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

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]

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]

I'm back. Have you seen my proposal of 2016-09-09 ? --BjKa (talk) 08:34, 16 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]

It's hardly an improvement per BLP to remove one set of accurate content mentioning him by name when it's replaced by something highly defamatory. Even if he's not mentioned, it's obvious who is intended, as the builder of the replica. Andy Dingley (talk) 16:10, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

So let's remove the whole thing, leaving only the sentence "A replica of Novelty was built for the event, which was also attended by replicas of Sans Pareil and Rocket (plus coach)." After all, the paragraph content after that point is both unsourced and disputed, so per WP:V it "must include an inline citation that directly supports the material" - and failing that, may be removed. --Redrose64 (talk) 22:12, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'd support deleting most of this article as irrelevant. Now it also seems to be collecting even more fabricated cruft. Andy Dingley (talk) 23:53, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I removed the direct names and marked the rest as needing a source. --Redrose64 (talk) 07:42, 13 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

A brownie for you!

I am now convinced that none of the socking I've seen is your responsibility, and I'm sorry about our past misunderstandings. I'm sure you have always acted in good faith, and I share your frustration that some characters appear to be given free rein to damage the project as much as they like. I hope some brownie will help relieve the smell of socks. Burninthruthesky (talk) 06:34, 15 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thankyou for that, but do you see the corrosive effects that your continuing sock allegations are having? - even though you've now dropped me off your suspects list Andy Dingley (talk) 09:47, 15 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I do see some continuing noise. I do not intend to make any further reports unless new evidence emerges and I hope that won't be necessary. Burninthruthesky (talk) 10:24, 15 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

F-16 side stick

Hi. You just reverted my edit in the HOTAS article. I noticed it was lacking images, and this one was the best that I could find. There's actually a lack of good photos of flight control sticks on Commons, and the few that are there don't illustrate the HOTAS concept very well. This schematic drawing of the F-16 control stick (with the F-16 being the only model mentioned twice in the text) does. You said "Wrong controller". I double-checked if the image actually shows the F-16's side conttol stick, and it does. So I don't understand the revert comment. Would you mind explaining it? Thank you. --YMS (talk) 22:50, 17 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This is an article on HOTAS - where the pilot places their left hand onto the throttle grip and keeps it there. This is a novel change: a new technique, and new designs for throttle grips, with additional controls on them.

This image is of an F-16's main joystick, not the throttle. Pilots have had joysticks in aircraft, and have used them with a similar grip, since the Wright brothers.

The article needs an image of a modern throttle grip, not a joystick. Andy Dingley (talk) 09:10, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page stalker) Hi Andy. But the AS bit of HOTAS is "And Stick"? Ideally the article should show images of both a throttle and a stick. But these can't really illustrate the concept without some indication of control function. At least that diagram partly shows that? Or are you saying it's misleading just to have one without the other? Martinevans123 (talk) 09:15, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The "And" though indicates the addition. The HOTAS article shouldn't be about "How to hold a plane to fly it", it should be about "How HOTAS is different from practice beforehand". That change is all about the left hand, not the right. Andy Dingley (talk) 09:17, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I would hope that Commons:Category:Thrust levers (aircraft cockpits) might help, but it's unsorted and hard to find. I might have to take a camera into the workshop instead. Andy Dingley (talk) 09:18, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, yes ok, I see what you're saying. Although for most aircraft autopilot means the stick doesn't have to held to fly the aircraft. I'd say the HOTAS "concept" is to maximise hands on either control, not just on the throttle. I do hope you'll be able to land your workshop successfully, especially while holding a camera. Martinevans123 (talk) 09:29, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There's just the same drawing for the F-16's throttle grip on Commons: File:F-16 Throttle.jpg. I did not add it originally as I thought the side stick would illustrate the concept better, as it offers much more control. If you say that the key in this concept is the throttle, would it help to add both images? --YMS (talk) 10:23, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. I'd suggest that any article called "HOTAS" should show a real throttle and a stick, ideally in a real cockpit, with them in situ, and with separate schematics, like yours, to show control allocation. The control functions themselves might well require some explanation, of course. Martinevans123 (talk) 10:32, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

AfD

I am not interested in your attitude [1]. And, the article is written like a tech manual - it is a really badly written article, just awful. I'll be giving the ALL the references a closer look now. In any case, please knock off the attitude. You're not better than everyone else. Steve Quinn (talk) 20:05, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Then don't put ridiculous "notability" tags on articles with >10k page views a month.

