User talk:AndrewDressel/Archive 5

Archive 1

←

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

DYK for Quality Bicycle Products

On January 5, 2010, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Quality Bicycle Products, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits your article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check ) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 06:00, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Calliper vs. caliper

Oops, and sorry! I am familiar with tire vs. tyre and (I think) left it unchanged. I am also aware of kerb/curb, aluminum/aluminium, etc., but had missed calliper/caliper. I'll go have a look to fix it (if it is not already repaired). Thanks for the English lesson. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pardo (talk • contribs) 04:09, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Permission for a picture

Hi Andrew Dressel

A friend of mine worte a PhD thesis and asked me to publish it. It is entitled: THE ROLE OF THE CHURCH IN POLITICS IN MALAWI THE USE OF THEOLOGICAL MODELS A CASE STUDY OF THE CCAP, BLANTYRE SYNOD

I am doing the cover design and we would like to use either the picture called: St Michael and All Angels Church facade, Blantyre, Malawi.JPG or St Michael and All Angels Church.JPG wich you made availabel on wikipedia. Excellent shots may I say.

You make these pictures available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 License. Which is wonderful. I am also a person who loves the Creative commons idea as well as the open source world.

Since the Book is a PhD Thesis the copyright can not be given over to a share alike license. So we could only use your picture if you give us the right to do so. We have no problem giving popper attribution and credit to you for supplying the pictures.

We are intending to print about 200-400 copies of the book over time. The market is not very big as it is an academic work.

So our humble question is would you be so kind and give us permission to use the pictures on the cover of the book. It would be wonderful if we could do that and it would help us a great deal.

Please be so kind and answer me on mjung@acadsa.co.za

Manfred Jung managing Director AcadSA Publishing Tel +27 11 976 4044 email info@acadsa.co.za —Preceding unsigned comment added by 196.210.251.202 (talk) 23:16, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

DYK for St Michael and All Angels Church, Blantyre, Malawi

Hello! Your submission of St Michael and All Angels Church, Blantyre, Malawi at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and there still are some issues that may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! --TitanOne (talk) 13:20, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

On February 6, 2010, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article St Michael and All Angels Church, Blantyre, Malawi, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits your article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check ) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Materialscientist (talk) 18:00, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Just wanted to say the photos of the church provided are very impressive. very delightful article. Ottawa4ever (talk) 19:27, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

SORRY —Preceding unsigned comment added by Babiesloverabies (talk • contribs) 19:07, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

DYK for Electronic gear-shifting system

On February 21, 2010, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Electronic gear-shifting system, which you created or substantially edited. You are welcome to check how many hits your article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check ) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Materialscientist (talk) 00:19, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Just passing through

You want an update of this?

Noticed your recent edit to Troy, New York and, seeing that you weren't a regular editor, went to check out your user page. Surprised to find you're one of the founders of MapInfo. Not sure how long you were there, but I just want to say that MapInfo has done some great things for public education around here. I was in the New Visions engineering/science class a while back and you guys (when you were still MapInfo) were nice enough to bring us around the HQ and show us what you do. Then you floored me when I heard TVHS would be moving in... for free. I was able to take a tour of the school last year (I'm on a local school board and we send three students there) and it was more than fantastic; wish I had that for high school when I was still in school. Just wanted to offer a sincere and completely random thank you to you and the company. And if you weren't there at that point, just know that MapInfo did some good things for local public education. And thanks. upstateNYer 16:30, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Actually just finished snow blowing and we apparently have a couple more days of the white stuff ahead of us. No complaints here though; I got an unheard-of snow day because safety is our #1 priority... and we've only gotten like 10 inches the entire winter (not counting this). Anyway, I assume you want a more modern photo of the one I just posted here. Can do. Would you like me to wait until summer or does it not matter what season it's taken in? I typically don't do any photography in the winter unless its relevant to the subject. If you're ever in need of photos, let me know, or you can leave a request at WP:NYCD's image request page. upstateNYer 18:38, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Westwood rim

Thanks, got the whole set! May do disc-specific rim? Moebiusuibeom-en (talk) 15:59, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

OK, Disc-specific and Deep V, both in alloy, witch will show different wall thicknesses, that should cover it all, but i have to fit it in my schedule and it may take a month or so!

