User talk:Andy Dingley/Archive 2018

My new project

Hello, my beloved colleague.

An admin dropped me an email saying that you named me in ANI. More accurately, you leveled sockpuppetry accusation in a discussion that I was nowhere near it.

Alright. Starting today, I have a new project. Instead of following Codename Lisa's contribution log, I follow yours. I make no other edits to Wikipedia and just watch what you do. Well, not just watch. I'll record too. And when I amassed a lot of interesting stuff—

But you needn't worry. After all, it is not like you do anything wrong in Wikipedia. And admins have never served you friendly Discretionary Sanction notices!

So, see you are around. Literally.

Supreme regards,
your most friendly fellow Wikipedian,
whom you can call your dedicated fan,
FleetCommand (Speak your mind!) 10:58, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

I have never accused you of sockpuppetry. I accused you, and Codename Lisa, of persistent tag-teaming to enforce POV edits against others. I didn't even describe this as meatpuppetry, although I know that some do. If you want to take that accusation further, then you know just where ANI is, and your editing histories (history?) speaks for itself on this (here's your first, just last week at ANI [1]). Andy Dingley (talk) 11:13, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

Oh, I know beloved colleague. But now, I am interested in listening to what your edit histories will have to say. And since it is so easy to accuse others of, I don't know, tag-teaming, I wonder whether you go to articles that at least one other editor has edited. I wonder if there is at least one other editor that agrees with your point of view. And when I find him or her ... I'll record it.

FleetCommand (Speak your mind!) 11:27, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

Well, your contribution log was certainly boring. Torpedos and suburbs, and something funny called "Kelly hose". (I wonder why it has an article.) And yet, it suddenly got interesting: You returned to Apache Ant article and tried to resume your edit war, which you had abandoned a little over a year ago. This time, you vandalized four words' spelling too. Back then, I had taken your side in the talk page, until you attacked me.

And look who the other disputing party is: Codename Lisa. The one person you kept accusing of being my sock. Look who brought us together this time. (Well, not together. I haven't edited yet.) I had to monitor you for four days for you to show your true colors. I wonder what would the lovely admin Floquenbeam say, because normally I am the pig who treats others badly. But this time, it is the reverse. FleetCommand (Speak your mind!) 17:49, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

So your stalking takes a sudden overlap with CodenameLisa and that "proves" how unconnected you are? Andy Dingley (talk) 17:59, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

Did you even understand your own sentence? I guess not. It comes from the brain that writes Unix in lowercase. FleetCommand (Speak your mind!) 03:38, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

I'm quite busy today, but I'll block Fleetcommand tomorrow. --Floquenbeam (talk) 18:05, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

I was hoping you'd say that. FleetCommand (Speak your mind!) 03:38, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

Seaslug

Thanks for reverting the IP editor on the article on Seaslug (missile). Though the IP editor was sort-of right, without explanation the wikilinks were useless. If you had not reverted the IP editor I would never have bothered to check how Type 984 and CDS were related and add something to the article.-- Toddy1 (talk) 13:28, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

Thanks, I'd not known of this before. I'm still not sure how it worked.

If there were multiple Counties fitted with receive-only CDS, I can see how this would be of value. However how was information supplied to them? AIUI, CDS could only take its data from a 984. Does this mean that Counties could only use CDS if they were in a battlegroup with one of the three carriers? Andy Dingley (talk) 21:08, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

Yes - one of the most important jobs of a DDG was as escort to a carrier group - and only the four batch 1 Counties were built like this. Remember this was in the early days of data links.-- Toddy1 (talk) 22:52, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Andy Dingley. You have new messages at Anirudh Emani's talk page.
Message added 10:32, 5 January 2018 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Anirudh Emani (talk) 10:32, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

Victoria Hughes

Andy, that template for citing the book does not included all the info. Its not a question of different styles, it's a question of including all the info. Philafrenzy (talk) 20:55, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

So which bits? Andy Dingley (talk) 20:57, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

And why do you think this "David Foot" was an editor? They don't get a cover credit, so why is it worth edit-warring to include them? Andy Dingley (talk) 20:59, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

Check the British Library website catalogue. Editors and place of publication are essential bibliographical information. Please don't accuse me of edit warring. Philafrenzy (talk) 21:02, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

http://explore.bl.uk/BLVU1:LSCOP-ALL:BLL01012673358

Multiple unexplained reversions against another editor are edit-warring, even when you know you have a god-given right on your side. Pathetic. And you ought to know better. Andy Dingley (talk) 21:09, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

A beer for you!

Please join me in a pint mate. - Samf4u (talk) 03:03, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

Cheers, thanks Andy Dingley (talk) 10:25, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

History of Oldham Athletic A.F.C.

So are you going to fix History of Oldham Athletic A.F.C. with the sourcing that supposedly exists, or are you going to just let it stink up the wiki forever?! Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 21:01, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

Thus: There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Ongoing trolling by TenPoundHammer. Andy Dingley (talk)

Hmm, I surprised he didn't attack me with that message as I was the one that called him out on the AfD! Govvy (talk) 00:28, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

		The Modest Barnstar
		For your great help in the TenPoundHammer case.14.192.208.84 (talk) 11:18, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

Nomination of Joshua Claybourn for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Joshua Claybourn is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Joshua Claybourn (2nd nomination) until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article.

Notifying you about the discussion, since you have made significant contributions to articles related to this subject. --IndyNotes (talk) 03:59, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

Please read WP:CANVASS. Andy Dingley (talk) 09:45, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

I notified people about the Afd because they had edited or commented on either that article, or those with similar topics. The audience was not filtered beyond identifying those with potential interest, there was no secrecy about it, and the notification gave no indication of bias or suggesting a particular vote. It did not appear to be canvassing, but if that is still in error my apologies.--IndyNotes (talk) 17:43, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

I had not edited or commented on that article, and I have almost no contact with Republican politics in any broader sense. Andy Dingley (talk) 17:44, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

As anticipated ... (originally on 14.192.208.84's chatpage)

[2] 8-( Andy Dingley (talk) 16:18, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

Sigh. You can't squeeze blood from a turnip so I'm not surprised if he turns to sockpuppetry. I'll be unreachable on Malaysian IPs beyond February 2 as I'll be heading back home then. Gute Reise! 14.192.208.65 (talk) 14:21, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

IP addresses can change from one user to another so I'm moving this to your chatpage; we don't want unnecessary confusions arising from that. As long as it's before Feb 2, please ping me on your chat page instead. Danke. 14.192.208.65 (talk) 14:28, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

Good work undoing the jerk who deleted Zerk

Thanks, Andy, for putting all those deleted mentions of Zerk back. A lot of work, more than I was up to, too bad no one noticed it in time to simply undo it with one click. Vaughan Pratt (talk) 06:37, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

Chaplain Extraordinary

Can you provide sources for the topic? It can't be improved without sources, and it is currently not sufficient to be an extant article. Thanks ‡ Єl Cid of ᐺalencia ^ᐐT₳LKᐬ 14:20, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

Not in two minutes flat I can't! Andy Dingley (talk) 14:31, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

I mean, it's been a shite article since 2006, so there's no rush, I was just wondering if you think there are sources on the topic. ‡ Єl Cid of ᐺalencia ^ᐐT₳LKᐬ 14:35, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

Origin Broadband

Hi Andy. Just dropping you a note to explain why I reverted this edit. I think you might have restored unsourced material that you didn't intend to restore, including an unsourced statement about poor reviews and some material about local business award sponsorship that was accompanied by a citation needed tag. Cordless Larry (talk) 17:50, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

I was the one who added the {{cn}}. Equally it's unsourced as to whether they ever did sponsor it. As to the large table of awards, which is completely unsourced. The reviews are sourceable (the Trustpilot stuff is exactly as described), but I had cats yowling to be fed, so you beat me to it in reverting the lot, including deleting sourced content. Why would you do that? Andy Dingley (talk) 18:05, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

Something like TrustPilot is a primary source, so we shouldn't be using that. If the reviews have been noted in secondary sources, then fine, that can be included. I realise that you added the citation needed tag, but you did so at the same time as adding the material itself, which seemed odd. I'm not sure why you would do that - if it's in need of a source and you don't know of one, I can't see any valid reason for adding the material. Cordless Larry (talk)

Trustpilot reviews are primary and self-published, but I see no problem with saying that their average Trustpilot score has tanked lately. Trustpilot are happy to let those reviews stand and to publish the aggregate under their imprimatur. I'm happy to let the Doncaster CoC stuff stand under a {{cn}} for the moment because they're pulling out of Doncaster (which was sourced until you deleted it) and it's only being challenged by a rather obvious COI editor. Andy Dingley (talk) 18:28, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

Well, I'm not too bothered about the latter point, although it does seem to go against WP:BURDEN, even if the editor who challenged it has a COI. I really do think the TrustPilot stuff is original research, though, unless secondary sources have noted the poor reviews. Cordless Larry (talk) 18:31, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

I've restored the sourced parts of your edit. I agree that my wholesale revert was a bit of an overreaction - after all the recent COI editing, I was being overly cautious. Cordless Larry (talk) 18:36, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

Talk:Data recovery#Bulk merge

Left a note there supporting the merge, but on further reflection does it seem like a straightforward WP:MERGECLOSE case by now? Dl2000 (talk) 04:45, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

Natural gas and History of gaseous fuel

Don't undo my edits, I'm working on it!

I will add natural gas and LNG, CNG etc. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vorpzn (talk • contribs) 15:50, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

Please don't, they don't belong there. Andy Dingley (talk) 15:53, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

Engineering terminology

Do you know the term saddle clamp? This is an old expression that I have known and occasionally used for 50+ years. I wanted to use it relating to motorcycle handlebar, and what with the hostility of some recent disruptive wikilawyers who want a citation (or internal link) for everything, thought better of it (example File:Velocette Thruxton instrumentation.JPG).

Can't find anything on WP using various search terms, saddle clamp, half-round, pipe clips, etc and nothing on Clamp (tool). No big deal if you can't think of anything to link to. In UK motor trade, a two-piece exhaust clamp consisting of a 'U' bolt with reciprocating semi-circular closure is termed as side-clamp or Benelli-clamp. Can't see that, either, or anything like substituting clamp for clip, or at Exhaust system. Thanks.--Rocknrollmancer (talk) 14:45, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

I certainly know the term, but not the etymology. There are many sorts, from Munsen rings to exhaust U bolt clamps. Their common characteristics would seem to be some form of "saddle" shape to at least one side, such that the faying surfaces form a single plane, and then the clamping force is from two linear and tangential axes, such as screws or bolts. So circumferential clamps are separate, as are axial clamps. Hard to think of a volume (Machinery's Handbook, Buck & Hickman catalogue?) which would RS describe this though. Andy Dingley (talk) 16:05, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

If it helps, I'm familiar with the term from bicycles, where they are used to clamp the seat post, keeping it from sliding up and down. I had always assumed the name was derived from this, as a bicycle seat is also called a saddle in some countries. Zaereth (talk) 18:07, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

I've never seen a seatpost clamp (clamping the seatpost into the frame's seat tube) called a saddle clamp. The "saddle clamp" (which clamps the saddle) is the piece above this, where the saddle rails are clamped to the top of the seatpost. Some used to have a clamp here that was part of the saddle, the more modern approach is a clamp built into the top of the post. Andy Dingley (talk) 18:18, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

Not sure whether patents granted to governmental organisations are RS or not. If they are, archive.org has a NASA patent (US Patent 5,281,042, granted Jan 25, 1994) for a 'saddle clamp assembly' which reviews the prior state of the art:

2. Description of Related Art

Devices commonly referred to as saddle clamps are conventionally utilized to firmly but removably secure longitudinally spaced apart sections of tubing runs, wire bundles and other elongated objects to suitable support structures to prevent undesirable lateral deflection of the elongated object. In a conventional configuration thereof, a saddle clamp typically comprises an elongated, plate-like arcuate body portion having connection tabs extending outwardly from its opposite ends, lying generally in a common plane, and having mounting holes extending therethrough.

To removably secure a given section of the elongated object to, for example, a plate-like support structure, the object section is positioned between two spaced apart mounting holes formed in the support structure, the clamp body is placed over the object section in a manner aligning the connecting tab holes with the support structure holes, a pair of bolts are extended through the aligned pairs of connecting tab and support structure holes, and suitable washers and nuts are placed on the bolts to secure them in place.

Rjccumbria (talk) 19:28, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

Andy is right about the bicycles. I guess my friends and I were using the term incorrectly all our lives. (I always pictured that as being just part of the seat.)

The problem with patents is they are primary sources that come with no guarantee that the item was ever a commercial success or even worked as theorized. For example, Gordon Gould got a patent for a laser before the first one was ever build, having no real idea if it would even work at the time. Patents really need to be used carefully and interpreted by experts in the field (not only from an engineering standpoint, but also an economical and legal standpoint). For example, see this discussion, in which a patent for a product (which never made it to market) was incorrectly interpreted by an editor. Great care is needed when using primary sources, and should always be accompanied by secondary sources (which are by far preferred) whenever possible. Zaereth (talk) 21:05, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

ThanQ for your comments. It also occurred to me that a similar thing on engines is termed as cap, eg., main-bearing cap or camshaft cap, so I guess there are historic variations according to the convention at the time.--Rocknrollmancer (talk) 01:29, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

If it helps, I just checked google books for the word "saddle clamp" and get a lot of results, some of which give a pretty good description of the term (at least as used in a particular product, such as bicycles, exhaust systems, or scaffolding). For example, the book Performance Exhaust Systems: How to Design, Fabricate, and Install by Mike Mavrigian comes up on the first page and gives a wonderful description. (I might mention, that after looking into bicycle books, the saddle clamp that connects the seat to the seat post is nearly identical to the ones that connect the post to the frame ... at least on some bikes like my old Huffy from childhood). I can check my Machinery's Handbook when I get home, but some of those books on google should give enough info to add something to the clamp article. Zaereth (talk) 01:54, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

Removing spam links

Hello sir dont know why you remove my link page — Preceding unsigned comment added by Muwadat (talk • contribs) 20:00, 25 December 2017 (UTC)

Please see WP:SPAM, WP:PROMO etc. Andy Dingley (talk) 21:27, 25 December 2017 (UTC)

• Amish furniture

Hello Andy. My addition of QSWO description in substance is much like the previous citations 4-8. How is mine different? Thanks, Nina823Nina823 (talk) 20:50, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

The poor quality of other references, and the whole article (which ought to be deleted) is no reason to make things worse by adding more of the same.

The reference you keep adding explains what quartersawn oak is. However it doesn't relate that to this "Amish furniture" (whatever that is supposed to be), nor is quartersawn oak (the sine qua non of Stickley furniture) part of any discernible Amish tradition. Andy Dingley (talk) 21:34, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for that explanation, Andy! I certainly don't want to further lower the quality of the article. As there was a reference to QSWO but no description, unlike the other wood types, I felt it would improve the article. As Amish builders are among the only, if not the only, builders still using QSWO it could be argued that QSWO is very closely associated with Amish building tradition. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nina823 (talk • contribs) 21:43, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

It is very far from true that " Amish builders are among the only, if not the only, builders still using QSWO ". Andy Dingley (talk) 21:54, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

BLR

Thanks for sharing that reference. I know I'll use it for enhancing the H and S section so I've used it here .... I'm currently happier leaving the url off as I tend to try to err conservatively. The article did scare me by saying Silver Lady was an 0-4-0T and arriving in Inverness on Saturday 30th June 2017! You've probably noticed I've currently been working on the train schedule (which will form the basis for a route map and a route description). This has effectively caused me to keep some programme notes which I am sharing on the Workpage when I get a chance ... this should make it easier to find references for some of the special project builds which are usually spread across a 3, 4 or more segments .. which I'll probably get round to unless someone else does first ... and I'm surprised no-one leswe had joined in on the artice!. There a couple sources now appearing which is helpful. Thanks. Djm-leighpark (talk) 13:54, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

Nomination of BrowseAloud for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article BrowseAloud is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/BrowseAloud (3rd nomination) until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. KTC (talk) 15:11, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for the laugh

Your edit here gave me a good chuckle. (Though I doubt that was your intent.) Thanks Sario528 (talk) 17:55, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

Well it makes as much sense as beating up your own passengers. If I'd been thinking, I'd have made some reference to that. Andy Dingley (talk) 18:06, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

Category:1′D1′ locomotives

We now have four categories Category:1′D1′ locomotives or similar. Should they be rationalised? I suggest 2-8-2 for steam locos and 1-D-1 for non-steam. Mock wurzel soup (talk) 10:49, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

Following the very long and fruitless past discussion Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2017 July 13#Category:2B locomotives / Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Trains/Archive: 2017#Emptying of Category:Locomotives by wheel arrangement, then no.

