![]() | 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. |
You applied the MFD tag for Draft:Lola LC87 to Lola LC88. There were two problems with the tag. First, it directs to the MFD discussion page of 87, not for 88. Second, since 88 is in mainspace, it is not subject to MFD, but to AFD. If you want to delete 88, you can tag it for Articles for Deletion. Since the two pages are in different spaces, different rules apply for deletion. I may be removing the MFD tag from the article one more time, but not a third time. If you have any questions, why don't we discuss them at the Help Desk, or, for a more saccharine version, the Teahouse? Robert McClenon ( talk) 20:35, 6 December 2015 (UTC)
Andy, you're basically suggesting that any manufacturer that has something that's in some museum should have that museum listed in the See also section--and without verification? Drmies ( talk) 18:28, 7 December 2015 (UTC)
Pitch Circle Diameter currently redirects to Wheel_sizing#Bolt_circle. I think it should redirect to Gear#Pitch_nomenclature. Do you agree? Biscuittin ( talk) 21:32, 10 December 2015 (UTC)
Could you please look at this ext link from a BLP - I often seen similar but don't understand the characters displayed. Thanks.-- Rocknrollmancer ( talk) 10:20, 12 December 2015 (UTC)
|archiveurl=
link (and remove the |url=
link to avoid continued promotion) or else delete it.
Andy Dingley (
talk) 20:50, 13 December 2015 (UTC)
Hi, re this edit, which you reverted: please see Template:Reflist#Practices, first bullet. In this case there are only three. -- Redrose64 ( talk) 10:27, 17 December 2015 (UTC)
{{
citation}}
at all, but it did have 41 instances of {{
cite web}}
, 24 of {{
cite book}}
, 8 {{
cite news}}
and one each {{
cite journal}}
and {{
cite press release}}
; but just over an hour later,
Martin of Sheffield (
talk ·
contribs) made
this edit which changed that situation by adding {{
citation}}
when {{
cite book}}
could have been used, and would have been consistent with the other templated references. I didn't write those templates, nor did I write
Citation Style 1 or
Citation Style 2, but I do know that there have been many (failed) proposals to get one of them eliminated in favour of the other. --
Redrose64 (
talk) 15:18, 17 December 2015 (UTC)Andy, Since you reverted my edits to the 4WD page I would appreciate your help in improving the page. I'm concerned that the page has definitions which are not supported by sources, not consistent with marketing claims used by manufactures and certainly not consistent with the engineering liturature on the subject. Anyway, I think if you check you will find the information I added is well sourced. If you think we need to work on the presentation I'm certainly open to suggestions. Thanks! Springee ( talk) 15:37, 17 December 2015 (UTC)
Noticed that you removed the reference to On the Equilibrium of Planes. It's worth noting that the article you removed it from Lever actually has a picture of a lever and the earth. There's perhaps a clue there. Heath's work in translating Archimedes was seminal, and this is in fact the first known western text to offer a proof of the principle of mechanical advantage (hence Levers). Written by the self same Archimedes. So why is the link not relevant? SamCardioNgo ( talk) —Preceding undated comment added 18:00, 11 December 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for adding the ref to List of Peckett and Sons railway locomotives. Your Swedish is obviously better than mine. Could you do the same thing on Peckett and Sons where I also removed the uncited claim. Thanks— Rod talk 16:53, 19 December 2015 (UTC)
There is no reliable source cited for Saddam Hussein's wording being the inspiration for Steven Levy's quote. In the absence of such a source, it's SYNTH for us to say how he came up with the term. That it was coined in 1994 is not in dispute. NorthBySouthBaranof ( talk) 22:00, 24 December 2015 (UTC)
I've checked and, to my knowledge, the revisions I made were accurate between the 810 and 812 models being either natural or supercharged. I also tried to insert the appropriate references and sources proving the differences between the models. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tholloht ( talk • contribs) 03:11, 25 December 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for correcting me in the most douche chilling way possible. This site is no better than the immature twelve year olds on youtube. Merry Christmas. http://www.conceptcarz.com/vehicle/chassisNum.aspx?carid=10031&idNumID=11645 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tholloht ( talk • contribs) 15:54, 25 December 2015 (UTC)
Hi Andy, As part of my new years resolutions I'm again visiting some of the tagged articles on my watchlist and wondered if you had time to revisit Talk:Victoria Bridge, Bath and respond to he comments by User:Anmccaff about how we should properly describe the bridge?— Rod talk 07:59, 2 January 2016 (UTC)
Hi Andy, I'm surprised that you consider a claim of bright and showroom-shiny sourced to a quote by its inventor to be NPOV, encyclopaedic and acceptable. To me, it's the inventor making an otherwise unverified claim using weasel words. Still, if you think it's OK, I can't be bothered to make an issue of it. Jimfbleak - talk to me? 15:04, 3 January 2016 (UTC)
Dear Andy, The Slavic etymology proposed by an anonymous editor contradicts the accepted academic knowledge of the language. No Slavic languages have been ever recorded in the area, whereas the words "Gobannos", "nanto", "dobnos"/"domnos" are well-known in Celtic. "Interpreting" various ancient inscriptions as Slavic is quite common among nationalistic pseudo-scientists here in Russia.
I removed the sentence referencing TTT sheet plastination because it didn't appear to add anything to the article, it merely referenced a specific type of plastination and mentioned that it was used in teaching, which the rest of the section already appeared to discuss. The sentence was almost like an advertisement for TTT plastination and gave no further information on the technique or any other uses for this form of plastination. It also lacked a citation. CV99 ( talk) 00:44, 24 January 2016 (UTC)
Sorry, I thought it was an issue with the edit I made instead of what appeared to be a blatant case of vandalism. The change was done by a browser extension of mine, XKCD substitutions. I had it set to replace new with mega. I had an issue with it before, though it was a one time thing; I do note that the burden of insuring that this browser extension does not make changes in the editing window lies with me. I typically turn if off when editing, and I usually do catch the times that I do make mistakes (though in this case I should have as it would have created red links). I have now set to turned off on the english wikipedia. I hope that this resolves the issue. CV99 ( talk) 01:28, 24 January 2016 (UTC)
I saw your comments on the AfD for this. Now it's getting blanked anyway [3]. Any thoughts?
I like the idea of expanding why test and conditional branches changed the nature of scripting. Do you have anything to expand that with? Viam Ferream ( talk) 10:25, 1 February 2016 (UTC)
I have been consistent in giving a reason for each edit. If you mean that no reason was recorded, this must be due to some technical factor, as I gave the same reason for each of these edits: "no link," meaning that a term such as "Ford," "coal" or "air pressure" is assumed to need no further explanation via a linked Wiki article. I thought this excess linking was considered a detriment to Wikipedia, and went out of my way to amend it.-- 71.214.81.136 ( talk) 02:48, 31 January 2016 (UTC)
Andy, have you seen the article at Bellfounding? It uses a sand casting process, though not always with sand. You might consider either a link or a else short precis with a hat note. Martin of Sheffield ( talk) 09:29, 1 February 2016 (UTC)
Hello, I'm
Stesmo. I wanted to let you know that I removed one or more external links you added to the main body of
Graph database. Generally, any relevant external links should be listed in an "External links" section at the end of the article and meet the
external links guidelines. Links within the body of an article should be
internal Wikilinks. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on
my talk page. Thank you.
Stesmo (
talk) 17:01, 13 February 2016 (UTC)
The page has now been protected, but with the incorrect spelling of "fuse". Would you mind starting an RfC or something along those lines? I'm unfamiliar with the process and the trolls are winning. 142.105.159.60 ( talk) 18:42, 16 February 2016 (UTC)
Mr Dingley,
Please delete this once you've read it. It is NOT my intent to smear you or irritate you, but I thought that your dragging this conversation out into the talk page was inappropriate and that it was reasonable to reply. Perhaps, if you agree, you will re-edit the talk page to remove the more personal parts of your contribution.
Riventree ( talk) 03:15, 22 February 2016 (UTC)
Just for you, Andy. [5]. Kendall-K1 ( talk) 16:01, 22 February 2016 (UTC)
Hi Andy, I just updated this image [6], but it remains with the border, does it take a while for the servers to catch up? Rstory ( talk) 13:12, 25 February 2016 (UTC)
Hello Andy. I wanted to follow up with you personally regarding recent changes to the British shadow factories article. JIMDO hosted websites are self-published, user-generated. Is there a more appropriate source available for this material? Regards, Yamaguchi先生 ( talk) 23:43, 25 February 2016 (UTC)
If you like you can add this template to your page.
Buster Seven Talk 12:56, 26 February 2016 (UTC)
Andy, are you aware of this Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Andy Dingley and just as importantly Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Hengistmate#01 March 2016. The latter was raised when another of Hengistmate's IP socks attempted to close your AN3 case as stale (shortly before an admin blocked for 48 hours). In view of [[User:Burninthruthesky|Burninthruthesky]'s continued attempts to defend Hengistmate, I decided to lump him in with the SPI complaint. A CU will decide it one way or the other. 86.153.133.193 ( talk) 14:15, 1 March 2016 (UTC)
With this edit you removed referenced information and restored a paragraph referenced solely to someone's alleged personal reminiscences. Why should standards on reliable sourcing be ignored in this case? Nigel Ish ( talk) 13:48, 6 March 2016 (UTC)
March 2016
Andy , I have no reference for my warning on Antilock brakes and cold temperatures. It is a real problem if you care to research it. From personal experience my antilock brakes did lock up at -31C. When ABS came out the US NHTSA was left without a good brake standard for them because the valves in ABS sytems are narrower and thus vulnerable to restriction in cold weather. They had to come up with the DOT 5.1 standard. They couldn't name it DOT 5 because they had reserved that for the new silicone fluid which they named DOT 5.0 Your description of scaremongering and action of deleting my edit could lead to potential accidents. I only used the word potential so as to make drivers aware of a life threatening dangerous situation with using DOT3 or DOT 4 with ABS brakes and extreme cold weather. The DOT 5.1 standard was specifically developed for use with ABS which your present wiki article doesn't deal with.
Alan Tomalty 99.246.26.238 ( talk) 19:33, 6 March 2016 (UTC)
Good Morning Andy,
I was somewhat dismayed to note that the old myth regarding which way coping saw blades face has re-emerged :-( I refer you to our previous exchanges at /info/en/?search=User_talk:Andy_Dingley/Archive_5#Coping_Saw and within it the excellent Blog post you put me on to at http://www.popularwoodworking.com/woodworking-blogs/chris-schwarz-blog/coping-saws-from-bricks-to-fretwork-frogs
It is not worth 'going to the stake over' but all reversions cite TechnologyStudent.com as the definitive reference. V.Ryan's website is a most commendable effort by a practising D&T teacher in the north of England on behalf of his and other's students - and just as prone as anyone else to this perpetuated myth.
I can only repeat my evidence from 2014 - i.e. "that it all depends on how they are used, i.e. if pulled down on to a V board then, yes, backwards as with a fretsaw [or Piercing Saw] for the same reason, but if used more normally with work held in a vice then, if cutting on the back stroke, sawn waste would obscure the line being followed - and is unnecessarily uncomfortable to do. My evidence is in every B&Q store – the manufacturers Eclipse package their fret saws with blades facing the handle but they package coping saws with them facing forwards. Note also that jigsaws [and Scroll Saws] have teeth pointing downwards so the line is not obscured by waste during cutting."
Christopher Schwarz in his Blog cites several references to support this by clarifying "downward stroke" and only a “Band Saw Handbook” - the actual focus of which is perhaps another tool all together.
Is there no way we can remedy this once and for all? I would be very happy to write the necessary text but have no wish to star another round of confusing changes. I would cite “Trade Foundations”, “The Essential Woodworker”, “Tools for Woodwork”, “Carpentry & Construction” from the Blog (www.popularwoodworking.com) and http://wiki.dtonline.org. I only take issue with Christopher Schwarz in his comment that opinion is so divided - from what he cites there is clear consensus that blades only face the handle if they are pulled downwards - in normal use, the reverse is the case.
Kind regards.
DTOnline ( talk) 08:27, 11 March 2016 (UTC)
Is there anything you would like to discuss with me? I'm asking based on your recent postings at ANI about me. Am really asking. Thanks. Jytdog ( talk) 20:52, 16 March 2016 (UTC)
Wow.
RepRap are (almost) visible from my window, so I know a bit about the project.
Also Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Andy Dingley (now deleted). Did Jytdog really raise an SPI on you?! Viam Ferream Talk 13:42, 18 March 2016 (UTC)
Hi Andy,
Thanks for checking out the Anjan Contractor page. I'll add sources. And remove what you pointed out as promotional. Let me know if you can withdraw your deletion request. 3Dnasa ( talk) 21:35, 18 March 2016 (UTC)
Hi Andy, thanks but I am definitely not Anjan Contractor. I did used to work with him though and, as part of what is called a "Maker lab" he has one heck of a name in the 3D printing space. He has a significant amount of press on him, including near-daily articles. You're correct to point out that some are blogs and so on, but that's irrelevant. Wired has written about him as has Fox News, NBC, NPR, PBS, PC Mag and so on.
If you think the writing is promotional, then add an advertising flag. But going the route of notability just doesn't make sense given the sheer volume of coverage of what he's done, when and how particularly in the 3D printing space. He did receive the grant from NASA to create a 3D food printer. That got press. The actual finished product got a ton of press. And later developments, like commercializing it got press. I've added a number of other sources on the subject. Happy to find more-- and in other languages as this is a worldwide topic with him at the dead center of it. I respectfully request that you withdraw the deletion nomination. If it needs more work or "cut down" on promotion, then that's the path forward. 3Dnasa ( talk) 00:05, 19 March 2016 (UTC)
The nicest alerts to receive are thanks for a correction; so thank you. Sir Harry Ricardo mentioned briefly in "Memories and Machines" (his autobiography) that he had developed a flexible hydraulic network for riveting in constructing Indian railway bridges (c1905). I have not got my copy to hand to check, but I would guess steam was used for the power. Unfortunately I have found little else as a source for flexible networks. The science museum in London had almost nothing when I checked ten years ago. SovalValtos ( talk) 20:12, 25 March 2016 (UTC)
Many thanks for restoring my admittedly clumsily worded and poorly typed addition (and faith in human nature): I hold my hand up to not providing citations but I was doing just that when I got an edit conflict and started over, hopefully improving on the first effort. (As a newbie I assumed, maybe naively, that the term 'citation needed' means 'please add a citation' rather than a slash-and burn notice, but I'll be wiser next time.)
So, just between us, do you have any idea what unecyclopedic means? I'm serious, I've had various WP yellow cards re. typography, what side of the Atlantic the article belongs on, the gold standard for articles etc, but un-encyclopedic isn't even in the dictionary: when I checked my Kindle I got 'unending', 'unendowed' and 'unendurable', while 'encyclopedic' means 'comprehensive in terms of information' so I'm beginning to suspect it was actually an encylopedia joke.
Getting back to the plot if you have time could you check out the new version and see if it makes sense?
The whole point of my addition was to place bald (but incomplete) facts into a context that makes sense of what the article previously implied was an example of typically British muddled thinking. Since there demonstrably was a logical underpinning that explains why a turret fighter might possibly be operated by the pilot in the direct fire role I thought it at least worth airing, with the side-benefit of eliminating the vastly irritating if unvoiced 'Wow, crazy, huh?' conclusion.
The (apparently) contentious aspect of the entire turret fighter imbroglio seems (to me at least) to revolve around the wider issue of responding to the entirely unprecedented new reality of 'lightning war'... so I can't help wondering if there is mileage in mentioning somewhere that in the context of the fall of France all bets were off. If that seems blindingly obvious as matters stand various articles seem to omit the words
'Because no one anticipated that within the design-life of this aircraft, conceived of five years earlier, swarms of high-performance enemy aircraft would be within in range of - to pluck an example out of the ether, London Docks, that's why'.
