User talk:Andy Dingley
- 1 Archives
- 2 A barnstar for you!
- 3 Category:Summer kigo has been nominated for discussion
- 4 GCR Class 9P
- 5 RS
- 6 RESTRICT
- 7 Twinkle
- 8 Good editor
- 9 Your revert without giving a reason
- 10 Ball v Johnson
- 11 Notice of Dispute resolution noticeboard discussion
- 12 talk page
- 13 Alert
- 14 Isle of Man Railway locomotives
- 15 Burevestnik
- 16 drafted RFC
- 17 Tektronix
- 18 Perhaps you could help me with my sockpuppet query?
- 19 DAB of a photo caption?
- 20 Severn Bridge
- 21 Schneider Trophy
- 22 Armstrong Siddeley Stentor
- 23 Images removed with links
- 24 Phase Voltage Unbalance and AC Motors
- 25 Cast-iron cookware
- 26 A barnstar for you!
A barnstar for you!
|The Original Barnstar|
|Just to thank you for the magnificent reply on the Science Reference Desk regarding carbon dioxide from vinegar and baking soda (I'm not the person who asked the question, but I had to thank you regardless) Willbb234 (talk) 12:05, 15 July 2019 (UTC)|
Category:Summer kigo has been nominated for discussion
Category:Summer kigo, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. —andrybak (talk) 05:11, 21 July 2019 (UTC)
GCR Class 9P
Hi, re WP:HOUNDs - of the seven pages they have edited, five were created by myself; one (British Rail Class 22) has my name several times in its history; just one (Cave bear) has no involvement of mine at all. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 20:49, 25 July 2019 (UTC)- thanks for that, I wrote the passage concerned and sourced it at the time; most of the article was my work. You may not have realised, but is one of my
- I've seen their additions lately from a few IPs. Hard to call them out as absolutely wrong, but WP:COMPETENCE does require basic literacy and this isn't good enough. I've no idea how much involvement Gresley had (I know nothing about the GCR other than Peter Denny's models) but couldn't make any more sense from what they wrote. Andy Dingley (talk) 21:26, 25 July 2019 (UTC)
Why do you think WP:RS is optional for a cited source? The site owner himself says: "I am not a professional historian and have no academic qualifications in the field so please take my site as the work of an amateur enthusiast." Guy (Help!) 11:41, 26 July 2019 (UTC)
- The place to discuss this is at Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Global_ban_on_non-RS?, not here. Andy Dingley (talk) 11:52, 26 July 2019 (UTC)
You might want to refrain from talking about Jytdog, as you clearly did here. C. W. Gilmore was indeffed partly for violating his IBAN with a sitebanned editor, and Jytdog's ban had nothing to do with you and so could not by any stretch be considered to have invalidated your IBAN. Pinging User:Ivanvector who closed the IBAN discussion and User:Bishonen who proposed it. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 12:26, 26 July 2019 (UTC)
- Noting since I was pinged that I have seen this and am not taking any action. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 12:50, 26 July 2019 (UTC)
When I revert somebody's edits using the vandal rollback option, it does not automatically open their talkpage for me. Are you experiencing this issue too?
- Isn't that what it's meant to do? One of the options rolls back, the other rolls back and opens the talkpage.
- Try it. Just sit on recent changes for a bit and catch some obvious vandalism.
- I tend to not bother warning on large IP or mobile ISPs much, at least not for first offences, as they're too transitory. Andy Dingley (talk) 13:17, 26 July 2019 (UTC)
- What I am saying is that it does NOT automatically open the talkpage for me. It was working fine yesterday. CLCStudent (talk) 13:53, 26 July 2019 (UTC)
You are a good editor. I have seen your hard work on the project and I want to say I appreciate you. The editor who is coming after you is the same one who follows me and harasses me. My suggestion to you is to ignore this editor and keep going with your valuable contributions. The editor looks for areas where drama and friction occur, and I know that is not your purpose on the project. Lightburst (talk) 20:55, 26 July 2019 (UTC)
- I agree. You seem to be one of the competent editors amongst all editors that I have encountered on Wikipedia. I also really appreciate that you have helped me with "Wikipedia rehabilitation" back in Summer 2018. --Johannes (Talk) (Contribs) (Articles) 09:17, 27 July 2019 (UTC)
Your revert without giving a reason
Reverting without giving a reason is, well, at least not very polite; many consider that as vandalism.
