User talk:Andy Dingley

Chesapeake and Ohio class M1

Hello, Andy Dingley. You have new messages at Talk:Chesapeake and Ohio class M1.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Black Rock

..probably needs hiving off into its own article, don't you think? Ghmyrtle (talk) 07:44, 4 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No need just yet, but it certainly could support a couple of new articles there: the ferry / railway connection and also the lave nets. As there's so little to say otherwise about Portskewett though, I don't feel any strong need to do so. Andy Dingley (talk) 09:57, 4 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Wills Ring

Regarding the FWMV sealing issue, Des Hammill failed to recognise an important concept in the thermal dynamics of an engine. His "liners contracted more rapidly as engine load was reduced" should have been written as "liners contracted more rapidly as engine load was reversed, when a full-throttle condition is rapidly turned into trailing-throttle".

Engines drive a car, but the weight of the car and the residual inertia of rotating crankshaft 'drives' the engine in a long downhill or when the throttle is lifted. So the load on an engine swings from being positive to being negative as recognised in the expression "engine brake", and 'reduced' normally describes a condition where the amount of positive load is reduced (like accelerating with half-throttle instead of full), when liners "do not" contract.

Also, my use of terminology may be too exact much closer to engineering jargons, but "sealing the headgasket" sounds more like the function of supplementary Silicon sealant applied to headgasket to me. If you imagine an engine with cylinderhead-to-block seal done with many Cooper Rings on all the water/oil/drain passages as well as on combustion chambers without any ordinary gasket material, you see Cooper Ring is a form of gasket, and its function is to seal gas/water/oil, not to seal a gasket.

Oh well, I am not a native English speaker, and I'd leave these up to you on this article :) Yiba (talk) 03:56, 9 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The point about a Cooper ring, for all engines and not just Coventry Climax, is that the rings are themselves elastic. Elastomer O-rings are elastic too, but they can't handle combustion chamber temperatures. They can also, in some cases, work more rapidly than elastomers. Other head gaskets are made from something like stacked copper foils, which are compliant but largely inelastic. If an engine is non-rigid between the head and block, then a heatproof, compliant seal is required. Only Cooper rings are capable of this combination. Typically this is needed for tuned or aftermarket turbocharged engines, where a system of head bolts was adequate for the production engine, but not the blown version – under racing loads, the head bolts now have perceptible stretch, enough to de-compress a simple metal foil gasket.

The Coventry Climax problems were different (and there were two separate problems). The FWMV was thermal contraction (not really expansion) as the cooling system cooled and contracted the liner more quickly than the more massive block when the engine power was reduced (as Des Hammill's book notes). This has nothing to do with engine braking or a closed throttle. GP cars were not noted for coasting downhill! Also there is no significant longitudinal force on a cylinder liner, even during engine braking and certainly not of a magnitude that affects the clamping forces.

The Hillman Imp engine had a different problem. This was an open decked block, with the liners supported from the base, and the liners siamesed to make the seal area even smaller. This was not an engine designed to be tuned! It's remarkable it worked as well as it did. The liners just didn't have enough support in the first place, even before the FWMV thermal effects come into play. Comparing the two engines, the FWMV also places its head studs closer to the smaller bores and applies their force lower down in the head, below the camshaft level. The Imp's studs just don't clamp so well either. Renault had a similar engine layout at about this time (the "843" engine AFAIR, the 1300cc used in the 12 and 15). This was wet linered with an open deck, but the difference is that it had an iron block (still an aluminium head) and so suffered much less from thermal expansion. It blew the head gasket with the slightest overheating, owing to the thinness of the seal area, but it didn't have the same pressure problems. Andy Dingley (talk) 11:26, 9 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies

Sorry for bumping into you on IP 47.64.131.186's talk page. I saw that the comment the IP made was re-added and automatically assumed the IP did it, so I reverted again. After that I realized it was you, reverted myself and then realized it probably didn't belong anyways. I'll leave it to you. Don't worry, I have plenty of TROUT handy. {_C A S U K I T E ^T} 22:56, 11 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. I'd thrown them to AIV, I just wanted to leave the evidence obviously visible. Andy Dingley (talk) 00:34, 12 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Owen Owen

The removal was not "unwarranted", the material violates WP:RS, WP:V and also WP:BLP. I'd rather have a short but well-sourced article as opposed to a lengthy article which violates a number of policies. Giant Snowman 16:47, 13 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please read WP:BLP. Especially the part about "living".