If that's a little parochial-sounding in mitigation I plead that being an ethnic cockney who grew up on a street in East London with vacant lots nearby called 'bomb sites' I don't find the Blitz the least bit amusing, so the silent snarking was - to say the least - annoying, as is a general trend towards ahistoric revisionism based on twenty-twenty hindsight that is, for the want of a better term, 'unencyclopedic'. As such perhaps the business about the new realities of air defence circa 1939 demands a separate article?
Or addressed in a pre-existing article, assuming it's not already there and only needs finding and linking?
Having fallen foul of the dread guardians of all things Wiki that fly without flapping their wings because I didn't use the right template to describe an aircaft that never got off the drawing board I'm loath to stick my head up over the parapet again (at least until I've done a lot of homework) so for now I hope my revised version is authoritative, well-reasoned and objective, and sufficiently complete it stands alone, rather than being merely as a footnote to the seldom-referenced Schräge Musik article.
~~Ebookomane~~ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ebookomane ( talk • contribs) 15:24, 30 March 2016 (UTC)
~~Ebookomane~~ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ebookomane ( talk • contribs) 10:06, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
Your comments here and here are inappropriate for an article Talk page. You seem to be more focused on me than on the actual sources and contents there - you have not dealt with what the GE reference actually says and what its purpose is, which is to make some argument about when and if Be was used in fluorescent light bulbs, which is not what citations are for in Wikipedia.
You appear to have been attracted to the Talk page via the Talk page of Wtshymansk where I had left an left] a 3RR notice, which appears to be on your watchlist as you have commented there many times; as shortly after I left that you came to the article, which you had never edited before, and reverted me and then shortly after that responded to me at W's Talk page here. That is blatant HOUNDING.
As I did at W's talk page, I will warn you again not to turn Wikipedia into a WP:BATTLEFIELD and do not follow me around picking fights. If you continue to personally attack me at article Talk pages I will bring you to ANI and based on this very clear pattern you will not have a leg to stand on. If you have something to say to me, say at my talk page, and do not abuse article Talk pages going forward. Jytdog ( talk) 18:24, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
Something went weird on my edit to 76 mm gun M1, can you check it is as you expect it to be? Maury Markowitz ( talk) 13:43, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
You currently appear to be engaged in an
edit war according to the reverts you have made on
Berylliosis. Users are expected to
collaborate with others, to avoid editing
disruptively, and to
try to reach a consensus rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.
Please be particularly aware that Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states:
If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing.— Cirt ( talk) 02:11, 2 April 2016 (UTC)
Please see my proposal to speedily rename Category:Defunct villages by country and subcategories to Category:Former villages by country etc. Hugo999 ( talk) 18:43, 2 April 2016 (UTC)
I noticed an edit of yours to the talk page of this article questioning Marc's relevance to WikiProject Railwats or some such. I'd agree, but what struck me is that of all the Wikiprojects he is 'of interest to' there does not seem to be any that relate to the block-making machinery, which to my mind is undoubtedly the most significant of all the many things he worked on. I'm not familiar with all the wikeprojects...any suggestions? TheLongTone ( talk) 13:01, 3 April 2016 (UTC)
I keep the hammer in my pants. ;P (Apologies if you don't appreciate toilet humor, I just couldn't resist.) MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 21:10, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Andy Dingley. 62.255.240.157 ( talk) 11:26, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
![]() |
Thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia. North America 1000 09:08, 7 April 2016 (UTC) |
Thanks! Andy Dingley ( talk) 11:29, 7 April 2016 (UTC)
Dear Andy Dingley,
Thank you very much for your comments about me at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#Cirt and your recent comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jenna Fife.
I really appreciate it.
Very much.
I'm quite sorry if we got off on the wrong foot lately.
I've been thinking about it a lot lately. I entered into the scene at Commons regarding that deletion debate with the sole intention of using WP:OTRS to get to the bottom of that licensing issue. I admit I reacted a bit to the responses there. Perhaps we could have all resolved the issue if we had all had a better more laid-back tone to everything.
I hope perhaps you and I can start afresh and anew.
Thank you very much,
— Cirt ( talk) 12:48, 7 April 2016 (UTC)
Please don't edit within other users comments at ANI.
You did this, twice, at DIFF 1 and again at DIFF 2.
Please stop.
Please instead post, in your own comment, at the bottom of the sect in chronological order.
Thank you,
— Cirt ( talk) 14:52, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
The Hitler reference was auto-generated. I was editing on Firefox and I personally installed a script that changed certain words on a page to "Hitler". This was a joke meant for another site and I didn't pay attention. I will do anything to prove that this was the reason https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/foxreplace/ Ylevental ( talk) 00:29, 9 April 2016 (UTC)
Hi Andy, Many people seems to have complaints about you,that you unnecessary revert the edits, please stop this, if you continue this you may be blocked by the Administrator. Best regards Aftab Banoori ( Talk) 14:54, 11 April 2016 (UTC)
Hello. I noticed that Aftabbanoori got blocked for edit-warring over a low quality snapshot of theirs they were trying to get into an article, so I thought I'd show you that they've been doing this for years, and can't claim they don't know what the rules and standards here are. See this since removed message I posted on their talk page two years ago, after they'd been edit-warring on multiple articles to get a vacation snapshot of theirs into them... Thomas.W talk 14:00, 12 April 2016 (UTC)
Andy - many thanks for looking at the page I created. I have added a couple of citations in the article. Do you think that is enough? There aren't articles about the group or the person that I can cite easily and that are available online. John Grubb 54 ( talk) 15:44, 14 April 2016 (UTC)
Hi Andy - problems uploading this image file as the server did not update very quickly.
[7], I managed to make a fine mess of this one - the current image should be the cropped version. Do you have the access rights to fix it? Cheers Rstory ( talk) 15:25, 15 April 2016 (UTC)
Hey, i know you don't like me, but this was unhelpful to that editor. Instead of pointing them to where they could get what they wanted, you just "stirred the pot." You feel how you feel about me, but please don't let that get in the way of actually helping people who need it. Jytdog ( talk) 17:31, 18 April 2016 (UTC)
More biscuittin socks. many, many more. WP:Sockpuppet investigations/Henry Mazzer/Archive Jytdog ( talk) 15:51, 23 April 2016 (UTC)
Hi Andy, thanks for raising that. At the moment I'm going from List of rivers of England, but am open to improving on that. BTW you may be interested in a discussion questioning these catchment/basin categories at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Rivers. -- Bermicourt ( talk) 07:31, 24 April 2016 (UTC)
I notice that you keep reverting my edits to a talk page, with no attempt to discuss your rationale for re-adding the deleted entries, which are clearly not pertinent to the talk page in question, so I've reverted your edits ~dom Kaos~ ( talk) 13:08, 24 April 2016 (UTC)
"...the left 12.5-inch gun in the forward turret exploded during gunnery practice". Histories state that this was in fact a 12.5 inch gun bored to 12 inches, designated "12-inch 38-ton gun". Your thoughts ? It wouldn't make sense to have different calibre main guns. Rod. Rcbutcher ( talk) 04:41, 27 April 2016 (UTC)
Dude, why did you undo my revision on B-Dienst, specifically putting the link back in for British Naval Cypher No. 3 ? scope_creep ( talk) 17:22:38, 29 April 2016 (UTC)
All things being equal, I think that the point you made was distinct from the rest of the thread and was closed prematurely. The original complaint might have been settled; but yours was a new aspect, and should have been kept open for community discussion. Especially as it specifically related to editor retention- something we are all meant to be concerned about right now! Best, Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi 19:31, 20 May 2016 (UTC)
Hi Andy,
What you thought was an improvement for Baldwin Locomotive Works' "Electric Locomotives" section where you changed N.V.Heemaf had the opposite effect--for it went from "blue" back to "red". I do not like taking issue with sanctioned Wikipedia editors (since a number of them cannot take constructive criticism) but the best method or means of accessing foreign entities is still through the following repeat foreign entity,e.g. N.V.Heemaf. What you did worked for Werkspoor but it did not for N.V. Heemaf so the standard means, as delineated for you supra, is more reliable. Just thought I'd pass it on to you although when you made the change you should have caught what I am now writing to you about. Let me underscore here that before you made the change there wasn't a need for making it since both N.V. Heemaf and Werkspoor both were coming up blue. Why toy with something when there is actually no need for it. Have a great day.
P.S. I noticed when I "save" the foregoing, the "method/means" which I am referring to disappears. If you hit "Edit", you will gain a full understanding of what I am referencing.
— Preceding
unsigned comment added by
SPELMARK6798 (
talk •
contribs) 17:58, 21 May 2016 (UTC)
Hi Andy! More problems on the World Wide Web page - uncited revisions referring to articles in other languages. The same pattern as before. I would be grateful if you have time if you could take a look. I have a lot on my plate at the moment. Would recommend Binkerstenet as an admin if you need advice.
All the best,
( Etheldavis ( talk) 16:13, 26 May 2016 (UTC))
Hi again, Andy! I have contacted Binksternet as Musik Bot, the editor who removed the "pp sock" is on holiday until 30 May. As I say, if you can keep an eye, I would appreciate it.
( Etheldavis ( talk) 16:23, 26 May 2016 (UTC))
Just found this from Tim Berners-Lee, Andy:
After all the conversation on here, I have found this from Tim Berners-Lee himself:
"Some commentators suggest that Robert co-invented the WWW. To set this straight, he did not invent it. It wasn't his idea. He did not write the specifications for UDIs (later to be URLs, then URIs), or for HTML, the hypertext language, nor HTTP, the protocol, or the code of the original implementation. More than a year after my original proposal (March 1989), while I was working on the code, he wrote a proposal to CERN proposing some staff be allocated to the project. This was a brave thing to do, as CERN was always chronically short of manpower for the huge challenges it had taken on. So Robert put himself out there to claim that effort on WWW was worth it."
https://www.w3.org/People/Berners-Lee/FAQ.html (scroll down to section "Robert Cailliau's Role")
( Etheldavis ( talk) 16:55, 26 May 2016 (UTC))
Hello. Could you provide an evidence for your statement Fursuits are broader than furry fandom though, and sports mascots are still part of this article's scope ? — WBR, Postoronniy-13 ( talk) 14:59, 28 May 2016 (UTC)
Hi Andy, Having done a bit of reading about them I was thinking about creating a wp article on the Purton hulks and when searching came across User:Andy Dingley/My created pages/Purton hulks. Are you planning on developing this?— Rod talk 20:37, 23 May 2016 (UTC)
I've now done about as much as I can on this and I'm happy to move it to an article, unless there is anything you would like to add/edit first?— Rod talk 17:58, 26 May 2016 (UTC)
Can you tell me if
File:Purton Hulks Dispatch knee.jpg is what Fell's patent knees look like?—
Rod
talk 20:38, 30 May 2016 (UTC)
![]() |
The Editor's Barnstar |
Thanks for editing the page on Yoke coil newly created by me. RIT RAJARSHI ( talk) 18:25, 1 June 2016 (UTC) |
The Board of Trustees of the Wikimedia Foundation has appointed a committee to lead the search for the foundation’s next Executive Director. One of our first tasks is to write the job description of the executive director position, and we are asking for input from the Wikimedia community. Please take a few minutes and complete this survey to help us better understand community and staff expectations for the Wikimedia Foundation Executive Director.
Thank you, The Wikimedia Foundation Executive Director Search Steering Committee via MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 21:48, 1 June 2016 (UTC)
Over on Wikibooks, I was attempting to write some "pages" that could form the basis of a "free" replacement for an ancient Ladybird book I had called "The Story of Railways".
As I would prefer not to write this entirely myself I was wondering if you were willing to help. At the very least it would be appreciated if you could help review pages (which I've mostly carefully paraphrased from relevant Wikipedia Articles, or my own memory.).
The pages are in my Userspace at Wikibooks - https://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/User:ShakespeareFan00/Rail_Transport_in_Britan
I am not a 'disruptive editor'. I am removing unreferenced material, material that is repetitive, wrong, biased and some that is not even worthy of being in a travel guide - lists of fast food outlets for example. You revert these edits, why? The material removed is simply poor, unrequired and often wrong.
I urge you to stop reverting and add good quality and well sourced and referenced material instead of your current actions which I now consider to be disruptive. 80.195.100.70 ( talk) 13:42, 9 June 2016 (UTC)
Talk:M4 Sherman -- MaxRavenclaw ( talk) 10:56, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
You reverted the whole edit for objection to one phrase. Did you find any value in the parts of the edit? Grammar's Li'l Helper Talk 16:20, 17 June 2016 (UTC)
Hello, Andy Dingley. I see that you've reverted my addition of saw to the "See also" section on the grounds that it was "Already linked". You are correct. I have just now noticed that it was linked in the first paragraph of the article.
I've also noticed that Japanese carpentry is linked in that first paragraph as well. Do you think that it should also be removed from the "See also" section? Thank you for your attention. Akhooha ( talk) 20:10, 18 June 2016 (UTC)
Mr Andy, on you insisting edits of Jupiter Ace page, pushing unproved data into the article, also irrelevant as specification for a computer:
Please do not push data not relevant to a section, nor opinions that cannot be proved, nor information not related to an item. You have been informed, you have ignored the information given, and have made accusations only reflecting your own which to "mark a point". Such is not the purpose of that item page. That was a re-incidence and opposite to all you stated here in this entry.
Your are invited to reconsider your actions, so to be more close to your statements above. A third time will force a formal complaint against those actions. You have been fairly warned. Sign: Factor-h (on a lend computer) 79.168.135.176
Hi there,
I thought I'd give you a link to the section of the MOS that I was talking about in regards to my edit to the Benghazi burner article, just so you can be sure the my edits were well thought-out, and not some random off-hand edit:
Basically, the gist of the guideline is that redirects are generally preferable to piped links (more detail is given in the linked section).
InternetMeme ( talk) 11:16, 19 June 2016 (UTC)
The lock in Hull was not too short. It was too small.
Locks regularly are wider than their lock gates, so two or more ships fit inside next to each other, so that is why the width is relevant. The depth over the sill is relevant too. Ocean going ships of that time barely fit over the sill at a neap high tide, so could traverse the lock only for a very short time each day (if they fit at all).
-- 2001:980:4818:1:200:FF:FE4E:353A ( talk) 13:27, 22 June 2016 (UTC) (Martijn Verwijmeren)
I note that you gave WilliamJE a uw-ew, which he deleted. I've also given him one too. I've added an infobox and navbox to the article. Mjroots ( talk) 18:27, 22 June 2016 (UTC)
![]() |
The Anti-Vandalism Barnstar |
Thank you for reverting the vandal who undos my recent edits. Sro23 ( talk) 15:29, 1 July 2016 (UTC) |
I have restored the latest edit by the Faust Vrančić sock. The image being replaced is more of a cable-stayed design (with the deck having to withstand compression forces longitudinally) than a pure suspension bridge. The new image is of a pure suspension bridge and is a much more appropriate image. I have verified that the image caption is accurate (it is his work and it was published in 1595). Please consider this my edit now rather than an edit by a block evading sock. Meters ( talk) 00:48, 3 July 2016 (UTC)
Hi Andy.
Can you please explain your revert of my edit on this page. As it stands you look to have restored some incorrect information that I removed.
The pages as it stands suggests:
There are a number of problems with this statement:
My edit cleared up this whole mess by simply stating that the M10 tank destroyer (all versions) was based on the M4 chassis, without any of the misnomers and confusion. I realise that the whole M10 = Wolverine, 17pdr M10 = Achilles misconception is really, really widespread but Wikipedia is exactly the kind of place we should be clearing up these kinds of common misconceptions. Thanks. 2p0rk ( talk) 18:44, 4 July 2016 (UTC)
Why are you constantly dedicating yourself from preventing the balkan region from receiving credit for inventions. You are a biggot and fascist. O12j3x ( talk) 14:34, 8 July 2016 (UTC)
Not to mention you are reverting edits on other cultures to keep dubious and unsourced claims under their Category. It's sickening O12j3x ( talk) 14:36, 8 July 2016 (UTC)
I don't know what you are talking about. I just registered to Wikipedia I don't know what you mean by make a case. For what? What is going on? — Preceding unsigned comment added by O12j3x ( talk • contribs) 14:43, 8 July 2016 (UTC)
Do you happen to have more of these? Thanks for uploading! Chicbyaccident ( talk) 11:47, 8 July 2016 (UTC)
I'm not going to get into an edit war over a dumb category, that would be silly of me. But it WAS removed by socks: see [11], [12] etc. But if consensus is to remove than I will leave it alone. Sro23 ( talk) 12:26, 11 July 2016 (UTC)
Just added a note to the talk page about hendos - it seems we are both right, there are versions of the slogan with the "a" and versions without! Not sure how that should be represented on the page. Auto98uk ( talk) 21:31, 11 July 2016 (UTC)
Categorizing systems that use the 6502 under the category for those processors is a bad idea for the obvious reason I had for my edits. And I did not edit-war with you, as per WP:3RR, which states "An editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page—whether involving the same or different material—within a 24-hour period." As you can see, only one revert was performed by me in a 24-hour period: [13]. L9G45AT0 ( talk) 18:52, 17 July 2016 (UTC)
I presume you have heard about The West Country Challenge?
