 (UTC)
What links here
list also allows the redlinks to be grouped to the same name, avoiding some risk of multiple targets developing for the same topic. I know we've disagreed in the past as to whether it was better to turn redlinks into redirects, although as there's a pretty relevant redir target here, I think a redirect is a perfectly adequate state until someone writes a specific article on Banner Lane.
Andy Dingley (
talk) 12:06, 29 August 2013 (UTC)
Hey Andy Dingley. I'm contacting you because you're involved in the Article Feedback Tool in some way, either as a previous newsletter recipient or as an active user of the system. As you might have heard, a user recently anonymously disabled the feedback tool on 2,000 pages. We were unable to track or prevent this due to the lack of logging feature in AFT5. We're deeply sorry for this, as we know that quite a few users found the software very useful, and were using it on their articles.
We've now re-released the software, with the addition of a logging feature and restrictions on the ability to disable. Obviously, we're not going to automatically re-enable it on each article—we don't want to create a situation where it was enabled by users who have now moved on, and feedback would sit there unattended—but if you're interested in enabling it for your articles, it's pretty simple to do. Just go to the article you want to enable it on, click the "request feedback" link in the toolbox in the sidebar, and AFT5 will be enabled for that article.
Again, we're very sorry about this issue; hopefully it'll be smooth sailing after this :). If you have any questions, just drop them at the talkpage. Thanks! Okeyes (WMF) 22:09, 1 September 2013 (UTC)
The edits I made were not utter trivia, The edits were just a ref — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.178.220.82 ( talk) 18:01, 6 September 2013 (UTC)
Hi there,
The changes I made to the Interpreter (computing) page, regarding CSS, was only to hide a non-constructive reference section from displaying on books/prints/pdfs. It was the suggested workaround ( https://bugzilla.wikimedia.org/show_bug.cgi?id=48052). I hope I didn't do anything wrong (as I was planning to alter some other pages on compiler/programming languages in order to display them better on a print), and if I did, I'd like some guidance. :) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Paulo torrens ( talk • contribs) 01:39, 9 September 2013 (UTC)
class=noprint
does make it effectively unprintable in any context. It is much harder to reverse the effects of class=noprint
for some particular context than it is to do it right in the first place.Hi Andy, I'm currently writing an article on the management of lists for the WikiProject Video Games Newsletter and in order to make it as neutral and helpful as possible, I was hoping to provide views from the other side of the spectrum from my own. Would you be interested in contributing a few paragraphs (1-2) to this article? It's due by October 3 so you have a little time to decide yet, but if you are interested then I'd be asking you to comment on how our discussion of the selection criteria used at "list of fictional badgers" and our inclusion of a lede works so well. If possible it might be nice to mention the praise we've received from The Guardian (linked at the article's talk page). You can see a draft of the article and where your contributions would be needed at User:Thibbs/Sandbox7 (just text search your username). Please let me know if you'd be willing to contribute to the newsletter. - Thibbs ( talk) 15:03, 1 September 2013 (UTC)
I don't disagree with your reasoning. However: (a) hydroforming _is_ used in connection with the press in one of the photos on the page; (b) I don't see the word 'ram' mentioned as being definitive for hydraulic presses in the article; and (c) it might be helpful to readers to make a constructive connection with hydroforming amongst the ways of forming materials.
SewerCat ( talk) 17:58, 12 September 2013 (UTC)
Industrial Robot was vandalised by 24.111.1.182, thanks for helping with the cleanup. Have you looked at his history? He's been a vandal since 2008. Can we block him? Robotics1 (talk) 20:52, 16 September 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Robotics1 ( talk • contribs)
Yes, the topic of the planned film is getting and will likely continue to get lots of coverage, but when considering planned films we look to the applicable guideline and consider whether or not that coverage gives us anything solid about the film itself... casting, production, plot, etc. To be fair to our readers, I think a temporary redirect to either J.K. Rowling or the article on the 2001 book " Fantastic Beasts and Where to Find Them" by that author (and where this adaptation IS already written about), is a valid consideration. The arguments about how the film topic might become supremely notable have a bit of merit, but I think it logical that we send readers for now to where it makes sense under policy, guideline and essay to keep readers informed. What'cha think? Schmidt, Michael Q. 02:30, 18 September 2013 (UTC)
Hi again, Andy. I don't know if you noticed that I'd made a request above. If you don't want to help me or if you can't that's fine. Please let me know either way, though. I anticipate being rather busy offline in the next few weeks and I'd like to be able to complete this job as I've volunteered to do it by October 2. The sooner I can get your answer the better I can manage my time. Thanks in advance for your response. - Thibbs ( talk) 00:21, 19 September 2013 (UTC)
I've added the information you requested on the Dataphor article. McKay ( talk) 20:00, 19 September 2013 (UTC)
Hi Andy, I wanted to let you know I went through the page and added references, links to other wikipedia pages and removed some statements. I am new to creating Wikipedia pages so I wanted to send you this message to make sure I corrected the page so it is no longer considered for deletion. I plan on creating some other pages and want to be sure I do those correctly based on the way I did this page.
Thank you.
-- M.Renae ( talk) 14:45, 24 September 2013 (UTC)
Hi. I just wanted to say I absolutely agree with your point on Talk:Induction motor about the "Wikigoggles" effect, where an editor concentrates on one word or technical point, and inserts long exceptions/definitions/caveats which destroys the intelligibility of the text. That really irritates me too. I really don't think I was doing that in the Induction motor article; my only interest was in removing the one term synchronous motor. At least I hope I wasn't wearing "Wikigoggles"; I guess it's easy to do. Anyway, glad to hear someone shares that concern. My main focus on WP the last few years has been to try to make technically-oriented articles, particularly the introductions, more comprehensible to general readers. That often involves rewriting the tortured prose left after several rounds of the "Wikigoggles" effect you mention. Cheers -- Chetvorno TALK 20:32, 25 September 2013 (UTC)
I know you've been a fair editor of the Steampunk section for quite a long time now. The page for Dr. Steel's album, "Dr. Steel Read-Along", has been tagged for deletion, by an editor known to be hostile to Dr. Steel in particular and the genre in general. Please weigh in on the AfD discussion page. /info/en/?search=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Dr._Steel_Read-A-Long -- Jonnybgoode44 ( talk) 01:56, 28 September 2013 (UTC)
Hi Andy, Was just wondering why a spelling typo was reverted on the french polishing page? 'fad' should be 'pad' when polishing, (you can check the resource linked to, it also uses the word 'pad').
Cheers for now Ianmanderson ( talk) 10:11, 29 September 2013 (UTC)
p.s. Kudos to the amazing amount you've added to wikipedia, however do you find the time?!
Your reason with reverting my caption edit is that these engines were obsolete in the mid-19th C? I was basically quoting Hunter and Bryant on this fact. They were cheap, although not very efficient and they did not have good speed control in response to changes in load. Corliss engines were expensive and tended to be in larger sizes. Hunter and Bryant said they were widely used until the end of the century. Phmoreno ( talk) 20:15, 4 October 2013 (UTC)
Andy Dingley ( talk) 21:10, 4 October 2013 (UTC)
Regarding this - I've been called on the carpet before for doing exactly that, having been told in no uncertain terms that (per MOS, I think it was even said, although it's been awhile) the Commonscat link always goes in "External links". Did that change, or was I just misinformed? - The Bushranger One ping only 00:13, 13 September 2013 (UTC)
|position=left
that may be more useful in such a case.I was waxing lyrical on Wikipedia:Reference desk/Humanities about the role of our national beverage, and linked proudly to the Boiling vessel page, when I found that it was the thinnest stub I had ever seen. It wasn't too difficult to put right - all we need now is a picture. Alansplodge ( talk) 23:27, 4 October 2013 (UTC)
I had added a link on the Steam engine page but you have reverted it. I think that the link has important and valid materials pertaining to the topic and is no way promotion of any kind. May I know the reason for the revertion?
Furthermore, I would suggest that in case of your future edits/revertions or in case of your section edits, it would be highly appreciated if you leave a note in the edit summary mentioning what you have done or the reason behind your actions. Being an experienced editor you surely understand the utility of edit summaries Diptanshu Talk 05:13, 5 October 2013 (UTC)
An article that you have been involved in editing, British Racing Motors V16, has been proposed for a merge with another article. If you are interested in the merge discussion, please participate by going here, and adding your comments on the discussion page. Thank you. Spiderlounge ( talk) 13:11, 8 October 2013 (UTC)
Ok have your way - still looks undue in a manner, if you were looking at from the other side of the planet the WA fairlies were a cumbersone oddity worthy of note :) satusuro 11:38, 15 October 2013 (UTC)
This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult for editors. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help find a resolution. The thread is " Electric Current". Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you! EarwigBot operator / talk 14:00, 15 October 2013 (UTC)
Please don't add or restore unreferenced negative material on living people. You should know better. -- John ( talk) 10:16, 16 October 2013 (UTC)
As you previously participated in related discussions you are invited to comment at the discussion at Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/RfC for AfC reviewer permission criteria. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง ( talk) 04:09, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
Yeap I think you're correct, later Aerotrain prototypes used other means of propulsion than ducted fans, so it wouldn't be good to go to the article's lead section. It could however be mentioned elsewhere? Cogiati ( talk) 18:25, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
G'Day Andy, Do you happen to know off hand what criteria must be met before the bot will remove the 'need more citations" request tag on an article ? I think I must be getting close with the Blue Flame article. It would also be nice to have the Gary Gabelich page nominated as a wiki featured article on the anniversary date of his setting the world record on the 23rd of October. Alas this year would have been nice as it is the 20th anniversary of him losing the mile record to Thrust2 in 1983. How far off do you think the GG article is for nomination ? Can I make it by next year ? How much more work does it need ? Regards, Emir ☭ irongron ☭ ( talk) 02:38, 20 October 2013 (UTC)
Volume 1, Issue 1, October 2013
by The Interior ( talk · contribs), Ocaasi ( talk · contribs)
Greetings Wikipedia Library members! Welcome to the inaugural edition of Books and Bytes, TWL’s monthly newsletter. We're sending you the first edition of this opt-in newsletter, because you signed up, or applied for a free research account: HighBeam, Credo, Questia, JSTOR, or Cochrane. To receive future updates of Books and Bytes, please add your name to the subscriber's list. There's lots of news this month for the Wikipedia Library, including new accounts, upcoming events, and new ways to get involved...
New positions: Sign up to be a Wikipedia Visiting Scholar, or a Volunteer Wikipedia Librarian
Wikipedia Loves Libraries: Off to a roaring start this fall in the United States: 29 events are planned or have been hosted.
New subscription donations: Cochrane round 2; HighBeam round 8; Questia round 4... Can we partner with NY Times and Lexis-Nexis??