This is not a good article. There are things wrong with it. But notability is not one of them, and this much is obvious. Andy Dingley (talk) 20:14, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

OK, you have a point there. Steve Quinn (talk) 21:08, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I added a section at the top of the page, just after the introduction. I didn't change anything except for creating a new section. I would like you to check it out. If you don't like it, then I have no problem with you or anyone else changing it back. I think it is an improvement, but maybe it is not. Steve Quinn (talk)

So what's wrong with this article? Is the topic wrong? Does the scope of the article match what it ought to? Does the content of the article meet that scope? Are things missing? Wrong? Poorly written?

This belongs at the article talk page, not here, but notifying @Tu,r6u.r68.r68: too. Andy Dingley (talk) 21:50, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

AVRE

Hi Andy,

I've updated the talk page on AVRE with information and quotes from the references I added. I think you probably missed them and just saw the forum one, which I can understand you not liking. Can you take a look, and if you're happy reinstate the changes that I'd made (or at least give me a heads up) - there's no point in an undo-war. I'm looking at original documents from the source of the term, and I also have the one from the same time with the typo that caused the confusion over the term. Happy to share info.

Thanks, Lauren Lkchild (talk) 22:10, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Christie suspension

can u look at talk page there ? I found schematics for 10TP tank and told it was no Christie.... But with your clarification I am not so sure. Maybe they used unlicensed Christie afterall.... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.111.232.2 (talk) 20:37, 25 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I know little of Polish tanks, but as I understand it, they were one of the first adopters of the Christie design, around 1930, and they negotiated to buy a licence from Christie. Then something happened and the deal fell through. But Poland continued with the Christie design and produced one or more tank designs using it; using Christie's name for these tanks but without Christie's involvement. They even used the feature of wheel drive with the tracks removed. The Polish design also had a couple of improvements: the upper spring mount was placed on a swinging trunnion (this avoids sideways bending forces on a shock absorber placed within the spring) and they also lifted one of the centre wheels, when running in wheels mode (this made it more easily steerable).

I don't know the 10TP - but why wouldn't it be Christie? Andy Dingley (talk) 21:51, 25 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Referencing for B. Hick and Sons

Hi Andy, any idea how I get the citations in the Ex Links section to go up the page to References - I guess there must be a formatting trick somewhere? Many thanks 80.229.34.113 (talk) 11:13, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

How long have you got? This stuff isn't too hard in simple cases, but there's a huge depth to it if you dig further.

WP:REF covers the basics. Let me do some typing...

One way to do it (the basics) is to put "citations" inline in the text, then to use a {{reflist}} template in the References section. This does the listing and linking automatically (if you've ever had to write papers without this, you'll love easily how MediaWiki does it!).

A 'citation' is a pointer in the body text to a 'reference' which is some pre-existing external thing (although, as always, the names get mixed around in practice). Each citation looks like this: A claim in the text.<ref >Some stuff about an external source.</ref>

Citations often point to specific page numbers in a reference book. Different citations use different pages, so keep them separate.
You might use the same reference (to the page) in more than one citation (i.e. the same page too). This can be done like this:

Another claim in the text.<ref name="Bloggs, 23" >Bloggs, J. ''Witterings'', p.23</ref>

More claims.<ref name="Bloggs, 23" />

I wouldn't do it this way for a long article, or with many references. It's easier to manage lots of refs if you use the multi-citation name= attribute (above) and use this to move all the refs themselves to one long list at the bottom, inside the {{reflist}}.

{{reflist |refs=

<ref name="Bloggs, 23" >Bloggs, J. ''Witterings'', p.23</ref>
<ref name="Arkwright, 42" >Arkwright, J. ''My Book'' (1989), p.42</ref>

}}

Watch the closing slash in the <ref> tags! Citations will use an empty tag (with a slash at the end), <ref ... />

Citations can be formatted with templates, like {{cite book}}. These are their own source of fun too.
Commonly citations share the same book, but different pages. There are templates to deal with this too.

Put the full {{cite book}} into the reference definition.
Add |ref=harv into the {{cite book}}. This gives the reference an "internal" name which the citations can then use. |ref=harv is shorthand for |ref={{harvid|<Author surname>|<year of publication>}}

e.g. |ref={{harvid|Arkwright|1989}}

You need to use |last=Arkwright |first=J. not |author=Arkwright ,J.

If 'harv' doesn't work (e.g. no obvious author surname, or the year is better as an original publication, not the cheap modern edition, use {{harvid}} and control the params yourself, e.g. |ref={{harvid|Machinery's Handbook|1942}}.