The The West Country Challenge will take place from 8 to 28 August 2016. The idea is to create and improve articles about Bristol, Somerset, Devon, Cornwall and the Isles of Scilly, Dorset, Wiltshire and Gloucestershire.
The format will be based on Wales's successful Awaken the Dragon which saw over 1000 article improvements and creations and 65 GAs/FAs. As with the Dragon contest, the focus is more on improving core articles and breathing new life into those older stale articles and stubs which might otherwise not get edited in years. All contributions, including new articles, are welcome though.
Work on any of the items at:
or other articles relating to the area.
There will be sub contests focusing on particular areas:
To sign up or get more information visit the contest pages at Wikipedia:WikiProject England/The West Country Challenge.— Rod talk 17:17, 18 July 2016 (UTC)
![]() |
Hi! your message lead me towards here :) and yes WP is all about users, its like "What we do makes us learn", and this is what inspire me again and again to do WP editing, and to share knowledge and to dig more to know more. :)
Here a yummy one for you. keep WP-ing up! Cheers :))))) Abhidwip ( talk) 07:14, 20 July 2016 (UTC) |
Thanks for pointing me at WP:ENGVAR -- I'd like to clear up the Z80 and ZX Spectrum articles accordingly... the ZX Spectrum one has a UK pronunciation marked as such. How do I generate those and how best to add it to the ZX Spectrum article, given it is a point of contention? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mattl ( talk • contribs) 17:26, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
Hello,
Thanks for correcting this apparent error [14]. It appears that Clue bot previously reverted this same edit by this same IP [15]. So, I figured Clue bot was correct. I guess not --- Steve Quinn ( talk) 02:07, 25 July 2016 (UTC)
I'm interested in your recent statement on the Science RefDesk:
Do you have sources for this? As I mentioned, I've been working on the toilet-related articles, and more information would be handy. Thanks! Carbon Caryatid ( talk) 13:45, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
G'day, I can easily find scholarly references for the use of "they" in its various forms in referring to an organization in spoken English - and do it myself all the time. I cannot find references stating it is acceptable in written English and can find plenty stating that it is not; in other words, "them" and its variants is colloquial English. If you can find somewhere that states we write in colloquial English, or that "them" is acceptable in formal English, I will happily stop spending time making the change. Just as an aside, apparently the Financial Times invariably uses "it" when describing organisations. YSSYguy ( talk) 01:41, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
Looking at your talk page here with all the other posts of people upset at your demeanor, it's all too evident that you have serious personal issues. Does agitating wiki contributors by removing their educational contributions give you some sort of sick pleasure?
You senselessly removed my post on the Graphite page while offering only this explanation: "This is worse than it was when added"
If you can't make useful contributions and don't have a life of your own, then look for it elsewhere outside Wikipedia, and refrain from harassing others who are sane and helpful contributors. You apparently don't even know how to make a meaningful sentence based on your comment. Who put you in charge of editing? ( The shaman poet ( talk) 00:50, 11 July 2016 (UTC))
I've been away for a while, particularly cause Vsmith also agitated me as you did for not using his head, where ever it was stuck up in! Don't look over other people's shoulder when making decisions and learn to think independently.
As for providing sources, you apparently didn't get good quality education if you think sourcing is required for making comparisons. That's called analytical thinking. Make a note of it. The facts stated within the comparisons are in the Diamond and Graphite articles. Why are you so clueless?
Please do the right thing and replace my contribution. It is not meant for my ego. It was meant to intrigue the reader about the vast contrasts or natural irony created by the mineral's environment of formation, as was stated. ( The shaman poet ( talk) 02:39, 12 July 2016 (UTC))
You just proved my point that you are not fit for editing by offering distractions rather than addressing the issues at hand. Obviously, it is your ego that is creating a conflict, not mine. As I pointed out in the beginning, You have issues with a lot of people here. Not just skin, you also have a thick skull!
I'll leave you to your self pleasure. — Preceding unsigned comment added by The shaman poet ( talk • contribs) 00:26, 15 July 2016 (UTC)
re your reversal [19] and similar ones. In the es you refer to "per our policy for lead articles in eponymous categories". However, this categorisation is not putting the eponymous article in the eponymous category. (The eponymous category is Category:10¼ in gauge railways, which is served OK). It is putting the article in the parent category. For this, WP:CAT#Eponymous categories is not set in stone but it offers three options: in cat parent, child, or both. I prefer the third one (article only in eponymous cat), as in the container category it would add no extra. (As we did not do in this category, for example). - DePiep ( talk) 07:09, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
Do you have any problems with anything I have done at Semi-trailer truck other than numbers? Sammy D III ( talk) 17:30, 31 July 2016 (UTC)
Laber□ T 19:30, 3 August 2016 (UTC)
Hi, I see you are a top contributor in "List of Arduino boards and compatible systems" How about including List of Arduino boards in Wikidata?
This would let to structure all this information because we should be able to use propierties like these https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Wikidata:WikiProject_Objects.
Maybe would be good to add a new column in tables with the links to wikidata items like this https://tools.wmflabs.org/reasonator/?q=Q25814150 or create list directly from wikidata
I start creating some list examples:
If you like, you can get more info in the WikiObject project proposal https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/WikiObject.
Qupro ( talk) 13:17, 10 August 2016 (UTC)
sincerely
LookingGlass ( talk) 15:45, 21 August 2016 (UTC)
If you disrupt this SPI again, you risk being blocked.-- Bbb23 ( talk) 18:00, 21 August 2016 (UTC)
Hi Andy, would you mind reviewing RiskAoA as a candidate for keeping/deletion? Thanks. 74.96.151.44 ( talk) 03:00, 21 August 2016 (UTC)
Andy, I'd be happy to tell you everything I can about RiskAoA, unfortunately it can't be much over the wikisite. GESICC@aol.com. GESICC ( talk) 22:45, 21 August 2016 (UTC)
why did you do this Varun FEB2003 I am Offline 13:52, 23 August 2016 (UTC)
I was wondering if there is any way that you and I could become civil in this life time and work together? Perhaps discuss my Contributions. I'm sure many times you will be able to prove against my claims and that would teach me. I don't understand why there has to be so much animosity. Everything I add is researched and sourced. If I or my source is mistaken at times, I appreciate the advice. Is there a chance of this or am I going for a long shot? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.114.54.122 ( talk) 11:49, 22 August 2016 (UTC)
I'm not sure why you refuse to acknowledge Brayton's contributions to the development of the diesel engine? These are documented contributions... Imotorhead64 ( talk · contribs) 18:02, 24 August 2016 (UTC)
In 1890 Brayton patented a 4 stroke engine with an air blast fuel injection system that would contribute greatly to the development of the first Diesel engine. Diesel's first engines used an air blast atomization system that was very similar to Brayton's . Unlike Diesel's engine Brayton's engine was fairly low compression. The ignition source was a constantly glowing mesh of platinum. Later Diesel engines used a system of high pressure fuel injection nearly identical to Brayton's 1887 engine where the fuel was admitted into the combustion area as it passed through a spring loaded relief nozzle, This caused the fuel to become much more combustable. Here is the discovery in Brayton's own words " “I have discovered that heavy oils can be mechanically converted into a finely-divided condition within a firing portion of the cylinder, or in a communicating firing chamber.” Another part reads “I have for the first time, so far as my knowledge extends, regulated speed by variably controlling the direct discharge of liquid fuel into the combustion chamber or cylinder into a finely-divided condition highly favorable to immediate combustion.”
Hello. Dear Andy leather is not only Important in Kermanshah province. it's a souvenir. -- Hosseiniran ( talk) 10:15, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
that when you message an admin about the actions of an admin, or those of an established editor, you never get a reply. When I was blocked due to the blocking admin miscounting the amount of reverts that I made, it took a report on ANI to get some acknowledgement of my existence.
Wikipedia used to be a good place. Spacecowboy420 ( talk) 13:59, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
I suggest you read it. Your tagging on John's talk page was unnessersary. Cassianto Talk 20:54, 24 August 2016 (UTC)
[ [20]]
[ [21]]
[ [22]]
Spacecowboy420 ( talk) 10:23, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
Sorry, no offense meant. Some people might like to know the actual name of the school that they are referencing. Maybe not quite the way some people at a fine northern California school feel about people calling it Berzerkeley, but Caltech people like to see the name the right way. But maybe you were talking about some other school that I don't know about. Gah4 ( talk) 17:20, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
"Didn't you notice my
question? Your answer is very important for me, but for you - a native English speaker - should be very easy.
Perhaps you ignore me, but why?
Regards.
85.193.252.33 (
talk) 21:28, 27 August 2016 (UTC)
My wording "is being poured" emphasizes a continuous aspect of the process. After all a liquid material is being poured gradually. On the other hand such an emphasis may sound a bit artificial. So I am willing to agree with you. But what was wrong with grammar? 85.193.252.33 ( talk) 01:20, 24 August 2016 (UTC)
I'm very, very sorry for adding an s to "verandas". TheGGoose ( talk) 13:57, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
Yes, you're right and you're right again. I did follow through up to the Maybach Zeppelin. Its just I preferred the simple English. It always interests me the the clear visual links between the very big German cars and the English Daimlers, sometimes its almost down to small differences in the grille. Thanks, Eddaido ( talk) 11:32, 30 August 2016 (UTC)
I added references to Paint robot that are published by corporations in the industry, but seem better than nothing for now. There were pre-existing links that seem like pure spam, as I mention on the article talk page. Could you look at the article and see if the references I added are worth while and what I consider spam should really be removed? - Fartherred ( talk) 21:54, 30 August 2016 (UTC)
See TALK page for article. 66.103.35.72 ( talk) 13:03, 5 September 2016 (UTC) Update - Andy, look at my talk page, please. 66.103.35.72 ( talk) 15:30, 5 September 2016 (UTC)
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Spindle turning, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Stool. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot ( talk) 09:34, 9 September 2016 (UTC)
Hi, You reverted Parallel twins usually have only two main bearings, and a crankshaft flywheel is usually mounted between the two crank throws. I rather thought that this was indeed the case for both traditional British 360° twins and the post-1965 Japanese 180° engines. Is this not so? Arrivisto ( talk) 09:04, 18 August 2016 (UTC)
Hi, did you notice that my edit, that you reverted, was itself a reversion of the addition of unsourced information earlier today? I've looked back through the page history, and far from being "incessant", the sentence concerned was first added on 23 January 2011 and stood completely unaltered (not even the vandals touched it) until today. -- Redrose64 ( talk) 20:23, 11 September 2016 (UTC)
![]() |
I am now convinced that none of the socking I've seen is your responsibility, and I'm sorry about our past misunderstandings. I'm sure you have always acted in good faith, and I share your frustration that some characters appear to be given free rein to damage the project as much as they like. I hope some brownie will help relieve the smell of socks. Burninthruthesky ( talk) 06:34, 15 September 2016 (UTC) |
Thank you for your comment. If you don't mind, we can continue the discussion on my talkpage. -- BjKa ( talk) 13:02, 9 September 2016 (UTC)
I'll be away for a few days, so I can't continue the discussion right away, but I want to say thanks for engaging in a constructive dispute instead of just reverting. I find that kind of behaviour much too rarely. (see the latest version of the article and my talkpage) -- BjKa ( talk) 14:35, 9 September 2016 (UTC)
I'm back. Have you seen my proposal of 2016-09-09 ? -- BjKa ( talk) 08:34, 16 September 2016 (UTC)
Hi. You just reverted my edit in the HOTAS article. I noticed it was lacking images, and this one was the best that I could find. There's actually a lack of good photos of flight control sticks on Commons, and the few that are there don't illustrate the HOTAS concept very well. This schematic drawing of the F-16 control stick (with the F-16 being the only model mentioned twice in the text) does. You said "Wrong controller". I double-checked if the image actually shows the F-16's side conttol stick, and it does. So I don't understand the revert comment. Would you mind explaining it? Thank you. -- YMS ( talk) 22:50, 17 September 2016 (UTC)
I am not interested in your attitude [23]. And, the article is written like a tech manual - it is a really badly written article, just awful. I'll be giving the ALL the references a closer look now. In any case, please knock off the attitude. You're not better than everyone else. Steve Quinn ( talk) 20:05, 19 September 2016 (UTC)
Hi Andy,
I've updated the talk page on AVRE with information and quotes from the references I added. I think you probably missed them and just saw the forum one, which I can understand you not liking. Can you take a look, and if you're happy reinstate the changes that I'd made (or at least give me a heads up) - there's no point in an undo-war. I'm looking at original documents from the source of the term, and I also have the one from the same time with the typo that caused the confusion over the term. Happy to share info.
Thanks, Lauren Lkchild ( talk) 22:10, 21 September 2016 (UTC)
can u look at talk page there ? I found schematics for 10TP tank and told it was no Christie.... But with your clarification I am not so sure. Maybe they used unlicensed Christie afterall.... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.111.232.2 ( talk) 20:37, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
You know nothing about bridges and thus should not be reverting me. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.199.236.1 ( talk) 12:44, 29 September 2016 (UTC)
Your recent editing history at Drawbridge shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.
Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.
Stop reverting my good-faith edits to the page. I am an expert on bridges and you clearly are not. Please stop. 50.199.236.1 ( talk) 14:19, 29 September 2016 (UTC)
Hi Andy, any idea how I get the citations in the Ex Links section to go up the page to References - I guess there must be a formatting trick somewhere? Many thanks 80.229.34.113 ( talk) 11:13, 29 September 2016 (UTC)
A claim in the text.<ref >Some stuff about an external source.</ref>
Another claim in the text.<ref name="Bloggs, 23" >Bloggs, J. ''Witterings'', p.23</ref>
More claims.<ref name="Bloggs, 23" />
name=
attribute (above) and use this to move all the refs themselves to one long list at the bottom, inside the {{
reflist}}.{{reflist |refs=
<ref name="Bloggs, 23" >Bloggs, J. ''Witterings'', p.23</ref>
<ref name="Arkwright, 42" >Arkwright, J. ''My Book'' (1989), p.42</ref>
}}
<ref>
tags! Citations will use an empty tag (with a slash at the end), <ref ... />
|ref=harv
into the {{
cite book}}. This gives the reference an "internal" name which the citations can then use. |ref=harv
is shorthand for |ref={{harvid|<Author surname>|<year of publication>}}
|ref={{harvid|Arkwright|1989}}
|last=Arkwright |first=J.
not |author=Arkwright ,J.
harv
' doesn't work (e.g. no obvious author surname, or the year is better as an original publication, not the cheap modern edition, use {{
harvid}} and control the params yourself, e.g. |ref={{harvid|Machinery's Handbook|1942}}
.{{sfnp|Arkwright|1989| page= 42 }}
Arkwright (1989), p. 42
{{sfn|The Epic of Gilgamesh}}
.<ref>
business for you. There are also {{
harvp}} / {{
harvnb}} which do the same but don't wrap it up in <ref>
s, so that you can work with the bare result. It's called {{
harvnb}} ("no brackets") rather than {{
harv}} because "harv" was already in use.|ref=harv
business.<ref>
tags. You can also embed citations inside an {{
efn-lr}}, so that you can source your comments.References
You have created three categories Category:Rocket engines using hydrogen peroxide propellant, Category:Rocket engines using hot cycle hydrogen peroxide propellant and Category:Rocket engines using cold cycle hydrogen peroxide propellant. They have some issues that I would like to discuss with you.
