![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
An RfC has been opened at RfC to physically restrict access to the Helper Script. You are invited to comment. -- Kudpung กุดผึ้ง ( talk) 16:56, 1 February 2015 (UTC)
About the waterstone pic there... I am not sure why you undid my change. The pic does show a waterstone with a wooden casing, instead of two waterstones. Yogomove ( talk) 04:44, 2 February 2015 (UTC)
Re: Your comment on my talk page. No problem. But, is "Richard Marshall" a reliable source? Without an actual dated copy of any documents from the original prospectus, all information in the article sourced from a single person's article should be removed entirely as unreliable. -- 24.47.169.50 ( talk) 23:14, 2 February 2015 (UTC)
Maybe you could actually take care of the guy who is deleting stuff from wikipedia, instead of reverting my legit edits? Or do I have to login on my account every time and have a 5 page "legal war" that ends up at the arbitration committee, since nowadays thinks that if they have an account, they can delete any contribution done by an IP address, since apparently an IP address is a "no one" who has no edits and cannot do nothing? Ok - if we are supposed to have this edit on the website put via the hard way - please call the arbitration committee, since they need to review this case. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.76.8.142 ( talk) 02:23, 4 February 2015 (UTC)
Hounded off exactly which project, please? [1] -- Rocknrollmancer ( talk) 13:51, 4 February 2015 (UTC)
Hi, re this revert - I think that the IP refers to the drive for the mechanical lubricator, which is taken from a return crank secured to the crankpin of the front left wheel: it's visible in the infobox photo. The mechanical lubricator is directly below the left-hand side of the smokebox; it's that box with a handwheel, attached to the framing, and partially obscures the sloping double row of bolt heads where the cylinders are attached to the frames. -- Redrose64 ( talk) 00:34, 5 February 2015 (UTC)
![]() |
The Original Barnstar |
Andy,
Thank you for approving our citation on the Linear Actuators page. I was wondering if the URL could be changed to a better underwater page on our site. I edited it already. We have a lot more useful information about electric linear actuators. I will organize it into an article and submit it for review. Thank you, Mac mac@ultramotion.com Ultramotion ( talk) 18:37, 10 February 2015 (UTC) |
Hello. Recently I made a small edit to the T-72 page. It appeared to me that someone had inserted the part I deleted in order advance a particular agenda, which was apparent in the fact that the reference was to a Russian news website that I could find frustratingly little about except that it seemed to be affiliated with the Russian government. Its one thing to encourage discussion of different sides of an issue and quite another to allow Russian propaganda on wikipedia. I was certainly not trying to vandalize anything, and your characterization of my actions as that was disconcerting to say the least. I would simply like an explanation as to why you would accuse me of that, and why you changed my edit back. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Landsman55 ( talk • contribs) 02:42, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
Hi Andy, of course how related things are is subjective, so the D in BRD looks useful. I left a msg on the talk, but I'm losing the will to R any link back in now (I don't think I put it in originally). Widefox; talk 13:29, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
The section I removed was poorly written and I don't think it provides any encyclopedic information. In fact it had the encyclopedic tone tag since October 2012. I re-removed it now. If you still think that section should be there please consider fixing the tone before adding it back. Thanks. -- 80.223.129.187 ( talk) 11:13, 21 February 2015 (UTC)
Hi Andy, here's a possible ref for bell signals Auto-Car Services. It's a transcription from the GWR rule book. Warwickshire Railways site is usually sound. It does seem to have a number of contributors and checkers. Robevans123 ( talk) 00:48, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Pika Browser 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/Pika Browser 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.
Hmm .. I think I still disagree with the inclusion of these. The page is about the product, not about the vendor, and in that way the pages are indirect. Moreover, we do not include external links because they are about the same product, we include them because they add information (which is either not included, or can not be included). Neither site offers information about the subject, they provide a place to buy it. And looking through it, these two sites, and also the Japanese and German sites, do not give any information beyond what is already in the document. These links plainly fail our external links guideline. -- Dirk Beetstra T C 11:26, 3 March 2015 (UTC)
The amount of oil used to generate electricity is insignificant, and the table in the article makes clear. Including oil with gas and coal encourages the misconception that the problems with oil and the problems with natural gas are intertwined. How many oil power plants are there in the 100 mW category? Any you should not just revert without comment. ( Martin | talk • contribs 15:03, 5 March 2015 (UTC))
There is currently a discussion at
Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is
Editor routinely reverting contributions from IP address editors. Thank you.
This provided for information as required - no suggestion of malfeasance on your part. DieSwartzPunkt ( talk) 16:56, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
Category:Coniston, 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. Tim! ( talk) 08:25, 7 March 2015 (UTC)
Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, we would ask that you
assume good faith while interacting with other editors, which you did not on
Talk:V-2 rocket. Take a look at the
welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. -
BilCat (
talk)
09:23, 7 March 2015 (UTC)
Re. your reversion of my edit to Clarkson thimble tube boiler - do you not regard a Leyland steam wagon as a steam engine? Biscuittin ( talk) 01:02, 8 March 2015 (UTC)
I pressed the wrong button when I was editing the sandbox. Could you please help me revert them? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rider ranger47 ( talk • contribs) 19:47, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
Gooday Andy - when you get the chance could you look at the contributions surrounding the renaming and deletions from this user as the old Royal Enfield page is on my watchlist (the new Indian Enfield is not) and this is way beyond me, needing TW or HU? Unless it's picked up before you get to it. Thx.-- Rocknrollmancer ( talk) 12:27, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
Hello,
I removed the information that was outright incorrect.
There was no need to ask for citations, because I am familiar enough with the subject matter that was being referred to, to know that it was unfounded, and outright wrong. If you are going to retain this incorrect information, then please do your own research so it may be removed again. It's extremely common knowledge that the Axis tanks referred to did not have rotating periscopes. There was no rotating periscope mounts in the tanks referred to.
If you would like to make a temporary correction, 'one or two' may be correct, as it's possible one or two models of early Axis tanks did indeed have rotating periscopes. But that was a very, very short-standing amenity, and therefore the unfounded generalizations in that article were outright falsities. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 101.176.132.155 ( talk) 03:10, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
Well the original text didn't even corroborate with the references posted. It was complete nonsense. Why is such information allowed to be posted in the first place, yet my correction forced through unnecessary bureaucracy? Pretty loopy, to be honest. And no there are simply no sources to prove such generalizations, only numerous disproving them, literally any source referring in a general manner to periscope design and application of Axis and in particular German tanks. Why must I go through bureaucracy to disprove uncited, non-corroborating nonsense, when that nonsense got on to wikipedia without a hitch?
Seems very strange to me, that absolute falsities are welcomed and defended, and common-knowledge corrections are undone and questioned up and down. I think the root of the issues lies in the initial creation of articles, and most certainly not in the truthful corrections of them. Especially for things as factually inarguable as this.
I think ideally we should be questioning the person that originally wrote that part of the piece. Where did they get it from? Do they realize literally every piece of literature on the subject (except perhaps their own, uncited piece) contradicts their generalization? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 101.176.132.155 ( talk) 15:55, 14 March 2015 (UTC)
I've been doing some editing at SS Great Britain in an effort to improve the article - possibly to GA standard ( User:Gatoclass is now helping) and I was wondering if you could help or had ideas. I've started a discussion at Talk:SS Great Britain#Help with finding citations and other work needed for a GA nomination if you had any thoughts?— Rod talk 15:19, 15 March 2015 (UTC)
I've started a new thread on the Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Use_of_commercial_locksmith_site_as_ref_versus_a_ref_from_The_Guardian Reliable sources noticeboard regarding the Mortise lock article. OhNoitsJamie Talk 17:22, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
I just added a prod2.
More generally: I've lately noticed a spate of new-ish editors with usernames of the pattern <some word of two or three syllables><three-digit number>. Their edits are all of comparable quality. One of them created Reciprocating electric motor. Hmm. Jeh ( talk) 23:17, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
FYI: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/I Love Bridges. I see you have reverted some of their nonsense. JohnCD ( talk) 09:22, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
Hello:
I'm trying to code a condition into Template:PD-The Moving Picture World so that, if a third source appears, an "and" will appear between the second and third source, but if only two sources are defined, an "and" will come between the first and second source. Can you help? Thanks. Seattle ( talk) 18:48, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for your note. If you want to revise Cumberland Basin (Bristol) or create Brunel's swivel bridge either is fine by me. I've just added some more references (eg Heritage at Risk) which might be useful (if up to date with latest info). My editing was triggered by the Fells book - which also took me to the Redcliffe Shot Tower.— Rod talk 19:07, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
CookieMonster755 has given you a c ookie! Cookies promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. You can spread the WikiLove by giving someone else a cookie, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend.
To spread the goodness of cookies, you can add {{ subst:Cookie}} to someone's talk page with a friendly message, or eat this cookie on the giver's talk page with {{ subst:munch}}!
CookieMonster755 (talk) 00:41, 24 March 2015 (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 this dispute come to a resolution. The discussion is about the topic Magneto (generator). Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you! Biscuittin ( talk) 23:18, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
That's...odd. I'm not sure how the engineers got introduced into the list - I have to do some digging tonight and figure out where the anomaly lies. I thought I'd pretty well excluded anyone who wouldn't be counted as a "writer" when I ran CatScan, but obviously I missed something I wasn't expecting to find - sorry about that. -- Ser Amantio di Nicolao Che dicono a Signa? Lo dicono a Signa. 18:09, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
The politics you mention doesn't appear in the article at all. And it doesn't really fit with most of the other articles in food politics. Would it be more appropriate in Category:Food security? Rathfelder ( talk) 20:59, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
At the dispute resolution noticeboard, participants should comment on content, not on contributors. In particular, even if it appears that an editor is trolling, suggesting that an editor is trolling is a personal attack, and may result in moderated dispute resolution being failed. Your threaded comments and those of other editors have been hatted. Please discuss in your own section. Robert McClenon ( talk) 20:16, 29 March 2015 (UTC)
The Mediation Committee has received a request for formal mediation of the dispute relating to "Vectors are not tensors". As an editor concerned in this dispute, you are invited to participate in the mediation. Mediation is a voluntary process which resolves a dispute over article content by facilitation, consensus-building, and compromise among the involved editors. After reviewing the request page, the formal mediation policy, and the guide to formal mediation, please indicate in the "party agreement" section whether you agree to participate. Because requests must be responded to by the Mediation Committee within seven days, please respond to the request by 9 April 2015.
Discussion relating to the mediation request is welcome at the case talk page. Thank you.
Message delivered by
MediationBot (
talk) on
behalf of the Mediation Committee.
13:17, 2 April 2015 (UTC)
Hi!
Here are my reasons for my recent edits (reverted by you) for the JavaScript page:
Most JavaScript engines today are not interpreters. V8 compiles JavaScript to native machine code before executing it, instead of interpreting bytecode. SpiderMonkey contains an interpreter, a JIT compiler (IonMonkey), and a garbage collector. JavaScriptCore also has more than one JIT compilers.
JavaScript engines are actually VMs. References:
Google engineer Lars Bak explains the key engineering decisions behind V8, the JavaScript virtual machine used in Google Chrome.
JavaScriptCore is an optimizing virtual machine.
In the SpiderMonkey VM, the general solution to problems like these this is to build up a tree-like data structure that represents the sequence of immutable substrings. and collapse that datastructure only when necessary.
SpiderMonkey has been moving to C++ for some time, and that's why I changed the "is implemented in C" to "was implemented in C". You can have a look at the source code for SpiderMonkey here: https://hg.mozilla.org/mozilla-central/file/ab0490972e1e/js/src
SpiderMonkey supports all features in ECMAScript 5, and many features in ES2015+ (i.e., ES6+), instead of ES3. References:
The section I edited is "Use in web pages", so Rhino isn't quite relevant in this section. Moreover, Rhino is already mentioned in the "Uses outside web pages" section.
Would you like to elaborate your reason(s) for reverting my edits? Thank you!
(I'm not quite familiar with Wikipedia and English is not my native language. Please correct me if I did/said something wrong.)
-- Xue Fuqiao 12:37, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
The request for formal mediation concerning Vectors are not tensors, to which you were listed as a party, has been declined. To read an explanation by the Mediation Committee for the rejection of this request, see the mediation request page, which will be deleted by an administrator after a reasonable time. Please direct questions relating to this request to the Chairman of the Committee, or to the mailing list. For more information on forms of dispute resolution, other than formal mediation, that are available, see Wikipedia:Dispute resolution.
For the Mediation Committee,
TransporterMan (
TALK)
17:00, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
(Delivered by
MediationBot,
on behalf of the Mediation Committee.)
Not only has paid-by-vani-hari "admin" DoRD been cleansing the talk page of reliable sources to block discussion, he has gone back to the old admin habits of false claims about "sockpuppets" and has even blocked an entire IP range for a significant time.
I wonder how much Vani pays wikimedia to keep her article from containing accurate information? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.7.0.154 ( talk) 12:57, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
Andy, let us reason together. Voltage does not have a "quantity," no more than temperature does. Voltage is a measure of electromotive force. We don't ask, "What is the quantity of your weight?" We say, "What is your weight?" In the same way, we don't measure the quantity of the voltage: We measure the voltage. The same for current. We don't measure it "quantitatively" -- the adverb is meaningless because voltage and current are already scalars. The measured number tells everything. We measure the voltage, and we measure the current. And if the results are not numbers, we have done something really wronglitatively. :-) Slade Farney ( talk) 08:05, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for uploading File:Tim Birkin with Malcolm Campbell (small).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. Stefan2 ( talk) 16:33, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
You're welcome for your thanks for this this edit made by me.
It's been reverted.
Having these convienence links in this list article is being discussed at Talk:List_of_TED_speakers#Keep_convenience_links_to_speaker.E2.80.99s_TED_talks. In case, you want to participate in the consensus. Thanks either way. Yours for a better Wikipedia. — Lentower ( talk) 17:36, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
Hi, you reverted a change I made to the Vani Hari article and I'm not sure I understand what I supposedly removed. I'm pretty new to editing Wikipedia so I apologize if it's something obvious. YesPretense ( talk) 19:15, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
and this is right up there with the stupidest, most callous. -- Anthonyhcole ( talk · contribs · email) 01:17, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
Hi there. I had removed the category from Daw with Maw and Paw partly because the edit was made by a block-evading vandal, and partly because I thought it was not policy to put categories on redirect pages to begin with. I'm sincerely curious to know if it is policy to put categories on redirects, or on the page the redirect goes to?-- Mr Fink ( talk) 20:32, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
There is currently a discussion at
Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.
