# User talk:Andy Dingley

Hello Andy, could you please explain me which point of the external links guideline violated the links I added? thank you fgkh — Preceding undated comment added 22:17, 12 June 2014 (UTC).

This is an encyclopedia, not a directory. The purpose is to write self-contained articles, not to link onwards. We should only link onwards to resources that really do add something to an article that can't be achieved otherwise. None of the ELs you added (All very obviously from your own "fgkh" site) met this. Apart from being barely trivial JavaScript calculator up from the usual blog post spam, yours land on a page with a large empty box labelled "There is supposed to be an advert here, but we haven't even got that much working yet". Andy Dingley (talk) 22:22, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

## Kane Is Able, Inc.

Hi Andy, I'm the Marketing Intern from Kane Is Able and was authorized to update the wikipedia page with information from our website. I was wondering if you could further explain why all of my edits were deleted and now that page is being removed totally? Thanks for your help. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Colleen.carter (talkcontribs) 15:26, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

I suggest asking this at Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions
Beforehand, please read WP:COI and WP:GNG, maybe raise it through WP:BUSINESS and its Talk: page. If you want to raise this for discussion via WP:AFD (slow discussion of notability and possible deletion), just remove my WP:PROD. Sorry for the alphabet soup, but it's how things work round here. Andy Dingley (talk) 15:59, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
I got a tin of alphabet soup once and the were all the letter O. What's the chances of that happening? Si Trew (talk) 22:03, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

## Gary Gabelich & The Blue Flame

Hi Comrade, I updated all the raw URL references on the Gary Gabelich and Blue Flame pages as promised. I would have done it sooner but my father passed away around xmas/new year last year. Anyway, it's good to be back and gee I tought I was having a hard time with the old man not being around, looks like you've got a bit yourself here :(. Regards, Emir ☭ irongron ☭ (talk) 10:53, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

I noticed, thanks for those. Andy Dingley (talk) 10:44, 22 March 2014 (UTC)
np mate! I have since realised that citing page footers is not neccessary in citations, I should have checked as I got this from another editor when helping with the Lockheed A-12 article... "→‎SAM evasion: footer text from web site is not relevant to cite". I'll go through and correct the citations and remove any website footers I put in. Regards, Emir ☭ irongron ☭ (talk) 06:17, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

## Superheater

Hi Andy, Please stop undoing the edits on Superheater and take the time to read the text. Unsaturated steam and wet steam are the same thing. When I first read the article, it was confusing, which is why I took the time to edit it. The revised text should be clearer to everyone. Jonathan 123987 talk 00:34, 26 January 2014

## FYI

Hi Andy. If you're not happy with the way user Wereith totally screwed you over recently over that non-free rendering of an engine, perhaps you could get your own back by exposing what many Wikipedia admins seem to be completely unwilling to even acknowledge (and which some others, like BlackKite, seem to be actively assisting in covering up) - Wereith is none other than the banned user Betacommand. He has all the same behavioural flaws, the same binary perception of policy, all the same interests, he even has the same retarded grasp of English (where instead of were for example). What he did to you is exactly what Betacommand used to do - whenever he is caught in a lie he simply ignores it and changes tack to another argument. The others in the debate didn't question it because they all already know, or at least suspect, that this is Beta returned, and so pulling Wereith up on such things would be as much of a waste of time now as it was with Beta. While he is undoubtedly right in many cases, even in spite of that, his entire approach is extremely damaging to Wikipedia. The number of users who end up completely disillusioned with the project or come away with the completely wrong idea about what policy on non-free imagery says, due to this arrogant, confrontational and frankly clueless wannabe robot approach, is huge. The community (and multiple arbcoms) has already expended a massive amount of time getting to that conclusion once in order to finally ban him, it really shouldn't have to repeat the same process again on the obviously flawed assumption that Wereith is a brand new user (and even if people doubt he is Wereith, they cannot ignore the obvious, that he is definitely not a brand new user). I've tried to raise this issue before in various ways, but as I'm sure you know - on Wikipedia the policy that matters above all others is WP:SOCK - anyone like me who makes a complaint without any identifiable history behind them, is automatically ignored, no matter how serious or damaging it would be if their allegations turned out to be correct (granted, this isn't Watergate, but as far as time-sink disruptive users go, Betacommand was top of the tree). As such, don't be too surprised if this is the only communication I am able to send on this account. The only way that Beta is going to be stopped is if an established user like your good self files an SPI on Wereith. It won't find any technical evidence I'm sure, as Beta knew all about how CU works, but as long as you make it a good one and fill it with plenty of diffs covering all the similarities - general behaviour, approach to dispute resolution (edit warring, battling), policy knowledge (or lack of), areas of interest (and the complete lack of interest in writing at all), the writing style - I'm sure a block would be forthcoming based on the deafening sound of quacking that it would expose. He might claim that the fact Wereith uploads non-free media (book covers, one of the tiny class of non-free media that is de facto acceptable) shows he is not Beta - but that activity stopped abruptly a while back - so it was clearly just a cover story, if you'll excuse the pun. His increased levels of arrogance and sarcasm to others (such as yourself in that NFCR), show that he clearly thinks he has gotten away with it, and is now not even really trying to suppress his true identity, so this is more than overdue. Arnhem 96 (talk) 21:50, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

Actually, could the reason he was exceptionally rude to you in the NFCR be that he maybe remembers you as a previous critic? Had you ever supported one of the countless block/ban proposals of Beta? Or had similar non-free image disputes with him? (I'd check for myself, but the archive search facility isn't much help in trying to verify that easily). Arnhem 96 (talk) 22:09, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up. I question though whether this really changes the position much.
The problem is not who such an editor is, but rather what they're doing. WP culture prioritises the slavish observance of rules over the value that such actions generate. There doesn't seem to be any reluctance at NFCR to join in with such behaviour. Andy Dingley (talk) 01:04, 29 November 2013 (UTC)
Unbelievably I'm not blocked yet, so I'll respond. NFCC enforcement on Wikipedia has its problems, yes, but what you need to realise is that, due to his OCD level of interest in the activity and the many and varied behavioural problems that are unique to him, Beta will always have a massively disproportionate affect on Wikipedia as regards the perception, and indeed practice, of NFCC enforcement. While others will follow his lead while he is here, if he is not, then except perhaps Black Kite and Hammersoft (who is no longer an issue as he has decided to 'retire' from the activity out of frustration at not getting his way often enough, something he reminds everyone of at any opportunity), believe it or not, most of the other people who frequent venues like NFCR really wouldn't dare to treat you like an asshole just because you have a different view. And they certainly wouldn't dare to edit war against you or otherwise ignore you if there were other editors involved and shared your view (obviously, like all areas of Wikipedia, even in ideal conditions, interpreting NFCC is at heart always going to be a numbers game). The problem with Beta is, the existence of other editors never makes any difference. If he thinks an image fails NFCC, he will never ever change that view, no matter what. The fact he simply ignored you when you pointed out it was not an actual picture of an engine was no accident. The same tactic plays out day after day with Beta. Much like a robot, the tactics he uses against the people who challenge his view are all very predictable, and all entirely unaffected by what anyone else says. His behaviour is, at its core, the very antithesis of what collaborative editing is supposed to be all about. Imagine the effect that has on Wikipedia when the same thing happens to editors who are simply trying to improve Wikipedia with non-free imagery, day after day, sometimes multiple times a day, due to the script assisted industrial scale of his activities. It doesn't matter how many people disagree with him, it doesn't matter how many warnings he receives, it doesn't matter how many people tell him his approach is totally counter productive, in any situation like that he will still believe he is in the right, and everyone else is wrong. That is why you really need to expose the fact that, in defiance of an arbcom ban, he has just returned to Wikipedia and picked up where he left off. Because just like Beta, he is apparently not going to stop until every single instance of the use of a non-free image on Wikipedia adheres to his personal interpretation of 'policy' (and as far as Beta goes, policy is what you call any policy, guideline, essay or years old discussion between two people that supports his view). Other people can be reasoned with, or will at least respect consensus. Beta cannot. He must be exposed and therefore returned to his well-deserved and more than earned state of persona non-grata, for the sake of Wikipedia. Arnhem 96 (talk) 18:14, 29 November 2013 (UTC)
Andy, I'm disappointed to see you still wasting time trying to deal with Wereith as if he is just another user. I cannot stress to you enough just how futile that will be for you - you only need to look at how many times Betacommand brushed off warnings/blocks and even a couple of arbitration cases, how many different users tried and failed to get through to him or get admins to force him to comply with the basic norms of discussion and consensus. It went on for years before he was finally banned, and even then it involved numerous trips to ANI with countless episodes of wiki-lawyering as he bent and stretched his well earned restrictions. You only have two choices here if you're interested in your own sanity - either file an SPI, or completely ignore him. Trust me when I say that if he thinks you are wrong, even when (and especially when) you're right, nothing else matters. Nothing. Even in the unlikely event you prevail in any particular dispute, he will never ever admit he was wrong. And he will simply wait a few months and try the same edit again, hoping nobody notices. You will only save yourself and Wikipedia from repeating this entire years long farce again by exposing the fact he is a ban evading sock. I notice you think you don't have any hard evidence - you have to realise that you do - the sheer amount of similarities between the two users is effectively hard evidence as far as SPI goes. I've seen people banned as WP:DUCKs on much weaker cases than this, I really have. At the very least, the very least, he needs to be confronted with the fact that he is very clearly not a brand new user, so if he is not Beta, what is his explanation for that (per WP:SOCK, he is expected to have an actual answer for that, even if it is given to arbcom in secret). If I can't convince you, I'm also informing SlimVirgin (talk · contribs), who he is also having issues with, maybe you can collaborate if you're not willing to file an SPI on your own? I am still amazed I am still not blocked, but as I become more visible, it's only a matter of time - then it will be down to you. Arnhem 96 (talk) 20:07, 8 December 2013 (UTC)
And just to re-iterate - right now, the guy is calling you, an editor who registered in 2007, an incompetent dick. That's pretty strong words from a guy who registered in 2012, and only started editing in any great volume this time last year. Yet he claims to "know complexity of NFCC far far more than you do." I wonder how. I wonder how a guy ends up knowing all about NFCC in just under a year, yet has not grasped the inevitable consequences of calling an editor of your experience and service, an incompetent dick (and obviously I'm not talking about NPA, but the intended meaning if someone was properly invoking those two links). I'll tell you how - this behaviour is the result of the exact same mental illness or developmental issue that used to cause Betacommand to do the exact same thing. The guy is making an absolute mug out of you with this crap. And if you indulge him in it by simply exchanging 3RR templates and nasty words, I have to say, you are being a bit of a mug. If he is no longer interested in merely trying to pretend to be a brand new user, if as it seem he now wants to actively take the piss out of you on the basis you both know he is Beta returned, you need to hit him where it hurts - I have no doubt he was devastated when he finally got banned, because he is simply addicted to Wikipedia. Unfortunately for him, a lot of people spent an awful lot of time coming to the conclusion that, in his case, Wikipedia is not therapy, and his continued presence was not required for at least a year. (I cannot believe I also forgot to mention Betacommand has form for socking around blocks - see User:Quercus basaseachicensis). Arnhem 96 (talk) 20:49, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

Hello Andy. Once again I have to stress to you to not even try to interact with Werieth on the assumption he is a normal editor - you are seriously just wasting your time. I note the filing of SPI, and beefing this up with diffs really is the only way you will ever get rid of this guy for good. I can provide you with some, but you can see form the attitude of some admins that they are not going to let me stick around to do a proper job. Here's some to be getting on with. You should remember, Beta used the main identities Betacommand and later "Δ" (Delta). He also had various socks (see Category:Wikipedia sockpuppets of Betacommand), the investigations of which might yield further diffs.

Regarding the obsession with NFCC enforcement, it should be sufficient to just link to a few 500 page views of random months for each account, but here's Werieth confirming it his own words in a brilliant way as well (in the context of how relatively new that account is): "I have done thousands of non-free image enforcement edits"

• Side interests in technical areas, and gnoming & script editing:

Werieth [1] [2] (huge run of expand book citation edits) [3] (a perfect example - in 500 edits, as well as mass NFC enforcement, we also see contributions to village pump (tech)/bot request/spam blacklist project pages, as well as mass AWB edits, mass reference/external link edits (obviously script assisted editing). It shouldn't really be necessary to convince anyone that Beta was totally obsessed with technical matters and script/bot editing, but if anyone asks, you'll be able to find similar examples in their contribs quite easily

• affection for casting opposition as harassment

Werieth [4] [5] Betacommand [6] [7] [8] Δ [9]

• affection for casting opposition as people who merely hate NFCC 'shooting the messenger'

Werieth [10] Δ [11] [12] Betacommand [13]

• Habit of directing people to the 'third door on the left" when seeking to avoid discussing an NFC issue any further with an opponent

Werieth [14] Δ [15]

• Using where instead of were:

By way of showing that their response to short term blocks - completely ignore, don't complain/appeal or even acknowledge, just wait it out, then resume the bad behaviour where they left off, is the same, then you can refer to these two as examples:

• Betacommand

blocked for 24 hours for 3RR on 06:42, 3 June 2008 (blocked indef 2 days later, for edit warring)

• Werieth

blocked for 48 hours for 3RR on 17:38, 3 December 2013 (resumed edit warring soon aftwerwards)

One thing I also noticed today - notice the way Wereith deceptively changed the header you used on his talk page into something that belittles/attacks the original poster [18] - I'm sure Betacommand has done that before, but I'm finding it hard to track down an example. Although I might be thinking of Beta's long time admirer/defender Hammersoft - he absolutely loved doing that as far as I can remember. He used to love altering headers to things like 'Trolling by ...'.

It's great news that someone has noticed the timings of the account creations - it's all damning when considered alongside everything else - especially as Wereith's defence is still just the lame point about how he uploads book covers (one of the few classes of non-free imagery that are accepted, no questions, so are not likely to be the target of someone like Beta) - you should point out in the SPI that, as I predicted, he only resumed those uploads recently after a long recess, coincidentally at the same time as he was yet again being likened to Betacommand.

Here's another interesting thing - Betacommand was obviously fully conversant with SPI procedures (in his later years he even ran a bot for the clerks). So, it's interesting that after just a few months editing, Werieth was at ease with filing SPI reports himself [19][20]investigations/Expatkiwi/Archive . The first one is from Jan 2013, just a few months into his Wikipedia career.

Here's another interesting thing too - years ago Betacommand used to run a bot which did various NFCC enforcement tasks, but it was so crap, and he was such a retard when it comes to dealing with other people (i.e. complaints), that it was eventually shut down. Unsurprisingly, he was of the opinion that the bot was superb, not least as it did nothing but enforce policy, and he basically blamed everyone else for the grief and hassle it generated. With that in mind, and given the relative youth of the Wereith account, isn't it strange that he would have formed views like this: [21]. Can Wereith explain at all how/where/when he would form that opinion about bot assisted NFCC editting, given that as far as I know, Betacommand was the last person to have first hand experience of it.

