User talk:Andy Dingley

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

List of arduino boards in Wikidata

Hi, I see you are a top contributor in "List of Arduino boards and compatible systems" How about including List of Arduino boards in Wikidata?

This would let to structure all this information because we should be able to use propierties like these https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Wikidata:WikiProject_Objects.

Maybe would be good to add a new column in tables with the links to wikidata items like this https://tools.wmflabs.org/reasonator/?q=Q25814150 or create list directly from wikidata

I start creating some list examples:

Example : List of arduino official boards Here, using Wikidata Query Service is possible to query "items manufactured by Arduino LCC company" equivalent to said "offical arduino boards"
Example : List of arduino compatible boards Using Reasonator you can see all items that are instance of "Arduino Compatible board" item (source: Arduino-compatible_boards).
Example : List of arduino compatible shields Same as above but this time value for "instance of" is "Arduino Compatible Shield"(source: http://shieldlist.org/).

If you like, you can get more info in the WikiObject project proposal https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/WikiObject.

Qupro (talk) 13:17, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Parallel twins & crankshaft flywheels

Hi, You reverted Parallel twins usually have only two main bearings, and a crankshaft flywheel is usually mounted between the two crank throws. I rather thought that this was indeed the case for both traditional British 360° twins and the post-1965 Japanese 180° engines. Is this not so? Arrivisto (talk) 09:04, 18 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You know how WP works: show some reliable sourcing for this. It would have to support all of your claims here: that motorcycle engines use flywheels, that parallel twins do, that these flywheels are mounted between the cranks and that this is more common (i.e. "usually") than not. I see no reason to believe any one of these claims.

If you're specifically referring to 360º parallel twins (i.e. older British designs) then balance weights might be more use than flywheels - and some designs have added balance weights, such as rotating countershafts or BMW's reciprocating lever. But flywheels? Andy Dingley (talk) 09:22, 18 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, flywheels. Kevin Cameron has written on the subject at length. Without flywheels a two-cylinder four-stroke would not even run.

And ALL designs have balance weights, not just some. I wouldn't dare make a claim about "most parallel twins only have two main bearings" because you'd better be able to back that up, but it is a common configuration with the Brit twins, at least.

Try to find a copy of Motorcycle Engineering, Phil Irving, that will clear up a lot of these subjects for you. 210.22.142.82 (talk) 13:37, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

RiskAoA review

Hi Andy, would you mind reviewing RiskAoA as a candidate for keeping/deletion? Thanks. 74.96.151.44 (talk) 03:00, 21 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Andy, I'd be happy to tell you everything I can about RiskAoA, unfortunately it can't be much over the wikisite. GESICC@aol.com. GESICC (talk) 22:45, 21 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you!

)

sincerely

LookingGlass (talk) 15:45, 21 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Filipz123

If you disrupt this SPI again, you risk being blocked.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:00, 21 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#SPI - Triumph of bureaucracy over effectiveness? Andy Dingley (talk) 18:32, 21 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

hello

I was wondering if there is any way that you and I could become civil in this life time and work together? Perhaps discuss my Contributions. I'm sure many times you will be able to prove against my claims and that would teach me. I don't understand why there has to be so much animosity. Everything I add is researched and sourced. If I or my source is mistaken at times, I appreciate the advice. Is there a chance of this or am I going for a long shot? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.114.54.122 (talk) 11:49, 22 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thankyou for starting this discussion. I would suggest that you read the comments at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Filipz123 again. They have already said pretty much everything that needs to be said. The SPI page might also be a better place to post this sort of discussion.

There are three problems:

Your past editing has ranged from the unsourced to the inaccurate and the biased. This is why you were first seen as a problem editor.
You are banned. As of now, you simply cannot edit here. Even if you're right, even if you're adding a good edit, you are no longer permitted to do it. Yes, WP "suffers" from this dreadful loss. But WP chooses to accept that, as it's seen as less of a problem than your edits otherwise.
You are disruptive and still disruptive. You are continually socking to restore the same edits. You did one from this same IP just minutes before posting this discussion! You are a bad faith editor in almost every way: even when asking to have permissions restored you seemingly can't stop yourself from doing the same things that got you into trouble initially.