nafSadh
did
say
05:20, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
hi andy sorry i was experimenting — Preceding unsigned comment added by Leo 6869 ( talk • contribs) 21:29, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
Dear andy dingley, you recently reverted my edit , saying " this isn't an article about universal motor". You do understand that the other name of series motor is called universal motor, so my edit is valid since I added content about series motor. I don't know why but i can constantly see u reverting edits even though if it is correct. So before reverting an edit please see whether u can do so. since you are reverting valid edits. You are discouraging new Wikipedia editors by reverting valid edits . -- Chand3994 ( talk) 15:20, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
Re [3], that IP was already on my watchlist; it would appear to have been previously schoolblocked [4]. — Sladen ( talk) 13:13, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
Hi
There was no need for a discussion, they have been various RAF airfield articles merged into the current airfield article over the last few months, two have had discussions over 14months ago and both got quick merge support but the merge proposer never carried out the procedure. Gavbadger ( talk) 22:04, 1 May 2015 (UTC)
Hi, I'm confused, you just accused me of making destructive editing in Wilfred Owen. Eh?? I never even visited this page! What's going on?? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.132.234.147 ( talk) 07:53, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
What is the matter with you? Do you or do you not know that audio transformers are used in intercoms.Wondering whether you are an electrical student! Reverting wrong edits is good but reverting valid edits is not at all nice! what was your problem?. problem with me or with the edit which i made? -- Chand3994 ( talk) 11:55, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
: I had added points more than just the transmission is economical . I had added points about reduction in the current flow at higher voltages which leads to the reduction in joule heating as u say. And joule heating and i^2r loss are already explained if u can see,in the article so if I add points about joule heating it would be just a repetition. and i still wonder you are an electrical student. Good luck for your job of seeing through my edit history! I can now recognize that you are trying you revert all my edit by seeing my edit history.Why only mentioning the wrong edits? For your information see also my edits on rectifier,dc motor,radio and other non electrical topics Intercoms is a two way communication device and it also utilizes audio transformers. if u can see through an intercoms construction you will know that is. -- Chand3994 ( talk) 12:29, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
Hey Andy - thanks for the heads up. I completely understand. I noticed that Outrunner has almost no citations and needed some. I was able to provide a citation about outrunners in RC craft by linking to a post about brushed vs. brushless motors being used in RC crafts. It seemed quite relevant as a source to help validate that statement. I will leave it up to you to decide if it is worth putting back in there or not. — Preceding unsigned comment added by WilliamHobby ( talk • contribs) 19:52, 7 May 2015 (UTC)
We were going to do a reddit /r/3dprinting contest to edit wikipedia to increase the amount of good info about 3D printing here. The Marketing dept came up with the idea. I am killing off the idea for now, since we are going through an AfD and it would be unseemly for us to drive traffic here. FYI. 50.205.5.74 ( talk) 19:01, 24 April 2015 (UTC) (jebba)
Hi - re [5]: At the time of making the original edit (with my alternative account), Cathedrals Express was also a redlink. I wasn't aware of the historical named train, and therefore thought it unlikely to be created as an article, with Steam Dreams a better target for the link. I stand corrected :-) Optimist on the run ( talk) 15:40, 8 May 2015 (UTC)
1979 You dont know Jack You should have left it alone. It shows like most. You, are a pc person that is a AMIGA wanna be either that or a Amiga person that has gone to the dark side that doesn't know anything. Dang Jay was on you tube even talking on and about Amiga being Inc. in 1981 and started in 1979. I talked to Jay long long ago , and became a good friend of his. May he RIP. ITs sad shame what you people are doing to his system. I wont allow what is happening dont worry I really know the truth for people like you. The sources you use most of the time are from what falsehoods,and so called pfft amiga inc.. that uses false info , and doesn't even own a lick of sense much less the anything truly Amiga. Nobody does. Well, some company does. You'll find out who does. — Preceding unsigned comment added by AmigaOne ( talk • contribs) 16:44, 8 May 2015 (UTC)
Nice section on bearing life calculation! You reintroduced my small section and expanded it so nicely. This was totally needed here. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.96.150.30 ( talk) 14:41, 10 May 2015 (UTC)
Thank you for catching that edit. I was trying to revert vandalism and bumped it back to the wrong revision!
PureRED ( talk) 14:51, 13 May 2015 (UTC)
![]() |
I like that you like that i have guts Retartist 11:13, 14 May 2015 (UTC) |
Thank for you message that you deleted my edit from the Fire ring page. I don't really see what extensive explanation is required here. All I did is make it more general by deleting "church" from "are used by families, youth, and church organizations year-round", as the fact that some organizations that use fire rings are churches does not add anything to an article on fire rings. While I appreciate your friendly style and the message you sent, I really don't think that making a habit out of deleting other people's edits is a positive contribution to Wikipedia or our community in general. Reading through the other entries on your user talk page I can only make one recommendation: stop undoing other people's work and get a life. 2600:1003:B841:DD94:4496:C7B:A480:52A3 ( talk) 03:58, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
I changed line 32 in Leather to "vegetable tanned" and you changed it back to "vegetal tanned." Here in the United States, it's vegetable tanned. You must be a Brit, as that term is not used here in the States. So you can keep the revision; it's not a big deal to me that you changed it (within about 30 minutes), but realize I am not incorrect in calling it "vegetable tanned." ----
Hi, can you check better what the content you reinserted contains. The ref is to the commersial site of a supplier of a particular type of gear system, and the text claims its originality. The section is placed in the article under benefits. I find this revertion weird and would urge you to have a better look at whether your edit benefits the article. Thanks Keanu ( talk) 11:05, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
Instead of inserting a {{cn}} in my comment, as you did Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bon (programming language), you could have just asked. I find this move of yours quite uncivil, and you could have found the source for my claim right there in Bon (programming language). QVVERTYVS ( hm?) 13:39, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
When you say "I'm tired of your pointless edits like this", I assume that you refer to my edit of 17:43, 9 April 2015. Other than that, when have I followed up one of your edits with an action like that? Also, why is it pointless when it keeps the referencing style consistent within the article, per WP:CITEVAR? -- Redrose64 ( talk) 12:41, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
Laser edits Hello Andy, sorry if I made an editing error. If alright, I will try again. Any other suggestions before I try.
I was trying to add a video of a laser beam inflight filmed with new fast image recording techniques, and the research article reference explaining the video
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Uq0H4-nvBB8&ab_channel=NewScientist Video of Laser Beam in flight http://www.nature.com/ncomms/2015/150127/ncomms7021/full/ncouomms7021.html
Thank you, Jcardazzi ( talk) 17:12, 28 May 2015 (UTC)jcardazzi
Hello Andy, thanks for your comments. On further thought I think the articles relate to high speed photography techniques, where the scientists photographed laser light; not directly to lasers. I won't use the Youtube video, the New Scientist link includes the scientists video, posted on youtube. Thank you, Jcardazzi ( talk) 00:57, 29 May 2015 (UTC)jcardazzi
Given that we've bumped heads again, I thought it a timely idea to express how much I appreciate what you do here as en editor. We're all flawed, but you help me keep focused and on the right path, even when I happen to disagree with you (in part or full) over a specific edit or incident. -- Orange Mike | Talk 11:51, 29 May 2015 (UTC)
[10] I think not, but thought it might amuse you anyway. 50.0.136.194 ( talk) 19:54, 30 May 2015 (UTC)
Your eyes and hands would be appreciated. Cheers! 7&6=thirteen ( ☎) 14:39, 4 June 2015 (UTC)
![]() |
7&6=thirteen (
☎) has given you a
Dobos Torte to enjoy! Seven layers of fun because you deserve it.
To give a Dobos Torte and spread the WikiLove, just place {{ subst:Dobos Torte}} on someone else's talkpage, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. |
7&6=thirteen ( ☎) 14:40, 4 June 2015 (UTC)
Dear Mr Dingly,
I noticed that on May 14th you reverted a deletion on the page for 'Stage Jig' that claims 'Jack Ketch's Jig', written in 1994, is of the same period as the jigs this article discusses, which date 1580s-1670s. The deletion was made because reference to this 20th century performance, about a restoration someone or other, doesn't belong here as far as I am aware, unless you know otherwise? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.197.120.66 ( talk • contribs) 10:59, June 6, 2015
Andy,
Suffice it to say you are not qualified to pass judgement on edits on the article on USS Scorpion. The article is crap, sponsored by disinformation persons and is an insult to the family members who lost fathers, brothers, uncles, sons and husbands. The references available are slim and controversial, sometimes technically incompetent. Citing spam from sensational books written for profit is not a proper reference either.
It is not an editing war, it is a matter of respect for 99 dead servicemen. I would appreciate it if you would leave this alone, undo all your muddling and stop pretending this is an editing war. There are some people in the world who are very well versed on the subject and have a duty to clean up silly articles that wish for explosions, torpedoes, soviet warfare and similar garbage.
Please stop your harassment on this article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Brandywine589 ( talk • contribs) 02:10, 8 June 2015 (UTC)
You are invited to join the discussion at
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Indian Space Shuttle Programme. Requesting you to add your opinion. Regards Thanks.
M.srihari (
talk)
07:32, 8 June 2015 (UTC)Srihari
![]() |
The Original Barnstar |
I believe you were right about 5.5s serving in Korea, it appears the 74 Medium Battery (Battleaxe) equipped with 5.5s served in Korea during the last few months of the war. Mrniceguy101 ( talk) 18:28, 10 June 2015 (UTC) |
Thanks for your note re the University of Exeter workshop. I'm not quite sure what I'm going to find when I get there - I've asked for more details about how many potential participants. If it is only going to be half a dozen then probably happy on my own but if 20+ then someone else would probably be useful. There was a call for help on this over a year ago (Daria & Harry were involved in setting it up) You say its not far -where in Wales are you?— Rod talk 10:37, 16 May 2015 (UTC)
I've just heard back from Exeter about the study day/workshop on 15 July & we may have 20 ish participants, so if you are still free, it would be great if you were able to come along. I've now heard the specific venue is "expo lab 1 in the Forum" (but I've not checked where that is yet).— Rod talk 14:12, 8 June 2015 (UTC)
You introduced a whitespace inside ref tags. Why? Why is this useful? And why your version is better than mine? You changed a long-standing consensus on the page to use unspaced tags and then you reference to CITEVAR that contradicts your actions. -- Magioladitis ( talk) 20:40, 12 June 2015 (UTC)
Please revert yourself. [11] As you well know your personal assessment is insufficient and what is required for inclusion, as per the lead muliple valid sources that assert the death as unusual, not some third state proximate cause. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 22:11, 13 June 2015 (UTC)
You have more comment at [12] 86.131.4.105 ( talk) 15:12, 14 June 2015 (UTC)
Hello. For information, see: Champion Aerospace - Spark Plugs. -- Cjp24 ( talk) 23:41, 14 June 2015 (UTC)
Other example: see Ferodo. -- Cjp24 ( talk) 01:48, 15 June 2015 (UTC)
I moved Motorist to Motorist (disambiguation). While I disagree that a dab page is needed or appopriate here, if one is needed, there is a clear WP:PRIMARYTOPIC, and the pages need to be organized according to the guidelines.-- Srleffler ( talk) 04:42, 16 June 2015 (UTC)
Re [13]: CoffeeScript aside, what do you think about moving the page to Comparison of programming languages (foreach loops)? I mean, the page is more like a list than a proper article anyways :) It would make it fit in with the other comparison lists in Category:Programming language comparisons, which is where I found the page in the first place. 83.226.255.86 ( talk) 16:40, 17 June 2015 (UTC)
Hello! I am leaving this note for you because you participated in a deletion discussion about the Wikipedia article titled Institute of Continuing Education. I substantially expanded the article today (for the helluvit), and would appreciate if you would take a look and see if it’s better than when you last saw it. Cheers. Anythingyouwant ( talk) 03:38, 18 June 2015 (UTC)
It did. That's why I fixed it in the article. Dimethylmercury is not mercury poisnoing as much as cyanide poisoning isn't carbon poisoning. Per the article it's not metabolised or broken down in any way into mercury. It always say dimethylmercury poisoning not mercury poisoning. It's not mercury poisining. So I revert your suggestion back at you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dqeswn ( talk • contribs) 17:03, 18 June 2015 (UTC)
(re: this) - Gee, Andy... those red links have been there for almost 10 years now. Don't you think it's ok to remove them? Or do you honestly think articles for them are going to be created? (say, before the end of this decade?). I only ask because in your eagerness to pounce on that revert, you didn't leave anything in the edit summary or on the talk page that would explain why. - theWOLFchild 01:27, 21 June 2015 (UTC)
Hi Andy there is an obvious disagreement between you and User talk:Lathamibird in the Steam car article. Can you both raise the issue in the articles talk section so that a consensus can be reached. Thanks NealeFamily ( talk) 10:19, 25 June 2015 (UTC)
I reverted IkbenFrank partly because there was no mention of listing in the article, which goes against WP:CAT#Articles ("it should be clear from verifiable information in the article why it was placed in each of its categories"); partly because I couldn't find the station at http://www.historicengland.org.uk/listing/the-list and partly because IkbenFrank has a history of adding irrelevant and inaccurate information. -- Redrose64 ( talk) 13:13, 26 June 2015 (UTC)
By motion, the Arbitration Committee authorises the following injunction effective immediately:
You are receiving this message because you have commented about this matter on the
AN page, the
AE page or the
Case Requests page
and are therefore restricted as specified in (2). For the Arbitration Committee,
L235 (
t /
c /
ping in reply) via
MediaWiki message delivery (
talk)
01:30, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
I wanted to let you know I mentioned you on Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Arbitration enforcement/Evidence in this edit and I may mention you again in future edits. This is just a courtesy to inform you that you were mentioned. Thank you. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{ re}} 17:49, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
I moved the thread (about you and Metasonix originally, though it has strayed quite a bit now) after seeing Fae's comment, and put it in a subforum that bots can't see. We do that whenever a thread goes in a direction where one or more people being discussed probably wouldn't want that discussion to come up in a google (etc.) search. I also binned the post Fae was referring to, FWIW.
A lot of those discussions are just inside baseball with little or no educational value to the general public anyway, so we just assume that people (mostly Wikipedians) will just sign up for an account if they want to see it. -- SB_Johnny | talk✌ 20:45, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
You are receiving this message either because you are a party to the Arbitration enforcement arbitration case, because you have commented in the case request, or the AN or AE discussions leading to this arbitration case, or because you have specifically opted in to receiving these messages. Unless you are a party to this arbitration case, you may opt out of receiving further messages at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Arbitration enforcement/Notification list. The drafters of the Arbitration enforcement arbitration case have published a revised timetable for the case, which changes what you may have been told when the case was opened. The dates have been revised as follows: the Evidence phase will close 5 July 2015, one week earlier than originally scheduled; the Workshop phase will close 26 July 2015, one week later than originally scheduled; the Proposed decision is scheduled to be posted 9 August 2015, two weeks later than originally scheduled. Thank you. On behalf of the arbitration clerks, MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 07:58, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
Please explain this revert. -- Redrose64 ( talk) 16:02, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
You might be interested in this Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents thread: User:Fklatt adding promotional material. This relates to the "MotorPrinter links removed" section at the top of this page. -- Guy Macon ( talk) 15:08, 3 July 2015 (UTC)
"Humorist" is correct in British English. See for example here. Please consult a dictionary and self-revert. Feel free to check before you make a mistaken correction next time. -- John ( talk) 22:36, 22 June 2015 (UTC)
Hi, I'm thinking of trying to get West Somerset Mineral Railway up to GA. I notice you added the Jones and Madge books to the bibliography, but these are not actually used in the text - do you have copies of the books? If so could you ad a fact or two from them to the article?— Rod talk 19:48, 8 July 2015 (UTC)
A file that you uploaded or altered, File:John Cobb (small).jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why it has been listed (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry). Feel free to add your opinion on the matter below the nomination. Thank you. damiens.rf 00:52, 11 July 2015 (UTC)
Hi Andy Dingley.
Thank you for your improvement to my edit on the Topsy article. You are quite correct. Voltage does not pass through something but rather is applied across something. I believe that that part of the article is now totally technically correct. (Let's hope that we don't get reverted by someone who doesn't understand electricity.) Again, my thanks.
Richard27182 (
talk)
05:07, 11 July 2015 (UTC)
Andy, re your comments at Talk:Negative resistance/GA1. The review was closed and the article passed before you posted your comments. You might want to move them to the article talk page in a new section. It's a pity the reviewer did not concentrate more on that sort of thing instead of getting hung up on citation style issues which are not part of the GA criteria anyway. Spinning Spark 22:34, 12 July 2015 (UTC)
No, I'm just reading through old Railway Magazines. This article is by Charles Lee, who did extensive research. The 1880 Act was 43 and 44 Vic. cap 197. Johnragla ( talk) 10:53, 14 July 2015 (UTC)
![]() |
The Helping Hand Barnstar | |
Thanks for all your help with the Exeter workshop today. The evaluations from the group showed that appreciated your input and guidance. — Rod talk 19:34, 15 July 2015 (UTC) |
Thank you for the thank you. I don't understand why they do not let these very unusual deaths be included in the list but I tried my best. It's like dealing with bullies in the playground. Alec Station ( talk) 14:44, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
Hi Andy! I wanted to ask if you had thoughts on how I might work with the leaf spring material I mentioned on the auto project page. Luke is right in claiming the article isn't up to 2015 standards. However, I think he is throwing the baby out with the bath water in regards to refusing to help fix vs blank the content. I don't think I'm receiving special treatment given the infobox and other edits. Anyway, I would be interested to know if you have suggestions. Thanks Springee ( talk) 00:26, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
I would suggest buying a Korean SUV with coil springs all around. Saves all sorts of confusion! Springee ( talk) 01:42, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
Andy, I usually see references to rectangular boilers in works on ironclads; are these the same thing as box boilers? Thanks in advance.-- Sturmvogel 66 ( talk) 23:45, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
{{
cite book}}
: |volume=
has extra text (
help); Invalid |ref=harv
(
help)CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (
link) is a good source for this period. He gives 1820-1870 as a range for 'box', although by the later date they had more complex fluing and yet were still well obsolete.