Category:1D1 locomotives et al are just wrong and should be deleted (but the CfD got nowhere).

The others should be used as appropriate, and cross-linked. We need to stop categorising German diesel-electric and diesel-hydraulics as "C-C" just because the US doesn't appreciate the difference. Those where UIC is the canonical form should be categorised as such, likewise where Whyte is the main form used (such as steam). There's also an issue that UIC uses primes and so WP should too, which is just a matter for renames and redirects from the apostrophe forms. Andy Dingley (talk) 11:19, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

Prime (symbol) is new to me. What is the Alt code for it? Mock wurzel soup (talk) 19:01, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style/Archive_200#Primes_and_apostrophes?

Primes are Unicode U+2032. Not sure if you can numeric pad them. Andy Dingley (talk) 20:14, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

I think its Alt+96, see [3] Mock wurzel soup (talk) 22:28, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

I think U+0096 is a grave accent or backtick, not a prime. Andy Dingley (talk) 23:17, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

I think I've got it. I open Wordpad and type 2032 Alt+x Mock wurzel soup (talk) 00:59, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

Talk:Daily Mail

Hi Andy. I saw your comment here, even though you neglected to ping me. I feel your pain; it must be terrible to feel so on your own and that others don't understand you. Nevertheless, some necessary reminders. BLPSOURCES is not "dogma", not is it a "handwave". If you fundamentally disagree with this, you have the right to challenge it properly in the proper places, the right to leave, or the right to fork. What you don't have is the right to cast aspersions like this without providing any diffs or indeed evidence of any kind. If you seriously think I have done something wrong, you should raise it with me in the first instance, with diffs. If you're unhappy with any response I make, you may take it to AN/I and let the community look at your grievance. I seem to remember that didn't work out that well for you the last time though. Griping like this just makes you look like a sad eccentric, and people will perhaps feel sorry for you, but probably not enough to agree with your arguments, as your arguments don't make sense and are against one of our most strongly established community consensuses. Accept it, change it, or leave, are probably your only options here. In any case, I thought I'd remind you of ASPERSIONS as I see it's over a year since your last block and it'd be a shame to get another one, wouldn't it? --John (talk) 13:31, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

John, you know where ANI is. Andy Dingley (talk) 13:46, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

Sure do. And I know you do too. Oh well, don't say you weren't politely warned. --John (talk) 13:58, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for your support on Wells and Fakenham. Two people are having a little trolling game with me.

For what it's worth, my position is that in railway company histories, where there is usually a narrative (local people worried that there is no railway; they got some money together, they got an Act of Parliament, work started, the line opened, grouping 1923 nationalisation 1948, bus competition, line closed) that it just looks confusing to do page numbers. Usually a single book, often Oakwood Press, provides all the background, so you would be saying Oakwood page 7, Oakwood page 9, page 10, page 12 etc etc.

My least favourite example of that is Great North of Scotland Railway where 90% of the citations are from Vallance's book.

Have a nice day. Afterbrunel (talk) 12:40, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

Well I can see their point. It's better with the page numbers - one can always ignore them, but it's hard to add them later. Seems like an over-reaction though. Andy Dingley (talk) 12:42, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

Alert

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

Please carefully read this information:

The Arbitration Committee has authorised discretionary sanctions to be used for pages regarding the Electronic cigarette topic area, 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.

QuackGuru (talk) 17:16, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

Thankyou, I would draw your attention particularly to the section Editor conduct in e-cigs articles §QuackGuru Warned

QuackGuru is warned that continuing to engage in a pattern of disruption to Wikipedia will result in further sanctions.

Andy Dingley (talk) 16:24, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

Anti-materiel rifle

You re-added the Rifles category after I removed it? It was an intentional removal, as the article belongs in the Anti-materiel rifle category (which is a sub cat) and doesn't need to be in the parent cat as well. - Happysailor ^(Talk) 21:56, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

Not all anti-materiel rifles are sniper rifles (many are just big and obvious, although man-portable). Also see WP:EPONYMOUS. Our practice is that lead articles nearly always stay in the relevant categories, even when the eponymous category is in there too. Andy Dingley (talk) 22:56, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

What is the point of designating any rifle "anti-materiel" as if all military weapons larger than "small arms" aren't designed to break things? And which military forces worldwide actually and officially their larger-than-battle/service-rifles rifles either "sniper rifles" or "anti-materiel rifles"? In most military forces a rifle is simply a rifle. It doesn't change designation or classification or type depending on what its aimed at with the intention of destroying it. The only thing more ridiculous than "noob" gun owners talking about their "sniper rifles" is non-gun-owners making up nomenclature to classify guns as if they're trying to formally and officially designate them as "military weapons" in spite of their complete commercial status and non-use by professional military forces.

And then there's fools referring to guns they've never used for self-defense of any kind or presumably offensive purposes as "weapons". But at least they actually own guns and aren't quite as annoying as those who do not publicly declaring all "firearms" to be "weapons". Most people who find that annoying or otherwise anti-gun propaganda are aware that a "weapon" is anything used with the intent of inflicting bodily harm on another person either defensively or offensively. And of course there is no such thing as "defensive" use of a weapon. Once you put whatever object you happen to have at hand to work for the purpose of inflicting harm on another part, you're on "offense". But according to self-righteous gun "experts" all guns are weapons, all weapons have to be very specifically defined and categorized and "gun" is an obsolete term.

All of the above seem to be relatively recent phenomena in the U.S. where the overwhelming majority of military personal current and retired refer to their rifles or pistols ad where the overwhelming majority of police officers refer to their pistol or sidearm or back-up gun or "department issue". Its amazing how many Europeans who do not and/or can not at least without difficulty and significant red-tape seem to be bigger gun-nuts and self-delusional "gun experts" where military, police and citizen use of guns in the U.S. are concerned. Interestingly their fascination/obsession with guns and gun politics doesn't extend to and/or hasn't extended to in the past gun politics in their own countries, insisting on precise definitions of "weapons" and not allowing themselves to be disarmed or prevented from arming themselves. More gun nuts in countries with "strict" anti-gun laws than in the most gun-crazy country on Earth by far, it seems. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.234.100.169 (talk) 16:09, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

A "rifle" is anything up to .303, with double-base powder (i.e. not a black powder Snider etc.). You can carry that, you can fire it. You can't stop a truck with it.

An anti-materiel rifle is a .50 BMG (other calibres are available, no-one bothers) which can stop a truck. You fire it prone. You can carry it, you can't shoulder it. It's not an elephant gun, in some funny .75 Mayfair calibre for making rhino extinct. Nor is it one of those Boys rifles for shooting tanks, before tanks were made of more than tinplate. You can also shoot small things with it, but further away. Andy Dingley (talk) 22:27, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

Hmm. I didn't know an "anti-materiel rifle" was anything larger than ".303". So that makes an 8mm Mauser an "anti-materiel rifle" then, correct? I believe there are a few other 7.92-8mm military rifles you'd better edit the list in the article by adding. And you taught me something I didn't know about use. They're fired prone. Always. Hmm. I'd better stop firing my Armalite AR-50 from benches and across the backs of pickup boxes and tool boxes. And no more resting it across the top of a hedge post. Just did that a month or so ago when a buddy and his girlfriend stopped by to pick up some guns I worked on for him and he wanted me to show her my "anti-materiel rifle" and I figured while I was getting it out anyway may as well pop off a round for her.

Its obviously "huge" and impressive to look at but there are other rifles with considerably less power chambered for much smaller cartridges with roughly similar physical dimensions. Especially the .375 "super magnums" the "long-range" and "extreme long-range" guys are shooting that are chambered for cartridges that with the bullets they're shooting loaded to the lengths they load them require a ".50 BMG-length action". Then they tack on enough barrel to really get the most out of those super-slow powder's they're using and that's a minimum of 26 inches with most going 28-30". Then they throw on a muzzle brake and in some cases a suppressor and suddenly they've got a rifle that's close to as long if not longer than my .50. And I guess that would make them "anti-materiel rifles" just like mine, right? I sometimes wish I was more of a "gun expert" instead of just a "gun nut" and knew even HALF as much about my guns as guys that obviously don't have to own guns or even "study" or "research" them to know way more than I know after 35+ years of shooting guns and owning guns and seeing guns I liked and "shopping" for guns and buying them and transferring them and handling them and loading and firing and cleaning and buying and loading ammunition for them and casting bullets for them and jumping through the necessary hoops to get purchase permits and take hunter safety back when I was 12 years old which was ALL "gun safety" called "hunter safety" to make it mandatory to get a hunting license. I've filled out a pile of 4473s and have passed several background checks and took a concealed carry class and spent a fair amount of time reading up on ATF rules for building AR pistols legally and what differentiates them from rifles and SBRs and how to build them right and legally and correctly by installing pistol buffer parts just to be safe instead of jacking with "milled down" rifle buffers and those stupid "braces".

My AR pistol IS literally a PISTOL and I can pretty easily fire it one-handed. Just like I can shoot my .50 BMG "anti-materiel rifle" from the shoulder. Or at least could until you told me different. I'm a pretty big guy at 6'3" and north of 250 lbs. of farm boy, diesel mechanic, railroader etc but honestly its not like you have to be my size to shoulder it. I've got several buddies who are considerably shorter and/or lighter than me who have done it too. And my buddy's girlfiend? She did it, too. She didn't really want to or said she didn't but we didn't have to twist her arm too hard. She hunted deer with him last fall and I think shot a high-power for the first time and of course I didn't just hand it to her and say here you go. I let my buddy do that.

He got it up on the post for her and then got thecartridge in it and closed the bolt once she had it under control. And being just a SINGLE-SHOT BOLT-ACTION "ANTI-MATERIEL RIFLE" (single-shot military rifles are VERY common these days and that's probably why they're so popular commercially - so many Call of Duty Commandos and Range Rambos and Tactitools want to load and shoot one round at a time) there was no danger of her dropping it after firing it and having it go off or something. Or turning around with it and putting a round through us. So thank God for that since we weren't shooting it prone like "anti-materiel rifles" are shot. Have to be shot.

I guess that applies to the semi-auto Barrett M82s that are a lot shorter and lighter than my single-shot "anti-materiel rifle" too, right? Are they on your list? How about the AR-based .50 BMG rifles that are pretty popular? There are single-shot uppers that fit on AR lowers and magazine-fed uppers, as well. I don't think I've seen a semi-auto .50 BMG upper but they could exist. There are certainly a BUNCH of "larger than .303" COMMERCIAL RIFLES chambered for COMMERCIAL CARTRIDGES that aren't on that list. I trust that's only because you haven't gotten around to editing the list since you edited the definition of "anti-materiel rifle", right?

I'm glad you and other Wikipedians with what is clearly a lot of experience with or at last "expertise in" firearms of all kinds are here keeping this "encyclopedia" and the "public" at large updated and informed and educated on guns. Especially those of us who own guns and clearly need to spend more time reading and watching "experts" online and their "educational" articles, blog posts, YouTube videos, forum comments and public speaking events. If it weren't for the internet I'd never even have known or suspected that my .50 BMG commercial single-shot bolt-action rifle I purchased online and had shipped to my buddy with an FFL just like several other "firearms" was actually designed specifically to destroy "materiel".

I'll be if I check the owner's manual just one more time I'll find it described as an "anti-materiel rifle" by the manufacturer. Of course I've never seen any reference to any COMMERCIAL .50 BMG rifle OR the cartridge in any SAAMI or NRA or BATF or other "official" publications. And I know for a fact several of the rifles on the list in the article are not and never have been "military" rifles period. Not even the ones military forces have "adopted" are "military rifles" even if there is a "civilian version". Military rifles are "mil-spec" and are not produced for or marked for or legal for TRANSFER to private citizens EVER post-1986 NFA.

And all COMMERCIAL rifles have little "features" that military rifles do not. Like the COMMERCIAL CARTRIDGE THEY'RE CHAMBERED FOR STAMPED INTO THE BARREL IN IT'S OFFICIAL SAAMI "FORM". That's done as part of the PROOFING PROCESS all new-production commercial rifles built and imported into and transferred in the U.S. HAVE TO GO THROUGH. They also have to have the commercial manufacturer's name and the commercial model designation and a SERIAL NUMBER STAMPED INTO THE RECEIVER. A "gun expert" like yourself should know that once ".50 BMG" WENT NATO AND WAS GIVEN A METRIC DESIGNATION, .50 BMG OFFICIALLY BECAME AGAIN WHAT IT ORIGINALLY WAS. A COMMERCIAL CARTRIDGE.

JOHN BROWNING DIDN'T INVENT A MILITARY CARTRIDGE AND "BROWNING MACHINE GUN" WAS PROPERTY OF COLT JUST LIKE "AUTOMATIC COLT PISTOL" WAS. And John Browning could have "lost" that supposed "competition" that resulted in the the U.S. Army "adopting" his pistol design in 1911, but if any other pistol/manufacturer had "won", it still would have been a .45 ACP pistol. And John Browning still would have "sold" a .45 ACP Colt pistol to SOMEBODY since he already had a "prototype" built for the .45 ACP cartridge and BOTH were "tested" by the U.S. military in 1907. U.S. Army loved the cartridge but the pistol not so much. They "suggested" several changes. So he went back in 1910 with a "prototype" that was more of a true prototype. But it still wasn't a 1911. Hell, it wasn't UNTIL the 1911 was the 1911 AFTER John Browning had changed everything the U.S. Army wanted "changed" in the first two pistols which really are way more in line with his several other commercially successful semi-auto, single-stack "defensive" pistols he'd made and Colt and FN were producing than the "1911". Grip safety?

U.S. Army "suggestion". Thumb safety? Same deal. Linked tilting barrel with barrel bushing? U.S. Army "suggestion". They didn't care for the "M1910" and its wedge holding the slide on, lack of a barrel bushing and barrel linked front and rear that stayed parallel with the slide/frame and shifted back and down for loading and then up and forward for firing. Probably because there wasn't much "meat" in the slide behind that barrel and only those links kept the barrel in the slide and only the wedge located between the links was there to act as the "slide stop". JMB wasn't a big fan of exposed hammers, either. Some of his "Hammerless" Colt pistols were TRULY "hammerless" aka "striker-fired" while one or two had hammers but concealed under a "shround" on rear of the slide. He made "pocket pistols" for personal defense and didn't want safeties and/or hammers getting in the way of getting a pocket pistol out of the pocket and pointed at the bad guy. Weird how Glocks built the same way are considered "military pistols" and "combat pistols" because of a couple contracts with "national defense forces" and despite having never been used in "combat" as a "service sidearm" for an entire "military force" and yet nobody really considers 1911s "military pistols" or at least not "modern" military pistols. Which is weird since without the 1911 everybody would know Gaston Glock just copied John Browning totally instead of partially. But it doesn't matter because the 1911 was for sale commercially before any were "issued" that were new "contract" production and not just "trials pistols". Just like his .50 BMG cartridge was and always has been a COMMERCIAL CARTRIDGE.

