User talk:Andy Dingley: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 21:05, 18 April 2016

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

Hydraulic power network

The nicest alerts to receive are thanks for a correction; so thank you. Sir Harry Ricardo mentioned briefly in "Memories and Machines" (his autobiography) that he had developed a flexible hydraulic network for riveting in constructing Indian railway bridges (c1905). I have not got my copy to hand to check, but I would guess steam was used for the power. Unfortunately I have found little else as a source for flexible networks. The science museum in London had almost nothing when I checked ten years ago. SovalValtos (talk) 20:12, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

See hydraulic intensifier. It's not a "network" as such, as it didn't spread across further than the jobsite.

Thanks for the correction. I was unaware of the Geneva system, but if anywhere was going to have hydro right next to its consumers, I guess it would be Geneva. Andy Dingley (talk) 20:15, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

A Great Big 'Unencyclopedic' Thank You. Boulton Paul Defiant

Many thanks for restoring my admittedly clumsily worded and poorly typed addition (and faith in human nature): I hold my hand up to not providing citations but I was doing just that when I got an edit conflict and started over, hopefully improving on the first effort. (As a newbie I assumed, maybe naively, that the term 'citation needed' means 'please add a citation' rather than a slash-and burn notice, but I'll be wiser next time.)

So, just between us, do you have any idea what unecyclopedic means? I'm serious, I've had various WP yellow cards re. typography, what side of the Atlantic the article belongs on, the gold standard for articles etc, but un-encyclopedic isn't even in the dictionary: when I checked my Kindle I got 'unending', 'unendowed' and 'unendurable', while 'encyclopedic' means 'comprehensive in terms of information' so I'm beginning to suspect it was actually an encylopedia joke.

Getting back to the plot if you have time could you check out the new version and see if it makes sense?

The whole point of my addition was to place bald (but incomplete) facts into a context that makes sense of what the article previously implied was an example of typically British muddled thinking. Since there demonstrably was a logical underpinning that explains why a turret fighter might possibly be operated by the pilot in the direct fire role I thought it at least worth airing, with the side-benefit of eliminating the vastly irritating if unvoiced 'Wow, crazy, huh?' conclusion.

The (apparently) contentious aspect of the entire turret fighter imbroglio seems (to me at least) to revolve around the wider issue of responding to the entirely unprecedented new reality of 'lightning war'... so I can't help wondering if there is mileage in mentioning somewhere that in the context of the fall of France all bets were off. If that seems blindingly obvious as matters stand various articles seem to omit the words

'Because no one anticipated that within the design-life of this aircraft, conceived of five years earlier, swarms of high-performance enemy aircraft would be within in range of - to pluck an example out of the ether, London Docks, that's why'.

If that's a little parochial-sounding in mitigation I plead that being an ethnic cockney who grew up on a street in East London with vacant lots nearby called 'bomb sites' I don't find the Blitz the least bit amusing, so the silent snarking was - to say the least - annoying, as is a general trend towards ahistoric revisionism based on twenty-twenty hindsight that is, for the want of a better term, 'unencyclopedic'. As such perhaps the business about the new realities of air defence circa 1939 demands a separate article?

Or addressed in a pre-existing article, assuming it's not already there and only needs finding and linking?

Having fallen foul of the dread guardians of all things Wiki that fly without flapping their wings because I didn't use the right template to describe an aircaft that never got off the drawing board I'm loath to stick my head up over the parapet again (at least until I've done a lot of homework) so for now I hope my revised version is authoritative, well-reasoned and objective, and sufficiently complete it stands alone, rather than being merely as a footnote to the seldom-referenced Schräge Musik article.

~~Ebookomane~~ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ebookomane (talk • contribs) 15:24, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I have no idea. I barely care. I might even agree with them.