Andy Dingley (
talk)
00:11, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
Hi Andy. I removed the ref to Subterranea Britannica because it didn't appear to be an RS. Having looked into it further I'm undecided. What do you think? Sam Walton ( talk) 16:43, 2 August 2015 (UTC)
Hi, Andy. Excuse me, I'm a full german greenhorn und not quite familiar with the conventions in the en-Cat-Section. Are you dealing with the IMDb-Datasets or is it possible to make own decisions if the Data seem illogical? -- Koyaanis ( talk) 12:36, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
Sorry Andy - I see so many "dubious" tags without comment in the talk page that I didn't check the comment there before "fixing" the tag. Give me an hour or two and I'll do it properly... Shem ( talk) 10:14, 10 August 2015 (UTC)
There's an issue at WikiProject Television that I would like your input at. Electric Burst( Electron firings)( Zaps) 17:44, 10 August 2015 (UTC)
Please do no add and then reverting my removal of your link an article about the Ford Boss 302 engine to the article about Chevrolet small-block engines (which is a redirect of small-block). That could be considered harassment by many Ford enthusiasts! Moreover, you comment for me to "fix" the link is impossible! This is because there is no "small block Ford" article! Perhaps you could develop an article about the history of Ford's small-sized V8 engines? Unfortunately, such specific details about the history and designs of Ford engines are beyond of my areas of expertise. At this point, it is better to only keep the direct link to V8 engines (which is a redirect of small block V8) because there is a discussion of small and large block terminology. Thanks! CZmarlin ( talk) 14:28, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
Beatport is a music player. Is genre tag reliable? 115.164.49.74 ( talk) 16:06, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
I brought the complaint of spamming to the blacklist in good faith, but you have shown that it was incorrect. Thank you. Incidentally, it had nothing to do with nationality (on my part at least).
And steamcruft is one kind of cruft I don't mind: I knew Tony Marchington, his company floated the day my first son was born, my wife worked for the firm and they had a double celebration in the pub: we're rich and new baby. That's the money Tony used to buy the Scotsman. I also saw Alan Pegler's London-Edinburgh run steaming over Digswell viaduct, one of my earliest memories, so although I live in the Western region my railway layout - 27' x 17' tailchaser with crossover, twice round - is North eastern, and the main station can accommodate a prototypical 1964 Scotsman formation, I have built all the right coaches to match the marshalling sheets. So I am a bit of a steam fan. Guy ( Help!) 11:11, 15 August 2015 (UTC)
Just to let you know that I filed this Thanks for your efforts in this situation. MarnetteD| Talk 21:59, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.
You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.
A tag has been placed on Algolia, requesting that it be deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under two or more of the criteria for speedy deletion, by which articles can be deleted at any time, without discussion. If the page meets any of these strictly-defined criteria, then it may be soon be deleted by an administrator. The reasons it has been tagged are:
If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. Hitro talk 19:46, 19 August 2015 (UTC)
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Algolia 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/Algolia 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. Hitro talk 20:29, 19 August 2015 (UTC)
Hi Andy, isn't it only cockneys who drop the h when pronouncing the letter 'haitch' ? Unibond ( talk) 00:12, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Ballast tank, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Pitch. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot ( talk) 08:59, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
I've blocked the one named account. If IP socks continue to add the link, I'll go ahead and blacklist the spammed URL. Let me know if you see any continued activity, in case I miss it. --- Barek ( talk • contribs) - 20:34, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
Technically that wasn't for me and if we're actually trying to retain the editor, I doubt I'm helping but I hope you got enough background in case you just want to go "what he said." -- Ricky81682 ( talk) 10:10, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
I have not assumed any ownership of any article. Yes I continually allow for edits and changes to take place. I would never assume that any one can allow for an article to be edited. I do work by consensus and there was no consensus to move this article. My view on the word Britain rather than Great Britain is not a unilateral view nor a view that only I hold. Most people on the talk page agreed that Great Britain is appropriate and certainly not Britain. I would therefore ask that you move this article back to Great Britain as opposed to the inaccurate and out of date 'Britain'. The organisation no longer describes itself as the CPB and this should be acknowledged. ( Garageland66 ( talk) 21:54, 28 August 2015 (UTC))
There is currently a discussion at
Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.
MisterBee1966 (
talk)
08:58, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
You are pressing revert first, then finding reasons to do so. Stop it. 178.16.11.132 ( talk) 02:06, 2 September 2015 (UTC)
Andy, you really made a mess of this SPI. First, if you reopen an SPI but put in the wrong master (in this instance the case of the username), you can't just fix it yourself. You should notify a clerk to correct it. Second, apparently you think that this SPI is related to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Kj650. What you should do is reference the second SPI in the body of the one you create to explain why. You can't just slap a template on the new SPI. It took me sometime to fix all this, and it was a headache. It should be intact now, but if you want to say something about Kj650, you'll have to add it to the body.-- Bbb23 ( talk) 15:16, 7 September 2015 (UTC)
![]() |
Looks like everyone needs the sudz to bury their noses in today ;) at this rate i'l have to open a bar! Irondome ( talk) 17:10, 7 September 2015 (UTC) |
Regarding Overview of RESTful API Description Languages: the proposed deletion process is only meant for uncontroversial deletions and is a one-time process. If the article has previously been listed at AfD or deprodded, proposed deletion can unfortunately no longer be used and alternative means should be considered (since AfD didn't work out either, it may be best to consider alternatives :) ). - Sonicwave ( talk| c) 05:16, 11 September 2015 (UTC)
I have asked for more input here Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Military_history#M19_Tank_transporter. Sammy D III ( talk) 21:36, 13 September 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for clearing up regarding cyclecars but you really should put that information in the article. It should be made clearer that a large part of the appeal of these was that people didn't need a full driving license to drive them although most people regard them as cars. Also, I don't think the article should simply say the Morgan Motor Company, as they've been making 4 wheeled cars since 1936. The 3-Wheelers were just part of the range. Aron Robinson ( talk) 18:02, 14 September 2015 (UTC)
[14] BMK ( talk) 00:39, 15 September 2015 (UTC)
Hello Andy, I saw this edit. It was Trinity College, as per the sources used in the article. Which source in the article suggested Trinity Hall? The Rambling Man ( talk) 16:13, 15 September 2015 (UTC)
At the top of this page it clearly states "The examples and perspective in this article deal primarily with the United Kingdom and do not represent a worldwide view of the subject. Please improve this article and discuss the issue on the talk page. (August 2015)" I have tried discussing this, I have tried compromising. Why are you blocking attempts at improving this article and compromising on the content. I even used the language of one of the editors who is defending your position. I have improved and made clear the fact that this term is used in the United Kingdom. I've added Derek Hatton. But you are refusing to compromise and to allow edits. Why? What makes your opinion superior to mine? ( Garageland66 ( talk) 16:53, 15 September 2015 (UTC))
Just so you know, Wikipedia is not beholden to monarchs or people. We don`t call American or Canadian ships named after people `the`, therefore British ships should not get special treatment, especially just those named after royalty. Llammakey ( talk) 11:22, 15 September 2015 (UTC)
|3=2
parameter to the template).
Andy Dingley (
talk)
17:24, 15 September 2015 (UTC)
Hi Andy, you removed one external link I added to the page [ rubber]. I'm actually a little confused, because the page I added is just giving some useful information for the general feature and spec of the nitrile gloves. Nothing like commercial. Would you please let me know what part I should remove in my page so that I can add this external link? Thanks, Tom — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tompleasanton ( talk • contribs) 23:05, 15 September 2015 (UTC)
Stifle ( talk) 12:58, 16 September 2015 (UTC)
Stifle ( talk) 13:38, 17 September 2015 (UTC)
Funny thing is, if he added cat:German inventions one page a day, nobody would probably notice and it would stay. As many of those articles are German inventions, should I just add the cats myself, and be done with it, or are we having too much fun? Cheers Jim1138 19:17, 17 September 2015 (UTC)
After seeing your comment related to ANI here, (I'm guessing it was more tongue in cheek than anything), I just wanted to let you know SageRad's behavior will likely be a main focus at an upcoming ArbCom case: /info/en/?search=Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case#GMO_articles
I'm not sure if you actually were considering ANI in the future or if you were aware of the pending case already, but I just wanted to give you heads up that it probably wouldn't be taken up at ANI due to the case. Kingofaces43 ( talk) 19:51, 17 September 2015 (UTC)
Hi Andy,
Not sure why you left a warning on my talk page? Can you enlighten me?
Polyamorph ( talk) 11:05, 21 September 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for PRODding Windlass Steelcrafts. Just to let you know, there are at least 4 companies connected to each other that keep dropping spammy ext links. My contribs at this time show my reverts.
Best, Anna Frodesiak ( talk) 06:30, 23 September 2015 (UTC)
And Draft:KnifeIndia exists. Just letting you know. :) Anna Frodesiak ( talk) 06:31, 23 September 2015 (UTC)
I didn't cn-tag Quasar in the expectation of establishing "...is a cabin cycle" to be false, rather I'm trying to make some sense of the currently shambolic cabin cycle article, which it seems to me should have Quasar, Ecomobile etc, and anything resembling the Lit Motors prototype, at its core - if you know of good sources that identify any of these (or anything else) specifically as cabin cycles, the cabin cycle article sure could use them! 110.77.221.193 ( talk) 17:31, 24 September 2015 (UTC)
Hi Andy. We can't use that photo, since we have no author details, so we can't prove that it's PD in the country of origin. More importantly, we don't have a date of publication, so we can't prove its PD in the U.S. And lastly, it certainly fails any claim to fair use, since there are many free alternatives. Thanks. Parsecboy ( talk) 09:31, 22 September 2015 (UTC)
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Kayempur High School 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/Kayempur High School 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. I thought you would be interested since you PRODded it. — Jeff G. ツ (talk) 03:33, 27 September 2015 (UTC)
Hello, I'm
Walter Görlitz. I wanted to let you know that I undid one or more of
your recent contributions to
JIRA because it did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, please use the
sandbox. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on
my talk page.
WP:RS does not apply.
MOS:ACRO does: "an acronym should be written out in full the first time it is used on a page, followed by the abbreviation in parentheses". CVS is not an exception.
Walter Görlitz (
talk)
20:29, 27 September 2015 (UTC)
Per your comments about the merge proposal being an alternative attempt to delete the article: that is not my motivation as nominator; I was genuinely trying to find an outcome acceptable to all, as recommended by the closing admin. I was, I think, naive to believe it could be done - passions are too high; the strength of opinions and the distance between them means we will probably be stuck in a "no consensus" loop for a long while over this. I think it highly likely that some people's political opinions have coloured their !votes at the AfD and subsequent discussions, and I believe this is true at both ends of the spectrum. From reading your comments on the page I sense very strongly that you believe that too - of at least one side of the argument if not both. I offer as friendly advice the observation that a number of your comments are being aimed at a particular person or group rather than their arguments, and it might be better not to give them the opportunity to come back at you with WP:NPA. RichardOSmith ( talk) 14:51, 1 October 2015 (UTC)
![]() |
Apparently, I'm your socketpuppet, so I thought the least I could do was bring you some beer. Don't let the bastards grind you down. bonadea contributions talk 19:38, 4 October 2015 (UTC) |
Who's the sysop you referred to in your AIV comment? I looked at the SPI archive and couldn't find anything. -- NeilN talk to me 20:09, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
Hello! I wanted to let you know that the reverting at this article is still going on even though there was a consensus at WikiProject Military history to leave this article alone and to work on other articles that lack key information. BTW - That bump on the Triton User talk:Andy Dingley/Archive 6/s deck was the housing for its towed communications buoy. Marcd30319 ( talk) 21:13, 5 October 2015 (UTC)
Just wondered why you find Curtiss and Porte irrelevant? 80.229.34.113 ( talk) 11:20, 7 September 2015 (UTC)
Mine's another pint by the way, I recall a model of Koolhoven's design http://theflyingboatforum.forumlaunch.net/viewtopic.php?f=104&t=1363&sid=15706a59ee6ef7aa58c99b671dbd51d5 http://www.inyourpocket.com/Amsterdam/Bel-Air-Models_114113v Not able to find a website presently. 80.229.34.113 ( talk) 18:26, 7 September 2015 (UTC)
None the wiser here re ground effect; there are three refs to ground effect in the Hercules page, including "Wing In Ground effect aerodynamics." se-technology.com. Retrieved: October 6, 2010 (a broken link unfortunately).
The Olmsted page states ...Olmsted was also the first to design a super-transport WIGE (wing-in-ground effect) vehicle in the spring of 1942, that is presumably a straight forward statement of fact, and Out of this effort ultimately developed Howard Hughes huge flying boat, the Spruce Goose that is not straight forward as the effort may include some other aspect of aerodynamics that is not entirely related to ground effect. I can only suggest further inquiries? Perhaps someone with in depth knowledge of the Hercules' aerodynamics might comment. 80.229.34.113 ( talk) 11:09, 5 October 2015 (UTC)
It certainly had been used as a prison, in the Civil War and later. Should it be "the former prison"? Ghmyrtle ( talk) 12:46, 6 October 2015 (UTC)
Andy, the article states in at least 2 places that production continued into 1970. Eagleash ( talk) 22:46, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
Hi Andy! Stop kill people with editing that page. ABS plastic is exteremely harmful for 3D printing and as it pproduces fumes of Acrylonitrile. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Physics3dc ( talk • contribs) 13:10, 9 October 2015 (UTC)
Minutes of Proceedings of the Institution of Civil Engineers, Volume 91- "In 1825 he married Fanny, youngest daughter of Mr. Richard Ankers, and shortly afterwards came to London, to the workshop of Messrs. Maudslay. He soon won a position as one of the best workmen, and while here he made his first great discovery, which consisted in the mode of construction of a set of perfect plane surfaces. Up to that time the most accurate planes had been obtained by first planing and then grinding the surfaces. They were never true, and young Whitworth became possessed with the idea of making a true plane. At the next bench sat a Yorkshireman named John Hampson, a good workman and a good fellow, who took an interest in his young companion’s work. One day as they worked Whitworth ventured on an idea. 'If these planes were true, one of them ought to lift the other.' 'Tha knows nowt about it,' was the cynical reply of steady-going experience. Whitworth kept on at his problem, working quietly at his lodgings. His first step was to abandon grinding for scraping. 'Taking two surfaces,' he said, when telling the story afterwards, 'as accurate as the planing tool could make them, I coated one of them with colouring matter and then rubbed the other over it. Had the two surfaces been true, the colouring matter would have spread itself uniformly over the upper one. It never did so, but appeared in spots and patches. These marked the eminences, which I removed with a scraping tool until the two surfaces gradually became more coincident'
But while his skill as a workman was thus being made the most of, Whitworth‘s mind was not idle. He saw that his first thought was not enough. Two surfaces might lift each other by fitting perfectly and yet not be true planes. One might be convex and the other concave. A new light came. Make three surfaces. If each will lift either of the others they must be planes and must be true.