But just as a matter of interest: The category "Twin-engined tractor aircraft" has been here during the last six years and more than 100 edits, so why haven't you changed or deleted it during that very long time ? --Uli Elch (talk) 12:02, 27 July 2019 (UTC)
- Because a moment's study of the Fairey Rotodyne will show that it doesn't belong there. It is not a fixed wing aircraft, it is an (admittedly obscure) derivative of rotary wing aircraft, i.e. helicopters.
- If you think it's vandalism, then take it to ANI. But WP:COMPETENCE is required, and if you're going to do these massive and previously contentious categorisation runs, then the BURDEN is on you to get it right, and certainly not to complain too loudly when someone else has to clean up your errors. Andy Dingley (talk) 12:22, 27 July 2019 (UTC)
- "errors" (plural) might have to be proven by you, and if you quote WP:COMPETENCE please note:
Be cautious when referencing this page, particularly when involved in a dispute with another editor, as it could be considered a personal attack.
- But you appear to be unwilling or unable to answer my question: Why do you make such a noise just now instead of quietly correcting it between 2013 and now - during more than 100 edits you left it undisputed. When looking at that as a neutral observer someone else might think of possible Wikipedia:Hounding. --Uli Elch (talk) 12:32, 27 July 2019 (UTC)
Someone evidently missed these Tweets... the whole 'crowdfunded private prosecution' lark made even your own favourite Twitter QC (an actual legal professional) embarrassed!
"Marcus Ball should never have brought that case which has no realistic prospect of succeeding and I implore people not to waste their money on it and whatever Marcus takes from it." (25 Mar 2019)
184.108.40.206 (talk) 05:08, 28 July 2019 (UTC)
Notice of Dispute resolution noticeboard discussion
This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult for editors. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help this dispute come to a resolution. The discussion is about the topic TERF. Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you! — Æµ§œš¹ [lɛts b̥iː pʰəˈlaɪˀt] 16:31, 28 July 2019 (UTC)
- Even so, you still have to let the rest of us know what's going on. Why leave their mainspace edits in place, but remove their talk: additions? Especially when there's no evident non-GF issue with them? Andy Dingley (talk) 19:37, 29 July 2019 (UTC)
Raising in relation to allegations at Talk:Jessica Yaniv genital waxing case and Talk:British_Columbia_Human_Rights_Tribunal#Proposed_merge_with_Jessica_Yaniv_genital_waxing_case --Fæ (talk) 23:43, 3 August 2019 (UTC)
Isle of Man Railway locomotives
Hi Andy. I realise you have a dislike for the Whyte template. But your edit summary when you reverted my change to Isle of Man Railway locomotives "Restore links to the specific topic, not these vague and less useful targets" is inaccurate. Both 2-4-0T and 2-4-0 T link to the same article, so I'm not sure how this could be described as a "vague and less useful target"? Railfan23 (talk) 21:47, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
- I hadn't checked those two specifically, but my understanding was that for most of the tank loco articles we either had two separate articles, or (mostly) two clear sections within an article. The tank redir can thus go to a more specific target – and the Whyte template breaks that.
- Looking at these, that's not working here. So if you want to revert it, go for it. I still think the redir is a better link (because we can improve its target, and not have to go back and change the links), but then much the same thing could be said about the template. However as it is, I hate that template implementation. Andy Dingley (talk) 21:59, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
Yes, I perfectly understand what you are saying, but the problem with your edit is that the sources you are referring to are not stating that it WAS 'Burevestnik' that exploded. They are just ASSUMING it was "Burevestnik" based on some intelligence data (satellite imagery with the launching site similar to the old one) and a general distrust towards Russian officials, which, of course, is not misplaced in many cases, but is still not a sufficient reason for putting something in Wikipedia. At least, in my opinion. My solution to this problem would be strictly following the official information and then, if overwhelming proof of the opposite is provided, making the required edits. And I also don't agree with you on the "offensive" part, because those who are willing to be offended, will be. Besides, I don't quite understand how you can edit something on Wikipedia, not being at least somewhat familiar with the topic, because confusing RITEG with a nuclear reactor is just not serious. Also, your definition of "trusted" source is somewhat vague. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nicholas Velasquez (talk • contribs) 17:42, 10 August 2019 (UTC)
- This might be better in one place, at the 9M730 Burevestnik talk: page.
- This is not perfect. But it is how we work. It is clearly better than a lot of voices all shouting "I know more about this topic than you do!" because that's what we'd have otherwise. If you discuss the issue, then a lot more progress can be made.