My point is though that we should try to move forwards. Your addition was unsourced, and that's a real problem. This vague handwave of "not encyclopedic" though? If they'd tagged it as uncited I'd have supported that. If they'd said it was unclear I'd have agreed. Even if they'd removed it as unsourced, I'd have had no good argument against that. To simply dismiss it like this though, on an aircraft that's all about the unorthodox approach to gunnery - makes no sense to me. Whatever should be done with this, it needs to make some attempt to make things better, not conveniently worse.

As for most people, I know little of the Defiant. I'd appreciate more coverage on a few things: was it bad or was it mis-used? Was it competent at attacking unescorted He111 and could it have taken the Hurricane's BoB role? Did it have any place with the BEF, or did this merely lose aircraft in a contest it was inappropriate for? How did it stand against the Roc? No-one has a god thing to say about the Roc (except Wikipedia, who once credited it with the first airborne kill!), but there is a viewpoint (minority?) that the Defiant did have some uses. Andy Dingley (talk) 15:36, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm trying to find sources and expand citations made since your reply (arguably my alterations should have been completely authoritative but it's a pain when disparaging comments - themselves unsourced - seem to have buried the subject matter) but I'll keep on digging and hopefully answer your points.

While my gut says the type was thrown into a conflict for which it wasn't designed and was tragically ill-suited as a panic measure I can't find anything to back it up, so it's sitting in the wings (pun intended) until I can quote chapter and verse.

Something that bugs me about this specific aircraft is why there was no serious attempt improve the type by removing the turrets. Okay, they were the whole point of the design but it's not unusual for a decent airframe to be re-purposed (and not just as target tugs):

As drop-in systems the turrets could have been hoiked out, the existing guns mounted for 'zero deflection shooting' in the vacant space, the gap faired-over and the things flown as single-seat interceptors. I'm astonished I can't find any evidence the option was mentioned, mighty odd for a time when biplanes were being retrofitted as wing-and-a-prayer attack planes but in context there was a lot going on...

~~Ebookomane~~ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ebookomane (talk • contribs) 10:06, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Check something for me?

Something went weird on my edit to 76 mm gun M1, can you check it is as you expect it to be? Maury Markowitz (talk) 13:43, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Looks fine now. I think we agree that the 17 pdr belongs on a list of comparable main guns.

Was this a Twinkle edit or similar? I've seen a few of these happening recently where sensible editors have restored clear nonsense that had already been restored once, and they unintentionally un-restored it. I don't know if the wheels have come off one of the scripts or the like? Maybe see if Village Pump is reporting this as a generalised problem. Andy Dingley (talk) 13:50, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No, when I went to the diff it said the section in question was removed. And then when I was trying to fix that I managed to undo the edit, at which point it really disappeared. I rolled back, hoping that fixed it. Maury Markowitz (talk) 22:05, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Article talk pages, WP:NPA

Your comments here and here are inappropriate for an article Talk page. You seem to be more focused on me than on the actual sources and contents there - you have not dealt with what the GE reference actually says and what its purpose is, which is to make some argument about when and if Be was used in fluorescent light bulbs, which is not what citations are for in Wikipedia.

You appear to have been attracted to the Talk page via the Talk page of Wtshymansk where I had left an left] a 3RR notice, which appears to be on your watchlist as you have commented there many times; as shortly after I left that you came to the article, which you had never edited before, and reverted me and then shortly after that responded to me at W's Talk page here. That is blatant HOUNDING.

As I did at W's talk page, I will warn you again not to turn Wikipedia into a WP:BATTLEFIELD and do not follow me around picking fights. If you continue to personally attack me at article Talk pages I will bring you to ANI and based on this very clear pattern you will not have a leg to stand on. If you have something to say to me, say at my talk page, and do not abuse article Talk pages going forward. Jytdog (talk) 18:24, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You're right - they clearly belong at ANI. I'll copy them over. Andy Dingley (talk) 18:37, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Do as you will. Going to ANI with unclean hands is foolish, and this will boomerang on you, even if you get me chastised - which I will acknowledge even now is not unlikely. I know I am too harsh sometimes - this is not some big revelation. Your turning an article Talk page into a battleground and screwing up an article is a much worse offense, in my mind. The article is about a medical condition and you are going all ballistic on something OFFTOPIC. It is completely inappropriate and just WP:POINTy. Unclean hands you have. Jytdog (talk) 18:40, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You suggest I need a "Moron Diploma", and then you accuse other editors of having "unclean hands"? Andy Dingley (talk) 20:22, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