After another stage of skilful labour the three planes were made and the test fulfilled. The Sunday after the problem was solved Whitworth called on his old mate. 'John,' said the young man, 'come to my house ; I’ve something to show you.' The true planes were exhibited. 'Ay! tha’s done it,' said John. That was probably the greatest moment in a great life. Joseph Whitworth had perceived that a true plane was the first thing needed for the improvement of mechanical construction. He set to work to produce it, and by sheer clear thinking and honest work he did produce it. "
........................................................ and:
A remarkable advance in the direction to which we have referred was made prior to the year 1840 by Sir Joseph Whitworth, and formed the subject-matter of a paper read before the meeting of the British Association at Glasgow in that year. Specimens of truly plane metallic surfaces were then, for the first time, brought under the notice of scientific men, and the method of preparing such surfaces was also made known. Up to that time the process relied upon for obtaining plane surfaces on metal plates, and indeed the only one practically used, had involved the operation of grinding two plates together with emery powder and water.
The Whitworth Measuring Machine 1877 The Whitworth Measuring Machine: Including Descriptions of the Surface plate. ...............................................
There are many other references as there are many references that are hazy on the origins of the surface plate, wrongly attributing it to Maudslay such as Naysmiths book. However they confuse the lapping ABC (grinding as it was referred to at the time) method Maudslay used with the SCRAPING ABC method invented by Whitworth. Maudslay immediately adopted the new scraping process for his whole shop, leading some to wrongly attribute it to Maudslay but it was Whitworth who was the inventor. =Motorhead ( talk) 05:30, 8 October 2015 (UTC)
=Motorhead ( talk) 19:07, 10 October 2015 (UTC): OK then, so Maudslay gets credit for the use of plates, Whitworth gets scraping and the use of sets of three. Maybe it's even worth noting that the idea of an accurate generated surface comes from optics and lens or mirror grinding? Are you going to add the refs to the article? Andy Dingley ( talk) 09:28, 8 October 2015 (UTC)
Actually I've looked into the optical flat development and it appears to have a totally separate historical line and it seems to have occurred later than the scraped surface plate, at least I haven't come across any connection. Concave and convex mirrors were made long before the surface plate but optical flats were more difficult due to the same problems Maudslay and his predecessors encountered, namely rolling off the edges and uncertain local material removal due to uncontrollable grain size of the abrasives(the variable grain size far exceeds the l millionth tolerance of Whitworths true surface plate) and the constantly increasing curvature of 2 plates being lapped together(due to gravity).
Maudslays lapped(ground) plates had to have been VERY good but not good enough, I'd guess as good as .0001 or so for most of the surface. Whitworth got that down to .000001 on the entire surface (which is far better than typical surface plates found today which can be +/-.000012 for a AAA grade plate the size of Whitworths)
I actually use all the above techniques and I have seen the results first hand. Lapping plates together simply wont produce a flat enough surface while I can scrape to .000002 without difficulty and to .000001 with extra care.
Ultimately I would say this: Maudslay gets credit for recognizing the critical importance of good surface plates as a foundation for all metrology. Maudslay gets credit for making very good lapped plates and using them to great effect. Maudslay gets credit for inventing Joseph Whitworth(among others). Whitworth gets credit for using scraping to produce the first reliably true surface plates to 1 millionth accuracy. Whitworth gets credit for developing hand scraping to its highest level and using it to great effect. Neither gets credit for the AB BC CA three plate method of verification as I have found indications of its use as far back as the ancient Egyptians and as Nasmyth said he believed it to be "a very old mechanical dodge". =Motorhead ( talk) 19:07, 10 October 2015 (UTC)
yeah, but you do know that redirects don't require any AfD, mkay? -- ℕ ℱ 20:31, 11 October 2015 (UTC)
Is now bluelinked twice in the Piers Gaveston Society article - with essentially only a single anonymous allegation being the basis. If we have him in the table, it makes sense to also have the counterclaim in the table - of if we have him after the table, it makes sense to remove him from the table. Having him essentially listed twice - on rather slim basis, alas, makes no sense to me. Collect ( talk) 23:11, 11 October 2015 (UTC)
Hi Andy, I think this is a recent change to the templates. I have some tool (can't remember which) which highlights CS1 errors. I'm working my way through cleanup lists for Somerset and Bristol where these show up. If you take a look at Help:CS1 errors item 25 External link in |<param>= - it says ext links are not allowed. I presume this is discussed somewhere but I don't understand enough about templates to get involved in the debate.— Rod talk 15:23, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
|website=
, where such a link certainly makes sense (At present |website=
just seems to be synonym for |work=
, so it even gives a misleading error message)
Andy Dingley (
talk)
15:50, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
Hello, I'm
ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:
Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot ( talk) 00:18, 14 October 2015 (UTC)
Andy Dingley, in the lede paragraph of the Steam Shovel entry, my reason for changing the British English word "favour" to the American word "favor" is perfectly logical and valid: The Steam Shovel was an American invention. Hence the spelling change.
Please desist in non-logical edits. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jmn100 ( talk • contribs) 03:23, 14 October 2015 (UTC)
Please see Locomotives of the L.N.E.R., Part 6B, p. 189 where it says "the nickname given to George, the proud fifth Duke of Gordon (1770-1836)", so the link to George Gordon, 5th Duke of Gordon was correct. -- Redrose64 ( talk) 23:17, 14 October 2015 (UTC)
Andy, I noticed you made a number of edits but in doing so you undid my previous edit. I'm assuming you made a mistake so I will make my edit again changing the word anode to electrode. An anode by definition is negatively charged. A postitively charged electrode is called a cathode. The context of the rest of the paragraph keeps talking about a positively charged electrode so I strongly believe the latter is the proper term to be used here. If you disagree for some reason please explain your rationale. Thanks. Lbecque ( talk) 19:32, 14 October 2015 (UTC)
No Andy, in fact your reference supports that the anode is negatively charged and is a concentration of electrons. BY DEFINITION an anode is negatively charged and a cathode is positively charged. This needs to either say cathode or positively charged electrode to be consistent with the rest of the paragraph. The very next sentence says "If the electrode is positively charged, it will melt more quickly,...". Please change this back to positively charged electrode. -- Lbecque ( talk) 20:14, 21 October 2015 (UTC)
Andy I have created a power supplies section on the talk page of arc welding to discuss this further with all users. -- Lbecque ( talk) 21:12, 21 October 2015 (UTC)
![]() |
With this ever dramatic world and winter coming, here's a cup of tea to alleviate your day!
![]() |
Category:Automata (computation), 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. QVVERTYVS ( hm?) 09:59, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
Yes, Wikipedia is WP:NOTCENSORED. We do not remove sourced content because it is objectionable or offensive. This does not mean that everything potentially objectionable or offensive is fair game. That your opinion may or may not be objectionable or offensive to someone somewhere is immaterial. Article talk pages are not a forum for general discussion of article topics, they are for discussing improvements to their associated articles. A random editor's opinion of Autism Speaks is not in any way relevant to improving the article. - SummerPhD v2.0 14:40, 25 October 2015 (UTC)
Hi! I noticed on a template on my talk page that the link to real life had turned pink ( User:Anomie/linkclassifier) and that you were somehow involved in this. I have no idea how the link was suddenly involved in this, but the {{busy}} links to 1901 pages, so I think it would be best to fix links after a potential deletion of the article/redirect. Not sure what is going on though. Best, w.carter -Talk 16:52, 26 October 2015 (UTC)
I asked you for your opinion, and you chose to just remove my message without comment. Now you have started to edit-war over it. The editor who uses the pseudonym " JamesBWatson" ( talk) 16:06, 27 October 2015 (UTC)
Hi Andy
Garageland66 has continued to tenaciously edit war and disruptively edit the Hard Left article. Do you think they should be referred to the Admin noticeboard? -- Reaganomics88 ( talk) 15:35, 28 October 2015 (UTC)
I would assert that Reaganomics88 has tenaciously vandalised the Hard Left article by removing sources and changing elements that had already been established. ( Garageland66 ( talk) 15:47, 28 October 2015 (UTC))
Hi Andy, I'm sorry If there were any inappropriate disturbances to any articles due to interactions with my account. As I was leaving for work I must have left Wikipedia logged on to my account because I later found out that one of my little brothers had vandalized different articles on Wikipedia using my account. It was not my intention to disturb anyone's hard work.
CeleryKnightAP (
talk)
04:36, 31 October 2015 (UTC). Thanks!
Hi Andy, since you reverted an edit on Bristol Siddeley back to my version, I thought you might be interested in the discussion on my talk page. Bazonka ( talk) 21:09, 31 October 2015 (UTC)
As the talk page guidelines for this case state, all comments must be in an individual editor's section, there are no threaded discussions except for comments made by arbitrators or clerks. So, your comments to Gamaliel have been moved to Wikipedia talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Arbitration enforcement 2/Evidence#Andy Dingley's section. Thank you. Liz Read! Talk! 16:56, 4 November 2015 (UTC)
Hello Andy
How did you do that? I was trying to fix what was there before, but couldn't find the degree symbol anywhere I looked; where was it?
Xyl 54 (
talk)
22:53, 4 November 2015 (UTC)
Alt-0176
on the numeric pad. Otherwise use the Character Map Windows utility.Alt-0176
° is degrees, Alt-0186
º is ordinal (e.g. Nº42). Hard to tell apart otherwise.°
°
Andy Dingley (
talk)
23:12, 4 November 2015 (UTC)
actually I was commenting more to MB. I didn't see any reason for the "I want to put Liz's talk page as evidence" stuff. Apologies for not being more clear on that. — Ched : ? 21:52, 4 November 2015 (UTC)
Gamaliel's talk page is here, not here NE Ent 01:44, 5 November 2015 (UTC)
I really don't want to have to bother with taking this to the article talk so, as you appear to be the only one opposing it, I thought I ought to explain to you why 'attempts' is is better than claims'. 'Claims' has a lot of implicit meaning that suggests that what it claims is the case is different from reality. Attempts makes it clear that this is the aim of Thatcherite economic policy without passing judgment on whether the methods of pursuing the aim are correct or not. Reaganomics88 ( talk) 18:38, 2 November 2015 (UTC)
That was a dumb disambiguation on my part. Thanks for catching it! /wia /tlk 22:52, 5 November 2015 (UTC)
Hello. I noticed this link that was used as source when the article was created in 2005, but was accidentally deleted along with vandalism in 2007. I don't know if it's a reliable source, but it's better than nothing... Thomas.W talk 12:31, 10 November 2015 (UTC)
So per this, is this edit by Jujutacular wrong? Brycehughes ( talk) 13:44, 10 November 2015 (UTC)
A little too close paraphrasing? Or am I missing something? [21] — MusikAnimal talk 16:53, 13 November 2015 (UTC)
In the 1871 census, when John was 2 years old, the family was living at Hunsletand
He was awarded his B.A. in 1906, with first class honours in both Part I and Part II, etc. There's just little scraps here and there that are word for word from the source. Surely you see the concern? At least speaking for myself, I know it's often difficult to reword prose when you have limited sources to go off of. I'm also confused why the source in question [22] was not cited in these areas it was adapted — MusikAnimal talk 19:00, 13 November 2015 (UTC)
Hello TWL users! We hope JSTOR has been a useful resource for your work. We're organizing a cleanup drive to correct dead links to JSTOR articles – these require JSTOR access and cannot easily be corrected by bot. We'd love for you to jump in and help out!
Sent of behalf of
Nikkimaria for
The Wikipedia Library's JSTOR using
MediaWiki message delivery (
talk)
22:18, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
Hello Andy Dingley.
I take it that "Rv unsupported trolling, ENGVAR and broken filenames"
[23] was aimed at
this edit by Physics3dc? (who I see has a 'history' on that page) I was worried I'd accidentally broken a file name, but I see where they 'corrected' a file names' spelling, among other things, which you fixed. Regards,
220
of
Borg
17:36, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
Looking again at User talk:Tamfang#Overdrive (mechanics), because a conversation elsewhere reminded me of it — you concluded
The language that I changed was
Why isn't "a mechanism" (or, better, "any mechanism") closer to the essence than "a term for a mechanism"?
Now the article begins
and I'd be tempted to make it "Overdrive is a state of operation ..." — Tamfang ( talk) 00:27, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
There is no MOS guideline that even deprecates the use of orthographic transcription alongside the IPA, let alone forbids it. On the contrary, it is expressly permitted; to quote: "The Wikipedia respelling system, using the {{ respell}} template, can be used in addition to the IPA."
The utilitarian reason for providing a respelling pronunciation is that the people who most need a guide to the pronunciation are usually the ones least likely to know the IPA.
On both these grounds I therefore ask that you self-revert on your removal of the orthographic transcription.
Thank you,
Awien ( talk) 14:29, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
Hi Andy Thanks for jumping in re reversions of my edits on the B-24 Liberator page. Autonomously yours 110.175.158.17 ( talk) 11:18, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
Don't you like a file that's directly derived from the vector source file over the reverse engineered one?-- Frysch ( talk) 20:08, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current
Arbitration Committee election. The
Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia
arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose
site bans,
topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The
arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to
review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on
the voting page. For the Election committee,
MediaWiki message delivery (
talk)
16:38, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
Back in APril you PRODded this, and it was deleted. Undeletion has now been requested at WP:REFUND, so per WP:DEL#Proposed deletion I have restored it, and now notify you in case you wish to consider AfD. Regards, JohnCD ( talk) 17:25, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
Andy, you have confused operating temperature (the range of temperature in which equipment is certified to be used) with input and output heat differences. Since temperature is not directly indicative of heat change, due to specific heat qualities, temperature cannot be used to directly indicate efficiency unless a complete thermodynamic cycle takes place where all other things are equal (and the specific heat quantity would still need to be considered). Please undo your revert on internal combustion engines. Typenolies ( talk) 21:19, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
Regarding this revert - "malicious Ebola-scare hoaxer cannot be punished under Human Rights Act" seemed like the kind of story the Mail might have over-egged to further its own agendas, and Bonehill clearly has a history of putting out false statements about himself.
I couldn't find any other coverage of the verdict - Google only returns a few blogs and mirrors for the "Freedom of speech has a very high threshold and I would have breached Article 10 of the Humans Rights Act if I had found you guilty" quote attributed to the judge, or for the name of the judge plus the name of the accused. The local paper that's been otherwise covering Bonehill's various arrests and trials hasn't mentioned him for months. I think we should treat this with some caution. -- McGeddon ( talk) 17:22, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
What's the rationale on categorization of categories for articles that are just associated with a topic?-- Frysch ( talk) 15:05, 26 November 2015 (UTC)
There is currently a discussion at
Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.
Natural Ratio (
talk)
18:53, 26 November 2015 (UTC)
Please, do not simply reverse a patrolled review. Explain, justify and source your addition. The comment section and the Article's Talk Pages serve those purposes. We appreciate your addition, but we do not have any other way of verification but the one you provide. Thanks. Historiador ( talk) 12:05, 3 December 2015 (UTC)
Every addition should be explained and sourced. It is simple Historiador ( talk) 12:14, 3 December 2015 (UTC)
I wasn't referring to you as the SPA. I was talking about ( LOJackDaniels) whose only contributions include adding that same link to multiple articles. The username also provides further evidence: LO = "locks online" and on the website there is a web developer named "Jack" which corresponds to LOJackDaniel's userpage information. Regardless, I don't know how you could argue that the link is even close to passing WP:RS guidelines. - KH-1 ( talk) 12:37, 3 December 2015 (UTC)
Your complete reversion of my edit to this article is inconsiderate. Can you tell me what "The Tyne Bridge was designed by Mott, Hay and Anderson, comparably to their Sydney Harbour Bridge version" actually means? And why was the internal link to "Movietone News" removed? How is that incorrect?
Tullyvallin ( talk) 07:20, 4 December 2015 (UTC) Tullyvallin
Hello. This edit didn't really address my concerns at all. Would you be willing to take the time to give this another look? I still think my clarify text was adequate but I'll rephrase my concerns anyway in the hope that will help:
I realise this is a bit wordy but I don't particularly need a detailed response, I'd just like to be confident that my concerns were properly understood before I drop them for good.
