User talk:Andy Dingley: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 16:57, 3 October 2017

Interesting development

Please see Locomotives of the Stockton and Darlington Railway. Roberttherambler (talk) 20:54, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Gray code

Please look again at my edit to the Gray code article, which you undid. My provided code re-write still makes use of doubling the shift at each step, just like the replaced code. I think that is the point you refer to in your edit comment. My edit just reverses the order of the XORs, which is legitimate, and puts them in a loop that self-detects when it can stop. Thank you -- 64.132.59.226 (talk) 16:28, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Read the edit summary, "rv - missing the point of that whole example."

Your change is both unencyclopedic, and it misses the point of that whole example. This is not a coding cookbook of examples, it's not a coding tutorial. We're not looking for good coding here, we're looking for good explanations of Gray code itself. The version without the explicit stated shifts is much clearer for that. There's also a loop-based example immediately preceding it. Andy Dingley (talk) 16:41, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for clarifying which point you are making. However, since your note is brief, I am not completely sure that you understand the point I am making. At the risk of repeating something that is already obvious to you ... my point is that the grayToBinary example uses a loop that shifts one position at time. The grayToBinary32 example (both as originally and as I have edited it) instead doubles the shift each time. To me, that is the defining difference between these two examples, rather than that one is a loop and that the other is an unrolled loop. Unfortunately, the existing grayToBinary32 has a shortfall, in that it assumes sizeof(unsigned int) == 4, which can silently change if code is moved from one computer to another. It was my hope to repair that shortfall. Can you think of an approach that repairs the shortfall while maintaining the clarity you hope to see? Thank you for entertaining my questions and considering my perspective. 64.132.59.226 (talk) 17:04, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This is not a coding tutorial. This is an explanation of Gray code. It needs to be the clearest explanation of Gray code that is can be, not the most optimised (for size or run time) code fragment. That alone is reason to keep the original example.

Secondly, this is a Gray code. I've never seen a 32 bit Gray code. I cannot imagine a use for a 32 bit Gray code, at least not out in the physical world of encoders. I once had a very expensive problem where a machine had been fitted with a 7 bit Gray code encoder when it needed a 9 bit encoder. We couldn't afford this (we could, but I was told we couldn't, after wasting far more chasing the problem of using a 7 bit code) and I had to make it work with a 8 bit encoder instead. Now imagine how impossible it would be to rule a grating for a 32 bit Gray code! Two billion increments! Andy Dingley (talk) 17:21, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Moved to Talk:Gray_code#Gray_code_code_example_changes Andy Dingley (talk) 17:23, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Rollback on duck article

Hi, I removed the category from the duck article because it's already in Category:Robotic animals, which is a subcategory of Category:Biomorphic robots. Per WP:SUBCAT it should not be in the lower category. If you could revert the edit that would be great._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 15:20, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No. As already raised, you just shouldn't even be emptying this category during a deletion discussion on it. That is simply trying to stack the deck against it.

Also this is not merely a robotic animal, it is a biomorphic robotic animal, owing to its claim that it actually worked by a biological or biomorphic process, rather than just being clockwork in feathers.

SUBCAT is regularly harmful when over-used by those who don't understand its limitations, MediaWiki's limitations, or the limitations of over-trusting a simplistic tree-based taxonomy and confusing it with ontology. The inappropriate subcat relationship between robotic animals and biomorphic robots just makes this worse. Andy Dingley (talk) 15:30, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

SPI

I noticed that the SPI request you wrote isn't listed in the list of open SPI cases, so other people are unlikely to find your request. You might wish to do something to make your request more visible. I happened to find it after reading one of your comments in the DR on Commons. --Stefan2 (talk) 23:04, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The script did seem to barf a bit when I posted it. Andy Dingley (talk) 11:36, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Locomotives of the Stockton and Darlington Railway

I've expanded Locomotives of the Stockton and Darlington Railway. Would you mind formatting the references? I always get in a terrible mess when I try to do it. Roberttherambler (talk) 22:25, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Not tonight, but I'll take a look. There's some more in the Thomas Hackworth book too. Andy Dingley (talk) 22:30, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Help with AWS logo and AWS Icon Set

Hi Andy Thanks for your thoughtful and helpful comments on the Talk page on the AWS Wikipedia page. I would appreciate any help you can provide. Would it be possible for you to email me (I'm assuming that's okay to ask)? Our corporate VPN is blocked for editing Wiki pages. I also want more info on what happened with the AWS Icon Set - I'll chase it down on this side and see if I can get it fixed. For the logo, I was told it was freely licensed, but I'm confirming that as well. My email is goddardk@amazon.com.