New ideas: OCLC innovations in the works; VisualEditor Reference Dialog Workshop; a photo contest idea emerges
News from the library world: Wikipedian joins the National Archives full time; the Getty Museum releases 4,500 images; CERN goes CC-BY
Announcing WikiProject Open: WikiProject Open kicked off in October, with several brainstorming and co-working sessions
New ways to get involved: Visiting scholar requirements; subject guides; room for library expansion and exploration
Thanks for reading! All future newsletters will be opt-in only. Have an item for the next issue? Leave a note for the editor on the Suggestions page. -- The Interior 21:01, 27 October 2013 (UTC)
Hi, can you do something about the major deletion of content [9] from the MV Seaman Guard Ohio page by a user called TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom. This was done with total disregard to the comments left by several users including yourself on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/MV Seaman Guard Ohio incident. Thanks. 109.128.150.134 ( talk) 12:34, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
In reverting my edit to Christopher Blackett, you correctly re-introduced the archaic (but article-appropriate) spelling waggonway over my wagonway, but you reintroduced a comma splice error and a template format error. A simple spelling correction might have proven a better fix. WikiDan61 ChatMe! ReadMe!! 20:48, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
Thank you for contributing to Wikipedia. We always appreciate when users upload new images. However, it appears that one or more of the images you have recently uploaded or added to an article, specifically
Tweenies, may fail our
non-free image policy. Most often, this involves editors uploading or using a copyrighted image of a living person. For other possible reasons, please read up on our
Non-free image criteria. If you have any questions please ask them at the
Media copyright questions page.
Werieth (
talk) 19:08, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
Hello. I'm also having an issue with this user. He blatantly violated WP:3RR and was subsequently defended by his wiki-friends. Their excuse for not blocking him? I was somehow more in the wrong for not initiating discussion on the talk page. No word to him. See the ongoing discussion at my talk page and on Corbett's for further information. :bloodofox: ( talk) 17:14, 1 November 2013 (UTC)
..probably needs hiving off into its own article, don't you think? Ghmyrtle ( talk) 07:44, 4 November 2013 (UTC)
Regarding the FWMV sealing issue, Des Hammill failed to recognise an important concept in the thermal dynamics of an engine. His "liners contracted more rapidly as engine load was reduced" should have been written as "liners contracted more rapidly as engine load was reversed, when a full-throttle condition is rapidly turned into trailing-throttle".
Engines drive a car, but the weight of the car and the residual inertia of rotating crankshaft 'drives' the engine in a long downhill or when the throttle is lifted. So the load on an engine swings from being positive to being negative as recognised in the expression "engine brake", and 'reduced' normally describes a condition where the amount of positive load is reduced (like accelerating with half-throttle instead of full), when liners "do not" contract.
Also, my use of terminology may be too exact much closer to engineering jargons, but "sealing the headgasket" sounds more like the function of supplementary Silicon sealant applied to headgasket to me. If you imagine an engine with cylinderhead-to-block seal done with many Cooper Rings on all the water/oil/drain passages as well as on combustion chambers without any ordinary gasket material, you see Cooper Ring is a form of gasket, and its function is to seal gas/water/oil, not to seal a gasket.
Oh well, I am not a native English speaker, and I'd leave these up to you on this article :) Yiba ( talk) 03:56, 9 November 2013 (UTC)
Sorry for bumping into you on IP 47.64.131.186's talk page. I saw that the comment the IP made was re-added and automatically assumed the IP did it, so I reverted again. After that I realized it was you, reverted myself and then realized it probably didn't belong anyways. I'll leave it to you. Don't worry, I have plenty of TROUT handy. { C A S U K I T E T} 22:56, 11 November 2013 (UTC)
The removal was not "unwarranted", the material violates WP:RS, WP:V and also WP:BLP. I'd rather have a short but well-sourced article as opposed to a lengthy article which violates a number of policies. Giant Snowman 16:47, 13 November 2013 (UTC)
Your recent edit restored a reference that has no connection to the article's subject, the article is about encaustic tiles which are fired in a kiln, the reference [10] refers to cement tiles which are not fired and are an entirely different kettle of fish! I removed spam links by various other users in the past, it seems that rival makers are trying to get their links into the article? I have no connection with any of them as you will see from my extensive edit history. Kind regards. Theroadislong ( talk) 14:06, 14 November 2013 (UTC)
Thanks for uploading File:Tweenies Milo.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).
Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. -- Тимофей ЛееСуда. 20:36, 17 November 2013 (UTC)
Hi Andy, could you assess this change, and comment here. Thank you. -- Mdd ( talk) 12:00, 18 November 2013 (UTC)
So you think it better to ignore WP:EL, WP:LINKFARM? You'll note that WP:SOAP applies as well... -- Ronz ( talk) 20:15, 20 November 2013 (UTC)
Good catch, I didn't realize the existing link was broken. While that particular link is, on it's own merits, better than a dead link, WP:LINKSPAM points out that "Although the specific links may be allowed under some circumstances, repeatedly adding links will in most cases result in all of them being removed." I checked the majority of the links, and concluded that most of them had little to no academic value, and also served primarily to promote a particular companies products. You indicate that you believe a number of the links are appropriate, but, having double checked all of them, only the one you reverted stands out as having any meaningful encyclopedic content beyond what the article already has. Which others do you think are worth keeping? (For convenience: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12). Even if the links are deemed appropriate, this is still spamming ( WP:REFSPAM, at best), so the template message I left would still make sense. Unless you disagree that those contributions meet our definition of spam (" repeated insertion of a particular citation or reference in multiple articles by a single contributor" " for the purpose of promoting a website or a product" (and the first result of a quick Google search of the username strongly suggest the link additions are of promotional intent)).
ʍ w 13:22, 21 November 2013 (UTC)
Please don't add or change content without verifying it by citing a reliable source, as you did on the List of fictional aircraft article. A citation needed tag was placed on the Rutland Reindeer entry, before I deleted it. The burden of proof is on you, please add the necessary references - Thank You FOX 52 ( talk) 02:44, 25 November 2013 (UTC)
AdventurousSquirrel ( talk) 14:33, 25 November 2013 (UTC)
As you have already deleted my contributions to the Ormskirk page, i wanted to ask how i would be allowed to add studio odyssey to the page. As you are not from Ormskirk, you will not be aware that there is a high demand for tattoos and piercings. As there are other businesses such as Morrison's and Aldi on the Ormskirk page, I dont understand why you deleted the Studio Odyssey edit. Any information will be greatly appreciated. — Preceding unsigned comment added by AstroBachini ( talk • contribs) 11:16, 26 November 2013 (UTC)
Given your behavior if you continue to revert my NFCC actions I will be forced to file for a topic/interaction ban. Werieth ( talk) 16:37, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
You inappropriately reverted thoughtful edits I made to Aaron Swartz. I explained these edits carefully on the article's talk page. It is not even close to vandalism. In your comment, you question my removal of one source; that source was inaccessible, and it is not clear what it said. In any event, the thrust of my edit was not to remove sources. It was instead, as I clearly indicated, to remove unsourced disputed material, which you have now inappropriately restored. Antiselfpromotion ( talk) 00:07, 3 January 2013 (UTC)
I noticed your revert, and I'm curious to know where you got the idea that pre-PLC automation required complete panel rewiring for tooling changeovers. I've been working in the field for eons and can't think of any time this has occurred. Some parts of the circuit need rewiring, sure. But never "each and every relay". Most automotive tooling is virtually identical control wise (sensors, actuators, etc) from year to year, even though the mechanical work has major differences. Perhaps you've worked at a plant that does things differently? Krushia ( talk) 16:49, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
I was recently watching some experiments on Mythbusters in which they tested the workshop adage that striking two hammers together will generate deadly shrapnel. That didn't pan out — the shafts tended to bend or break instead. Anyway, TPH seems to be loose again but hasn't responded to my gentle suggestions following the snow close of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Eight-thousander. You made a valiant effort to do something about this at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/TenPoundHammer so I'm wondering if there's anything more we might do? Warden ( talk) 19:46, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
The insulting IP is back screwing up the article. Happy New Year? LittleBen ( talk) 12:50, 7 January 2013 (UTC)
hello Andy, I got your message, I was in the process of adding my reasons to the talk page. I have been in extensive arguments of late on the world of tanks forum regarding this claim and I came across this post which looks suspiciously like the work of the main protagonist, there have been many attempts to create fictional history regarding German weapons development, often claiming that modern weapons were actually designs stolen or claimed from captured german technology but for some reason done so in conspiratorial secrecy unlike all the things we actually know about. The claim that Germany not only developed APFSDS in the early days of ww2 but actually used it in combat runs counter to accepted history and adding SIC to the end of the post does not cut it — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kyphen ( talk • contribs) 16:03, 8 January 2013 (UTC)
I Understand the recommendations butt is hard to find sourced evidence for claims which have no academic rebuttals as there is no evidence of the claims ever being made in academic circles at all. I did not want the main page turning into a debate so I put it in the talk page the claim does not exist on any of the related pages, the shell page is an overview, the pages dedicated to APDS APFSDS kinetic energy penatrators, anti tank pages and so on never mention this.
the claim on the main page itself was made just over 3 months ago by an unsigned user. — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
Kyphen (
talk •
contribs) 17:43, 8 January 2013 (UTC)
Hi Andy Currently there's a link to C strut on the M strut page, which is a redicrect back to M. I don't know how to sort that out. Why did you delete the reffed para on c strut? Greglocock ( talk) 01:08, 11 January 2013 (UTC)
Wadyamean Stephenson's gear does not notch-up? Tell that to Mr Churchward. Globbet ( talk) 14:54, 11 January 2013 (UTC) & 15:34, 11 January 2013 (UTC)
Enjoy. Uncle G ( talk) 21:54, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
Hi! I could use another opinion at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style#Is "an HTTP" or "a HTTP" correct?. Could you take a look? Thanks! -- Guy Macon ( talk) 23:06, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
Talk:Twin-turbo#Terminology: "twin" and "sequential" looks to me to be right up your alley, care to lend a hand? Andrewa ( talk) 19:04, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
Why did you undo my revision today to Web development? The industry section is filled with incorrect, unsubstantiated facts which I attempted to correct. -- Matt Schwartz ( talk) 18:51, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
Hi Andy, I agree that my addition was uncited, as is most of the material in the Saab 96 article, however it is correct. Here's why: Until the implementation of oil injection in the model, oil lubrication was delivered by mixing 1 qt of 2-cycle oil with eight (US) gallons of gasoline. So, a high throttle setting causes an increase of gasoline-borne lubrication and increasing RPM. Unfortunately, the reverse doesn't apply. High RPM requires but doesn't achieve the commensurate level of lubrication when decelerating or descending a hill with engine braking. With freewheeling, the engine returns to idle under those circumstances and receives the lubrication required as it is not under load from the drivetrain. The V-4 retained freewheeling not for the reason cited here (or as frequently claimed for gas economy—a function of throttle setting), but to improve its emissions, which become worse when engine braking is in effect. Having owned a 1964 Saab 96, a 1963 oil-injected Saab GT850 (a.k.a "Sport" in Europe), and a 1968 four-stroke Saab V-4, when I was an MIT student, I was well informed on this subject. Prior to my post, I looked for some citable information on this topic. My contribution was simply an attempt to explain what the previous entry means, i.e."To overcome the problems of overrun for the two-stroke engine,..." which is not explained—it could refer to the noises and backfiring that can occur from two-cycles or it could refer to oil starvation while under load or both.