... gotcha! Added three pics to the bicycle wheel article, Andrew, if you think, we could remove the Westwood rim since its in the Westwood rim article already.

countersteering reply

your reply broke up the original message. In other words, it's hard to tell that it's ABABABAB, it could be ABCBDBEB, where you are 'B'. Can you refactor your reply so it doesn't happen in the middle of the original? tedder (talk) 16:23, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Aerial photography by Kite

I don't know why you have black listed my page about History aerial photography. It's not only for have a link... But it' a real work about this subject !! The link is : http://www.wokipi.com/decouverte/aerialpicture.html Thanks to see the link befor to delete it !! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kitegibsongirl (talk • contribs) 14:02, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

I have removed the link you added to solar balloon again as link spam per Wikipedia:EL#Links_normally_to_be_avoided item #1 "Any site that does not provide a unique resource beyond what the article would contain if it became a featured article." I have looked at the site again and, besides it being written in poor English, I do not see any content that shouldn't be in the article instead. Please do not add the link again. -AndrewDressel (talk) 14:15, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Sprint rims

"Sprint" is a "British and international" name for tubular rims, in ther USA rims for tubulars are nameless!

Cheers – Moebiusuibeom-en (talk) 14:30, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Hey Andrew – Here catalogue of Raleigh North America clearly describes Tubular rims as Sprint Rims → Raleigh-Catalog, it is also used sparingly in old american catalogues, perhaps it may be a forgotten term. Also remember being in France and Spain and having heard them referred to it as Jantes and Llantas “Sprint”, anyway, it's straightened up already. Regards – Moebiusuibeom-en (talk) 16:09, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Hey Andrew, how you doing, in regards to the Tubular tyre article, the brits call them “Tubs”, not Tub, a Tub is a Bathing Tub! I wouldn't call it a slang, Tubs are part of their vernacular just as sew–ups in the US, and furthermore, Tubular tires fit “Sprint rims”, there is no such thing as Tubular rims, “Sprint rims” is what it is written in every technical publication “directed to the international market”!, (which I believe there isn't many). “Clinchers” is also a very American term and the correct name is “Wired–on” and lastly, “tire” is the word that should be used. (Tubular tyre → Tubular tire)

All of these little details would conform to Internacionalism, subdue Regionalism, and bring consonance and harmony with all English Speaking Folk! — Moebiusuibeom-en (talk) 14:46, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Hey, i may sound sarcastic, critical, or harsh myself, but we are all learning and it′s fun, we just got to keep open minded!

I wouldn't rely too much on manufacturers or advertisers on word nomenclatures, concentrating on writers and professionals in the field may be a better idea, we just got to get the references in order, a lot of terminology has also been lost by being out of usage, “Sprint” for example never made it to the US as it did in the rest of the world, Brits being also giant exporters of bikes, and Schwinn bikes dominating the Americam market, though we did get “Roadsters” with “Westwood” rims and “North Road” handlebars, and folks then threwed them out for mountain bikes with flat bars, and now these vintage heavy weights are back cause they make sense in the urbe, terminologies do come back too!

You are right about Tub, just thought people bought them in pairs!

And tubular rims, rims are not tubular, tires are tubular, and they fit Sprint rims, or rims made for tubulars, its just that the original wording has not been globalized, rims made for tubulars either dont have a name and if they do in the “English parlance”, they are referred to “Sprint”! colloquialisms may referr them in many diferent ways!

Check this article from respected cycling author Hilary Stone, → http://www.classiclightweights.co.uk/designs/hs-fiamme.html (which by the way should be included in article as reference) she refers to rims for Tubulars as they themselves being a — box section that is essentially a tube — and — sprint rims for tubular tyres — , so tubular rim may after all not be all wrong, are we not gona fight about that, naaa, lets just keep contents encyclopedic!, or is it “encyclopaedic”

Got to get back to work, “Happy Cycling dude” – Moebiusuibeom-en (talk) 14:57, 24 March 2010 (UTC) (I'll be temporarily offline)

...by the way, working on a tubular and clincher (wired–on) tire illustrations! Moebiusuibeom-en (talk) 15:34, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Checking Hits

How do you check how many hits an article gets? Thanks. Ebikeguy (talk) 23:22, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks! Ebikeguy (talk) 23:35, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

WikiProject Motorcycling in Wikipedia Signpost

The April 12 Wikipedia Signpost is going to feature the Motorcycling project. Would you like to add your answers to any or all of the questions over on the interview page? --Dbratland (talk) 01:16, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Bridgestone Fork Inquiry

Andrew, where did you find the trailing link fork on your bridgestone? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Suspension_fork.JPG

Am very interested to know what it is and if you have other details or resources to which you would point me.