"You" might rather have articles without content, but consensus (and WP:IMPERFECT) has long been that while we aspire to well-sourced articles, we often have less than this. Where such content is uncontroversial and outside WP:BLP, then we do not act with the haste and rampant deletionism that we might rightly apply to a controversial biography. Andy Dingley (talk) 20:51, 13 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, living people - so you've just added unsourced information about living people such as Philip Green, David Thompson, the Esslemont family...kudos. Giant Snowman 20:57, 13 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Then are you going to start blanking Philip Green as well? Andy Dingley (talk) 21:12, 13 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, as I'm sure you're aware. Can you not provide an actual response? Giant Snowman 12:07, 14 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Philip Green's and Arcadia's asset-stripping of Owen Owens was a huge story in the national financial press. It is not beyond the wit of man to source this. If you really object to the Philip Green coverage (which to be honest, I see you as clutching as fatuous straws to excuse your blanking), then you would be acting reasonably to remove that section. However what you did instead was to blanking an article covering a hundred years of history, all except the last few years having nothing to do with Philip Green. That's a very poor excuse to hide behind. Andy Dingley (talk) 13:20, 14 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No, I object to users who blindly revert and re-add unreferenced information to articles, including information about BLPs. If it's so easy to source why don't you do it then? Giant Snowman 13:23, 14 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Encaustic tiles

Your recent edit restored a reference that has no connection to the article's subject, the article is about encaustic tiles which are fired in a kiln, the reference [1] refers to cement tiles which are not fired and are an entirely different kettle of fish! I removed spam links by various other users in the past, it seems that rival makers are trying to get their links into the article? I have no connection with any of them as you will see from my extensive edit history. Kind regards.Theroadislong (talk) 14:06, 14 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe the article needs a new section on "Encaustic cement" tiles? Theroadislong (talk) 14:24, 14 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I see "encaustic tiles" as meaning "coloured tiles formed by a two part moulding process", not specifically fired clay.

If you exclude "encaustic cement tiles" from "encaustic tiles", then just what are you going to call them? What name do you have for this encaustic process, other than "encaustic"? Andy Dingley (talk) 14:37, 14 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

OK if the meaning of encaustic is wider than I thought, at least can your reference be used to back up the correct text, as cement tiles are most definitely not fired in a kiln and there is no mention of cement encaustic tiles in the article currently. Regards Theroadislong (talk) 14:41, 14 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I do not see why a commercial link should be put on a wikipedia page, There is no necessary information and also the information supplied is not correct, as There are many ways of making modern Encaustic tiles. When i first started in wikipedia i did not realise how i was ruining wikipedia by trying to insert my website link but have now realised that - I do not feel it fair to not be able to have an informative link from my website to wikipedia because another commercial website is adding incorrect information just to be able to have a no-follow link. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tachiflower (talk • contribs) 14:58, 17 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image File:Tweenies Milo.jpg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Tweenies Milo.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. -- ТимофейЛееСуда. 20:36, 17 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Systems design

Hi Andy, could you assess this change, and comment here. Thank you. -- Mdd (talk) 12:00, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your feedback. -- Mdd (talk) 01:34, 19 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Website wireframe

So you think it better to ignore WP:EL, WP:LINKFARM? You'll note that WP:SOAP applies as well... --Ronz (talk) 20:15, 20 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think your capslock is stuck.

I am _following_ the policies here. These are the main and most widely-used products for this product type, ELs are warranted exactly per WP:EL. Andy Dingley (talk) 20:19, 20 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, cute, and you're right up to 3RR already. Andy Dingley (talk) 20:19, 20 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

What policies are you following? --Ronz (talk) 20:21, 20 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

WP:EL. Where we can expand useful coverage of wireframing by linking to content that's above what we can ever embed in a hosted article here. These (especially Balsamiq) are the main wireframing tools in use. The others are perhaps arguable, but it you're removing the Balsamiq link as irrelevant, then you're simply highlighting your own ignorance about the subject. Something that isn't contradicted by your past involvement with this article, or with the subject area in general. Citing "notability" as a reason for removing one small section within an article suggests that you don't even understand WP:N, or at least aren't interested in it other than mis-using it as an excuse. Andy Dingley (talk) 20:28, 20 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think you need to take a break. Come back to this later. You appear to be confusing me and my editing with someone else. For instance, I've not brought up WP:N that I'm aware. --Ronz (talk) 20:32, 20 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