Now you can make citations that use this internal name. Speediest is {{sfnp|Arkwright|1989| page= 42 }}

{{sfnp}} is one of a bunch. {{sfnp}} takes the last unnamed parameter, assumes its a year and wraps it in brackets. Arkwright (1989), p. 42 harvp error: no target: CITEREFArkwright1989 (help)

{{sfn}} doesn't do the year thing, so it's good for bare titles, {{sfn|The Epic of Gilgamesh}}.

{{sfnp}} / {{sfn}} also handle the <ref> business for you. There are also {{harvp}} / {{harvnb}} which do the same but don't wrap it up in <ref>s, so that you can work with the bare result. It's called {{harvnb}} ("no brackets") rather than {{harv}} because "harv" was already in use.

If you have an article with many citations to a few major books as references, then consider pulling these out into a Bibliography section. Use the {{Cite book}} template and the |ref=harv business.
If you want to use "footnotes" (editorial commentary rather than referencing) as well as references, then use {{efn-lr}} and {{notelist-lr}}. These are simpler than old ways involving <ref> tags. You can also embed citations inside an {{efn-lr}}, so that you can source your comments.

Look at how other articles are doing things too. Better articles, that is!

Look at my recent changes to some of the cites on that article.

Ask if you want to know anything specific, otherwise this should get you started. Andy Dingley (talk) 12:09, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

References

I tried 2 experiments:

1. Defining a new ref name (<ref name='Great 293'>) in the body of the article and using it in the External links section - this failed.

2. Pasting the External links section above the References section - this succeeded resulting in 52 numbered citations.

It would seem therefore that citations inserted below the defined References section are not automatically sent back up the page and citations above the defined References section are sent down the page by default.

I can only guess there most be some code that switches the default of sending an instance down to up? Regards81.149.141.199 (talk) 18:10, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The reflist must be after the places where the references are used, this is a system limitation. The "External links" section should be after the "References" section, see MOS:ORDER. Individual external links are not given references of their own; their inclusion should be self-evident - if you feel that you need to justify inclusion, it may be a sign that the reason for inclusion is weak. Perhaps your explanatory notes could form part of the article text, where references are welcome. --Redrose64 (talk) 19:13, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

{{Reflist}} doesn't necessarily list references, it actually lists citations, the points where those references are used in the body text. So it's not a limitation that the list has to appear afterwards/

If you use the split form of citations and references, with internal CITEREF names to link them, then the citation list can include the citations, but those citations link downwards to where the EL is.

In general though, we don't like ELs. (see WP:EL - we're supposed to be a self-contained encyclopedia, not a directory) - they're just a compromise when we can't do anything better. If you're using the EL, then it might be better to simply treat them as normal refs. Andy Dingley (talk) 19:19, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks to you both, I am working my way down the page by degrees.81.149.141.199 (talk) 10:03, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Stop

You know nothing about bridges and thus should not be reverting me. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.199.236.1 (talk) 12:44, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This is Wikipedia. WP:RELIABLE SOURCES are necessary
As repeatedly invited, please discuss your changes. Maybe you're right, but you have to convince other editors first.
Don't WP:EDIT WAR. Otherwise you'll simply be blocked.

Andy Dingley (talk) 12:49, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

you're edit warring too by reverting me constantly. 50.199.236.1 (talk) 13:18, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Then post this to WP:ANEW. Also see WP:BURDEN. Andy Dingley (talk) 13:27, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

September 2016

Your recent editing history at Drawbridge shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. 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 article's 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. See BRD for 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 your 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 don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.

Stop reverting my good-faith edits to the page. I am an expert on bridges and you clearly are not. Please stop. 50.199.236.1 (talk) 14:19, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hydrogen peroxide categories.

You have created three categories Category:Rocket engines using hydrogen peroxide propellant, Category:Rocket engines using hot cycle hydrogen peroxide propellant and Category:Rocket engines using cold cycle hydrogen peroxide propellant. They have some issues that I would like to discuss with you.

First, and this is something I should rise on a more general forum, they categories under "by propellant" are wrong. A bi-propellant, has a fuel and an oxidizer. So in general, hydrogen, methane and kerosene categories are wrong. But at least they are consistent in that they are named by fuel, not oxidizer. Hydrogen Peroxide is the oxidizer, not the fuel. If so we should also add categories for oxygen and nitric acid. Which I don't think that it would be productive.