First, and this is something I should rise on a more general forum, they categories under "by propellant" are wrong. A bi-propellant, has a fuel and an oxidizer. So in general, hydrogen, methane and kerosene categories are wrong. But at least they are consistent in that they are named by fuel, not oxidizer. Hydrogen Peroxide is the oxidizer, not the fuel. If so we should also add categories for oxygen and nitric acid. Which I don't think that it would be productive.
Then, there's the issue that you mixed "hot cycle" and "cold cycle" as sub categories. Again, two issues. First, that you are mixing cycle with propellant. And second that you haven't defined what is a hot cycle nor a cold cycle. There's not article and no literature. May be you meant by "hot cycle" the steam generator cycle, where H2O2 is decomposed by a catalyst? If so, I've meant to write about steam generators in general, but I was still trying to see if I should fit them within the gas-generator for the open cycles (like the RD-107) and within the staged generator for the closed cycles (like the Bristol Siddeley Gamma).
So, if you could explain me the rationale of your categories, I think we could do something to arrange them in a more logical way. – Baldusi ( talk) 00:17, 30 September 2016 (UTC)
Hi, I disagree with you reverting my quite comprehensive edits. The articles were both terribly outdated and I have made an effort to improve them. I will continue to do this to the best of my ability with other Bristol and South Glos area articles. Your reversions do not help to improve the articles. If you want to join in and contribute positively that would be great, particularly finding some good references for both pages. Thanks :) Trunky ( talk) 12:27, 1 October 2016 (UTC)
Hello Andy, I am Kain, I am also from the
UK like you, I see you have done a lot of edits, but still why you don't have the administrator post in Wikipedia.
Gandalf the Wizard •
Talk 9:07, 3 October 2016 (UTC)
![]() |
The Anti-Vandalism Barnstar |
For rescuing Edward Jenner's article from getting messed up. -- AI RPer ( talk) 11:12, 6 October 2016 (UTC) |
I suspect it's about time to knock out the issues with Victoria bridge. Want to take a pass at it? Anmccaff ( talk) 18:04, 4 October 2016 (UTC)
There are many edits that require using an alternative account, and twelve are clearly outlined at WP:VALIDALT. I have and expect to edit using both the first two reasons and the eleventh. This account racked up 5,000 edits for two reasons, I wanted become an Admin and would use this account as an admin account (users with multiple accounts have to choose only one for admin actions), and to edit solar articles. The only reason I am requesting what is really a standard offer, is so that while I will likely make less than 5 edits a month (out of the perhaps 1,000?? edits I make), I can use my primary account to make them. I have created 176 articles but likely will not be creating any more from this alternative account, but instead will use my primary account, and not even make any edits from this account for the foreseeable future, and have thus marked my user page. But that means that for reasons of security and privacy I can not edit any solar accounts. As an admin account must be publicly linked to your primary account I did for a while link my primary account but as one of the primary reasons for creating this account was privacy that sort of throws that out the window, so now it is just listed as being an alternative account, and I will be sending an email to Arb to notify them of the link when the restrictions are listed. Until they are I am unable to edit any semi protected solar accounts. I think everyone thought I would just use this for everything but that simply is not viable. I value my privacy too much. I have never told anyone ( IRL) of these two accounts and never will. With only 0–4 edits (combined) to check each month monitoring my edits will not take much time.
I have settled into a task far more important than being an admin and it is all consuming of my available wiki time for now. A picture is worth a thousand words. One of the SVGs I translated is used in 93 projects and is translated into about 150 languages. That one edit took me about four months to insert the roughly 7,500 word translations, but now that it is done can be used in each of those languages in native language, and it would probably not take more than an hour for anyone to add another language. Prior to that there were 39 languages that it were available in, in separate files. Now only one or a few of those are still necessary, as technical limitations prohibits including two variants of a language, such as Simplified and Traditional Chinese. Apteva ( talk) 22:38, 6 October 2016 (UTC)
I don't think this is best known for, I think it's Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Mikemikev/Archive. Doug Weller talk 16:20, 8 October 2016 (UTC)
You have observed that Bleed valve is a blue link. It is coming up as a red link on my system. Clicking on it invites me to create an article (standard behaviour for a red link). However, doing a search confirms the article exists. Any ideas as to what is going on here? --Elektrik Fanne 16:12, 9 October 2016 (UTC)
The source is published on lulu.com, the well-known vanity press. The statement that running round a train has become known as running round a train, which is the obvious name that nobody had to coin because that was what it was always called, does not even need stating, let alone sourcing to a self-published book. Guy ( Help!) 00:06, 12 October 2016 (UTC)
Category:Lethbridge baronets, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. A discussion is taking place to see if it abides with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. HandsomeFella ( talk) 19:02, 13 October 2016 (UTC)
Thanks for reverting my bad river edit. Hmains ( talk) 22:54, 22 October 2016 (UTC)
There is no such category. If you want to make one, that is fine, but nothing is achieved by putting a file in a non-existent category. Rathfelder ( talk) 17:00, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
I would welcome your contribution to my recent post on the talk page for this article. Pinkbeast ( talk) 00:51, 2 November 2016 (UTC)
Thanks for your support; unfortunately somebody seems to have nobbled the Department of Transport already, judging by a couple of recent Written Answers: Rolling Stock North West Railways: Overcrowding I haven't checked what the tale is on other lines/Lines. Rjccumbria ( talk) 22:24, 5 November 2016 (UTC)
Andy, what do you think about the latest addition here: Model Engineering current version changes. I'm not too happy about it, because it seems to be too many words and puffery ('unique', 'the finest'). Also I don't think it is in the spirit of the section on 'information sources' (more about mags and shows), and perhaps ought to just go in as a brief mention along with the Internet Craftsmanship Museum, already listed under 'notable model engineers'. I don't want to be too "get off my turf", so What do you think? Stringybark ( talk) 05:25, 10 November 2016 (UTC)
"Tatutaki Maru class". May be right, but in the absence of a reference I don't understand your edit comment. Davidships ( talk) 12:54, 8 November 2016 (UTC)
Please stop undoing edits on Coanda's plane. His plane was powered by a centrifugal compressor. It's a completely different principle than that of a ducted fan, ff's sake! Check the drawings and pictures of Coanda's engine, then look at some ducted fans (propellers within a duct). A ducted fan can propel without the duct, a centrifugal compresson can not propel without one.
Edited, removed the uncivilites. My point still stays. Please avoid the classification "ducted fan" when it's not one. Please write arguments for why you think it's one, including at least one example of a similar ducted fan, before adding the text in the article. Thank you. Florinbaiduc 13:44, 11 November 2016 (UTC)
Hi Andy, do you have any idea whether Benjamin Hick's use of wheel discs (or disc wheels) on his 3 cylinder engine is the first aerodynamic device on a locomotive? I know wheel discs were used on Edwardian cars and aeroplanes. Regards 80.229.34.113 ( talk) 14:39, 10 October 2016 (UTC)
Just because I'm interested, I get that Cumberland Basin was built to give straighter acess to the tidal Avon at its downriver end. What I'm a bit confused about is why there wasn't just a canal-and-locks dug through when the river was damned at Underfall creating the harbor? Was it to create more docks further down the harbor? From what I understand, it was originally built as its own lock as it was locked off at its eastern end, too, which also confuses me. -- Criticalthinker ( talk) 19:22, 8 November 2016 (UTC)
OK, really last warning. Next time you do this i will seek, and will very likely get, a one-way interaction ban. Jytdog ( talk) 01:53, 13 November 2016 (UTC)
{{
unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}
.
Bishonen |
talk 09:11, 13 November 2016 (UTC)Hi Andy, this is Martin of Sheffield. In standard British English "orientated" would be used, see the etymology on the Wiktionary page. "Oriented" is a near synonym and would be the correct term for American English, but IKB was this side of the pond. Regards, Martin of Sheffield ( talk) 00:06, 15 November 2016 (UTC)
Hello, Andy Dingley. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority 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 in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)
Thanks for the revert to Talk:Atmel AVR. Just to clarify, I wanted to mark it "resolved" somehow so readers wouldn't be alarmed by the notice. (Per my usual policy, when I follow a link from WP and notice it's showing upated info which conflicts with the source, I try to fix WP.) Since it's not a discussion about Atmel AVR itself, and in fact there is no discussion there except for the bot-generated notice, that's why I decided it was simplest to outright rm it.
I realize there's tension with the letter of WP:TPO, but I thought that because there was no discussion being harmed, I was respecting the spirit. As the lead of WP:TPO says, it's a guideline subject to common sense and occasional exceptions, which I thought applied. The notice is phrased in an attention-getting way, but attention is no longer needed or wanted and wastes editors' time and energy. I would still like to mark the notice as moot in some way. Can you suggest something? (E.g. Is there a way to ask an auto-archiving bot to archive just a particular section? Is it okay to edit the archive page to manually add a section?) 71.41.210.146 ( talk) 21:49, 8 December 2016 (UTC)
As an editor who has been repeatedly
blocked for harassment, I thought you might know the policy by now. Yesterday, a user was checkuser-blocked for sockpuppetry. You then posted
this message on their talk page. See
WP:HA#NOT: "Unfounded accusations of harassment may be considered a serious
personal attack and dealt with accordingly." Did you know the true identity of this block-evader when you
suggested I should be blocked for reporting them?
Burninthruthesky (
talk) 08:45, 8 December 2016 (UTC)
The Mediation Committee has received a request for formal mediation of the dispute relating to "Traian Vuia's flight described ad "Power Hops" although the wording is not used in similar achievements from other pioneers of flight". 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 16 December 2016.
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. 19:42, 9 December 2016 (UTC)
The request for formal mediation concerning Traian Vuia's flight described ad "Power Hops" although the wording is not used in similar achievements from other pioneers of flight, 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) 23:55, 9 December 2016 (UTC)
(Delivered by
MediationBot,
on behalf of the Mediation Committee.)
Is there a particular reason why Bastian Schweinsteiger is not allowed to be in the article? Kingjeff ( talk) 22:12, 15 December 2016 (UTC)
You might be interested in this. Oculi ( talk) 11:13, 16 December 2016 (UTC)
There is currently a discussion at
Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is
Please check this discussion. Thank you.
DePiep (
talk) 12:22, 17 December 2016 (UTC)
Hello
How do you do?
The is a point in the careers of all of us editor when we reach a point that we have to fill in a bunch of fields but doing so is too time-consuming. There are editors who leave the fields empty or write "{{ dunno}}". These editors are called honest. But there are editors who step over a thin line that separates the good from the evil and try to fill all the fields with elusive words like "cross-platform", "multilingual", "cross-language" and "scientists say" to give the impression that they did a full job. Those editors are called liars.
Now I don't normally go around Wikipedia saying these things; it is not very civil to put names on editors I never met. But when you perform a blanket revert in violation of WP:V, WP:NOTDIR, WP:WEASEL and MOS:COMPUTING, restore all those dishonest non-informative statements, and even go as far as calling "what's the opposite of a constructive edit? That.", it is then that I feel either you aren't entirely aware of what you are doing, or you have a lot of explaining to do.
Best regards,
Codename Lisa (
talk) 15:11, 16 December 2016 (UTC)
It seems that instead of looking for a resolution, you are looking for fight. Revert #756027176 was a particularly mean display of contempt and had a refusal to get the point in its edit summary. I am not looking for a fight but I don't sit on my hand and see Wikipedia vandalized by you. If you want to go to ANEW as you have threatened, go. I won't beg you not to.
— Codename Lisa ( talk) 07:31, 22 December 2016 (UTC)
Andy, thanks for looking out for the Corvette Leaf Spring article. Sadly I think we are dealing with HughD's sock edits. I'm sure HughD isn't happy that I had a hand in his 6 month block (ends this month) as well as other editing restrictions. I noticed that the pattern of edits and edit comments on both the Corvette Leaf Spring article as well as the Eddie Eagle (NRA related) article were similar. The EE edits only started after I got involved with the page. The IP addresses were initially all from the Chicago area. Now we are seeing a number of "Amazon Technologies" IPs from around the world. The Amazon IPs are clear proxy. Anyway, I think proving that HughD is behind the IP edits would be hard but if this continues I think asking for semi-protected status would be the right thing in this case. Anyway, thanks for the reverts! Springee ( talk) 19:03, 22 December 2016 (UTC)
From the icy Canajian north; to you and yours!
FWiW Bzuk (
talk) 00:51, 27 December 2016 (UTC)
![]() |
Merry Christmas & Happy New Year! |
Thank you for helping make Wikipedia a better place. Blessings. May we all have peace in the coming year. 7&6=thirteen ( ☎) 00:53, 27 December 2016 (UTC) |
Hi. Regarding the change to Slack Roman Fort ref Cambodunum to Camulodunum. Firstly thanks for making the change. Secondly Cambodunum (not Cambodonum) is mentioned by Pastscape here as a different fort entirely - hence me requiring citation originally. Thirdly the disambiguation page for Cambodunum needs to be updated accordingly or removed as it incorrectly cites Slack as Cambodunum. Wyrm ( talk) 11:46, 27 December 2016 (UTC)
Please see Talk:British narrow gauge slate railways. I opened a formal move discussion and assume you want to comment. Thanks, EdJohnston ( talk) 03:09, 31 December 2016 (UTC)
I shall not revert your reversion as I have less than no interest in edit-warring, but I am curious what you think is misleading about the substance of my edit. From my perspective, at worst it clutters the lede slightly with qualifying language, but at best it eliminates the possible misconception in the reader that "HTML" is technically uniform. Perhaps we should ask Talk:HTML for their take? Arlo James Barnes 01:48, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
I left some more questions for you at Wikipedia:Reference_desk/Science#What_is_string?. The Transhumanist 07:29, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
Please carefully read this information:
The Arbitration Committee has authorised discretionary sanctions to be used for pages regarding the English Wikipedia Manual of Style and article titles policy, a topic which you have edited. The Committee's decision is here.
Discretionary sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimize disruption to controversial topics. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to the topic that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behavior, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. This message is to notify you that sanctions are authorised for the topic you are editing. Before continuing to edit this topic, please familiarise yourself with the discretionary sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions.While I don't agree with the alarming wording/tone of this WP:ARBCOM template, ArbCom does not permit us to modify it. I'm leaving this informational notice about the applicability of discretionary sanctions to "article title and Manual of Style discussions, broadly construed" (per the WP:ARBATC ArbCom case) because of your comment: "Oppose Just because you've just avoided a TBAN for these moves because the ANI thread was archived without action does NOT mean that there is support for your mindless imposition of a styleguide over the established names of external bodies." This is precisely the kind of ad hominem personalization of a title/style dispute, WP:BATTLEGROUNDING, and casting of mental WP:ASPERSIONS that lead ArbCom to enable discretionary sanctions to be applied to style/title disputes in the first place.
It also doesn't even make sense: the ANI against Dicklyon and these moves has not concluded with any finding of any fault on that person's part, and is not likely to (and it has not been archived yet). It is also not about RM discussions like the one in which you are inappropriately venting; it is about manual, undiscussed moves. WP:RM is the prescribed process for moves that may be controversial; using RM is not itself controversial, by definition. Your personal disagreement with the proposed move and dislike of the proponent is not an valid oppose rationale, which should be based on sources or policy. Given that the proposal is for compliance with guidelines, and based on the source usage being inconsistent, it's unclear what actual objection you would raise. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 14:57, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
I made an edit to an article which did several things: 1. rewrote archaic language in normal English 2. replaced non-free text with free text. 3. removed the opinion of a writer 4. removed a tautology.