And that makes EVERY "anti-materiel rifle" chambered FOR .50 BMG WITH .50 BMG STAMPED ON THE BARREL INSTEAD OF "12.7x99 NATO" A COMMERCIAL RIFLE. And oddly enough that so-called "12.7x99 NATO" designation apparently doesn't apply to U.S. military firearms OR ammunition PERIOD. Because its NOT ON THE CASE HEADS OF MIL-SURPLUS ONCE-FIRED .50 BMG BRASS FROM CARTRIDGES MADE AT THE LAKE CITY ARSENAL. Nosirree Bob. 5.56x45 NATO made there and ALSO mil-surplus ammo/brass DOES have the NATO headstamp but .50 BMG has the same old headstamp style used on ALL U.S. "military" cases for COMMERCIAL CARTRIDGES like .30-06 Springfield and .45 ACP and .308 Winchester and .223 Remington "pre-NATO". What are those headstamps? Two letters and two numbers located 90 degrees apart on the case head. The two letters are the initials of the arsenal. L and C for Lake City, etc. The two numbers are the last two digits of the production year. ost of my once-fired Lake City is marked L C 0 1. Pretty sure if .59 BMG were really "metricized" as far as the U.S. military and U.S. government and U.S. CITIZENS WHO "OWN" THAT "PUBLIC DOMAIN" COMMERCIAL CARTRIDGE WERE CONCERNED OUR CASES WOULD SAY "12.7x99 NATO" on them.

Just like if there were such a thing as an "anti-materiel rifle" as any sort of "official" designation/description/definition, it wouldn't be news to someone like ME who owns a supposed "anti-materiel rifle" and has purchased the rifle, ammunition for it, ammunition components for it and reloading equipment for it to the tune of $5000 or so in the last 3 years and has purchased at least 90% of the ammunition components for it as MILITARY SURPLUS CASES, BULLETS AND POWDER and knows that you can't even come anywhere NEAR getting a once-fired .50 BMG Lake City Arsenal mil-surplus case from a round fired through a M2 .50 BMG Heavy Machine Gun with a "mil-spec" barrel/chamber into a COMMERCIAL SPEC ARMALITE AR-50A1 "anti-materiel rifle" chamber without full-length sizing it first.

So Mr. Gun Expert, when should I check back to see if your extensive, properly sourced/verified/cited/linked "edits" to this article whether with your ever-expanding "definition" of "anti-materiel rifle" as posted in your previous edit here applied to the actual article OR with all of the complete b.s. that article contains or more accurately is in its entirety "revised" so that the article tells the truth that "anti-materiel rifle" doesn't mean or define or describe anything except for what "gun experts" with varying degrees of experience with and knowledge of guns which may or may not include any or all of the current list of "anti-materiel rifles" (a list which is either very incomplete or inaccurate or inconsequential and has to be at least one of them per your own "revised" definitions) have "collectively" decided it means after taking a very "progressive" approach to "educating" people with their "encyclopedia" article (most would expect a "definition" to be found in WIKTIONARY rather than WIKIPEDIA but I haven't checked to see that it isn't and won't let the fact that it has a WIKIPEDIA article prevent me from adding a much more accurate and concise and honest "definition" of "anti-materiel rifle" TO Wiktionary if it does not) by creating the article before there was a definition just like the original "inventor(s)" of the very NEW and "INNOVATIVE" "term" itself did.

I call that "progressive" because like most "progressive" ideals and goals and causes, it's not so much about doing something truly useful and constructive and helpful that will stand on its own two feet if its REALLY THE "RIGHT THING TO DO" AND WILL JUST SORT OF "HAPPEN" WHEN IT NEEDS TO HAPPEN and mainly about doing SOMETHING JUST TO BE PART OF SOMETHING AND TO "CREATE" SOMETHING AND ULTIMATELY TO "CONTROL" SOMETHING AND BE AN "EXPERT" ON SOMETHING MOST "INTERESTED PARTIES" WITH A LOT MORE EXPERIENCE AND KNOWLEDGE AND "OFFICIAL" INFORMATION THAT CERTAINLY "CHALLENGES" THE "EXPERTS" AND THEIR "DEFINTITION" WILL END UP HAVING NO IDEA EVEN EXISTS BECAUSE WHILE THEY'RE OUT SHOOTING, OWNING, OPERATING, BUILDING, BUYING, SELLING THEIR "ANTI-MATERIEL RIFLES" AND ALL THE AMMUNITION AND ACCESSORIES THAT GO WITH THEM AND USING THEM FOR EVERYTHING BUT SHOOTING "MATERIEL" (STILL WONDERING HOW AND WHEN RIFLES SHIFT FROM "SNIPER RIFLE" TO "ANTI-MATERIEL RIFLE" AND BACK WHICH YOU SHOULD ALSO "EDIT" INTO THE ARTICLE) AND AREN'T PAYING ATTENTION TO WHAT THE "GUN EXPERTS" ARE DOING AND SAYING IN THEIR VIDEO GAMES AND CHATS AND BLOGS AND YOUTUBE VIDEOS AND OTHER "SOCIAL MEDIA" LIKE WIKIPEDIA ARTICLES WHERE ITS ALL "SOCIAL MEDIA" BEHIND THE SCENES AND THEREFORE WON'T BE INCLINED TO DO WHAT PEOPLE WHO BELIEVE IN ALL THE "CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS" DO WHEN THEY SEE SOMEONE USING ONE RIGHT TO TELL LIES OR AT LEAST REPEAT THEM WHETHER OR NOT THEY KNOW THEY'RE LIES AND ALSO TO "CREATE" IN "CYBERSPACE" ON AN "ENCYCLOPEDIA ANYONE CAN EDIT" WHAT THEY'D NEVER HAVE THE GUTS AND FACTS TO PUT IN "BLACK & WHITE" IN PUBLIC LIBRARIES ALL OVER THE WORLD OR AT LEAST THE U.S. Why not? Because paper and ink are permanent and anybody can open a book and read it after using a card catalog to search the library for a book by subject or author and in a PUBLIC LIBRARY books are either FICTION or NON-FICTION. With RELIABLE SOURCES RIGHT THERE TO BE FOUND ON THE SAME SHELVES.

Here on Wikipedia there are all kinds of ways to "hide" content and of course make other peoples edits "disappear" altogether. But that doesn't make screen shots and printed copies and links emailed to "interested parties" who might take issue with having their commercial firearms and cartridges and components and accessories referred to as "anti-materiel rifles" and publishing a list of commercial rifles and commercial rifle manufacturers that supposedly all are or have been in the past "adopted" by military forces for the purpose of destroying "materiel" like food and medical supplies and fuel and other "supplies" that don't automatically "war materials" simply because they're present in a "war zone" or on a "battlefield".

And no, that's not a "legal threat". If anyone is "threatened" by "editors" on Wikipedia and has his or her physical/personal/professional/legal/financial "security" at least potentially "threatened" or "reduced" by participating on Wikipedia and calling attention to "editors" who are posting pure fabrication and fantasy making claims and posting "facts" they can't back up with any "reliable sources" that even prove the subject of the article "exists" and is known to "insiders" directly involved in it, much less provide citations/references/sources/links that show said "insiders" consistently and repeatedly "owning" the supposed "truth", its editors who come to Wikipedia to do nothing but edit it with the TRUTH and do not use it as their "part-time job", social media site, power-tripping playland and hideout from the real world.

The way you and a pile of other editors violate more or less every significant and useful WP policy as you sit behind keyboards playing "God" passing judgement on everything and everyone that passes beneath your eyes on your watchlists, talk pages, pet articles and relentlessly patrolled "discussions" is just a little too "1984" for many would-be editors that could make valuable contributions if only the "old heads" would try EDITING material once in a while instead of DESTROYING or DELETING or REVERTING it and scares them off. Meanwhile its the WP power elite with their piles of alternate accounts and multiple personalities that feign fear and instantly become potential "victims" if someone mentions the legality or lack thereof or the existence of certain rights and freedoms and introduces morality, ethics, personal responsibility and the potential for seeking "redress" outside the sacred halls of WP or if the power players think a "legal threat" is even IMPLIED.

Meanwhile, the power elite are perfectly free to play politics and semantics and "contribute" to things like articles on "firearms" or rather make up non-existent "facts" about firearms, portray them like they're common knowledge while completely ignoring the "policies" regarding sources, citations and references and in the process create an article that arbitrarily creates and then places into it a "class" or "category" or "type" of guns that is obviously given a "black eye" by their claims the "type" and all rifles they declare to be part of it are designed/constructed/sold/purchased/used specifically for killing people and breaking things.

And that's not a "threat" to the ownership, possession and sporting use of those SPORTING and COMMERCIAL guns? And what about the people involved in the gun industry who are producing and selling perfectly legal and absolutely commercial sporting rifles and other guns that have a "military connection" but aren't in any way, shape or form "offensive weapons"?

Surely you get why publishing the name of X company and its product Y rifle in and article claiming its a "type of rifle" specifically and exclusively designed for the "break things" half of the whole "kill people and break things" reason for being for military forces could lead to negative public and private consequences for that company's employees, customers, suppliers, dealers, retailers, investors, etc and why it would be irresponsible NOT to inform them of their "status" as "military weapon manufacturers" that they almost certainly will find surprising since they're not "defense contractors" for the U.S. government and aren't in the firearms business to "kill people and break things".

It doesn't matter if you "get it" or not and I fully expect you to "double down" and just reply with more b.s. because that's your m.o. and there are no "retractions" on Wikipedia and you can always get mad and stomp your feet and "leave" again and/or bully/bore/ban me into "silence". Or can you? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.234.100.169 (talk) 13:31, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

• As Mark Twain is supposed to have said: “I didn't have time to write a short letter, so I wrote a long one instead.” Arrivisto (talk) 10:44, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

Or there's Ronnie Corbett who was famous for his long rambling jokes, which at least were funny. He jokingly referred to himself as a national small bore champion... Robevans123 (talk) 12:33, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

Milhist project tagging

For Box Tunnel, you say it's ridiculous, is that even though it has a substantial section written on it's use for defence purposes during WW2? Cdjp1 (talk) 10:30, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

Box Tunnel has nothing to do with any defence use (and it's a shame that Wikipedia keeps repeating this crap). There's an interesting site alongside Box Tunnel, but Box Tunnel is a hundred years older than Spring Quarry, Tunnel Quarry or BURLINGTON, and Box Mines another hundred older than that. Wikipedia doesn't even have articles on these three, but the Box Tunnel article does have a "More" link to Monkton Farleigh, which is miles away and nothing at all to do with anything at Box. There is no reason for Box to be part of MILHIST. Nor, for that matter, Lydney Park. Andy Dingley (talk) 22:35, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

Lydney Park does have an Iron-Age hillfort present, although that should be forked into Lydney Camp should the latter article ever be written. So I think that the MilHist tag is appropriate until that happens.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 13:44, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

April 2018

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is RHaworth and speedies. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 18:07, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

"Unsourced nonsense"

"(rv unsourced nonsense. Whilst an advantage for monoplanes, this has nothing to do with mid-mounted wings. Undid revision 835275581 by Arrivisto (talk))"

So far, it is unsourced but it is NOT nonsense; on most light aircraft (with the exception of some crop-sprayers) it is a truism. And "nonsense"! - what about "WP: assume good faith"? Arrivisto (talk) 10:24, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

It's unsourced, so you know all about BURDEN. It's nonsense, so you're not going to find anything to support your claim that a mid-mounted wing somehow has stronger spars than a low-mounted or even high-mounted wing, or your implicit claim that non-mid-mounted wings require additional struts.

The existence of some aircraft where monoplanes are strutted doesn't change that one jot. Andy Dingley (talk) 10:45, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

Oops! I was having a senior moment! I meant to say something about low-wing, not mid-wing, and I accept it cannot be claimed that a mid-mounted wing somehow has stronger spars. However, it may be useful to concoct a form of words to show that the typical fuselage cross-section of a low-wing aircraft often makes it easier to design a strong carry-through spar that has no need for struts or braces, whereas high-wing, shoulder-wing (and the occasional mid wing) aircraft very frequently have struts, particularly on light aircraft. Arrivisto (talk) 10:52, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

That's what we call WP:OR. Also untrue.

Spars "carry through". It is extremely rare for them to not do so - the structural problems are very great otherwise. Even when wings are removable, the spars almost always carry through to the opposing spar half, and are connected directly (or through a short central section of fixed spar). Taking the spar loads into the fuselage as a pure cantilever is exceptional.

Struts were widely used up to the 1930s, and sometimes since for low performance aircraft, where construction costs take priority over drag. You can show that there are many such aircraft with struts, especially high wings - because for a high wing and a large canopy, there's often a structural issue in taking vertical forces past the greenhouse. Also it's rare for such aircraft (small and simple) to have mid-mounted wings at all, rather than low mounts. But this is coincidental, or "parallel evolution". The same constraints which discourage mid wings also encourage struts. There is nothing in there to say that a mid-mounted spar is stronger, as you added to the article. Andy Dingley (talk) 12:10, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

"There is nothing in there to say that a mid-mounted spar is stronger, as you added to the article" FFS! I've already acknowledged that error. "That's what we call WP:OR". A comment on a talk page is not WP:OR; it's a discussion on improving a page. And is it helpful to respond " untrue." to a dismiss the entirety of a bona fide comment? (I think not). Arrivisto (talk) 14:40, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

Category:Bridges across the River Avon, Bristol

Thanks for your work on Category:Bridges across the River Avon, Bristol. Should Prince Street Bridge in the harbour or Ashton Avenue Bridge over the New Cut be included?— Rod ^talk 18:22, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

I was wondering much the same for Bristol Bridge.

I've added Ashton Avenue Bridge, because the New Cut is, and always has been, the Avon. I see Bristol Bridge as being part too, because when built that was the Avon. Prince Street though? - I can't see it. That has always been part of the harbour. Andy Dingley (talk) 20:44, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

OK fair enough. I added Bathampton Toll Bridge, Avoncliff Aqueduct & Dundas Aqueduct.— Rod ^talk 20:49, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

Bespoke nominated for deletion

Hi. Sorry to bother you, but you once commented on the talk page for the article Bespoke on the specific topic of its suitability for inclusion on Wikipedia. This article has now been nominated for deletion. Please see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bespoke should you wish to contribute to the discussion. Steve ^T • C 21:08, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

Stout Scarab Stout Scarab:

Latest revision as of 16:36, 29 April 2018 (edit) (undo) (thank) Andy Dingley (rv a completely wrong change. Undid revision 838831667 by Stodieck (talk))

Please show your references for "monospace" this is not common English usage for a minivan. May be French. Otherwise I will rewrite the paragraph without the word.

IT HAS A CHASSIS. So do not replace this with "monocoque". "I don't know this word" is not an excuse to replace it with something that's just a bit similar, only with an entirely wrong meaning.

A "monospace" bodyshell is not a contemporary term to the Scarab, but as that's mostly because there were just so few vehicles of that form at that time, then this is understandable. Monospace is now though the general term of art for vehicles of this form, more in the US than in Europe where we use MPV. It implies a single enclosed space and also (unlike many small European vans) a commonality between the driver's space and the load space, now the passenger space.

Also, fonts are monospaced, not monospace. Monospace (capitalised) is a proper noun for one specific one. Andy Dingley (talk) 14:19, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

THIS IS NOT A REFERENCE: "Monospace is now though the general term of art for vehicles of this form, more in the US than in Europe where we use MPV" LETS TRY THAT AGAIN: Please show your REFERENCES for "monospace". Otherwise I will rewrite the paragraph without the word.

Trucker's hitch

Thanks very much for reverting the Truckers Hitch mechanical advantage section back to something sane. I was confused when I saw just the 2:1 beliefs there recently, did some googling and found the 3:1 beliefs I expected, so added a reference to them, then found the Talk section about them, and added a reference to them (hoping, foolishly, that by leaving the original firmly held 2:1 beliefs in place, the person who put them there wouldn't get upset). Alas, it seems (s)he probably did, removing all debate. I'm new to wikipedia editing (only just made an account, my last edits were anonymous) - so I've no idea how to keep the page balanced as it currently is - but thanks for fixing it up! Bisdn1 (talk) 00:48, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

It could still use explanation. It's either 2:1 or 3:1, depending on how you use it, and whether that loose tail is tied off rigidly or not. Andy Dingley (talk) 09:30, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

Hmmm. When I read the current explanation, I feel like it describes the either 2:1 or 3:1 pretty well. I'm sure it could be improved, but... I'll be honest - my faith in wikipedia was decidedly shaken by the explanations that had been in this section - but the current section, I think, is excellent. Thanks again, as I say! Bisdn1 (talk) 03:58, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

Blaenavon ironworks

The Blaenavon Ironworks article is about the single enterprise built by Hill, Thomkins and Pratt, as a large scale ironworks complete with furnaces etc in the 1780s, expanded in 1830s, and remaining in production until the early 20th century. The site is now a museum, and, along with Big Pit, a key feature of the Blaenavon Industrial Landscape, a UNESCO world heritage site. Most searches for iron working in Blaenavon describe the Blaenavon Ironworks in the singular.