[2] "not notable, linkspam"

It's going back a while, because your only visible contributions_(sic) to this article are to insist that there must be no WP:ELs anywhere in it. Andy Dingley (talk) 20:37, 20 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Wow! That link has absolutely nothing to do with this discussion. Like I said, take a break. --Ronz (talk) 21:18, 20 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This is a topic you know nothing about, yet you've set yourself up as sole arbiter and decider that there must never be a single EL ever added to it. Why? Andy Dingley (talk) 21:23, 20 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Not spam?

Good catch, I didn't realize the existing link was broken. While that particular link is, on it's own merits, better than a dead link, WP:LINKSPAM points out that "Although the specific links may be allowed under some circumstances, repeatedly adding links will in most cases result in all of them being removed." I checked the majority of the links, and concluded that most of them had little to no academic value, and also served primarily to promote a particular companies products. You indicate that you believe a number of the links are appropriate, but, having double checked all of them, only the one you reverted stands out as having any meaningful encyclopedic content beyond what the article already has. Which others do you think are worth keeping? (For convenience: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12). Even if the links are deemed appropriate, this is still spamming (WP:REFSPAM, at best), so the template message I left would still make sense. Unless you disagree that those contributions meet our definition of spam ("repeated insertion of a particular citation or reference in multiple articles by a single contributor" "for the purpose of promoting a website or a product" (and the first result of a quick Google search of the username strongly suggest the link additions are of promotional intent)).

ʍ w 13:22, 21 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Citing sources

Please don't add or change content without verifying it by citing a reliable source, as you did on the List of fictional aircraft article. A citation needed tag was placed on the Rutland Reindeer entry, before I deleted it. The burden of proof is on you, please add the necessary references - Thank You FOX 52 (talk) 02:44, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Did you read what you deleted? And the text it already cited, even before the fatuous {{cn}}? Andy Dingley (talk) 02:45, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If there is source information in the entry then it needs to be in a reference note - See: Wikipedia:Citing sources for further assistance. FOX 52 (talk) 03:01, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Feel free to WP:SOFIXIT Andy Dingley (talk) 03:14, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback

Hello, Andy Dingley. You have new messages at AdventurousSquirrel's talk page.
Message added 14:33, 25 November 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.[reply]

AdventurousSquirrel (talk) 14:33, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Confused :S

As you have already deleted my contributions to the Ormskirk page, i wanted to ask how i would be allowed to add studio odyssey to the page. As you are not from Ormskirk, you will not be aware that there is a high demand for tattoos and piercings. As there are other businesses such as Morrison's and Aldi on the Ormskirk page, I dont understand why you deleted the Studio Odyssey edit. Any information will be greatly appreciated. — Preceding unsigned comment added by AstroBachini (talk • contribs) 11:16, 26 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Take a look at WP:N and WP:RS.

There are a lot of tattoo parlours in the world, even in places like Ormskirk. What makes this one special? To stand in the article it would have to show one of two things: significance of it to Ormskirk (I don't believe Ormskirk substantially notices that it's there) or else special significance of it amongst other tattoo parlours, i.e. is the tattooist personally famous or award winning. Sailor Jerry and Louis Molloy are notable tattooists, but I don't see them in Ormskirk. If we can say "It's just a shop, there are lots like it everywhere" then it doesn't belong in an encyclopedia article on what makes Ormskirk distinctive. Ormskirk has a Greggs too, but we aren't listing that. Andy Dingley (talk) 11:27, 26 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Final Warning

Given your behavior if you continue to revert my NFCC actions I will be forced to file for a topic/interaction ban. Werieth (talk) 16:37, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If you keep edit-warring against consensus, you're going to keep popping up at 3RR. Andy Dingley (talk) 16:40, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The next time you revert a NFCC action I will be forced to file for a NFCC topic ban for you. If you want to discuss a removal you know where my talk page is or you can file a WP:NFCR Werieth (talk) 16:57, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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 conceivably 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)[reply]

Archives