Respectfully,

Patrick Michael Hayes paddy@pacific.net

What do the four tildes mean?

209.232.103.107 (talk) 23:56, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

On the way from Kampala to Murchison Falls in Uganda. I think the town name was Masindi, but I'm not sure. I wish I had more details, but I just saw it in passing, took one picture, and never guessed that I wouldn't be able to find a thing about it on the Internet afterwards. I'm pretty sure the bike was a Bridgestone, you can just see the lower left corner of their logo on the head tube, but I cannot tell what the model name is on the down tube. Sorry. The four tildes automatically sign your posting. - AndrewDressel (talk) 12:47, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

phoenix crankset

Hello Andrew, I saw the pic of your phoenix crankset on the crankset wikipedia site. I really want one as well and I am curious as to where you purchased it, I cant seem to find them.

I found it in Uganda. I believe the bike was made in India.

These guys might have something or know more: http://www.bikecult.com/works/chainwheel.html -AndrewDressel (talk) 12:54, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Stronger Chain

Hello Andrew, Will find a reference as requested. I've made some edits as part of an assignment I'm doing, so thanks for the feedback! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hjd10 (talk • contribs) 20:25, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Touring bicycle —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hjd10 (talk • contribs) 20:27, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

capsize question

Hello Andrew,

I was interestingly watching the bifurcation diagram of a motorcycle you made with matlab. It states that the capsize mode occurs at higher velocity than weave or wobble. I think that the capsize also occurs when standing still (very low speed). That is a detail. What I was actually interested in is the parameters you used. I have also made a motorcycle model with matlab, and to validate it, i have to show the different modes. the problem for me is that capsize always dominates. I tried increasing trail, differen fork offset, higher tire lateral stiffness, and so on. But one eigenvalue is always positive, so without a steering control torque (feed back from the camber angle), the motor always capsize, and never shows weave or wobble. Is it possible to stabilize capsize with just the geometry, and not with a controller?

Thanks for your contribution to my knowledge. I hope to hear from you. You can reach me at w.ooms@student.tue.nl

yours cincerely,

Wesley —Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.155.67.92 (talk) 14:05, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Center of mass

Hello Andrew, today you reverted my edits to Center of mass. The edits I made were in response to the latest discussions on Talk:Center of mass. I would appreciate it if you participated in the discussion on the Talk page. Many thanks. Dolphin (t) 00:26, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for fixing that link over at Talk:Newton's laws of motion, and especially for removing my comment after fixing the link. I didn't know what to make of it at the time, and I am glad it turned out to be nothing. Perhaps, in the future I will look more carefully at links and see if they can be fixed or whatever. ----Steve Quinn (formerly Ti-30X) (talk) 00:45, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

re: eddy currents

That doesn't seem to be a reliable source.

The thing is, I'm pretty sure they've linearised the equation.

The equation for eddy current power has a square law on the frequencies and the frequencies generated by the magnet are proportional to the relative speed. Since energy is force times distance, power is force times speed, and hence the force should be a square law. However, there's a second effect due to skin depth which comes into play at high frequencies that is inversely proportional to the square root of speed that reduces the power dissipated.

The source is therefore pretty dubious.- Wolfkeeper 00:06, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

Replied on dashpot talk page -AndrewDressel (talk) 02:33, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

Classical mechanics articles

A discussion which started out with a merger proposal at Merger Analytical dynamics and Dynamics on the talk page of Dynamics (mechanics) has evolved into streamlining the articles listed in the Classical mechanics template, from the top of the heirarchy down. This includes various types of editing such as merging and getting rid of repitious material. User:Sanpaz intends to begin this task on the Classical mechanics talk page. Anyway, after writing all that (phew!) I invite you to join us in this undertaking if you have time, and the inclination. Thanks ----Steve Quinn (formerly Ti-30X) (talk) 03:53, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Billy Shope

