User talk:Globbet

Moving walkway

Could you please tell me why you continue to remove my text, even though it is completely within the Wiki manual of style? In this particular case, the registered trademark symbol is completely relevant, considering that it is used to differentiate between generic (colloquial) and brand name products. I don't even know who you are, but I can't help but read your edits as an act of aggression. Could you please explain? This is really very frightening for me. Thanks. --BFDhD 03:46, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There is no need to be frightened. No aggression is intended. I just happen to disagree with you. I gently suggest you may be being a little proprietorial about Moving walkway. I think, by the way, you have re-inserted the trademark symbol as many times as I, and another editor user:Bdve, who would appear to agree with me, have removed it. I understand your point of view, but it seems I interpret the MoS differently. I take the sentence: "Do not use the ™ and ® symbols, or similar, unless unavoidably necessary for context (for instance, to distinguish between generic and brand names for drugs)." to mean that the ® symbol should not be used unless unavoidably necessary. In this instance I do not see any unavoidable necessity because the text and the eccentric capitalisation make it clear that Trav-O-Lator is a trademark. There may be something of a cultural difference here. Americans are, I think, used to seeing the ® symbol liberally sprinkled over everything. People outside the US, and probably many within, may see this as an ugly and unnecessary intrusion in good writing style. It is not just Moving walkway that I have removed the ® symbol from: if I see it and find it 'avoidable', I remove it, and intend to continue doing so. It is not the job of Wikipedia to pander to commercial sensibilities. So, unless you can persuade me that the the ® symbol is absolutely essential to the article, it is my opinion that it is better without it. I also need to be persuaded that using the ® symbol in an article title such as Trav-O-Lator® is a terribly good idea. How will this help users to find the article? Bill F 08:43, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Re F.M. Swengel Bill, some time back in the steam locomotive article you asked about F.M. Swengel. I've left a note on him. Regards Tonyob 14:09, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Notability of Martin Grierson

Hello, this is a message from an automated bot. A tag has been placed on Martin Grierson, by another Wikipedia user, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. The tag claims that it should be speedily deleted because Martin Grierson seems to be about a person, group of people, band, club, company, or web content, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is notable: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not assert the subject's importance or significance may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable.

To contest the tagging and request that administrators wait before possibly deleting Martin Grierson, please affix the template {{hangon}} to the page, and put a note on its talk page. If the article has already been deleted, see the advice and instructions at WP:WMD. Feel free to contact the bot operator if you have any questions about this or any problems with this bot, bearing in mind that this bot is only informing you of the nomination for speedy deletion; it does not perform any nominations or deletions itself. To see the user who deleted the page, click here CSDWarnBot (talk) 02:01, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Preserved Steam cats etc

Hi there.

Thanks for creating Category:Preserved steam engines and Category:Preserved stationary steam engines. This was on my list of things to do, but not very high up! Until about a year ago there wasn't a very comprehensive structure of steam-related categories, but I've introduced a number of new ones (and no-one's complained yet!) The 'preserved' cats were still to be done. (Did you see the list at Pumping station? I haven't looked to see if you've done them all: it lists all the articles I've found to date).

You may be interested to look at User:EdJogg/Steam Portal. It's not really a portal, but I've collated information there in the absence of a proper 'steam' project. I haven't updated it recently, but it'll show you some of my thinking.

Originally I was planning a top-level category just named "Preserved Steam", but I wasn't sure whether those that look after such things would accept such an inaccurate category name! (Fundamentally, THAT is why I hadn't got any further!)

On thinking about it now, I reckon there's scope for an article about the steam preservation movement...

EdJogg (talk) 09:28, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Most of the cat was taken from Pumping Station. I think I have included all the preserved engines mentioned there. By the time I had done that I needed to go to bed (to be fit for some hands-on preservation today). Many of the other engines I am aware of lack articles, so there is at least scope for a list as well as a cat, just to make things simpler.

Had a quick look at your page which looks good, and will be back for more consideration.