TuxLibNit ( talk) 23:42, 6 December 2015 (UTC)
Adding a MfD tag to Lola LC88 is pointy. You know full well that the correct venue is a WP:AfD. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 23:11, 6 December 2015 (UTC)
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
An RfC has been opened at RfC to physically restrict access to the Helper Script. You are invited to comment. -- Kudpung กุดผึ้ง ( talk) 16:56, 1 February 2015 (UTC)
About the waterstone pic there... I am not sure why you undid my change. The pic does show a waterstone with a wooden casing, instead of two waterstones. Yogomove ( talk) 04:44, 2 February 2015 (UTC)
Re: Your comment on my talk page. No problem. But, is "Richard Marshall" a reliable source? Without an actual dated copy of any documents from the original prospectus, all information in the article sourced from a single person's article should be removed entirely as unreliable. -- 24.47.169.50 ( talk) 23:14, 2 February 2015 (UTC)
Maybe you could actually take care of the guy who is deleting stuff from wikipedia, instead of reverting my legit edits? Or do I have to login on my account every time and have a 5 page "legal war" that ends up at the arbitration committee, since nowadays thinks that if they have an account, they can delete any contribution done by an IP address, since apparently an IP address is a "no one" who has no edits and cannot do nothing? Ok - if we are supposed to have this edit on the website put via the hard way - please call the arbitration committee, since they need to review this case. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.76.8.142 ( talk) 02:23, 4 February 2015 (UTC)
Hounded off exactly which project, please? [1] -- Rocknrollmancer ( talk) 13:51, 4 February 2015 (UTC)
Hi, re this revert - I think that the IP refers to the drive for the mechanical lubricator, which is taken from a return crank secured to the crankpin of the front left wheel: it's visible in the infobox photo. The mechanical lubricator is directly below the left-hand side of the smokebox; it's that box with a handwheel, attached to the framing, and partially obscures the sloping double row of bolt heads where the cylinders are attached to the frames. -- Redrose64 ( talk) 00:34, 5 February 2015 (UTC)
![]() |
The Original Barnstar |
Andy,
Thank you for approving our citation on the Linear Actuators page. I was wondering if the URL could be changed to a better underwater page on our site. I edited it already. We have a lot more useful information about electric linear actuators. I will organize it into an article and submit it for review. Thank you, Mac mac@ultramotion.com Ultramotion ( talk) 18:37, 10 February 2015 (UTC) |
Hello. Recently I made a small edit to the T-72 page. It appeared to me that someone had inserted the part I deleted in order advance a particular agenda, which was apparent in the fact that the reference was to a Russian news website that I could find frustratingly little about except that it seemed to be affiliated with the Russian government. Its one thing to encourage discussion of different sides of an issue and quite another to allow Russian propaganda on wikipedia. I was certainly not trying to vandalize anything, and your characterization of my actions as that was disconcerting to say the least. I would simply like an explanation as to why you would accuse me of that, and why you changed my edit back. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Landsman55 ( talk • contribs) 02:42, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
Hi Andy, of course how related things are is subjective, so the D in BRD looks useful. I left a msg on the talk, but I'm losing the will to R any link back in now (I don't think I put it in originally). Widefox; talk 13:29, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
The section I removed was poorly written and I don't think it provides any encyclopedic information. In fact it had the encyclopedic tone tag since October 2012. I re-removed it now. If you still think that section should be there please consider fixing the tone before adding it back. Thanks. -- 80.223.129.187 ( talk) 11:13, 21 February 2015 (UTC)
Hi Andy, here's a possible ref for bell signals Auto-Car Services. It's a transcription from the GWR rule book. Warwickshire Railways site is usually sound. It does seem to have a number of contributors and checkers. Robevans123 ( talk) 00:48, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Pika Browser 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/Pika Browser 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.
Hmm .. I think I still disagree with the inclusion of these. The page is about the product, not about the vendor, and in that way the pages are indirect. Moreover, we do not include external links because they are about the same product, we include them because they add information (which is either not included, or can not be included). Neither site offers information about the subject, they provide a place to buy it. And looking through it, these two sites, and also the Japanese and German sites, do not give any information beyond what is already in the document. These links plainly fail our external links guideline. -- Dirk Beetstra T C 11:26, 3 March 2015 (UTC)
The amount of oil used to generate electricity is insignificant, and the table in the article makes clear. Including oil with gas and coal encourages the misconception that the problems with oil and the problems with natural gas are intertwined. How many oil power plants are there in the 100 mW category? Any you should not just revert without comment. ( Martin | talk • contribs 15:03, 5 March 2015 (UTC))
There is currently a discussion at
Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is
Editor routinely reverting contributions from IP address editors. Thank you.
This provided for information as required - no suggestion of malfeasance on your part. DieSwartzPunkt ( talk) 16:56, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
Category:Coniston, 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. Tim! ( talk) 08:25, 7 March 2015 (UTC)
Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, we would ask that you
assume good faith while interacting with other editors, which you did not on
Talk:V-2 rocket. Take a look at the
welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. -
BilCat (
talk)
09:23, 7 March 2015 (UTC)
Re. your reversion of my edit to Clarkson thimble tube boiler - do you not regard a Leyland steam wagon as a steam engine? Biscuittin ( talk) 01:02, 8 March 2015 (UTC)
I pressed the wrong button when I was editing the sandbox. Could you please help me revert them? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rider ranger47 ( talk • contribs) 19:47, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
Gooday Andy - when you get the chance could you look at the contributions surrounding the renaming and deletions from this user as the old Royal Enfield page is on my watchlist (the new Indian Enfield is not) and this is way beyond me, needing TW or HU? Unless it's picked up before you get to it. Thx.-- Rocknrollmancer ( talk) 12:27, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
Hello,
I removed the information that was outright incorrect.
There was no need to ask for citations, because I am familiar enough with the subject matter that was being referred to, to know that it was unfounded, and outright wrong. If you are going to retain this incorrect information, then please do your own research so it may be removed again. It's extremely common knowledge that the Axis tanks referred to did not have rotating periscopes. There was no rotating periscope mounts in the tanks referred to.
If you would like to make a temporary correction, 'one or two' may be correct, as it's possible one or two models of early Axis tanks did indeed have rotating periscopes. But that was a very, very short-standing amenity, and therefore the unfounded generalizations in that article were outright falsities. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 101.176.132.155 ( talk) 03:10, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
Well the original text didn't even corroborate with the references posted. It was complete nonsense. Why is such information allowed to be posted in the first place, yet my correction forced through unnecessary bureaucracy? Pretty loopy, to be honest. And no there are simply no sources to prove such generalizations, only numerous disproving them, literally any source referring in a general manner to periscope design and application of Axis and in particular German tanks. Why must I go through bureaucracy to disprove uncited, non-corroborating nonsense, when that nonsense got on to wikipedia without a hitch?
Seems very strange to me, that absolute falsities are welcomed and defended, and common-knowledge corrections are undone and questioned up and down. I think the root of the issues lies in the initial creation of articles, and most certainly not in the truthful corrections of them. Especially for things as factually inarguable as this.
I think ideally we should be questioning the person that originally wrote that part of the piece. Where did they get it from? Do they realize literally every piece of literature on the subject (except perhaps their own, uncited piece) contradicts their generalization? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 101.176.132.155 ( talk) 15:55, 14 March 2015 (UTC)
I've been doing some editing at SS Great Britain in an effort to improve the article - possibly to GA standard ( User:Gatoclass is now helping) and I was wondering if you could help or had ideas. I've started a discussion at Talk:SS Great Britain#Help with finding citations and other work needed for a GA nomination if you had any thoughts?— Rod talk 15:19, 15 March 2015 (UTC)
I've started a new thread on the Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Use_of_commercial_locksmith_site_as_ref_versus_a_ref_from_The_Guardian Reliable sources noticeboard regarding the Mortise lock article. OhNoitsJamie Talk 17:22, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
I just added a prod2.
More generally: I've lately noticed a spate of new-ish editors with usernames of the pattern <some word of two or three syllables><three-digit number>. Their edits are all of comparable quality. One of them created Reciprocating electric motor. Hmm. Jeh ( talk) 23:17, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
FYI: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/I Love Bridges. I see you have reverted some of their nonsense. JohnCD ( talk) 09:22, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
Hello:
I'm trying to code a condition into Template:PD-The Moving Picture World so that, if a third source appears, an "and" will appear between the second and third source, but if only two sources are defined, an "and" will come between the first and second source. Can you help? Thanks. Seattle ( talk) 18:48, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for your note. If you want to revise Cumberland Basin (Bristol) or create Brunel's swivel bridge either is fine by me. I've just added some more references (eg Heritage at Risk) which might be useful (if up to date with latest info). My editing was triggered by the Fells book - which also took me to the Redcliffe Shot Tower.— Rod talk 19:07, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
CookieMonster755 has given you a c ookie! Cookies promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. You can spread the WikiLove by giving someone else a cookie, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend.
To spread the goodness of cookies, you can add {{ subst:Cookie}} to someone's talk page with a friendly message, or eat this cookie on the giver's talk page with {{ subst:munch}}!
CookieMonster755 (talk) 00:41, 24 March 2015 (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 this dispute come to a resolution. The discussion is about the topic Magneto (generator). Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you! Biscuittin ( talk) 23:18, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
That's...odd. I'm not sure how the engineers got introduced into the list - I have to do some digging tonight and figure out where the anomaly lies. I thought I'd pretty well excluded anyone who wouldn't be counted as a "writer" when I ran CatScan, but obviously I missed something I wasn't expecting to find - sorry about that. -- Ser Amantio di Nicolao Che dicono a Signa? Lo dicono a Signa. 18:09, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
The politics you mention doesn't appear in the article at all. And it doesn't really fit with most of the other articles in food politics. Would it be more appropriate in Category:Food security? Rathfelder ( talk) 20:59, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
At the dispute resolution noticeboard, participants should comment on content, not on contributors. In particular, even if it appears that an editor is trolling, suggesting that an editor is trolling is a personal attack, and may result in moderated dispute resolution being failed. Your threaded comments and those of other editors have been hatted. Please discuss in your own section. Robert McClenon ( talk) 20:16, 29 March 2015 (UTC)
The Mediation Committee has received a request for formal mediation of the dispute relating to "Vectors are not tensors". As an editor concerned in this dispute, you are invited to participate in the mediation. Mediation is a voluntary process which resolves a dispute over article content by facilitation, consensus-building, and compromise among the involved editors. After reviewing the request page, the formal mediation policy, and the guide to formal mediation, please indicate in the "party agreement" section whether you agree to participate. Because requests must be responded to by the Mediation Committee within seven days, please respond to the request by 9 April 2015.
Discussion relating to the mediation request is welcome at the case talk page. Thank you.
Message delivered by
MediationBot (
talk) on
behalf of the Mediation Committee.
13:17, 2 April 2015 (UTC)
Hi!
Here are my reasons for my recent edits (reverted by you) for the JavaScript page:
Most JavaScript engines today are not interpreters. V8 compiles JavaScript to native machine code before executing it, instead of interpreting bytecode. SpiderMonkey contains an interpreter, a JIT compiler (IonMonkey), and a garbage collector. JavaScriptCore also has more than one JIT compilers.
JavaScript engines are actually VMs. References:
Google engineer Lars Bak explains the key engineering decisions behind V8, the JavaScript virtual machine used in Google Chrome.
JavaScriptCore is an optimizing virtual machine.
In the SpiderMonkey VM, the general solution to problems like these this is to build up a tree-like data structure that represents the sequence of immutable substrings. and collapse that datastructure only when necessary.
SpiderMonkey has been moving to C++ for some time, and that's why I changed the "is implemented in C" to "was implemented in C". You can have a look at the source code for SpiderMonkey here: https://hg.mozilla.org/mozilla-central/file/ab0490972e1e/js/src
SpiderMonkey supports all features in ECMAScript 5, and many features in ES2015+ (i.e., ES6+), instead of ES3. References:
The section I edited is "Use in web pages", so Rhino isn't quite relevant in this section. Moreover, Rhino is already mentioned in the "Uses outside web pages" section.
Would you like to elaborate your reason(s) for reverting my edits? Thank you!
(I'm not quite familiar with Wikipedia and English is not my native language. Please correct me if I did/said something wrong.)
-- Xue Fuqiao 12:37, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
The request for formal mediation concerning Vectors are not tensors, to which you were listed as a party, has been declined. To read an explanation by the Mediation Committee for the rejection of this request, see the mediation request page, which will be deleted by an administrator after a reasonable time. Please direct questions relating to this request to the Chairman of the Committee, or to the mailing list. For more information on forms of dispute resolution, other than formal mediation, that are available, see Wikipedia:Dispute resolution.
For the Mediation Committee,
TransporterMan (
TALK)
17:00, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
(Delivered by
MediationBot,
on behalf of the Mediation Committee.)
Not only has paid-by-vani-hari "admin" DoRD been cleansing the talk page of reliable sources to block discussion, he has gone back to the old admin habits of false claims about "sockpuppets" and has even blocked an entire IP range for a significant time.
I wonder how much Vani pays wikimedia to keep her article from containing accurate information? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.7.0.154 ( talk) 12:57, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
Andy, let us reason together. Voltage does not have a "quantity," no more than temperature does. Voltage is a measure of electromotive force. We don't ask, "What is the quantity of your weight?" We say, "What is your weight?" In the same way, we don't measure the quantity of the voltage: We measure the voltage. The same for current. We don't measure it "quantitatively" -- the adverb is meaningless because voltage and current are already scalars. The measured number tells everything. We measure the voltage, and we measure the current. And if the results are not numbers, we have done something really wronglitatively. :-) Slade Farney ( talk) 08:05, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for uploading File:Tim Birkin with Malcolm Campbell (small).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. Stefan2 ( talk) 16:33, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
You're welcome for your thanks for this this edit made by me.
It's been reverted.
Having these convienence links in this list article is being discussed at Talk:List_of_TED_speakers#Keep_convenience_links_to_speaker.E2.80.99s_TED_talks. In case, you want to participate in the consensus. Thanks either way. Yours for a better Wikipedia. — Lentower ( talk) 17:36, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
Hi, you reverted a change I made to the Vani Hari article and I'm not sure I understand what I supposedly removed. I'm pretty new to editing Wikipedia so I apologize if it's something obvious. YesPretense ( talk) 19:15, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
and this is right up there with the stupidest, most callous. -- Anthonyhcole ( talk · contribs · email) 01:17, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
Hi there. I had removed the category from Daw with Maw and Paw partly because the edit was made by a block-evading vandal, and partly because I thought it was not policy to put categories on redirect pages to begin with. I'm sincerely curious to know if it is policy to put categories on redirects, or on the page the redirect goes to?-- Mr Fink ( talk) 20:32, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
There is currently a discussion at
Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.