You undid all of these changes, without explaining why. Your edit summary simply said "restore quote", which does not even explain why you did restore the quote, let alone why you felt it necessary to undo the other changes. If in the future you see a reason to undo someone's edit, please leave an adequate explanation. 128.40.9.164 ( talk) 18:30, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
![]() | 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. |
You applied the MFD tag for Draft:Lola LC87 to Lola LC88. There were two problems with the tag. First, it directs to the MFD discussion page of 87, not for 88. Second, since 88 is in mainspace, it is not subject to MFD, but to AFD. If you want to delete 88, you can tag it for Articles for Deletion. Since the two pages are in different spaces, different rules apply for deletion. I may be removing the MFD tag from the article one more time, but not a third time. If you have any questions, why don't we discuss them at the Help Desk, or, for a more saccharine version, the Teahouse? Robert McClenon ( talk) 20:35, 6 December 2015 (UTC)
Andy, you're basically suggesting that any manufacturer that has something that's in some museum should have that museum listed in the See also section--and without verification? Drmies ( talk) 18:28, 7 December 2015 (UTC)
Pitch Circle Diameter currently redirects to Wheel_sizing#Bolt_circle. I think it should redirect to Gear#Pitch_nomenclature. Do you agree? Biscuittin ( talk) 21:32, 10 December 2015 (UTC)
Could you please look at this ext link from a BLP - I often seen similar but don't understand the characters displayed. Thanks.-- Rocknrollmancer ( talk) 10:20, 12 December 2015 (UTC)
|archiveurl=
link (and remove the |url=
link to avoid continued promotion) or else delete it.
Andy Dingley (
talk) 20:50, 13 December 2015 (UTC)
Hi, re this edit, which you reverted: please see Template:Reflist#Practices, first bullet. In this case there are only three. -- Redrose64 ( talk) 10:27, 17 December 2015 (UTC)
{{
citation}}
at all, but it did have 41 instances of {{
cite web}}
, 24 of {{
cite book}}
, 8 {{
cite news}}
and one each {{
cite journal}}
and {{
cite press release}}
; but just over an hour later,
Martin of Sheffield (
talk ·
contribs) made
this edit which changed that situation by adding {{
citation}}
when {{
cite book}}
could have been used, and would have been consistent with the other templated references. I didn't write those templates, nor did I write
Citation Style 1 or
Citation Style 2, but I do know that there have been many (failed) proposals to get one of them eliminated in favour of the other. --
Redrose64 (
talk) 15:18, 17 December 2015 (UTC)Andy, Since you reverted my edits to the 4WD page I would appreciate your help in improving the page. I'm concerned that the page has definitions which are not supported by sources, not consistent with marketing claims used by manufactures and certainly not consistent with the engineering liturature on the subject. Anyway, I think if you check you will find the information I added is well sourced. If you think we need to work on the presentation I'm certainly open to suggestions. Thanks! Springee ( talk) 15:37, 17 December 2015 (UTC)
Noticed that you removed the reference to On the Equilibrium of Planes. It's worth noting that the article you removed it from Lever actually has a picture of a lever and the earth. There's perhaps a clue there. Heath's work in translating Archimedes was seminal, and this is in fact the first known western text to offer a proof of the principle of mechanical advantage (hence Levers). Written by the self same Archimedes. So why is the link not relevant? SamCardioNgo ( talk) —Preceding undated comment added 18:00, 11 December 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for adding the ref to List of Peckett and Sons railway locomotives. Your Swedish is obviously better than mine. Could you do the same thing on Peckett and Sons where I also removed the uncited claim. Thanks— Rod talk 16:53, 19 December 2015 (UTC)
There is no reliable source cited for Saddam Hussein's wording being the inspiration for Steven Levy's quote. In the absence of such a source, it's SYNTH for us to say how he came up with the term. That it was coined in 1994 is not in dispute. NorthBySouthBaranof ( talk) 22:00, 24 December 2015 (UTC)
I've checked and, to my knowledge, the revisions I made were accurate between the 810 and 812 models being either natural or supercharged. I also tried to insert the appropriate references and sources proving the differences between the models. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tholloht ( talk • contribs) 03:11, 25 December 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for correcting me in the most douche chilling way possible. This site is no better than the immature twelve year olds on youtube. Merry Christmas. http://www.conceptcarz.com/vehicle/chassisNum.aspx?carid=10031&idNumID=11645 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tholloht ( talk • contribs) 15:54, 25 December 2015 (UTC)
Hi Andy, As part of my new years resolutions I'm again visiting some of the tagged articles on my watchlist and wondered if you had time to revisit Talk:Victoria Bridge, Bath and respond to he comments by User:Anmccaff about how we should properly describe the bridge?— Rod talk 07:59, 2 January 2016 (UTC)
Hi Andy, I'm surprised that you consider a claim of bright and showroom-shiny sourced to a quote by its inventor to be NPOV, encyclopaedic and acceptable. To me, it's the inventor making an otherwise unverified claim using weasel words. Still, if you think it's OK, I can't be bothered to make an issue of it. Jimfbleak - talk to me? 15:04, 3 January 2016 (UTC)
Dear Andy, The Slavic etymology proposed by an anonymous editor contradicts the accepted academic knowledge of the language. No Slavic languages have been ever recorded in the area, whereas the words "Gobannos", "nanto", "dobnos"/"domnos" are well-known in Celtic. "Interpreting" various ancient inscriptions as Slavic is quite common among nationalistic pseudo-scientists here in Russia.
I removed the sentence referencing TTT sheet plastination because it didn't appear to add anything to the article, it merely referenced a specific type of plastination and mentioned that it was used in teaching, which the rest of the section already appeared to discuss. The sentence was almost like an advertisement for TTT plastination and gave no further information on the technique or any other uses for this form of plastination. It also lacked a citation. CV99 ( talk) 00:44, 24 January 2016 (UTC)
Sorry, I thought it was an issue with the edit I made instead of what appeared to be a blatant case of vandalism. The change was done by a browser extension of mine, XKCD substitutions. I had it set to replace new with mega. I had an issue with it before, though it was a one time thing; I do note that the burden of insuring that this browser extension does not make changes in the editing window lies with me. I typically turn if off when editing, and I usually do catch the times that I do make mistakes (though in this case I should have as it would have created red links). I have now set to turned off on the english wikipedia. I hope that this resolves the issue. CV99 ( talk) 01:28, 24 January 2016 (UTC)
I saw your comments on the AfD for this. Now it's getting blanked anyway [3]. Any thoughts?
I like the idea of expanding why test and conditional branches changed the nature of scripting. Do you have anything to expand that with? Viam Ferream ( talk) 10:25, 1 February 2016 (UTC)
I have been consistent in giving a reason for each edit. If you mean that no reason was recorded, this must be due to some technical factor, as I gave the same reason for each of these edits: "no link," meaning that a term such as "Ford," "coal" or "air pressure" is assumed to need no further explanation via a linked Wiki article. I thought this excess linking was considered a detriment to Wikipedia, and went out of my way to amend it.-- 71.214.81.136 ( talk) 02:48, 31 January 2016 (UTC)
Andy, have you seen the article at Bellfounding? It uses a sand casting process, though not always with sand. You might consider either a link or a else short precis with a hat note. Martin of Sheffield ( talk) 09:29, 1 February 2016 (UTC)
Hello, I'm
Stesmo. I wanted to let you know that I removed one or more external links you added to the main body of
Graph database. Generally, any relevant external links should be listed in an "External links" section at the end of the article and meet the
external links guidelines. Links within the body of an article should be
internal Wikilinks. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on
my talk page. Thank you.
Stesmo (
talk) 17:01, 13 February 2016 (UTC)
The page has now been protected, but with the incorrect spelling of "fuse". Would you mind starting an RfC or something along those lines? I'm unfamiliar with the process and the trolls are winning. 142.105.159.60 ( talk) 18:42, 16 February 2016 (UTC)
Mr Dingley,
Please delete this once you've read it. It is NOT my intent to smear you or irritate you, but I thought that your dragging this conversation out into the talk page was inappropriate and that it was reasonable to reply. Perhaps, if you agree, you will re-edit the talk page to remove the more personal parts of your contribution.
Riventree ( talk) 03:15, 22 February 2016 (UTC)
Just for you, Andy. [5]. Kendall-K1 ( talk) 16:01, 22 February 2016 (UTC)
Hi Andy, I just updated this image [6], but it remains with the border, does it take a while for the servers to catch up? Rstory ( talk) 13:12, 25 February 2016 (UTC)
Hello Andy. I wanted to follow up with you personally regarding recent changes to the British shadow factories article. JIMDO hosted websites are self-published, user-generated. Is there a more appropriate source available for this material? Regards, Yamaguchi先生 ( talk) 23:43, 25 February 2016 (UTC)
If you like you can add this template to your page.
Buster Seven Talk 12:56, 26 February 2016 (UTC)
Andy, are you aware of this Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Andy Dingley and just as importantly Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Hengistmate#01 March 2016. The latter was raised when another of Hengistmate's IP socks attempted to close your AN3 case as stale (shortly before an admin blocked for 48 hours). In view of [[User:Burninthruthesky|Burninthruthesky]'s continued attempts to defend Hengistmate, I decided to lump him in with the SPI complaint. A CU will decide it one way or the other. 86.153.133.193 ( talk) 14:15, 1 March 2016 (UTC)
With this edit you removed referenced information and restored a paragraph referenced solely to someone's alleged personal reminiscences. Why should standards on reliable sourcing be ignored in this case? Nigel Ish ( talk) 13:48, 6 March 2016 (UTC)
March 2016
Andy , I have no reference for my warning on Antilock brakes and cold temperatures. It is a real problem if you care to research it. From personal experience my antilock brakes did lock up at -31C. When ABS came out the US NHTSA was left without a good brake standard for them because the valves in ABS sytems are narrower and thus vulnerable to restriction in cold weather. They had to come up with the DOT 5.1 standard. They couldn't name it DOT 5 because they had reserved that for the new silicone fluid which they named DOT 5.0 Your description of scaremongering and action of deleting my edit could lead to potential accidents. I only used the word potential so as to make drivers aware of a life threatening dangerous situation with using DOT3 or DOT 4 with ABS brakes and extreme cold weather. The DOT 5.1 standard was specifically developed for use with ABS which your present wiki article doesn't deal with.
Alan Tomalty 99.246.26.238 ( talk) 19:33, 6 March 2016 (UTC)
Good Morning Andy,
I was somewhat dismayed to note that the old myth regarding which way coping saw blades face has re-emerged :-( I refer you to our previous exchanges at /info/en/?search=User_talk:Andy_Dingley/Archive_5#Coping_Saw and within it the excellent Blog post you put me on to at http://www.popularwoodworking.com/woodworking-blogs/chris-schwarz-blog/coping-saws-from-bricks-to-fretwork-frogs
It is not worth 'going to the stake over' but all reversions cite TechnologyStudent.com as the definitive reference. V.Ryan's website is a most commendable effort by a practising D&T teacher in the north of England on behalf of his and other's students - and just as prone as anyone else to this perpetuated myth.
I can only repeat my evidence from 2014 - i.e. "that it all depends on how they are used, i.e. if pulled down on to a V board then, yes, backwards as with a fretsaw [or Piercing Saw] for the same reason, but if used more normally with work held in a vice then, if cutting on the back stroke, sawn waste would obscure the line being followed - and is unnecessarily uncomfortable to do. My evidence is in every B&Q store – the manufacturers Eclipse package their fret saws with blades facing the handle but they package coping saws with them facing forwards. Note also that jigsaws [and Scroll Saws] have teeth pointing downwards so the line is not obscured by waste during cutting."
Christopher Schwarz in his Blog cites several references to support this by clarifying "downward stroke" and only a “Band Saw Handbook” - the actual focus of which is perhaps another tool all together.
Is there no way we can remedy this once and for all? I would be very happy to write the necessary text but have no wish to star another round of confusing changes. I would cite “Trade Foundations”, “The Essential Woodworker”, “Tools for Woodwork”, “Carpentry & Construction” from the Blog (www.popularwoodworking.com) and http://wiki.dtonline.org. I only take issue with Christopher Schwarz in his comment that opinion is so divided - from what he cites there is clear consensus that blades only face the handle if they are pulled downwards - in normal use, the reverse is the case.
Kind regards.
DTOnline ( talk) 08:27, 11 March 2016 (UTC)
Is there anything you would like to discuss with me? I'm asking based on your recent postings at ANI about me. Am really asking. Thanks. Jytdog ( talk) 20:52, 16 March 2016 (UTC)
Wow.
RepRap are (almost) visible from my window, so I know a bit about the project.
Also Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Andy Dingley (now deleted). Did Jytdog really raise an SPI on you?! Viam Ferream Talk 13:42, 18 March 2016 (UTC)
Hi Andy,
Thanks for checking out the Anjan Contractor page. I'll add sources. And remove what you pointed out as promotional. Let me know if you can withdraw your deletion request. 3Dnasa ( talk) 21:35, 18 March 2016 (UTC)
Hi Andy, thanks but I am definitely not Anjan Contractor. I did used to work with him though and, as part of what is called a "Maker lab" he has one heck of a name in the 3D printing space. He has a significant amount of press on him, including near-daily articles. You're correct to point out that some are blogs and so on, but that's irrelevant. Wired has written about him as has Fox News, NBC, NPR, PBS, PC Mag and so on.
If you think the writing is promotional, then add an advertising flag. But going the route of notability just doesn't make sense given the sheer volume of coverage of what he's done, when and how particularly in the 3D printing space. He did receive the grant from NASA to create a 3D food printer. That got press. The actual finished product got a ton of press. And later developments, like commercializing it got press. I've added a number of other sources on the subject. Happy to find more-- and in other languages as this is a worldwide topic with him at the dead center of it. I respectfully request that you withdraw the deletion nomination. If it needs more work or "cut down" on promotion, then that's the path forward. 3Dnasa ( talk) 00:05, 19 March 2016 (UTC)
The nicest alerts to receive are thanks for a correction; so thank you. Sir Harry Ricardo mentioned briefly in "Memories and Machines" (his autobiography) that he had developed a flexible hydraulic network for riveting in constructing Indian railway bridges (c1905). I have not got my copy to hand to check, but I would guess steam was used for the power. Unfortunately I have found little else as a source for flexible networks. The science museum in London had almost nothing when I checked ten years ago. SovalValtos ( talk) 20:12, 25 March 2016 (UTC)
Many thanks for restoring my admittedly clumsily worded and poorly typed addition (and faith in human nature): I hold my hand up to not providing citations but I was doing just that when I got an edit conflict and started over, hopefully improving on the first effort. (As a newbie I assumed, maybe naively, that the term 'citation needed' means 'please add a citation' rather than a slash-and burn notice, but I'll be wiser next time.)
So, just between us, do you have any idea what unecyclopedic means? I'm serious, I've had various WP yellow cards re. typography, what side of the Atlantic the article belongs on, the gold standard for articles etc, but un-encyclopedic isn't even in the dictionary: when I checked my Kindle I got 'unending', 'unendowed' and 'unendurable', while 'encyclopedic' means 'comprehensive in terms of information' so I'm beginning to suspect it was actually an encylopedia joke.
Getting back to the plot if you have time could you check out the new version and see if it makes sense?
The whole point of my addition was to place bald (but incomplete) facts into a context that makes sense of what the article previously implied was an example of typically British muddled thinking. Since there demonstrably was a logical underpinning that explains why a turret fighter might possibly be operated by the pilot in the direct fire role I thought it at least worth airing, with the side-benefit of eliminating the vastly irritating if unvoiced 'Wow, crazy, huh?' conclusion.
The (apparently) contentious aspect of the entire turret fighter imbroglio seems (to me at least) to revolve around the wider issue of responding to the entirely unprecedented new reality of 'lightning war'... so I can't help wondering if there is mileage in mentioning somewhere that in the context of the fall of France all bets were off. If that seems blindingly obvious as matters stand various articles seem to omit the words
'Because no one anticipated that within the design-life of this aircraft, conceived of five years earlier, swarms of high-performance enemy aircraft would be within in range of - to pluck an example out of the ether, London Docks, that's why'.
If that's a little parochial-sounding in mitigation I plead that being an ethnic cockney who grew up on a street in East London with vacant lots nearby called 'bomb sites' I don't find the Blitz the least bit amusing, so the silent snarking was - to say the least - annoying, as is a general trend towards ahistoric revisionism based on twenty-twenty hindsight that is, for the want of a better term, 'unencyclopedic'. As such perhaps the business about the new realities of air defence circa 1939 demands a separate article?