Just bouncing ideas around, how about Preservation movement, something vaguely like "a loose umbrella term usually understood as the mass of people engaged in the preservation, enjoyment, and public exhibition and of retired mechanical engineering artefacts" and point off to top-level articles for everything from water-wheels to wheel-barrows? It would significantly overlap with Industrial archaeology it is true, but would contrast with, for example, architectural conservation. Globbet (talk) 22:50, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm quite pleased with Pumping station. OK, the article is rather short considering the topic, but many such pages are. I was expecting either the list would grow unmanageably, or else be threatened with deletion, neither of which has happened. I think what I like most is that we have a list of preserved pumping stations that were used for so many different tasks; I haven't seen this comparison elsewhere. (We ought to note what the significant differences of each type are...).

My 'Steam Portal' was initially a means of collating information -- categorising articles in the absence of categories, and working out some hierarchies. It was also a kind of 'todo' list, but I've got so many things on my main todo list that I won't mind too much if you find something else that interests you to run with! If it makes sense and is helpful to you to continue developing the page (I'm thinking mainly adding new idea/cats/pages, rather than removing stuff), then please do. If we had a WikiprojectSteam, I'd move it there!

Preservation movement may have some scope if we have references to verify it...

EdJogg (talk) 23:47, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Images at Encaustic tile

Thanks for the heads up on that. I have answered the query, re-labelled both files on Commons, and re-labelled the images on Encaustic tile. This took a very long time as broadband is exceptionally slow currently in my village. Please don't find any more of these . . .--Storye book (talk) 21:02, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Firebox

Point taken. But if I had no idea of what I was doing, how would I know not to do it? Think about it! Anyway sorry if it's caused a problem, I was just trying to provide some form of consistency in this area. Bermicourt (talk) 21:39, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No worries. The key thing is to learn from one's mistakes. I've only been doing this since July and have translated or created over 300 articles, so hopefully the good outweighs the bad! But I'm still learning. Bermicourt (talk) 22:06, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Quote Moving this article to Firebox (locomotive) was egregiously ill-informed. Fireboxes are far from exclusive to locomotive boilers.

No it isn't. It is to separate it out from other kinds of firebox. See Firebox Chevin (talk) 09:53, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your reply where you wrote And where is the page for the fireboxes of non-locomotive type boilers? I take your point, but the design of a locomotive firebox is quite different for one for a stationary engine or one heating water for power station use for instance. I am not an expert but I would think some would be designed for maximunum efficiency while others for maximunum power output. This distinction applies to emgines in general. For instance gas turbines while very good for stationary applications are not successful for transport purposes. A flavour of this can be gained from the article on the NER 1001 Class loomotive, or from discussions on the "launch type" boiler and firebox.

Perhaps an extended article beginning with basic firebox design, then the special arrangements used for different purposes would be a good idea. Regards Chevin (talk) 09:44, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just a note in eavesdropping...(sorry!)

There is much improvement going on in the various boiler articles -- one editor is doing a grand job of elevating the coverage considerably. From my reading of these articles, 'firebox' design is closely linked to boiler design, since the two are very often 'one'. The locomotive boiler and hence firebox is a clearly separate entity and has undergone a number of changes over the years. In the boiler article, the term 'furnace' is often used -- it may be more appropriate to consider this area as "firebox".

No criticism is implied, I'm just highlighting the existence and development of related articles in case you can sensibly combine coverage.

EdJogg (talk) 14:38, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please see Talk:Firebox_(steam_engine)#too_locomotive-centered. Biscuittin (talk) 09:42, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thomas Parker (engineer)

Thanks for your contribution to Thomas Parker (engineer). Biscuittin (talk) 21:48, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Renaming in Four-way valves: funny misunderstanding

Sorry, It was not my meaning at all. In fact I founded it more logical to use the term valve than cock or tap. Right now, I realise my big misunderstanding using the term "colloquial" in my comment: in fact, I only meant common, or familiar, like "tap" ("robinet" in the French), but nothing vulgar with bad connotation: I understand now your comment: it is very funny and was not my intention at all ;-).

More seriously, from a technical viewpoint, there was already pages with one-way valve, two-way valves, three-way valves, and nothing on four-way valves: that was the reason of my move: to be consistent with the series of valves. Sorry, I am not a native speaker and in fact, I misused the term "colloquial" without thinking to the pejorative meaning. I would have done the same if the page was named "Four-way tap". I had no intention to sanitise anything: cock is also good but I hope the term valve can continue to be used. In the French, I would also have preferred "valve" to "robinet" which was my first own translation for cock :-))))))) Shinkolobwe (talk) 16:07, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Simpler links

Hi. Just noted the link you added to expansion valve in steam engine.