If you fix this, I think they need to be fixed in the opposite order to above. First of all, stop making it worse. Until you do this much, there is absolutely no way that the restrictions might be lifted. Then see about becoming unbanned. Then (and only then) you might get to make some edits.

Note the "reverse order" part. Do not try to argue that "You will make useful edits, thus this justifies socking". We are absolutely not interested in that.

I have some sympathy for your position. Despite your past abuse, I am not an anti-Croatian racist. I welcome editors wanting to expand coverage of these fields. However we are not so short of editors that an editor who behaves as badly as you continue to do so is going to be tolerated.

I wish you luck with this - but I have little hope, I'm afraid, as you seem incapable of stopping. Andy Dingley (talk) 12:11, 22 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Special:Contributions/24.114.54.113, yes you seem incapable of stopping, even for a day. Andy Dingley (talk) 13:02, 24 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Why?

why did you do thisVarun FEB2003 ^{I am Offline} 13:52, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Because the long-established hatnote belongs there, as an aid to editors seeking how to embed HTML within WP wikitext. Why did you remove it? Andy Dingley (talk) 14:57, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

See the edit summary and I find my point still valid! It's an article not a base for guiding users, articles should not even contain a hint about Wikipedia's working! Varun FEB2003 ^{I am Offline} 11:22, 24 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Of course it should contain a hint - or in this case, a hatnote. The problem is that people searching tend to end up searching mainspace, as that's how MediaWiki works. If they want to embed HTML within wikitext, then they're going to end up first of all at HTML. They actually need to be at Help:HTML in wikitext. So a hatnote gives them an obvious navigation route. Hatnotes are brief and clearly formatted to be outside the main article content space, so they're hardly confusing. Andy Dingley (talk) 11:36, 24 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@VarunFEB2003: See Help and Tea house for other examples. There are many others. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 11:39, 24 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ok I get it. Thanks all! Varun FEB2003 ^{I am Offline} 11:40, 24 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Casting (metalworking)

My wording "is being poured" emphasizes a continuous aspect of the process. After all a liquid material is being poured gradually. On the other hand such an emphasis may sound a bit artificial. So I am willing to agree with you. But what was wrong with grammar? 85.193.252.33 (talk) 01:20, 24 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The tenses are mixed, horribly so, but mostly this change moved even further from "simple English" and was no improvement. Andy Dingley (talk) 01:22, 24 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Would you mind explaining your statement?

The tenses are mixed, horribly so, but mostly this change [was (?)] moved even further from "simple English" and was no improvement.

What's the role of the words: "so", and "even further" in your statement? I'm not an English native speaker, but I know perfectly well both terms. With all due respect to your native knowledge of English your syntax not only looks weird to me, but I can't understand it. Did you use slang? I do well with informal English, unless I see something very rare.

You could have written:

"The tenses are horribly mixed" or "The tenses are mixed horribly" or "The tenses are mixed, horribly" to even more emphasize the word "horribly".

"but mostly this change was moved from "simple English", and was no improvement."

PS. I did not see this article in Simple English Wiki, but even so I wouldn't carelessly copy anything. Besides, the definition in SE Wiki was completely different. 85.193.252.33 (talk) 18:00, 26 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, this is my writing style, and my stream of consciousness writing style (I rarely edit afterwards, and almost never when just posting talk: comments). I do have a tendency to write very long and run-on sentences.

This sentence is two sentences lacking punctuation to split them. Consider them as two.

"The tenses are mixed, horribly so, " is a compound statement. Parse it as "The tenses are mixed. The degree of their mixture is so much as to be horrifying." Try reading the original in a Stephen Fry voice (probably as if Stephen Fry was reading Waugh or Wodehouse). It's quite an affected way of phrasing it, which is another habit. A Wodehouse character, of such an inclination, would indeed be horrified to encounter such a mixture of tenses.