Hi Andrew could you work WITH billy rather than just reverting? he knows more about suspensions than most people. Cheers Greglocock (talk) 05:02, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

He probably knows more than me, and I have no problem working with him, but I don't have a copy of the book he cites, so I can't decode what he wrote. "It is first necessary to determine the tangent of a line drawn, in side view, through the front tire patch and the front suspension instant center" is pretty much jibberish. I can guess that he means the Tangent (trigonometric function), but he doesn't specify an angle, which the tangent function requires. He didn't indicate in the edit summary why he made the change he did, what error he was correcting, or what improvement he was adding, so I didn't see an alternative to reverting. If you can put his text back in along with the missing words, that would be great. -AndrewDressel (talk) 13:09, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Classical_mechanics_task_force

Talk:Classical_mechanics#Classical_mechanics_task_force

Lake Scott State Park

Thank you for taking them time to check my DYK nomination for Lake Scott State Park and for checking the text as it was written compared to the source. It are correct. It was very similar to the reference. I have made some changes that I feel should do the job. Thanks again. Dincher (talk) 21:54, 15 June 2010 (UTC) :Could you take a look at this article again and see if your concerns have been addressed? Thank you. Dincher (talk) 22:21, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

Nevermind, it's been approved. Dincher (talk) 00:01, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Link spam

Dear Andrew,

I was quite surprised when I realized you removed my educational links from the Wikipedia website, while many useless external links are almost everywhere. The link I provided on Copulas is one of the few resources where students can learn about this new emerging topic.

You removed my link to "tail dependence"; please take your time and search online see how many educational topics do you find on this mathematical topic. I don't think you will find any useful short article.

Also, I see that you removed my lecture notes from the GIS page while links to useless associations and companies are there.

I only added those links since I have seen many desperate students who alway look for an answer in Wikipedia. I think instead of linking people to associations/organizations, it is better to provide links that serve Wikipedia mission of public education.

Thanks - Amir9a (talk) 00:15, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

If you have some useful information to contrubute to these articles, by all means please add it. However, merely adding links to your web site is a form of self-promotion and against Wikipedia policy, as I tried to explained in my original message on your talk page. -AndrewDressel (talk) 00:23, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

DYK for Bicycle tire

-- Cirt (talk) 18:03, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

You are now a Reviewer

Hello. Your account has been granted the "reviewer" userright, allowing you to review other users' edits on certain flagged pages. Pending changes, also known as flagged protection, is currently undergoing a two-month trial scheduled to end 15 August 2010.

Reviewers can review edits made by users who are not autoconfirmed to articles placed under pending changes. Pending changes is applied to only a small number of articles, similarly to how semi-protection is applied but in a more controlled way for the trial. The list of articles with pending changes awaiting review is located at Special:OldReviewedPages.

When reviewing, edits should be accepted if they are not obvious vandalism or BLP violations, and not clearly problematic in light of the reason given for protection (see Wikipedia:Reviewing process). More detailed documentation and guidelines can be found here.

If you do not want this userright, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. Courcelles (talk) 04:46, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

DYK for Wheelie bike

— Rlevse • Talk • 00:03, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Role of spinning (and sliding) parts in motorcycle stability

Somewhere I read your description on how gyroscopic stability couldn't apply to a stationary standing motorcycle because it is fixed in yaw.

Here are two ideas on that topic which you might not like because they came out of my head, not out of a book. In a theoretical sense, yes your argument is right, but in the real situation of a standing motorcycle, it is not perfectly fixed in yaw. There is some elasticity in the tires, and more importantly, the steering angle has some freedom to change which would allow the frame of the bike to yaw a little.