Your edit summary said "it's fair to describe the Blaenavon area as having multiple significant ironworks". Yes, up to a point, but the article is about one, significant, site. Not the the development of iron and steel making and working in the Blaenavon area.

AFAICT, the only other sites in the area that involved working iron were the related Garnddyrys Forge, the forge at Cwmavon, the ironworks (later steelworks) at Forge Side and, at a stretch, the "British" at Abersychan. All of these have their own articles or sections of articles elsewhere, all of which could do with some serious expansion (although the Garnddyrys forge article is a reasonable start).

If you still really believe that Blaenavon Ironworks should take a plural verb, then please edit the rest of the article for consistency. Otherwise, please revert your edit. Robevans123 (talk) 11:34, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

Whichever you think. I think there's a case either way, depending on the scope of "Blaenavon" and on the importance of it. I think that its importance for UNESCO is as the broader site. This would include Garnddyrys and the British (it was the British I was thinking of in particular, for its involvement with the earlier spathic ores), maybe not Forge Side as too unimportant, even though it's closer. However, reading this particular article more carefully, it is written for the one site, and for the Gilchrist Thomas work in particular, not the broader Alexander Cordell scope for the valley. Andy Dingley (talk) 12:19, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

Discussion at WP:ANI about an editor with whom you interacted 6 months ago

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. D.Lazard (talk) 15:50, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

May 2018

Hello. Regarding the recent revert you made to Data recovery: you may already know about them, but you might find Wikipedia:Template messages/User talk namespace useful. After a revert, these can be placed on the user's talk page to let them know you considered their edit inappropriate, and also direct new users towards the sandbox. They can also be used to give a stern warning to a vandal when they've been previously warned. Hey Andy Dingley! Just wanted to remind you to warn users when reverting edits like this. - zfJames Please add {{ping|ZfJames}} to your reply on this page (chat page, contribs, chat) 22:46, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

So we now have template notices telling people to use template notices? EEng 22:49, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

That's hilarious, but personally I find templates to be too impersonal, so when needed I always find the few seconds it takes to deliver a hand-typed message to be more engaging. Zaereth (talk) 23:12, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

I'm waiting for the template notice suggihting that someone use fewer template notices. EEng 23:42, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

Won't be from me, but Andy's the "template guru"... (Sort of makes this whole thread seem even more funny.) Zaereth (talk) 00:33, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

• I will present myself at WP:ANI forthwith... Andy Dingley (talk) 07:19, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

Chair

Hi, then simply state that in the opening sentence to clarify there was an update to the chair, who did the update and the year is was done. We can still use the same citation. To avoid further reverts why don't you make the changes. IQ125 (talk) 11:26, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

OK then. Do you know anything about the date? There seem to be various sources claiming either 1992 or 1994. Andy Dingley (talk) 11:36, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

Windermere Jetty

Reverting edit 843177869, whilst fitting with rules that I would normally follow 100%, seems particularly unfortunate, since I have not seen a better, more accurate or pertinent comment about this entire disastrous project. I don't suppose there will ever be a "fair comment" reason for leaving unreferenced POV edits in place, but if ever that were to happen, this one would be top of the list for not reverting.
ThoughtIdRetired (talk) 16:39, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

I'm not close enough to Windermere to know (there's a local museum where I'd make a very similar comment though). But the point is, whether true or not, WP just isn't the place for such comments. It's not what we do here. Andy Dingley (talk) 19:39, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

You are exactly right - but this incident has spurred me to nudge the whole subject in the direction of some journalists - so there is some small chance of a citable reference (though I appreciate that I would be barred from such an edit).
ThoughtIdRetired (talk) 07:22, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for this. As is stands the article only says it is due to open this year, not will open this year. The sources I cited indicate an opening date of October this year and in all fairness this is still possible - the buildings are now completed so they only need to put the boats in, a few display boards and a gift shop/cafe, which shouldn't take too long, although if they continue at their current speed this might not happen. As I understand it, the landscaping will be done at a later date (2019). --▲RedScrees (talk) 14:16, 3 June 2018 (UTC)

October? So that's basically "not opening" in 2018? Andy Dingley (talk) 14:17, 3 June 2018 (UTC)

SSEM

Andy, I'm having a hard time imagining what's got you so off the rails on this. Why do you link a source that cites a subtitle "A Small Scale Experimental Machine" as if it was a source using Small Scale Experimental Machine as a name? You just like to keep the argument going, or do you have a point? Dicklyon (talk) 17:55, 3 June 2018 (UTC)

You are making absolute claims, "the SSEM name was not used" before 2004, and that the name was not capitalised. Yet there it is: your own cite, to the Electrical Review of 1951, using it. You also claim that this was not a title, merely a description. You claim that it wasn't capitalised, and maybe the original paper didn't do that, but the Electrical Review clearly did when they referred to it, and in 1951 (and see WP:SECONDARY for why that matters).

On the title vs. description issue, then you might have a point: clearly it's primarily descriptive. But as it's also the only 'name' being applied to it, what else could we use? But you aren't claiming this, instead you're making outright statements that the name wasn't used in 1951, yet there it is.

Manchester's own historical project says, "It was called the 'Small Scale Experimental Machine', but was soon nicknamed the 'Baby'" and yet you have decided that Manchester Uni have got their own history wrong. That is both nonsensical, yet characteristic Dicklyon editing style, just as you did at the railway projects. Andy Dingley (talk) 19:30, 3 June 2018 (UTC)

The name wasn't used in 1951, nor any time before Burton in 1997. What you pointed out was a citation to the title of a paper using a descriptive subtitle, nothing more. The bit you quote from the historical project, "It was called the 'Small Scale Experimental Machine', but was soon nicknamed...", is Chris Burton trying to legitimize the name he made up, which had never been used before. No source had ever called it that before Burton did. Many had called it the "baby"; he got that out of order. Dicklyon (talk) 22:34, 3 June 2018 (UTC)

"The name wasn't used in 1951" Of course it was. It's cited right in front of you, how do you keep denying this?

That's not a name; it's a citation of a paper title that had a descriptive phrase in it. That title came from Tootill's Masters thesis; the authors never used it in the text of that paper, nor in anything else they wrote, as far as anyone has been able to find. Dicklyon (talk) 23:02, 3 June 2018 (UTC)

" the name he made up" Firstly, that is precisely the sort of unwarranted accusation towards others that makes working with universities increasingly difficult around WP. Secondly it's so obviously untrue! He's quoting the same papers that used it 50 years earlier (and that you cited).

There is room to question what is "descriptive", what is "title" and where we find the first real use of this as an canonical phrase (but you prefer to impose an informal nickname). But when you persistently just deny the obvious, there is no discussion with you. Andy Dingley (talk) 22:49, 3 June 2018 (UTC)

"Made up" is an historical deduction, not an accusation. If Burton didn't make it up, show any place that it came from before him. He did not cite any source for it, and he declared it the "official" name before anyone had ever used it as a name. Dicklyon (talk) 23:02, 3 June 2018 (UTC)

Also note that most of the computer50 site pages that Napper made use only "Baby" (e.g. [4], [5], [6]); only a few incorporated Burton's new name. Dicklyon (talk) 23:05, 3 June 2018 (UTC)

It is glaringly obvious that he copied it from the Williams, Kilburn and Tootill paper. They may not have been using it as the name of the machine, he may have stretched its significance, but in no way did he "make it up". How can you possibly think this? Andy Dingley (talk) 23:07, 3 June 2018 (UTC)

Yes, of course! He took the subtitle of a paper, "a small-scale experimental machine", and declared that the official name of the machine was "the Small-Scale Experimental Machine". We agree on that. Dicklyon (talk) 23:10, 3 June 2018 (UTC)

So he did not "make it up" then, did he! He may have changed its emphasis (at most), but he did not invent it, as you keep claiming. Andy Dingley (talk) 09:24, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

Call it what you will. He took a paper's descriptive subtitle, and from it crafted a "proper name" that he declared to be the "formal" and "official" name of the Baby. He didn't make up the words, but he made a name from them, after nobody had called it that in its 50 years. Dicklyon (talk) 14:07, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

And you, Dicklyon, have decided that he was wrong to do so. That's what we call WP:OR. You don't get to do that here. Andy Dingley (talk) 14:13, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

I have done no such thing! I have never criticized Burton, nor suggested that is was wrong for him to use the name he prefers. I'm only interested in what Wikipedia should do. And I have limited my own research to talk pages; it would be inappropriate to put into the article any of what I've deduced from sources. Dicklyon (talk) 17:59, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

Indent

"I didn't delete it, Dicklyon did." I was replying to Dicklyon, but that was unclear because you put your comment on the same indent as Dick's making it impossible for me to distinguish with my own indent alone. SpinningSpark 17:31, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

Thanks, there was an overlap and [ec] Andy Dingley (talk) 18:07, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

Andy, I'm sorry my accidental edit of an old version triggered your caps sensitivity. Nevertheless, if you could try to restrain your emotions a little you might find that your comments could actually contribute something useful, instead of just noise like in this one. It seems you know a lot of good stuff, and I respect that, but as long as all you do is attack me it's going to be hard to move forward together. Dicklyon (talk) 23:09, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

Overbeck and Johnson

Andy, these guys need articles. You want to help? We could work together, or each take one, or whatever. Dicklyon (talk) 20:17, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

Bristol Harbour

I've noticed a good faith IP edit of Bristol Harbour which is way below the 'Good article' standard (see Bristol Harbour#Early Bristol Docks) - aside from anything else, it's completely unreferenced. I draw this to your attention as you've edited this article recently and I think this probably calls for Twinkle, which I am struggling to learn. Can you work Twinkle? Can you help? RedSquirrel (talk) 09:12, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

I've undone it, because you're right, it was far from an improvement.

This is a borderline edit, as it's a one-edit wonder from a Bristol local IP and is probably a school. However it's certainly no improvement. I wouldn't use Twinkle though. Twinkle is for quickly dealing with simple vandals. If it's an edit like this, and you want a dialogue with them, then do it by hand. The Twinkle message are so boilerplated that they are usually inappropriate and only ever irritate the recipient.

I can't see this as "good" article, but then I have zero faith in "good article" status, so that's no surprise. Page numbers on citations would be just one thing. The historical coverage is almost entirely absent - nothing from "early history" to the first floating harbour, despite the 18th century being Bristol's peak of importance. Then confusion between the early floating harbour and Brunel's improved one. Andy Dingley (talk) 09:22, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

OK, thanks, and thanks for the advice re Twinkle. RedSquirrel (talk) 12:32, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

List categories – for lists; wind farm categories – for wind farms

All other lists like e.g. are correctly NOT categorized as windfarm, like e.g. List of wind farms in Lithuania!

• Category:Lists of wind farms
  • Category:Lists of wind farms by country

--Leoclerc (talk) 20:17, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

University ranking

Andy, could you please add to Template:Infobox_university_rankings and Template:Infobox US university ranking two more parameters: College_and_university_rankings#SCImago_Institutions_Rankings and Webometrics_Ranking_of_World_Universities?

See # 1.17 and # 1.23 in College and university rankings and

http://www.scimagoir.com/

http://www.webometrics.info/en

maintained by the Spanish National Research Council:

Thank you very much! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.98.78.51 (talk) 03:02, 27 June 2018 (UTC)

Sorry, but I can't. I don't have the necessary permissions to work on those. Also Infobox templates are highly political: any changes made by someone who's not one of the relevant clique will just get reverted immediately. I suggest asking at Template talk:Infobox university rankings (I see you've already been ignored at Template talk:Infobox US university ranking, but this might see more traffic). You could also ask at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Universities, which seems busier. Good luck with it! Andy Dingley (talk) 09:03, 27 June 2018 (UTC)

Good faith Maintenance reverts

Hello, You reverted a good faith maintenance edit on Arlesdale Railway with the edit summary "rv clueless edit". In reverting such policy based maintenance you failed to show how there was no policy violation or argue why I am in error in policy interpretation just indicating that I am clueless.

It shows you have been an editor since 2007 with over 133,000 edits so I am struggling to understand your rationale. Wikipedia is user-generated, not exempted as a self-published source, and not acceptable as a source, be it in-universe or "other" universe, on other Wikipedia articles. If "all of the sources used" are such then they have been found by an abundance of long-standing and broad community consensus to be unacceptable.

You are using some rationale of "in-universe" exemption for allowing a Wikipedia link to be used as a general source and considering your reported experience this is udderly flabbergasting. Wikipedia verifiability policy specifically states "Do not use articles from Wikipedia (whether this English Wikipedia or Wikipedias in other languages) as sources. Also, do not use websites that mirror Wikipedia content or publications that rely on material from Wikipedia as sources. Content from a Wikipedia article is not considered reliable unless it is backed up by citing reliable sources. Confirm that these sources support the content, then use them directly.". That seems pretty clear so if I am clueless then there is good reasoning.

As it is, and since my clear edit summary and talk page rationale, this is paramount to vandalism. You repaired the "Clutterbuck, Martin" link (archived) and not only left the link as a source also (duplicated: unacceptable as a source) but reverted the "dead link" tag.

In light of the above I suppose it would be in vain to ask you to self-revert and either find, or let someone else find, appropriate sourcing or allow the article to remain as unsourced to be tagged per a multitude of policies, guidelines, and even community accepted essays? Continuing in disregard of community practice can be considered tendentious editing and subject to reporting and WP:sanctions. Thank you, Otr500 (talk) 20:01, 30 June 2018 (UTC)

• Blanking all the sources for an article is not "maintenance". Also, discuss that article there, and don't waste bytes on my talk: page. The specific nature of your evident cluelessness is that you can't tell the difference between a source, and a wikipedia article discussing that source. The fact that an independent source has a WP article about it, and that article has been linked in the citation, does not mean that WP itself is being cited as a source. Andy Dingley (talk) 20:24, 30 June 2018 (UTC)

ANI

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Otr500 (talk) 22:46, 30 June 2018 (UTC)

Pompatus

Andy,

Your reverting to a previous version of the pompatus article made it much better. Thank you for doing that.

159.83.54.2 (talk) 19:47, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

WP:MOS

Hi,

As for this; I cannot find anything in WP:MOS which support that, what am I missing?

I feel adding {{Commons category|Ein Hod}} is so...last year, now that we have a link direct on the left, Huldra (talk) 20:34, 15 July 2018 (UTC)

If you're claiming that {{Commons category}} (680,000+ pages) is now deprecated, then the onus is upon you to demonstrate this first. Andy Dingley (talk) 20:45, 15 July 2018 (UTC)

When you link it from commons, it automatically appear on the left side in all the languages (for Ein Hod that is 10 languages). Surely, this is a much easier and better way to link, than to write {{Commons category}} on each and every language, (Most of the {{Commons category}} are now removed from the IP area; you are taking a step backwards if you reintroduce them), Huldra (talk) 20:58, 15 July 2018 (UTC)

It's not a question of the editing effort in making links appear, it's about the page presented to the reader: readers do not read the LH sidebar - even experienced users don't know the link is there. Andy Dingley (talk) 21:01, 15 July 2018 (UTC)

Well, it isn't exactly rocket science; once you know it is there you will see it. As an example of this being easier: I made a commons cat for Michael Cherney a few minutes ago; with one click over at commons it is now linked on all the 5 different languages of his article. Sooooo much easier that adding {{Commons category}} everywhere...Huldra (talk) 21:12, 15 July 2018 (UTC)

But it's useless to our readers. If you have no interest in readers, then it is indeed easier. Andy Dingley (talk) 21:14, 15 July 2018 (UTC)

I think you greatly underestimate out readers, Huldra (talk) 21:19, 15 July 2018 (UTC)

Is this the right place to talk about your reversion on Coaxial power connector?