I'm sure if you just peruse the talk page archives you will find plenty of links to give that will support the broader similarities in how they deal with opponents, such as the habit of casting anything on any NFC page as black and white policy, or claiming that every opponent is simply someone who wants to ignore NFC altogether (try and pick examples where that is manifestly not the case). There's not much point me looking for those, as it's almost as much work to explain them to you, as it would be for you to find them and be able to explain them yourself. But I hope I've been clear enough in these posts and elsewhere for you to know what to look for, but the best way will be for you to observe what Wereith does now and look for similarities in Beta's past behaviour - the only thing that's changed is that he is less sweary or a total twat, but the basic approaches to policy/opponents are the same. A few starters could be these - the way Wereith hates it when admins don't help him [22] - and the way Wereith sees edit warring as a necessity, so that people "get the point" [23]. Formal Appointee Number 6 (talk) 22:48, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

## Source Clarification

Looking for clarification here, you inputted in the List of fictional aircraft article, that "The film aircraft was a modified Handley-Page Halifax/Halton G-AHDM Falmouth. K.A.Merricks book, published in 1980, states: G-AHDM Falmouth went from BOAC to Aviation Traders; then to Westminster Airways; then converted as Reindeer G-AFOH for film No Highway in the Sky" K.A.Merricks is the author? If so what’s the name of the book? FOX 52 (talk) 23:51, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

Merrick, not Merricks (there should be an apostrophe there) and it's his book on the Halifax.
Merrick, K.A. (1980). Halifax: An Illustrated History of a Classic World War II Bomber. Ian Allan. ISBN 0711007675.
Andy Dingley (talk) 11:07, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

## Invitation to Trademark Policy Discussion

Hi Andy!

I noticed that you've contributed to the trademark article on Wikipedia. I wanted to reach out to you because the Wikimedia Foundation legal team has just released a draft trademark policy for consultation with the Wikimedia community. The purpose of the new draft is to facilitate permissive use of the Wikimedia trademarks for the community while preserving protection of the marks.

I thought that you may have an interesting perspective to add to this discussion, given your interest in trademark law. I would like to personally invite you to review the new draft and contribute any comments you may have. We plan to keep the discussion open for two months and incorporate the feedback into the final trademark policy. We hope this new version of the policy will make it easier for community members to use the logos to encourage Wikipedia editing.

Best,

DRenaud (WMF) (talk) 00:39, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

## Atomic Demolition munition

Andy, just a heads up, I removed the picture you like putting into the article Atomic Demolition Munition again. The reason being, is that the Sedan crater was caused by a deeply buried thermonuclear device with a yield around 104 kilotons. In contrast to ADM's that would not coake, mistnceivably be deeply buried when in use very often, if at all, as I don't think most targets would allow someone to drill a giant well hole to oblige would be atomic demolition teams. You dig? If you could find a picture of a surface burst or shallow underground nuclear explosion in the 20 to 40 kiloton range, that would be a lot more apt. What do you think? As I've just added one that was ~ 1 kiloton in yield.

83.71.31.96 (talk) 12:47, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

My mistake, I thought that Plowshare Sedan had been one of the ADM series. Just checked in Hansen and it isn't. Andy Dingley (talk) 21:03, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

## The Wikipedia Library Survey

As a subscriber to one of The Wikipedia Library's programs, we'd like to hear your thoughts about future donations and project activities in this brief survey. Thanks and cheers, Ocaasi t | c 15:23, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

## Green Goddess

Thanks for the Green Goddess picture on Coventry Climax. I am wondering if you have reasons to have placed the pic in the Final Years section, not in the Pre- or Post War. I don't even know what engine type was used on it, so would appreciate your further attention. Yiba (talk) 12:41, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

I'd rather replace it with a picture of the trailer-mounted Godiva pump, rather than the one on the Green Goddess. I didn't put it in any particular section, just restored it, but as the Goddess-specific installation that is post-war, rather than wartime. I would see a specific wartime section as worthwhile; their trailer-mounted fire pumps were a significant part of civil defence planning. Andy Dingley (talk) 14:10, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

## Tank article: Porsche as inventor of torsion bar suspension

Hello. I have created a Talk section on the Tank article to discuss this. Can you please justify crediting Porsche with invention of torsion bar suspension or its use on AFVs? Thanks in advance. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vasiliy Fofanov (talkcontribs) 20:51, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

## Tin box

Hi, just a quick note to say that I've mentioned you here. Horatio Snickers (talk) 17:33, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

## Hello! There is a DR/N request you may have interest in.

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 find a resolution. The thread is "Tin box". Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you! EarwigBot operator / talk 17:33, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

## SPI question

Hi Andy, I just saw this question. You'll have to ask Future Perfect at Sunrise (talk · contribs) about his reasoning though, I can't speak for him. Alternatively, you could talk to the checkuser team, as they more-or-less have the final say in sockpuppetry investigations. Mark Arsten (talk) 01:54, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

## Can we get a few things straight?

Before you come out with something like that again.

• Yes, I was a staunch defender of Betacommand. I believe (and still believe now) that he was hounded off the project by a number of users who didn't like his - mostly correct - enforcement of NFCC. At least two of those editors have since been permabanned, and others have disappeared.
• But no, I will not stand for him socking, if he indeed is doing so. My main concern is that the next account that comes along and aggressively enforces NFCC is immediately accused of being Beta (Werieth wouldn't be the first). However, if Werieth is Betacommand, they should be blocked. I actually think, however, that you aren't doing the SPI many favours with our sock friends' "evidence", though - most of it proves nothing. The "Third door on the left" stuff, for example, was a dramaboard meme a few years ago - [24]. You give me some actual evidence that Werieth is Betacommand, and I'll support a block all the way. But not until then. Black Kite (talk) 20:08, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
I don't know if Werieth is a Betacommand sock or not. I had little to do with Betacommand, I'm not terribly familiar with his style. Personally I see Werieth's behaviour as bad enough of itself to be a problem, whoever he is.
You demand evidence. That's reasonable enough – except that when it comes to Arnhem 96, you're less fussy: At Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#self_admitted_sock you claim that they're blocked: "Oh for goodness sake, Andy. This is a previously checkuser identified blocked editor" Which you then justify with a link [25] to a different editor. Betacommand had a great many editors with a grudge (right or wrong) against them. You can't just extrapolate that because one editor was CU'ed to a blocked editor then all editors acting against Betacommand are the same person! Per AGF, even if you suspect so, you can't act on that basis. Andy Dingley (talk) 20:49, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
But surely you must realise that the evidence is in front of you? An account with that much knowledge of Betacommand's activities is one of two - either a current editor who is hiding their identity (WP:ILLEGIT), or alternatively a blocked or banned editor (WP:SOCK). I don't see any way that this account is not either of the above? (And, to be honest, it's fairly obvious that the CU blocked sock is the same user as this one, even so). If Werieth's behaviour is that bad in itself then surely the preferred location is WP:RFC/U? Black Kite (talk) 19:59, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
"the evidence is in front of [me]" What evidence?, where?
I see good reason to believe that Arnhem 96 is not a new editor. Clearly they dislike Betacommand and Werieth. However that applies to a lot of editors. There is no evidence to link them to any particular editor beyond this. Yet several admins involved in this have persisted in implying that they are. That is factually inaccurate, or as it's called when non-admins do it, "lying".
I do not like socking, nor even alternate accounts (the necessary uses for which are far fewer than those for which they're claimed). I wish that this editor had instead simply emailed me. However what they posted appears accurate. They are diffs: it's a simple matter to verify them. This effort to suppress any discussion of the return of a banned editor is far worse than any minor socking. Andy Dingley (talk) 00:13, 17 December 2013 (UTC)
[rant by harassment sock removed. – Fut.Perf. 03:30, 17 December 2013 (UTC)]
• Hi, Black Kite (hullo AD). Do you wonder why so many of the people who enforced WP rules against bc when he repeatedly proved that his determination to enforce guidelines was to the detriment of the editing environment and against the consensus of the editorship have since left? Well, I suggest it is because of people not being able to see that edits like this are entirely consistent with the modus operandi of betacommand. I tagged Werieth as a bc sock within weeks of them editing - and had such a fun time at SPI that I went back into retirement. Now I may be no great loss to WP, but how many good admins editors have simply walked away for similar reasons? LessHeard vanU (talk) 22:03, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
• Andy, it seems very clear that one of the socks which posted in that SPI is Wikinger. The IP who participated in the discussion linked to the Japanese version of Wikipedia:Long-term abuse/Wikinger, which looks like self-identification. I don't know who "Formal Appointee" or "Arnhem" are, except that their behaviour suggests that they are both the same person, and the accounts must obviously belong to someone who has been around for some time. --Stefan2 (talk) 15:57, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

## Final warning

I have warned you before to stop enabling that sock troll by reposting their material. The troll is clearly engaging in a wiki-hounding agenda, and by colluding with them you are contributing to that wiki-hounding. Proxying for block-evading socks is not legitimate. This goes for any place, including your own talk page. If I see you doing this again, I will block you. Fut.Perf. 04:01, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

And that is the biggest assumption of bad faith I have ever seen. tu quoquo? Si Trew (talk) 21:57, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

## Discussion open at WP:DRN

A volunteer has opened the case. Please feel free to proceed with discussion now. Thanks for your patience. -- KeithbobTalk 18:05, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
It appears that Pkgx has aready done with the discussion. Yet again, everyone else is all wrong. Andy Dingley (talk) 18:26, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

## (Non-)Strategic Materials in main Mosquito Article

Hi Andy, I removed the livelink to Strategic Materials because no Article on that subject exists. Are you planning to write one? Otherwise, I recommend you should agree to my removal of the square brackets around the term. Best Wishes.Dendrotek 22:55, 20 December 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dendrotek (talkcontribs)

Yes, Andy, I've read that. So again, my question - are you going to write an article on Strategic Materials? I might also add, is this an online encyclopedia, or trying to be a rival to the Oxford English Dictionary?!Dendrotek 21:21, 21 December 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dendrotek (talkcontribs)

I've also removed a few red links. It's good form to write the article first, then link it. Thanks. Magnolia677 (talk) 16:17, 22 December 2013 (UTC)
Either of you are free to write the article yourselves, if you're so keen. Don't let me stand in your way.
If you're so against redlinks, and our long-established practice in this area, then I suggest you take that up at Wikipedia talk:Red link or even Wikipedia:Miscellany for Deletion/Wikipedia:Red link. Andy Dingley (talk) 19:23, 22 December 2013 (UTC)
I looked at the "what links here" on the "strategic materials" red-link article, and every page linking to it is yours. Doing this is not "long-established practice". Please take a moment to read WP:RED, particularly "do not overlink in the mainspace solely for use as an article creation guide. Instead, editors are encouraged to consider Write the article first, or to use WikiProjects or user spaces to keep track of unwritten articles." Thank you. Magnolia677 (talk) 20:49, 22 December 2013 (UTC)
I have to agree with the others. It's a bit questionable to extensively redlink an article you haven't yet written. . --Yaush (talk) 16:45, 23 December 2013 (UTC)
< It's much worse to redlink an article you have no plans to write > I'm confused. WP:RED also says In general, a red link should be allowed to remain in an article if it links to a term that could plausibly sustain an article 86.168.89.147 (talk) 04:57, 25 March 2014 (UTC)
I see no confusion here, WP:REDLINK is quite clear. Andy Dingley (talk) 10:33, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

## Glad Tidings and all that ...

FWiW Bzuk (talk) 23:46, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

## WP:BURDEN

Hello, I'm TheRedPenOfDoom. I noticed that you made a change to an article, Treehouse attachment bolt, but you didn't provide a reliable source. It's been removed for now, but if you'd like to include a citation and re-add it, please do so! If you need guidance on referencing, please see the referencing for beginners tutorial, or if you think I made a mistake, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 13:49, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

Please read the policies you're so fond of relying upon. BURDEN refers to the use of sources to support content within an article. Your claim is instead that a source is invalid; quite a different proposition.
Also please see WP:3RR, as you've already reached it. Andy Dingley (talk) 14:03, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

## Nutation RfC

Andy, if you really wish to avoid abuse, why did you add a personal attack to the discussion? It would be much better for you to vote and then take the page off your watchlist. That way your voice is heard but you don't get troubled by any rude responses. RockMagnetist (talk) 17:17, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

I think that people have done everything that needs doing. His edit of Nutation was reverted the same day and Op47 asked him to wait for the consensus. The creation of Nutation (engineering) may have been premature, but it doesn't do any harm. After all, even if the merge option were chosen (which seems unlikely now), it would be trivial to change that article to a redirect. For that matter, an unstated fourth choice would be to leave Nutation as it is but make Nutation (engineering) the main page for Nutation#Mechanical engineering. The important thing is that all the material on nutation in engineering has been left intact. RockMagnetist (talk) 16:56, 29 December 2013 (UTC)
Andy, by your comments at Talk:Nutation, I see that you think you are being treated unfairly. My main interest is not in this fight between you two, but in keeping the RfC on track. I removed your contribution because you fired the first salvo in this round, and there was nothing constructive about your first comment. I was hoping to prevent another pointless fight. I did reproduce your alert about Nutation (engineering), but in a way that was more neutral and informative. I also put a warning tag on the talk page of the IP editor who added the rude comments here. RockMagnetist (talk) 03:04, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

I've refactored this conversation to remove most mention of a 3rd party editor who I have asked not to post here further, and who might be blocked if they do. As a general rule, we should not talk about an editor in good standing in a forum where they cannot respond. If you still need to discuss this other editor, please do so at WP:ANI, or other appropriate forum, not here. Thank you so much for your understanding. Jehochman Talk 14:20, 1 January 2014 (UTC)
OK, then, on that basis I'm happy to agree to your request. Andy Dingley (talk) 14:21, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

this edit should be reverted and allow someone uninvolved close the discussion. Werieth (talk) 02:15, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

Oh? Has consensus at NFCR suddenly changed, that it no longer fails WP:NFCC#8? Andy Dingley (talk) 03:16, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
Until the discussion is closed by an uninvolved user (which you are not, since you filed the NFCR) you shouldnt be removing the file. Your removal of the file before the NFCR has been closed is inappropriate. Werieth (talk) 03:20, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
Not a principle you've followed! Andy Dingley (talk) 03:22, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
Please find a NFCR that I opened and also closed? I dont close NFCRs that I have commented on. Werieth (talk) 03:25, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
I refer to your practice of blanket deleting images you object to, with, without or during NFCR. Andy Dingley (talk) 03:37, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
I dont remove files during an active NFCR. And its not blanket removal. Werieth (talk) 03:39, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