KevinJGoddard (talk) 19:09, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

International Harvester

Hello Andy. I know your opinion of me, no problem. And I am swearing again. We are discussing whether the brand of trucks built by International Harvester Company are branded "International" or "International Harvester". It is long, I would like you to note a line of sources I left, and anything else that interests you. I am asking you to make an objective opinion on the name only. There is also a lot of crud, whatever you want to say. Thank you. EDIT: I forgot the link:[1]Sammy D III (talk) 02:56, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but I really know little about US trucks and nothing about International Harvester. Although general principles for clarity would make me favour a fuller "International Harvester" rather than an ambiguous "International", even if somewhat out of date. Andy Dingley (talk) 09:41, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Clearly not the answer I wanted, but exactly what I asked for. I would have prefered a judgement on the actual name, but I did think of "I" vs."i". Thank you. Sammy D III (talk) 11:40, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Lewis Cozens

Thanks for the improvements you made to the Lewis Cozens article. Best, Railfan23 (talk) 16:07, 22 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Can you move Midland Railway 2511 Class locomotives back to Midland Railway 2511 Class?

Thanks.

Tony May (talk) 19:57, 25 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No, it seems not. I guess the target must have been edited since. If you post it at WP:RM/TR an admin should do it, usually fairly quickly. Andy Dingley (talk) 20:00, 25 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Query

Was your edit summary here intended to be funny? If so, it misses the mark. --John (talk) 19:54, 26 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

And here we are again. Are you confusing me with someone you bear a grudge against or something? In any case you're at risk of slightly making a fool of yourself if you carry on like this. --John (talk) 20:07, 26 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Colliery viewers

Hi Andy,

I notice that you've been wikilinking "viewer" to "colliery viewer" on several articles but there is actually no such page. Are you planning to write one, link to a more general colliery organisation or just hoping someone else will get fed up with red links?

Regards, Martin of Sheffield (talk) 09:57, 27 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Just working on it. Also WP:REDLINK.

"Coal viewer" vs. "colliery viewer" is one question though. Andy Dingley (talk) 10:11, 27 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

OK, thanks. (BTW, my instinct is that a viewer is overseeing the colliery, not sitting looking at a lump of coal - if that helps!) Martin of Sheffield (talk) 10:20, 27 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It seems to depend on the age a bit. The eighteenth century favoured "coal". Andy Dingley (talk) 10:23, 27 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Daisy wheel printing

I have reverted your edit. Back in the 1980s Daisy Wheel printers were widely used to produce ASCII art. Stub Mandrel (talk) 18:49, 2 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Your edit is poorly written, unsourced and most of all it duplicates what comes before it. No-one is disputing that daisy wheels were used for graphics, the question is how to express this. Andy Dingley (talk) 21:07, 2 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

October 2017

Your recent editing history shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war; read about how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you do not violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. 86.174.156.254 (talk) 16:57, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 132: / Line 132: @@
 I have reverted your edit. Back in the 1980s Daisy Wheel printers were widely used to produce ASCII art. [[User:Stub Mandrel|Stub Mandrel]] ([[User talk:Stub Mandrel|talk]]) 18:49, 2 October 2017 (UTC)
 : Your edit is poorly written, unsourced and most of all it duplicates what comes before it. No-one is disputing that daisy wheels were used for graphics, the question is how to express this. [[User:Andy Dingley|Andy Dingley]] ([[User talk:Andy Dingley#top|talk]]) 21:07, 2 October 2017 (UTC)
+== October 2017 ==
+== October 2017 ==
+{{uw-3rr}} [[Special:Contributions/86.174.156.254|86.174.156.254]] ([[User talk:86.174.156.254|talk]]) 16:57, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

Revision as of 16:57, 3 October 2017

Archives

Interesting development

Gray code

Rollback on duck article

SPI

Locomotives of the Stockton and Darlington Railway

Help with AWS logo and AWS Icon Set

International Harvester

Lewis Cozens

Query

Colliery viewers

Daisy wheel printing

October 2017

October 2017