I should answer your question, "how does a freewheel allow idling at low rpm?". Think of riding a bicycle, the freewheel allows your legs to "idle", rather than be dragged around by the speed of the wheels through the drivetrain.
I'll continue looking for a better citation before taking a better run at this. In the meantime, if you find my explanation persuasive, you could consider restoring the thrust of my contribution. Sincerely, User:HopsonRoad 01:07, 26 January 2013 (UTC)
Hi Andy. I was just skimming the ANI board regarding the issues with Cantaloupe2. You can count me as a fourth (or probably tenth really) editor with similar experiences of hounding, battlegrounding, etc.. I will participate in the RfCU in any way that is helpful. DGG has worked with this editor across multiple disputes with various editors and may be helpful as well. You'll see from the edit-warring post I put in the RFCU that he was previously warned by an admin of potential admin action if he did not stop hounding me, which did not dissuade him. I think his edit-warring over adding a personal blog with negative content where I have a disclosed COI is the most obvious and compelling evidence one could ever expect to get of Cantaloupe being a bad-faith editor, considering his track-record of contesting sources.
This is a significant retention issue and I hope it can get resolved before more editors are discouraged from editing here. I know there are at least a couple articles I would be improving if it weren't for a desire to avoid him. I have no experience with the dispute resolution processes, so please let me know if/when/what may be needed from me as it goes down the process. CorporateM ( Talk) 17:15, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
The issue over inclusion of Linus comments had been raised to the Noticeboard for discussion by another user. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard#Carmen_Ortiz Request your attention. thanks Prodigyhk ( talk) 04:28, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
Hi Andy, "The steam engine was an essential component of the Industrial Revolution" is written in past tense. So it describes the development form a pre-industrial way of life to a stage, when almost everything was produced by engines. That stage already was reached about eighty years ago. And from the first third of 19th centrury to the first third of 20th century, the steam engine was essential, indeed. (copy from Talk:Steam engine) -- Ulamm ( talk) 17:00, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
Hi Andy,
Just a quick note to say I've just reverted the link you put in at
Gordon Setter........the link goes to 'black and tan' as in a beer; the breed was previously known by that name because of the dogs colour combination, although I'm sure some of them may well have driven owners to the 'demon drink'. It did make me smile on a very wet and miserable afternoon in the middle of trying to do the dreaded tax returns though!
If you disagree and still think it should be linked, no problem!
SagaciousPhil -
Chat 15:57, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
From Filmdoctor 1: read my most recent comments on my page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Filmdoctor1 ( talk • contribs) 05:35, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
![]() |
Hi Andy I've reverted you're revert of my revert of the adding of Java (programming language) to 'Programming languages' as it's already in other sub-categories, such as:
C programming language family (−) (±) Class-based programming languages (−) (±) Concurrent programming languages (−) (±) Java programming language (−) (±) JVM programming languages (−) (±) Object-oriented programming languages (−) (±) Programming languages created in 1995 (−) (±)
According to WP:SUBCAT
Note that it's not in debate that Java is a major programming language (it is).
peterl ( talk) 00:09, 1 February 2013 (UTC)
Andy, do you want to do the honours and take this to Afd now that the PROD has been removed? If not, I am happy to. It's been spamfestering (I just made that up and I like it!) for too long.-- ukexpat ( talk) 15:32, 1 February 2013 (UTC)
Hello I'm wondering why you removed my website: PeopleWiki from the page Website Like its not a illegal website, it's just a site where people can write about themself like on here, except you don't have to be famous :) 222.152.0.209 ( talk) 04:24, 10 February 2013 (UTC)
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Parkend Ironworks, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Engine house ( check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot ( talk) 11:22, 10 February 2013 (UTC)
Category:Rainbow Codes, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. The Bushranger One ping only 08:27, 11 February 2013 (UTC)
Hi Andy
Spotted your comment on person who edited the Doble steam car. From the bits and pieces I have gleaned, the car could be powered by one of the Doble Steam engines he created while in Germany. There is a photo of Goering in a real Doble. I would really like to replace the photo as this red car does not do credit to those Doble made, but there is only one in my country and, while it has been reported in a classic car magazine here, I have not seen it yet. Most of the existing cars are in the States, one is in Australia, and I think there could be one in England. I have yet to find anything that is out of copyright, but our laws differ from some countries in that regard. NealeFamily ( talk) 09:10, 12 February 2013 (UTC)
Your recent editing history at Automobile shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. Being involved in an edit war can result in you 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.
To avoid being blocked, instead of reverting please consider using the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. See BRD for how this is done. You can post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection. Ahendrl ( talk) 00:47, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you. Ahendrl ( talk) 01:10, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
Hi Andy,
Why did you remove the link to my new CVT technology??
please read it again, or explain to me how to put a link in the CVT wiki, or a description or drawings?
I have a well working machine!! its not a spam!!
the link was: cvt without friction — Preceding unsigned comment added by Yves mag ( talk • contribs) 17:44, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
TransporterMan ( TALK) 15:25, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
Shouldn't it be Category:Wikipedia Reference desk rather than have double colons? I've never seen a category like that.... The Rambling Man ( talk) 21:28, 21 February 2013 (UTC)
In the article, the WCAG says the blink element can cause seizures. The blinking part is not staying in the article.— chbarts ( talk) 00:05, 22 February 2013 (UTC)
Hi Andy. I know you are not happy about the measurements being put in metric first, but the Good Article assessor is demanding that either all measurements be in metric first or in imperial first. As we have no source for some of the measurements in imperial, they can only go in metric. What else would you like me to do? Skinsmoke ( talk) 23:35, 22 February 2013 (UTC)
{{
convert}}
, and if that measurement be metric, add |disp=flip
so that the imperial is displayed first. For example, {{
convert|1|kg|lb|disp=flip}}
yields 2.2 pounds (1 kg) --
Redrose64 (
talk) 07:26, 23 February 2013 (UTC)
That's some rather pointy editing at Aaron Schwartz, considering most if not all of the roles are detailed and cited in the article text itself. Roles are not generally cited individually in the filmography section, as they are easily verifiable at IMDb and other filmography sites. Yworo ( talk) 18:25, 24 February 2013 (UTC)
The pages in Category:Wikipedia reference desk need removal from Category:Wikipedia help forums. Thanks. -- Alan Liefting ( talk - contribs) 20:15, 24 February 2013 (UTC)
Do you have a reason for changing the title? It is described as Fairbottom Bobs in the Henry Ford Museum and in this document which appears to be a reliable source. J3Mrs ( talk) 22:42, 28 February 2013 (UTC)
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Fairbottom Bobs, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Engine house ( check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot ( talk) 11:25, 1 March 2013 (UTC)
I think you are being disengenuous sir. Admittedly that one edit was an issue but Seal Transportation is a serious issue and I strongly object to being called 'dubious'. Anthony Seldon ( talk) 15:20, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
Andy, I am not going to get into an edit war with you ... but I do want to explain. It may seem obvious to you that any potential users wishing to edit the table would know that one must look for Template:Engine thrust to weight table. Well, I have been a user for a considerable time and had forgotten how to find a template and had to spend considerable time finding the template in order to remove 2 broken/inactive references. I am quite sure that many new users would not know how to find a template. In fact, they might not even know that the curly brackets surrounding the table name indicates a template. So what harm does it do to include explicit instructions as a hidden comment on the edit page? Perhaps the template itself should include creating the instruction as a hidden comment? Regards, mbeychok ( talk) 18:57, 7 March 2013 (UTC)
Hey. I've seen you around quite a long time now, and noticed your name come up as an admin possibility. While I'm sure you've been asked before, I'm wondering if you've given the possibility of running for adminship any thought. Wizardman 20:02, 7 March 2013 (UTC)
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Floating dock (impounded), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Caisson ( check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot ( talk) 10:52, 8 March 2013 (UTC)
Hi, Thanks for your comments about the Clifton Suspension Bridge. I've expanded the section dealing with both competitions & found several references for the design by his father. Could you take another look and see if there is anything else you feel is needed?— Rod talk 11:33, 10 March 2013 (UTC)
Dear Andy,
You seem to be very keen to get me blocked, making frequent suggestions on various pages and drawing attentions to my contributions. Why are you so edgy about this? Is it perhaps that you are alarmed that I am getting too close to the truth?
Anthony Seldon ( talk) 10:34, 11 March 2013 (UTC)
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Warm glass is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Warm glass until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Anthony Seldon ( talk) 10:39, 11 March 2013 (UTC)
Hello Andy !
I am starting again to write an article on the concept of Corner Tube Boilers. I am writing to you as I have a query regarding quoting the article. I have found the exact source but the books are really old from the 50's and 70's which are available in the library in Berlin. To which extent is the article verifiable in such a case ? ( Ghorpaapi ( talk) 09:07, 11 March 2013 (UTC))
Hi Andy. I noticed you recently reverted my reversion of a contribution by a sockpuppet of Noodleki on the grounds that it was a "kosher edit". I hope this means that you checked the contribution for potential copyright infringement—the sock master was blocked indefinitely for persistent copyright violations. All contributions of substantial amounts of text should be considered suspect and checked carefully. Rather than add to the sizeable list at Wikipedia:Contributor copyright investigations/Noodleki, I have been doing blanket rollbacks and CSD G5's, though of course anyone is free to undo the rollbacks and contest the CSDs in the event that the contribution turns out to be legitimate. — Psychonaut ( talk) 14:01, 11 March 2013 (UTC)
1. You have reverted my edit to the article Horizontal plane which added that a spirit level may be used to check for horizontality. I think that an early mention of the spirit level in the article is natural. It is the obvious instrument to use to check if a plane is horizontal. 2. You have also reverted the diagrams I added to the article. I believe that the diagrams increased the clarity and accessibility of the article, an article aimed at reducing the misconceptions surrounding the concept of horizontality. (In general, Wiki needs more diagrams, I believe, not less). Can you throw some light on the matter? 94.175.116.15 ( talk) 15:08, 11 March 2013 (UTC)The previous unsigned edit was by Shanker Pur ( talk) 15:17, 11 March 2013 (UTC)
1.Thank you for your reply and I shall try to improve the image. But let me first reproduce it here as I left it in the article, not the way you have shown it, truncated and thus making it unreadable. As my edit said, the object is meant to be a knobbly, non homogenous, planet. Those bits of white, red and blue in the diagram are meant to illustrate the heterogeneity of the thing. The curved lines are meant to be lines of field and the whole point as explained in the main text of the article is that verticals may not even be straight. 2. Can you please tell me why you removed my reference to the spirit level? The spirit level is an obvious tool to check if a plane is horizontal. So why did you remove that reference? 3. You mention "a massive WP:OR problem to all of this". Are you saying that my illustrations to the article under discussion - which is the Horizontal plane article fall foul of this requirement? Are you saying that the illustration of a spirit level, a mention of its use to determine horilzontality, is an example of original research? The article has been in wiki for a long time and I don't see how my illustrations make it original research. Shanker Pur ( talk) 18:46, 11 March 2013 (UTC)
I suggest calming down about Anthony Seldon ( talk · contribs). This remark is a bit inflammatory, given that Seldon has only really created two questionable articles. Assuming good faith, I think we should keep quiet and watch, but not inflame. WikiDan61 ChatMe! ReadMe!! 16:05, 11 March 2013 (UTC)
Hey Andy Dingley; I'm dropping you this note because you've used the article feedback tool in the last month or so. On Thursday and Friday the tool will be down for a major deployment; it should be up by Saturday, failing anything going wrong, and by Monday if something does :). Thanks, Okeyes (WMF) ( talk) 21:40, 13 March 2013 (UTC)
Andy, I'm trying to understand some of the basic features of Wikipedia...sorry to hit you with this question, but if you would indulge I will be grateful. Recently, an edit was done to the Bugatti page deleting a reference to Steve Jobs. I believe the edit to have been correct (though I could be wrong). My purpose for writing you is that, even though the history indicates that you reverted the edit in question (at least that's my reading of it), the reference to Steve Jobs remains unseen. Am I misunderstanding the history? Shaypic ( talk) 01:04, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
![]() |
The Barnstar of Good Humor | |
Methinks thou hast spoken sooth, dude. Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 02:33, 15 March 2013 (UTC) |
You asked me to come talk to you, and then you put the twinkle remover so my comments will automatically be removed. Wanted to post one last message to say that I tried to come talk to you.