nafSadh
did
say
05:20, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
hi andy sorry i was experimenting — Preceding unsigned comment added by Leo 6869 ( talk • contribs) 21:29, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
Dear andy dingley, you recently reverted my edit , saying " this isn't an article about universal motor". You do understand that the other name of series motor is called universal motor, so my edit is valid since I added content about series motor. I don't know why but i can constantly see u reverting edits even though if it is correct. So before reverting an edit please see whether u can do so. since you are reverting valid edits. You are discouraging new Wikipedia editors by reverting valid edits . -- Chand3994 ( talk) 15:20, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
Re [3], that IP was already on my watchlist; it would appear to have been previously schoolblocked [4]. — Sladen ( talk) 13:13, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
Hi
There was no need for a discussion, they have been various RAF airfield articles merged into the current airfield article over the last few months, two have had discussions over 14months ago and both got quick merge support but the merge proposer never carried out the procedure. Gavbadger ( talk) 22:04, 1 May 2015 (UTC)
Hi, I'm confused, you just accused me of making destructive editing in Wilfred Owen. Eh?? I never even visited this page! What's going on?? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.132.234.147 ( talk) 07:53, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
What is the matter with you? Do you or do you not know that audio transformers are used in intercoms.Wondering whether you are an electrical student! Reverting wrong edits is good but reverting valid edits is not at all nice! what was your problem?. problem with me or with the edit which i made? -- Chand3994 ( talk) 11:55, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
: I had added points more than just the transmission is economical . I had added points about reduction in the current flow at higher voltages which leads to the reduction in joule heating as u say. And joule heating and i^2r loss are already explained if u can see,in the article so if I add points about joule heating it would be just a repetition. and i still wonder you are an electrical student. Good luck for your job of seeing through my edit history! I can now recognize that you are trying you revert all my edit by seeing my edit history.Why only mentioning the wrong edits? For your information see also my edits on rectifier,dc motor,radio and other non electrical topics Intercoms is a two way communication device and it also utilizes audio transformers. if u can see through an intercoms construction you will know that is. -- Chand3994 ( talk) 12:29, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
Hey Andy - thanks for the heads up. I completely understand. I noticed that Outrunner has almost no citations and needed some. I was able to provide a citation about outrunners in RC craft by linking to a post about brushed vs. brushless motors being used in RC crafts. It seemed quite relevant as a source to help validate that statement. I will leave it up to you to decide if it is worth putting back in there or not. — Preceding unsigned comment added by WilliamHobby ( talk • contribs) 19:52, 7 May 2015 (UTC)
We were going to do a reddit /r/3dprinting contest to edit wikipedia to increase the amount of good info about 3D printing here. The Marketing dept came up with the idea. I am killing off the idea for now, since we are going through an AfD and it would be unseemly for us to drive traffic here. FYI. 50.205.5.74 ( talk) 19:01, 24 April 2015 (UTC) (jebba)
Hi - re [5]: At the time of making the original edit (with my alternative account), Cathedrals Express was also a redlink. I wasn't aware of the historical named train, and therefore thought it unlikely to be created as an article, with Steam Dreams a better target for the link. I stand corrected :-) Optimist on the run ( talk) 15:40, 8 May 2015 (UTC)
1979 You dont know Jack You should have left it alone. It shows like most. You, are a pc person that is a AMIGA wanna be either that or a Amiga person that has gone to the dark side that doesn't know anything. Dang Jay was on you tube even talking on and about Amiga being Inc. in 1981 and started in 1979. I talked to Jay long long ago , and became a good friend of his. May he RIP. ITs sad shame what you people are doing to his system. I wont allow what is happening dont worry I really know the truth for people like you. The sources you use most of the time are from what falsehoods,and so called pfft amiga inc.. that uses false info , and doesn't even own a lick of sense much less the anything truly Amiga. Nobody does. Well, some company does. You'll find out who does. — Preceding unsigned comment added by AmigaOne ( talk • contribs) 16:44, 8 May 2015 (UTC)
Nice section on bearing life calculation! You reintroduced my small section and expanded it so nicely. This was totally needed here. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.96.150.30 ( talk) 14:41, 10 May 2015 (UTC)
Thank you for catching that edit. I was trying to revert vandalism and bumped it back to the wrong revision!
PureRED ( talk) 14:51, 13 May 2015 (UTC)
![]() |
I like that you like that i have guts Retartist 11:13, 14 May 2015 (UTC) |
Thank for you message that you deleted my edit from the Fire ring page. I don't really see what extensive explanation is required here. All I did is make it more general by deleting "church" from "are used by families, youth, and church organizations year-round", as the fact that some organizations that use fire rings are churches does not add anything to an article on fire rings. While I appreciate your friendly style and the message you sent, I really don't think that making a habit out of deleting other people's edits is a positive contribution to Wikipedia or our community in general. Reading through the other entries on your user talk page I can only make one recommendation: stop undoing other people's work and get a life. 2600:1003:B841:DD94:4496:C7B:A480:52A3 ( talk) 03:58, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
I changed line 32 in Leather to "vegetable tanned" and you changed it back to "vegetal tanned." Here in the United States, it's vegetable tanned. You must be a Brit, as that term is not used here in the States. So you can keep the revision; it's not a big deal to me that you changed it (within about 30 minutes), but realize I am not incorrect in calling it "vegetable tanned." ----
Hi, can you check better what the content you reinserted contains. The ref is to the commersial site of a supplier of a particular type of gear system, and the text claims its originality. The section is placed in the article under benefits. I find this revertion weird and would urge you to have a better look at whether your edit benefits the article. Thanks Keanu ( talk) 11:05, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
Instead of inserting a {{cn}} in my comment, as you did Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bon (programming language), you could have just asked. I find this move of yours quite uncivil, and you could have found the source for my claim right there in Bon (programming language). QVVERTYVS ( hm?) 13:39, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
When you say "I'm tired of your pointless edits like this", I assume that you refer to my edit of 17:43, 9 April 2015. Other than that, when have I followed up one of your edits with an action like that? Also, why is it pointless when it keeps the referencing style consistent within the article, per WP:CITEVAR? -- Redrose64 ( talk) 12:41, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
Laser edits Hello Andy, sorry if I made an editing error. If alright, I will try again. Any other suggestions before I try.
I was trying to add a video of a laser beam inflight filmed with new fast image recording techniques, and the research article reference explaining the video
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Uq0H4-nvBB8&ab_channel=NewScientist Video of Laser Beam in flight http://www.nature.com/ncomms/2015/150127/ncomms7021/full/ncouomms7021.html
Thank you, Jcardazzi ( talk) 17:12, 28 May 2015 (UTC)jcardazzi
Hello Andy, thanks for your comments. On further thought I think the articles relate to high speed photography techniques, where the scientists photographed laser light; not directly to lasers. I won't use the Youtube video, the New Scientist link includes the scientists video, posted on youtube. Thank you, Jcardazzi ( talk) 00:57, 29 May 2015 (UTC)jcardazzi
Given that we've bumped heads again, I thought it a timely idea to express how much I appreciate what you do here as en editor. We're all flawed, but you help me keep focused and on the right path, even when I happen to disagree with you (in part or full) over a specific edit or incident. -- Orange Mike | Talk 11:51, 29 May 2015 (UTC)
[10] I think not, but thought it might amuse you anyway. 50.0.136.194 ( talk) 19:54, 30 May 2015 (UTC)
Your eyes and hands would be appreciated. Cheers! 7&6=thirteen ( ☎) 14:39, 4 June 2015 (UTC)
![]() |
7&6=thirteen (
☎) has given you a
Dobos Torte to enjoy! Seven layers of fun because you deserve it.
To give a Dobos Torte and spread the WikiLove, just place {{ subst:Dobos Torte}} on someone else's talkpage, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. |
7&6=thirteen ( ☎) 14:40, 4 June 2015 (UTC)
Dear Mr Dingly,
I noticed that on May 14th you reverted a deletion on the page for 'Stage Jig' that claims 'Jack Ketch's Jig', written in 1994, is of the same period as the jigs this article discusses, which date 1580s-1670s. The deletion was made because reference to this 20th century performance, about a restoration someone or other, doesn't belong here as far as I am aware, unless you know otherwise? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.197.120.66 ( talk • contribs) 10:59, June 6, 2015
Andy,
Suffice it to say you are not qualified to pass judgement on edits on the article on USS Scorpion. The article is crap, sponsored by disinformation persons and is an insult to the family members who lost fathers, brothers, uncles, sons and husbands. The references available are slim and controversial, sometimes technically incompetent. Citing spam from sensational books written for profit is not a proper reference either.
It is not an editing war, it is a matter of respect for 99 dead servicemen. I would appreciate it if you would leave this alone, undo all your muddling and stop pretending this is an editing war. There are some people in the world who are very well versed on the subject and have a duty to clean up silly articles that wish for explosions, torpedoes, soviet warfare and similar garbage.
Please stop your harassment on this article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Brandywine589 ( talk • contribs) 02:10, 8 June 2015 (UTC)
You are invited to join the discussion at
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Indian Space Shuttle Programme. Requesting you to add your opinion. Regards Thanks.
M.srihari (
talk)
07:32, 8 June 2015 (UTC)Srihari
![]() |
The Original Barnstar |
I believe you were right about 5.5s serving in Korea, it appears the 74 Medium Battery (Battleaxe) equipped with 5.5s served in Korea during the last few months of the war. Mrniceguy101 ( talk) 18:28, 10 June 2015 (UTC) |
Thanks for your note re the University of Exeter workshop. I'm not quite sure what I'm going to find when I get there - I've asked for more details about how many potential participants. If it is only going to be half a dozen then probably happy on my own but if 20+ then someone else would probably be useful. There was a call for help on this over a year ago (Daria & Harry were involved in setting it up) You say its not far -where in Wales are you?— Rod talk 10:37, 16 May 2015 (UTC)
I've just heard back from Exeter about the study day/workshop on 15 July & we may have 20 ish participants, so if you are still free, it would be great if you were able to come along. I've now heard the specific venue is "expo lab 1 in the Forum" (but I've not checked where that is yet).— Rod talk 14:12, 8 June 2015 (UTC)
You introduced a whitespace inside ref tags. Why? Why is this useful? And why your version is better than mine? You changed a long-standing consensus on the page to use unspaced tags and then you reference to CITEVAR that contradicts your actions. -- Magioladitis ( talk) 20:40, 12 June 2015 (UTC)
Please revert yourself. [11] As you well know your personal assessment is insufficient and what is required for inclusion, as per the lead muliple valid sources that assert the death as unusual, not some third state proximate cause. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 22:11, 13 June 2015 (UTC)
You have more comment at [12] 86.131.4.105 ( talk) 15:12, 14 June 2015 (UTC)
Hello. For information, see: Champion Aerospace - Spark Plugs. -- Cjp24 ( talk) 23:41, 14 June 2015 (UTC)
Other example: see Ferodo. -- Cjp24 ( talk) 01:48, 15 June 2015 (UTC)
I moved Motorist to Motorist (disambiguation). While I disagree that a dab page is needed or appopriate here, if one is needed, there is a clear WP:PRIMARYTOPIC, and the pages need to be organized according to the guidelines.-- Srleffler ( talk) 04:42, 16 June 2015 (UTC)
Re [13]: CoffeeScript aside, what do you think about moving the page to Comparison of programming languages (foreach loops)? I mean, the page is more like a list than a proper article anyways :) It would make it fit in with the other comparison lists in Category:Programming language comparisons, which is where I found the page in the first place. 83.226.255.86 ( talk) 16:40, 17 June 2015 (UTC)
Hello! I am leaving this note for you because you participated in a deletion discussion about the Wikipedia article titled Institute of Continuing Education. I substantially expanded the article today (for the helluvit), and would appreciate if you would take a look and see if it’s better than when you last saw it. Cheers. Anythingyouwant ( talk) 03:38, 18 June 2015 (UTC)
It did. That's why I fixed it in the article. Dimethylmercury is not mercury poisnoing as much as cyanide poisoning isn't carbon poisoning. Per the article it's not metabolised or broken down in any way into mercury. It always say dimethylmercury poisoning not mercury poisoning. It's not mercury poisining. So I revert your suggestion back at you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dqeswn ( talk • contribs) 17:03, 18 June 2015 (UTC)
(re: this) - Gee, Andy... those red links have been there for almost 10 years now. Don't you think it's ok to remove them? Or do you honestly think articles for them are going to be created? (say, before the end of this decade?). I only ask because in your eagerness to pounce on that revert, you didn't leave anything in the edit summary or on the talk page that would explain why. - theWOLFchild 01:27, 21 June 2015 (UTC)
Hi Andy there is an obvious disagreement between you and User talk:Lathamibird in the Steam car article. Can you both raise the issue in the articles talk section so that a consensus can be reached. Thanks NealeFamily ( talk) 10:19, 25 June 2015 (UTC)
I reverted IkbenFrank partly because there was no mention of listing in the article, which goes against WP:CAT#Articles ("it should be clear from verifiable information in the article why it was placed in each of its categories"); partly because I couldn't find the station at http://www.historicengland.org.uk/listing/the-list and partly because IkbenFrank has a history of adding irrelevant and inaccurate information. -- Redrose64 ( talk) 13:13, 26 June 2015 (UTC)
By motion, the Arbitration Committee authorises the following injunction effective immediately:
You are receiving this message because you have commented about this matter on the
AN page, the
AE page or the
Case Requests page
and are therefore restricted as specified in (2). For the Arbitration Committee,
L235 (
t /
c /
ping in reply) via
MediaWiki message delivery (
talk)
01:30, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
I wanted to let you know I mentioned you on Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Arbitration enforcement/Evidence in this edit and I may mention you again in future edits. This is just a courtesy to inform you that you were mentioned. Thank you. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{ re}} 17:49, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
I moved the thread (about you and Metasonix originally, though it has strayed quite a bit now) after seeing Fae's comment, and put it in a subforum that bots can't see. We do that whenever a thread goes in a direction where one or more people being discussed probably wouldn't want that discussion to come up in a google (etc.) search. I also binned the post Fae was referring to, FWIW.
A lot of those discussions are just inside baseball with little or no educational value to the general public anyway, so we just assume that people (mostly Wikipedians) will just sign up for an account if they want to see it. -- SB_Johnny | talk✌ 20:45, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
You are receiving this message either because you are a party to the Arbitration enforcement arbitration case, because you have commented in the case request, or the AN or AE discussions leading to this arbitration case, or because you have specifically opted in to receiving these messages. Unless you are a party to this arbitration case, you may opt out of receiving further messages at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Arbitration enforcement/Notification list. The drafters of the Arbitration enforcement arbitration case have published a revised timetable for the case, which changes what you may have been told when the case was opened. The dates have been revised as follows: the Evidence phase will close 5 July 2015, one week earlier than originally scheduled; the Workshop phase will close 26 July 2015, one week later than originally scheduled; the Proposed decision is scheduled to be posted 9 August 2015, two weeks later than originally scheduled. Thank you. On behalf of the arbitration clerks, MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 07:58, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
Please explain this revert. -- Redrose64 ( talk) 16:02, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
You might be interested in this Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents thread: User:Fklatt adding promotional material. This relates to the "MotorPrinter links removed" section at the top of this page. -- Guy Macon ( talk) 15:08, 3 July 2015 (UTC)
"Humorist" is correct in British English. See for example here. Please consult a dictionary and self-revert. Feel free to check before you make a mistaken correction next time. -- John ( talk) 22:36, 22 June 2015 (UTC)
Hi, I'm thinking of trying to get West Somerset Mineral Railway up to GA. I notice you added the Jones and Madge books to the bibliography, but these are not actually used in the text - do you have copies of the books? If so could you ad a fact or two from them to the article?— Rod talk 19:48, 8 July 2015 (UTC)
A file that you uploaded or altered, File:John Cobb (small).jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why it has been listed (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry). Feel free to add your opinion on the matter below the nomination. Thank you. damiens.rf 00:52, 11 July 2015 (UTC)
Hi Andy Dingley.
Thank you for your improvement to my edit on the Topsy article. You are quite correct. Voltage does not pass through something but rather is applied across something. I believe that that part of the article is now totally technically correct. (Let's hope that we don't get reverted by someone who doesn't understand electricity.) Again, my thanks.
Richard27182 (
talk)
05:07, 11 July 2015 (UTC)
Andy, re your comments at Talk:Negative resistance/GA1. The review was closed and the article passed before you posted your comments. You might want to move them to the article talk page in a new section. It's a pity the reviewer did not concentrate more on that sort of thing instead of getting hung up on citation style issues which are not part of the GA criteria anyway. Spinning Spark 22:34, 12 July 2015 (UTC)
No, I'm just reading through old Railway Magazines. This article is by Charles Lee, who did extensive research. The 1880 Act was 43 and 44 Vic. cap 197. Johnragla ( talk) 10:53, 14 July 2015 (UTC)
![]() |
The Helping Hand Barnstar | |
Thanks for all your help with the Exeter workshop today. The evaluations from the group showed that appreciated your input and guidance. — Rod talk 19:34, 15 July 2015 (UTC) |
Thank you for the thank you. I don't understand why they do not let these very unusual deaths be included in the list but I tried my best. It's like dealing with bullies in the playground. Alec Station ( talk) 14:44, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
Hi Andy! I wanted to ask if you had thoughts on how I might work with the leaf spring material I mentioned on the auto project page. Luke is right in claiming the article isn't up to 2015 standards. However, I think he is throwing the baby out with the bath water in regards to refusing to help fix vs blank the content. I don't think I'm receiving special treatment given the infobox and other edits. Anyway, I would be interested to know if you have suggestions. Thanks Springee ( talk) 00:26, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
I would suggest buying a Korean SUV with coil springs all around. Saves all sorts of confusion! Springee ( talk) 01:42, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
Andy, I usually see references to rectangular boilers in works on ironclads; are these the same thing as box boilers? Thanks in advance.-- Sturmvogel 66 ( talk) 23:45, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
{{
cite book}}
: |volume=
has extra text (
help); Invalid |ref=harv
(
help)CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (
link) is a good source for this period. He gives 1820-1870 as a range for 'box', although by the later date they had more complex fluing and yet were still well obsolete.