Or addressed in a pre-existing article, assuming it's not already there and only needs finding and linking?
Having fallen foul of the dread guardians of all things Wiki that fly without flapping their wings because I didn't use the right template to describe an aircaft that never got off the drawing board I'm loath to stick my head up over the parapet again (at least until I've done a lot of homework) so for now I hope my revised version is authoritative, well-reasoned and objective, and sufficiently complete it stands alone, rather than being merely as a footnote to the seldom-referenced Schräge Musik article.
~~Ebookomane~~ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ebookomane ( talk • contribs) 15:24, 30 March 2016 (UTC)
~~Ebookomane~~ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ebookomane ( talk • contribs) 10:06, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
Your comments here and here are inappropriate for an article Talk page. You seem to be more focused on me than on the actual sources and contents there - you have not dealt with what the GE reference actually says and what its purpose is, which is to make some argument about when and if Be was used in fluorescent light bulbs, which is not what citations are for in Wikipedia.
You appear to have been attracted to the Talk page via the Talk page of Wtshymansk where I had left an left] a 3RR notice, which appears to be on your watchlist as you have commented there many times; as shortly after I left that you came to the article, which you had never edited before, and reverted me and then shortly after that responded to me at W's Talk page here. That is blatant HOUNDING.
As I did at W's talk page, I will warn you again not to turn Wikipedia into a WP:BATTLEFIELD and do not follow me around picking fights. If you continue to personally attack me at article Talk pages I will bring you to ANI and based on this very clear pattern you will not have a leg to stand on. If you have something to say to me, say at my talk page, and do not abuse article Talk pages going forward. Jytdog ( talk) 18:24, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
Something went weird on my edit to 76 mm gun M1, can you check it is as you expect it to be? Maury Markowitz ( talk) 13:43, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
You currently appear to be engaged in an
edit war according to the reverts you have made on
Berylliosis. Users are expected to
collaborate with others, to avoid editing
disruptively, and to
try to reach a consensus rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.
Please be particularly aware that Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states:
If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing.— Cirt ( talk) 02:11, 2 April 2016 (UTC)
Please see my proposal to speedily rename Category:Defunct villages by country and subcategories to Category:Former villages by country etc. Hugo999 ( talk) 18:43, 2 April 2016 (UTC)
I noticed an edit of yours to the talk page of this article questioning Marc's relevance to WikiProject Railwats or some such. I'd agree, but what struck me is that of all the Wikiprojects he is 'of interest to' there does not seem to be any that relate to the block-making machinery, which to my mind is undoubtedly the most significant of all the many things he worked on. I'm not familiar with all the wikeprojects...any suggestions? TheLongTone ( talk) 13:01, 3 April 2016 (UTC)
I keep the hammer in my pants. ;P (Apologies if you don't appreciate toilet humor, I just couldn't resist.) MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 21:10, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Andy Dingley. 62.255.240.157 ( talk) 11:26, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
![]() |
Thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia. North America 1000 09:08, 7 April 2016 (UTC) |
Thanks! Andy Dingley ( talk) 11:29, 7 April 2016 (UTC)
Dear Andy Dingley,
Thank you very much for your comments about me at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#Cirt and your recent comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jenna Fife.
I really appreciate it.
Very much.
I'm quite sorry if we got off on the wrong foot lately.
I've been thinking about it a lot lately. I entered into the scene at Commons regarding that deletion debate with the sole intention of using WP:OTRS to get to the bottom of that licensing issue. I admit I reacted a bit to the responses there. Perhaps we could have all resolved the issue if we had all had a better more laid-back tone to everything.
I hope perhaps you and I can start afresh and anew.
Thank you very much,
— Cirt ( talk) 12:48, 7 April 2016 (UTC)
Please don't edit within other users comments at ANI.
You did this, twice, at DIFF 1 and again at DIFF 2.
Please stop.
Please instead post, in your own comment, at the bottom of the sect in chronological order.
Thank you,
— Cirt ( talk) 14:52, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
The Hitler reference was auto-generated. I was editing on Firefox and I personally installed a script that changed certain words on a page to "Hitler". This was a joke meant for another site and I didn't pay attention. I will do anything to prove that this was the reason https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/foxreplace/ Ylevental ( talk) 00:29, 9 April 2016 (UTC)
Hi Andy, Many people seems to have complaints about you,that you unnecessary revert the edits, please stop this, if you continue this you may be blocked by the Administrator. Best regards Aftab Banoori ( Talk) 14:54, 11 April 2016 (UTC)
Hello. I noticed that Aftabbanoori got blocked for edit-warring over a low quality snapshot of theirs they were trying to get into an article, so I thought I'd show you that they've been doing this for years, and can't claim they don't know what the rules and standards here are. See this since removed message I posted on their talk page two years ago, after they'd been edit-warring on multiple articles to get a vacation snapshot of theirs into them... Thomas.W talk 14:00, 12 April 2016 (UTC)
Andy - many thanks for looking at the page I created. I have added a couple of citations in the article. Do you think that is enough? There aren't articles about the group or the person that I can cite easily and that are available online. John Grubb 54 ( talk) 15:44, 14 April 2016 (UTC)
Hi Andy - problems uploading this image file as the server did not update very quickly.
[7], I managed to make a fine mess of this one - the current image should be the cropped version. Do you have the access rights to fix it? Cheers Rstory ( talk) 15:25, 15 April 2016 (UTC)
Hey, i know you don't like me, but this was unhelpful to that editor. Instead of pointing them to where they could get what they wanted, you just "stirred the pot." You feel how you feel about me, but please don't let that get in the way of actually helping people who need it. Jytdog ( talk) 17:31, 18 April 2016 (UTC)
More biscuittin socks. many, many more. WP:Sockpuppet investigations/Henry Mazzer/Archive Jytdog ( talk) 15:51, 23 April 2016 (UTC)
Hi Andy, thanks for raising that. At the moment I'm going from List of rivers of England, but am open to improving on that. BTW you may be interested in a discussion questioning these catchment/basin categories at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Rivers. -- Bermicourt ( talk) 07:31, 24 April 2016 (UTC)
I notice that you keep reverting my edits to a talk page, with no attempt to discuss your rationale for re-adding the deleted entries, which are clearly not pertinent to the talk page in question, so I've reverted your edits ~dom Kaos~ ( talk) 13:08, 24 April 2016 (UTC)
"...the left 12.5-inch gun in the forward turret exploded during gunnery practice". Histories state that this was in fact a 12.5 inch gun bored to 12 inches, designated "12-inch 38-ton gun". Your thoughts ? It wouldn't make sense to have different calibre main guns. Rod. Rcbutcher ( talk) 04:41, 27 April 2016 (UTC)
Dude, why did you undo my revision on B-Dienst, specifically putting the link back in for British Naval Cypher No. 3 ? scope_creep ( talk) 17:22:38, 29 April 2016 (UTC)
All things being equal, I think that the point you made was distinct from the rest of the thread and was closed prematurely. The original complaint might have been settled; but yours was a new aspect, and should have been kept open for community discussion. Especially as it specifically related to editor retention- something we are all meant to be concerned about right now! Best, Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi 19:31, 20 May 2016 (UTC)
Hi Andy,
What you thought was an improvement for Baldwin Locomotive Works' "Electric Locomotives" section where you changed N.V.Heemaf had the opposite effect--for it went from "blue" back to "red". I do not like taking issue with sanctioned Wikipedia editors (since a number of them cannot take constructive criticism) but the best method or means of accessing foreign entities is still through the following repeat foreign entity,e.g. N.V.Heemaf. What you did worked for Werkspoor but it did not for N.V. Heemaf so the standard means, as delineated for you supra, is more reliable. Just thought I'd pass it on to you although when you made the change you should have caught what I am now writing to you about. Let me underscore here that before you made the change there wasn't a need for making it since both N.V. Heemaf and Werkspoor both were coming up blue. Why toy with something when there is actually no need for it. Have a great day.
P.S. I noticed when I "save" the foregoing, the "method/means" which I am referring to disappears. If you hit "Edit", you will gain a full understanding of what I am referencing.
— Preceding
unsigned comment added by
SPELMARK6798 (
talk •
contribs) 17:58, 21 May 2016 (UTC)
Hi Andy! More problems on the World Wide Web page - uncited revisions referring to articles in other languages. The same pattern as before. I would be grateful if you have time if you could take a look. I have a lot on my plate at the moment. Would recommend Binkerstenet as an admin if you need advice.
All the best,
( Etheldavis ( talk) 16:13, 26 May 2016 (UTC))
Hi again, Andy! I have contacted Binksternet as Musik Bot, the editor who removed the "pp sock" is on holiday until 30 May. As I say, if you can keep an eye, I would appreciate it.
( Etheldavis ( talk) 16:23, 26 May 2016 (UTC))
Just found this from Tim Berners-Lee, Andy:
After all the conversation on here, I have found this from Tim Berners-Lee himself:
"Some commentators suggest that Robert co-invented the WWW. To set this straight, he did not invent it. It wasn't his idea. He did not write the specifications for UDIs (later to be URLs, then URIs), or for HTML, the hypertext language, nor HTTP, the protocol, or the code of the original implementation. More than a year after my original proposal (March 1989), while I was working on the code, he wrote a proposal to CERN proposing some staff be allocated to the project. This was a brave thing to do, as CERN was always chronically short of manpower for the huge challenges it had taken on. So Robert put himself out there to claim that effort on WWW was worth it."
https://www.w3.org/People/Berners-Lee/FAQ.html (scroll down to section "Robert Cailliau's Role")
( Etheldavis ( talk) 16:55, 26 May 2016 (UTC))
Hello. Could you provide an evidence for your statement Fursuits are broader than furry fandom though, and sports mascots are still part of this article's scope ? — WBR, Postoronniy-13 ( talk) 14:59, 28 May 2016 (UTC)
Hi Andy, Having done a bit of reading about them I was thinking about creating a wp article on the Purton hulks and when searching came across User:Andy Dingley/My created pages/Purton hulks. Are you planning on developing this?— Rod talk 20:37, 23 May 2016 (UTC)
I've now done about as much as I can on this and I'm happy to move it to an article, unless there is anything you would like to add/edit first?— Rod talk 17:58, 26 May 2016 (UTC)
Can you tell me if
File:Purton Hulks Dispatch knee.jpg is what Fell's patent knees look like?—
Rod
talk 20:38, 30 May 2016 (UTC)
![]() |
The Editor's Barnstar |
Thanks for editing the page on Yoke coil newly created by me. RIT RAJARSHI ( talk) 18:25, 1 June 2016 (UTC) |
The Board of Trustees of the Wikimedia Foundation has appointed a committee to lead the search for the foundation’s next Executive Director. One of our first tasks is to write the job description of the executive director position, and we are asking for input from the Wikimedia community. Please take a few minutes and complete this survey to help us better understand community and staff expectations for the Wikimedia Foundation Executive Director.
Thank you, The Wikimedia Foundation Executive Director Search Steering Committee via MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 21:48, 1 June 2016 (UTC)
Over on Wikibooks, I was attempting to write some "pages" that could form the basis of a "free" replacement for an ancient Ladybird book I had called "The Story of Railways".
As I would prefer not to write this entirely myself I was wondering if you were willing to help. At the very least it would be appreciated if you could help review pages (which I've mostly carefully paraphrased from relevant Wikipedia Articles, or my own memory.).
The pages are in my Userspace at Wikibooks - https://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/User:ShakespeareFan00/Rail_Transport_in_Britan
I am not a 'disruptive editor'. I am removing unreferenced material, material that is repetitive, wrong, biased and some that is not even worthy of being in a travel guide - lists of fast food outlets for example. You revert these edits, why? The material removed is simply poor, unrequired and often wrong.
I urge you to stop reverting and add good quality and well sourced and referenced material instead of your current actions which I now consider to be disruptive. 80.195.100.70 ( talk) 13:42, 9 June 2016 (UTC)
Talk:M4 Sherman -- MaxRavenclaw ( talk) 10:56, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
You reverted the whole edit for objection to one phrase. Did you find any value in the parts of the edit? Grammar's Li'l Helper Talk 16:20, 17 June 2016 (UTC)
Hello, Andy Dingley. I see that you've reverted my addition of saw to the "See also" section on the grounds that it was "Already linked". You are correct. I have just now noticed that it was linked in the first paragraph of the article.
I've also noticed that Japanese carpentry is linked in that first paragraph as well. Do you think that it should also be removed from the "See also" section? Thank you for your attention. Akhooha ( talk) 20:10, 18 June 2016 (UTC)
Mr Andy, on you insisting edits of Jupiter Ace page, pushing unproved data into the article, also irrelevant as specification for a computer:
Please do not push data not relevant to a section, nor opinions that cannot be proved, nor information not related to an item. You have been informed, you have ignored the information given, and have made accusations only reflecting your own which to "mark a point". Such is not the purpose of that item page. That was a re-incidence and opposite to all you stated here in this entry.
Your are invited to reconsider your actions, so to be more close to your statements above. A third time will force a formal complaint against those actions. You have been fairly warned. Sign: Factor-h (on a lend computer) 79.168.135.176
Hi there,
I thought I'd give you a link to the section of the MOS that I was talking about in regards to my edit to the Benghazi burner article, just so you can be sure the my edits were well thought-out, and not some random off-hand edit:
Basically, the gist of the guideline is that redirects are generally preferable to piped links (more detail is given in the linked section).
InternetMeme ( talk) 11:16, 19 June 2016 (UTC)
The lock in Hull was not too short. It was too small.
Locks regularly are wider than their lock gates, so two or more ships fit inside next to each other, so that is why the width is relevant. The depth over the sill is relevant too. Ocean going ships of that time barely fit over the sill at a neap high tide, so could traverse the lock only for a very short time each day (if they fit at all).
-- 2001:980:4818:1:200:FF:FE4E:353A ( talk) 13:27, 22 June 2016 (UTC) (Martijn Verwijmeren)
I note that you gave WilliamJE a uw-ew, which he deleted. I've also given him one too. I've added an infobox and navbox to the article. Mjroots ( talk) 18:27, 22 June 2016 (UTC)
![]() |
The Anti-Vandalism Barnstar |
Thank you for reverting the vandal who undos my recent edits. Sro23 ( talk) 15:29, 1 July 2016 (UTC) |
I have restored the latest edit by the Faust Vrančić sock. The image being replaced is more of a cable-stayed design (with the deck having to withstand compression forces longitudinally) than a pure suspension bridge. The new image is of a pure suspension bridge and is a much more appropriate image. I have verified that the image caption is accurate (it is his work and it was published in 1595). Please consider this my edit now rather than an edit by a block evading sock. Meters ( talk) 00:48, 3 July 2016 (UTC)
Hi Andy.
Can you please explain your revert of my edit on this page. As it stands you look to have restored some incorrect information that I removed.
The pages as it stands suggests:
There are a number of problems with this statement:
My edit cleared up this whole mess by simply stating that the M10 tank destroyer (all versions) was based on the M4 chassis, without any of the misnomers and confusion. I realise that the whole M10 = Wolverine, 17pdr M10 = Achilles misconception is really, really widespread but Wikipedia is exactly the kind of place we should be clearing up these kinds of common misconceptions. Thanks. 2p0rk ( talk) 18:44, 4 July 2016 (UTC)
Why are you constantly dedicating yourself from preventing the balkan region from receiving credit for inventions. You are a biggot and fascist. O12j3x ( talk) 14:34, 8 July 2016 (UTC)
Not to mention you are reverting edits on other cultures to keep dubious and unsourced claims under their Category. It's sickening O12j3x ( talk) 14:36, 8 July 2016 (UTC)
I don't know what you are talking about. I just registered to Wikipedia I don't know what you mean by make a case. For what? What is going on? — Preceding unsigned comment added by O12j3x ( talk • contribs) 14:43, 8 July 2016 (UTC)
Do you happen to have more of these? Thanks for uploading! Chicbyaccident ( talk) 11:47, 8 July 2016 (UTC)
I'm not going to get into an edit war over a dumb category, that would be silly of me. But it WAS removed by socks: see [11], [12] etc. But if consensus is to remove than I will leave it alone. Sro23 ( talk) 12:26, 11 July 2016 (UTC)
Just added a note to the talk page about hendos - it seems we are both right, there are versions of the slogan with the "a" and versions without! Not sure how that should be represented on the page. Auto98uk ( talk) 21:31, 11 July 2016 (UTC)
Categorizing systems that use the 6502 under the category for those processors is a bad idea for the obvious reason I had for my edits. And I did not edit-war with you, as per WP:3RR, which states "An editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page—whether involving the same or different material—within a 24-hour period." As you can see, only one revert was performed by me in a 24-hour period: [13]. L9G45AT0 ( talk) 18:52, 17 July 2016 (UTC)
I presume you have heard about The West Country Challenge?