Hi, I'm pretty new to Wikipedia, so if I'm posting in the wrong place, please let me know. The reason I removed gendering from the two paragraphs I edited was because the previous paragraph seemed to say that the gender of Coaxial power connectors was debatable, so the subsequent use of genders only added confusion. I thought that standard terminology for Coaxial power connectors was plug and receptacle not male and female. Is this not the case? and if so, should this section be edited? Thanks. Anomalistic (talk) 00:05, 16 July 2018 (UTC)

Male and female are standard terminology, they need to be in this article.

It was right before. The plugs are female. They're barrel connectors. This used to be made clear in the article (there was a big rewrite a couple of years back). Note that plugs does not mean the same thing as "male". However many plugs are also male, but in the case of barrel connectors (and many other plugs, it's not that uncommon) the plugs are female. Andy Dingley (talk) 00:16, 16 July 2018 (UTC)

Are you sure the plugs are female? What about "Some, after consideration and surveys, found that user perception of which was male and which female was evenly split.[9]" from Coaxial power connector? Anomalistic (talk) 00:46, 16 July 2018 (UTC)

Yeah, let's rewrite articles on the basis of random polls done by suppliers! Andy Dingley (talk) 00:49, 16 July 2018 (UTC)

Apologies for my continued confusion, but I don't think sarcasm was necessary.

To alleviate a possible previous previous confusion, I am not against gendering electrical components where it adds clarity or is standard terminology—I only disagree with the use of gender where gender standards have not been defined and are under debate.

Also, I'm still not totally sure that the genders expressed reflect a neutral perspective (provided the paragraph above is correct). The way I read it, "there are varying opinions [on which is male and which is female]" and "they have not yet defined gender-based standards for low-voltage coaxial power connectors such as those discussed herein" so by describing the plug as female and receptacle as male, we are presenting only one viewpoint of two equally valid ones. Anomalistic (talk) 12:43, 16 July 2018 (UTC)

This is a problem aspect to the article and I do appreciate the issue you raise. However we have to try and go forwards, not back. Better sourcing for the "plugs are defined by convexity of the outer shell, maleness by the smallest connector pin" standpoint would be very useful. However just removing it is not good - even stating that "no-one can ever agree this" would be better than just removing it and making no comment at all (at which many people assume that all plugs are male). Bringing in "sources" that are little more than random polls is not an improvement - at most, that would only go to support the "it's complicated" view, not a way of deciding what the definition was. Andy Dingley (talk) 13:34, 16 July 2018 (UTC)

Good point about going forward. I thought that to gender these specific connectors would be going forward beyond the industry as a whole and thus unsourceable, but apparently I was in error. Is there a source already in the article supporting the fact that the plugs are female in this case or is that common knowledge and not needing a source?

In an effort to go make positive progress, would it be best to clarify that the smallest pin determines gender and that despite the facts that there are varying opinions and that users are split about half and half on the issue, there is a clear majority opinion among experts?

On a side note, is there a way to comment on talk pages with the visual editor? Anomalistic (talk) 13:53, 16 July 2018 (UTC)

I know nothing of the visual editor. My experiences with it have been unpleasant, and of all the ways in which WP makes life difficult, it's not the syntax that's the problem. Andy Dingley (talk) 13:55, 16 July 2018 (UTC)

Gender of connectors and fasteners#Electrical and electronic might be of interest. Andy Dingley (talk) 13:56, 16 July 2018 (UTC)

Is this blatantly wring then: "they have not yet defined gender-based standards for low-voltage coaxial power connectors such as those discussed herein"? It seems that gender-based standards have been clearly defined. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Anomalistic (talk • contribs) 14:21, 16 July 2018 (UTC)

Unusual deaths

Hi there! The edit I removed wasn't because the source wasn't reliable, but because the source doesn't refer to the death as unusual, which is the criterion for inclusion on the page. I've asked the IP to provide a source that does so, and if they can, it's definitely worth including. If I can clarify anything further, just let me know! NekoKatsun (talk) 22:56, 23 July 2018 (UTC)

You could clarify this: are you familiar with WP:3RR, and why are you referring to The Independent as a "tabloid journal[s] who regularly fling around these words for fun"? Andy Dingley (talk) 22:59, 23 July 2018 (UTC)

I was quoting the section of the Unusual Deaths talkpage that has the standards, which is why I put it in quotation marks. I am indeed familiar with 3RR, although I'm not sure why you're bringing it up? NekoKatsun (talk) 23:23, 23 July 2018 (UTC)

ANI notice

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. — Maile (talk) 19:58, 27 July 2018 (UTC)

The ANI was not there by the time I got to it but was going to leave the following reply there. Since it contains some explanation and an apology to Andy if I seemed to be acting Bizarre I leave it here;

• The grass skirt article had one source that was not added as an inline citation after 7 years. I redirected the page to Cultural appropriation#Costumes. An editor reverted sometime later and began a talk page discussion where they made claims about the edit and redirect; "It is also Hawaii-centric to believe that it only refers to the modern garment for tourist inspired hula since other Polynesian people and African people who wore grass skirts. If this was grass hula skirt that be a different story. I suggest deletion rather than redirect to a non-related article. " Since a redirect keeps edit history and a deletion loses it, I had preferred the redirect over the deletion. The editor attempted to add sources and content that were of passing mention of the term "Grass skirt" which I felt were merely English descriptions of cultural dress of various indigenous peoples. But it is frustrating to have this editor jump into many of the Hawaii related articles when he sees me editing and begin reverting or trying to quickly work over me. There are always going to be disputes over content but the editor has a habit of stepping in on articles I have begun editing or even created to make major changes to titles and content as I am working. Personal attacks on the talk page as well as accusations of bias have been a problem to me but my reaction just makes it worse because the two of us can just go on without end on the talk page. I personally think the term is simply not encyclopedic but I never made any remarks like the other editor that accused me of being overly sensitive by saying that they don't object to the Fu Manchu mustache article even tough it puts down their heritage. These types of comments are unjustified and have no place in the discussion and is what I felt was bizarre for sure. I have a Chinese ancestry as well so it seemed to be lobbing race around a bit too loosely on top of the accusation of censoring Wikipedia. I have a lot of respect for Andy Dingy so I apologize if they felt I was acting bizarre.

Maile above strikes me as overreacting and I will certainly say that the comment; " Mark Miller's pattern there is pretty much how he operates" is certainly not accurate And I am unsure how they could make the claim since we have really only worked on the one article. I have worked very hard over several years to improve my myself as an editor and I feel very comfortable saying that I do not have a pattern of disruption. I helped create Wikipedia:WikiProject Editor Retention, am a regular helping at the Reliable sources notice board and a mediator at WP:DRN but I know I am far from perfect. The Liluokalani article is another example where I had begun editing the article and the other editor decided to edit as well. In this particular case he requested Maile's assistance editing the article. But it seems we all had differing goals. Yes, Project Hawaii is a small project and we do encourage editors to edit subjects relating to the project but suggesting I be topic banned is hardly the answer nor is it justified. ~reply to ANI no longer filed~

At any rate, thanks for stepping in at the article and I am sorry if I created work for you or if you felt I was just being a jerk.--Mark Miller (talk) 23:25, 27 July 2018 (UTC)

WP:SSF

Hi Andy, I won't clog wp:ukrail with a reply, so I'll do so here because it is clear that we agree on the conclusion even though we come at it different directions. By "those of us", I meant "editors who want an encyclopedia that is accessible to reasonably intelligent people from around the world who we don't want to be turned off by the first couple of lines“. The article that winds me up is Clapham Junction. I fully accept that chainage should be included in the article but just not in the lead. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 10:49, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

Even then, I don't particularly object to Clapham.

The problem is that there's no good unit for fractional miles. Quarter miles are recognisable, but quite blunt. Chains are good, but obscure (maybe why they've stayed in use?) Yards are no use at all because they're neither used by surveyors nor understood by a wide audience (who, of less than pensionable age, remembers how many yards to a mile?) Decimal miles? That's an ugly hybrid which is clear enough, but no-one uses them. Andy Dingley (talk) 11:07, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

Category:1′D1′ h3 locomotives and Category:1′D1′h3 locomotives are they different or should they be merged?

Hello Andy Dingley,

I noticed you created the 2 categories listed above and I doubt whether they should not be merged to one category.Robby (talk) 07:53, 10 August 2018 (UTC)

Duplicate - there are some with the space missing and they all ought to be renamed (eventually, not important), just for consistency. Andy Dingley (talk) 09:39, 10 August 2018 (UTC)

Missing categories

There's another missing category at Category:BB,BB n4v; I also created Category:1′Co1′ locomotives which I hope I've done right. Please can you be more careful to check whether you're creating WP:REDNOT categories, it's not really fair on the editors who have to clean up your mess, particularly as these are quite specialist categories. You might want to keep a regular eye on Special:WantedCategories. Cheers. Le Deluge (talk) 13:48, 11 August 2018 (UTC)

There's an approriate reply to that; WP:CIVIL prevents me using it. If you have a problem with my editing, then WP:ANI is over there. Andy Dingley (talk) 14:42, 11 August 2018 (UTC)

Shmurak, iwl

Not clear what's going on here, but the edits are extremely rapid-fire and widespread. --JBL (talk) 13:42, 13 August 2018 (UTC)

It's just (yet another) of the faults in wikidata. Having put no effort into designing it, and having driven away anyone with experience of such systems, they now find that there's a well-known problem of semantic mismatch which they just never saw coming. If one language calls a concept "foo" then another language might call it "fooish" (which is easy to link) but also distinguishes concepts of "fooish" and "barish" and has two separate articles on the two of them. Wikidata can't represent this, so they just delete all the old links from from "barish" to "foo" - even though the "foo" article covers that sub-topic. It's a mess, and it's much more important to them to force wikidata onto everyone else than it is to have a working encyclopedia. Andy Dingley (talk) 13:49, 13 August 2018 (UTC)

I am asking you for help

Hello Andy,

I have created an article on air-blast injection, but I don't know if it violates the tban. I suppose that some 'experts' might say so, so I want to ask an actual expert. Can I send it to you via e-mail? Several administrators didn't want to help me with this. Best regards, --Johannes Maximilian (talk) 17:36, 13 August 2018 (UTC)

Obviously an article on air-blast injection is way outside any scope for automobile. However at least one admin has told you that it is within scope, thus tbanned. Admins are omniscient and infallible, especially when it comes to later blocking you to defend their decisions (don't try to argue for an unblock on the basis that it was outside the scope of automobile - you will lose that argument). It would thus be risky for you to either post it, or to work on it later if someone else posts it for you. I strongly suggest getting the ANI closing admin to agree to you posting this first.

Of course you're at liberty to email this to me. If it's a suitable article (and I'm sure it would be) then I'd be happy to post it into article space. However you'd then still have the problem mentioned above.

TBANs are there for a reason. If you're happy to work within the problems that led to it, then I think this article might be a good basis for now appealing that TBAN. It's over a year since the ban, well over the six month date for an appeal. Andy Dingley (talk) 18:50, 13 August 2018 (UTC)

Giant’s Causeway

Thanks for adding the citation, Andy. Widneymanor (talk) 17:17, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

There would be plenty more if you looked in the local press. The National Trust are seen as "English", and they made the mistake of forcing a local souvenir shop out of business. They burned any local support they might have had. Andy Dingley (talk) 17:35, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

Aurel Vlaicu

I really do not see what is particularly novel about this machine, but really the whole category is pretty worthless; Thomas Midgley Jr. is the only really worthwhile entry. And I guess Lillienthal. Is Dusenberg's car novel enough to qualify as an invention? Is the alleged novel feature of Vlaicu's machine responsible for his death? did Curie invent radioactivity.TheLongTone (talk) 12:25, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

Neither Lillienthal nor Duesenberg had invented "the car" or "the glider", or killing yourself with them. There are bunch of good candidates for this category, including most of the early unknown rocket scientists (Valier's about the only one). Reichelt is probably the canon example here, although Slotin and Curie have weighty, albeit less deliberate, claims. Also Phalaris (maybe the most famous of the lot), the Earl Morton and Li Si (but not Guillotin!) all demonstrate the perils of inventing new tortures for a capricious master.

This is neither CfD, the category talk page, the article talk page, nor even @T0mpr1c3:'s user page. So this discussion doesn't belong here. Andy Dingley (talk) 14:12, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

OK: [7]

So if that's how you roll, either go through a formal CfD for this, or we're done here. Andy Dingley (talk) 15:38, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

Rereading my above, pretty worthless is not fair. Its a potentially very interesting & useful cat & it does depend on what you ean by inventor. I think my definition would be the inventor of a significant advance, not just a builder.TheLongTone (talk) 06:05, 22 August 2018 (UTC)

Nomination of Hawk MM-1 for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Hawk MM-1 is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hawk MM-1 until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. - BilCat (talk) 19:27, 22 August 2018 (UTC)

Another Sealioning RfC

Talk:Sealioning#RfC about the inclusion of suggested ways to deal with sealioning

(Notifying everyone who participated in the previous RfC.) --Guy Macon (talk) 01:45, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

Added another source and took out the all names, I hope that will be an acceptable way to expand this article. 24.16.106.217 (talk) 23:56, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

the little one

In this edit you said that "Little My" is "used throughout the books", whereas in this one I had said that it does not agree with the books. It turns out that we were both wrong. I had checked "The Exploits of Moominpappa" before making my edit, and found "little", but since seeing your revert I have also checked "Moominland Midwinter" and found "Little". Thus "Little" is not "used throughout the books", but nor does it entirely disagree with the books. I still think that "little" is the more natural, but since both have canonical authority I will not insist on it. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 15:50, 5 September 2018 (UTC)

Exploits of or Memoirs of? Because they're broadly the same book, but years apart. The latest edition, in the new series with the nice dustjackets, is Memoirs and uses 'Little My'. The Moomins were a very long time in the writing and are far from consistent throughout this - especially if you go back to the cartoons too, or at looking at the bits she didn't write herself. Many characters change name altogether (there are two Mymbles, depending on the age of the text), and they're nothing like consistent between languages. To understand some of the names you even need to look at mid-century Finnish bohemian sexual slang (there are so many euphemisms in there it's like a Round the Horne script). But on the whole, for the book era rather than the earlier cartoons, Little My is the form used. Andy Dingley (talk) 16:25, 5 September 2018 (UTC)

I have only the original books (or I suppose I should say English translations of the originals) so I don't have the "Memoirs". From your user page I guess you are an even bigger Moomin fan than I am, so you probably know better than me about the whole subject, but I know very well that you are right about inconsistency in names of Moomin characters, perhaps the most obvious cases being Moomintroll/Moomin and Mymble's daughter/Mymble. Some of this variation comes from variations among different English translators, some from variations in Tove Jansson's own usage, and I am not at all surprised that you suggest there are further variations in the bits that she didn't write herself. I know nothing about Finnish bohemian sexual slang, so I'll take your word for it. I'm afraid your mention of Round the Horne is a sad reminder to me of how old I'm getting, to realise how long ago it was when it was a great favourite of mine, as Beyond Our Ken had been even earlier. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 12:13, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

If you've not yet visited Moomin World, then I highly recommend it (and coastal Finland generally). Andy Dingley (talk) 12:24, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

Checking even further, the 1952 Finnish edition of The Book about Moomin, Mymble and Little My has little My even in the title, but a year later, the Swedish edition has moved to Little My. I'll ask about Finnish vs. Swedish capitalisation practice. Andy Dingley (talk) 12:31, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

If I may

I was reluctant to write here during an active discussion, but if I may, I think there is no longer any purpose for you to respond to that ANI thread anymore. I am not sure if you read what I wrote, and I hope none of it offends you, but if your intention is to have Jytdog sanctioned, what you are doing/have been doing is counter-productive as it serves as an distraction from whatever that is remaining from the original complaint. As I expressed in the thread, I enjoy working with both you and Jytdog, and I have expressed concerns about their aggressive approach in the past. Civility is important, but it should depend on the context and should not be policed. Regards, Alex Shih (talk) 11:30, 9 September 2018 (UTC)

As I've pointed out in that thread, it's not about civility so much as WP:OWNership. He complains that no-one will help clean up an article, but if anyone does (and certainly if I do) he summarily reverts and templates me. That behaviour of his (in isolation of any behaviour of mine) is not acceptable, and it is a long-established pattern of behaviour.