If you ever decided that you want to get into sailing, you know where to find duckers. They are all over the world, I am sure some are close to where you live and they will welcome you with open arms. Maybe after you build your own boat and met with other duckers to go sailing, you would see what a wonderful experience it is and want to help the cause. With your help, other new people wanting to get into sailing can also know who duckers are and where to find them.
Cheap, creative and having fun on the water. -- Buthsop ( talk) 15:06, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
Yes, 5 people deleted the link, 0 have talked about the merits of the link and whether it deserves to be included. That would mean... 5 deletionists went about their ways of deleting stuff, just for the sake of deleting. As far as my summary of your actions, anyone can see the accuracy of my statements by viewing our respective logs.
Anyone with common sense knows the purpose of Wikipedia is to collect and share information. But just in case, I read the purpose of wikipedia page and it confirmed this.
The Puddle Duck Racer is unique in that it is the easiest boat in the world to build. There is a page here called boat, surely that boat page should somehow include information about the easiest one to build. I freely admit I am an idiot, do not know the ways of wikipedia, and I am probably including the information on the page in an improper manner. You agreed with me in your statements above, the pdracer does have merit. Looking at the history of the boat page, you have edited it over the years and even made edits that subsequently include the pdracer link, so that in itself says you do approve of the link. The question now is, how should it be properly included on the boat page?
There is a section called boat materials, but not really a section on the page that explains there is a HUGE movement of people that build their own boats (numerous examples), so do you think this new section should be included? You mention you are not happy with some of the other sections of the page and can see it needs to be cleaned up in other ways too. I ask you (clearly an expert, great skill and power in this wiki realm), will you now help contribute to the knowledge that Wikipedia, the greatest website on the planet, which wishes to collect and share with the world? Surely for someone of your skill, finding the proper way to include the puddle duck information on the boat page would be a trivial matter, and you would be able to maintain that information for a length of time and prevent it from whisked away by deletionists.
As you pointed out, the deletionists out number me and my efforts are easily swept away. But at least I tried to contribute. And the people I tried to help are real, some of them live very close to where you live. When they stumble upon this conversation, they will see that I tried to help them. Buthsop ( talk) 16:53, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
Hi Andy, You seem to have endorsed the Meccano robot in Industrial_robot. But does it truly meet the ISO criterion of being reprogrammable? George Devol's first industrial robot had a computer and a programming language. I'm worried about this. A big paragraph and possibly trivial? Robotics1 ( talk) 20:42, 17 March 2013 (UTC)
Hi, could you please provide a source for the 30 ml which you reinstated in your revert? The only source I could find was a removed paragraph in the page history that had a "citation needed" flag. -- Janschejbal ( talk)
Thanks. Sfan00 IMG ( talk) 13:47, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
Would you mind not uncentring the image captions? They're much tidier when centred. Keith-264 ( talk) 18:59, 23 March 2013 (UTC)
<center>...</center>
to several million individual image captions - it is far more efficient to make the change centrally. Files such as
this one (there are several others) contain the styling for all of Wikipedia; the styling is put into centralised files so that the whole site may have a consistent appearance. It's the class combination .mw-content-ltr .thumbcaption
that would need to be amended; it presently has the property text-align:left;
but we could make the change for the whole of English Wikipedia at one stroke by adding one line to
MediaWiki:Common.css: .mw-content-ltr .thumbcaption { text-align:center; }
It bis clear on the steam engine talk page that you do not have miuch of a technically. That is a fact by your writings. You think you an authority on this subject which is laughable. You are reverting on YOUR POV not fact or references. Leave the article alone. 188.223.226.180 ( talk) 14:18, 24 March 2013 (UTC)
The links you deleted on Lake District by making a rollback of my edits are not spam, so please selfrevert. One of the links leads to a *.gov.uk site belonging to the Lake District National Park and was restored to the page by me after someone else deleted it, and the link to Visitcumbria.com isn't spam either, as you could see on the Village Pump and my talk page (which you must have read or you wouldn't have found the discussion on/at the Village Pump). Thomas.W ( talk) 19:34, 28 March 2013 (UTC)
HTML is extended from SGMLguid, not SGML. It is an SGML application. SGML itself is not a markup language at all, like HTML, but a language to write markup language definitions in. SGMLguid is not "one of arguably many precursors to HTML". It is the one and only markup language that HTML was extended from, initially by adding the anchor tag. See http://infomesh.net/html/history/early/ -- rtc ( talk) 18:35, 1 April 2013 (UTC)
Hi Andy. You're the expert on tubular bridges and I'm not, but it seemed to me that some mention should be made of the Chepstow bridge in that article. I hope you can tweak it, if it needs to be rewritten to make more sense. Ghmyrtle ( talk) 15:49, 31 March 2013 (UTC)
Category:Named cranes, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. DexDor ( talk) 05:38, 6 April 2013 (UTC)
I was just looking at the recent edits to Wikipedia:Pledges and found one by an editor named Rememberway, which seemed quite impractical to me, as I couldn't see anyone following it. I wanted to ask Rememberway, but when I saw that he is now blocked, I considered removing it. But then, I saw you speak up for him on his talk page, despite differences you had, and felt that incidentally you were acting in the same selfless spirit as Rememberway's pledge. So I decided to ask your opinion, first. Do you think it is a practical pledge that we should keep in the essay? — Sebastian 02:12, 7 April 2013 (UTC)
Hello Andy !
if you remember you are the first person to welcome me on wikipedia in Jan 2013 . I would like to ask you for a favour if you are willing to spend some time on me and my edits in the field of engineering particularly. and later on adopt me or suggest me an adoptee who is experienced particularly in thermal and mechanical engineering ? Thank you for your time and effort in advance
Ghorpaapi (
talk) 12:34, 11 April 2013 (UTC)
Ghorpaapi ( talk) 10:18, 19 April 2013 (UTC)
Andy,
Please see
User talk:Peter Horn#Nameplate.
Peter Horn
User talk 01:33, 20 April 2013 (UTC)
The guidelines are quite clear in regards to unsourced material; Any material lacking a reliable source directly supporting it may be removed. The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material. ChakaKong talk 14:06, 20 April 2013 (UTC)
This change can make connections safer. Also, this change doesn't make anything goes wrong, it's harmless to any users. -- Someone's Moving Castle 02:09, 21 April 2013 (UTC)
There is no conceivable NPOV reason to exempt only the ARRL from the provision to use DMOZ for all external links on that article. If the ARRL is allowed to be listed outside of DMOZ then all national amateur radio societies are also entitled to be listed in the same way. Roger (Dodger67) ( talk) 20:47, 24 April 2013 (UTC)
I'm trying to improve Help:Searching, but another user who has added an excess of disorganized geek detail (written in not-so-good English) seems to think that he owns the page. I told him that he can "own" the geek detail, but I want to fix the overview summary (intro.) at the top of the page. I'd appreciate 3rd opinions. LittleBen ( talk) 18:06, 27 April 2013 (UTC)
We appear to be having a minor edit war. There used to be an article titled "Plain Old Semantic HTML" (POSH). This described how POSH was the use of HTML for content, and not for presentation. POSH includes avoiding <b>, <i>, <br>, tables for presentation, etc. In 2010, the article was converted to a #REDIRECT to a section in the article Microformat. In 2011, this section was deleted. Since then, as far as I can tell, the only place POSH is defined is on the disambiguation page, POSH#Computing. A reader searching for "Plain Old Semantic HTML" will want to read a description of what it is. Pointing readers to a disambiguation page seems strange but, I would suggest, this is the best way to help readers. A better way would be to mention POSH on the page Semantic HTML. The problem with this, however, is that POSH is not notable, only ever having been used by the microformats community. Let me know what you think. (Please respond here.) HairyWombat 18:33, 28 April 2013 (UTC)
Later. Don't respond here. See you at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion. HairyWombat 18:47, 28 April 2013 (UTC)
Hi Andy - you tagged this article over two years ago but there has been little improvement. I have raised it as non-notable WP:Notability/Noticeboard#Hovercraft_.22Dragonfly.22 and I think it should be deleted, but your input would be welcome. Wikiwayman ( talk) 13:33, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
Hello Andy, I have just added my support for your comments on Admin Notice Board. It does seem that this unregistered editor will not listen to consensus and had made some nasty comments on the contribution of the Free French and others. I really fail to see why he cannot abide by Wikipedia rules and conduct. Regards, David, David J Johnson ( talk) 22:39, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Humphrey Pump, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Del Rio ( check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot ( talk) 15:00, 4 May 2013 (UTC)
If I recall correctly, I deleted this material as spam because it appeared to have been added by the publisher as part of a campaign to add links and "references" to his own self-published material in many different articles. ElKevbo ( talk) 15:54, 4 May 2013 (UTC)
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Hovercraft "Dragonfly" is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hovercraft "Dragonfly" until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Wikiwayman ( talk) 14:54, 7 May 2013 (UTC)
I responded to your revert on the talk page. L Faraone 00:47, 6 May 2013 (UTC)
WP:MOS/TM says "Follow standard English text formatting and capitalization rules, even if the trademark owner considers nonstandard formatting 'official'", per this, it has to be big.Little. I don't see how the other form is correct in relation. ViperSnake151 Talk 01:55, 6 May 2013 (UTC)
Been dealing with that clown on the sandpaper article for about 5min ... went to report him and see u already did. - thank u — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kap 7 ( talk • contribs) 11:02, 7 May 2013 (UTC) Kap 7 ( talk) 11:04, 7 May 2013 (UTC)
Ordinary locomotives are hot at one and cold the the other.
If such a locomotive stalls in a tunnel such as Swan View Tunnel, the crew can "always" escape via the cold end.
Garratt locomotives are hot at both ends, and if such a locomotive stalls in a tunnel, escape is problematic.
Hot would mean the temperature of water boiling at pressure, which may well exceed 100 degrees.