What may be more significant than gyroscopic effects are the Coriolis forces on the pistons. Often when we consider Coriolis accelerations, it is in the context of a massive body turning at a fixed rate, like the earth, and we consider the forces and accelerations only on the smaller body, ignoring those on the larger body because it has so much inertia that it will continue to turn at the same rate. If we imagine a motorcycle tipping over, the engine block will impart Coriolis forces on the pistons. In this case, the equal and opposite forces on the engine block are probably significant. Paulgush (talk) 16:24, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

velo vie

Trying to meet your needs. Please review and see if I have added enough as it is a work in progress and a learning experience for me —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dbarnes13 (talk • contribs) 00:11, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Butterfly Bars Picture

Hi Could you tell me were you could possible buy brake levers like the ones you have pictured on the trekking bars. Mark —Preceding unsigned comment added by Chemistorge (talk • contribs) 15:23, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, but I cannot find a source. The one pair I had came on a new Schwinn Criss Cross, like the one pictured here. Good luck, -AndrewDressel (talk) 02:21, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

RockShox

Hi. Thanks for your help with the pictures in the articles relating to bicycles. Could you pls have a quick look at my article about RockShox? I am not a native English speaker. Keanu (talk) 10:08, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Looks good. I made a couple of minor tweaks. -AndrewDressel (talk) 12:50, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Motorcycle Sidecar

Thank you for cleaning up my attempts to clarify "motorcycle sidecar." I bumbled a bit trying to establish the footnote #2. I'm not very good, yet, at this Wiki-editing, but interested in contibuting to the subject I know probably know best, motorcycles (over 40 years) and sidecars (36 yrs.) Experience is with almost all marques, but mainly antique Harley-Davidsons and Indians, and particularly assymetrical tripod motor vehicles, my name for sidecars. I'm a regular on CAIMag dot com forum, dispensing advice as I can to others of similar disposition. I see that there is apparently a steep learning curve to become an accomplished Wikipedia editor, and am not sure I want to become that engaged in the voluntary pursuit, but the motorcycle group has piqued my interest. Is there progression of tutorial pages you could recommend for someone like me, to be able to make contributions and possibly edits, without dedicating my life to it? Thank you for yor time and attention. --Sargehere (talk) 20:46, 26 August 2010 (UTC) Sargehere, Florida

motorcycle front kinematics question

Dear Andrew,

I am interested in Motorcycle Dynamics, although not fully educated and qualified into this subject. This is also my first post in Wikipedia, so I hope not to spoil anything here.

My question in particular : Having a righted motorcycle front, with ε caster angle, we turn the handlebar at δ , so the front turns at Δ kinematic steering angle, and tilts at β angle. What is the β=β(ε,δ) expression?

I made a reference at Cossalter's "Motorcycle Dynamics", where at p.9 I found : sin β = sin α * sin δ

but coping myself with the trigonometry I came to sin β = sin ε * sin δ

--Twowheelsbg (talk) 11:15, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

User talk

Yo Andrew, thanks for the heads-up. I'll simply refer this and similar to donor and admin. organizations together with my comments. Probably more effective anyway... Cheers Semperlibre (talk) 21:46, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

How did that go? -AndrewDressel (talk) 23:04, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Yo Andrew,

Be it known I'm not comfortable with lies and self-serving distortions spread via any Wiki media [or any media at all, for that matter]!

It's damaging to those who had the courage and vision to commit themselves to an enterprise they would prefer remain honest, doncha think? Or are you suggesting that publications such as "The Lancet" or "Nature" allow their pages to be taken over by quacks and others of that ilk?

Also there are too many know-it-alls who, though demonstrably knowing werry little of their subject matter, take issue and umbrage with any who dare challenge their pet theories. Those persons I do too enjoy ridiculing!

By the way, have you read any enjoyable "Keith Code" publications lately or indeed, ever?

I certainly am not going to hide my opinions of misrepresentations and falsehood in a place to which only few biased characters have access.

It's my firm practice that when something is seen to be wrong, that wrong must be publicly exposed - not discussed in a non-transparent manner in a non-transparent venue. It's not what we do in a democracy hmmmmmm!

And there is something very wrong with a policy which permits any nonsense to be openly displayed but doesn't enjoy having objections and protests accorded similar rights!

Using a bit of hyperbole to drive the point home - such a situation is reminiscent of ol' Adolf's/uncle Joseph's jackbooted troops swiftly hustling dissidents away from public forums. "Only approved persons are allowed to pass remarks or make comments here!"

Cheers

Semperlibre (talk) 22:07, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

No, I haven't read an Keith Code publications lately: just a few pages on his web site a few years ago. Why do you ask?