Copy-editing is a good thing and articles should not be needlessly convoluted, in grammar terms. That said, this is not Simple Wikipedia. Nor can Simple Wikipedia decide whether it's about simple English, beginner's English, or simple concepts in English. It is not necessary for this Wikipedia to make articles meet any such standards. That said, improvements are welcome. This wasn't an improvement. Whatever variant of tense this hypothetical future-past "is being poured" was meant to be, introducing a complex tense doesn't make it simpler to understand, it makes it harder. Andy Dingley (talk) 21:56, 27 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Wow - I didn't expect such a comprehensive answer. I'm really impressed. I try to understand your (sometimes a bit chaotic) writing style, which - as you noticed - reflects your stream of consciousness. It happens to be exactly what I myself have been developing. And it's a big challenge and great intellectual adventure to me. I even feel as if I was born again in a second language. No joke, it really feels like this. So I'm very grateful for your answer and attention. As to Simple Wikipedia: Plain English does not mean Basic English - used in Simple Wikipedia, in no case.

P.S. Of course I wouldn't be myself if I didn't notice something strange in you writing. So please excuse my boldness, but what do you mean by "articles heed", "article's lead"? I bet the latter ;-) 85.193.252.33 (talk) 02:34, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"heed" was just a typo. I also have a faulty keyboard which sometimes decides to pretend to be a mouse. If I don't notice immediately, I type into the wrong place. Andy Dingley (talk) 09:13, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I was almost sure that it was a typo. 85.193.252.33 (talk) 17:32, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

George Brayton, Brayton cycle and Diesel engine

I'm not sure why you refuse to acknowledge Brayton's contributions to the development of the diesel engine? These are documented contributions... Imotorhead64 (talk · contribs) 18:02, 24 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This belongs at Talk:Diesel engine, where you might notice my comments on this subject from some months ago. For clarity to everyone involved, please take it there instead. Andy Dingley (talk) 18:03, 24 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Andy, I'm not trying to get into an edit war here... I merely wanted to add some missing information regarding Brayton and his contribution's The history is very clear.. If you require some cited references please let me know... Thanks John

Brayton's contributions to the Diesel engine

In 1890 Brayton patented a 4 stroke engine with an air blast fuel injection system that would contribute greatly to the development of the first Diesel engine. Diesel's first engines used an air blast atomization system that was very similar to Brayton's . Unlike Diesel's engine Brayton's engine was fairly low compression. The ignition source was a constantly glowing mesh of platinum. Later Diesel engines used a system of high pressure fuel injection nearly identical to Brayton's 1887 engine where the fuel was admitted into the combustion area as it passed through a spring loaded relief nozzle, This caused the fuel to become much more combustable. Here is the discovery in Brayton's own words " “I have discovered that heavy oils can be mechanically converted into a finely-divided condition within a firing portion of the cylinder, or in a communicating firing chamber.” Another part reads “I have for the first time, so far as my knowledge extends, regulated speed by variably controlling the direct discharge of liquid fuel into the combustion chamber or cylinder into a finely-divided condition highly favorable to immediate combustion.”

WP:DTTR

I suggest you read it. Your tagging on John's talk page was unnessersary. Cassianto^Talk 20:54, 24 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

But you think John's edit-warring, abuse of other editors, lying about other editors, his attack on me, and his general utter disregard for any other editors who disagree with him is OK... Andy Dingley (talk) 20:58, 24 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

So in your world, two wrongs make a right? Cassianto^Talk 06:46, 25 August 2016 (UTC).[reply]

I warned John for attacking other editors. He is also at AN/EW for his edit-warring. I raised another issue at RS/N, didn't even mention him by name, and he attacked me for it.

But he's an admin, and he has friends like you, so of course you defend him regardless. The action at AN/EW was to protect the article - which doesn't affect John, as he's an admin and had already edited the article through its protection. Andy Dingley (talk) 09:08, 25 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I do not defend someone because they are an administrator. You are more than welcome to check my block log where you will see various incidents where I have been on the receiving end of policy-pissed admins. John is not one of them and is one of only a few admins who I trust around here. Cassianto^Talk 10:52, 25 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Cassianto, I assume if you are handing out warnings for templating regulars, then you also put a similar message on John's page for the following...