Articles about tunnels and Garratts do not explain this in so many words, because it is reasonably "bleeding obvious."
The big ordinary 57 class also had restrictions about running through small single line tunnels such as the Coal Cliff tunnel.
Please therefore unrevert your changes to the article. Tabletop ( talk) 23:12, 7 May 2013 (UTC)
You accuse me of "POV pushing". Do you really believe that some guy on an online forum known only as "aargee" is a reliable source? Sincerely, SamBlob ( talk) 03:00, 8 May 2013 (UTC)
Could you take a look a this edit in particular and perhaps the recent changes to List of Intel microprocessors, 1-bit architecture and Intel MCS-51 in general? It looks to me like he is confusing the bit addressing instructions ("Boolean processor") here with the actual 8051 architecture, which is of course 8-bit. Before I jump into correcting this, I would like a second opinion. Thanks! -- Guy Macon ( talk) 17:43, 8 May 2013 (UTC)
I have just acquired a secondhand copy of the above booklet by Bayley. It is a very environmentally friendly booklet, since to reduce the number of trees that have to be chopped down for its paper, and to reduce deadweight, it doesn't have a list of contents, or an index. Nor is there a blank page to write one's own contents or index, other than by using a loose shhet they would easily get lost.
The Swan View Tunnel is mentioned on page 54, and it says that:
... Wartime traffic in 1945 demanded more effective facilities and it was decided to build an additional line around the hill pierced by the old tunnel, involving a cutting 34 feet deep...
The book does not explain which war was meant by "1945 war".
It will also be necessary to read the tea-leaves to ascertain what "additional line" means. Maybe he means cable haulage on the 1 in 48 of the Wapping Tunnel of 1830 on the Liverpool and Manchester Railway (See same book p3). Tabletop ( talk) 10:17, 11 May 2013 (UTC)
Hi, you added an SPI notice to this users talk page but have not added the user to the SPI page for investigation. noq ( talk) 14:28, 20 May 2013 (UTC)
Hi. It's a problem (of style and of notability) because we are in talk page discussing about merge the article, and this repetition of info from another article (the one proposed to be merged in) don't help to centre de discussion in the relevant issues of the biography itself. -- Sageo ( talk) 18:00, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
....an article you prodded some months ago: the prod has been contested, and the article has duly been restored. Cheers. Lectonar ( talk) 13:34, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
Category:Domestic heating, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. DexDor ( talk) 05:48, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
Hi Andy, I obviously stimulated interest in the list. I understand what you are trying to do but qusestion whether the list is actually improved by separating the diameter attribute, especially when it would sort by Diameter anyway (as long as Diameter given first. I am adding some more info to some entries and will post it in the old format. Please do not take it personally , but I think you will agree that the list as a whole will probably be better with the dimensions in a single column-- Petebutt ( talk) 23:17, 28 May 2013 (UTC)
I'm not sure what was up with her, she sounded healthy as she passed me at Condover so I'm not sure... CrossHouses ( talk) 19:59, 2 June 2013 (UTC)
Hi Andy
My apologies if I am stepping on any toes in editing this article. I have an experience based understanding surrounding the topic, but am attempting to gain more of an academic knowledge on the finer points of HTML. All I hope to achieve is to make a meaningful contribution to the greater knowledge base on the topic. I am not trying to start an edit war, but simply hope to improve on what is already being said :) One way I hope to do so is to rewrite the article in a standardized language format. I see now that in my attempt to do this, I have been inadvertently mucking up some of the finer points surrounding the lingo. I apologize for this, and will cease to do so immediately. I do however ask that you allow me to make some mistakes, and to learn from them. Your corrections have already sent me scouring the internet for more in-depth reading on topics I thought I understood well, and if that is all I take away form this, it would have been time well spent. In any event, I will continue to enhance the article as I see fit, with the understanding that you and other editors will alert me if my edits are causing any misinformation to slip into the article. If you would be so kind as to consider each edit before reverting all my edits at once, or helping me correct my mistakes, I would be ever grateful. — Preceding unsigned comment added by PhunderMerwe ( talk • contribs) 17:57, 3 June 2013 (UTC)
Andy,
About
dolly (trailer) please see my replies at
User talk:Peter Horn#June 2013.
Peter Horn
User talk 14:35, 4 June 2013 (UTC)
Hi - I am putting together an article on the Coultershaw Beam Pump but am slightly confused by the technology. I see that you have previously commented on Talk:Beam engine#"steam engine" so I hope you don't mind me asking you for advice. Can you explain (in simple terms) the difference between a Beam engine and a Beam pump? I had originally linked to the latter in my draft introduction, but this re-directs to Pumpjack which is a "nodding donkey" type of engine. Also, the Beam engine article starts by saying "A beam engine is a type of steam engine" whereas the one at Coultershaw is operated from a waterwheel. I am rather confused. Thanks for any help and advice. I have also posed this question to User:EdJogg and User:Parrot of Doom who also commented in that thread. -- Daemonic Kangaroo ( talk) 07:17, 7 June 2013 (UTC)
Thanks guys for your very interesting and helpful comments. I have changed the re-direct on Beam pump to point to Beam engine as this seems more appropriate, especially in view of what (few) links there were to it. As for the article title, as every source I have gives it in Title Case, that's what I'll stick with. Likewise, the site is known for the Beam Pump rather than the (ugly) mill building that was pulled down in the 1970s. I plan to include a history section which will trace the history of Petworth's water supply as well as the mill buildings and machinery right up to the recent addition of an Archimedes screw. -- Daemonic Kangaroo ( talk) 06:21, 8 June 2013 (UTC)
Hello Andy,
Would
this be acceptable?
Peter Horn
User talk 20:19, 7 June 2013 (UTC)
Hi Andy, I assure you that I am taking your comments on board with each edit. Could you please stick to discussing the text, and avoid personal attacks? I find the repeated accusations of edit warring and comments such as "WTF", "edit warring tendentious vandal", "get something resembling a technical clue", "A random rag-bag of Google-droppings with no coherent thought" and "you have the nerve to start hatcheting other articles" quite hurtful. Regards, 1292simon ( talk) 23:18, 7 June 2013 (UTC)
G'day from Oz; your edit to Titanine Ltd. added a ref from Flight magazine, but the URL is for an advertisement for a fire tender. Leaving aside the issue of the suitability of using an advertisement as a ref (presuming it was an ad for Titanine that you wanted to link), you'd better find the correct page and redo the reflink. Cheers YSSYguy ( talk) 08:06, 12 June 2013 (UTC)
Andy, thanks for your comments. You might want to consider what is going on in the context of this - Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Europefan. -- Biker Biker ( talk) 12:30, 12 June 2013 (UTC)
Andy : have you ever cut a gear ? I've been doing this for, oh ... 38 years. I *have* cut continuous-tooth herringbone gears as well as double-helicals (which have a clearance groove down the center.) If you look in Dudley (Handbook of Modern Gear Design ? I am in China now and don't have access to my books)you will see that this is the accepted terminology by people who know what they are talking about.
Even worse is *this* - "the alignment may be staggered, so that tooth tip meets tooth trough. The latter alignment is the unique defining characteristic of a Wuest type herringbone gear, named after its inventor." How can you even call that a herringbone ? The teeth are offset by half a tooth space and don't even resemble herringbones. I won't go into what a dumb design the "wuest" is but anyhow, it's going to be about as popular as the novikoff and wildhaber non-conjugate forms that never took off. If you want to talk weird crap, there's plenty of that in the gear world but it's my own opinion that wikipedia should stick to mainstream designs when discussing mainstream topics. If someone wants to create an article about the "wuest gear" that sounds fine but they are not herringbone gears anymore than a spiral bevel is a wormgear just because the teeth are curved. Different animules ....
If you cut gears, a continuous tooth gear is called a herringbone (or sometimes a Sykes gear, after the most common machines they were made on) and an opposed-helix 30* right-and-left helical with a clearance gap in the center is a double helical. (They don't have to be 30* helicals but they almost always are.)
I'm not going to fight over it but if people who know anything read the article, they will be snickering.
Added: Looked a little deeper - the other reversions you made are not correct either. On the other hand, my changes were not all that great so I'm not what you'd call upset. The entire article is not very accurate. The "smoothness" of a helical is NOT because "multiple teeth enter and exit simultaneously" - if that happend there would be vibration up the kazoo. And in fact, if you draw the line of action you will see this is not possible. What happens with a well-designed helical is two things - one is that the contact ratio stays over 2, so you always have at least two teeth in mesh. That has several good effects which I'm not going to type here, it'd take me all night. The oother positive feature of helicals is that the teeth slide into mesh across the face, rather than bang bang bang across the entire face width at one time. Teeth bend under load so the unloaded teeth are not in the correct position relative to each other when the gearset is loaded. At the initial point of contact they actually hit each other (across the full face width in the case of spur gears)unless you have tip and root relief. This creates rough running. And if you do have tip and root relief, they don't mesh nicely when UNloaded. Can't win for losing :)
Anyway, I didn't want to rewrite the entire article but as it is, it's not very accurate.
210.22.142.82 ( talk) 14:17, 11 June 2013 (UTC)
Why did you redirect the term floating dry dock in the HMS Agincourt article, which redirected exactly to the place it was supposed to, to floating dock, which is itself a DAB?-- Sturmvogel 66 ( talk) 21:46, 13 June 2013 (UTC)
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Kings Weston Action Group is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kings Weston Action Group until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. SP-KP ( talk) 11:22, 16 June 2013 (UTC)
Hi Andy, I read a comment in the talk section for the metal we're calling "Gilding Metal" and I think we're calling it the wrong thing. Other sources are calling it "Gliding Metal", which I think is the right name. It is the alloy used for parts that glide past each other. Please take a look at some of the material on the web and see if you agree. Longinus876 ( talk) 22:00, 16 June 2013 (UTC)
It isnt a nationality, its an ethnic group. Any ideas why you call it a nationality? Please expand..... Murry1975 ( talk) 19:28, 11 June 2013 (UTC)
ethnicity
' parameter in this template. However there is a nationality
parameter.
Andy Dingley (
talk) 19:42, 11 June 2013 (UTC)
ethnicity
' parameter in the template {{
Infobox scientist}}. If someone has added one to the article text that's optimistic of them, but (for the third time) there is no 'ethnicity
' parameter in this template and it ain't going to work.