The The West Country Challenge will take place from 8 to 28 August 2016. The idea is to create and improve articles about Bristol, Somerset, Devon, Cornwall and the Isles of Scilly, Dorset, Wiltshire and Gloucestershire.
The format will be based on Wales's successful Awaken the Dragon which saw over 1000 article improvements and creations and 65 GAs/FAs. As with the Dragon contest, the focus is more on improving core articles and breathing new life into those older stale articles and stubs which might otherwise not get edited in years. All contributions, including new articles, are welcome though.
Work on any of the items at:
or other articles relating to the area.
There will be sub contests focusing on particular areas:
To sign up or get more information visit the contest pages at Wikipedia:WikiProject England/The West Country Challenge.— Rod talk 17:17, 18 July 2016 (UTC)
![]() |
Hi! your message lead me towards here :) and yes WP is all about users, its like "What we do makes us learn", and this is what inspire me again and again to do WP editing, and to share knowledge and to dig more to know more. :)
Here a yummy one for you. keep WP-ing up! Cheers :))))) Abhidwip ( talk) 07:14, 20 July 2016 (UTC) |
Thanks for pointing me at WP:ENGVAR -- I'd like to clear up the Z80 and ZX Spectrum articles accordingly... the ZX Spectrum one has a UK pronunciation marked as such. How do I generate those and how best to add it to the ZX Spectrum article, given it is a point of contention? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mattl ( talk • contribs) 17:26, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
Hello,
Thanks for correcting this apparent error [14]. It appears that Clue bot previously reverted this same edit by this same IP [15]. So, I figured Clue bot was correct. I guess not --- Steve Quinn ( talk) 02:07, 25 July 2016 (UTC)
I'm interested in your recent statement on the Science RefDesk:
Do you have sources for this? As I mentioned, I've been working on the toilet-related articles, and more information would be handy. Thanks! Carbon Caryatid ( talk) 13:45, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
G'day, I can easily find scholarly references for the use of "they" in its various forms in referring to an organization in spoken English - and do it myself all the time. I cannot find references stating it is acceptable in written English and can find plenty stating that it is not; in other words, "them" and its variants is colloquial English. If you can find somewhere that states we write in colloquial English, or that "them" is acceptable in formal English, I will happily stop spending time making the change. Just as an aside, apparently the Financial Times invariably uses "it" when describing organisations. YSSYguy ( talk) 01:41, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
Looking at your talk page here with all the other posts of people upset at your demeanor, it's all too evident that you have serious personal issues. Does agitating wiki contributors by removing their educational contributions give you some sort of sick pleasure?
You senselessly removed my post on the Graphite page while offering only this explanation: "This is worse than it was when added"
If you can't make useful contributions and don't have a life of your own, then look for it elsewhere outside Wikipedia, and refrain from harassing others who are sane and helpful contributors. You apparently don't even know how to make a meaningful sentence based on your comment. Who put you in charge of editing? ( The shaman poet ( talk) 00:50, 11 July 2016 (UTC))
I've been away for a while, particularly cause Vsmith also agitated me as you did for not using his head, where ever it was stuck up in! Don't look over other people's shoulder when making decisions and learn to think independently.
As for providing sources, you apparently didn't get good quality education if you think sourcing is required for making comparisons. That's called analytical thinking. Make a note of it. The facts stated within the comparisons are in the Diamond and Graphite articles. Why are you so clueless?
Please do the right thing and replace my contribution. It is not meant for my ego. It was meant to intrigue the reader about the vast contrasts or natural irony created by the mineral's environment of formation, as was stated. ( The shaman poet ( talk) 02:39, 12 July 2016 (UTC))
You just proved my point that you are not fit for editing by offering distractions rather than addressing the issues at hand. Obviously, it is your ego that is creating a conflict, not mine. As I pointed out in the beginning, You have issues with a lot of people here. Not just skin, you also have a thick skull!
I'll leave you to your self pleasure. — Preceding unsigned comment added by The shaman poet ( talk • contribs) 00:26, 15 July 2016 (UTC)
re your reversal [19] and similar ones. In the es you refer to "per our policy for lead articles in eponymous categories". However, this categorisation is not putting the eponymous article in the eponymous category. (The eponymous category is Category:10¼ in gauge railways, which is served OK). It is putting the article in the parent category. For this, WP:CAT#Eponymous categories is not set in stone but it offers three options: in cat parent, child, or both. I prefer the third one (article only in eponymous cat), as in the container category it would add no extra. (As we did not do in this category, for example). - DePiep ( talk) 07:09, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
Do you have any problems with anything I have done at Semi-trailer truck other than numbers? Sammy D III ( talk) 17:30, 31 July 2016 (UTC)
Laber□ T 19:30, 3 August 2016 (UTC)
Hi, I see you are a top contributor in "List of Arduino boards and compatible systems" How about including List of Arduino boards in Wikidata?
This would let to structure all this information because we should be able to use propierties like these https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Wikidata:WikiProject_Objects.
Maybe would be good to add a new column in tables with the links to wikidata items like this https://tools.wmflabs.org/reasonator/?q=Q25814150 or create list directly from wikidata
I start creating some list examples:
If you like, you can get more info in the WikiObject project proposal https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/WikiObject.
Qupro ( talk) 13:17, 10 August 2016 (UTC)
sincerely
LookingGlass ( talk) 15:45, 21 August 2016 (UTC)
If you disrupt this SPI again, you risk being blocked.-- Bbb23 ( talk) 18:00, 21 August 2016 (UTC)
Hi Andy, would you mind reviewing RiskAoA as a candidate for keeping/deletion? Thanks. 74.96.151.44 ( talk) 03:00, 21 August 2016 (UTC)
Andy, I'd be happy to tell you everything I can about RiskAoA, unfortunately it can't be much over the wikisite. GESICC@aol.com. GESICC ( talk) 22:45, 21 August 2016 (UTC)
why did you do this Varun FEB2003 I am Offline 13:52, 23 August 2016 (UTC)
I was wondering if there is any way that you and I could become civil in this life time and work together? Perhaps discuss my Contributions. I'm sure many times you will be able to prove against my claims and that would teach me. I don't understand why there has to be so much animosity. Everything I add is researched and sourced. If I or my source is mistaken at times, I appreciate the advice. Is there a chance of this or am I going for a long shot? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.114.54.122 ( talk) 11:49, 22 August 2016 (UTC)
I'm not sure why you refuse to acknowledge Brayton's contributions to the development of the diesel engine? These are documented contributions... Imotorhead64 ( talk · contribs) 18:02, 24 August 2016 (UTC)
In 1890 Brayton patented a 4 stroke engine with an air blast fuel injection system that would contribute greatly to the development of the first Diesel engine. Diesel's first engines used an air blast atomization system that was very similar to Brayton's . Unlike Diesel's engine Brayton's engine was fairly low compression. The ignition source was a constantly glowing mesh of platinum. Later Diesel engines used a system of high pressure fuel injection nearly identical to Brayton's 1887 engine where the fuel was admitted into the combustion area as it passed through a spring loaded relief nozzle, This caused the fuel to become much more combustable. Here is the discovery in Brayton's own words " “I have discovered that heavy oils can be mechanically converted into a finely-divided condition within a firing portion of the cylinder, or in a communicating firing chamber.” Another part reads “I have for the first time, so far as my knowledge extends, regulated speed by variably controlling the direct discharge of liquid fuel into the combustion chamber or cylinder into a finely-divided condition highly favorable to immediate combustion.”
Hello. Dear Andy leather is not only Important in Kermanshah province. it's a souvenir. -- Hosseiniran ( talk) 10:15, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
that when you message an admin about the actions of an admin, or those of an established editor, you never get a reply. When I was blocked due to the blocking admin miscounting the amount of reverts that I made, it took a report on ANI to get some acknowledgement of my existence.
Wikipedia used to be a good place. Spacecowboy420 ( talk) 13:59, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
I suggest you read it. Your tagging on John's talk page was unnessersary. Cassianto Talk 20:54, 24 August 2016 (UTC)
[ [20]]
[ [21]]
[ [22]]
Spacecowboy420 ( talk) 10:23, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
Sorry, no offense meant. Some people might like to know the actual name of the school that they are referencing. Maybe not quite the way some people at a fine northern California school feel about people calling it Berzerkeley, but Caltech people like to see the name the right way. But maybe you were talking about some other school that I don't know about. Gah4 ( talk) 17:20, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
"Didn't you notice my
question? Your answer is very important for me, but for you - a native English speaker - should be very easy.
Perhaps you ignore me, but why?
Regards.
85.193.252.33 (
talk) 21:28, 27 August 2016 (UTC)
My wording "is being poured" emphasizes a continuous aspect of the process. After all a liquid material is being poured gradually. On the other hand such an emphasis may sound a bit artificial. So I am willing to agree with you. But what was wrong with grammar? 85.193.252.33 ( talk) 01:20, 24 August 2016 (UTC)
I'm very, very sorry for adding an s to "verandas". TheGGoose ( talk) 13:57, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
Yes, you're right and you're right again. I did follow through up to the Maybach Zeppelin. Its just I preferred the simple English. It always interests me the the clear visual links between the very big German cars and the English Daimlers, sometimes its almost down to small differences in the grille. Thanks, Eddaido ( talk) 11:32, 30 August 2016 (UTC)
I added references to Paint robot that are published by corporations in the industry, but seem better than nothing for now. There were pre-existing links that seem like pure spam, as I mention on the article talk page. Could you look at the article and see if the references I added are worth while and what I consider spam should really be removed? - Fartherred ( talk) 21:54, 30 August 2016 (UTC)
See TALK page for article. 66.103.35.72 ( talk) 13:03, 5 September 2016 (UTC) Update - Andy, look at my talk page, please. 66.103.35.72 ( talk) 15:30, 5 September 2016 (UTC)
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Spindle turning, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Stool. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot ( talk) 09:34, 9 September 2016 (UTC)
Hi, You reverted Parallel twins usually have only two main bearings, and a crankshaft flywheel is usually mounted between the two crank throws. I rather thought that this was indeed the case for both traditional British 360° twins and the post-1965 Japanese 180° engines. Is this not so? Arrivisto ( talk) 09:04, 18 August 2016 (UTC)
Hi, did you notice that my edit, that you reverted, was itself a reversion of the addition of unsourced information earlier today? I've looked back through the page history, and far from being "incessant", the sentence concerned was first added on 23 January 2011 and stood completely unaltered (not even the vandals touched it) until today. -- Redrose64 ( talk) 20:23, 11 September 2016 (UTC)
![]() |
I am now convinced that none of the socking I've seen is your responsibility, and I'm sorry about our past misunderstandings. I'm sure you have always acted in good faith, and I share your frustration that some characters appear to be given free rein to damage the project as much as they like. I hope some brownie will help relieve the smell of socks. Burninthruthesky ( talk) 06:34, 15 September 2016 (UTC) |
Thank you for your comment. If you don't mind, we can continue the discussion on my talkpage. -- BjKa ( talk) 13:02, 9 September 2016 (UTC)
I'll be away for a few days, so I can't continue the discussion right away, but I want to say thanks for engaging in a constructive dispute instead of just reverting. I find that kind of behaviour much too rarely. (see the latest version of the article and my talkpage) -- BjKa ( talk) 14:35, 9 September 2016 (UTC)
I'm back. Have you seen my proposal of 2016-09-09 ? -- BjKa ( talk) 08:34, 16 September 2016 (UTC)
Hi. You just reverted my edit in the HOTAS article. I noticed it was lacking images, and this one was the best that I could find. There's actually a lack of good photos of flight control sticks on Commons, and the few that are there don't illustrate the HOTAS concept very well. This schematic drawing of the F-16 control stick (with the F-16 being the only model mentioned twice in the text) does. You said "Wrong controller". I double-checked if the image actually shows the F-16's side conttol stick, and it does. So I don't understand the revert comment. Would you mind explaining it? Thank you. -- YMS ( talk) 22:50, 17 September 2016 (UTC)
I am not interested in your attitude [23]. And, the article is written like a tech manual - it is a really badly written article, just awful. I'll be giving the ALL the references a closer look now. In any case, please knock off the attitude. You're not better than everyone else. Steve Quinn ( talk) 20:05, 19 September 2016 (UTC)
Hi Andy,
I've updated the talk page on AVRE with information and quotes from the references I added. I think you probably missed them and just saw the forum one, which I can understand you not liking. Can you take a look, and if you're happy reinstate the changes that I'd made (or at least give me a heads up) - there's no point in an undo-war. I'm looking at original documents from the source of the term, and I also have the one from the same time with the typo that caused the confusion over the term. Happy to share info.
Thanks, Lauren Lkchild ( talk) 22:10, 21 September 2016 (UTC)
can u look at talk page there ? I found schematics for 10TP tank and told it was no Christie.... But with your clarification I am not so sure. Maybe they used unlicensed Christie afterall.... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.111.232.2 ( talk) 20:37, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
You know nothing about bridges and thus should not be reverting me. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.199.236.1 ( talk) 12:44, 29 September 2016 (UTC)
Your recent editing history at Drawbridge shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.
Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.
Stop reverting my good-faith edits to the page. I am an expert on bridges and you clearly are not. Please stop. 50.199.236.1 ( talk) 14:19, 29 September 2016 (UTC)
Hi Andy, any idea how I get the citations in the Ex Links section to go up the page to References - I guess there must be a formatting trick somewhere? Many thanks 80.229.34.113 ( talk) 11:13, 29 September 2016 (UTC)
A claim in the text.<ref >Some stuff about an external source.</ref>
Another claim in the text.<ref name="Bloggs, 23" >Bloggs, J. ''Witterings'', p.23</ref>
More claims.<ref name="Bloggs, 23" />
name=
attribute (above) and use this to move all the refs themselves to one long list at the bottom, inside the {{
reflist}}.{{reflist |refs=
<ref name="Bloggs, 23" >Bloggs, J. ''Witterings'', p.23</ref>
<ref name="Arkwright, 42" >Arkwright, J. ''My Book'' (1989), p.42</ref>
}}
<ref>
tags! Citations will use an empty tag (with a slash at the end), <ref ... />
|ref=harv
into the {{
cite book}}. This gives the reference an "internal" name which the citations can then use. |ref=harv
is shorthand for |ref={{harvid|<Author surname>|<year of publication>}}
|ref={{harvid|Arkwright|1989}}
|last=Arkwright |first=J.
not |author=Arkwright ,J.
harv
' doesn't work (e.g. no obvious author surname, or the year is better as an original publication, not the cheap modern edition, use {{
harvid}} and control the params yourself, e.g. |ref={{harvid|Machinery's Handbook|1942}}
.{{sfnp|Arkwright|1989| page= 42 }}
Arkwright (1989), p. 42
{{sfn|The Epic of Gilgamesh}}
.<ref>
business for you. There are also {{
harvp}} / {{
harvnb}} which do the same but don't wrap it up in <ref>
s, so that you can work with the bare result. It's called {{
harvnb}} ("no brackets") rather than {{
harv}} because "harv" was already in use.|ref=harv
business.<ref>
tags. You can also embed citations inside an {{
efn-lr}}, so that you can source your comments.References
You have created three categories Category:Rocket engines using hydrogen peroxide propellant, Category:Rocket engines using hot cycle hydrogen peroxide propellant and Category:Rocket engines using cold cycle hydrogen peroxide propellant. They have some issues that I would like to discuss with you.