- I do not know what the accident was. I do not know what the Burevestnik is. I do not know if it was Burevestnik which exploded. I certainly do not trust Russian news media, either for technical accuracy in translation, nor for simple honesty and lack of bias. I have yet to hear anything from Bellona, who I would trust rather more. I do not believe the story that James Bond blew it up, mostly because I no longer believe in the UK capacity to do such a thing.
- I too have no idea how you power a cruise missile with an isotope source. But then, given how difficult it proved to be in the 1950s, I don't know how you do one with a reactor either.
- My comment re keeping and correcting those references, as we learn more, rather than simply dismissing them immediately would still stand. Mostly because we have to think of our audience: many readers are likely to come to this article because of the Gruadian and like articles (Just look at the pageviews spiking). We have to answer their questions, even when they're not related. At the most extreme, sometimes our role here is to debunk falsehoods more than simply giving a truth. Andy Dingley (talk) 17:52, 10 August 2019 (UTC)
Burevestnik, last version.
- And now, because you posted here rather than at the talk: page, another editor has undone it all. That's why discussions like this belong on article talk pages, where they're clearly visible to all concerned. Andy Dingley (talk) 09:41, 11 August 2019 (UTC)
What you are basically saying is "I don't know what I am editing, I just grab the sources and throw them at readers". Well, I think I am missing the point of Wikipedia then, because all that time I thought it was something more than a news aggregator. Of course, I am not saying you have to be an expert in the field, or possess a technical degree in order to make edits there, but even the most basic research into the topic would have spared you of the embarrassing mistake of confusing a RITEG with a nuclear reactor. But, anyway, your latest edit is quite pretty, so enough with that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nicholas Velasquez (talk • contribs) 18:31, 10 August 2019 (UTC) There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Amisom (talk) 14:03, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_UK_Railways#(draft)_RFC_on_the_use_on_livery_art_and_other_editor-constructed_diagrams_in_articles. Please help complete it or tell me if I'm missing key issues. Dicklyon (talk) 15:12, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
- If Dickylon is doing this well then I don't need to involve myself too much. Tony May (talk) 15:17, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
- You might be the strongest or only voice on one side of the question, so your participation could be valuable. Please help complete the RFC if interested. I will be studiously neutral on these questions, since I can't see supporting either one of you at this point. Dicklyon (talk) 15:21, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
- Are you ready for comments yet? If not, please ping when you are. Thanks for drafting this. Andy Dingley (talk) 16:05, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
Thank you for your comments on the pages I added content to. You mentioned copyright violations. If you look at my email, I actually work for Tektronix, so I have permission to quote directly as a source. A lot of the information I was trying to add was to breakdown the exiting information on the pages (such as Multimeter , Oscilloscope , and Signal Generator ) Would you like me to rephrase the information instead and then cite it via footnotes? Thanks again! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Laurendevera (talk • contribs) 17:45, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
- Hi Lauren, I'll reply on your talk (but might be a little while) Andy Dingley (talk) 17:49, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
Perhaps you could help me with my sockpuppet query?
You have accused me of calling multiple people sockpuppets. I'm happy to confirm to you, that this, like most of the basis of your unnecessarily confrontational attitude towards me, is not the case.
I have raised concerns about one editor. I'm not used to dealing with this sort of thing, I don't even know how to file a request for a sockpuppet check. So I'd like to confirm what you would think about an editor who has (1) made about 11 total edits, 10 of those in December 2018 - 9 of which were in the article namespace and 1 of which was in the Template namespace, and who (2) suddenly shows up into a comment on a talk page of a minor article and posts a message about content. I will of course assume in good faith, that he's not your sockpuppet. Am I right in thinking I should therefore accept and stretch my good faith to consider that this arrangement was entirely coincidental?
Would you be kind enough to withdraw your comment that I have been "attacking/accusing multiple editors of being sockpuppets" because it is simply not true. I have raised tentative concerns about one editor, which I admit may be wrong, and I am trying to stick to policy and content discussions. I'd be glad if you were to try to stick to truths rather than personally attack me.