Andy Dingley (
talk)
00:11, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
Hi Andy. I removed the ref to Subterranea Britannica because it didn't appear to be an RS. Having looked into it further I'm undecided. What do you think? Sam Walton ( talk) 16:43, 2 August 2015 (UTC)
Hi, Andy. Excuse me, I'm a full german greenhorn und not quite familiar with the conventions in the en-Cat-Section. Are you dealing with the IMDb-Datasets or is it possible to make own decisions if the Data seem illogical? -- Koyaanis ( talk) 12:36, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
Sorry Andy - I see so many "dubious" tags without comment in the talk page that I didn't check the comment there before "fixing" the tag. Give me an hour or two and I'll do it properly... Shem ( talk) 10:14, 10 August 2015 (UTC)
There's an issue at WikiProject Television that I would like your input at. Electric Burst( Electron firings)( Zaps) 17:44, 10 August 2015 (UTC)
Please do no add and then reverting my removal of your link an article about the Ford Boss 302 engine to the article about Chevrolet small-block engines (which is a redirect of small-block). That could be considered harassment by many Ford enthusiasts! Moreover, you comment for me to "fix" the link is impossible! This is because there is no "small block Ford" article! Perhaps you could develop an article about the history of Ford's small-sized V8 engines? Unfortunately, such specific details about the history and designs of Ford engines are beyond of my areas of expertise. At this point, it is better to only keep the direct link to V8 engines (which is a redirect of small block V8) because there is a discussion of small and large block terminology. Thanks! CZmarlin ( talk) 14:28, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
Beatport is a music player. Is genre tag reliable? 115.164.49.74 ( talk) 16:06, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
I brought the complaint of spamming to the blacklist in good faith, but you have shown that it was incorrect. Thank you. Incidentally, it had nothing to do with nationality (on my part at least).
And steamcruft is one kind of cruft I don't mind: I knew Tony Marchington, his company floated the day my first son was born, my wife worked for the firm and they had a double celebration in the pub: we're rich and new baby. That's the money Tony used to buy the Scotsman. I also saw Alan Pegler's London-Edinburgh run steaming over Digswell viaduct, one of my earliest memories, so although I live in the Western region my railway layout - 27' x 17' tailchaser with crossover, twice round - is North eastern, and the main station can accommodate a prototypical 1964 Scotsman formation, I have built all the right coaches to match the marshalling sheets. So I am a bit of a steam fan. Guy ( Help!) 11:11, 15 August 2015 (UTC)
Just to let you know that I filed this Thanks for your efforts in this situation. MarnetteD| Talk 21:59, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.
You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.
A tag has been placed on Algolia, requesting that it be deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under two or more of the criteria for speedy deletion, by which articles can be deleted at any time, without discussion. If the page meets any of these strictly-defined criteria, then it may be soon be deleted by an administrator. The reasons it has been tagged are:
If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. Hitro talk 19:46, 19 August 2015 (UTC)
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Algolia 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/Algolia 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. Hitro talk 20:29, 19 August 2015 (UTC)
Hi Andy, isn't it only cockneys who drop the h when pronouncing the letter 'haitch' ? Unibond ( talk) 00:12, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Ballast tank, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Pitch. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot ( talk) 08:59, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
I've blocked the one named account. If IP socks continue to add the link, I'll go ahead and blacklist the spammed URL. Let me know if you see any continued activity, in case I miss it. --- Barek ( talk • contribs) - 20:34, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
Technically that wasn't for me and if we're actually trying to retain the editor, I doubt I'm helping but I hope you got enough background in case you just want to go "what he said." -- Ricky81682 ( talk) 10:10, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
I have not assumed any ownership of any article. Yes I continually allow for edits and changes to take place. I would never assume that any one can allow for an article to be edited. I do work by consensus and there was no consensus to move this article. My view on the word Britain rather than Great Britain is not a unilateral view nor a view that only I hold. Most people on the talk page agreed that Great Britain is appropriate and certainly not Britain. I would therefore ask that you move this article back to Great Britain as opposed to the inaccurate and out of date 'Britain'. The organisation no longer describes itself as the CPB and this should be acknowledged. ( Garageland66 ( talk) 21:54, 28 August 2015 (UTC))
There is currently a discussion at
Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.
MisterBee1966 (
talk)
08:58, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
You are pressing revert first, then finding reasons to do so. Stop it. 178.16.11.132 ( talk) 02:06, 2 September 2015 (UTC)
Andy, you really made a mess of this SPI. First, if you reopen an SPI but put in the wrong master (in this instance the case of the username), you can't just fix it yourself. You should notify a clerk to correct it. Second, apparently you think that this SPI is related to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Kj650. What you should do is reference the second SPI in the body of the one you create to explain why. You can't just slap a template on the new SPI. It took me sometime to fix all this, and it was a headache. It should be intact now, but if you want to say something about Kj650, you'll have to add it to the body.-- Bbb23 ( talk) 15:16, 7 September 2015 (UTC)
![]() |
Looks like everyone needs the sudz to bury their noses in today ;) at this rate i'l have to open a bar! Irondome ( talk) 17:10, 7 September 2015 (UTC) |
Regarding Overview of RESTful API Description Languages: the proposed deletion process is only meant for uncontroversial deletions and is a one-time process. If the article has previously been listed at AfD or deprodded, proposed deletion can unfortunately no longer be used and alternative means should be considered (since AfD didn't work out either, it may be best to consider alternatives :) ). - Sonicwave ( talk| c) 05:16, 11 September 2015 (UTC)
I have asked for more input here Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Military_history#M19_Tank_transporter. Sammy D III ( talk) 21:36, 13 September 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for clearing up regarding cyclecars but you really should put that information in the article. It should be made clearer that a large part of the appeal of these was that people didn't need a full driving license to drive them although most people regard them as cars. Also, I don't think the article should simply say the Morgan Motor Company, as they've been making 4 wheeled cars since 1936. The 3-Wheelers were just part of the range. Aron Robinson ( talk) 18:02, 14 September 2015 (UTC)
[14] BMK ( talk) 00:39, 15 September 2015 (UTC)
Hello Andy, I saw this edit. It was Trinity College, as per the sources used in the article. Which source in the article suggested Trinity Hall? The Rambling Man ( talk) 16:13, 15 September 2015 (UTC)
At the top of this page it clearly states "The examples and perspective in this article deal primarily with the United Kingdom and do not represent a worldwide view of the subject. Please improve this article and discuss the issue on the talk page. (August 2015)" I have tried discussing this, I have tried compromising. Why are you blocking attempts at improving this article and compromising on the content. I even used the language of one of the editors who is defending your position. I have improved and made clear the fact that this term is used in the United Kingdom. I've added Derek Hatton. But you are refusing to compromise and to allow edits. Why? What makes your opinion superior to mine? ( Garageland66 ( talk) 16:53, 15 September 2015 (UTC))
Just so you know, Wikipedia is not beholden to monarchs or people. We don`t call American or Canadian ships named after people `the`, therefore British ships should not get special treatment, especially just those named after royalty. Llammakey ( talk) 11:22, 15 September 2015 (UTC)
|3=2
parameter to the template).
Andy Dingley (
talk)
17:24, 15 September 2015 (UTC)
Hi Andy, you removed one external link I added to the page [ rubber]. I'm actually a little confused, because the page I added is just giving some useful information for the general feature and spec of the nitrile gloves. Nothing like commercial. Would you please let me know what part I should remove in my page so that I can add this external link? Thanks, Tom — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tompleasanton ( talk • contribs) 23:05, 15 September 2015 (UTC)
Stifle ( talk) 12:58, 16 September 2015 (UTC)
Stifle ( talk) 13:38, 17 September 2015 (UTC)
Funny thing is, if he added cat:German inventions one page a day, nobody would probably notice and it would stay. As many of those articles are German inventions, should I just add the cats myself, and be done with it, or are we having too much fun? Cheers Jim1138 19:17, 17 September 2015 (UTC)
After seeing your comment related to ANI here, (I'm guessing it was more tongue in cheek than anything), I just wanted to let you know SageRad's behavior will likely be a main focus at an upcoming ArbCom case: /info/en/?search=Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case#GMO_articles
I'm not sure if you actually were considering ANI in the future or if you were aware of the pending case already, but I just wanted to give you heads up that it probably wouldn't be taken up at ANI due to the case. Kingofaces43 ( talk) 19:51, 17 September 2015 (UTC)
Hi Andy,
Not sure why you left a warning on my talk page? Can you enlighten me?
Polyamorph ( talk) 11:05, 21 September 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for PRODding Windlass Steelcrafts. Just to let you know, there are at least 4 companies connected to each other that keep dropping spammy ext links. My contribs at this time show my reverts.
Best, Anna Frodesiak ( talk) 06:30, 23 September 2015 (UTC)
And Draft:KnifeIndia exists. Just letting you know. :) Anna Frodesiak ( talk) 06:31, 23 September 2015 (UTC)
I didn't cn-tag Quasar in the expectation of establishing "...is a cabin cycle" to be false, rather I'm trying to make some sense of the currently shambolic cabin cycle article, which it seems to me should have Quasar, Ecomobile etc, and anything resembling the Lit Motors prototype, at its core - if you know of good sources that identify any of these (or anything else) specifically as cabin cycles, the cabin cycle article sure could use them! 110.77.221.193 ( talk) 17:31, 24 September 2015 (UTC)
Hi Andy. We can't use that photo, since we have no author details, so we can't prove that it's PD in the country of origin. More importantly, we don't have a date of publication, so we can't prove its PD in the U.S. And lastly, it certainly fails any claim to fair use, since there are many free alternatives. Thanks. Parsecboy ( talk) 09:31, 22 September 2015 (UTC)
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Kayempur High School 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/Kayempur High School 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. I thought you would be interested since you PRODded it. — Jeff G. ツ (talk) 03:33, 27 September 2015 (UTC)
Hello, I'm
Walter Görlitz. I wanted to let you know that I undid one or more of
your recent contributions to
JIRA because it did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, please use the
sandbox. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on
my talk page.
WP:RS does not apply.
MOS:ACRO does: "an acronym should be written out in full the first time it is used on a page, followed by the abbreviation in parentheses". CVS is not an exception.
Walter Görlitz (
talk)
20:29, 27 September 2015 (UTC)
Per your comments about the merge proposal being an alternative attempt to delete the article: that is not my motivation as nominator; I was genuinely trying to find an outcome acceptable to all, as recommended by the closing admin. I was, I think, naive to believe it could be done - passions are too high; the strength of opinions and the distance between them means we will probably be stuck in a "no consensus" loop for a long while over this. I think it highly likely that some people's political opinions have coloured their !votes at the AfD and subsequent discussions, and I believe this is true at both ends of the spectrum. From reading your comments on the page I sense very strongly that you believe that too - of at least one side of the argument if not both. I offer as friendly advice the observation that a number of your comments are being aimed at a particular person or group rather than their arguments, and it might be better not to give them the opportunity to come back at you with WP:NPA. RichardOSmith ( talk) 14:51, 1 October 2015 (UTC)
![]() |
Apparently, I'm your socketpuppet, so I thought the least I could do was bring you some beer. Don't let the bastards grind you down. bonadea contributions talk 19:38, 4 October 2015 (UTC) |
Who's the sysop you referred to in your AIV comment? I looked at the SPI archive and couldn't find anything. -- NeilN talk to me 20:09, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
Hello! I wanted to let you know that the reverting at this article is still going on even though there was a consensus at WikiProject Military history to leave this article alone and to work on other articles that lack key information. BTW - That bump on the Triton User talk:Andy Dingley/Archive 6/s deck was the housing for its towed communications buoy. Marcd30319 ( talk) 21:13, 5 October 2015 (UTC)
Just wondered why you find Curtiss and Porte irrelevant? 80.229.34.113 ( talk) 11:20, 7 September 2015 (UTC)
Mine's another pint by the way, I recall a model of Koolhoven's design http://theflyingboatforum.forumlaunch.net/viewtopic.php?f=104&t=1363&sid=15706a59ee6ef7aa58c99b671dbd51d5 http://www.inyourpocket.com/Amsterdam/Bel-Air-Models_114113v Not able to find a website presently. 80.229.34.113 ( talk) 18:26, 7 September 2015 (UTC)
None the wiser here re ground effect; there are three refs to ground effect in the Hercules page, including "Wing In Ground effect aerodynamics." se-technology.com. Retrieved: October 6, 2010 (a broken link unfortunately).
The Olmsted page states ...Olmsted was also the first to design a super-transport WIGE (wing-in-ground effect) vehicle in the spring of 1942, that is presumably a straight forward statement of fact, and Out of this effort ultimately developed Howard Hughes huge flying boat, the Spruce Goose that is not straight forward as the effort may include some other aspect of aerodynamics that is not entirely related to ground effect. I can only suggest further inquiries? Perhaps someone with in depth knowledge of the Hercules' aerodynamics might comment. 80.229.34.113 ( talk) 11:09, 5 October 2015 (UTC)
It certainly had been used as a prison, in the Civil War and later. Should it be "the former prison"? Ghmyrtle ( talk) 12:46, 6 October 2015 (UTC)
Andy, the article states in at least 2 places that production continued into 1970. Eagleash ( talk) 22:46, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
Hi Andy! Stop kill people with editing that page. ABS plastic is exteremely harmful for 3D printing and as it pproduces fumes of Acrylonitrile. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Physics3dc ( talk • contribs) 13:10, 9 October 2015 (UTC)
Minutes of Proceedings of the Institution of Civil Engineers, Volume 91- "In 1825 he married Fanny, youngest daughter of Mr. Richard Ankers, and shortly afterwards came to London, to the workshop of Messrs. Maudslay. He soon won a position as one of the best workmen, and while here he made his first great discovery, which consisted in the mode of construction of a set of perfect plane surfaces. Up to that time the most accurate planes had been obtained by first planing and then grinding the surfaces. They were never true, and young Whitworth became possessed with the idea of making a true plane. At the next bench sat a Yorkshireman named John Hampson, a good workman and a good fellow, who took an interest in his young companion’s work. One day as they worked Whitworth ventured on an idea. 'If these planes were true, one of them ought to lift the other.' 'Tha knows nowt about it,' was the cynical reply of steady-going experience. Whitworth kept on at his problem, working quietly at his lodgings. His first step was to abandon grinding for scraping. 'Taking two surfaces,' he said, when telling the story afterwards, 'as accurate as the planing tool could make them, I coated one of them with colouring matter and then rubbed the other over it. Had the two surfaces been true, the colouring matter would have spread itself uniformly over the upper one. It never did so, but appeared in spots and patches. These marked the eminences, which I removed with a scraping tool until the two surfaces gradually became more coincident'
But while his skill as a workman was thus being made the most of, Whitworth‘s mind was not idle. He saw that his first thought was not enough. Two surfaces might lift each other by fitting perfectly and yet not be true planes. One might be convex and the other concave. A new light came. Make three surfaces. If each will lift either of the others they must be planes and must be true.
