User talk:Andy Dingley: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 11:16, 14 June 2011

Henri Coanda defamation

You are involved in a recently-filed request for arbitration. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests#Henri Coanda defamation and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. Additionally, the following resources may be of use—

Thanks,

Cheese Changes

Right - I've made the cheese changes, as we discussed. Please feel free to tweak it as you like, but please refrain from making it seem that the traditional event didn't happen in recent years - it always happens. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 138.253.48.190 (talk) 10:54, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Intel SDK

Dear Andy, I made this page (Intel SDK) & (Intel System Development Kit-[1]) before more than two years they have the same content so I decide to rename the Intel SDK with new name (Intel Other Products) which I take the content of it from Intel Microprocessor List (Cut & Paste) and I add new link [2]for this page on Intel Microprocessor List. So I think there is no problem if I make these changes..Best Regards..Mustafa — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mustafa1702 (talk • contribs) 10:08, 1 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Drowned tube

Hi, re this - a fire tube must be completely covered by water at all times that the fire is lit, otherwise there is risk of the tube overheating, leading to tube failure and a consequent boiler explosion. Do you have a source? --Redrose64 (talk) 22:08, 2 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That's certainly the general case for locomotive boilers, but rarely so for vertical multitubes - there's even an obscure steam wagon vertical design with an annular steamspace, just to keep the tubes drowned. This is one of the reasons why vertical multitubes were never popular.

It's also not always true for 'locomotive' boilers. The real problem is keeping the firebox crown, which is radiant-heated, under water. As tubes are usually below this, it's implicit that they'll be submerged too. However if the boiler barrel is sloped, the tubes may then be partially above the waterline. The best example of that would be some of the pistol boilers and the Wallis & Steevens 'Simplicity' rollers. Andy Dingley (talk) 22:27, 2 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Editing

Could you please point at one or two specific examples of articles I've apparently left in an unreadable and fragmentary state? This would be useful to me. --Wtshymanski (talk) 15:04, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

TT-talkback

Hello, Andy Dingley. You have new messages at TreasuryTag's talk page.
Message added 16:48, 9 June 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.[reply]

╟─Treasury Tag►belonger─╢ 16:48, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Donkey boiler

Thanks for clarifying my clarification about the donkey boilers. Would it be appropriate to link to donkey engine here? And do you have any clue as to the origins of the name 'donkey' in these contexts? (For example, did the engine take its name from the boiler? And where did it originate?) -- EdJogg (talk) 15:12, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Forgot my second point. Is the article title "List of boiler types, by manufacturer" strictly appropriate now? Many of the types, such as those added today, are not manufacturer-specific. -- EdJogg (talk) 15:15, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've no idea of the etymology, certainly not a referenceable one. However donkey engines existed on sailing ships (the last iron & steel hulled tall ships) before donkey boilers appeared as an in-port backup for steamships.

Until such time as I have a marvellously good idea for a better name, I'd leave it as it is. I certainly don't think splitting it would be good (although I only capitalise the ones named after makers) because that would make two lists to search through, by readers who have a name but no idea if it's a manufacturer, a model or a generic term. If you have any strong feelings for a better title, then feel free (but please fix the inbound redirs too). Andy Dingley (talk) 15:54, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nope, no better idea for a name, except perhaps to just drop the 'by manufacturer', as this is adequately explained at the start of the article. I certainly wasn't expecting to split the page. No strong feelings over this, so I'm not trying to force a page move, only pre-empting others who might want to. -- EdJogg (talk) 16:35, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Propeller (aircraft)

Please clarify for me what "undercambered" means, and I will let your revision stand. Otherwise it will need to just be "cambered".--Raymondwinn (talk) 19:04, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's the opposite of camber - or at least, the diminutive of it. Santos Dumont was bending his propellers out of flat sheet, which was a strong way to do it, but couldn't achieve the best shape. The shape it gave was flatter than it ought to have been, with less camber than was known to be ideal. Replacing this with "cambered" is quite wrong, as it implies that they were too curved, rather than not curved enough. Andy Dingley (talk) 19:11, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hey - thanks for the explanation. I still think "heavily undercambered" is not the term you want to use. Why don't you either explain what you just told me, in the Propeller text or in a footnote, or on the Talk Page. Thanks in advance.--Raymondwinn (talk) 19:17, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Le Mans

Hello, Andy Dingley. You have new messages at David Levy's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

—David Levy 23:25, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

TT's editor review

Hi Andy. Can I please recommend you take a look at the post I left on Treasury Tag's user talk page, regarding his editor review? Your review is clearly heartfelt, but, if you take the step of AGF that TT is interested in improving his editing, it doesn't help him at all, because there's nothing he can take from it other than "I don't like the way you edit". Hope you have the time to have a rethink and repost over your comments. Thanks. --Dweller (talk) 11:14, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think the best action would be an indef block and community ban. If you have a fluffy way to word that, I'd love to hear it. Andy Dingley (talk) 11:16, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Revision as of 11:14, 14 June 2011 edit Dweller (talk \| contribs) Bureaucrats, Oversighters, Administrators 55,716 edits →‎TT's editor review: new section ← Previous edit		Revision as of 11:16, 14 June 2011 edit undo Andy Dingley (talk \| contribs) Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers 157,664 edits →‎TT's editor review Next edit →
Line 102:		Line 102:

	Hi Andy. Can I please recommend you take a look at the post I left on Treasury Tag's user talk page, regarding his editor review? Your review is clearly heartfelt, but, if you take the step of AGF that TT is interested in improving his editing, it doesn't help him at all, because there's nothing he can take from it other than "I don't like the way you edit". Hope you have the time to have a rethink and repost over your comments. Thanks. --[[User:Dweller\|Dweller]] ([[User talk:Dweller\|talk]]) 11:14, 14 June 2011 (UTC)		Hi Andy. Can I please recommend you take a look at the post I left on Treasury Tag's user talk page, regarding his editor review? Your review is clearly heartfelt, but, if you take the step of AGF that TT is interested in improving his editing, it doesn't help him at all, because there's nothing he can take from it other than "I don't like the way you edit". Hope you have the time to have a rethink and repost over your comments. Thanks. --[[User:Dweller\|Dweller]] ([[User talk:Dweller\|talk]]) 11:14, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
			: I think the best action would be an indef block and community ban. If you have a fluffy way to word that, I'd love to hear it. [[User:Andy Dingley\|Andy Dingley]] ([[User talk:Andy Dingley#top\|talk]]) 11:16, 14 June 2011 (UTC)