a) what I had written was if you accept the one source you should accept the other - perfect parallel construction; b) I removed that (I disowned it - because it is clearly inflammatory and there is no point in going there) and my final comment is here; while your inappropriate comments still stand and you are fully owning them. And it is bad sign when people go digging through edit versions for dirt. You are really battlefielding this Andy, and yes it is frustrating me and i am allowing myself to write some unhelpful things. But i am catching myself. Jytdog (talk) 20:52, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

WP:ANI#More WP:BATTLEGROUND from Jytdog at Berylliosis: Andy Dingley (talk) 21:13, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Edit warring at article Berylliosis

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Berylliosis. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Please be particularly aware that Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states:

Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made.
Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing.— Cirt (talk) 02:11, 2 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This still belongs at Commons:Commons:Deletion requests/File:Heidi Cruz MontTXFundraiser Feb 27 2016--two3.jpg, not at en:WP. Andy Dingley (talk) 09:50, 2 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Proposal to rename categories

Please see my proposal to speedily rename Category:Defunct villages by country and subcategories to Category:Former villages by country etc. Hugo999 (talk) 18:43, 2 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Don't care - either would work. Andy Dingley (talk) 19:49, 2 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Marc Brunel

I noticed an edit of yours to the talk page of this article questioning Marc's relevance to WikiProject Railwats or some such. I'd agree, but what struck me is that of all the Wikiprojects he is 'of interest to' there does not seem to be any that relate to the block-making machinery, which to my mind is undoubtedly the most significant of all the many things he worked on. I'm not familiar with all the wikeprojects...any suggestions?TheLongTone (talk) 13:01, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I've no great faith in WikiProjects. Most are inactive, the active ones are largely dramaboards, there are some obvious ones missing. "Engineering History" would be such a project. If you created it, I'd join it - but given the lack of benefit from other projects, I've not worried about it.

As to "his greatest project", then it was a time of polymaths, not specialists. I couldn't distinguish between the block-making or the civil engineering. Andy Dingley (talk) 13:04, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Obviously...

I keep the hammer in my pants. ;P (Apologies if you don't appreciate toilet humor, I just couldn't resist.) MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 21:10, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

For information

See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Andy Dingley. 62.255.240.157 (talk) 11:26, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for that. This is very obviously related to WP:ANI#More WP:BATTLEGROUND from Jytdog_at Berylliosis Andy Dingley (talk) 12:00, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't edit within other users comments at ANI

Please don't edit within other users comments at ANI.

You did this, twice, at DIFF 1 and again at DIFF 2.

Please stop.

Please instead post, in your own comment, at the bottom of the sect in chronological order.

Thank you,

— Cirt (talk) 14:52, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You continue to make a false statement about Jytdog. My addendum to this was clearly noted as such, and signed. Not was it (arguably) "within" your comment, as it was between paras and it has long been accepted that additions there whilst not ideal are no breach of WP:TPO.

This is unlike your behaviour at Commons, where you have three times now edited my commments in the related threads, and not once have you even signed them:

Andy Dingley (talk) 15:07, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Different issue. You falsely used quotations to fraudulently imply I said something that I did not. You did this again using quotations at ANI. Please stop. — Cirt (talk) 15:13, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You see that word "paraphrasing" before it? Do you understand what it means?

If you felt the urge to edit my talk: comments, why did you not at least sign your own edits?