Also there are editors in that ANI thread now calling for me to be TBANed from XfD. Despite they being one of the editors who posted to Jytdog's own page complaining of his language at that AfD, an AfD I never even took part in.

I've never been trying to have Jytdog sanctioned for anything here, just to try and get him to moderate his own behaviour. Andy Dingley (talk) 11:39, 9 September 2018 (UTC)

Interaction ban

In accordance with community consensus at ANI, you are banned from interacting with Jytdog, per the usual conditions indicated in the banning policy. As I'm sure you know, interaction-banned users are permitted to ask clarifying questions regarding their sanction, but will be subject to escalating blocks up to and including indefinite for violations of the restriction. Edits that are seen as "pushing the edges" of the restriction are likely to be seen as violations of the restriction, thus I advise you to tread carefully and ask questions. Best, Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 20:16, 10 September 2018 (UTC)

User:Ivanvector I think you need to revisit your close. The !votes are roughly equal, and the trend seems to be swinging to Oppose at later votes. Mr Ernie (talk) 20:57, 10 September 2018 (UTC)

@Mr Ernie: I already pretty clearly explained my rationale for this, and indicated that I did consider the oppose comments in context. I admit it's not an obvious result, and of course I'm open to reviews of my interpretation: I suggest that if you disagree with what I've written then you should add comments below the close. Thanks. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 22:28, 10 September 2018 (UTC)

EMF

Surprised you weren't there, but your name came up (the inflatable cactus tentacle people). We need a chat about making Nixies out of flat perspex about 5cm tall. You've done this with 2812 strips? Viam Ferream^Talk 15:47, 11 September 2018 (UTC)

Oh hi, yes. Strange, I've never been - not even when it was in Holland. Glad you liked the inflatable.

I've done a couple of LED Nixies, but never sold any (long story). The small ones were low voltage, but the parts cost was getting to the point where Nixies were still cost-effective, and of course Nixies are what people really want. Ten slices and twenty 2812 for each digit add up. For a big one though - I can see it would be workable. They'd also get a better width / depth ratio than the small ones. I've made illuminated edge-lit displays about 6" across and had no trouble with even lighting at all. You can change colour easily too, which might be nice.

Email on the laser address - the codesmiths address (the one on wiki) isn't working until I sort out the (useless) hosting company - but don't you know all about that anyway? Andy Dingley (talk) 16:36, 11 September 2018 (UTC)

Cheers, I will. Good luck with the other. Viam Ferream^Talk 18:11, 11 September 2018 (UTC)

John Cockcroft Revision

Thank you for reverting my edit, but as you said, an image is really needed. That sentence just doesn't make any sense without SOMEthing to show what it means, as well as a clearer reference to who did it -- 'They' just doesn't work.

Thanks again,

WesT (talk) 19:26, 20 September 2018 (UTC)

I'm looking for better images - we'll probably need to crop one down a bit - but I've added the best I could find quickly. Is that any clearer? Andy Dingley (talk) 19:29, 20 September 2018 (UTC)

"They" is the filters themselves. Andy Dingley (talk) 19:29, 20 September 2018 (UTC)

Wow. Thanks. Still a bit unclear. Can we say: "Since the change was made after the stacks had been designed, the addition created lumps in the structures." Also, can the specific 'lumps' be pointed out in the picture (unless you find a more obvious pic).

Thanks again! WesT (talk) 19:39, 20 September 2018 (UTC)

Strategic steam reserves

Do you want to see some pictures of Finnish ssr:s? Milaal (talk) 12:55, 23 August 2018 (UTC)

Always welcome. Sources are good too - there's some for the UK, but nothing outside that.

I ws in Finland last year - very impressed by the railway service. Andy Dingley (talk) 13:17, 23 August 2018 (UTC)

http://vaunut.org/kuvat/?liikp1=2511 Milaal (talk) 13:22, 23 August 2018 (UTC)

Here you can see finnish steam locomotives in crisis storage, those photos are from Lievestuore storage, one of three storages Milaal (talk) 13:26, 23 August 2018 (UTC)

Thanks. SO how are they preserved? Are they still usable? Are they maintained, or still steamed? In the UK, a boiler test certificate lasts 10 years. Even if the boiler is unused, it would have to be re-tested after this. Andy Dingley (talk) 13:48, 23 August 2018 (UTC)

In total, 174 locos were put to storage, they were left outside for 20 years, until 1984 when VR decided that storages will be emptied, they scrapped 75 locos right away in 1986, many more soon followed in the 90's but luckily many were preserved, as they opened Haapamäki steam park, britain bought 12 locos, and many more were sold to private peoples, and also many were put to railway stations across Finland as memorials. Milaal (talk) 14:10, 23 August 2018 (UTC)

http://vaunut.org/kuva/101385?tag0=0%7CTk3%7C1155 here you can see Tk3 1155 just after it was moved from storage to Haapamäki Milaal (talk) 14:29, 23 August 2018 (UTC)

http://vaunut.org/kuva/9930?kv=1984&kv2=1990&paik=Haapam%C3%A4ki and here all those locomotives rusting in Haapamäki, many of those were scrapped, but many were selected to preservation and restored cosmetically, and few were restored to operantional condition

Milaal (talk) 16:54, 23 August 2018 (UTC)

So, what do you think? Milaal (talk) 08:43, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

? Milaal (talk) 15:38, 29 August 2018 (UTC)

? Milaal (talk) 17:32, 25 September 2018 (UTC)

Note

If you continue attacking users in front of the OP, rather than taking it to their talk pages, you're liable to encourage others to try to get you banned from the ref desks. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:40, 26 September 2018 (UTC)

We have, once again, a user who persists in posting nonsensical crap to the ref desks. It's time they went. It's also relevant to warn the poor OP who might be misled by it. Andy Dingley (talk) 09:29, 27 September 2018 (UTC)

You can immediately notify the OP by simply saying, "That's incorrect." ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 11:13, 27 September 2018 (UTC)

• Ref Desk talk has already rejected this specific issue. Wikipedia talk:Reference desk#User:Kharon Andy Dingley (talk) 11:46, 27 September 2018 (UTC)

• Not exactly - the closer said it should be discussed on the user's talk page rather than on the ref desk talk page. Unfortunately, I don't think that noble proposition has ever found consensus, and user behavior has often been discussed on the ref desk talk page. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 12:02, 27 September 2018 (UTC)

Question

Hello Andy, since you are from Cymru, you might be able to help me with something:

In the article Swansea and Mumbles Railway, in the section Introduction of steam, the text is as follows: The Clyne valley branch continued to be used for coal traffic from Rhydydefaid pit until its closure in 1885 after which the entire branch fell into disuse. In 1896 the promoters of the Gower Light Railway proposed incorporating it into their scheme but nothing came of it. The original branch to Ynys Gate (as authorised in 1804) was relaid in connection with the Clyne Valley slant (opened 1903) and used for coal traffic until the colliery closed in 1915. The extension of 1841/2 remained abandoned until 1920 when a narrow-gauge tramway was laid on its formation to carry coal from Ynys slant to Ynys Gate. This was used only until 1921 when the slant closed. There was then no further traffic on the branch, although the track remained in situ and was still usable as late as 1936 when it is recorded that a diesel locomotive made a trip up the branch as far as Ynys Gate. Do you have any idea, what slant is supposed to express in this case? I guess it is a part of the colliery (virtually the pit), but, it could also refer to a certain type of track that looks like this? Best regards, --Johannes Maximilian (talk) 16:19, 23 September 2018 (UTC)

"Slant" is a term used in coal mining, and only in South Wales.

Most mines were accessed by a vertical "shaft", then a "level" (Welsh: lefal). A level is any near-horizontal roadway underground (i.e. level enough to use a tramway, not cable winding). This either follows the seam (if horizontal) or is a conveniently horizontal roadway between seams. Rarely, but sometimes on the valley sides of South Wales, a level came to the surface.

An "adit" follows the seam, either level or inclined. The term is most obviously applied when that adit then surfaces (i.e. a seam has been followed down from the surface) but it's also used widely underground for any roadway which follows the seam.

A "drift" is a roadway which is most usually driven from the surface and is inclined. The term doesn't imply that it follows the seam (rarely it might) but is driven as the most convenient way to access a seam. Sometimes they're horizontal too, but most are inclined, and inclined enough to need winding. In the 1950–1960s, some smaller Welsh mines were merged and converted to more efficient way of working by using a new single drift from the surface and a conveyor belt to bring their coal to the surface. This used the financial capital resources of the new National Coal Board in order to build a new and more efficient way than previous winding in small shafts. Several mines (Glyn Pits is an interesting example deserving an article) retained their shafts, but for pumping or ventilation alone, no longer winding either coal or men there on a regular basis.

In South Wales, the term "slant" was used to refer to either drifts or adits, but only when they were driven from the surface. Most of these were drifts, but some (mostly older) were adits. As the mouth of this slant would be the visible presence of the mine at the surface, then they gave their name to the location. Collieries of this era required at least two shafts for ventilation (see Hartley Colliery disaster) and so men might enter by winding in a shaft, with the coal trammed out through the slant. Thus the railway connection, and the naming of the line, would be for that slant too. Andy Dingley (talk) 10:30, 24 September 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for your detailled reply! Best regards, --Johannes Maximilian (talk) 11:28, 24 September 2018 (UTC)

Hi, to add a bit here as requested - I believe a "slant" was what was referred to outside Wales as a "slope" or "downbrow". This meant it was a roadway driven on an angle to a level course. If a roadway exactly followed the angle of the strata it was a "dip" or "dook" or various other terms, depending on which bit of the country you were in. There is still a lot of scope for expanding the glossary of coalmining terms particularly as it saves having to insert lengthy explanations in other articles. Until yesterday there wasn't an entry for "deputy", surprisingly.Svejk74 (talk) 09:56, 8 October 2018 (UTC)

Hello Andy, I am re-using this this section so I don't have to add a new one. What do you think: Would an article on Bowl Prechamber Ignition violate the ban? In case you have never heard of that: BPI is a combustion process for Otto cycle engines (SI engines). The oldest source I have found is a book from 1967 which just describes the idea of this principle. However, even in newer sources, there is no evidence that this system has ever been used for motor vehilce engines. Best regards, --Johannes Maximilian (talk) 12:35, 28 September 2018 (UTC)

• I think that you're writing on a topic which is awfully close to your topic ban, and thus likely to cause problems. Bowl prechambers appeared in the 1930s with diesel engines for trucks by Saurer. I don't know if trucks are "automobiles" or not (Wikipedia has never been able to define this term unambiguously). They were used in petrol engines with the Heron head. To take a very narrow definition you might limit this to petrol, bowl pistons and specifically for prechambers and claim that the combination of all three is somehow outside "automobiles" - but I advise strongly against that, because you're relying on only an obscure content definition between you and a topic ban, and that is not a good strategy. I worked on those myself (as a form of lean-burn engine) in the late 1980s, specifically for cars. I think they go back even further and there were some for two stroke motorbike engines in the 1920s.

I still think you have a good chance of having this topic ban removed. Andy Dingley (talk) 20:01, 28 September 2018 (UTC)

„I don't know if trucks are "automobiles" or not (Wikipedia has never been able to define this term unambiguously).“ – both automobile and truck are ambiguous terms, and that renders my ban flawed. The last time I appealed, I was given the hint that my work here is sort of insufficient for proving that I am a policy-obeying editor, which is one of the reasons why I am trying to find topics which are not covered by the ban, and this is actually difficult.

I am not quite sure if I understand you correctly regarding the Saurer engine; if I recall this correctly, Saurer used Diesel engines with the Acro-System (de:Acro-Luftspeicherverfahren) at the time. These engines have a small air-reservoir-prechamber in the cylinder head, but their design is definitely different from what is called Bowl Prechamber Ignition. I suppose this term, despite being English, might be confusing as it was invented by Germans. In the latest "evolution" of bowl prechamber ignition, the prechamber is not mainly part of the combustion chamber, but rather a part of the spark plug. In German, this is called Vorkammerzündkerze, which would translate into English as prechambersparkplug (not using spaces on purpose to illustrate that compound word). However, the drawing I found in the book from 1967 shows a prechamber that rather reminds me of a Daimler-Benz precombustion chamber and it definitely does not require a bowl piston as it is a part of the cylinder head. Maybe you know about all of this already, considering that you have worked on lean burn engines; (I haven't said anything then). Anyways, thank you for your advice. I suppose I will find other topics. Before appealing the ban once again, I still want to accumulate some more edits. I don't want it to fail due to "insufficient edits" or anything else like that. Best regards, --Johannes Maximilian (talk) 01:16, 29 September 2018 (UTC)

Saurer (and Sulzer overlapped a lot too) did a lot of work on the early development of high-speed diesel engines, around 1930. This involved the shift from air-blast to solid injection, also a lot of various combustion chamber designs - mostly far from the Acro. One of the most distinctive of which was their toroidal bowl in piston, with the undercut edges and the central spike, so as to generate the toroidal rolling airflow pattern. It's also debatable whether this is a prechamber or a combustion chamber - some started out as prechambers, nowadays they're the main combustion chamber. But what they clearly are is a bowl-in-piston design in the 1930s, intended for road vehicles.

This might be quite different from the "Bowl Prechamber Ignition" design, but I'd have to see a drawing - many of these words get re-used for quite different and unrelated designs.

I would suggest avoiding automobile articles and trying to find "enough" distance from them, but rather finding some other topic of interest altogether. How about turning all the red links above into blue? Make Slant et al. into sections of a better mining article on roadways. There are lots of bare areas in mining which could use improvement. Andy Dingley (talk) 09:22, 29 September 2018 (UTC)

Well, slant seems like a good idea, but I consider my mining knowledge to be meagre. I spend a lot of time near open pit mines but I have no clue how they work, I'm simply not a geologist. Recently, I have "updated" the article on one of those mines in the area, I found myself having problems though (which was to be expected). First of all, I have no idea how to find proper sources, where to look and what is useful (and what is not). And second, what I have found is just very little information and all I can use is just a handful of plain facts. That results in a three-line-article. Maybe, railway articles will be a better idea. Have a nice weekend, --Johannes Maximilian (talk) 12:34, 29 September 2018 (UTC)

• For Welsh language quarrying terms (North Wales), there's an interesting list here. Andy Dingley (talk) 09:23, 8 October 2018 (UTC)

Hello Andy, thank you for that word document. Anyways, this seems weird: Someone changed the Unimog's WikiProject from "Automobiles" to "Trucks" (Special:Diff/864093233), does that officially make the Unimog a truck and not an automobile anymore? Is a truck even an automobile? Best regards, --Johannes Maximilian (talk) 09:42, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

• That change makes zero difference to the definition of a Unimog, or the term "automobile". It is merely a project tag on a WP article.

The change is two changes: removing one project tag, adding another. One change was to add the WikiProject Trucks project tag. I think any useful definition has to see a Unimog as a truck. These project tags are nothing more than an "expression of interest" from a project to an article, not a definition: Henry Ford is tagged by the Automobiles project, but it doesn't mean he's a car.