## Inflatable rat

Was it your legendary pettiness or simply some sort of holiday-induced hangover that inspired this? One second of inspection by an educated source suggests the documented rationale is disingenuous at best (the Telegraph has never not been known to relay any right-wing trope carried by the red tops). Generously, you Googled for sources and, finding a bunch of self-reinforcing ones typically considered to be "reliable" by the Twitterati, dumped them en-masse to reinforce the one sentence of non-laughable fact you'd added. I'd suggest that if this were taken to talk, it'd result in removal again. I've thankfully reduced my wasted time on this sort of thing over the last six months; I'd hope you'd help me out in this manner by self-reverting. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 22:46, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

If you're concerned that these sources are too primary, then I can understand that. I wouldn't trust the Daily Mail to tell me it was Friday, but I do consider it a reliable source for the DM's own soapboxing position that using the rat had turned a union protest into a howling mob. Blanking the lot though and claiming that the Telegraph is an unreliable red top, so untrustworthy as to be deleted on sight, is just ridiculous though. Andy Dingley (talk) 00:31, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

## Optional end tags

Hi, regarding the sentence "Many tags, especially the closing end tags, are optional." - this implies that all end tags are optional, which is not the case. True, </p> is omitted more often than it is used - but neither the section nor that paragraph are specific to <p>, and that tag is mentioned only once, in the first paragraph. In HTML 5, the list of optional tags is significantly shorter than the list of all elements. --Redrose64 (talk) 19:41, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

I'm confused by your comment, "Elements: the number of elements with mandatory end tags vastly exceeds those where it is optional (COLGROUP DD DT LI OPTION P TD TFOOT TH THEAD TR) even if you count the empty elements (AREA BASE BR COL HR IMG INPUT LINK META PARAM))"
Are we talking about tags (things in documents) or tag types (definition sections in the standard)? In such a case, the number of omitted </p> far exceeds any number of tag types listed. My point is that the tags which can be and are ignored altogether (like <tbody>) just aren't an important issue for HTML coders or even numerically common, in comparison to the case (above all) of omitting to explicitly close an element. The common case, vis "especially" is this omitted closure.
As for <br>, that end tag isn't omitted, it's not even permitted. Of course any agent will silently ignore such as error as providing one (esp. for Appendix C reasons), but the standard is still clear that </br> isn't merely optional, it's wrong. Andy Dingley (talk) 23:24, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
In my edit summary, the text "Elements:" is in grey so it's the section heading, not my comment. I was also constrained by the 255-byte limit of the ref summary, so for brevity I listed only those tags which were in HTML 4 and ignored the new ones for HTML 5. In HTML 4, the various elements may be divided into two main groups. The first comprises thirteen empty elements, where the start tag is mandatory, but there is neither content nor an end tag; these elements are AREA BASE BR COL HR IMG INPUT LINK META PARAM (plus FRAME, only found where frames are used, and the deprecated elements BASEFONT ISINDEX). The second group comprises the enclosures, each comprising start tag, content, and end tag. In four cases (BODY HEAD HTML TBODY) both start and end tags are optional; in eleven cases (COLGROUP DD DT LI OPTION P TD TFOOT TH THEAD TR) the start tag is mandatory but the end tag is optional; and in the remainder (A ABBR ACRONYM ADDRESS B BDO BIG BLOCKQUOTE BUTTON CAPTION CITE CODE DEL DFN DIV DL EM FIELDSET FORM H1 H2 H3 H4 H5 H6 I INS KBD LABEL LEGEND MAP NOSCRIPT OBJECT OL OPTGROUP PRE Q SAMP SCRIPT SELECT SMALL SPAN STRONG STYLE SUB SUP TABLE TEXTAREA TITLE TT UL VAR plus FRAMESET IFRAME NOFRAMES (frames) APPLET CENTER DIR FONT MENU S STRIKE U (deprecated)), both start and end tags are mandatory. Of the elements deprecated in HTML 4.01, three (MENU S U) are no longer deprecated in HTML 5.
So out of about 115 different elements defined in the HTML 4 standard, there are 28 where an end tag is either optional or invalid, giving 87 where the end tag is mandatory. This is what I meant by "the number of elements with mandatory end tags vastly exceeds those where it is optional". The phrase that I used later "even if you count the empty elements" refers to including the 13 empty elements among those which do not have a mandatory end tag.
To return to the sentence "Many tags, especially the closing end tags, are optional." the "many tags" here totals just 19: the start and end tags for BODY HEAD HTML TBODY (i.e. 8 tags) and the end tags for COLGROUP DD DT LI OPTION P TD TFOOT TH THEAD TR (11). I therefore feel that "many tags" is significantly overstating it. --Redrose64 (talk) 01:14, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
I think we're coming at this from different directions here: you're counting the types of tag, I'm counting their incidence in documents.
I have little interest within this scope in the <thead> case. It's a high level article, that's obscure. I don't think it really belongs there. What I'm more interested in is the hugely common issue of omitting </p> (and maybe </li>) because the ETAG is genuinely optional and implied by the DTD content rules. That's what I think needs mention here. If you have any other forms of wording that would make this clearer, then I'm not attached to the current form of words, but I do think the emphasis should stay on the very common tags that require the start tag but make their end tags optional. Andy Dingley (talk) 13:58, 11 January 2014 (UTC)
I don't know why you're singling out <thead>, I only mentioned it as part of a list that would otherwise be incomplete. The impression that I don't want to give is that the end tags for commonly-used elements (like <a>...</a> <div>...</div> <h1>...</h1> <i>...</i> <table>...</table> <ul>...</ul>) are optional, when they are definitely mandatory. Browsers vary in the methods that they use for coping with these elements if they are found not to be closed. --Redrose64 (talk) 19:20, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

## Panzer II

You reverted to a DAB link. Perhaps you can fix this. Dougweller (talk) 14:35, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

We don't have a better target. Drivetrains aren't the same thing as powertrains, and in this case drivetrain is significantly correct (lack of new engine developments became as big a problem for Germany in the late war as they had been for the UK in the early years.). Really we need an article at drivetrain (drivetrain) (or better, move drivetrain to drivetrain (disambiguation). Andy Dingley (talk) 15:23, 12 January 2014 (UTC)
No problem. All I was really doing is correcting a spelling correction, someone changed it to "drive train". Thanks. Dougweller (talk) 18:44, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

## A barnstar for you!

 The Original Barnstar For preventing Bible translations into the languages of China from being quietly blanked. Thank you. In ictu oculi (talk) 12:38, 13 January 2014 (UTC)
Thankyou, I hope both articles may flourish. Andy Dingley (talk) 19:16, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

## Proposed deletion of Mr Whoppit

The article Mr Whoppit has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

all the "sources" are of absolutely non reliable kind

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 23:15, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

## Nomination of Mr Whoppit for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Mr Whoppit 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/Mr Whoppit 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. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 23:30, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

## Your GA nomination of Gaunless Bridge

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Gaunless Bridge you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of ТимофейЛееСуда -- ТимофейЛееСуда (talk) 22:12, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

## Your GA nomination of Gaunless Bridge

The article Gaunless Bridge you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold . The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needing to be addressed. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass; otherwise it may fail. See Talk:Gaunless Bridge for things which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of ТимофейЛееСуда -- ТимофейЛееСуда (talk) 17:02, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

## Your GA nomination of Gaunless Bridge

The article Gaunless Bridge you nominated as a good article has failed ; see Talk:Gaunless Bridge for reasons why the nomination failed. If or when these points have been taken care of, you may apply for a new nomination of the article. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of ТимофейЛееСуда -- ТимофейЛееСуда (talk) 00:52, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

## A barnstar for you!

 The No Spam Barnstar Thanks for prodding the relatively tiny New Apostolic Church in India. Bearian (talk) 23:27, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

## Coke (fuel)

Andy: How is my edit vandalizing? ~~Junvfr <~_~> (talk) 23:22, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

Hi your edit certainly wasn't vandalism and no-one is calling it that. However coke isn't mined either: coal is mined, then coal is turned into coke in a coking oven on the surface. Andy Dingley (talk) 23:32, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

## ani 3rr

You're aware of WP:3RR, right? NE Ent 19:50, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

I can count: [26] [27] [28]
Four: [29]
I'm sure User talk:Future Perfect at Sunrise#Heads up will act equivocally in this, now that he's been canvassed for his support. Andy Dingley (talk) 19:55, 5 February 2014 (UTC)
I did not canvas anyone, FPaS was the one who gave you the last warning in regards to you proxying for a sockpuppet. I felt it appropriate to give them a heads up that your behavior has continued despite the warnings that where given. Werieth (talk) 20:01, 5 February 2014 (UTC)
Who is the sockpuppet? The rather obvious 79.70.66.86, 79.70.79.23, 79.70.66.74? Or Garbage turk, for whom you have provided no evidence that they are a sock of a blocked user, merely that they are challenging your behaviour in a way that you don't like.
If you have evidence that someone is a sockpuppet, then go through SPI and demonstrate this. Otherwise you have no justification for claiming Garbage turk to be a sock, let alone for claiming they're also an (unidentified) banned user. Andy Dingley (talk) 20:08, 5 February 2014 (UTC)
(edit conflict) I have already had a CU look into it and they blocked several socks. I have already requested a CU for the newest sock. Werieth (talk) 20:12, 5 February 2014 (UTC)
Werieth didn't block Garbage turk as a sock, so your issue isn't with him.NE Ent 20:10, 5 February 2014 (UTC)
Werieth is repeatedly blanking my comments and Garbage turk's at ANI (see diffs above: 4RR at ANI and 5RR6RR (so far) at User talk:Garbage turk) on the grounds that Garbage turk is a sock of a banned user. There is no evidence for this. At User_talk:Hell_in_a_Bucket#ANI he offers to "[...] provide some(sic) the account names." but has not done so, either now or in the past. AGF still applies to Garbage turk. We have no reason and even no right to treat them as if banned. Andy Dingley (talk) 20:16, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

## Note

I think my warning from last time was quite clear enough, and the fact that the Garbage turk (talk · contribs) account was the same harassment troll who was involved the last time was quite obvious enough. Please don't insult our intelligence by going on about how there was "no evidence" about it – continuing that pretense would only put your own acting in good faith into doubt. The only reason I'm not blocking you right now is that the offending account has been blocked in the meantime, so I suppose at this point the block would come across as "punitive, not preventive" – but rest assured that if it turns out you continue with this kind of behaviour, blocks will come, and with no further warning. Fut.Perf. 22:18, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

Then please raise me at ANI.
I disagree absolutely with your self-created policy that some users are non-persons and their words must be removed from all places. Not can or even should, but you impose this as must, against the direct wishes of other GF editors.
As best I understand it, we have two socks. One is Arnhem 96 / Garbage turk etc. They appear to me to be an editor acting in what is a GF attempt to expose Werieth as the returned sock of Betacommand. They are far from alone in believing this, per the several SPIs. I believe this myself. I am permitted to believe this and I am permitted to tell other editors that I believe this. You might note some very specific comments to that effect at User talk:DeltaQuad#Troll sock series
There is also another sock, which I now believe to be Wikinger. I have no idea who Wikinger is/was and don't particularly care – although it would have been extremely useful for you to tell me this at the time. This was the sock over whom we previously had the dispute. I have no interest in furthering the aims of such a troll (cheers for the little hint there that my own good faith is in such tenuous regard). However I have even less interest in facilitating the career of Betacommand. You surely do not believe Garbage turk to be Wikinger or you would have presumably simply come out and said so.
There is a significant difference between the two of these: one is known and banned. Garbage turk is not (Werieth claims to know who he is, but won't divulge this). You and Werieth do not, per AGF, have the right to behave as if you "know" that Garbage turk is banned and so feel free to ignore 3RR et al in your pursuit of him.
You behaviour is unpleasantly partisan. Werieth can behave badly everywhere and lie repeatedly in the ANEW and you say nothing. An IP can sock away in the ANI thread, or attacking my talk: page, and you do nothing. Yet Garbage turk appears and suddenly they're a worse editor than Betacommand and must be blanked and their edits, even to their own talk page removed beyond all regular practice. I'm just surprised that their post at ANI hasn't been revdel'ed yet. A post that doesn't breach CIVIL any more (about 300 milliErics) than is already common at ANI. Mind, I suppose you object to his pointing out that you as "a hard line NFCC admin" have so much of a shared interest with both Betacommand and Werieth. As for your rapid response to Werieth canvassing you on your talk page, that's shameful.
In User talk:Arnhem 96's block we see user:Floquenbeam taking the bold step of "taking ownership" of the block because the original blocking admin was in a dubious position. That's a positive action and I commend them for it. I would do exactly the same with Arnhem 96's detailed comments for the Betacommand SPI as I support each part of them. Per WP:EVADE, " Editors who subsequently reinstate edits originally made by a blocked editor take complete responsibility for the content.". Yet in that case I was not allowed to do so, under your threat of immediate blocking. Not because they were Arnhem 96's (you still do not know who Arnhem 96 is) but by using the excuse that a Wikinger sock had now become involved. Perhaps I was indeed naively being used by Wikinger for their trolling, but no more than you're letting yourself be used by Werieth. Andy Dingley (talk) 23:31, 5 February 2014 (UTC)
I'm honestly tired of debating the whole ugly proxying-for-socks issue with you. I'll just say this much: Yes, of course "Garbage turk" is a blocked/banned user. He is, at a minimum, a sock of the other socks (User:Arnhem 96, User:Formal Appointee Number 6 etc.). Since he was blocked on those accounts, his reappearance is, obviously, block evasion, which automatically makes his edits fall under the removal rules. It really doesn't matter if there is an identifiable named sockmaster behind these known accounts and whether that master is currently banned or not. Anybody who creates this many throwaway accounts for obviously illegitimate purposes is de facto banned. If there is some as-yet-unknown good-hand account of the sockmaster that is seemingly still in good standing, so much the worse for them; if it were ever to be identified it would simply be treated as yet another previously undetected sock, and blocked immediately. Through his harassment sockpuppetry, Arnhem 96 or whoever is behind him actually is a "worse editor than Betacommand" – Betacommand had his character flaws but was otherwise undoubtedly a committed and good-faith contributor. No committed good-faith Wikipedian could ever engage in serial sockpuppetry of the kind this person has engaged in. Calling this a potentially good-faith behaviour is just outrageous and unworthy of a person of your intelligence.
I'm honestly at a loss to understand where you think User:Wikinger comes into all of this, though. You must have misunderstood something about this. IIRC, there were some Wikinger IPs turning up at one of the SPIs back in December, but they were certainly not the sock "over whom we previously had the dispute". The socks I warned you not to support back then were obviously not Wikinger but that Arnhem 96 series. Fut.Perf. 00:24, 6 February 2014 (UTC)
You haven't debated a thing. You've threatened. And worse, you've threatened at Werieth's beck and call. Shameful. Why are you so afraid of an editor, blocked, socked or whatever, raising the relevant diffs for that SPI so that previously uninvolved editors can then judge that SPI? Andy Dingley (talk) 00:49, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

## Hi-fi icons

So far, I've covered Arnold Wolf • Isobaric speakers • Ivor Tiefenbrun • JBL Paragon • Julian Vereker • Linn Products • Linn Isobarik • Linn Sondek LP12 • LS3/5A • NAD 3020 • Naim Audio • Naim Audio amplification • Naim NAIT • Rega Planar 3 • Quad Electroacoustics • Quad Electrostatic Loudspeaker‎ • Roksan Audio • Roksan Xerxes • Totem Acoustic • Yamaha NS-10. Do you have any other suggestions? -- Ohc ¡digame! 14:09, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

Yes, I noted several of those. Something on cartridges might be good - I don't think we have much there at present. Just explaining the principles well would be nice. Where there any mega-selling cartridges worth individual note? Didn't Shure have one? Otherwise, for simple "notable from sheer numbers" there's the Dual CS-505 and the Mission 700s. Heybroook HB-1s? I've a pair of those upstairs waiting for me to glue new foam surrounds into them. Andy Dingley (talk) 11:30, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

## Rolls-Royce C range engines

I have an original Rolls-Royce Workshop Manual. There is no specific definition of these engine in terms of "range" or "series" but the word "range" appears in a couple of places. Bruce Agland 10/2/2014 —Preceding undated comment added 05:13, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

## Blimps

Hi,

Since you reverted my edit to the Airship article, you may wish to contribute to the discussion at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Aviation#Blimps. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 15:59, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

## Looks like I owe you an apology...

... and probably some kind of clear-the-air talk. I'm grateful for your post at ANI on the RfA saga, and it does show me that my previous comments about you being "blinded by an old grudge" were inaccurate. So, I'm apologizing for that, and I hope that we can leave as much bad blood behind us as is possible. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 14:09, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

No problem, and thanks very much for your post here. Andy Dingley (talk) 16:42, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

## Welding Copy Edit

What was inaccurate about my copy edit?