After another stage of skilful labour the three planes were made and the test fulfilled. The Sunday after the problem was solved Whitworth called on his old mate. 'John,' said the young man, 'come to my house ; I’ve something to show you.' The true planes were exhibited. 'Ay! tha’s done it,' said John. That was probably the greatest moment in a great life. Joseph Whitworth had perceived that a true plane was the first thing needed for the improvement of mechanical construction. He set to work to produce it, and by sheer clear thinking and honest work he did produce it. "
........................................................ and:
A remarkable advance in the direction to which we have referred was made prior to the year 1840 by Sir Joseph Whitworth, and formed the subject-matter of a paper read before the meeting of the British Association at Glasgow in that year. Specimens of truly plane metallic surfaces were then, for the first time, brought under the notice of scientific men, and the method of preparing such surfaces was also made known. Up to that time the process relied upon for obtaining plane surfaces on metal plates, and indeed the only one practically used, had involved the operation of grinding two plates together with emery powder and water.
The Whitworth Measuring Machine 1877 The Whitworth Measuring Machine: Including Descriptions of the Surface plate. ...............................................
There are many other references as there are many references that are hazy on the origins of the surface plate, wrongly attributing it to Maudslay such as Naysmiths book. However they confuse the lapping ABC (grinding as it was referred to at the time) method Maudslay used with the SCRAPING ABC method invented by Whitworth. Maudslay immediately adopted the new scraping process for his whole shop, leading some to wrongly attribute it to Maudslay but it was Whitworth who was the inventor. =Motorhead ( talk) 05:30, 8 October 2015 (UTC)
=Motorhead ( talk) 19:07, 10 October 2015 (UTC): OK then, so Maudslay gets credit for the use of plates, Whitworth gets scraping and the use of sets of three. Maybe it's even worth noting that the idea of an accurate generated surface comes from optics and lens or mirror grinding? Are you going to add the refs to the article? Andy Dingley ( talk) 09:28, 8 October 2015 (UTC)
Actually I've looked into the optical flat development and it appears to have a totally separate historical line and it seems to have occurred later than the scraped surface plate, at least I haven't come across any connection. Concave and convex mirrors were made long before the surface plate but optical flats were more difficult due to the same problems Maudslay and his predecessors encountered, namely rolling off the edges and uncertain local material removal due to uncontrollable grain size of the abrasives(the variable grain size far exceeds the l millionth tolerance of Whitworths true surface plate) and the constantly increasing curvature of 2 plates being lapped together(due to gravity).
Maudslays lapped(ground) plates had to have been VERY good but not good enough, I'd guess as good as .0001 or so for most of the surface. Whitworth got that down to .000001 on the entire surface (which is far better than typical surface plates found today which can be +/-.000012 for a AAA grade plate the size of Whitworths)
I actually use all the above techniques and I have seen the results first hand. Lapping plates together simply wont produce a flat enough surface while I can scrape to .000002 without difficulty and to .000001 with extra care.
Ultimately I would say this: Maudslay gets credit for recognizing the critical importance of good surface plates as a foundation for all metrology. Maudslay gets credit for making very good lapped plates and using them to great effect. Maudslay gets credit for inventing Joseph Whitworth(among others). Whitworth gets credit for using scraping to produce the first reliably true surface plates to 1 millionth accuracy. Whitworth gets credit for developing hand scraping to its highest level and using it to great effect. Neither gets credit for the AB BC CA three plate method of verification as I have found indications of its use as far back as the ancient Egyptians and as Nasmyth said he believed it to be "a very old mechanical dodge". =Motorhead ( talk) 19:07, 10 October 2015 (UTC)
yeah, but you do know that redirects don't require any AfD, mkay? -- ℕ ℱ 20:31, 11 October 2015 (UTC)
Is now bluelinked twice in the Piers Gaveston Society article - with essentially only a single anonymous allegation being the basis. If we have him in the table, it makes sense to also have the counterclaim in the table - of if we have him after the table, it makes sense to remove him from the table. Having him essentially listed twice - on rather slim basis, alas, makes no sense to me. Collect ( talk) 23:11, 11 October 2015 (UTC)
Hi Andy, I think this is a recent change to the templates. I have some tool (can't remember which) which highlights CS1 errors. I'm working my way through cleanup lists for Somerset and Bristol where these show up. If you take a look at Help:CS1 errors item 25 External link in |<param>= - it says ext links are not allowed. I presume this is discussed somewhere but I don't understand enough about templates to get involved in the debate.— Rod talk 15:23, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
|website=
, where such a link certainly makes sense (At present |website=
just seems to be synonym for |work=
, so it even gives a misleading error message)
Andy Dingley (
talk)
15:50, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
Hello, I'm
ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:
Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot ( talk) 00:18, 14 October 2015 (UTC)
Andy Dingley, in the lede paragraph of the Steam Shovel entry, my reason for changing the British English word "favour" to the American word "favor" is perfectly logical and valid: The Steam Shovel was an American invention. Hence the spelling change.
Please desist in non-logical edits. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jmn100 ( talk • contribs) 03:23, 14 October 2015 (UTC)
Please see Locomotives of the L.N.E.R., Part 6B, p. 189 where it says "the nickname given to George, the proud fifth Duke of Gordon (1770-1836)", so the link to George Gordon, 5th Duke of Gordon was correct. -- Redrose64 ( talk) 23:17, 14 October 2015 (UTC)
Andy, I noticed you made a number of edits but in doing so you undid my previous edit. I'm assuming you made a mistake so I will make my edit again changing the word anode to electrode. An anode by definition is negatively charged. A postitively charged electrode is called a cathode. The context of the rest of the paragraph keeps talking about a positively charged electrode so I strongly believe the latter is the proper term to be used here. If you disagree for some reason please explain your rationale. Thanks. Lbecque ( talk) 19:32, 14 October 2015 (UTC)
No Andy, in fact your reference supports that the anode is negatively charged and is a concentration of electrons. BY DEFINITION an anode is negatively charged and a cathode is positively charged. This needs to either say cathode or positively charged electrode to be consistent with the rest of the paragraph. The very next sentence says "If the electrode is positively charged, it will melt more quickly,...". Please change this back to positively charged electrode. -- Lbecque ( talk) 20:14, 21 October 2015 (UTC)
Andy I have created a power supplies section on the talk page of arc welding to discuss this further with all users. -- Lbecque ( talk) 21:12, 21 October 2015 (UTC)
![]() |
With this ever dramatic world and winter coming, here's a cup of tea to alleviate your day!
![]() |
Category:Automata (computation), 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. QVVERTYVS ( hm?) 09:59, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
Yes, Wikipedia is WP:NOTCENSORED. We do not remove sourced content because it is objectionable or offensive. This does not mean that everything potentially objectionable or offensive is fair game. That your opinion may or may not be objectionable or offensive to someone somewhere is immaterial. Article talk pages are not a forum for general discussion of article topics, they are for discussing improvements to their associated articles. A random editor's opinion of Autism Speaks is not in any way relevant to improving the article. - SummerPhD v2.0 14:40, 25 October 2015 (UTC)
Hi! I noticed on a template on my talk page that the link to real life had turned pink ( User:Anomie/linkclassifier) and that you were somehow involved in this. I have no idea how the link was suddenly involved in this, but the {{busy}} links to 1901 pages, so I think it would be best to fix links after a potential deletion of the article/redirect. Not sure what is going on though. Best, w.carter -Talk 16:52, 26 October 2015 (UTC)
I asked you for your opinion, and you chose to just remove my message without comment. Now you have started to edit-war over it. The editor who uses the pseudonym " JamesBWatson" ( talk) 16:06, 27 October 2015 (UTC)
Hi Andy
Garageland66 has continued to tenaciously edit war and disruptively edit the Hard Left article. Do you think they should be referred to the Admin noticeboard? -- Reaganomics88 ( talk) 15:35, 28 October 2015 (UTC)
I would assert that Reaganomics88 has tenaciously vandalised the Hard Left article by removing sources and changing elements that had already been established. ( Garageland66 ( talk) 15:47, 28 October 2015 (UTC))
Hi Andy, I'm sorry If there were any inappropriate disturbances to any articles due to interactions with my account. As I was leaving for work I must have left Wikipedia logged on to my account because I later found out that one of my little brothers had vandalized different articles on Wikipedia using my account. It was not my intention to disturb anyone's hard work.
CeleryKnightAP (
talk)
04:36, 31 October 2015 (UTC). Thanks!
Hi Andy, since you reverted an edit on Bristol Siddeley back to my version, I thought you might be interested in the discussion on my talk page. Bazonka ( talk) 21:09, 31 October 2015 (UTC)
As the talk page guidelines for this case state, all comments must be in an individual editor's section, there are no threaded discussions except for comments made by arbitrators or clerks. So, your comments to Gamaliel have been moved to Wikipedia talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Arbitration enforcement 2/Evidence#Andy Dingley's section. Thank you. Liz Read! Talk! 16:56, 4 November 2015 (UTC)
Hello Andy
How did you do that? I was trying to fix what was there before, but couldn't find the degree symbol anywhere I looked; where was it?
Xyl 54 (
talk)
22:53, 4 November 2015 (UTC)
Alt-0176
on the numeric pad. Otherwise use the Character Map Windows utility.Alt-0176
° is degrees, Alt-0186
º is ordinal (e.g. Nº42). Hard to tell apart otherwise.°
°
Andy Dingley (
talk)
23:12, 4 November 2015 (UTC)
actually I was commenting more to MB. I didn't see any reason for the "I want to put Liz's talk page as evidence" stuff. Apologies for not being more clear on that. — Ched : ? 21:52, 4 November 2015 (UTC)
Gamaliel's talk page is here, not here NE Ent 01:44, 5 November 2015 (UTC)
I really don't want to have to bother with taking this to the article talk so, as you appear to be the only one opposing it, I thought I ought to explain to you why 'attempts' is is better than claims'. 'Claims' has a lot of implicit meaning that suggests that what it claims is the case is different from reality. Attempts makes it clear that this is the aim of Thatcherite economic policy without passing judgment on whether the methods of pursuing the aim are correct or not. Reaganomics88 ( talk) 18:38, 2 November 2015 (UTC)
That was a dumb disambiguation on my part. Thanks for catching it! /wia /tlk 22:52, 5 November 2015 (UTC)
Hello. I noticed this link that was used as source when the article was created in 2005, but was accidentally deleted along with vandalism in 2007. I don't know if it's a reliable source, but it's better than nothing... Thomas.W talk 12:31, 10 November 2015 (UTC)
So per this, is this edit by Jujutacular wrong? Brycehughes ( talk) 13:44, 10 November 2015 (UTC)
A little too close paraphrasing? Or am I missing something? [21] — MusikAnimal talk 16:53, 13 November 2015 (UTC)
In the 1871 census, when John was 2 years old, the family was living at Hunsletand
He was awarded his B.A. in 1906, with first class honours in both Part I and Part II, etc. There's just little scraps here and there that are word for word from the source. Surely you see the concern? At least speaking for myself, I know it's often difficult to reword prose when you have limited sources to go off of. I'm also confused why the source in question [22] was not cited in these areas it was adapted — MusikAnimal talk 19:00, 13 November 2015 (UTC)
Hello TWL users! We hope JSTOR has been a useful resource for your work. We're organizing a cleanup drive to correct dead links to JSTOR articles – these require JSTOR access and cannot easily be corrected by bot. We'd love for you to jump in and help out!
Sent of behalf of
Nikkimaria for
The Wikipedia Library's JSTOR using
MediaWiki message delivery (
talk)
22:18, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
Hello Andy Dingley.
I take it that "Rv unsupported trolling, ENGVAR and broken filenames"
[23] was aimed at
this edit by Physics3dc? (who I see has a 'history' on that page) I was worried I'd accidentally broken a file name, but I see where they 'corrected' a file names' spelling, among other things, which you fixed. Regards,
220
of
Borg
17:36, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
Looking again at User talk:Tamfang#Overdrive (mechanics), because a conversation elsewhere reminded me of it — you concluded
The language that I changed was
Why isn't "a mechanism" (or, better, "any mechanism") closer to the essence than "a term for a mechanism"?
Now the article begins
and I'd be tempted to make it "Overdrive is a state of operation ..." — Tamfang ( talk) 00:27, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
There is no MOS guideline that even deprecates the use of orthographic transcription alongside the IPA, let alone forbids it. On the contrary, it is expressly permitted; to quote: "The Wikipedia respelling system, using the {{ respell}} template, can be used in addition to the IPA."
The utilitarian reason for providing a respelling pronunciation is that the people who most need a guide to the pronunciation are usually the ones least likely to know the IPA.
On both these grounds I therefore ask that you self-revert on your removal of the orthographic transcription.
Thank you,
Awien ( talk) 14:29, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
Hi Andy Thanks for jumping in re reversions of my edits on the B-24 Liberator page. Autonomously yours 110.175.158.17 ( talk) 11:18, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
Don't you like a file that's directly derived from the vector source file over the reverse engineered one?-- Frysch ( talk) 20:08, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current
Arbitration Committee election. The
Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia
arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose
site bans,
topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The
arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to
review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on
the voting page. For the Election committee,
MediaWiki message delivery (
talk)
16:38, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
Back in APril you PRODded this, and it was deleted. Undeletion has now been requested at WP:REFUND, so per WP:DEL#Proposed deletion I have restored it, and now notify you in case you wish to consider AfD. Regards, JohnCD ( talk) 17:25, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
Andy, you have confused operating temperature (the range of temperature in which equipment is certified to be used) with input and output heat differences. Since temperature is not directly indicative of heat change, due to specific heat qualities, temperature cannot be used to directly indicate efficiency unless a complete thermodynamic cycle takes place where all other things are equal (and the specific heat quantity would still need to be considered). Please undo your revert on internal combustion engines. Typenolies ( talk) 21:19, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
Regarding this revert - "malicious Ebola-scare hoaxer cannot be punished under Human Rights Act" seemed like the kind of story the Mail might have over-egged to further its own agendas, and Bonehill clearly has a history of putting out false statements about himself.
I couldn't find any other coverage of the verdict - Google only returns a few blogs and mirrors for the "Freedom of speech has a very high threshold and I would have breached Article 10 of the Humans Rights Act if I had found you guilty" quote attributed to the judge, or for the name of the judge plus the name of the accused. The local paper that's been otherwise covering Bonehill's various arrests and trials hasn't mentioned him for months. I think we should treat this with some caution. -- McGeddon ( talk) 17:22, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
What's the rationale on categorization of categories for articles that are just associated with a topic?-- Frysch ( talk) 15:05, 26 November 2015 (UTC)
There is currently a discussion at
Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.
Natural Ratio (
talk)
18:53, 26 November 2015 (UTC)
Please, do not simply reverse a patrolled review. Explain, justify and source your addition. The comment section and the Article's Talk Pages serve those purposes. We appreciate your addition, but we do not have any other way of verification but the one you provide. Thanks. Historiador ( talk) 12:05, 3 December 2015 (UTC)
Every addition should be explained and sourced. It is simple Historiador ( talk) 12:14, 3 December 2015 (UTC)
I wasn't referring to you as the SPA. I was talking about ( LOJackDaniels) whose only contributions include adding that same link to multiple articles. The username also provides further evidence: LO = "locks online" and on the website there is a web developer named "Jack" which corresponds to LOJackDaniel's userpage information. Regardless, I don't know how you could argue that the link is even close to passing WP:RS guidelines. - KH-1 ( talk) 12:37, 3 December 2015 (UTC)
Your complete reversion of my edit to this article is inconsiderate. Can you tell me what "The Tyne Bridge was designed by Mott, Hay and Anderson, comparably to their Sydney Harbour Bridge version" actually means? And why was the internal link to "Movietone News" removed? How is that incorrect?
Tullyvallin ( talk) 07:20, 4 December 2015 (UTC) Tullyvallin
Hello. This edit didn't really address my concerns at all. Would you be willing to take the time to give this another look? I still think my clarify text was adequate but I'll rephrase my concerns anyway in the hope that will help:
I realise this is a bit wordy but I don't particularly need a detailed response, I'd just like to be confident that my concerns were properly understood before I drop them for good.
TuxLibNit ( talk) 23:42, 6 December 2015 (UTC)
Adding a MfD tag to Lola LC88 is pointy. You know full well that the correct venue is a WP:AfD. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 23:11, 6 December 2015 (UTC)