First, and this is something I should rise on a more general forum, they categories under "by propellant" are wrong. A bi-propellant, has a fuel and an oxidizer. So in general, hydrogen, methane and kerosene categories are wrong. But at least they are consistent in that they are named by fuel, not oxidizer. Hydrogen Peroxide is the oxidizer, not the fuel. If so we should also add categories for oxygen and nitric acid. Which I don't think that it would be productive.
Then, there's the issue that you mixed "hot cycle" and "cold cycle" as sub categories. Again, two issues. First, that you are mixing cycle with propellant. And second that you haven't defined what is a hot cycle nor a cold cycle. There's not article and no literature. May be you meant by "hot cycle" the steam generator cycle, where H2O2 is decomposed by a catalyst? If so, I've meant to write about steam generators in general, but I was still trying to see if I should fit them within the gas-generator for the open cycles (like the RD-107) and within the staged generator for the closed cycles (like the Bristol Siddeley Gamma).
So, if you could explain me the rationale of your categories, I think we could do something to arrange them in a more logical way. – Baldusi ( talk) 00:17, 30 September 2016 (UTC)
Hi, I disagree with you reverting my quite comprehensive edits. The articles were both terribly outdated and I have made an effort to improve them. I will continue to do this to the best of my ability with other Bristol and South Glos area articles. Your reversions do not help to improve the articles. If you want to join in and contribute positively that would be great, particularly finding some good references for both pages. Thanks :) Trunky ( talk) 12:27, 1 October 2016 (UTC)
Hello Andy, I am Kain, I am also from the
UK like you, I see you have done a lot of edits, but still why you don't have the administrator post in Wikipedia.
Gandalf the Wizard •
Talk 9:07, 3 October 2016 (UTC)
![]() |
The Anti-Vandalism Barnstar |
For rescuing Edward Jenner's article from getting messed up. -- AI RPer ( talk) 11:12, 6 October 2016 (UTC) |
I suspect it's about time to knock out the issues with Victoria bridge. Want to take a pass at it? Anmccaff ( talk) 18:04, 4 October 2016 (UTC)
There are many edits that require using an alternative account, and twelve are clearly outlined at WP:VALIDALT. I have and expect to edit using both the first two reasons and the eleventh. This account racked up 5,000 edits for two reasons, I wanted become an Admin and would use this account as an admin account (users with multiple accounts have to choose only one for admin actions), and to edit solar articles. The only reason I am requesting what is really a standard offer, is so that while I will likely make less than 5 edits a month (out of the perhaps 1,000?? edits I make), I can use my primary account to make them. I have created 176 articles but likely will not be creating any more from this alternative account, but instead will use my primary account, and not even make any edits from this account for the foreseeable future, and have thus marked my user page. But that means that for reasons of security and privacy I can not edit any solar accounts. As an admin account must be publicly linked to your primary account I did for a while link my primary account but as one of the primary reasons for creating this account was privacy that sort of throws that out the window, so now it is just listed as being an alternative account, and I will be sending an email to Arb to notify them of the link when the restrictions are listed. Until they are I am unable to edit any semi protected solar accounts. I think everyone thought I would just use this for everything but that simply is not viable. I value my privacy too much. I have never told anyone ( IRL) of these two accounts and never will. With only 0–4 edits (combined) to check each month monitoring my edits will not take much time.
I have settled into a task far more important than being an admin and it is all consuming of my available wiki time for now. A picture is worth a thousand words. One of the SVGs I translated is used in 93 projects and is translated into about 150 languages. That one edit took me about four months to insert the roughly 7,500 word translations, but now that it is done can be used in each of those languages in native language, and it would probably not take more than an hour for anyone to add another language. Prior to that there were 39 languages that it were available in, in separate files. Now only one or a few of those are still necessary, as technical limitations prohibits including two variants of a language, such as Simplified and Traditional Chinese. Apteva ( talk) 22:38, 6 October 2016 (UTC)
I don't think this is best known for, I think it's Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Mikemikev/Archive. Doug Weller talk 16:20, 8 October 2016 (UTC)
You have observed that Bleed valve is a blue link. It is coming up as a red link on my system. Clicking on it invites me to create an article (standard behaviour for a red link). However, doing a search confirms the article exists. Any ideas as to what is going on here? --Elektrik Fanne 16:12, 9 October 2016 (UTC)
The source is published on lulu.com, the well-known vanity press. The statement that running round a train has become known as running round a train, which is the obvious name that nobody had to coin because that was what it was always called, does not even need stating, let alone sourcing to a self-published book. Guy ( Help!) 00:06, 12 October 2016 (UTC)
Category:Lethbridge baronets, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. A discussion is taking place to see if it abides with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. HandsomeFella ( talk) 19:02, 13 October 2016 (UTC)
Thanks for reverting my bad river edit. Hmains ( talk) 22:54, 22 October 2016 (UTC)
There is no such category. If you want to make one, that is fine, but nothing is achieved by putting a file in a non-existent category. Rathfelder ( talk) 17:00, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
I would welcome your contribution to my recent post on the talk page for this article. Pinkbeast ( talk) 00:51, 2 November 2016 (UTC)
Thanks for your support; unfortunately somebody seems to have nobbled the Department of Transport already, judging by a couple of recent Written Answers: Rolling Stock North West Railways: Overcrowding I haven't checked what the tale is on other lines/Lines. Rjccumbria ( talk) 22:24, 5 November 2016 (UTC)
Andy, what do you think about the latest addition here: Model Engineering current version changes. I'm not too happy about it, because it seems to be too many words and puffery ('unique', 'the finest'). Also I don't think it is in the spirit of the section on 'information sources' (more about mags and shows), and perhaps ought to just go in as a brief mention along with the Internet Craftsmanship Museum, already listed under 'notable model engineers'. I don't want to be too "get off my turf", so What do you think? Stringybark ( talk) 05:25, 10 November 2016 (UTC)
"Tatutaki Maru class". May be right, but in the absence of a reference I don't understand your edit comment. Davidships ( talk) 12:54, 8 November 2016 (UTC)
Please stop undoing edits on Coanda's plane. His plane was powered by a centrifugal compressor. It's a completely different principle than that of a ducted fan, ff's sake! Check the drawings and pictures of Coanda's engine, then look at some ducted fans (propellers within a duct). A ducted fan can propel without the duct, a centrifugal compresson can not propel without one.
Edited, removed the uncivilites. My point still stays. Please avoid the classification "ducted fan" when it's not one. Please write arguments for why you think it's one, including at least one example of a similar ducted fan, before adding the text in the article. Thank you. Florinbaiduc 13:44, 11 November 2016 (UTC)
Hi Andy, do you have any idea whether Benjamin Hick's use of wheel discs (or disc wheels) on his 3 cylinder engine is the first aerodynamic device on a locomotive? I know wheel discs were used on Edwardian cars and aeroplanes. Regards 80.229.34.113 ( talk) 14:39, 10 October 2016 (UTC)
Just because I'm interested, I get that Cumberland Basin was built to give straighter acess to the tidal Avon at its downriver end. What I'm a bit confused about is why there wasn't just a canal-and-locks dug through when the river was damned at Underfall creating the harbor? Was it to create more docks further down the harbor? From what I understand, it was originally built as its own lock as it was locked off at its eastern end, too, which also confuses me. -- Criticalthinker ( talk) 19:22, 8 November 2016 (UTC)
OK, really last warning. Next time you do this i will seek, and will very likely get, a one-way interaction ban. Jytdog ( talk) 01:53, 13 November 2016 (UTC)
{{
unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}
.
Bishonen |
talk 09:11, 13 November 2016 (UTC)Hi Andy, this is Martin of Sheffield. In standard British English "orientated" would be used, see the etymology on the Wiktionary page. "Oriented" is a near synonym and would be the correct term for American English, but IKB was this side of the pond. Regards, Martin of Sheffield ( talk) 00:06, 15 November 2016 (UTC)
Hello, Andy Dingley. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority 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 in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)
Thanks for the revert to Talk:Atmel AVR. Just to clarify, I wanted to mark it "resolved" somehow so readers wouldn't be alarmed by the notice. (Per my usual policy, when I follow a link from WP and notice it's showing upated info which conflicts with the source, I try to fix WP.) Since it's not a discussion about Atmel AVR itself, and in fact there is no discussion there except for the bot-generated notice, that's why I decided it was simplest to outright rm it.
I realize there's tension with the letter of WP:TPO, but I thought that because there was no discussion being harmed, I was respecting the spirit. As the lead of WP:TPO says, it's a guideline subject to common sense and occasional exceptions, which I thought applied. The notice is phrased in an attention-getting way, but attention is no longer needed or wanted and wastes editors' time and energy. I would still like to mark the notice as moot in some way. Can you suggest something? (E.g. Is there a way to ask an auto-archiving bot to archive just a particular section? Is it okay to edit the archive page to manually add a section?) 71.41.210.146 ( talk) 21:49, 8 December 2016 (UTC)
As an editor who has been repeatedly
blocked for harassment, I thought you might know the policy by now. Yesterday, a user was checkuser-blocked for sockpuppetry. You then posted
this message on their talk page. See
WP:HA#NOT: "Unfounded accusations of harassment may be considered a serious
personal attack and dealt with accordingly." Did you know the true identity of this block-evader when you
suggested I should be blocked for reporting them?
Burninthruthesky (
talk) 08:45, 8 December 2016 (UTC)
The Mediation Committee has received a request for formal mediation of the dispute relating to "Traian Vuia's flight described ad "Power Hops" although the wording is not used in similar achievements from other pioneers of flight". 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 16 December 2016.
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. 19:42, 9 December 2016 (UTC)
The request for formal mediation concerning Traian Vuia's flight described ad "Power Hops" although the wording is not used in similar achievements from other pioneers of flight, 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) 23:55, 9 December 2016 (UTC)
(Delivered by
MediationBot,
on behalf of the Mediation Committee.)
Is there a particular reason why Bastian Schweinsteiger is not allowed to be in the article? Kingjeff ( talk) 22:12, 15 December 2016 (UTC)
You might be interested in this. Oculi ( talk) 11:13, 16 December 2016 (UTC)
There is currently a discussion at
Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is
Please check this discussion. Thank you.
DePiep (
talk) 12:22, 17 December 2016 (UTC)
Hello
How do you do?
The is a point in the careers of all of us editor when we reach a point that we have to fill in a bunch of fields but doing so is too time-consuming. There are editors who leave the fields empty or write "{{ dunno}}". These editors are called honest. But there are editors who step over a thin line that separates the good from the evil and try to fill all the fields with elusive words like "cross-platform", "multilingual", "cross-language" and "scientists say" to give the impression that they did a full job. Those editors are called liars.
Now I don't normally go around Wikipedia saying these things; it is not very civil to put names on editors I never met. But when you perform a blanket revert in violation of WP:V, WP:NOTDIR, WP:WEASEL and MOS:COMPUTING, restore all those dishonest non-informative statements, and even go as far as calling "what's the opposite of a constructive edit? That.", it is then that I feel either you aren't entirely aware of what you are doing, or you have a lot of explaining to do.
Best regards,
Codename Lisa (
talk) 15:11, 16 December 2016 (UTC)
It seems that instead of looking for a resolution, you are looking for fight. Revert #756027176 was a particularly mean display of contempt and had a refusal to get the point in its edit summary. I am not looking for a fight but I don't sit on my hand and see Wikipedia vandalized by you. If you want to go to ANEW as you have threatened, go. I won't beg you not to.
— Codename Lisa ( talk) 07:31, 22 December 2016 (UTC)
Andy, thanks for looking out for the Corvette Leaf Spring article. Sadly I think we are dealing with HughD's sock edits. I'm sure HughD isn't happy that I had a hand in his 6 month block (ends this month) as well as other editing restrictions. I noticed that the pattern of edits and edit comments on both the Corvette Leaf Spring article as well as the Eddie Eagle (NRA related) article were similar. The EE edits only started after I got involved with the page. The IP addresses were initially all from the Chicago area. Now we are seeing a number of "Amazon Technologies" IPs from around the world. The Amazon IPs are clear proxy. Anyway, I think proving that HughD is behind the IP edits would be hard but if this continues I think asking for semi-protected status would be the right thing in this case. Anyway, thanks for the reverts! Springee ( talk) 19:03, 22 December 2016 (UTC)
From the icy Canajian north; to you and yours!
FWiW Bzuk (
talk) 00:51, 27 December 2016 (UTC)
![]() |
Merry Christmas & Happy New Year! |
Thank you for helping make Wikipedia a better place. Blessings. May we all have peace in the coming year. 7&6=thirteen ( ☎) 00:53, 27 December 2016 (UTC) |
Hi. Regarding the change to Slack Roman Fort ref Cambodunum to Camulodunum. Firstly thanks for making the change. Secondly Cambodunum (not Cambodonum) is mentioned by Pastscape here as a different fort entirely - hence me requiring citation originally. Thirdly the disambiguation page for Cambodunum needs to be updated accordingly or removed as it incorrectly cites Slack as Cambodunum. Wyrm ( talk) 11:46, 27 December 2016 (UTC)
Please see Talk:British narrow gauge slate railways. I opened a formal move discussion and assume you want to comment. Thanks, EdJohnston ( talk) 03:09, 31 December 2016 (UTC)
I shall not revert your reversion as I have less than no interest in edit-warring, but I am curious what you think is misleading about the substance of my edit. From my perspective, at worst it clutters the lede slightly with qualifying language, but at best it eliminates the possible misconception in the reader that "HTML" is technically uniform. Perhaps we should ask Talk:HTML for their take? Arlo James Barnes 01:48, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
I left some more questions for you at Wikipedia:Reference_desk/Science#What_is_string?. The Transhumanist 07:29, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
Please carefully read this information:
The Arbitration Committee has authorised discretionary sanctions to be used for pages regarding the English Wikipedia Manual of Style and article titles policy, a topic which you have edited. The Committee's decision is here.
Discretionary sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimize disruption to controversial topics. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to the topic that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behavior, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. This message is to notify you that sanctions are authorised for the topic you are editing. Before continuing to edit this topic, please familiarise yourself with the discretionary sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions.While I don't agree with the alarming wording/tone of this WP:ARBCOM template, ArbCom does not permit us to modify it. I'm leaving this informational notice about the applicability of discretionary sanctions to "article title and Manual of Style discussions, broadly construed" (per the WP:ARBATC ArbCom case) because of your comment: "Oppose Just because you've just avoided a TBAN for these moves because the ANI thread was archived without action does NOT mean that there is support for your mindless imposition of a styleguide over the established names of external bodies." This is precisely the kind of ad hominem personalization of a title/style dispute, WP:BATTLEGROUNDING, and casting of mental WP:ASPERSIONS that lead ArbCom to enable discretionary sanctions to be applied to style/title disputes in the first place.
It also doesn't even make sense: the ANI against Dicklyon and these moves has not concluded with any finding of any fault on that person's part, and is not likely to (and it has not been archived yet). It is also not about RM discussions like the one in which you are inappropriately venting; it is about manual, undiscussed moves. WP:RM is the prescribed process for moves that may be controversial; using RM is not itself controversial, by definition. Your personal disagreement with the proposed move and dislike of the proponent is not an valid oppose rationale, which should be based on sources or policy. Given that the proposal is for compliance with guidelines, and based on the source usage being inconsistent, it's unclear what actual objection you would raise. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 14:57, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
I made an edit to an article which did several things: 1. rewrote archaic language in normal English 2. replaced non-free text with free text. 3. removed the opinion of a writer 4. removed a tautology.
You undid all of these changes, without explaining why. Your edit summary simply said "restore quote", which does not even explain why you did restore the quote, let alone why you felt it necessary to undo the other changes. If in the future you see a reason to undo someone's edit, please leave an adequate explanation. 128.40.9.164 ( talk) 18:30, 18 January 2017 (UTC)