-Duxwing — Preceding unsigned comment added by Duxwing (talkcontribs) 16:06, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

Most of it. It's painfully obvious that you're not a welder, nor that you applied the necessary restraint for copyediting outside a domain of knowledge. Changing inert or semi-inert to simply semi-inert was when I decided to hit the button, but adding "whereby" (in a copy edit that's otherwise following the Dr Seuss school of Long Words Is Bad, m'kay) wasn't great, nor is changing workpiece to piece. When the improved version is as clunky as, "Arc welding's electrical power can be variously supplied. " then I felt no great urge to preserve these changes as I see that the copyediting was better beforehand. Changing "the length of the arc is directly related to the voltage, and the amount of heat input is related to the current. " (which is verbose, but unambiguous) to the easily confused "as current and voltage, respectively so heat input and arc length" is a downwards step in clarity. Andy Dingley (talk) 16:36, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

## ANI un-archival

Andy, wanted to make sure you know that your edit just a few minutes ago seems to have un-archived quite a few unrelated threads. Was that your intent? Or did I miss something? The diff is [30]. Thanks for doublechecking this - we get lots of walls of text at ANI, but 200k in one go seemed a bit unusual. UltraExactZZ Said ~ Did 13:34, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

Leaky Cauldron reverted you, here. UltraExactZZ Said ~ Did 13:36, 13 February 2014 (UTC)
Sorry, just finger trouble (strictly, mouse battery) on my part. Thanks for fixing it. I was just trying to (simultaneously) find where the Future Perfect thread had gone and also post a (small!) comment on the Eric thread. Must have pasted it into the wrong window.
Anyone have a good trout recipe? Andy Dingley (talk) 13:38, 13 February 2014 (UTC)
 The Working Man's Barnstar For discovering a great way to notify everyone at once! Take this in lieu of a trout :-) Nyttend (talk) 14:26, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

## ANI

Hi Andy. I have temporarily removed your edit because it appears to add 205k of text. However, before you reinstate the relevant part please have a think about the suitability of the personal reference to Eric. He made that edit 3 days ago, before he retired and I think the reference to his personal circumstances is a bit OTT and will be seen to be a personal attack. It's your call, ultimately. Rgds, Leaky Caldron 13:37, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

I'd stand by every word of it, but as it seems that what I thought was commenting to as a newly re-opened thread (and why I was so surprised to see it) was actually a stale window onto the start of the thread of a few days ago, it's right to drop it. Thanks for clearing my "rather large typo" though. Andy Dingley (talk) 13:45, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

## Talkback

Hello, Andy Dingley. You have new messages at Smauritius's talk page.
Message added 13:46, 14 February 2014 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Hell In A Bucket (talk) 13:46, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. 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.

Dorset button (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
Hereford and Worcester Fire and Rescue Service (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:08, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

## rfc/u

Neutral notification to all participants in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/BeerXML of this: Wikipedia:Requests for comment/PrivateWiddle.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 15:53, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

## Wikipedia:Requests for comment/PrivateWiddle

Andy, I think you were too quick to respond to the above canvassing. You've added your comment in the "outside views" section, which is for people not involved. Very clearly, you are deeply involved and you've failed to restrict your comments to the issue at hand. I would suggest you amend your entry to make it clear that you are not impartial. Deb (talk) 18:10, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

How is it canvassing, Deb?— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 18:16, 17 February 2014 (UTC)
The issue is about a user's signature, not about a deletion debate. I realise you would prefer to assume bad faith, but you are misguided. Deb (talk) 18:35, 17 February 2014 (UTC)
Even supposing that that's true, which I doubt, how does it make it canvassing, Deb?— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 18:47, 17 February 2014 (UTC)
In what way do you claim I'm connected with Private Widdle's sig, the specific subject of this RFC? Please, will you and Empress of the World, just raise me at ANI for my "attacks" and hasten the inevitable response the two of you get to this whole mess. Andy Dingley (talk) 18:17, 17 February 2014 (UTC)
While you're at it, why not raise alf laylah wa laylah for breaching WP:CANVASS too, and see how far that flies. Andy Dingley (talk) 18:17, 17 February 2014 (UTC)
I noticed that, in your "outside view", you concentrated almost entirely on the conduct of the deletion debate (as did PrivateWiddle), throwing in a cursory mention of the signature issue to the effect that, because you (a man) are not offended, it is unreasonable for me to be. That's how you're "connected", as you put it. I have at no point suggested you have made any "attacks" on me - that's yet another misrepresentation of the facts. And you had the nerve to e-mail me this morning to ask me to correct another individual's conduct! And I actually took some notice of your comment; that'll teach me to try to deal reasonably with you. Deb (talk) 18:44, 17 February 2014 (UTC)
So basically, as a man, I'm wrong. Thanks for that. Andy Dingley (talk) 20:49, 17 February 2014 (UTC)
Deb, surely you cannot be surprised at the boomerang effect—when raising questions about someone else, your own actions will be analyzed. I was surprised to see you and FIM ganging up on the articles started by PrivateWiddle, setting AfDs in motion without ever looking at the literature on the topic. To me, it looks like a personal vendetta rather than an objective protection of the wiki. Binksternet (talk) 06:01, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

How old are the people who take part in these discussions? What - eight, something like that? Jeesus. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.70.66.111 (talk) 14:17, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

## Talk R-R Merlin

I've removed the offending words, so could you please kindly remove your offensive comments from both pages? Thanks Min✪rhist✪rianMTalk 01:01, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

If I've made any offensive comments, then you know where ANI is. Here's WP:AGF, which you seem to have mislaid. Andy Dingley (talk) 01:15, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

## DYK for Dorset button

Thank you Victuallers (talk) 16:02, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

## Question

It seems that IP 98.179.149.193  has been causing trouble. I am wondering if (And how) to bring this to a Administrator.

Thanks, Happy_Attack_Dog "The Ultimate Wikipedia Guard Dog" (talk) 15:35, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

Don't worry about it, I've already raised them at Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism. Takes a while, but it'll get there. Read the links at the top of that page if you're interested in more detail. Andy Dingley (talk) 15:42, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

## Futurist Meals

Hello Andy, Regarding the edits to the "futurist meals" page, I actually provided an explanation twice when I edited the page. You reverted the changes twice, although I appreciate that you sent a message the second time and explained the reason for the reversion. I removed the following sentence: "This is one of the few palatable dishes in Marinetti's Futurist Cookbook." As I explained twice, this statement is purely subjective. The author cannot make judgments about whether something is one of the only tasty dishes from a cookbook.

As well, the word "this" always requires a subject right next to it, so it's not even a well-expressed personal opinion that wouldn't belong there anyway. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.35.210.254 (talk) 15:26, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

Have you read the book? Have you seen the ingredients for the other recipes? It's hardly subjective to consider ball bearings (with or without chicken) as unpalatable.
For not realising that you were the same editor when you removed it a second time, unexplained, then I apologise – but we also call that kind of behaviour sockpuppeting. Andy Dingley (talk) 15:52, 22 February 2014 (UTC)
It's a matter of opinion whether almond paste with black pepper is palatable or not and it would be best to quote a secondary source if one could be found; if not, describe without comment. (I have read La Cucina Futurista, btw.) Cheers! Pelarmian (talk) 15:33, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
The palatability of adding pepper to a desert is, I would contest, within the bounds of reasonable culinary art. After all, there are plenty of chocolate recipes doing it. The point for this article though is that this is a rare example where the ingredients are even edible, let alone palatable. It's not about whether this one is too weird, it's that it's the only one that's not clearly too weird. Andy Dingley (talk) 16:19, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

## Web conferencing ‎ and List of collaborative software ‎

Hi Andy,

I have realised you have undone our edits on the Web conferencing and List of collaborative software pages. I feel Drum should be placed here. Could you please inform me if I doing something wrong or the reasons behind the edit being undone?

Thanks

Laurence Laurence Drum (talk) 11:15, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

Originally, WP:NOTDIR
Now, WP:BRD
In detail, you have added inlined ELs (external links) to a See-also section listing other Wikipedia articles. Drum does not have a Wikipedia article.
Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a directory (the web is full of directories and there are also search engines). Wikipedia is not here to boost SEO. What does adding a link to an article add to that article? Wikipedia is constitutionally disinterested in "making a better list" or "helping people to find our product" (those are jobs for search engines). Wikipedia is only here to make good self-contained and trustworthy encyclopedia articles, hosted here on WP. Adding an external link to a product site doesn't help that, because the link is undiscussed and unexplained further (WP has no content on Drum). It's also untrusted (Drum can be assumed to say "Drum is great", but we need instead some external and reliable or objective commentator to say "Drum is good/bad/set fire to my cat").
There are two things you could do here:
• Find a list of collaborative software (maybe one of the articles here meets this). Add Drum to that list, but do so in a way that meets WP:V by WP:RS: adding citations to reliable sources (credible 3rd parties, such as magazine reviews) to demonstrate that Drum is indeed a credible piece of such software.
• Write a WP article on Drum. It would have to meet WP:N (Is Drum considered notable by 3rd party attention paid to it?) and WP:V / WP:RS. This is a slightly higher target, as it also requires WP:N.
You might also wish to read WP:COI, especially in reference to your user name.
Good luck with it. I'm not here to "deny access to Drum", but I am here to work on an encyclopedia, rather than a directory. I want to offer a service to readers reading just the pages here, I don't care (I am literally uninterested) in whether they read your Drum website beyond that. Andy Dingley (talk) 11:36, 26 February 2014 (UTC)
Thank you for getting back to me. There is a review about Drum on Web RTC insights (http://webrtcinsights.quadrigaconsulting.co.uk/index.php/drum-an-interview-with-the-ceo/), is this the type of link we could be including? Or does the link have to stay within Wikipedia? Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Laurence Drum (talkcontribs) 12:24, 26 February 2014 (UTC)
That's the sort of thing - although WP typically prefers text to video. Find a couple of those and write Drum (conferencing). Drum will probably be a better pitch as an article than NetDev. Also take a look at WP:AFD for past computing deletions and see just what sort of hurdles are out there, how to pass them and what things are failed for. Andy Dingley (talk) 12:43, 26 February 2014 (UTC)
OK, I will find some content out there on Drum and then link it in. I will also check out those past deletions, thanks! Laurence Drum (talk) 09:38, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Lansdown, Cheltenham, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Henry Thompson (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) 09:11, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

Category:Automobiles powered by mid-mounted 4-cylinder engines, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. 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. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 19:44, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

## Andy

Thank you for your congratulations. English is not my first language, please keep it simple. "If you can extrapolate your ability to work with him into the non-existence of a larger group of people who have found it impossible (and hence the topic ban), then you might have a point." - I don't know what you want to say there, sorry. I am not disputing that there is a topic ban, and will not question its justification, not with the current arbitrators, it seems a waste of time. I am disputing that Andy is "sticking two fingers", trying to reduce the enormous number of different infobox templates, - he is simply continuing what he did before the case, as much as possible. - Example: {{infobox hymn}} has ugly CamelCase parameters and not even the possibility to include an image. {{infobox song}} seems more appropriate to what I want in an infobox, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:11, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

Comment: Perhaps you are able to work with him. Many cannot. He is restricted and banned because of his inability to work with the majority.
I have two concerns here:
• It's common on WP for topic banned or warned editors to afterwards still stick very close to the core of their previous ban. I've not seen this work out well for either party.
• I dispute a large number of these template deletions as simply poorly chosen. Andy Dingley (talk) 12:47, 4 March 2014 (UTC)
Why he is restricted I don't know, not much of recent evidence was given, it seems to have to do with a past that I don't know. Why I am restricted I don't know, not much of evidence was given, but see above, waste of time. I supply infoboxes to my own articles because I believe they are good for them, and leave others alone, is that what you call "stick to the core"? I hope the arbitrators didn't expect me to change my quality standards, same for Andy ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:58, 4 March 2014 (UTC)
You who know so much about why a restriction is given, could you point me at an instance of my bad behaviour, please? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:20, 5 March 2014 (UTC)
? Sorry? I know of no bad behaviour on your part. Sorry if I've ever given that impression. Andy Dingley (talk) 12:44, 5 March 2014 (UTC)
No, you didn't give the impression you thought something about me. You only gave the impression that you know so certainly (and even used the term "proven") why someone is restricted. I am, and I can tell you, I don't know why (other than for defending Andy). While you were able to say several negative things about a fellow editor in one paragraph, I don't recall that I ever did that in four years here (and if I did I would like to know and go and apologize). I was in no edit war, - if you look at Sparrow Mass where I was called warrior you will see that it perhaps is not the appropriate expression. Therefore I came to think that arb restriction has to do with arbitrary, and it helped to have worked on Kafka ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:00, 5 March 2014 (UTC)
I presume you mean, "it has already proven impossible for a substantial majority to do so [work with Andy Mabbett]", a statement that I would stand by. If you disagree with that, perhaps you would like to raise his topic ban for withdrawal as unwarranted. As also noted, I happen to agree with you and Andy on the value of adding infoboxes (yes, even the "invisible" infoboxes). However I still support his topic ban, as I've found him impossible to work with for years pre-WP, to the limits of my experience with him. Andy Dingley (talk) 14:18, 5 March 2014 (UTC)
As said above, I will not raise anything with the current arbs. I asked them, as you may know, to permit Andy to add infoboxes to his own articles, where there's certainly no conflict with anybody else, - denied, - kafkaesque, if you ask me ;) - If you look at my much shorter history (linked above, "quality standards"), you see the link to my first encounter with Andy, - I was against infoboxes then, but liked his sense of humour ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:33, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