You did support two deletion requests on the grounds that, "Both the images in question are low resolution less than sixty (60) kilobytes." and no other stated reason. You seem to think that small images imply a copyvio, and that OTRS can resolve authorship disputes. Neither is correct. Andy Dingley (talk) 15:30, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Wrong. It is false to say you are "paraphrasing" when you wrongly put them in quotations with quotation marks. Please do not use quotation marks like that. Please stop it. — Cirt (talk) 15:39, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know what your native language is, so I cannot judge your English language skills. However such marks have different uses, beyond those of simple direct quotation. One of those is irony, much as you just used them around paraphrasing above. Perhaps you'd like to read the article you just linked? Andy Dingley (talk) 15:42, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Paraphrasing does not use quotation marks. — Cirt (talk) 15:44, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I just stumbled across this and wanted to weigh in: Quotation marks are commonly used for a variety of purposes in English. They can be used to indicate disagreement with a phrase (e.g. 'His claims of "Victimhood" are rather inconsistent'), to indicate the fact that a phrase must be complete to be meaningful (e.g. 'This is what's known as a "Trial by public sentiment." '), or to distance the author from the phrase, as would be the case with paraphrasing (e.g. 'He was all like, "Whoah! Not cool!" and I was like, "Crazy, man!" and the other dude just got all technical and said something about "Well Bayesian reasoning tells us that the probability is something math, something statistics, something something else, and blah blah blah..." '). As long as it's specifically identified as being a paraphrase, no reasonable person would assume it was a direct quote. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 19:00, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Some dim sum for you!

Thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:08, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! Andy Dingley (talk) 11:29, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much

Dear Andy Dingley,

Thank you very much for your comments about me at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#Cirt and your recent comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jenna Fife.

I really appreciate it.

Very much.

I'm quite sorry if we got off on the wrong foot lately.

I've been thinking about it a lot lately. I entered into the scene at Commons regarding that deletion debate with the sole intention of using WP:OTRS to get to the bottom of that licensing issue. I admit I reacted a bit to the responses there. Perhaps we could have all resolved the issue if we had all had a better more laid-back tone to everything.

I hope perhaps you and I can start afresh and anew.

Thank you very much,

— Cirt (talk) 12:48, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome. Too much of WP is based on old grudges. Andy Dingley (talk) 12:52, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You rock. Once again I apologize for the way things went down lately. I'm glad you were determined not to be a sock of anyone. I hope maybe we can work together in the future collaboratively on a quality improvement project. My favorite activity on Wikipedia is to take articles from WP:AFD to WP:FA. — Cirt (talk) 12:53, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I hope you will believe me...

The Hitler reference was auto-generated. I was editing on Firefox and I personally installed a script that changed certain words on a page to "Hitler". This was a joke meant for another site and I didn't pay attention. I will do anything to prove that this was the reason https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/foxreplace/ Ylevental (talk) 00:29, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, yeah, yeah, I'm tired of this "I installed an XKCD joke script to break WP articles and now I'm surprised when that's what it went and did." excuse. You're not the first, it's still not funny. Andy Dingley (talk) 00:42, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

same thing posted at my Talk page, and i gave the same answer. Jytdog (talk) 00:44, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That said, it's still no justification for a topic ban. Andy Dingley (talk) 00:48, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This editor has a history of disruptive editing on ASD articles, that you are perhaps not aware of. This is perhaps the ugliest thing they have done... a new low. And obviously they are passionate on the topic - the note on my page said they enabled that extension to actually use on other sites and just forgot to turn it off when they came here. They have brought some of that approach here. Jytdog (talk) 00:55, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

edit war

Hi Andy, Many people seems to have complaints about you,that you unnecessary revert the edits, please stop this, if you continue this you may be blocked by the Administrator. Best regards Aftab Banoori ^(Talk) 14:54, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Edit_warring#User:Aftabbanoori_reported_by_User:Andy_Dingley_.28Result:_.29 Andy Dingley (talk) 15:18, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