Secondly it removed the WikiProject Automobiles project tag. I don't know the definition used by that project, or if it's the same definition used in articles, so I can't comment. But clearly "trucks" are more specific and more closely relevant, so I see no cause to object. Andy Dingley (talk) 10:08, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for your detailled reply. There is no clear opinion on whether the Unimog is a truck or an agricultural tractor. (I have seen that there is no such thing as a Wikiproject tractors.) Whilst the early Unimog models were intended to be tractors and you can legally drive them with a tractor licence (F in Austria), the newer Unimogs require a truck licence (C (or C1) in Austria); I guess that is similar to UK licences? In the German language Wikipedia, there is de:PD:KFZ which is sort of equivalent to WikiProject:Automobiles, but it includes all types of motor vehicles. So we would not make a difference between a truck and a passenger car. I am asking because I wonder if an Unimog would be covered by my ban or not; the German excellent (equals featured article on en) article de:Unimog 406 is a translation of an English article that I have never published. Also, I am the main author (>70 %) of the article de:Unimog, which I am currently preparing for lesenswert (GA); (indicated by the yellow wrench icon). I find it really confusing what editors on en consider "automobile" and what not. Best regards, --Johannes Maximilian (talk) 17:44, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

The UK is so different to that I'm actually surprised to read this. A UK Unimog has always been a light truck - so needs a car licence (which covers light trucks on roads) and isn't licensed as a tractor, with their purely agricultural uses and limitations for on-road use. Same situation as a Land Rover.

In recent years we've seen the appearance of "fast tractors" (powerful agricultrual tractors for use in agriculture, but no longer so restricted for on-road use). Before this, tractors were very limited in the speed and distances they could travel on road (they were only supposed to be driven "around the farm", with short road trips between fields). So the system enouraged registering Unimogs as road vehicles, even though they'd pay more road tax (paid annually per vehicle) than a broadly off-road tractor. One exception is for forestry vehicles, which are cheap to operate, have very lax inspection requirements and low tax.

Unimogs are rare in the UK though. They were always expensive and if a Land Rover could do the same job, that was a much cheaper alternative. One of the few uses for them was in snow ploughing (mostly owned by local councils) as a truck a bit heavier than a Landie would plough better, but larger 4WD trucks were even rarer (unless military-surplus). Andy Dingley (talk) 18:06, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

Over here, we use agricultural tractors for quickly hauling chopped maize - normal lorries are faster than tractors on roads, but driving next to a harvester with a lorry on a field is just not an option, you simply need something with big tyres. A tractor (F) licence allows you to drive on roads; on fields, you are permitted to drive without any licence. Registering vehicles as road legal agricultural vehicles usually makes them cost no taxes at all, registering vehicles as forestry vehicles is fairly inexpensive in terms of motor vehicle tax. Unimogs are ideal for hauling chopped maize, but due to their enormous price tag, nobody uses them for that purpose. Also, whilst offering excellent offroad performance, for on-road use, the suspension system of an Unimog is not very ideal, rather horrible. A 435 does ~90 km/h and at that speed, the steering wheel vibrates, the cab shakes and the tyres wobble, not speaking of the engine, which is so loud that your wish you had earplugs. Also, legally, the top speed on "rural roads" is 60 km/h - it does not matter whether you drive a lorry or a tractor, which basically renders using anything but cheap New Holland tractors futile.

I am surprised that you would compare a Land Rover with an Unimog: The Unimog is just too big; smaller Unimogs that somewhat had Land-Rover-size were rendered obsolete by the introduction of the current heavy duty models in the mid-1970s, the ladder frame and cab-layout were not changed significantly during the last 45 years. I would rather choose a Mercedes-Benz W 463 to compare with a Land Rover. Over here, people use their Land Rovers (and their G-Klassen) either as city vehicles or as (forestry) off-road vehicles, but not for powering auxiliary devices such as snowblowers. Also, when driving the Unimog, I always leave the front-wheel-drive turned off, there is no particular use for it (but I admit that we usually use the Unimog on normal roads). As far as I am concerned, the Land Rover does not have a centre differential, so turning on AWD synchronises the axles whilst locking the individual axle differentials is not even possible, correct me if I'm wrong. Also, I guess that the gearbox of a Land Rover is not designed for towing purposes. A bog standard Unimog gearbox is a four-speed manual with built in reduction and reverse gearbox. An additional crawler gearbox was a factory option. But having just the standard gearbox (4×2), the Unimog comes with a H+H shifting scheme. Since the gearbox automatically chooses groups for you, you have one shift lever that has eight gears on it.

In Austria, vehicles such as the Pinzgauer and Reform Muli are more common than the Unimog; in Hungary, people use virtually everything that they can get their hands on, you find Unimogs, ГАЗ-66s, Урал-4320s, several different Камаз-models and even IFA W50s. Best regards, --Johannes Maximilian (talk) 22:19, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

Design

Renault 8 and 10, if you dont like word desing as how car look, you should reword it not remove, that Alfa must be mentioned in that article somehow, because its very clear the Renault design is similar , and if you dont know what design means read this article https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Design -->Typ932 ^T·C 18:38, 22 October 2018 (UTC)

Then I would suggest that you start with some basic spelling, as the very least. Andy Dingley (talk) 18:46, 22 October 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for cleaning up my mess

I'm damned if a full 50% of the reverts I suffer (from myself or others) aren't from following a link to a redirect. Germanium Diode-> Diode, "light alloy" -> Alloy, etc. I think I'm in one place and I'm actually in another, and edit accordingly. I need to get better at that. You found and fixed one such, and I appreciate it. Thank you, Andy.

Riventree (talk) 05:10, 27 October 2018 (UTC)

October 2018

You're correct of course, my bad. I felt it should be L3, but next time I will check with you, or whichever editor in your place, first. Cheers - wolf 10:29, 30 October 2018 (UTC)

November 2018

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you add unsourced material to Wikipedia, as you did at Drinking straw. You are adding improperly sourced claims in Drinking straw article with links that do not back up the claim. Claiming I have some kind of a non-neutral point of view is not a valid rebuttal. Claiming my views are Trumpian is also distasteful. If you want to discuss it, take it to the talk page but please stop making disruptive reverts. ZacBowling ^(user|talk) 03:31, 3 November 2018 (UTC)

I'm the one who has already added two sources to make it clearer. All you've done is to edit-war and 4RR remove sourced content. Andy Dingley (talk) 10:55, 3 November 2018 (UTC)

Like I said the sources didn't mention straws, they only mention a polystyrene to-go container ban. The early date was far earlier than I had heard in any news stories covering the straw bans across the US so that's why I checked the sources. On those pages sited I couldn't not find a single mention of straws. Only mentions of cups, plates, clamshells, and specific other containers. A polystyrene to-go container ban is not necessarily a polystyrene straw-ban. San Francisco has had a polystyrene ban since 2017 (as did many cities) but straws (and sometimes utensils) were not explicitly banned in many of them, so a link to polystyrene ban doesn't necessarily mean a straw ban was in place. It's why I removed them the first time per WP:VERIFY. When you reverted that back, I went out and googled and found a better source for you which mentioned straws were actually part of the ban in that town and linked it. I couldn't find the same for the second town you listed though as it says so in my edit summary. You reverted both back yet again claiming it was sourced which if you follow the link and search any where for straw you will find nothing. I reverted it again with more details in the summary in the hopes you would notice the pages you are citing do not mention banning straws at all (per WP:PROVEIT). It may very well be the case that a straw ban exists in that city but the reference does not support that claim. Instead, you reverted yet again accusing me of not having a neutral point of view and saying "You're clearly trying to push some sort of Trumpist pave-the Earth bias here. Ain't gonna happen." which makes wild assumptions that do not fall in line with WP:GOODFAITH. My only motivation here is trying to have reliable sources on Wikipedia and why I have 300,000 edits across my main account and my vandal patrol bot. Not that it actually matters though to this discussion since we are talking about the verifiability of sources here but I actually live in a city with a straw ban and was one of the people that campaigned for it so it's actually really off base and false characterization and really a bit offensive personally. --ZacBowling ^(user|talk) 23:24, 3 November 2018 (UTC)

Collaboration on Talmudic tractate articles

I have noticed that many of the articles on individual tractates in the Talmud are sorely in need of expansion and improvement. Examples of these poor articles include Gittin (tractate), Ketubot (tractate), and Makkot to name just a few. If you are willing to collaborate with me to help improve them, please let me know. Also, I kindly request that you bring this to the attention of other members of WikiProject Judaism, and WikiProject Books. Thank you - Alternate Side Parking (talk) 22:38, 4 November 2018 (UTC)

Your question for Fred Bauder

Just FYI, I already asked that, and his answer is here. wbm1058 (talk) 11:07, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

Thanks, it looks like a couple of us asked the same thing. Did you get an answer from him though? That looks like soemone else's comment. Andy Dingley (talk) 11:22, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

Yes, he quoted someone else's comment after saying "I second this comment". wbm1058 (talk) 11:35, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

His optional approach to signatures does make this stuff hard to follow. Andy Dingley (talk) 11:51, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

Yes, but on the Q&A pages for ArbCom elections, many candidates don't sign their answers because it's well understood that they are the (only) person answering the questions.

He just answered your question by linking to another question asked after he answered mine. I think his answers are excellent. Though I'm disappointed that the RfC result didn't really get to the crux of the question raised... what to do about a pattern of repeated incivility. – wbm1058 (talk) 13:46, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

Well that one I had read, and I thought it was a very poor answer, as was the closure of that RfC - totally dodging the question.

It's a simple observation that "Uncivil use of the word <foo> is uncivil", but that tells us nothing about whether "Using the word <foo> of itself in uncivil." or even "How many <foo>s are allowed before it's considered uncivil.".

I'm strongly against any use of it, simply because that's clear-cut. Surprisingly though, that seems to be seen as a fringe view. Now we seem to be moving towards a weekly "<foo> allowance", which editors can spend how they like. Andy Dingley (talk) 13:59, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

I'm with you on that, actually. I think it's always uncivil. But since the question of how much allowance to give was also dodged, and the view is that "more rules and bureaucracy" on the matter is unnecessary, that gives clear guidance for two admins disagreeing on the "context" clear guidance to go straight to ArbCom to settle the question, on a case-by-case basis. wbm1058 (talk) 15:00, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

Hot blast

My reverted edit:

Hot blast considerably reduced the fuel consumed by using heat recovered from the smelting process that would otherwise gone to waste. Because of the fuel economy,

While some early hot blast did use air heated with additional fuel, that would not necessarily have saved fuel like regenerative heating did. Also, I did neglect to include the combustion heat of the carbon monoxide: however, I think that is much lower than the regenerative heat. So please explain how I am otherwise wrong. Feel free to use any heat transfer or thermodynamic explanation you have.Phmoreno (talk) 01:21, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

• This is already covered by the Belford reference right next to the added content. [8]

The first hot blast was provided by heating the blast, using specific ovens (thus more fuel) to do so. This was against the existing and accepted wisdom of the time, that a cold blast was optimal. It was then discovered that using this hot blast was beneficial: the process within the blast furnace improved, to the point that production / fuel was greater, even accounting for the fuel consumed in heating the blast.

Of course, the process was then improved so as to re-use first the heat of the furnace exhaust, later to burn the carbon monoxide in the furnace exhaust as a fuel. This improves overall efficiency, just as you describe.

However, the point is, and this is why the addition was a problem that hot blast is itself useful, and that this was adopted for its own benefits, many years before heating that blast from the furnace exhaust was. It's not merely about reducing heat loss from the overall process. Andy Dingley (talk) 11:36, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

We should discuss this on the articles Talk page.Phmoreno (talk) 01:23, 17 November 2018 (UTC)

Cape Town CKD

Hi Andy, please see please see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Automobiles#Place_of_assembly_-CKD cheers Greglocock (talk) 04:44, 21 November 2018 (UTC)

Efficient/effective

Efficient is an engineering term, for example an engine may be described as efficient. You cannot describe armour as efficient, it is either effective or not. Kindly undo your reversion DesmondW (talk)

Efficient is correct (and was long-established). It refers to the manufacturing effort needed to build these, and the reduction in that (i.e. improved efficiency of tanks built per days effort) by the composite manufacture, combining the cast nose / lower glacis with the welded hull. If this is unclear, then some improvement in wording might be possible.

If there is any change in the effectiveness of these two armours, it's too small to have been recorded anywhere obvious and certainly isn't sourced here. Your change here is incorrect: kindly correct it, or source it. I note that Trekphiler has now joined in and seems to think that the wet/dry storage issue is related (of course, it isn't). Andy Dingley (talk) 23:38, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

Sorry to butt in (it appears I still have you watchlisted for some reason, need to clean that up one of these days...). If it helps, "effective" is also an engineering term and, in most cases, a unit of measurement. It's rarely a case of black-and-white, but the question usually is, "how effective is it?" Then you can divide that measurement by the theoretical maximum to determine efficiency. Efficiency is simply a ratio, expressed as the percentage of input per useful output. (For one example, see conversion efficiency.) An effective weapon can eliminate threats before they eliminate you. An efficient one can do so with little effort.Zaereth (talk) 00:37, 21 November 2018 (UTC)

Yes, both of these armours have an effectiveness. But we have nothing to support the claim now made that one of these forms of armour was more effective. Andy Dingley (talk) 00:39, 21 November 2018 (UTC)

I'm not surprised. These numbers would be meaningless without defining the specific parameters. It's like the difference between wall-plug efficiency, luminous efficiency and luminous efficacy. Just meaningless numbers without understanding where they come from. Such info is typically proprietary and only interesting to engineers, thus hard to come by. Zaereth (talk) 01:05, 21 November 2018 (UTC)

I'm really busy preparing for the big holiday coming up on this side of the planet, but I finally got a chance to really look at the sentence in question:

These included more durable suspension units, safer "wet" (W) ammunition stowage, and stronger or more efficient armor arrangements, such as the M4 "Composite", which had a cheaper to produce cast front hull section mated to a regular welded rear hull.

I do think a little wordsmithing can make it easier to understand. It was a bit difficult at first to see that it's talking about cost efficiency, so it may help to simply say that. I'd also connect "cheaper to produce" with hyphens, to indicate that it is being used as a single adjective to describe the noun "section". Otherwise it's kind of a stumbling block because prepositions usually follow verbs, so it's unexpected to find one after an adjective. I also notice spots with several adjectives in a row, which can be confusing as to which is describing which, so I'd hyphenate those that describe other adjectives and add commas for the ones that describe the noun, where appropriate. Perhaps something like:

These included more-durable suspension units, safer "wet" (W) ammunition stowage, and stronger or more cost-efficient armor-arrangements, such as the M4 "Composite", which had a cheaper-to-produce, cast, front-hull section mated to a regular-welded, rear hull.

How does that look? Zaereth (talk) 02:44, 21 November 2018 (UTC)

This is starting to veer off into OR for supposed copyediting. Copyediting should not change the meaning of content!

Firstly, we should stop calling it a cast nose. They were all cast. The point looks at first as if it's meant to be the the one-piece cast nose (which appeared on the cast-hull M4A1), not the original three-piece casting, bolted together with the prominent ribs. But then the later 'improved' version would be the cast-and-rolled-sheet version which appeared with the (rare) M4A6 and then also the fairly numerous late-'43-onwards Detroit Arsenal M4s.

Was the cast nose cheaper to produce? That's not sourced. I have very good cost figures here for German tanks, nothing comparable for US production. But mostly this is a different question to being cost-efficient. The point about the nose changes was the efficient use of factory capacity, and hang the expense. Materiel production, especially in time of war, often trades cost for volume. I'm just reading a bunch of stuff about Porsche trading off such things, re Kubelwagen production, and it's quite straightforward because I have the production costs. The point here for the M4 though was all about the maximum casting sizes which particular factories could produce. Ford were building the M4A3 and could cast the single piece nose, so they did so. But Detroit Arsenal couldn't cast a single piece that big, so their M4A4s kept the three piece nose. Now I agree, 'efficient' isn't the clearest term – but the point is that this was an "efficient" [sic] use of available foundry resources. Nothing at all to do with effectiveness.