## Friction welding

Dear Andy Dingley ,thank U very much For your advice.I am a Telugu Wikipedia member,I write in telugu regularly.Palagiri (talk) 12:32, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

Hi Andy. I have removed the manual links from article Vehicle frame because they are already correctly linked to the Body-on-frame article. The way it was (and now it is back that way), it is referencing different subjects in other languages to the same article in english. Regards. --MarcRic::Ruby (talk) 23:44, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

## Luohans

Please don't add "citation needed" to quotations THAT ARE CLEARLY CITED AT THE END OF THE SENTENCE, and follow WP:CITE if you want to change the citation format. Thank you! Johnbod (talk) 12:21, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

Kinetsu and you appear incapable of looking at the reference at the end of the sentence. After this has been pointed out SEVERAL times re-adding the tags to something that is fully cited is merely disruptive. Don't ask me what is going on, try looking at the actual passage in question. The style of the first note is fully MOS-compliant, and your preferred style should not be introduced at whim without discussion. I expect this kind of behaviour from him, but not you. PLEASE REVERT YOURSELF AT ONCE. Johnbod (talk) 12:29, 12 March 2014 (UTC)
Apart from the ALLCAPS shouting, I'm sure that WP:CITE doesn't suggest bulk reversion of changes just to restore a broken URL. Andy Dingley (talk) 12:26, 12 March 2014 (UTC)
Will you actually look at the article please? Johnbod (talk) 12:46, 12 March 2014 (UTC)
Rather obviously, of course I've already looked at the article (and a fine article it is too). However will you please stop talking down to other editors. It's not your article alone and these other editors might just possibly have valid points. Andy Dingley (talk) 12:49, 12 March 2014 (UTC)
John, I've raised the specific issues on the article (where everyone can more easily see them) and at your talk page, but you've chosen to ignore those and START SHOUTING all over my talk page.
Kintetsubuffalo does have the weight of policy behind them. There are peacock terms in the opening sentence. We don't in general like such things. Now I think they're probably fine to be there, but they should have cites close enough to them to support those specific terms, if they're being used as direct quotes like this, contra to PEACOCK. I believe that you are able to add such cites. I am not. The source ref is apparently an hour-long YouTube video, which I simply don't have time to watch, but I believe that you already have (Some of us have day jobs, and today I have three of them).
My terrible change to the ref was to fix the broken URL that you had put into it. If you don't like cite format changes, then I can understand that, but you're on firmer ground for complaining about other editors when your links actually work in the first place. As to my other changes, then I see these as very minor and justifiable formatting improvements, per our usual practices, and there is no reason to bulk revert them other than an obvious and growing problem with WP:OWN. There is no reason for you to behave so badly here (because both of you belong at ANEW already).
I am also profoundly sorry to see someone behaving in such a way when they're part of GLAM and now supposed to be WiR to the Royal Society. Why is GLAM seemingly run on the regular basis of editors who can't keep their toys in the pram? Some of us have to work with those museums IRL and I'm getting tired of having to hide my own editing on WP because I don't want to be associated with the bad press of the WP prima donnas they've met already. Andy Dingley (talk) 12:47, 12 March 2014 (UTC)
What is it about "Sickman, 200; Rawson, 159, both quoted" that you don't understand? What other quotes might be being referred to? That has always been there. I have now had to point this out several times in several places. The lecture is clearly used to ref the next sentence, and is nothing to do with the issue here. You are just not looking at the article with any degree of attention. I put in the new link that works, which you have chosen to put into your preferred format, inconsistent with the other references, clearly against WP:CITE. If you don't have time to edit properly, then don't edit at all. Johnbod (talk) 12:58, 12 March 2014 (UTC)
What don't I understand? Perhaps the part where your claimed ref for this [31] was just a run-on sentence tacked onto the end of a footnote about naming: "<ref>Art history sources mostly use "Yixian", though "Yi xian" appears more correct; Sickman, 200; Rawson, 159, both quoted</ref>". Andy Dingley (talk) 13:11, 12 March 2014 (UTC)
Huh? "just a run-on sentence", "claimed"? You're just being childish now. However I will change the sequence if it bothers you. There is no justification for changing the note formats (introducing inconsistency again) without discussion. Johnbod (talk) 13:24, 12 March 2014 (UTC)
Your last version left the rest of the sentence unreferenced, wrongly attributed both quoted words to both sources, placed the refs contrary to MOS, not to mention using a pointy ref name. The text is fine now; please resist the urge to fiddle further without discussion on the talk page. Johnbod (talk) 13:33, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

## natural history societies

Hi Andy -- Thanks for commenting at the Chorley and District natural historical society AFD. I'd be fine with your recommendation there. I do think that having a list of natural history societies would be good. As it happens i can't easily start articles (am under a restriction); i can start articles via AFC but that is a random process that hasn't been working properly IMHO. If you agree that having a List of natural history societies would be good, and would create the article as a stub, I would like to develop it, with focus on those having Wikipedia articles (so demonstrated to be individual notable). By the way, i rather think that they'll mostly be in the U.K.; while regular historical societies are common across the pond, where i am, I don't know of many. --doncram 20:13, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

## Your Revision in article "Mach Speed" (actually Mach number)

You recently reverted my edit in the article Mach Speed. The reason you gave makes no sense to me and I do not know what it means. AustralianPope (talk) 23:21, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, I've reverted my edit here.
The purpose of hatnotes like that is to "rescue" readers who've searched for something but ended up in the wrong place. These hatnotes are there to link articles with similar names, not articles that are about similar concepts. Someone looking for Mach Speed Technologies isn't going to enter "Mach Number" instead. However there is (which I should have checked first) a redirect from Mach speed to Mach number, so it's plausible that they could enter "Speed" but end up at "Number" (and so your hatnote would be appropriate). Andy Dingley (talk) 23:44, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

## Sorry it spilled over onto you...

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.--Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 03:38, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

## Clear space on Vincent article

ThanQ for your undo and explanation - I was more concerned about the previous changes where a blog site was introduced into this article by the site owner. I'm using a very old 4:3 laptop and my eyes are not so good now, hence I need the text zoomed, so I don't always realise what everyone else is seeing!--Rocknrollmancer (talk) 10:41, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

It's one of those problems that only happens at some screen widths. However using the clear fixes it reliably for everyone. Andy Dingley (talk) 10:43, 22 March 2014 (UTC)
I've also had difficulty with cache - when updating an existing image it looked the same. I thought I'd maybe uploaded the same thing again but when re-uploading with a different filename all three versions still came out the same - on my screen. That's when the penny dropped. Both newer versions were 'correct', ie. improved and different to the original which was the point of uploading them. No harm done, tiny file sizes. That's another to remember for the future 8¬) --Rocknrollmancer (talk) 12:29, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

## Kay turbine

Sourced by myself and new and did anybody doubt the content that turbines are also working with refrigerants like CO2 with very high vapour pressure at low temperatures in combination with centrifugal compressor instead condensor. Actually I did also reinvent the mercury turbine not knowing about its historical existence after found inside only english Wikipedia with predicted behavior. Also reinvented was the centrifugal compressor because not found inside german Wikipedia and Brockhaus and Yahoo searching under compressor but actually also blowers are already CFC and own type was "Fächerkammerfliehkraftkompressor" with# side inlet that makes also pumping and sucking and a bootom with a hole inside inner chambers inside again in enclosing chamber with central outlet maybe sometimes anyway better. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.230.46.223 (talk) 20:02, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

## turbines

Explained is same sourced for new construction nand who else could not read that english like in 1000 Wikipedia entries before and the english be improved by everybody but not the content ?! Also the mercury vapour turbine entry is by myself and sure better coal power plant than just coal plant in english. First and important special for atomic reactor security is the content with Kayturbine already inside there before and shorter with link to turbine section etc. Looks like you are just deleting but not reading taking out also:

(about 580°C) or


"problem is that" without sentence was wrong left because of no time for finish and more coming

high critical point


for more easy heating up undercritical, low specific heat capacity 140 J/(kg*K), low thermal conductivity 8.3 W/(m*K) for a metal not water 0,597 W/(m·K), density 13.5459 g/ccm. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.88.168.40 (talk) 17:15, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

## kayturbine and mercury turbine

Of course not good english beacuse adding more and more in the sentences that can be rearranged and shortend later. Of course Im understanding fully the mercury turbine because I did reinvent not knowing about historical existemce. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.230.34.18 (talk) 18:36, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

Per my past message on one of your several talk pages, please take this to Talk:Turbine Andy Dingley (talk) 20:35, 26 March 2014 (UTC)
Well, technically they followed your instructions. But I agree with your hat and edit summary that it's not terrible useful. On a related note, the poster included their email address in the talk page posting (commented out so it's not immediately visible) as well is in the attempted edits to the page.... do you think that rises to the level of needing oversighting? Sailsbystars (talk) 22:34, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

## Airbreathing jet engine

Good point. Thanks Andy. Glad someone is looking at what I'm doing.Pieter1963 (talk) 02:10, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

## LAURON

Andy, it looks to me that all of the content removed from this article is easily sourced based on this Google Scholar search here. Cheers. I am One of Many (talk) 05:59, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

"Easily sourced" if you're firstly inclined to even try (Red Pen never does, content work is beneath him) and secondly have the time to spend improving the site (which will always take longer than simply deleting chunks). How can a well-intentioned content creator compete on speed with deletions like this, even if there is sourcing around to do so? Andy Dingley (talk) 09:40, 1 April 2014 (UTC)
And as usual, closed within an hour or two. 8-( Andy Dingley (talk) 09:42, 1 April 2014 (UTC)
I'm a bit busy now, but I'll keep it on my agenda and try to source it and restore the content in a couple of weeks. Generally, robot such as this one will have a number of articles published and articles on each version as it is developed. So, you were certainly correct that non-source content should not be removed from articles on robotics unless the content seems "off" or an academic-level search yields no sources. Now that it has been shortened so much, maybe when I get around to sourcing it, I'll be able to nominate it for a DYK! Cheers.

## Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive264#RfC closure review: Mr Whoppit

Hi Andy. I requested a closure review of Talk:Mr Whoppit#Request for comment at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive264#RfC closure review: Mr Whoppit because you disagreed with Armbrust's close and posted a closure review at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Requests for closure/Archive 10#Talk:Mr Whoppit#Request for comment.

I have remained neutral as the opener of the closure review and the editor who requested closure at WP:ANRFC. Best, Cunard (talk) 10:28, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

## JB-2 Loon

Hi Andy. The categorisations on JB-2 Loon are IMHO inappropriate, because "JB-2 Loon" is a synonym for the Republic-Ford JB-2 (in fact, "JB-2" and "Loon" are entirerely seperate designation schemes, the Army/Air Force designation "JB-2" was standalone while the "Loon" name applied only to the Navy KGW/KUW/LTV-N-2). Since the Republic-Ford JB-2 article is already in those two categories, including them on the JB-2 Loon redirect isn't necessary. - The Bushranger One ping only 00:11, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

1. There is no requirement to only categorise one entry.
2. The WP:COMMONNAME for this was the 'Loon'. That redirect is the only Loon in that category.
3. If you have an issue with 'JB-2 Loon' together, then that's a problem of naming, not categorization.
Andy Dingley (talk) 00:13, 12 April 2014 (UTC)
1. is WP:COMMONSENSE that you don't put the same subject twice in the same category. I'd argue 2., especially with regards to the necessity of having it in that category; as for 3., good point and I'm off to RfD. - The Bushranger One ping only 02:55, 12 April 2014 (UTC)
As a compromise, would having LTV-N-2 Loon in those categories instead of "JB-2 Loon" work? - The Bushranger One ping only 03:00, 12 April 2014 (UTC)
There is no reason at all to not list the same name for an item multiple times in the same category, if those names are sufficiently different that someone reading the category would either not see them as related, or if there are multiple commonnames (as in this case) that need to be presented in such a category. It doesn't matter that they will all redirect to the same place, the category listing is about presentation of their names, not their articles. If the names are usefully distinct (and in this case, there's a need to present at least one discernible as 'Loon'), then they are justified to be listed. Andy Dingley (talk) 09:59, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

## Airship

Hi Andy, On the Airship article, you are insisting that a blimp is distinct from an airship. Every RS I have ever seen (e.g. the Goodyear Blimp website) notes that "blimp" is a descriptive term for what is technically a non-rigid airship, and the article itself bears this out. Would you mind explaining your rationale for reverting my edit. I'd suggest opening a discussion at Talk:Airship, or would you like me to start it? Many thanks. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 10:09, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

There are three uses of the word "airship" and it's important for an encyclopedia to distinguish them. It's an example where one word both encompasses the whole, and also names one distinct group within that whole. These two meanings are not the same, even though the word is. There is a group (blimps or non-rigid airships) that are 'part of "airships {overall}" but that also exists in distinction from "airships {rigid}". Then there is the word "airship" itself, just as a piece of lexical text.
Encyclopedic writing requires a careful distinction between all three.
In the case of "airships {rigid}" we have to distinguish these from blimps. In the case of "airships {overall}" the term encompasses both. As the terms are not clear to naive readers first encountering them, we often have to hint as just which meaning we're using. We should also rarely use both meanings at once! Encyclopedias are about conceptual topics, not words, and a well-structured encyclopedia will keep its "airships {rigid}" topic clearly distinct from its "airships {overall}".
When we use the word, such as for disambiguations, then the same problem arises that it's completely unclear which term is needed and so we have to signpost both.
In this case, although the topic was about "airships {overall}" there was still the lingusitic ambiguity that it's not obviously not referring to "airships {rigid}" instead. In the lexical context we can't just assume "blimps are a sort of airship" because it's not yet clear that we mean "airships {overall}" rather than "airships {rigid}" and so the contextual relationship between blimps and the topic (and the topic in the reader's mind, which might not even be the same one) isn't yet clearly defined.
Structuralism considers this problem in great detail, but it's not popular bedside reading for the Aviation project. Andy Dingley (talk) 11:55, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
It's OK anyway, the Aviation project cabal has now decided that blimps are the same thing as barrage balloons. Way to go guys. Andy Dingley (talk) 12:29, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
Well, it is in reliable sources like Wragg's Historical dictionary of aviation. Guess you could always take it up with him. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 14:21, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
1. That's a bloody useless book, fit only for those pile-em-high "book shops" you find in cheap shopping malls.
2. Blimps are still not barrage balloons. If you have a source that says so, see #1.
Andy Dingley (talk) 14:30, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
So clearly, the Oxford English Dictionary, Manchester University and the British Broadcasting Corporation are all bloody useless. Wow!
• blimp, Pronunciation: /blɪmp, noun, informal, 1 (also Colonel Blimp) British A pompous, reactionary type of person, 2 A small airship or barrage balloon, 2.1 North American A fat person,..." Oxford English Dictionary online.[32]
• Paris, M.; From the Wright Brothers to Top Gun: Aviation, Nationalism, and Popular Cinema, Manchester University Press, 1995, Page 127: "A novel and highly visible form of defence was the barrage balloon, the 'blimp', flown over a potential target...."[33]
• Follow that Blimp, WW2 People's War, BBC: "He was armed with a rifle and chasing an escaped barrage balloon which drifted overhead." [34]
Guess you could always take it up with them. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 18:46, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
Sometimes I do raise technical terms with the OED. Sometimes they even follow my advice. A general audience dictionary like the OED is strong on historical etymology, but it doesn't over-rule a technical term within its own field. If you really think that blimps and barrage balloons become the same thing because the OED says so, then please be happy to believe so, but stop writing an encyclopedia to repeat such a mistake. Andy Dingley (talk) 02:17, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