Andy Dingley (
talk) 19:51, 11 June 2013 (UTC)
It's not even an ethnic group. It's a socio-economic classification. You might as well say that his nationality was "landed gentry" or "robber baron" or "plantation owner". The Science Museum describes him as English, the American Society of Mechanical Engineers calls him British, Britannica calls him British, Cambridge University describes him as " one of the greatest engineers that this country has ever produced". I'm not sure that his (or anyone's) nationality is particularly relevant, but why is his social stratum "even more" relevant? He was born in London, and spent a couple of years in Ireland but the rest of his life in England. Any Irish ethnicity, if it can be established, might be worth a passing mention in his biog, but it's not relevant to his invention and is certainly not his nationality. You could hardly find a better example of Anglo-Irish Protestant Ascendancy than the Dublin-born Duke of Wellington, and Wikipedia describes him as "British". Parsons was even more so. Amandabum ( talk) 12:16, 15 June 2013 (UTC)
Even better. The Parsons family was of English descent, so Irish ethnicity don't enter into it. Bit like saying someone is Anglo-Spanish because they've got a timeshare. Amandabum ( talk) 12:39, 15 June 2013 (UTC)
That link describes the Anglo-Irish as a "privileged social class", which isn't a million miles from "socio-economic classification", if you ask me. It says it right there. There's no suggestion they were an ethnic group. Privileged social classes enjoy certain advantages, but that doesn't make them an ethnic group. The Dook could claim to be both British and Irish, in view of the year of his birth. Sure, the article mentions the Anglo-Irish but doesn't make out a case for ethnicity. It says on more than one occasion that Wellington was British. But there's no point in arguing about ethnicity. The issue is that they're not a nationality. References to Parsons's nationality being Anglo-Irish seem to be largely based on the Wiki article, which isn't usually a good omen. Parsons was British, and Andy's got it wrong. Amandabum ( talk) 10:23, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult for editors. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help find a resolution. The thread is " deadmaus, deadmau5". Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you! EarwigBot operator / talk 03:11, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
There is currently a discussion at ANI. AN3 admins may be reluctant to get into the matter when those at ANI have already looked at it. Would you consider withdrawing the AN3 complaint? Thanks, EdJohnston ( talk) 23:33, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
Kindly be specific. WHERE did I describe you as an "asshole"? Anywhere? Ever? Nope, I don't think so. I have said absolutely NOTHING about you anywhere ever at all at any time. Please leave your WikiLawyering to someone else's Talk Page, I'm not interested in your speculations. =//= Johnny Squeaky 21:48, 23 June 2013 (UTC)
Hi Andy, I'm not sure where you got the idea I called you an "asshole", I just don't see that anywhere. Can you provide a reference where I called you an "asshole"? Not really sure what you're talking about, but really, I think you and "Span" need to step back and take a deep breath. I really think you need to take a look at your own ego trip and personal motivations in "pounding" my talk page with such unkind and quite frankly, aggressive comments. Seriously, Andy, I'm sure you can round up an Admin to "slap" me for you, but really, what you need to do is step back and take a deep breath and devote your energies to something worthwhile. By the way, I am not really impressed with WikiLawyering, really you should make your case with common sense, if you can. Listen, "Andy", if you can not be a gentleman, don't post on my Talk Page again. I'll simply delete it without reading it, your efforts wasted. By far the best way to work out disputes is to have CIVIL dialog. If you can't do that, go gripe someplace else. =//= Johnny Squeaky 22:36, 23 June 2013 (UTC)
Hi there,
I recently added an external link to both Piston & solenoid valves. I am not quite sure why they are deemed as spammy like you said, one is a link to a tutorial on solenoid valves, furthering the readers knowledge with the second being a look at Piston Valves, have you clicked through to the articles or just seen the name 'forum' in the URL and deemed it as spam? I can assure you it isn't.
Regards
Alex Wall — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alexjwall91 ( talk • contribs) 12:25, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
Terrible article, but I think you should remove the PROD as it is a known 'law'. [6] [7] (which calls it a well-known law). It is however a bad article, pov and written by an author with a COI. Dougweller ( talk) 14:26, 28 June 2013 (UTC)
[ec]
Please don't replace un-cited and irrelevant material without an explanation. If you have questions about my edits, please post them to the article talk page or my own talk page. Or, at the very least, provide a useful edit summary. -- Mikeblas ( talk) 03:22, 29 June 2013 (UTC)
The page needs to be brought back to life. I don't think this needs much explanation...he's a Duke. I read the deletion thread and it doesn't look serious at all to me--can't a senior wikipedia editor override it? Zigzig20s ( talk) 02:11, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
Not sure why you contacted me about this. I've never heard of Chris Alexander (nothing against him). I edited content on the page for Cris Alexander -a different person. 68.8.57.249 ( talk) 16:49, 9 July 2013 (UTC)
Category:Tracked armoured recovery vehicles by country, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. DexDor ( talk) 06:19, 13 July 2013 (UTC)
The parent category of a category is not added to a page. The page already is member of that parent categpory. - DePiep ( talk) 13:09, 17 July 2013 (UTC)
![]() |
The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar |
For your great job defending Wikipedia against Wikipediocracy! Liquid Water 17:55, 17 July 2013 (UTC) |
I agree. Unlike Encyclopedia Dramatica, what I have read of Wikipediocracy (which is only in Wikipedia) is not humorous; it is malicious. My own position is a minority position, which is that anyone posting a link to Wikipediocracy should be blocked temporarily as a warning. I would politely ask that you take down those links, because illustrating malicious behavior encourages it. Please do not feed the trolls. Robert McClenon ( talk) 00:55, 17 July 2013 (UTC)
Also this:
Is interesting. Nice to put a face to one's trolls from time to time. Andy Dingley ( talk) 11:11, 17 July 2013 (UTC)
Hi Andy, I think you're raising some very good points about Wikipediocracy. I have been reading the site for about a month, and I'm really shocked by a lot of what's written by Wikipedia editors on that page. Why do they edit WP if they are constantly making allegations, outing and harassing editors? Doesn't sound too constructive to me. BTW, i'd be more than happy to assist you with setting up a case :) Liquid Water 16:05, 17 July 2013 (UTC)
I've restored it, but the big problem was that it read sort of like promotional material. Tokyogirl79 (。◕‿◕。) 10:10, 20 July 2013 (UTC)
Hey, thanks for reverting your revert. I realized that "postwar" might not be clear, so I added the date. When I started populating this list, way back when, it seemed clear that there needed to be some dividing line to keep the length manageable. Since automotive production was interrupted in much of the West during World War II, I thought it made sense to cut it off there, especially since the history of many early marques (and the question of what is a separate model) gets very blurry at times. So 1945 it is. I'm working on a list of post-'45 V-8 cars, too, but that will have to be its own page; it's wayyy too long. Anyway, thanks, and sorry for any confusion. I was not trying to be rude. Sacxpert ( talk) 18:47, 26 July 2013 (UTC)
I don't plan doing any further work on the Charles Pierre Melly article. I do have thoughts on doing articles on historic notables here in Bradford.
The reason I started it was because I recently came across a Charles P Melly (former) drinking fountain in Peel Park, Bradford close to where I live. I am interested in doing articles on parks and districts in Bradford and have done a few. Having updated the Peel Park page it left some red unlinked text and I thought the best way to get rid of it was to start the Charles P Melly page.
I have met few notable people but one such was George Melly himself (and John Chilton's? Foot-tappers) in Middlesbrough town hall crypt in 1979 (he'd been there before) when I was on the lighting crew. He insisted that during one of his songs that we avoid pulling the plug on the stroboscopic light he used during that routine - as that sometimes happened too early to everybody's embarrassment. I was on the plug, (there was no switch on the in-line socket) but fortunately it wasn't my decision - it was the local theatre's stage manager on the portable lighting desk who was making the decision as I was largely unsighted. Had it been down to me, he might have finished his song with a period of blackout. At the end of the concert he made a point of thanking us both for getting it right - but I kept quiet.
I recall George cautioning his audience against the lager as they would be not be buying it - merely renting it. I believe the lager there then was Stella Artois. - Stuffed cat ( talk) 13:58, 27 July 2013 (UTC)
Please explain (nicely) why you reverted my edit on the article Continuous track. The "Advantages" and "Disadvantages" sections are considered a pro-con list under WP:PROCON. I don't know all the rules and stuff yet so please explain. MopSeeker ( talk) 13:19, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
Your comments are noted.
Much apreciated if you could also have words with the operator of ContinuityBot, as that bot in particular does not seem to recognize the point of view you espouse, in relation to items tagged for commons.
Sfan00 IMG ( talk) 11:05, 3 August 2013 (UTC)
as concerns about ContinuityBot have been raised on it's Operator's talk page. (It was for example de-tagging FFD keeps, where there had been a reasonable consensus in SUPPORT of transfer) Sfan00 IMG ( talk) 11:12, 3 August 2013 (UTC)
post an 'edit war' message on my page that looks as if it came from an admin? I notice you don't have one on your page... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nitrobutane ( talk • contribs) 13:11, 3 August 2013 (UTC)
are you avoiding the question? why are you pretending to be an admin? this is unpleasant and vaguely menacing — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nitrobutane ( talk • contribs) 01:52, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
{{
unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}
. However, you should read the
guide to appealing blocks first.
Jayron
32 03:51, 4 August 2013 (UTC)Andy Dingley ( block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser ( log))
Request reason:
FFS! It is hard to comprehend just what preventative measure Jayron thinks they're achieving here. For background, please see Hydraulic accumulator and Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Edit_warring#User:Nitrobutane_reported_by_User:Andy_Dingley_.28Result:_Both_blocked_.29. This is a long-term stable article of no evident controversy. Nitrobutane is making an off-the-wall change with no supporting evidence. That's OK, they're a new editor - we give allowances. However we don't break articles either, nor leave them broken. I do a lot of vandalism reversion and although this is clearly a GF change, it's also a mighty persistent one and it doesn't belong. Was the article unclear beforehand? Maybe – so I expanded it with a footnote, hoping to simply clarify the problem (this is the only forward-moving content edit that anyone has made in this whole mess). Could more have been done to patiently explain the issue? Of course - it always can - but there's a limit to anyone's patience and when confronted with undiscussed, stonewall removal of a significant and previously uncontested term. Nitrobutane doesn't appear to grasp the technical distinction between the compressibility of gases and liquids, and why this makes the hydraulic accumulator a necessary device. If so, he needs a textbook and to go and look it up, not to keep hacking on a WP article he doesn't understand. (If you're not technical, his assertion "slight compression of hydraulic fluid in the accumulator could store part of the energy, " is true enough in physics as a principle, but unworkable in engineering because the pressures needed would be vast - using a compressible gas allows the same thing to be done, but at a credible lower pressure.) Of course reversion ping-pong helps no-one. As it's a quiet article with no other active editors evident, it needed a new forum for this. WP:3O might have been possible (although that's not the most fast-reacting forum) but when dealing with five blankings already, that's close enough to 3RR that it's warranted to raise it as AN3. What was needed here was no more than a word from an unconnected 3rd party, even Jayron. No-one ought to have been blocked for this. I also note that Nitrobutane's reaction to the EW3 listing was to make a sixth deletion (and this is still a deletion of content that has been long stable per consensus). Jayron imposed a block with the article left in that state. So if there's any damage happening to the article (and blocks are being thrown around to prevent this) does this mean that Jayron is now wading in on the content issue too and claiming that Nitrobutane's version is now the correct one? There has been no bright-line 3RR here (until that last change). I half-expected to have this bounced off AN3 as "no breach". Double blocking is ridiculous. Andy Dingley ( talk) 10:15, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
Decline reason:
If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{ unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.