The mediawiki software can handle differences of case of the first letter without fuss or redirect, so [[expansion valve]] has the same effect as [[Expansion valve|expansion valve]]. Anywhere else in the title the case IS significant, however.

I wouldn't bother changing it now, as SmackBot (eg) will probably fix it automatically next time it visits the article. But I thought I'd highlight this for future ref.

Cheers -- EdJogg (talk) 10:14, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Conversions

Globbet, Please see Talk:Wagonway#Conversions and User talk:Peter Horn#Templates, It is easy to adjust the precision of a template generated conversion to something more reasonable i.e less precise. Peter Horn User talk 21:47, 15 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Some possibileties:

2 in (51 mm)
3 in (76 mm)
3+3⁄4 in (95 mm) (fractions!)
4 in (102 mm)
3 ft (914 mm)

3 ft (910 mm)
3 ft (914 mm)
6 ft (1,829 mm)
6 ft (1,800 mm)
6 ft (1,829 mm)

If you would like templates that give conversions to the nearest 5 mm you could place a request on Template talk:Convert. I am sure that some whiz will figure out how to do that. Any way, to what tolerance were they able to work? Peter Horn User talk 23:16, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Or allowance. Peter Horn User talk 23:20, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As I have already said, I can also just not use the template at all. WP:MOS (somewhere I looked but do not have time to find it again now) says you can use {{convert}}, not that you must. I do not share the quite the same degree of enthusiasm for it, and I don't want a lengthy discussion about that. Yes, I do know what a tolerance is. I would expect greensand moulded cast iron to be accurate to, oh, say, 1% + 3mm; though if you allow test pours and adjustment of the pattern, you could well expect to get better than that. Globbet (talk) 23:50, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Globbet, That would allow a nominal conversion to the nearest mm. Not all contributors are as careful as you are, I have seen some "longhand" conversions that were way off. Some conversions are difficult to make without a conversion table. In those cases the conversion templates are real time savers. One example is barrels of petroleum to cubic metres. I would have to dig back for a sample. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Peter Horn (talk • contribs) 00:28, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In Template talk:Convert#Some editors dislike conversion templates, part 2 I mentioned "57 hp (25 kW). The template gives 57 hp (43 kW)" and "3 ft (600 mm)". Those are two "gems" I came across. Some editors are somewhat sloppy. Peter Horn User talk 23:38, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File copyright problem with File:SVG-logo.svg

Thank you for uploading File:SVG-logo.svg. However, it currently is missing information on its copyright status. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously. It may be deleted soon, unless we can determine the license and the source of the file. If you know this information, then you can add a copyright tag to the image description page.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their license and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have created in your upload log.

If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thanks again for your cooperation. Image Screening Bot (talk) 22:00, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Raster graphics in SVG

Hi. I've again edited the SVG article to mention PNG and JPEG, but I'm not all that thrilled with my latest edit either. See Talk:Scalable Vector Graphics#Raster graphics in SVG. I'd appreciate hearing from you there. Cheers, CWC 13:13, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

wagonway

I must confess that I had qualms about reverting what you added. However, I am sure that it was too detailed an issue to include in the article. There are no doubt other articles where its inclusion might be appropriate (if it is right). However, my impression is that the evidence as to this circus railway is actually quite thin and that a good deal of it comes from long after the events. There is an article about it in Early Railways 4, though more concerned about the precise location than with its operation. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:35, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

help needed with closed merge you participated in

Hi

You were involved in a merge discussion on the George Devol talk page.

i have closed the discussion on the proped merge of Unimate - this means that the material from the Devol page has to be moved to the Unimate page leaving a summary on the Devol page

Unfortunately my PC is broken and this smartphone cannot copy and paste so I amasking you to do the work

thanks Chaosdruid (talk) 16:45, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If I get there first. Globbet (talk) 18:59, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Northumbria

Nice start, but the article could benifit from the addition of {{infobox locomotive}}, as per the Invicta (locomotive) article. Mjroots (talk) 18:18, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. I haven't got much info to put in an infobox, though. Globbet (talk) 21:03, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