## still waiting

When you removed the previous notice [35], I [[WP:AGF|assumed that you were working providing the in line citations for the challenged content that you had restored to the article with this edit [36] and that in doing so you would be addressing the issues raised in the flags that you removed by providing non primary reliable sources that would establish the notability of the subject. Perhaps you got distracted, but I am waiting for you to either provide sources shortly or else remove the content that had been challenged and restore the flags until such time as you are able to act within policy and provide the sourcing as required. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 01:04, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

I was the one who edited to improve the content (one section at least) and add some sourcing. You immediately reverted it.
In what way are you thus "working to improve the encyclopedia" as you so high-handedly lecture others? Yet again, your actions are more about displaying your ego and less about anything constructive. Andy Dingley (talk) 01:15, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
following the policy WP:BURDEN is not optional. editing against policy is not improving the encyclopedia. returning an article to a promotional catalog is not improving the encyclopedia. removing clean up tags without addressing the issues identified is not improving the encyclopedia. making personal attacks against another editor is not improving the encyclopedia.
the question is: are you going to meet your policy requirement by providing inline sources within the next couple of hours or are you intending to revert your reinsertion of unsourced content? -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 02:07, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

## Gary Gabelich

The reason Gary's ancestry is not in the lede is because he is famous for setting the Land Speed Record and not his parents ethnicity. He was born and raised in southern California in the drag racing scene of the 1960's and set a world record. That world record is what the article should lead in with. This is an encyclopedia and should read like one. It is not to promote one's ethnicity. Did you believe his ethnicity was more important than his record which made him famous? You changed it back to put it in the lede instead of leaving it under of the early life section I added. I was hoping this reasoning would convince you to change it back and not edit war on IronGron's behalf. 172.56.11.206 (talk) 12:40, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

## Idiocy?

Please stop In case you were not aware, this was rude and inappropriate. Why do you think that linking directly to a redirect is a good idea? Please use {{Ping}} if you respond here. —Justin (koavf)TCM 16:43, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

User:Koavf, while Andy's demeanour is unacceptable, he is in the right, per WP:NOTBROKEN. I would strongly suggest that both of you stop edit-warring over it.—Kww(talk) 17:02, 20 April 2014 (UTC)
Source? What, in principle, would be a source for my change...? (This is re: the boilerplate message you just left on my talk). —Justin (koavf)TCM 20:44, 20 April 2014 (UTC)
Clarification Since you've provided a follow-up on my talk... My claim is not that the company/entity/site has always been named "DMOZ" but that the thing in question is at an article which is presently entitled "DMOZ". Similarly, there is a rapper whose legal name is Sean Combs and has sometimes used the stage name "Puff Daddy" or "P. Diddy" or somesuch. If I make a link to his article, I'm just discussing this topic, not necessarily the name he used at a given juncture. And if I do make a link to text which includes "Puff Daddy" I will not link to the redirect Puff Daddy (why would I ?) but use a pipe to link directly to Sean Combs. —Justin (koavf)TCM 20:48, 20 April 2014 (UTC)
What relevance does a rapper have to anything?
You are making, and repeating, a series of unsourced changes that the Netscape company, commonly known as Mozilla, bought another project that was named Mozilla, before they bought it. They did not. They bought another project, then they renamed it.
You also seem to be unaware of redirects.
Andy Dingley (talk) 21:06, 20 April 2014 (UTC)
Sure My reference to Sean "Puff Daddy" Combs was that there can be two+ names for the same thing. Why link Open Directory Project and not link NewHoo? Also, what exactly is the problem with [[DMOZ|NewHoo]]? I eagerly await your response. —Justin (koavf)TCM 21:12, 20 April 2014 (UTC)
Please, you are making changes to the presented text. You are removing redirects because you seem to have some issue in case they stop working, or some other idiocy. Then you edit war to reinstate this nonsense. Andy Dingley (talk) 21:31, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── I have no clue what you're going on about. This is the last edit I made. What is the problem with it, Andy? How is it "idiocy"? —Justin (koavf)TCM 21:47, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

really don't have a clue, do you. Stick to your rappers. Andy Dingley (talk) 00:00, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

## Wyndcliffe Court

Absolutely beautiful set of photographs. Many thanks. KJP1 (talk) 05:36, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

## OER inquiry

Hi Andy Dingley, I'm sending you this message because you're one of about 300 users who have recently edited an article in the umbrella category of open educational resources (OER) (or open education). In evaluating several projects we've been working on (e.g. the WIKISOO course and WikiProject Open), my colleague Pete Forsyth and I have wondered who chooses to edit OER-related articles and why. Regardless of whether you've taken the WIKISOO course yourself - and/or never even heard the term OER before - we'd be extremely grateful for your participation in this brief, anonymous survey before 27 April. No personal data is being collected. If you have any ideas or questions, please get in touch. My talk page awaits. Thanks for your support! - Sara FB (talk) 20:35, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

## Talkback

Hello, Andy Dingley. You have new messages at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2014 April 24.
Message added 07:08, 27 April 2014 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

The Bushranger One ping only 07:08, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

## Parallel valve stems?

Hi, Did you, as I requested, read the argument I made on the talk page before reverting my edit (again)? Of course, I accept WP:BURDEN, but why not give an edit a chance. Your reasons "Parallel valve stems are rare in either (as they give poor valve placement for flow), .... Stem parallelism just isn't significantly dependent on 4 vs 5 valves)" are questionable. Would you like to comply with WP:BURDEN in respect of those points? (The standard car 4-valve head tends to be a Heron head or a "Pent-roof" design, both with parallel stems, both of which incur the standard multi-valve benefits). Arrivisto (talk) 11:24, 27 April 2014 (UTC).

Andy, probably not good form to add this while still under discussion on the talk page, thanks. MilborneOne (talk) 18:12, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

If the current 3:1 consensus overturns, then you will undoubtedly not hesitate to remove it from the article. For once, WP gets an EL of some value added to it. Why so against it? Andy Dingley (talk) 18:18, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

## Categorization

Hi, Andy.

• Category:Mechanical engineering and Category:Gas technologies - they are subcategories of Category:Turbomachinery, so I think it is redundant.
• Category:Turbines: Turbines are just some types ot turbomachineries, so this categorization it make no sense.

For the first point, I am not sure what is correct to do to follow the rules of en.wikipedia, while for the second point I am sure is a wrong categorization. Please let me know what you think about it. --Daniele Pugliesi (talk) 16:12, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

Let's assume that for a general topic $T$ we're agreed that it has a set of parent categories $\{PC\}$. I don't think we're disagreeing on these, for this particular case.
If there was an article $A$, we would categorise it with all of $\{PC\}$.
If coverage of the topic expands to several articles, we might introduce an eponymous category, $C$. We will categorize that category under most of the same members of $\subseteq\{PC\}$. We will still categorize the lead article under its same categories as before; why should we change them? If their categorization was appropriate before, what relevant factor has changed? The need for readers to navigate in and out of that lead article is just the same as before. The lead article is categorized under the superset $\{\subseteq\{PC\} \cup C \}$ with the eponymous cat, and that conventionally has a space for its cat sort, so as to place the lead article at its start.
Pragmatically, we do all this because "average readers" just don't understand the distinction between articles and categories and so keeping both of these in the visible navigation paths improves usability. Even expert readers should still be able to navigate from a lead article to a parent cat in one click, not two.
In detail, there may be some pruning of the category set for both page and category and they may differ. See WP:EPONYMOUS. Many very specific cats are appropriate to specific articles, but not to broader categories. In practice, as the category expands from one article, these may need to be removed from both the lead and the cat and they are moved to particular and specifically relevant articles within the cat, as they are written. For "Kilns", then Category:History of technology starts out as highly important to the overall topic, but would be best placed on a History of kilns article, when available. Andy Dingley (talk) 17:15, 29 April 2014 (UTC)
Maybe I was not clear: Turbines are turbomachineries, but Not all the turbomachineries are turbines! For this reason, it is appropriate to categorize the turbines as turbomachineries, instead is not appropriate at all to categorize the pages regarding turbomachineries in general as turbines, otherwise we have also to categorize Chemical substance under the category:Water. Do it makes sense? --Daniele Pugliesi (talk) 12:11, 1 May 2014 (UTC)
(Note: category tag fixed. DexDor (talk) 20:03, 9 May 2014 (UTC))
OK, if this is a question of definition or (as it seems in this case) hierarchy, then yes, I'd agree with you.
One thing to remember is that MediaWiki categorization is primarily navigational, not defining. There are many cases where we might include for categorization something (and usually a set or subcat) where there isn't a defining relation across each and every member of that set. Andy Dingley (talk) 13:53, 1 May 2014 (UTC)
Can you give me some examples, so I can persuade myself about it? --Daniele Pugliesi (talk) 14:23, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

[[

File:Barrow Offshore wind turbines NR.jpg|thumb|100px|right|POTD]]

Hi Andy,

Just to let you know that the Featured Picture File:Barrow Offshore wind turbines NR.jpg is due to make an appearance as Picture of the Day on May 20, 2014. If you get a chance, you can check and improve the caption at Template:POTD/2014-05-20. Thank you for all of your contributions! — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:11, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

I really don't need this shit. Is there any way to get it deleted once and for all? I am so tired of this bloody picture and being told over and over how crap it is. Andy Dingley (talk) 00:12, 2 May 2014 (UTC)
• 1) Consensus seems to disagree that this a "crap" picture. 2) If you want it to be deleted, you can nominate for deletion at Commons. I give 10-to-1 odds of deletion, maybe, as Commons doesn't have a "uploader request" criteria like we do. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 07:42, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

## Spark Plug Rev

Hi Andy,

Can you explain why you reverted my edit on spark plugs? The electrode that emits electrons would be the anode (positive current enters the anode), not the cathode. Apologies in advance if this is the incorrect method of messaging for this sort of thing.

Fromeout11 (talk) 13:26, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

First of all, on WP sourcing is paramount. Otherwise it just degenerates into "I know this is right". What's your source that states "anode"?
Secondly, what are we disagreeing on? That it's the negative electrode and emits electrons? Or that such a negative electrode is called a cathode? Remember that this is a device consuming power, not generating it, and we're talking about an electron flow into it (down the lead and then across the gap) rather than a conventional current. Andy Dingley (talk) 13:46, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

## Paisley (design)

As you might know, the burden is on the editor to explain how the category is relevant to the article (preferably with reliable sources), and not on the one who challenges it. ... discospinster talk 17:40, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

We also have policies on edit-warring and constructive editing. If it offends you so much, you're welcome to expand it as much as you like. Andy Dingley (talk) 17:55, 8 May 2014 (UTC)
I don't see any edit warring. And there's no reason for me to expand the article when the issue is a category that doesn't necessarily belong there. ... discospinster talk 19:03, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

## Changes reverted

Could you please tell me the reason why you reverted my changes to Components of jet engines ? I have been a WP since 2004 and this is useful link, not a spam, thanks Khalid hassani (talk) 16:51, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

In what way does the unsourced, unreliable and basically trivial content from about.com (any topic) meet WP:EL? Andy Dingley (talk) 19:06, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

Since you seem to disagree with my disambiguation of the term overheating as used in this article, it would be great if you could fix the link. Cheers! bd2412 T 23:47, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

I've redlinked it. We have no article on overheating.
Thanks! I'd be glad to help put together an article on engine overheating. bd2412 T 00:42, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

## Category:Wikipedia_files_with_unknown_source

As you seem to be more experienced, perhaps you could cast a cautious over these with a view to 'rescuing' some of them?Sfan00 IMG (talk) 12:37, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

## DYK for truss girder bridges/lattice bridges

For more details on this topic, see Wikipedia_talk:Did_you_know § Another_dud_DYK.

I'm only a software engineer and an electrical engineer, not a civil engineer (I can be a very uncivil engineer at times!) but I think your five points here have hit the nail on the thumbhead, sorry to quote your own words but as you said (mine indented, technically incorrect but trying for once to be as brief as you have done:

From an engineering standpoint, it's hard to see how DYK could be designed to be any worse.
• Only use new and unreviewed content
• The five-day limit encourages that.
• Favour content from a single author
• One cannot, and the Wikimedia Privacy Policy does not allow (can't find section), contributions to be jointly attributed. This is not simply a problem for engineering articles but e.g. translations: my wife and I typically translate from Hungarian to English, or vice versa, together since she is native in one and I in the other: jointly we may check a third or fourth language if in doubt.When I have mentioned that my wife contributed, another editor has complained that I have been "bragging that I have a wife", when of course it is just giving joint attribution just as an author thanks contributors on the preface/acknowledgements on a book: if I was legally tied at the altar I can be tied on Wikipedia, and so can any other group contribution be tied together if Wikimedia let you: I know man do because I can see the difference in style between individuals; if they go through the same routers (e.g. housemates) it is almost impossible for WP to tell; so it is a matter of personal honesty. I have on occasion accidentally written on User:Monkap's name not realising she wa logged on, but I will tend to revert that and reassign to mine exactly for that reason. I am sure we are not the only collective editors on the whole Wikipedia.
• Deliberately avoid the subject competent or knowledgeable, particularly article authors
• Incentivise production of more DYKs, as fast as possible
• ...and discincentivise their review by new or occasional contributors: QPQ is too onerous after a long slog on an article.
• Ignore DYK quality
• Implicitly, with no policy but how it seems to be, WP:BOLD is outlawed at DYK. It isn't at WP:RFD (I have translated French articles into English and the R goes speed close) nor at WP:AFD nor WP:CSD even.This is WP:NOTFINISHED, so DYK is directly gainsaying that policy. WP:WIKIBREAK also comes into play. I give you this so that the editor who said "which policy", you have at least the latter two, but I think all four. But don't fix anything you as reviewer find wrong: which is not what happens at WP:GA or WP:FA and so on: reviewers don't just point out errors, minor ones are fixed so as not to waste time (as I am no doubt doing). Si Trew (talk)

I agree entirely: or rather we should have their opposites stated as clearly on DYK's guidelines as you do above.