We could also use "effective" correctly in relation to the contemporary armour improvements. But they'd be the the factory-fitted applique patches on the sides, nothing to do with the nose. Andy Dingley (talk) 16:12, 21 November 2018 (UTC)

The Iron Bridge

Hi Andy, would you be interested in taking The Iron Bridge through a GA review? I think it's close and am happy to help (and still have the books I used in 2014 as Jamesx12345), but I can't commit to seeing a review through at the moment. Also paging User:Phmoreno in case you're interested? cheers!! Ostrichyearning3 (talk) 00:36, 24 November 2018 (UTC)

No. I have zero involvement with or interest in the GA process (although thanks for asking). In general I'm far more interested in obscure articles than those which can be made good. I also see GA as too flawed to be worth bothering with: reviewers with no knowledge of the subject and no interest in the broad field just count the commas and pass it on that basis, despite there being glaring errors or omissions of fact in there. Last time I nominated a bridge article, the reviewer wanted to delete half of it because they didn't see the difference between cast and wrought iron as having any structural significance!

I might have some photos today of the new paint, although the weather wasn't great and it probably looked as grey today as it ever did. It would also be useful to expand the new paint - what's the new stuff made of? Is it red lead? Presumably any original "red" paint would have been lead-based? Or is the new "authentic" paint just matching a shade? I think they've also done something to put a new lighter weight surface on top of it. Andy Dingley (talk) 00:44, 24 November 2018 (UTC)

Aha I understand. Yep it's always been a problem that some reviewers don't identify the gap between a well-written and well-referenced article and an article that deals well with the subject.

There's a few news articles about the new paint, and it seems to be part of a large project, so presumably the research behind choosing it as a more authentic colour exists somewhere? If you have any photos that would be great!. Ostrichyearning3 (talk) 16:55, 24 November 2018 (UTC)

Thorley article

If the article author blanks the page, that automatically falls under CSD criteria. -- Scjessey (talk) 17:52, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

• WP:CSD is for uncontroversial deletions. This is anything but. There's an AfD open, feel free to comment there. Andy Dingley (talk) 17:55, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

I disagree this is controversial. The author is the only substantial contributor and making a big fuss, so a blanking falls under CSD's G7 criteria. With that said, I will note it at the AfD discussion as well. -- Scjessey (talk) 18:03, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

Once there's "a big fuss" (from any side), it's no longer uncontroversial. Andy Dingley (talk) 18:07, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

Meta refresh article; why no https?

Hey, I was wondering why you reverted my changes to Meta refresh. Https is cool man ;) ClementineSpangle (talk) 09:26, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

It's simpler and more straightforward without. SSL is a complication that just has no relevance there. Andy Dingley (talk) 11:30, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

DYK for John Hanger (banker)

On 5 December 2018, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article John Hanger (banker), which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that John Hanger, the governor of the Bank of England, was a character in W. Harrison Ainsworth's novel about the South Sea Bubble? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/John Hanger (banker). You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, John Hanger (banker)), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

Alex Shih (talk) 12:02, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

Suggestion re: your interaction ban

Hi Andy. It’s been several years since we crossed paths, and I hope you are doing well. Your recent interaction ban per this ANI report has been mooted by a subsequent ArbCom indef block of the party in question, as you may well know. May I suggest you petition to lift the now-meaningless ban? It may be a small point to some, but an active ban could be used against you in the future, and in my view you deserve a clean slate. Thanks and best wishes, Jusdafax (talk) 08:53, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

• I'm not aware of any Arbcom action affecting that editor. I doubt they'll move that fast. What has happened though is that the editor has "retired" of their own volition first. That tactic has a long track record of stopping ArbCom actions dead, without clear conclusion. In a few months time (if they have the patience) they return and seek a "clean start". For an editor with many supporters and no outstanding conclusion from ArbCom, ANI etc. they have usually been accepted back. That strategy being at all effective is one of the persistent weaknesses in such policy.
• I would like to see an answer for this WP:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#Jytdog_violating GMO topic ban and harassing users, but expect that this will be closed down quietly too. "Banned from GMO topics, broadly construed" would in many editors' view extend to genetic modification of humans, as well as plants. That is why the TBAN says "broadly construed". It would, IMHO, be valuable to have that clarified.
• I'm also subject to a one-way IBAN involving that editor, and so even posting this much places me at risk of being blocked by one or other of their supporting admins. My name has already been mentioned in that ArbCom filing and one side-effect of that was then being messaged to stay away from it, with threat of blocking for the temerity of having "incited" someone else against the editor at issue here. Rigid enforcement of meaningless bans is what WP bureaucrats like best. Andy Dingley (talk) 11:29, 5 December 2018 (UTC)
  • Here is the ArbCom notice, Andy. Jusdafax (talk) 13:09, 5 December 2018 (UTC)
    • OK, so that was quicker than I expected. As usual though, it's now closed with no action. He'll be back in six months and he'll be quietly welcomed. Andy Dingley (talk) 13:30, 5 December 2018 (UTC)
      • Perhaps, perhaps not. But removing your IBAN is doable on the grounds that it is moot, in my view. Action? ArbCom indef. Jusdafax (talk) 15:51, 5 December 2018 (UTC)
        • (talk page watcher) just a reminder (Andy already mentioned it) that this conversation is in violation of a topic ban. Jytdog is not indeffed, Arbcom has mandated that he needs to contact the Committee before he can start editing again. Separately, he says he has quit the project and scrambled his password, but it's not possible to verify that. In light of what we know, this ban is still in force, and not moot from my perspective. Of course Andy I think you know how to appeal if you would like to, if you feel that being interaction banned from an editor who isn't participating any more is disrupting your ability to edit. I'm not going to be the "mindless bureaucrat" who blocks you over something like this, but I do think everyone should go do something else. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 16:02, 5 December 2018 (UTC)
          • (watching) For the record, Jytdog has been indefintely blocked by arbcom. ——SerialNumber54129 16:08, 5 December 2018 (UTC)
            • Ah, thanks for that SN. I'm not going to get into the weeds over whether that counts as a block or a ban. In light of that and based on my memory of the discussion, if Andy were to appeal their iban because it's a black mark on their record and no longer preventive, I would support it. But it is a community restriction. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 16:19, 5 December 2018 (UTC)
          • "this conversation is in violation of a topic ban" Poppycock. Andy is banend from interacting with Jytdog. Jytdog is no longer involved in this project; ergo, whatever Andy says or does, he is not able to interact with him. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:20, 6 December 2018 (UTC)
• Comment Jytdog is not coming back, and given the nature of the one-way hounding that led to the IBAN, I would be more than a little suspicious of the motivation behind appealing the ban. If the ban was successfully appealed, I think it can be safely assumed that a significant portion of the community would be on watch for grave-dancing. (Somewhat out-there hypothetical: If Jytdog ever somehow did come back, he shouldn't have to request a one-way IBAN that was put in place to protect him be reinstated.) Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 08:19, 6 December 2018 (UTC)

Air cell chamber

Hello Andy,

what do you think about an article on air cell chamber systems for Diesel engines such as Acro and Lanova? I suppose using it for engines that power what Americans call automobiles is not particularly reasonable, and, as far as I am concerned, it was only used for small industrial engines. Best regards, --Johannes Maximilian (talk) 21:37, 7 December 2018 (UTC)

• Personally I'd do it as either a section within diesel engines, or small articles on makes such as Acro and Lanova et al. I'm not seeing "air cell" as desperately distinct, yet coherent, from other indirect diesel systems. I think indirect injection diesel engines might be the best overall, as it's coherent as a group, is distinct enough from all non combustion chamber designs, can cover all of them, and has coherence as "a design of its time" too.

As to being "automobile",then you're quite far from that - there were plenty of heavy trucks using them, but it would be stretching things to see those as autombiles (as used here). I still think you're better asking to have this TBAN lifted though. Andy Dingley (talk) 11:20, 8 December 2018 (UTC)

Well then, maybe you are right. Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Topic Ban appeal. Best regards, --Johannes Maximilian (talk) 16:36, 8 December 2018 (UTC)

Solsbury Hill

Hi Andy I reverted back to Bath as per WP:MPN because it states "For articles discussing the present, use the modern English name (or local name, if there is no established English name),". The article is about the hill and not the Roman road. In the same phrase there are references to places that did not exist when the road was built. A reader has to click on the link to discover that a place with this name no longer exists. If you want to keep the old Roman name it needs context such as " the ancient Roman city of Aquae Sulis now known as Bath". Dom from Paris (talk) 18:34, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

• The article discusses the hill, but that section is specifically about the Roman context and is not discussing the present. We can tell this because it's captioned "Later history". Also Bath is well described and linked much earlier in the article. This is still a poor change. In particular because there is now no mention of Aquae Sulis at all, let alone a link to it. I would have no objection to stating both, although Bath shouldn't be linked again.

Also this discussion belongs on the article, not here. Andy Dingley (talk) 22:07, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

Rocker arms and Overhead valve engine

19th Century example of a "rocking-valve" in a steam engine. Eccentric A moves rod C, which reciprocates arm B to open and close steam valve D. Diagram from 9th Britannica, 1887, Vol 22, p. 507.

Now we know about rocker arms and push rods in steam engines.DigbyDalton (talk) 20:04, 27 October 2018 (UTC)

Re: [9], [10] & [11] Andy Dingley (talk) 21:04, 27 October 2018 (UTC)

• The trouble is, all the content added here is still nonsense.

Main thing: steam engines didn't use poppet valves, IC engines do. Steam engines with poppet valves were very rare - mostly the last few, using cam-actuated valvegear, such as Caprotti. This is because steam engines open and close their valves with pressure applied, not just (like IC engines) when the pressure has dropped (steam engines have boilers, IC engines take atmospheric pressure air). This means that the force on a steam engine poppet valve is unworkably large. So instead, steam engines used balanced valves, which don't have to be worked against the working pressure.

The rocker arm is either an old mechanism (long before steam engines) or a newer one: the form with two cylindrical bearings is old (and rather rarely, appeared in steam engines) but the form in IC engines isn't like this - because it only transmits a compressive (push) force against a spring-loaded valve, it uses two rubbing and sliding bearing surfaces, which are only held in place together by that spring pressure. These were never (AFAIK) used for steam engines.

The illustration here is badly mis-labelled (presumably the captions from Britannica were lost and then "re-invented" at Commons). It's a Corliss engine (that's a bad article though) and they were never used for steam locomotives. The circle 'A' is a wrist plate, not an eccentric. It doesn't move like an eccentric, it rotates a small angle back and forth. The "valve" 'D' isn't any sort of valve, it's a damping dashpot (and for a Spencer-Inglis, also a spring to maintain pressure in the linkage). The Corliss valve is a semi-rotary valve (not shown here), on the shaft 'B' – it bears no relation at all to the types of valve in IC engines.

This illustration should not be used in this article. It has zero relevance to OHV engines, almost none to rocker arms, and is also badly mis-used by the mis-labelling.

Andy Dingley (talk) 21:18, 27 October 2018 (UTC)

I am seeing this for the first time now. Your arguments are just that, arguments. Things you are inventing to prove your point, for no other reason than to prove your point. They are entirely without merit. I merely said rocker arms and push rods were being used in steam engines before OHV engines existed, and you are saying they weren't because they don't use poppet valves? This is ridiculous. Nobody said anything about poppet valves. The thing that distinguishes OHV engines from flathead engines is the rocker arms and push rods, not poppet valves.......BOTH engines have poppet valves, they certainly are not unique to OHV engines and not anything like a defining property of them. What is the distinguishing property of OHV engines, is the push rods / rocker arms. Your logic is twisted. But that isn't enough for you. Just in case people aren't convinced that steam engines never had rocker arms and push rods because poppet valves were rare, you then claim they never had rocker arms or push rods! Ridiculous! The only reason I showed the picture of the Spencer Ingliss Corliss valve train is that the copyright was expired and I could use it in Commons, but it clearly shows a rocker arm, which they call a rocking arm, and a push rod, which they just call a rod. And the eccentric is an eccentric because it's not in the center, that's what eccentric means, it makes no difference whether it's a wrist plate or a wheel or a cam shaft, it gives reciprocal motion to the push rod that rocks the rocker arm! I could have just as easily used the Reynolds Corliss valve train, which has a rocker arm and a "cam rod" or the Brown Releasing Gear, or any of 100 other valve systems used in 19th century steam engines that had rocker arms and push rods. Your sentence above "it doesn't move like an eccentric, it rotates a small angle back and forth" that's what a camshaft does in an OHV engine! It rotates a small angle back and forth, and pushes a push rod back and forth. Good grief. Doesn't move like an eccentric? It's an eccentric by definition. Oh yeah, there's another difference with the steam engine....there is no internal combustion! So there can't be push rods and rocker arms in steam engines because they don't have internal combustion?

The history of the OHV engine includes all the inventions that lead up to it. Nobody suddenly invented the push rod and rocker arm in 1896 to come up with the OHV engine. All they did was take the rocker arm and push rod idea from steam engines and use it in an internal combustion engine. Leave it the way it is, there is nothing wrong with it. DigbyDalton (talk) 06:24, 3 November 2018 (UTC)

He's right, you know, though it's the rocker arm, not the camshaft, that reciprocates through a small arc. Also, you should look up Franklin Patent steam locomotive valves. Acptulsa (talk) 04:23, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

Torsion bars

I have no idea if you were trying to say torsion bars do not provide variable rate springing because the rate doesn't vary much, or exactly what you had in your mind. But I thank you for not replacing the lie that torsion bar rates do not vary with spring torsion, regardless of your confusing "reason" for the edit. The statement that the effective spring rate is dependent on, among other things, the amount of rotation does explicitly and correctly define torsion bars as variable rate springs. Acptulsa (talk) 04:32, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

Precious anniversary

A year ago ...

transport solutions
... you were recipient no. 1797 of Precious, a prize of QAI!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:55, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

It's a Christmas miracle!

Could we be seeing the the descendants of footwear formerly known as "I.B. Wright" among many other names? --Wtshymanski (talk) 01:00, 21 December 2018 (UTC)

You think? He did at least know what he was on about. I think this is too pointy and simply destructive. Andy Dingley (talk) 01:17, 21 December 2018 (UTC)

My apologies

I should not have stirred that pot any further. Sorry. Just plain Bill (talk) 14:58, 21 December 2018 (UTC)

Thanks, but I'd rather not highlight it any further. Andy Dingley (talk) 14:59, 21 December 2018 (UTC)

SPS

Hi Andy Dingley. The policy that is relevant here is WP:BLPSPS. It states:

"Never use self-published sources ... as sources of material about a living person, unless written or published by the subject of the article."

The Forbes.com piece is self published - we simply can't use it. The Snopes.com article is considered to be reliable, so we can use that. Adding the Forbes.com article as a source, when it is both not needed and a violation of BLP, is not the best way of proceeding. How about we just use the reliable source, remove Forbes.com, and stick to policy? - Bilby (talk) 14:19, 22 December 2018 (UTC)

This is just you claiming Forbes is 'unreliable' to keep pushing your whitewashing. Andy Dingley (talk) 14:37, 22 December 2018 (UTC)

I am not removing the text, I'm asking that we only use the reliable source, and remove the source that you added which violates BLP. If it helps, Forbes.com contributor pieces are listed on WP:RSP, where it explains that the consensus is for "treating Forbes.com contributor articles as opinion pieces or self-published sources". We can't use Forbes.com contributors as sources for claims about living people unless they are the author of the article. - Bilby (talk) 14:41, 22 December 2018 (UTC)

Xmas

FWiW Bzuk (talk) 01:56, 25 December 2018 (UTC)

Seasonal Greetings

Merry Christmas and a Prosperous 2019!

Hello Andy Dingley, may you be surrounded by peace, success and happiness on this seasonal occasion. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Sending you heartfelt and warm greetings for Christmas and New Year 2019. Happy editing, Walk Like an Egyptian (talk) 06:33, 25 December 2018 (UTC) Spread the love by adding {{subst:Seasonal Greetings}} to other user talk pages.

Thanks!

Hello Andy
Thanks for fixing the Baedeker Blitz template: So, in less than two dozen lines of text I managed to get two of them wrong! I will try and do better... Thanks again, and best wishes for the season, Xyl 54 (talk) 23:33, 30 December 2018 (UTC)

You're welcome - just don't ask me to explain why it wasn't working. Total mystery to me! Andy Dingley (talk) 23:35, 30 December 2018 (UTC)