[[1]]

[[2]]

[[3]]

Spacecowboy420 (talk) 10:23, 25 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The diffs you've linked to were made in an editorial position. The tag AD used was designed simply to piss John off. There's a stark difference. Cassianto^Talk 10:28, 25 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Firstly, congratulations on having the ability to read minds. It's truly impressive that you are able to know the motivation behind other editors using templates.

Secondly, I didn't really see which part of WP:DTTR differentiated between regulars being templated for "editorial positions" and John being templated just to piss him off. I must have missed that part in my rush to finish my coffee or something... could you point it out to me, please? Spacecowboy420 (talk) 10:39, 25 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Firstly, please extend your congratulations to AD for being able to read my mind by saying this: "But you think John's edit-warring, abuse of other editors, lying about other editors, his attack on me, and his general utter disregard for any other editors who disagree with him is OK." You don't have to be Theodore Annemann to work out the motives behind AD's tag. It's a well-used tactic in disputes to prod someone into incivility.

Secondly, common fucking sense would tell you not to tag another user - especially an admin and someone who has been around for donkey's years - as that just escalates problems. The tags John used were to warn someone about their incivility (a requirement before they are blocked) another to advice about the requirement to use reliable sources, and another to use sources to correctly verify the information being added. It is not usual to check the wikiservice of an editor before posting these tags; but AD and John, I am sure, are known to each other both here and in past interactions. Which leads me to believe that the tag was used to prod rather than to warn. Cassianto^Talk 11:04, 25 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Common sense should tell an editor, especially an experienced editor or admin, not to make the sort of snide carping, or the veiled threats of blocks, that are John's stoock in trade. I templated him in the hope that the standard and officially sanctioned warning would be seen as a bit more neutral than some prose of my own, but of course he didn't take it that way. I've no interest in "prodding him into incivility", he does it pretty well on his own. Of course I can't know your intentions on ignoring John's behaviour, but I can observe that you do ignore it. Andy Dingley (talk) 12:17, 25 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

While opting to use a neutrally worded tag rather than a potentially uncivil line is highly magnanimous, I, for one, don't buy into it. I suspect a more sinister motive and think this was nothing more than a double-edged sword. I think you were well-aware of what you were doing. Cassianto^Talk 12:36, 25 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) Cassianto, The same "common .. sense" would tell you that tagging someone else, three times in a short period of time, is just as provocative as tagging an admin. BTW, civility rules apply to edit summaries, judging from your block list, you're more than aware of civility rules, I guess I don't have to template you...this time. Spacecowboy420 (talk) 12:23, 25 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Your above post is incoherent as it reflects upon nothing which I have said above. I would suggest that you go away, wipe the shit out of your eyes, and come back to re-read my comments again. You will then see that what I have said is that AD's use of a civility tag was used outside of the DTTR guideline. He even intimated to me that he was well-aware of this in his first response to my first comment. Again, and I don't want to labour the point, but he and John are well aware of each other. It is unknown if John and the editor to whom all this concerns, are actually known to each other. We have to AGF that they aren't.

I should remind you that owing to your last post initimating your future use of a tag on my page, and bearing in mind this discussion about that very subject, I will call you out for being a troll and revert you on sight. I will also consider reporting you for harassment. But go ahead and see where it gets you. Cassianto^Talk 12:54, 25 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

But, to make the same point again, that sort of "I will be watching you" rhetoric is absolutely typical of John's behaviour (repeated in recent days) and he threatens blocks to go with it. Yet you choose to make no comment on it, when John does it. Any reason why? Andy Dingley (talk) 12:59, 25 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There is no smoke without fire. Cassianto^Talk 14:46, 25 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

What does that even mean? You ignore John's bad behaviour because you are friends, or at least share a clique. There is a problem rife on WP of ssuch behaviour, making excuses for the worst excesses of a handful of "tenured" editors, some but not all of whom are admins.