### More verbose discussion of these but you can skip it

The last two might be combined. I'd happily bung in to a WP:ESSAY with you on this. I write very "hooky" (another author said) DYKs but the are technically correct and referenced, just that they draw you in like a cryptic crossword or other riddle does, the surface meaning is deliberately misleading but none is inaccurate, all are well-referenced. I don't have the privilege to be a civil engineer: I am only an uncivil one (software, electronics) but it is bizarre that you, whatever the letters after your name might be (or not, you might have an enormous stash of Railway Modelling for all I know), are patently from your clear prose and reasoning, are by WP's policies less entitled to write about it than I am, who can't walk over a bridge without falling off it. That policy comes essentially from WP:RS and WP:PRIMARY but of course people write about what they know: and the encyclopaedia would not get very far if they didn't.

For example, I translated Josiah Marshall Heath in late January 2014 ago and got him to DYK, he patented addition of manganize oxide to crucible steel, but I have never been happy with that DYK since the article was tagged as needing translation from French, which I did, but the quotes are back-translations from the French. Now, I know how to translate French but have never heard about him before – but with an expert in iron and steel it can get scrubbed and improved but then wouldn't meet DYK since that would take the expert some time to look it up and the DYK deadline would likely be exceeded (5 days). I don't know how much you know about the founding of ferrous metals, but I should be very grateful if you would cast your ironeye over it and if I have any obvious mistakes, or you can find better references, I should be delighted. I tried to look up the patent in English but it does not appear to be online – so back-translated the French into kinda Dickensian English as best I could manage. If nothing else, it is more grist to your mill that I think I was the only contributor (there have been a couple of bot or tool edits since but no content changes to speak of). It's better to have the article and reasonably referenced than not at all, but if those doing the blue pencil (editing) bothered to check up they might find better than I managed.

I am sorry I pack the maximum amount of words into the minimum amount of thought. Best wishes; I do see your name from time to time as I gnome about, but I tend to gnome elsewhere now exactly because of your stated reasons for DYK. The Heath one I got "This is your last freebie": Hang on, I thought everyone's contributions here at WP were made freely? I didn't realise I now had a WP overdraft. In my opinion I think the "QPQ" results in a backlog: one spends days – sometimes weeks – writing an article or series of them, getting pictures, doing cartography, technical drawings or whatever and then is told as a penance one has to do a review of someone else's and at exactly the time that one has just finished an article (well WP:NOTFINISHED exactly but done one's own blue pencil (editing) and so on, checked the referneces, gone down the library etc) and then O but you have to do it all again now. That is exactly the time one needs a WP:WIKIBREAK to do the washing up, feed the cat, bury the grandmother, and so on.

One thing you didn't mention –

• The DYK 5-day time limit for new contributions encourages both editors and reiewers to be hasty. Si Trew (talk) 21:04, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, as Pascal said, "I have only made this letter longer since I have not had time to make it shorter". "Brevity is the soul of all wit" and stuff like that, but I am on your side but didn't want to introduce all my verbiage into an already-too-long discussion at WP:DYK when you are

<large>PATENTLY RIGHT</large>.

Si Trew (talk) 21:10, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

I am so sorry to ramble, but Andrew Lang said "he uses arguments as a drunk uses a lamp-post, not so much for illumination as for support"? I am giving you some arguments more that I have had four G and Ts while I have written what amounts to a very bad first draft on an essa, in your support. Anything you want to quote from it at the DYK go ahead, but I thought it better to put it first here because you may disagree and certainly can hone. Si Trew (talk) 21:40, 18 May 2014 (UTC)
• Thanks Si, I doubt if anything will happen with DYK, as those who own it are so tightly wedded to proving that everyone else are merely suppressive persons, rather than looking at what's going wrong with it (See User talk:Rjccumbria re the problems that the perverse incentive of Wikicup causes for it). I've never liked DYK, but I could happily ignore it if it wasn't such a direct route onto the main page (with all the past potential for spammed abuse that has caused). Roger Bamkin seems more keen on shooting the messenger than anything else. Another brief conversation in Chepstow last night turned into "So, who do we pay to buy our Wikipedia coverage?" yet again. Andy Dingley (talk) 10:03, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

Hi, Andy. I just saw your edit (revert) on Jaguar V12 engine and realized that I don't know much about May Head. I agree describing it a stratified charge is inaccurate, but is "high swirl" more accurate than "squish" or "high squish"? Is his description on patent papers (was it patented?) the issue here, or the combustion chamber actually create a strong swirl or many of them? Could you enlighten me? I don't even know if the distinction between swirl and squish existed at the time, and I would think a proper observation/analysis method did not exist. Further, I'd think the uncontrolled creation of many micro-swirls in a turbulence by squish is a different concept (now) to creating a strong or many (more or less controlled) swirls. Yiba (talk | contribs) 00:10, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

Swirl and squish , as we know them today, date from Ricardo's work in the '20s. To understand the history here, you really do have to read a few volumes of Ricardo.
Swirl and squish are different. However some not-infrequent head designs (and this is one) use squish to produce high swirl in a suitably shaped combustion chamber. Others don't, they do it instead just with tangential flow from the ports. Squish-to-swirl designs are usually bowl-in-piston designs, typically the Saurer-style double-circulation toroid for a direct injection diesel. Revolutionary in its day, common from the '60s onwards. Most of the petrol bowl-in-piston designs are also there so that squish gets converted into swirl, but they're a simpler bowl shape, not the toroid.
It's the same for May's 'Fireball' head in the '81 Jag HE. An unusual shape (I can't think of another similar) as it's all happening in the head, not the piston (AIUI, there just isn't enough depth in the piston above the crankpin). It's not merely an efficient design, it's very much the result of its circumstances: take an existing engine and radically change it, but don't cost much in terms of re-engineering it. Even the camshaft and valve actuation stays in place! For an engine that began as a sports car engine at the profligate time of high-octane 5 star petrol, it's remarkable that when it was re-designed for better mid-throttle efficiency at the end of the '70s, the compression ratio rose. This wasn't needed in the '60s – performance was everything, not efficiency. It could have been achieved in the '60s, but only with high octane and following aircraft engine practice – probably twin plugs. Doing it without chemistry needed genius and the sort of smarter engine management that was beginning to be available (at a cost and with hideous long-term unreliability) at the start of the '80s. In essence, it's a 1920s design - pure Ricardo, more than ever seen elsewhere. If you get a small and well shaped combustion chamber, then swirl the bejeezus out of it, you can work wonders.
Sadly it's not an engine I know too well. I think I've only ever had the heads off one of them. I worked on ECU software for them at one time but even the serious tuners (TWR) left the head largely alone, there just wasn't much scope to improve it.
As to stratified charge, it's nonsense. I did work on the edges of the great late-80s snake oil scam (I designed dyno systems) and some companies fell for it, but not Jag. I suspect it has arisen by recursive wikisourcing from the Michael May (racing driver) article, which needs fixing but it's too late for me tonight.
What's the best book out there as a technical history of the Jag V12 lump ? I haven't time to read it, but that never stops me buying yet more books. Andy Dingley (talk) 01:36, 22 May 2014 (UTC)
Thank you very much as always. I have owned/used a 6L version for the last 10 years or so, but never have learned the details of '81 HE version or about May's contribution to it. As the 6L is known to be one of the toughest engines to pull the heads (seems the gasket has some "glueing" properties) without a specifically made puller contraption, I am hoping that I won't have to pull them in the foreseeable future.
One of the better materials on the history of Jag V12 seems the 12 pages following: http://www.jagweb.com/jagworld/v12-engine/ with a strong caution that I suspect if the author, a Roger Bywater, ever had training on mechanical engineering beyond being a good mechanic working in the engine development dept at Jag, and seems to show dubious (or, lacking) understanding of the theories behind. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pPxpPYLW4kw is an interesting interview on Walter Hassan and Harry Mundy, the link to it I have added to Jaguar V12 engine, in which the bowl in piston squish (intended or not) arrangement of the original 5.3L version is shown. Yiba (talk | contribs) 10:11, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

## Hackerspace

Nicely done about the issue with men's shed being usined as a synomyn - didn't understand that until you pointed it out - so THANKS!!! X-mass (talk) 04:46, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

## Rocket engine categories

Hi Andy, I was looking at Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2014_April_24#Category:Hydrogen_rocket_engines to close it, but I could not figure out whether you oppose the longer form "Rocket engines using xxx propellant". Would you mind making your position clearer there? – Fayenatic London 05:15, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

In the absence of any further clarification, I closed it as Rename to that form. – Fayenatic London 14:16, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

## Talk:Version control#Requested move 27 May 2014

Perhaps you could weigh in your comments here again. Thank you. 50.53.15.59 (talk) 01:08, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

## H - drive

Thanks for the tip on your update. Nice job mate!! Regards Hans 86.92.147.4 (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 17:05, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

## Royal Gunpowder Mills, Waltham Abbey

When did WP:MOS start saying that redirects shouldn't be categorized? Also, please read WP:BRD. It's not B, R, R-again-because-you-know-you're-really-right. Andy Dingley (talk) 23:32, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for your message - in light of your tone, can you please read WP:AGF. The WP:MOS note re cats on redirect pages came in over 2 years ago. I used to add cats onto such, but someone who was trying to be an admin quickly pointed out the change to me. Secondly, the categories that you are trying to add back are all presently listed in the article to which the redirect points to. Hence, both the redirect and the actual article are listed in all three cats (where I found the problem/hence removed the cats from the redirect). The WP:MOS directive says that you should only add cats if the redirect name adds to the wider categorisation of the subject. As the three cats are replicated, what's the point? Hope that you understand hence why I removed them, and see no sense on either a WP:MOS or logical level to add them back. Rgds, --Trident13 (talk) 10:39, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

## Key Performance Parameters

The creator of this article doesn't seem to realise that these aren't unique to the UD DoD. I'm not sure what to do about it. Dougweller (talk) 12:55, 5 June 2014 (UTC)a

As far as I'm aware (which is negligible), they are unique to the DoD and its partners. Everyone else calls them KPIs. There is some question as to whether they even are strictly parameters (i.e. an independent and prescribed requirement) or rather they're indicators (a measured performance).
DoD KPP is a narrow niche article, but I think it's a valid one (ie WP:N). There should probably be relevant linkage between the two though. Andy Dingley (talk) 13:01, 5 June 2014 (UTC)
User:Andy Dingley - take a look at [37] and [38]. I find a number of uses. Dougweller (talk) 14:48, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

## Accusations of WP:SOCK

Per your most recent comment at WP:NFCR (and many previous comments there as well) please discontinue accusing other editors of being a WP:SOCK of Betacommand (talk · contribs). You've been doing this for too many years, against multiple editors, and frankly it is becoming a personal attack on various editors to be calling them as such. If you truly believe and editor to be using a second account inappropriately, please don't hesitate to open a WP:SPI. Further unsubstantiated accusations will be treated as personal attacks and will be handled accordingly. TLSuda (talk) 19:07, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

Why do you continue to support the overt socking of a long-banned user? Betacommand is Werieth. No-one seriously disputes this, but a number of admins who either share his view of NFC, or at least find him a convenient stooge for bad-hand operations, find it convenient to permit him to continue. Some of these admins even go so far as to block other editors on sight, as soon as they post substantiating evidence of Betacommand being Werieth. Wikipedia-l recognises this, even Wikipediocracy recognises this. Please, when you're threatening me with a block for disagreeing with your convenient status quo, at least be honest enough to say so. This has been raised at SPI repeatedly already and discussion there is stifled by either saying "no evidence!" or by blocking the editors who post such evidence. Repeatedly.
Why are you supporting this banned editor? You must admit, he's a convenient stooge for your own position on NFC. Are you a wandering independent editor seeing a poor innocent slighted? Or are you someone whose editing history is already deeply intertwined with Werieth and his NFC issues?
Why are you supporting an editor who right now is at NFCR mis-representing our clear policy to push his "delete everything" agenda; as is his only form of editing, as was Betacommand's only form of editing.
As to accusations of socking, then I don't believe I've ever wrongly accused an editor of socking. I don't believe I've ever accused any editor, other than Betacommand / Werieth thus far, of socking who hasn't then been blocked as a sock per community consensus. You're right, I don't like socking. However I'm actually quite reluctant to throw such accusations around and have, if anything, a track record of excusing other editors when accused as socks, until the evidence is overwhelming and damning (as it is for Betacommand / Werieth). As to your allegations of "too many years" (and "multiple editors"), then I'd not even heard of Werieth until October or so last year, and I kept thankfully well away from Betacommand and his other acknowledged socks. Andy Dingley (talk) 20:02, 5 June 2014 (UTC)
I'm not supporting anyone, but I'm frankly disappointed in you. The next time you claim someone is an sock of Betacommand without evidence and without opening an WP:SPI, I will take action as you are blatantly harassing and attacking other editor(s). This is your final warning. TLSuda (talk) 23:22, 5 June 2014 (UTC)
And yet your other Betacommand-supporting NFC-opposed admin immediately blocks every user who does post the evidence against Werieth.
I had thought you were better than them, evidently you're just the same. You're both just a bully whose first reaction is to threaten other editors, not to consider the evidence you've repeatedly been shown (and then blanked or revdeled).
Why are you supporting this banned editor? Andy Dingley (talk) 23:29, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

## DYK nomination of Eat Frozen Pork

Hello! Your submission of Eat Frozen Pork at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Hasteur (talk) 20:44, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

## Category:American films

I thought the same thing about the category and appropriate subcategories, but they've got a hatnote at the top of the listing -- all American films get put in the category "for convenience". – S. Rich (talk) 20:53, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

OK, I'm rather surprised as that must make for one enormous and unwieldy category! Andy Dingley (talk) 21:12, 5 June 2014 (UTC)
Yup! 20,000+ – S. Rich (talk) 21:39, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

## Efficiency internal combustion engine

Hello Andy.

I just changed some lines in the page "Internal combustion engine". According to my own calculations and a refference website, the efficiency of a diesel engine can be over 60%. Why is there written on the page that is is only 20%?

My calculation: I have a 1 kW diesel generator that uses 0,35 liter/hour. In other units, it uses 0,35 liter/hour to produce 3,6 MJ of electricity. With an energy value of diesel of 17,447 MJ/liter, 6,106 MJ of diesel is needed to produce 3,6 MJ of electricity. This makes an efficiency of 59%.