I'd be grateful if you could please also limit yourself to the discussion of the point I have raised, and not try to deflect the issue by taking the discussion off on an unnecessary tangent. Tony May (talk) 14:54, 22 August 2019 (UTC)
- WP:SPI should see you right. You might even like WP:SPI/Andy Dingley. Help yourself. But either raise a reasonable and appropriate SPI, don't just insinuate in content disputes. Andy Dingley (talk) 15:32, 22 August 2019 (UTC)
Hi Andy! I just saw this question at the Trains Wikiproject talk page. The reference is to a caption for a photo you scanned and uploaded to Commons. Are you able to disambiguate the link to the word indicator? I'm not sure what it is referring to. Thanks. --Tkynerd (talk) 10:30, 23 August 2019 (UTC)
- Hi again! Just wanted to say thanks for clarifying that reference. --Tkynerd (talk) 08:55, 26 August 2019 (UTC)
Looks like we had an edit conflict there - I don't mind if you want to remove my trimmed version. The new editor may appreciate a touch of guidance, methinks. Ghmyrtle (talk) 10:23, 28 August 2019 (UTC) Ha! Blocked already.... So much for my WP:AGF. Ghmyrtle (talk) 10:24, 28 August 2019 (UTC)
- We should cover this – maybe even link the most workable of the surviving websites – we need one! But the app-spamming here? Far too much. And what use is an app? Andy Dingley (talk) 10:44, 28 August 2019 (UTC)
10:24, 29 August 2019 Andy Dingley talk contribs 22,716 bytes -1,750 rv - unsourced, sources used are vague and don't cover the specific claims made. I can't think offhand of any turbocharged Schneider entries and although hugely influential on fuel chemistry and valve cooling, there was no direct influence on supercharger design or their metallurgy undothank Tags: Undo PHP7
@Andy Dingley The contribution to Aircraft engine development and aircraft design from air races in general and specifically the highly prized international Schneider Trophy is widely acknowledged and not in dispute.
You are mistaken if you say there weren't any turbocharged Schneider racers. The Rolls Royce R was specifically developed for the Schneider races and was most certainly Supercharged and was the envy of other nations. The later Fiat AS.6 in the Macchi 72 was also supercharged.
Road vehicles could carry the extra weight of a bigger normally aspirated engine easily but planes where much more sensitive to additional weight and this is why they were a much bigger impetus with aircraft engine development and the why the Schneider race was where the extra performance was most vital.
I believe this is a valid entry in this page. I could be more correct in stating that by the late 1920's the aircraft where the effort was spent in supercharging had an obvious clear advantage over the opposition. In the run-up to the second WW aircraft engine manufacturers put great effort into supercharging because the Schneider Trophy winner had made clear it was the future.
The book "Schneider-Trophy-Races by Ralph-Barker deals in depth with supercharging efforts by Rolls Royce and the catch-up played by the other main countries in also developing the metallurgy for the compressor blades to survive in a supercharger. The same technology essential to jet engine turbine blades. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tadpolefarm (talk • contribs) 11:00, 29 August 2019 (UTC)
You reverted my edit giving the reason as rv - hydrogen peroxide first.
Why should hydrogen peroxide be mentioned first?
I mean, yes, that type of rocket engine generally gets thought of as a hydrogen peroxide engine; but on the other hand, when mentioning rocket fuel components the order is generally fuel and then oxidiser. Indeed, the article section linked to by the text hydrogen peroxide / kerosene propellant is Gamma (Rocket engine)#Advantages of kerosene / peroxide engines. It seems somewhat contrary to insist on reversing the order of the fuel components as displayed in the Armstrong Siddeley Stentor article.
Do you have any reference to suggest that hydrogen peroxide should be mentioned first, rather than sticking with the order as used in the Gamma engine article?
From my point of view, the sentence: It was fuelled by hydrogen peroxide / kerosene propellant chemistry. is very clumsy and if nothing else, needs the spaces either side of the slash taken out.
- "that type of rocket engine generally gets thought of as a hydrogen peroxide engine;"
- That'll be why then.
- The use of hydrogen peroxide is the defining characteristic of this whole group of particularly British engines. Whereas everything worldwide uses kerosene. This is why this group is described as hydrogen peroxide engines primarily. Look at how they are described in the RS literature: . Secondly, WP isn't RS, see WP:OSE, and also, more subtly, that's not even what the Gamma article means (maybe it needs to be dumbed down further for the WP audience). In general (and in the context of the Stentor article) these are HTP engines. However there are also two HTP engine cycles, the "cold" (which is hot) using HTP and the "hot" (which is very hot) using both HTP and kero. In the narrow context of UK HTP-based rocket engines of this period, it's reasonable to describe the hot cycle engines, such as the Gamma, as kero/HTP engines – but only when this is as a contrast to the cold cycle engines, within a clear overall context of British HTP engines. So that's OK for a section within the Gamma article, but it would be wrong in the lead. Andy Dingley (talk) 21:49, 1 September 2019 (UTC)
- "The use of hydrogen peroxide is the defining characteristic of this whole group of particularly British engines. Whereas everything worldwide uses kerosene."