Then, there's the issue that you mixed "hot cycle" and "cold cycle" as sub categories. Again, two issues. First, that you are mixing cycle with propellant. And second that you haven't defined what is a hot cycle nor a cold cycle. There's not article and no literature. May be you meant by "hot cycle" the steam generator cycle, where H₂O₂ is decomposed by a catalyst? If so, I've meant to write about steam generators in general, but I was still trying to see if I should fit them within the gas-generator for the open cycles (like the RD-107) and within the staged generator for the closed cycles (like the Bristol Siddeley Gamma).

So, if you could explain me the rationale of your categories, I think we could do something to arrange them in a more logical way. – Baldusi (talk) 00:17, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have a point? Or are you just asserting ownership of the rocket engine sub-categories? Categories for LOX and nitric acid oxidisers would be an excellent idea too. Anyone adequately familiar with the technical field will know the difference between hot and cold cycle HTP engines. Nor are all cold cycle HTP engines using HTP as a monopropellant - many used a consumed liquid catalyst too, and these are considered as bipropellants, even though neither is fuel or oxidiser. Andy Dingley (talk) 01:38, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

First, yes, I could claim moral rights for categories I have created and all my edits, and you could perfectly well overwrite with new edits (those edits are yours obviously) and then we could very well get into an edit war. A more productive option, and frankly, what I would prefer, is for knowledgeable editors to work towards organizing categories in a consistent, encompassing and simple structure. I made not one but four points on consistency and order, that I was hoping you would discuss in good faith. If you don't want to, that's fine, we'll have a more populous discussion in Wikipedia:WikiProject Spaceflight or WP:CFD. But I usually rather work with technically literate editors.

Regarding your assertion that everybody knows what's a hot and cold cycle for H₂O₂, I couldn't find a single mention of hot cycle, nor cold cycle on any Wikipedia article that I could find. Nor did I found any reference in Google, Sutton (7th edition) or other such literature. I did ask you if you meant for hot cycle as steam generation by H₂O₂ is decomposed by a catalyst. And it was called steam generator cycle by Von Braun, Sutton, Rocketdyne and such literature from 50s to the 80s. As I told you before, I was pondering if an article about the H₂O₂ catalysis should be written separately or within Gas-generator cycle and Staged combustion cycle, since categories and articles should be intimately related. So, do you want to discuss this in good faith not not? – Baldusi (talk) 14:14, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

HTP rocketry has largely been a European occupation, and particularly (as the chemistry is relatively innocuous) around manned aircraft. Sutton has always, and surprisingly, ignored it. So look to the 1950s, and British practice, or the earlier wartime work in Germany. One might include hot cycle HTP as "staged combustion" (no-one does), within WP's usual rigid and invented taxonomy, but as your article on it states, "Staged combustion [...] first proposed in 1949. " I don't know how you want to play this, but claiming that the main focus of work in two countries for decades doesn't exist, or that other editors aren't allowed to work in the same field because you don't consider them "knowledgeable" is no way to begin. Andy Dingley (talk) 16:29, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

English is not my mother tongue, but I still fail to see where I claim to have written the staged combustion article. I don't enjoy sophism, since I made a simple bibliographical request that you point me anywhere where cold and hot cycles for HTP is defined. I can't comment on thing I don't know, nor have found any literature. And I did quoted the Bristol Siddeley work on the very first post, and are pretty aware of its use by German and then Russian rockets. I understand the difference between using liquid HTP as oxidizer vs first catalyzing like the Gamma series of rockets did. I simply don't know, nor have I found any literature, on which is called a cold or hot cycle.

By the way, the earliest mention of "staged combustion" that I know of, is Isayev's. But they actually call it "gas generation with turbine gas afterburning in the combustion chamber". So any work on post combustion of HTP catalyzed gas would probably have been named differently and is very difficult to match. Also, the Russians think of closed and open cycles, and of injector state (like in liquid-liquid, liquid-gas and gas-gas). All those are possible and very valid ways to categorize engine cycles and an excellent target for inclusion in the Rocket engine. Yet, someone should do the bibliographical survey and actually add it to the article.

As you are well aware, in Wikipedia we can't do original research, and thus we should write only about what we can cite. I'm not making any judgment weather hot and cold cycle are an industry accepted standard for HTP rockets. I'm actually inquiring on what bibliographic citations can you supply so me or anyone can add it to the discussion of cycles, and to understand what would be the best way to present it, within its own article, or as different implementation of different articles. – Baldusi (talk) 17:20, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Look at the early German history for "cold" vs "hot", both as engineering and as terminology. The first engines were for RATO with the cold cycle (a bipropellant with a consumable catalyst), the Me163 was the canonical example of the differences between cold and hot: the airframe first flew with the cold cycle engine, the production aircraft switched (delayed by the engine's availablity) to the hot cycle, where the hot and oxygen-rich exhaust of the cold cycle process was used as the oxidiser with kerosene. I don't know the German terms off-hand, but their general translation has been literally as "cold" and "hot", even though the cold cycle is obviously far from cold.