Our standards are supposed to be objective, they are anything but. Enforcement of such standards is done by admins. And so enforcement on those admins themselves is, unsurprisingly, almost absent. If you want to post trite cliches, a better one would be, Quis custodiet... Andy Dingley (talk) 15:11, 25 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Cassianto I said that I don't need to template you. There is no need to get defensive over a non-existent possible future template. The idea of you calling someone a troll is funny. You jumped into something that didn't concern you, and started moaning about DTTR on a user's talk page. Who's the troll? Spacecowboy420 (talk) 13:23, 25 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

John didn't need templating either, yet AD continued to do it. No word on that, Spacecowboy420? I didn't call you a troll - dear god, do keep up - I said you would be if you templated me knowing we've had this discussion. Again, only reading what you want to read! Cassianto^Talk 14:46, 25 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"continued to do it" ? Your freedom with accuracy in reporting other's actions is as far from the truth as John's. I posted one template to John. Andy Dingley (talk) 15:07, 25 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"continued to do it" refers to you presumably knowing what you were about to do and then continuing to do it. I was not sequentially speaking. Cassianto^Talk 15:13, 25 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Leather

Hello. Dear Andy leather is not only Important in Kermanshah province. it's a souvenir. --Hosseiniran (talk) 10:15, 25 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

ever noticed...

that when you message an admin about the actions of an admin, or those of an established editor, you never get a reply. When I was blocked due to the blocking admin miscounting the amount of reverts that I made, it took a report on ANI to get some acknowledgement of my existence.

Wikipedia used to be a good place. Spacecowboy420 (talk) 13:59, 25 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I was blocked for reverting an obvious technical error 3 times. Never got even an explanation for that. Andy Dingley (talk) 14:17, 25 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Caltech

Sorry, no offense meant. Some people might like to know the actual name of the school that they are referencing. Maybe not quite the way some people at a fine northern California school feel about people calling it Berzerkeley, but Caltech people like to see the name the right way. But maybe you were talking about some other school that I don't know about. Gah4 (talk) 17:20, 25 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It's not about that, it's about the fact that many editors get annoyed (really annoyed) if their comments are refactored. Especially if it's a significant change, but almost as much if it's a minor typo correction. Some people will see this as needlessly finding fault with them, and get angry on that basis. As a result, we just don't do this. We really don't do this. Even if it's a formatting error which breaks the page and makes it unusable, be really careful about this sort of thing. Andy Dingley (talk) 17:26, 25 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Again, sorry. Is there a way to nicely hint to someone, yet without making it look like an insult? Seems to me somewhere between a minor typo (Clatech) and a major change (maybe Berkeley instead). Gah4 (talk) 17:50, 25 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

In article space I'd simply change it. Especially if linked, this is enough to show which we're using. In Talk: space though, I'd really just ignore it. Only change stuff in Talk: if there is some real concrete benefit to doing so and you're happy to back this up if an argument kicks off.

Often "which we're using consistently" isn't objectively clear if there isn't some obvious reason why one is correct rather than the other. But there can still be some virtue to consistency, WP-wide. Watch out for WP:ENGVAR though, and don't change subtle grammar (hyphens!) unless you're a linguistic expert. Andy Dingley (talk) 18:06, 26 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

My purely linguistic problem.

"Didn't you notice my question? Your answer is very important for me, but for you - a native English speaker - should be very easy. Perhaps you ignore me, but why?
Regards. 85.193.252.33 (talk) 21:28, 27 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I'm very busy at present. I have no time for Wikipedia (even on Saturday night on a bank holiday) and if I am on here, it's just as a displacement activity from what I ought to be doing. I'll give you a better answer presently. Andy Dingley (talk) 21:33, 27 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

UP GTELs

I'm very, very sorry for adding an s to "verandas". TheGGoose (talk) 13:57, 29 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. It's quite hard to read that sentence anyway and to see which way it ought to be. Andy Dingley (talk) 18:42, 29 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Daimler Double-Six sleeve-valve V12

Yes, you're right and you're right again. I did follow through up to the Maybach Zeppelin. Its just I preferred the simple English. It always interests me the the clear visual links between the very big German cars and the English Daimlers, sometimes its almost down to small differences in the grille. Thanks, Eddaido (talk) 11:32, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

If you know a better English word for it, then use that - but this seems to be a "schadenfreude" or "zeitgeist", where there just wasn't an English word for the concept ("flagship" is the closest), but as soon as you see one, you realise that it's a recognised concept.