Ruudburger (talk) 14:19, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

This belongs at Talk:internal combustion engine, not on a user page
You're citing an undergraduate course paper as WP:RS. It's not reliable, it's certainly not well written.
That paper confuses Carnot's idealised heat engine with a practical internal combustion engine. It's an inappropriate comparison to then take that and present it as if "a competently efficient IC engine ought to be approaching the Carnot figure". At the very most, only the work-doing expansion part of the IC engine cycle might approach this (ignoring mechanical losses). As the IC cycle also has to include combustion, gas flow and compression processes, before even reaching the start point of any comparable Carnot cycle, then this is unrealistic. Also citing Carnot's efficiency limit as being a magical 83% figure is to misunderstand it. That's only the limit for a combustion temperature of 1723K. If the combustion process gives a lower temperature, then this gives a lower Carnot limit. Yet engine efficiency as an engineering proceeds in both directions: hotter engines with better Carnot limits (and more difficult engineering) and also lower burn temperatures that achieve more efficient combustion to achieve a greater proportion of what's a lower Carnot limit. Modern engines are chasing both these goals. Yet to present Carnot as a simple limit on IC engines is a gross over-simplification, especially at this point in the article.
This article needs improvement certainly. Thermodynamics on WP is generally OK in pure science articles, falling apart when it comes to engineering applications. Such improvement needs a better basis than a lazy student paper though. Andy Dingley (talk) 15:07, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

Thanks a lot Andy for the detailed reply! I am new here in editing, but I like to do more in future. When I was reading the page "Internal combustion engine", I was confused about the efficiency part. That's why I edited it after some research. But I am not a professional, so I hope someone else can improve that part by extending it.

Ruudburger (talk) 22:06, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

## Fred Copeman

Hi Andy

Thank you for your words of wisdom. I would have no problem with the removal of NFC image that I had included in the list, and would not have minded it being removed from my sandbox following some dialog with the objector. What I object to is the complete absence of good faith which Stefan2 has shown me. He should be the one threatened with a block for his behaviour. He should be reminded that an article being prepared in a sandbox is a draught and may not actually be created as an article. I will in future check the licence of any image I include as I have no wish to get involved in a dispute with people like Stefan2.Cheeseladder (talk) 09:51, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

## Steam Injector

Please contribute to the discussion on steam injectors! You have reverted my changes to the article, but I cannot find any explaination in which way steam injectors take advantage of the latent heat released by condensation (except for preheating the water)! –Hokanomono 08:50, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

This isn't to do with injectors in general, but specifically for the Giffard boiler feedwater injector. This manages the "impossible" trick of injecting water under pressure by using a lower supply pressure than that in the boiler (or at least, one that is no higher). The extra energy needed to achieve this comes from condensing some of the steam supplied to drive the injector, releasing its latent heat. Incidentally it's well-known that locomotive injectors stop working with hot feedwater - the reason (far less commonly known) is that they're now too hot to condense some of the supply steam and thus release the energy needed.
Unfortunately WP has lost the previous article on boiler feedwater injectors, as one editor took it upon themselves to rewrite injector from the narrow POV of the chemical industry, and the assumption that a supply pressure can always be available which is higher than the delivery pressure needed. The current article is now unreadable, inaccurate and unsourced crap, guarded by a dedicated edit warrior.
If you're after a technical discussion of feedwater injectors, I'd suggest Semmens & Goldfinch's How Steam Locomotives Really Work as one of the most recent and probably most accurate explanations. Andy Dingley (talk) 15:02, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
Evidently WP's a good platform for publicising their self-published book though: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fundamentals of Stack Gas Dispersion Andy Dingley (talk) 15:07, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
Your second change is quite wrong too. The purpose of this excess energy (and why it's needed at all) is to increase the pressure of the injector delivery, such that it exceeds the boiler pressure. It has nothing to do with preheating the feedwater. Andy Dingley (talk) 15:39, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

Let's continue the discussion at Talk:Injector#Steam injector --Hokanomono 08:41, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

## DYK for Eat Frozen Pork

Allen3 talk 13:59, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Chatterley Whitfield, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Engine house (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) 08:48, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

## MOS:DAB (Old Dock (disambiguation))

Wikipedia:MOSDAB#Where_piping_may_be_appropriate

When the link is part of the description, rather than the actual entry name, piping can be used more freely. However, the text of the link should still be very similar to the title of the target article

Can you spot what is wrong with what you did :

The Old Dock, Hull in Kingston upon Hull, England ..

hint -repetition of the town's name-Prof.Haddock (talk) 00:38, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

In a disambig between three things, all called "Old Dock"? We need those disambiguators to be visible. Copyedit it so that the city name isn't repeated if you wish (although the city isn't called Hull and the short form wasn't even in common use at the time of this dock), but presenting the undisambiguated version of the names on a disambiguation page makes the whole page rather pointless.
Besides which, there are two other errors in the version you've now 3RRed. Andy Dingley (talk) 00:57, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
Prof.Haddock, also note that the link there is not part of the description, so piping should not be used. -- JHunterJ (talk) 10:57, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

## Prime mover

A Prime mover (locomotive), as shown in the article, is rather too large to fit under the floor of the likes of a Budd Rail Diesel Car. The article should mention and show the smaller diesel engines to be found under the floors of railcars. Peter Horn User talk 23:10, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

They're still prime movers though, whatever their size. As they're normally beneath the floor, it's also hard to find clear photos of them.Andy Dingley (talk) 23:24, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

## Duplicate categorizing with a redirect

Hello,

Variable valve timing is the main article in the Category:Variable valve timing category. Continuous variable valve timing used to be a separate article but it was merged into the other article but it still had the same category so I removed the redundant categorization. My thinking is that, since both entries in the category will go to the same place, it doesn't aid navigation and adds clutter.

Can you give me a little background on why you reverted that edit? Are you looking to expand that redirect to be a separate article again?

Thanks. RevelationDirect (talk) 02:49, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

The point about categorization is that it's primarily for finding things, less for worrying about where they end up. We have two concepts, VVT & CVVT, and readers can be looking for what content we have on either. If we have any content on CVVT, even enough for a small section in another article and so enough to justify a redirect, then that's enough to justify publicising that inbound link by categorizing it. If the concepts or names vary (the aspect that's visible in the category), then we justify having them both in the category, even if they land up at sections within the same article.
Obviously the VVT articles are all a bit thin at present and could still use a lot of expansion all round.
Also I've opposed the merge of variator (variable valve timing) and variable valve lift – variators change the timing, not the lift. These are quite different things. Andy Dingley (talk) 08:54, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for clarifying. I withdrew the article merger proposal based on your clarification. As for listing the same article more than once in the same category, we'll have to agree to disagree. Thanks. RevelationDirect (talk) 03:00, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

## Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jacob Barnett (2nd nomination)

Hi Andy Dingley. Because you participated in Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2014 June 19#Jacob Barnett, you may be interested in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jacob Barnett (2nd nomination). Cunard (talk) 16:50, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

## Widnes-Runcorn Transporter Bridge

I should have thought that an editor of your experience would apply WP:V to your work. Ref 16 is "dead" and Ref 17 still gives the address of Transporter House on its website. And let's face it, Transporter House is hardly relevant to an article on the bridge, is it? If so, and if it is notable, it should maybe have its own separate article or stub. As a matter of interest, do you have any special connection with the bridge or the office? --Peter I. Vardy (talk) 10:50, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

I think you need to look at our standards for "temporary" notability (it isn't) a bit more closely.
You made the newbie error of blanking references because their host website had since 404'ed, which you then compounded by blanking the para they supported. We don't do this, we tag refs with {{dead link}} and then (or simultaneously) we see if they're recoverable. Both of these were trivially so. It took me less time to do this useful minor task than it did to revert your edit warring and pointless argument here.
If the situation has changed, then by all means update the statement about the current state of the bridge. That might use these refs, it might not. However blanking sections because of a 404 is never the way to progress forwards.
I do not have any special connection with either the bridge, Runcorn or the YMCA. Nor am I required to have them before editing this article. Andy Dingley (talk) 10:57, 30 June 2014 (UTC)
Of course not, but I just wondered why you expended so much trouble on a peripheral aspect relating to what was once a rather important structure. Anyway thanks for updating Ref 16. But the current refs do not say that it "is no longer in use". I suppose that by adding this you could say, by exclusion, that it is no longer in use. What do you think? --Peter I. Vardy (talk) 18:17, 30 June 2014 (UTC)
On second thoughts, let's go back to the beginning. This is an article about a bridge. Our debate is about a building. The article says it was a former office building for the bridge - so what? Where does the reference say that? It was used by the Halton YMCA, but isn't now - so what? Ref 16 confirms it was used by the YMCA; what confirms it isn't used now?
I deleted the sentence, not because of the dead link (only ref 16 was dead; ref 17 is still alive, and you had no need to "retrieve" it from archive), but because of its irrelevance to the article, IMO, (and also compounded by the dead link). I did not delete it because of the 404. I am just as capable as you of retrieving dead links, and the reference to "newbie" is snotty under the belt. I am also aware of the {{dead link}} template.
You have no interest to the bridge, Runcorn, or the YMCA. I do have an interest in the first two, and respect the work of the last. But where the YMCA was located, and isn't now, is hardly of relevance to the Transporter Bridge. In conclusion I disagree with you. I see no point in retaining this sentence. It adds nothing to the information about the subject of the article, it's pretty irrelevant anyway, and despite amending the references, they still do not confirm all that is in the sentence. --Peter I. Vardy (talk) 20:33, 30 June 2014 (UTC)
The relevant sentence in the article is now "properly" referenced, and IMO looks silly. As it is irrelevant anyway, I intend to delete it (again), unless you can persuade me otherwise. --Peter I. Vardy (talk) 16:49, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

## Theremin

Hi Andy,

Pls do let me know the reason for removing the edits that I had created in the Theremin>>TV section.

Thanks, Nishant — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nishantkashyap23 (talkcontribs) 12:49, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

Did you read the vast past discussion of this on the talk: page? Andy Dingley (talk) 14:39, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

No can you pls direct me to that page? Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nishantkashyap23 (talkcontribs) 07:05, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

Hi Andy, your response is very vague - I am not sure which page you are talking about - would be great if you can be more specific...thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nishantkashyap23 (talkcontribs) 07:13, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Since the article is Theremin, its talk page is Talk:Theremin; and on that, I find the thread Talk:Theremin#Big Bang theory which covers much of this matter. BTW please sign your posts, either by typing four tildes (~), like this: ~~~~, or by clicking the signature icon: . --Redrose64 (talk) 12:04, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

Thanks!!--Nishantkashyap23 (talk) 08:48, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

## Keeping you in the loop

There's a few things in this post that you're probably interested in. GoFormer (talk) 14:47, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

## ANI

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Werieth (talk) 15:29, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

## Blocked

As I now notice your recent behaviour has been in obvious contravention of a very clear final warning given you by yet another uninvolved administrator less than a month ago [39], I have gone ahead in accordance with his warning and blocked you for harassment, for one week. Fut.Perf. 16:41, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

I have unblocked you early, because the issue appears in the meantime to have become moot – Werieth has been blocked as a sock on the basis of new evidence. Note that, even though this may look as if it proves you right in retrospect, this unblock does not come as a sign of your vindication – it is still true that your behaviour, of persistently casting aspersions without such new evidence and of enabling and supporting obvious harassment socks, was reprehensible and deserved sanctions, so the block was justified at the time it was done. It's just that at the present time there's no point for it to continue further, so having it run on would be merely punitive. Fut.Perf. 14:52, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

## Model engineering

Thanks Andy, for your thanks on my Model engineering edits. So far nobody has slapped a notification banner across the top for unreferenced material. Perhaps it is not on a regular policing beat because of the (slightly harsh?) Low-importance_Metalworking_articles rating. Hopefully the article can move from C-Class_Metalworking_articles to B-Class_Metalworking_articles. Though I wouldn't even know how, despite any conflict of interest I would have. Stringybark (talk) 23:00, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

## Thanks

 The Original Barnstar For maintaining the courage of your convictions. The SPI process did not work in the current situation and that had to be frustrating. While you may have overstepped and certainly incurred the wrath of those who thought you did, you didn't flinch. Ultimately, the truth became known and your position, while not fully excused, was vindicated. Thanks for demonstrating courage, hopefully lessons have been learned by all involved. Carrite (talk) 15:50, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

## A barnstar for you!

 The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar It seems vindication looks different from different points of view. (Also, what Tim said.) --Demiurge1000 (talk) 16:10, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

Yes Andy, sorry to see you banned for being correct Mosfetfaser (talk) 19:35, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

## A barnstar for you!

 The Barnstar of Diligence For going above and beyond the call of duty to expose a notorious sockpuppeteer. MinoanX (talk) 19:40, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

## Rewrite on Lithium polymer battery

I rewrote basically the entire article of lithium polymer battery, adding several references. I saw that you posted in the talk page so perhaps you have some interest in this. The page covers the lithium ion technology, as opposed to the "true" polymer-electrolyte technology, which is mentioned but only briefly. In my opinion, much needs to be done in the lithium ion article as well.----137.132.22.191 (talk) 02:18, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

## Move proposal: template {RailGauge} into {Track gauge}

I initiated this move proposal in Template talk:RailGauge#Requested move. Please take a look and join if you are interested. -DePiep (talk) 00:14, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

## Proposed deletion of Transmission brake

The article Transmission brake has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Unreferenced content indicating original research and/or copyvio from single contributor/editor. Failure to provide sourcing suggests possible abuse of autopatrolled privelege‎

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. 81.103.181.43 (talk) 22:17, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

## Category:Bugatti engines and subcategory

Category:Bugatti engines, which you created, has been nominated for Deleting with Dual Upmerge to Category:Bugatti and Category:Volkswagen engines. 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.RevelationDirect (talk) 15:46, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

## Polandball

Hi, I have recently expanded and rewritten the Polandball article at Draft:Polandball. I have also requested undeletion of the original article (that should never have been deleted in the first place) at Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2014_August_6. I am leaving you this message as you commented at Talk:Polandball not long ago. 185.49.15.25 (talk) 07:16, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

## Acrow props

In the last two years you have failed to provide any evidence that the Acrow prop is any different than the many different varieties of props. The reference on props that you quote doesn't even have the term anywhere in it. Unless you provide evidence along the lines outlined in the talk page, that is, a reference that clearly states that an Acrow prop is somehow materially different than a jack post and not simply a UK-ish name for the same thing, I will be merging the pages shortly. Maury Markowitz (talk) 13:43, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

## Category:Volkswagen diesel engines

Category:Volkswagen diesel engines, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. 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. Armbrust The Homunculus 11:28, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

## Wikipedia sucks

Hi Andy, we know Wikipedia sucks. I just wanted to let you know I miss you, and I want you back quick. Specifically, I'd like to have your opinion on the term 'turbo-compounding' used in Formula One engines. To some, you are precious. Yiba (talk | contribs) 04:06, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

The rest of humanity hasn't matured enough for something so simple. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.62.189.7 (talk) 01:58, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

## Startix

This might interest you and you are most welcome to adjust it as you wish. Eddaido (talk) 04:17, 23 August 2014 (UTC)