15" and related gauges

Hi Globbet. Could you take a moment to view the discussion at: Template talk:RailGauge#Gauges between 1 ft and 2 ft, where your name has come up? I suspect you may like to voice support for the proposal. Timothy Titus ^{Talk To TT} 16:20, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the heads-up. Globbet (talk) 21:58, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry about that, having mentioned you, Andy, and Peter, I should have given you all the heads-up myself. Tim PF (talk) 23:18, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Pen-y-Darren Replica (Swansea)

Globbet: I notice that you rewrote my subsection on Trevithick's loco rebuild, and merged it back into the main text dealing with the Pen-y-Darren loco. I've no direct complaint about that, but:

I wrote the section on the rebuild as a subsection because it deals with a best-guess rebuild of the Pen-y-Darren, not the historic loco itself. I wanted to make the distinction.
You've merged back my observations on the change of configuration between the Coalbrookdale and the Pen-y-Darren replica as if it applies to the historic Pen-y-Darren loco. My observations are just that - I have no idea if they applied to the historic vehicle! Obviously, you may know that they do, in which case fine, but please can you check the known facts? It might just have been that the 1981 rebuild team chose to reconfigure the loco to make it safer to drive. Certainly the museum curators pointed out that there are several known anachronistic features of the rebuild which they choose to ignore (like the boiler being bolted together with modern-threaded bolts with hexagon-heads). I was there on 2011-09-04 the most recent steaming-day. I didn't ask about the configuration because I'd not spotted the discrepancy at that point.Steve Hosgood (talk) 09:54, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As far as we know, the replica reflects the original. There is no surviving drawing but apparently there is text description. There is a drawing of the 1804 Gateshead engine in Anthony Burton's book, with the same arrangement as the Pen-y-Darren replica. A citation is needed, but I do not have it to hand. I also felt that your description of the replica went into a bit too much detail for this article, but the gist is very useful. Globbet (talk) 11:06, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A citation would be a welcome addition if you can find it. At the very least (in the article) please mention the existence of the historic textual description to corroborate your comments about the change of layout. Steve Hosgood (talk) 12:37, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I suppose what should be done in this case is to re-instate the sub-paragraph that I wrote (but with your improvements where relevant) but to make it part of the page on Swansea's Waterfront Museum. The replica after all is really a feature of the museum, not Trevithick. Of course, we should then provide a link to it from the Trevithick article's "Pen-y-Darren" section in case readers want to know about the replica. That would neatly split the historical info away from the description of the replica. Steve Hosgood (talk) 12:49, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for March 13

Hi. When you recently edited Baillie Scott, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Arts and Crafts (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:41, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The dispute at talk: Nutation

Now I realized that my initial reply was not clear enough (and overly polemical), and could (mistakenly) create an impression that I try to downplay the usage of the word wikt: nutate/nutating/nutation by engineers. Moreover, I am easily insulted by such things as bulk reverts (namely bulk reverts, not edit war in general), especially if such a revert removes some perfectly correct piece. That instance, and "especially not by someone employing both sarcasm and a circular argument" rhetoric are two things which formed my impression of an unconstructive conduct on your side. Now I see that you conduct the dispute in an acceptable way. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 12:03, 9 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

OK, Thank you. I see that while your English is mostly very good, it is not your native language. I think this may have added to our starting badly. Having now realised that, I will make allowances. But you should understand that telling someone here that they have 'contaminated' an article, is very rude and very far from AGF. Let's get back to editing? Globbet (talk) 21:17, 9 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for July 1

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Permanent Secretary, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page FRS (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:20, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for May 22

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Fire apparatus, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page John Braithwaite (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:54, 22 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Drat. Globbet (talk) 09:57, 22 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Help me!

This help request has been answered. If you need more help, you can ask another question on your talk page, contact the responding user(s) directly on their user talk page, or consider visiting the Teahouse.

Please help me with... I would like to recommend collapsing the subcategory Category:Preserved beam engines into its parent Category:Preserved stationary steam engines but don't very well understand how to do that. WP:CfD looks a bit complicated and I don't wish to be bitten for getting it wrong.

The rationale is that the present subdivision is unnecessary and unhelpful. By the nature of the subject, the overall size of the category can never grow much larger. Globbet (talk) 23:28, 2 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I have stared a CfD for you, which you can find here - Rich^T|C|E-Mail 14:24, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Rich, thanks very much for setting that up for me. We'll see how it goes. Globbet (talk) 22:31, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2024 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2024 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 2 December 2024. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2024 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:18, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]