User:Aftabbanoori

Hello. I noticed that Aftabbanoori got blocked for edit-warring over a low quality snapshot of theirs they were trying to get into an article, so I thought I'd show you that they've been doing this for years, and can't claim they don't know what the rules and standards here are. See this since removed message I posted on their talk page two years ago, after they'd been edit-warring on multiple articles to get a vacation snapshot of theirs into them... Thomas.W ^talk 14:00, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I hadn't noticed, thanks. They're not the first to do this though. I ought to clean up the non-English WPs too, because that really just isn't a good enough photo to use, given how many better ones there are. Andy Dingley (talk) 14:03, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

St George's Canzona

Andy - many thanks for looking at the page I created. I have added a couple of citations in the article. Do you think that is enough? There aren't articles about the group or the person that I can cite easily and that are available online. John Grubb 54 (talk) 15:44, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Pics

Hi Andy - problems uploading this image file as the server did not update very quickly.

[1], I managed to make a fine mess of this one - the current image should be the cropped version. Do you have the access rights to fix it? CheersRstory (talk) 15:25, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's OK already, with your last revert. You have to watch the list of versions, as the main image itself gets cached all over the place and can take an hour or two to update. Andy Dingley (talk) 16:46, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for looking, I spotted another gaff on this one

[2] where the file name should be '...No.3026...' to match the engine number. How do I fix than one!Rstory (talk) 18:11, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There's a Move tab at Commons, if you have the qualifying number of edits. It's now at File:LNWR engine No.3026, First compound 4-2-2-0 tank.jpg Andy Dingley (talk) 18:39, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Unhelpful

Hey, i know you don't like me, but this was unhelpful to that editor. Instead of pointing them to where they could get what they wanted, you just "stirred the pot." You feel how you feel about me, but please don't let that get in the way of actually helping people who need it. Jytdog (talk) 17:31, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Unhelpful? Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Medicine#Purest_advertisement_you_will_find_in_Wikipedia is the location where you had been gloating over your CSD of this article (the word is linked to make it absolutely clear). But you'd prefer to keep the creating editor in the dark over this deletion? Your WP:OWN problems are far in excess of any editor I've seen previously, this was just the latest. This article needed work, not deletion. Andy Dingley (talk) 17:51, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You came within an inch of getting an i-ban at ANI. Now you wrote this, after the CU had been endorsed here. That is two HOUNDING events today. The first of which actually confused a new user. Do it once more, I go back to ANI, and I will get you blocked and I will get an I-ban against you. I am not chasing you around Wikipedia. Enough. Jytdog (talk) 20:14, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 251: / Line 251: @@
 Hey, i know you don't like me, but [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AMedscrib&type=revision&diff=715891726&oldid=715886571 this] was unhelpful to that editor.  Instead of pointing them to where they could get what they wanted, you just "stirred the pot."  You feel how you feel about me, but please don't let that get in the way of actually helping people who need it. [[User:Jytdog|Jytdog]] ([[User talk:Jytdog|talk]]) 17:31, 18 April 2016 (UTC)
 : Unhelpful? [[ Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Medicine#Purest_advertisement_you_will_find_in_Wikipedia]] is the location where you had been [[gloating]] over your CSD of this article (the word is linked to make it absolutely clear). But you'd prefer to keep the creating editor in the dark over this deletion? Your WP:OWN problems are far in excess of any editor I've seen previously, this was just the latest. This article needed work, not deletion. [[User:Andy Dingley|Andy Dingley]] ([[User talk:Andy Dingley#top|talk]]) 17:51, 18 April 2016 (UTC)
+::You came within an inch of getting an i-ban at ANI.  Now you wrote [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3ASockpuppet_investigations%2FBiscuittin&type=revision&diff=715924564&oldid=715922133 this], ''after'' the CU had been endorsed [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Biscuittin&diff=prev&oldid=715922133 here].   That is two HOUNDING events today.   The first of which actually confused a new user.  Do it once more, I go back to ANI, and I will get you blocked and I will get an I-ban against you.  I am not chasing you around Wikipedia.  Enough. [[User:Jytdog|Jytdog]] ([[User talk:Jytdog|talk]]) 20:14, 18 April 2016 (UTC)