I first saw it in Ludvigsen's V12 book, which is something you'd probably enjoy getting copy of yourself. Andy Dingley (talk) 11:40, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Seems like link spam

I added references to Paint robot that are published by corporations in the industry, but seem better than nothing for now. There were pre-existing links that seem like pure spam, as I mention on the article talk page. Could you look at the article and see if the references I added are worth while and what I consider spam should really be removed? - Fartherred (talk) 21:54, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The four refs I can see look fine as refs. Their citations could be better, as they're so far just used to support a statement, "There are robots used for painting". There is content in there which could be used to improve the article considerably. Although commercial, they're from large well-established leaders in their field who don't need us for promotion. The Kawasaki ref is the weakest, as it is little more than a catalogue and isn't yet cited as anything more than an EL. If (and some editors would say only if) it was used as a ref to indicate the range of sizes produced, it would be justified.

http://www.roboticautomation.ca/ is a dead link, and another randomly dumped EL. The ABB one wants better formatting.

I can't see ELs that you removed? Andy Dingley (talk) 22:02, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I did not remove any external links yet. I wanted to see what someone else thought about it. I guess I will take out Kawasaki Paint Robots and Industrial Paint Robots in Canada. I do not know much about formatting. Thanks for your help. - Fartherred (talk) 22:19, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The links that I removed might have been better when they were added. Web pages that are linked to sometimes are changed without notifying Wikipedia. - Fartherred (talk) 22:39, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Firearm Receiver

See TALK page for article. 66.103.35.72 (talk) 13:03, 5 September 2016 (UTC) Update - Andy, look at my talk page, please. 66.103.35.72 (talk) 15:30, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for September 9

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Spindle turning, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Stool (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) 09:34, 9 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

USS Seawolf (SSN-575) and bow sonar

Thank you for your comment. If you don't mind, we can continue the discussion on my talkpage. --BjKa (talk) 13:02, 9 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'll be away for a few days, so I can't continue the discussion right away, but I want to say thanks for engaging in a constructive dispute instead of just reverting. I find that kind of behaviour much too rarely. (see the latest version of the article and my talkpage) --BjKa (talk) 14:35, 9 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Rainhill Trials

Hi, did you notice that my edit, that you reverted, was itself a reversion of the addition of unsourced information earlier today? I've looked back through the page history, and far from being "incessant", the sentence concerned was first added on 23 January 2011 and stood completely unaltered (not even the vandals touched it) until today. --Redrose64 (talk) 20:23, 11 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This tale of the Rocket replica being incompetently made with a weak axle has circulated the anorak press for 35 years and there is no truth to it. The addition that you removed was a far more accurate version of it - although responsibility for the track at Bold not being in a condition to cope with the sudden influx of heavy locos will probably never be cleared up.

If you want to take a WP-hardline view that an unsourced addition needs to be removed then fine, that's WP policy. However you should not then restore an equally unsourced, untrue and defamatory story in its place. Why quote BLP when restoring it?

Overall, I'd question why this trivial detail (as noted, hard work overnight and the fact the axle wasn't damaged meant that it didn't have any effect on the cavalcade) is even in the article on the 1829 trials? When I saw this I thought at first it was an article on the 1980 event. Andy Dingley (talk) 21:26, 11 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Here's Rocket, running during the cavalcade. youtu.be/SsPWcFPM9Ac?t=3275

Here's the loco that did travel on a low loader, Novelty. youtu.be/SsPWcFPM9Ac?t=184

@Rbsb: Andy Dingley (talk) 21:40, 11 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I mentioned WP:BLP because the version as edited by Rbsb names one person (Mike Sato) directly, as well as a named company (Sutton & Son St Helens Ltd) - we don't know if any of these people are alive or dead, so we must assume that they are alive; whereas the previous version did not name anybody, living or dead. --Redrose64 (talk) 23:00, 11 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Archives