The creator of the page was User:PhilipHMitchell talk. I'm not sure what purpose an OTRS ticket would serve, since the text is promotional enough to be speedied on that account alone. I'm happy to sandbox the text to you, the creator of the article or both, but even if the dollops of spam and peacockery were sorted out, it would probably fail on notability, so I don't know whether it's worth the effort. Let me know what you think Jimfbleak - talk to me? 13:04, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
I have no problem with the spelling being corrected. It's the incorrect "FIAT" I'm concerned with. TREKphiler any time you're ready, Uhura 21:17, 13 August 2013 (UTC)
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot ( talk) 10:53, 16 August 2013 (UTC)
Thank you for removing the PROD template from Circular arc hull, and apparently from other such articles, too. Please tell me just what you are doing, and how you decide. -- DThomsen8 ( talk) 00:31, 18 August 2013 (UTC)
Hi, Mr. Dingley. I was reading your account of "Ramsbottom safety valves" in Wikipedia's article on safety valves, when the text suddenly broke off:
"Mis-assembly of just this nature led to a fatal boiler explosion in 1909 at Cardiff on the Rhymney Railway, even though the boiler was almost new, at only eight months old.[24] The report of the inquiry into this accident was … "
So, what follows "this accident was" ?
When you inserted your text on Ramsbottom safety valves (on 26 September 2012), you appear to have copied and pasted from a text that you'd prepared; however, you didn't copy the entire original text, since the words after "this accident was" are missing. I hope that you still have the original text, so that you can fill the gap in the article.
I was impressed by the fruits of your research. Many thanks for sharing them. Cwkmail ( talk) 07:12, 19 August 2013 (UTC)
Thanks for the kind remarks. Although I live only a few miles from Coultershaw, I have yet to actually visit the site. I'm in Spain for several weeks - on my return, I'll try to get over there and get some photos. -- Daemonic Kangaroo ( talk) 10:13, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
I see that you have reversed my deletion of this inappropriate phrase (used incorrectly in the intro) within 7 minutes here. No adequate justification for your actions are stated, self-published 2000s sources such as commercial sites - Ace Cafe - are not acceptable or convincing, not quite spam but they have a vested interest in promoting their name and general hype.
ThanQ for confirming you are watching this page - I had always anticipated an edit-war with 2 or 3 individuals, but not with you! I have added 'better source' tags - I expect you will delete these, too??!! Remember, I am writing this record for admins. Cafe racers did not exist in the 1960s and 1970s UK, period, no arguments. If you have any proper, contemporary sources you should quote them. The periodicals would be The Motor Cycle (magazine) (became Motor Cycle Weekly), Motor Cycle News, Motor Cycling (magazine), Motorcyclist Illustrated, Motorcycle Sport, Motorcycle Mechanics (not The Classic MotorCycle).
The earliest UK ref I know of is Clay, 1988, book. Anything later is simply repetitive gravy-train profiteering and irrelevant, as is the trashy TV show. Also largely-irrelevant is the argument about cafe, caff - spelling and pronunciation, etc. as the bikes and people weren't called that, there is no evidence that they were. They weren't necessarily called cafe races - they were known as something different, which I will not quote here.
My earliest UK motorcycling source for Café (with accent) is 1962, referring to the BUILDING, not the people or bikes - no mention of cafe racer in the article. Cafe Racer is a total Americanism, along with rice-burner, hog, that sort of thing which I assume you know-well to be entirely Americanisms. I have now been working with an acknowledged US expert on this for some months, but I am not prepared to quote any US hard-published sources presently (earliest is 1969) as the pages need a major re-write without the risk of potential outside interference.
Yes, my OR - proper research, not relying on much-repeated unsourced corruptions. Some of the stuff I'm seeing is outrageous "..they raced from Inn to Inn..." If you know anything about M/Cs you will be able to recognise the several errors/anomalies in the ref by a car-journalist, Wally Wyss, here in the 1973 Practical Mechanics US general household mag often quoted.
When I consult Wikipedia for info, I want it to be right, and written by an expert - not someone who thinks it's OK as someone else must have been right previously, even though there's no adequate sourcing for any of it.
If you can prove just ONE 1960s UK source then I will shout "I'm not worthy...."
By continuing the 'cafe racer' myth, you are corrupting Wikipedia - those who do not know better will asssume it's gospel. Users are charged with maintaining the integrity of the site. The fact that you have not improved this Triton page with period refs is substance enough. Unsourced material should be removed. I will provide at least 2 1960s refs for my (dealer-supplied complete bikes) edits in due course (I often do this so please don't jump on me, as I have a life outside). But I will not graft to justify the content of the entire, unsourced article which has no indication of origins.
I look forward to your justification for citing Ace Cafe - a completely modern site, not having any relevance to prove dubious, supposed-1960s clichés! Can't see any period page-scans showing Cafe Racer quotations in print on Ace Cafe!! Rocknrollmancer ( talk) 15:01, 28 August 2013 (UTC)
Re your reversion of my edit to Ferguson TE20, do you intend to create an article for Banner Lane, Coventry? Biscuittin ( talk) 11:35, 29 August 2013 (UTC)
What links here
list also allows the redlinks to be grouped to the same name, avoiding some risk of multiple targets developing for the same topic. I know we've disagreed in the past as to whether it was better to turn redlinks into redirects, although as there's a pretty relevant redir target here, I think a redirect is a perfectly adequate state until someone writes a specific article on Banner Lane.
Andy Dingley (
talk) 12:06, 29 August 2013 (UTC)
Hey Andy Dingley. I'm contacting you because you're involved in the Article Feedback Tool in some way, either as a previous newsletter recipient or as an active user of the system. As you might have heard, a user recently anonymously disabled the feedback tool on 2,000 pages. We were unable to track or prevent this due to the lack of logging feature in AFT5. We're deeply sorry for this, as we know that quite a few users found the software very useful, and were using it on their articles.
We've now re-released the software, with the addition of a logging feature and restrictions on the ability to disable. Obviously, we're not going to automatically re-enable it on each article—we don't want to create a situation where it was enabled by users who have now moved on, and feedback would sit there unattended—but if you're interested in enabling it for your articles, it's pretty simple to do. Just go to the article you want to enable it on, click the "request feedback" link in the toolbox in the sidebar, and AFT5 will be enabled for that article.
Again, we're very sorry about this issue; hopefully it'll be smooth sailing after this :). If you have any questions, just drop them at the talkpage. Thanks! Okeyes (WMF) 22:09, 1 September 2013 (UTC)
The edits I made were not utter trivia, The edits were just a ref — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.178.220.82 ( talk) 18:01, 6 September 2013 (UTC)
Hi there,
The changes I made to the Interpreter (computing) page, regarding CSS, was only to hide a non-constructive reference section from displaying on books/prints/pdfs. It was the suggested workaround ( https://bugzilla.wikimedia.org/show_bug.cgi?id=48052). I hope I didn't do anything wrong (as I was planning to alter some other pages on compiler/programming languages in order to display them better on a print), and if I did, I'd like some guidance. :) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Paulo torrens ( talk • contribs) 01:39, 9 September 2013 (UTC)
class=noprint
does make it effectively unprintable in any context. It is much harder to reverse the effects of class=noprint
for some particular context than it is to do it right in the first place.Hi Andy, I'm currently writing an article on the management of lists for the WikiProject Video Games Newsletter and in order to make it as neutral and helpful as possible, I was hoping to provide views from the other side of the spectrum from my own. Would you be interested in contributing a few paragraphs (1-2) to this article? It's due by October 3 so you have a little time to decide yet, but if you are interested then I'd be asking you to comment on how our discussion of the selection criteria used at "list of fictional badgers" and our inclusion of a lede works so well. If possible it might be nice to mention the praise we've received from The Guardian (linked at the article's talk page). You can see a draft of the article and where your contributions would be needed at User:Thibbs/Sandbox7 (just text search your username). Please let me know if you'd be willing to contribute to the newsletter. - Thibbs ( talk) 15:03, 1 September 2013 (UTC)
I don't disagree with your reasoning. However: (a) hydroforming _is_ used in connection with the press in one of the photos on the page; (b) I don't see the word 'ram' mentioned as being definitive for hydraulic presses in the article; and (c) it might be helpful to readers to make a constructive connection with hydroforming amongst the ways of forming materials.
SewerCat ( talk) 17:58, 12 September 2013 (UTC)
Industrial Robot was vandalised by 24.111.1.182, thanks for helping with the cleanup. Have you looked at his history? He's been a vandal since 2008. Can we block him? Robotics1 (talk) 20:52, 16 September 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Robotics1 ( talk • contribs)
Yes, the topic of the planned film is getting and will likely continue to get lots of coverage, but when considering planned films we look to the applicable guideline and consider whether or not that coverage gives us anything solid about the film itself... casting, production, plot, etc. To be fair to our readers, I think a temporary redirect to either J.K. Rowling or the article on the 2001 book " Fantastic Beasts and Where to Find Them" by that author (and where this adaptation IS already written about), is a valid consideration. The arguments about how the film topic might become supremely notable have a bit of merit, but I think it logical that we send readers for now to where it makes sense under policy, guideline and essay to keep readers informed. What'cha think? Schmidt, Michael Q. 02:30, 18 September 2013 (UTC)
Hi again, Andy. I don't know if you noticed that I'd made a request above. If you don't want to help me or if you can't that's fine. Please let me know either way, though. I anticipate being rather busy offline in the next few weeks and I'd like to be able to complete this job as I've volunteered to do it by October 2. The sooner I can get your answer the better I can manage my time. Thanks in advance for your response. - Thibbs ( talk) 00:21, 19 September 2013 (UTC)
I've added the information you requested on the Dataphor article. McKay ( talk) 20:00, 19 September 2013 (UTC)
Hi Andy, I wanted to let you know I went through the page and added references, links to other wikipedia pages and removed some statements. I am new to creating Wikipedia pages so I wanted to send you this message to make sure I corrected the page so it is no longer considered for deletion. I plan on creating some other pages and want to be sure I do those correctly based on the way I did this page.
Thank you.
-- M.Renae ( talk) 14:45, 24 September 2013 (UTC)
Hi. I just wanted to say I absolutely agree with your point on Talk:Induction motor about the "Wikigoggles" effect, where an editor concentrates on one word or technical point, and inserts long exceptions/definitions/caveats which destroys the intelligibility of the text. That really irritates me too. I really don't think I was doing that in the Induction motor article; my only interest was in removing the one term synchronous motor. At least I hope I wasn't wearing "Wikigoggles"; I guess it's easy to do. Anyway, glad to hear someone shares that concern. My main focus on WP the last few years has been to try to make technically-oriented articles, particularly the introductions, more comprehensible to general readers. That often involves rewriting the tortured prose left after several rounds of the "Wikigoggles" effect you mention. Cheers -- Chetvorno TALK 20:32, 25 September 2013 (UTC)
I know you've been a fair editor of the Steampunk section for quite a long time now. The page for Dr. Steel's album, "Dr. Steel Read-Along", has been tagged for deletion, by an editor known to be hostile to Dr. Steel in particular and the genre in general. Please weigh in on the AfD discussion page. /info/en/?search=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Dr._Steel_Read-A-Long -- Jonnybgoode44 ( talk) 01:56, 28 September 2013 (UTC)
Hi Andy, Was just wondering why a spelling typo was reverted on the french polishing page? 'fad' should be 'pad' when polishing, (you can check the resource linked to, it also uses the word 'pad').