- Hang on a bit - you know perfectly well that hot HTP engines generally use kerosene fuel with HTP oxidiser while the oxidiser generally used with kerosene is liquid oxygen. But no-one talks about liquid oxygen rockets, do they?
- Then again, the catalytic decomposition of the HTP does provide a fair bit of thrust by itself, so it's not just an oxidiser (if you see what I mean).
- Then again, the disputed sentence isn't in the article's lead. And everything about the chemistry in the Gamma article puts kerosene before hydrogen peroxide, even in the chemical equations.
- Then again, the Flight article referenced does state: "Few details of the Stentor may be published, but it can be stated that this engine operates on HTP and kerosine."
- And while I'm at it, would you mind letting me know what you mean by "the RS literature"?
- Ta. Michael F 1967 (talk) 23:12, 1 September 2019 (UTC)
- "the RS literature"? You know about WP:RS, right?
- "the Flight article referenced does state: "Few details of the Stentor may be published, but it can be stated that this engine operates on HTP and kerosine."" Yes, this is the point! WP:RS, of which Flight is certainly one, use "HTP and kerosene", not "kerosene and HTP".
- Incidentally, kerosene has been used as a fuel with almost any of the oxidisers. LOX, yes, but also both nitric acid and nitrogen tetroxide. In liquid rocketry, it's normal that many fuels are workable, but the oxidisers are much harder to find a workable system for them. This is one reason why most of them (except cryogenics) are described primarily by their oxidisers, rather than their fuels. Andy Dingley (talk) 23:19, 1 September 2019 (UTC)
- Ta. Michael F 1967 (talk) 23:12, 1 September 2019 (UTC)
- No, I didn't know about WP:RS. There is not enough time to read all Wikipedia guidance, and in any case I'm not very good with initialisms - overloaded things, they are. I see RS, I think of the firm that used to be called Radio Spares (I've still got some Radio Spares branded reels of wire hanging around), or perhaps the Royal Society. Now I've got another one to remember, if I can...
- Certainly Flight is a reliable source. Should we therefore change the spelling of kerosine to follow its lead? A single mention of " this engine operates on HTP and kerosine" (note: kerosine not kerosene) doesn't strike me as holy writ for this sort of thing.
- From what I've read, liquid rocket engines are generally described by both (or all, in the case of triple propellants) fuel components. Do you have a reliable source indicating anything to the contrary?
- And reverting rather than fixing clumsy language - did you really have to do it like that?
- I had a look in some books I've got. See the quotation from the reference I used for specific impulse in Special:Permalink/913591044#Performance. Okay, okay, I'm convinced: it's HTP first... They're all mad, though, mad as hatters, the lot of 'em.
You recently correctly removed a couple of links added to images on https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Load_cell. Although I definitely agree with undoing the link addition, all the images on the mentioned page are clearly trying to make a free marketing/product advertisement by not removing brand from the images and falsely pointing the images as being of personal creation from a particular user, by even placing image EXIF information. I recommend removing the images completely or editing them to completely remove brand references, which is definitely appropriate for an encyclopedia.
Phase Voltage Unbalance and AC Motors
At the moment, that information remains at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Motor_controller#Phase_Voltage_Unbalance_and_AC_Motors Ingalls.Arkansas.QNX 17:19, 4 September 2019 (UTC)
- Sorry, but your point is unclear? At motor controller, this does seem to have some relevance, as it's referring to phase imbalance. Everywhere else you've put it though, the issue has been something like brownout, which is an overall undervoltage. Andy Dingley (talk) 17:22, 4 September 2019 (UTC)
A barnstar for you!
|The Anti-Vandalism Barnstar|
|From ZombieGizzard - I don't know how to communicate with you other than this so I am sorry for using this Barnstar for this reason but I was just warned about me being banned from editing wikipedia if I vandalize again, and this was after an edit I made to the wikipedia of pencil sharpener. I agree that some of my first edits on wikipedia were vandalism, but I feel like my recent edit to pencil sharpener was not vandalism. I was simply trying to keep people interested in the article and to make people laugh a little. I did not delete or change any of the current information on the article, and all I wanted to do was make a slightly more enjoyable experience for anyone that happened to read the article. I do not understand how it was vandalism so could you please explain to me how or put it back up? Thanks! Have a great day! ZombieGizzard (talk) 19:16, 18 September 2019 (UTC)|