I can only guess that the rest of your message is in reference to my moving your editorial comments from 6 January 2010 out of the QBP article and onto its talk page where they belong. The talk page is by no means "a place to which only few biased characters have access". The talk page is exactly as public as the article, and any reader is welcome to read it and add to it. Perhaps you can provide some details about your objection to the article. -AndrewDressel (talk) 23:04, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

QPB and Keith Code

Yo Andrew,

The QPB remark was yonks ago and my remark was in essence, [I guess] a query as to the value of its contribution to the fund of human knowledge that this http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/QBP notice makes. Yours is the first and only response and I must therefore assume that other readers find/found the information so irrelevant [other than its function as a free advertisement] that it becomes, in effect, wasted space! P'haps this is what discourages all the other commercial entities on this planet from making similar use of this Wiki facility.

As to Keith Code, with my background in motorcycle racing and design, I found him [ as well as Kevin Cameron], many many years ago, very clear on the subject of counter-steering and this clarity subsequently assisted my liasons with the senior professional engineers of the larger manufacturing concerns [Yamaha, Honda, Ducat, BMW et al] and the need to use the tyres specified by the factory in order to gain maximum benefit from the front suspension performance.

Many amateurs designing their own front motorcycle suspensions use this data successfully [Hislop - is that right? is a prime example] This type of information [and thus the benefits] is, regrettably, not found on the www and it's hilarious to see people evolving their own theories in order to compensate for the huge gaps in their knowledge base.

Here's a link [1] which may contribute, and in a small way, lead to your edification...

Be assured that I read, for a few minutes, the information contained re motor cycle suspensions and counter-steering in your index at the time that I accessed the QPB info and dismissed it all as just a waste of space. I say this not unkindly but to make you aware that only very amateur armchair wannabee will pay this data any attention. It contributes to the mediocrity label starting to surround Wikipedia. Serious enquirers will start elsewhere.

I recall meeting, again many, many years ago, a person designating himself as a "Hells Angel" with a direct line to their national leadership. He had all the equipments, clothing and attitudes and held court in some pub many many miles from here. When I asked him to advise me on the merits 'tween four and two stroke engines he was dumfounded. Most persons of this ilk cannot remove, repair and peplace a motorcycle w2heel and tyre or, indeed, understand the use of simple tools such as screwdrivers and hammers and I fear that this is the readership your sub-site attracts.

The very fact that you haven't read a basic book [Keith Code, for example] for non-engineers in itself speaks volumes but I also don't expect you to understand that!

I'd just rather you not contact me again, please. I just cannot take you seriously!

sincerely,

Semperlibre (talk) 10:43, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Fortunately, I do not take myself seriously either. I am, however, doing my best to write good articles given the guidelines of Wikipedia and the constraints on my free time. If you have something constructive to add, please do. If you have a specific complaint about something I or some other editor can fix, please make it. I do not see the point of your anonymous and rambling commentaries. -AndrewDressel (talk) 21:03, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

File:Hirth joint.jpg to Commons

Hello,

your nice picture could be placed to Commons so anyone can use it on other projects (other languages, Wikibooks, Wikiversity, ...). As you are the author, I let you do this, unless you prefere that I deal with this.

Best regards

cdang|write me 09:52, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

OK, maybe monday.

Commons works just like Wikipedia: create an account, upload the media, and it is immediately available for all sister projects including Wikipedia. Just go there and you'll see...

Any media you publish with an appropriate license (i.e. free and can be used commercially, e.g. public domain, GFDL, Creative Commons-by-sa) should be uploaded there.

Regards

cdang|write me 14:31, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

Hello,

The file is on commons since monday. Pleas check that the description, source, etc. are correct.

Regards,

cdang|write me 17:00, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

Re: New Jersey Institute of Technology

Yes. There is a class at the New Jersey Institute of Technology called Technical Writing and if you have Dr. Lipuma (User:DrLipuma-NJITWILL), he has each student do a project called the "Wikipedia Improvement with Supported Expert Revisions (WISER) Project". Within this project each student is to choose a Wikipedia article that is in need of improvement. This article is then assessed by the student according to a rubric Dr. Lipuma laid out for us. Then, each student needs to edit the Wikipedia article to improve it and present the changes he/she has made explaining how these changes have made a substantial improvement on the Wikipedia article selected. Hope that answered your question. (: Rebcop-NJITWILL (talk) 22:22, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