Cheers for now Ianmanderson ( talk) 10:11, 29 September 2013 (UTC)
p.s. Kudos to the amazing amount you've added to wikipedia, however do you find the time?!
Your reason with reverting my caption edit is that these engines were obsolete in the mid-19th C? I was basically quoting Hunter and Bryant on this fact. They were cheap, although not very efficient and they did not have good speed control in response to changes in load. Corliss engines were expensive and tended to be in larger sizes. Hunter and Bryant said they were widely used until the end of the century. Phmoreno ( talk) 20:15, 4 October 2013 (UTC)
Andy Dingley ( talk) 21:10, 4 October 2013 (UTC)
Regarding this - I've been called on the carpet before for doing exactly that, having been told in no uncertain terms that (per MOS, I think it was even said, although it's been awhile) the Commonscat link always goes in "External links". Did that change, or was I just misinformed? - The Bushranger One ping only 00:13, 13 September 2013 (UTC)
|position=left
that may be more useful in such a case.I was waxing lyrical on Wikipedia:Reference desk/Humanities about the role of our national beverage, and linked proudly to the Boiling vessel page, when I found that it was the thinnest stub I had ever seen. It wasn't too difficult to put right - all we need now is a picture. Alansplodge ( talk) 23:27, 4 October 2013 (UTC)
I had added a link on the Steam engine page but you have reverted it. I think that the link has important and valid materials pertaining to the topic and is no way promotion of any kind. May I know the reason for the revertion?
Furthermore, I would suggest that in case of your future edits/revertions or in case of your section edits, it would be highly appreciated if you leave a note in the edit summary mentioning what you have done or the reason behind your actions. Being an experienced editor you surely understand the utility of edit summaries Diptanshu Talk 05:13, 5 October 2013 (UTC)
An article that you have been involved in editing, British Racing Motors V16, has been proposed for a merge with another article. If you are interested in the merge discussion, please participate by going here, and adding your comments on the discussion page. Thank you. Spiderlounge ( talk) 13:11, 8 October 2013 (UTC)
Ok have your way - still looks undue in a manner, if you were looking at from the other side of the planet the WA fairlies were a cumbersone oddity worthy of note :) satusuro 11:38, 15 October 2013 (UTC)
This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult for editors. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help find a resolution. The thread is " Electric Current". Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you! EarwigBot operator / talk 14:00, 15 October 2013 (UTC)
Please don't add or restore unreferenced negative material on living people. You should know better. -- John ( talk) 10:16, 16 October 2013 (UTC)
As you previously participated in related discussions you are invited to comment at the discussion at Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/RfC for AfC reviewer permission criteria. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง ( talk) 04:09, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
Yeap I think you're correct, later Aerotrain prototypes used other means of propulsion than ducted fans, so it wouldn't be good to go to the article's lead section. It could however be mentioned elsewhere? Cogiati ( talk) 18:25, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
G'Day Andy, Do you happen to know off hand what criteria must be met before the bot will remove the 'need more citations" request tag on an article ? I think I must be getting close with the Blue Flame article. It would also be nice to have the Gary Gabelich page nominated as a wiki featured article on the anniversary date of his setting the world record on the 23rd of October. Alas this year would have been nice as it is the 20th anniversary of him losing the mile record to Thrust2 in 1983. How far off do you think the GG article is for nomination ? Can I make it by next year ? How much more work does it need ? Regards, Emir ☭ irongron ☭ ( talk) 02:38, 20 October 2013 (UTC)
Volume 1, Issue 1, October 2013
by The Interior ( talk · contribs), Ocaasi ( talk · contribs)
Greetings Wikipedia Library members! Welcome to the inaugural edition of Books and Bytes, TWL’s monthly newsletter. We're sending you the first edition of this opt-in newsletter, because you signed up, or applied for a free research account: HighBeam, Credo, Questia, JSTOR, or Cochrane. To receive future updates of Books and Bytes, please add your name to the subscriber's list. There's lots of news this month for the Wikipedia Library, including new accounts, upcoming events, and new ways to get involved...
New positions: Sign up to be a Wikipedia Visiting Scholar, or a Volunteer Wikipedia Librarian
Wikipedia Loves Libraries: Off to a roaring start this fall in the United States: 29 events are planned or have been hosted.
New subscription donations: Cochrane round 2; HighBeam round 8; Questia round 4... Can we partner with NY Times and Lexis-Nexis??
New ideas: OCLC innovations in the works; VisualEditor Reference Dialog Workshop; a photo contest idea emerges
News from the library world: Wikipedian joins the National Archives full time; the Getty Museum releases 4,500 images; CERN goes CC-BY
Announcing WikiProject Open: WikiProject Open kicked off in October, with several brainstorming and co-working sessions
New ways to get involved: Visiting scholar requirements; subject guides; room for library expansion and exploration
Thanks for reading! All future newsletters will be opt-in only. Have an item for the next issue? Leave a note for the editor on the Suggestions page. -- The Interior 21:01, 27 October 2013 (UTC)
Hi, can you do something about the major deletion of content [9] from the MV Seaman Guard Ohio page by a user called TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom. This was done with total disregard to the comments left by several users including yourself on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/MV Seaman Guard Ohio incident. Thanks. 109.128.150.134 ( talk) 12:34, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
In reverting my edit to Christopher Blackett, you correctly re-introduced the archaic (but article-appropriate) spelling waggonway over my wagonway, but you reintroduced a comma splice error and a template format error. A simple spelling correction might have proven a better fix. WikiDan61 ChatMe! ReadMe!! 20:48, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
Thank you for contributing to Wikipedia. We always appreciate when users upload new images. However, it appears that one or more of the images you have recently uploaded or added to an article, specifically
Tweenies, may fail our
non-free image policy. Most often, this involves editors uploading or using a copyrighted image of a living person. For other possible reasons, please read up on our
Non-free image criteria. If you have any questions please ask them at the
Media copyright questions page.
Werieth (
talk) 19:08, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
Hello. I'm also having an issue with this user. He blatantly violated WP:3RR and was subsequently defended by his wiki-friends. Their excuse for not blocking him? I was somehow more in the wrong for not initiating discussion on the talk page. No word to him. See the ongoing discussion at my talk page and on Corbett's for further information. :bloodofox: ( talk) 17:14, 1 November 2013 (UTC)
..probably needs hiving off into its own article, don't you think? Ghmyrtle ( talk) 07:44, 4 November 2013 (UTC)
Regarding the FWMV sealing issue, Des Hammill failed to recognise an important concept in the thermal dynamics of an engine. His "liners contracted more rapidly as engine load was reduced" should have been written as "liners contracted more rapidly as engine load was reversed, when a full-throttle condition is rapidly turned into trailing-throttle".
Engines drive a car, but the weight of the car and the residual inertia of rotating crankshaft 'drives' the engine in a long downhill or when the throttle is lifted. So the load on an engine swings from being positive to being negative as recognised in the expression "engine brake", and 'reduced' normally describes a condition where the amount of positive load is reduced (like accelerating with half-throttle instead of full), when liners "do not" contract.
Also, my use of terminology may be too exact much closer to engineering jargons, but "sealing the headgasket" sounds more like the function of supplementary Silicon sealant applied to headgasket to me. If you imagine an engine with cylinderhead-to-block seal done with many Cooper Rings on all the water/oil/drain passages as well as on combustion chambers without any ordinary gasket material, you see Cooper Ring is a form of gasket, and its function is to seal gas/water/oil, not to seal a gasket.
Oh well, I am not a native English speaker, and I'd leave these up to you on this article :) Yiba ( talk) 03:56, 9 November 2013 (UTC)
Sorry for bumping into you on IP 47.64.131.186's talk page. I saw that the comment the IP made was re-added and automatically assumed the IP did it, so I reverted again. After that I realized it was you, reverted myself and then realized it probably didn't belong anyways. I'll leave it to you. Don't worry, I have plenty of TROUT handy. { C A S U K I T E T} 22:56, 11 November 2013 (UTC)
The removal was not "unwarranted", the material violates WP:RS, WP:V and also WP:BLP. I'd rather have a short but well-sourced article as opposed to a lengthy article which violates a number of policies. Giant Snowman 16:47, 13 November 2013 (UTC)
Your recent edit restored a reference that has no connection to the article's subject, the article is about encaustic tiles which are fired in a kiln, the reference [10] refers to cement tiles which are not fired and are an entirely different kettle of fish! I removed spam links by various other users in the past, it seems that rival makers are trying to get their links into the article? I have no connection with any of them as you will see from my extensive edit history. Kind regards. Theroadislong ( talk) 14:06, 14 November 2013 (UTC)
Thanks for uploading File:Tweenies Milo.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).
Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. -- Тимофей ЛееСуда. 20:36, 17 November 2013 (UTC)
Hi Andy, could you assess this change, and comment here. Thank you. -- Mdd ( talk) 12:00, 18 November 2013 (UTC)
So you think it better to ignore WP:EL, WP:LINKFARM? You'll note that WP:SOAP applies as well... -- Ronz ( talk) 20:15, 20 November 2013 (UTC)
Good catch, I didn't realize the existing link was broken. While that particular link is, on it's own merits, better than a dead link, WP:LINKSPAM points out that "Although the specific links may be allowed under some circumstances, repeatedly adding links will in most cases result in all of them being removed." I checked the majority of the links, and concluded that most of them had little to no academic value, and also served primarily to promote a particular companies products. You indicate that you believe a number of the links are appropriate, but, having double checked all of them, only the one you reverted stands out as having any meaningful encyclopedic content beyond what the article already has. Which others do you think are worth keeping? (For convenience: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12). Even if the links are deemed appropriate, this is still spamming ( WP:REFSPAM, at best), so the template message I left would still make sense. Unless you disagree that those contributions meet our definition of spam (" repeated insertion of a particular citation or reference in multiple articles by a single contributor" " for the purpose of promoting a website or a product" (and the first result of a quick Google search of the username strongly suggest the link additions are of promotional intent)).
ʍ w 13:22, 21 November 2013 (UTC)
Please don't add or change content without verifying it by citing a reliable source, as you did on the List of fictional aircraft article. A citation needed tag was placed on the Rutland Reindeer entry, before I deleted it. The burden of proof is on you, please add the necessary references - Thank You FOX 52 ( talk) 02:44, 25 November 2013 (UTC)
AdventurousSquirrel ( talk) 14:33, 25 November 2013 (UTC)
As you have already deleted my contributions to the Ormskirk page, i wanted to ask how i would be allowed to add studio odyssey to the page. As you are not from Ormskirk, you will not be aware that there is a high demand for tattoos and piercings. As there are other businesses such as Morrison's and Aldi on the Ormskirk page, I dont understand why you deleted the Studio Odyssey edit. Any information will be greatly appreciated. — Preceding unsigned comment added by AstroBachini ( talk • contribs) 11:16, 26 November 2013 (UTC)
Given your behavior if you continue to revert my NFCC actions I will be forced to file for a topic/interaction ban. Werieth ( talk) 16:37, 3 December 2013 (UTC)