Revert of vehicle

I notice you reverted my edits of vehicle, stating "restore lost references". This is an counterproductive revert. The article is in dire need of a clean-up, for which my edit was a small step. It is hard to me to believe you even looked at my edit, which contains removal of inappropriate legal definitions in a single province (which had a different scope than the article), merging of several small and trivial sections, copyediting, removal of out-of-scope content, formatting, and removal of out-of-scope external links. The one reference that was removed, was done so of a good reason, because a legal definition from that province directly contradicts the definition of a vehicle on Wikipedia. Please be more careful with reverts in the future. Just because references are being removed, does not mean the edits are disruptive. Thank you for your understanding, Arsenikk ^(talk) 16:51, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Sorry about that. It would be helpful if you provided an edit summary so that other editors can more readily evaluate your changes. Yes, I did look at your edit, but I could not see the improvement, and I did see a lot of material go missing with no explanation. I see now that "ce" probably means "copy edit", but it sure doesn't mean "the one reference that was removed, was done so of a good reason, because a legal definition from that province directly contradicts the definition of a vehicle on Wikipedia." Furthermore, if a valid reference contradicts the definition in Wikipedia, that often means that Wikipedia is probably incorrect or incomplete. I've copied our discussion to the article talk page so that other editors can know what we are up to. -AndrewDressel (talk) 17:10, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Hub Gear

Merry Christmas. Nice job moving the pictures around. It is a nice improvement. I think I understand your appreciation for hub gears. I have nothing against them, and I hope you understand my efforts to keep the article as NPOV as possible. -AndrewDressel (talk) 15:08, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

And a Merry Christmas to you! I was keen to put special cases (one manufacturer, almost advertising) pushed to the bottom of the article. In fact, I'd be almost tempted to cut out all mention of a 14-speed version of the hub-gear of which almost nobody has heard.

1. I'm a bit puzzled to see "In real-world conditions, the efficiency of derailleur gears is commonly much more seriously handicapped by poor lubrication and the mis-use of gears causing 'cross-chain' conditions" removed - when the actual reference at the WP article bicycle chain says "... in lab conditions, where there is no dirt, it makes no difference. On the road, we believe the lubricant mostly assumes the role of keeping out dirt, which could very well affect friction in the drive train". Should we not put the original phrase back? MalcolmMcDonald (talk) 18:28, 26 December 2010 (UTC)
2. I'm also very mystified to see the sentence "unsprung weight ... is an insignificant factor in street or commuter-cycle use when climbing kerbs and crossing pot-holes" removed as superfluous. Street and commuter use is the majority use of bicycles, their interests and education should not be subsumed to those of a minority.
3. Similarly [failures generally give plenty of warning] (unlike the situation with alternative systems) - the hub-gear user is entitled to know that, while breakdown is not unknown, his system is much better in this respect than others.
4. I can even see a fourth example - the ordinary user needs to know that another "disadvantage" of the hub-gear (integral part of the wheel and it is not possible to change the wheel without also changing the hub) is of almost zero relevance to his needs and he needs to see the explanation: "In sporting use, this handicaps quick-changing a damaged wheel, or using different tires on multiple wheels." MalcolmMcDonald (talk) 11:16, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

1. So, we have one reference that isn't perfect and suggests that lubrication and dirt matter little for efficiency and none that verify that they do matter. I'd say leave the point out.
2. I have no doubt that street use is in the majority, but I have no information about the relative importance of unsprung mass in this environment. I don't know why it would be insignificant.
3. This whole point is iffy. I get plenty of warning from my derailleur systems when they are having trouble. I don't mind saying that the same is an advantage of hub gears, but leave out the dig at other systems.
4. The most common wheel problem I observed at the shop where I worked was a rim bent beyond repair. With a derailleur system, the customer only has to purchase a new wheel and reuse the entire shifting mechanism. A rear wheel with a hub gear will require relacing or total replacement, at significantly greater cost. This can happen to a commuter bike hitting a pothole as easily as a mountain bike hitting a rock. It is totally independent of the type or riding done. -AndrewDressel (talk) 22:10, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

After such a festive greeting it would be churlish of me to suggest you avoid pot-holes so progress arresting! MalcolmMcDonald (talk) 23:40, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

Archive 1

←

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7