I have no refs to hand, as it's the weekend, but any decent history of the Me163 (rather than a specific rocketry text) will cover this. A Vertical Empire is the best history of British 1960s rocketry and the Bristol hot cycle engines. The British cold cycle work, much of which was by Armstrong-Siddeley, is quite well covered in Flight. All of these rocket engine articles are quite well sourced already. Andy Dingley (talk) 15:12, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Reverts to Staple Hill and Easton

Hi, I disagree with you reverting my quite comprehensive edits. The articles were both terribly outdated and I have made an effort to improve them. I will continue to do this to the best of my ability with other Bristol and South Glos area articles. Your reversions do not help to improve the articles. If you want to join in and contribute positively that would be great, particularly finding some good references for both pages. Thanks :)Trunky (talk) 12:27, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You have repeatedly deleted most of an article, across a range of sections throughout it. You are also claiming that geology has no relevance to Easton, when Easton originally developed as a coal-mining area. Were you also editing these articles (and much the same bulk deletions) as an IP editor? I would bring your attention to WP:BRD: when you make a clearly controversial edit (and repeat it across several articles) and find yourself reverted by another editor, you are required to make some attempt to discuss this, not simply to edit-war and repeat it regardless. You will find yourself blocked for doing that. Andy Dingley (talk) 15:04, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Much of the Bristol area sits on coal strata, several areas were active in the mining of it. No other articles have a geology section. None. Please help and contribute rather than trashing my quite positive efforts. Trunky (talk) 07:07, 2 October 2016 (UTC) Addendum - I always edit as this ID, if you are accusing me of sock puppetry then I am quite offended. Trunky (talk) 07:08, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Bruv !

~~Hello Andy, I am Kain, I am also from the UK like you, I see you have done a lot of edits, but still why you don't have the administrator post in Wikipedia.~~

Gandalf the Wizard • Talk 9:07, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

Hi Gandalf / Kain. Thanks, but I've never wanted to be an admin. Also the process of applying is particularly unpleasant. Andy Dingley (talk) 12:52, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Dredge

I suspect it's about time to knock out the issues with Victoria bridge. Want to take a pass at it? Anmccaff (talk) 18:04, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you!

	The Anti-Vandalism Barnstar
	For rescuing Edward Jenner's article from getting messed up. -- AI RPer (talk) 11:12, 6 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Alternative accounts

There are many edits that require using an alternative account, and twelve are clearly outlined at WP:VALIDALT. I have and expect to edit using both the first two reasons and the eleventh. This account racked up 5,000 edits for two reasons, I wanted become an Admin and would use this account as an admin account (users with multiple accounts have to choose only one for admin actions), and to edit solar articles. The only reason I am requesting what is really a standard offer, is so that while I will likely make less than 5 edits a month (out of the perhaps 1,000?? edits I make), I can use my primary account to make them. I have created 176 articles but likely will not be creating any more from this alternative account, but instead will use my primary account, and not even make any edits from this account for the foreseeable future, and have thus marked my user page. But that means that for reasons of security and privacy I can not edit any solar accounts. As an admin account must be publicly linked to your primary account I did for a while link my primary account but as one of the primary reasons for creating this account was privacy that sort of throws that out the window, so now it is just listed as being an alternative account, and I will be sending an email to Arb to notify them of the link when the restrictions are listed. Until they are I am unable to edit any semi protected solar accounts. I think everyone thought I would just use this for everything but that simply is not viable. I value my privacy too much. I have never told anyone (IRL) of these two accounts and never will. With only 0–4 edits (combined) to check each month monitoring my edits will not take much time.

I have settled into a task far more important than being an admin and it is all consuming of my available wiki time for now. A picture is worth a thousand words. One of the SVGs I translated is used in 93 projects and is translated into about 150 languages. That one edit took me about four months to insert the roughly 7,500 word translations, but now that it is done can be used in each of those languages in native language, and it would probably not take more than an hour for anyone to add another language. Prior to that there were 39 languages that it were available in, in separate files. Now only one or a few of those are still necessary, as technical limitations prohibits including two variants of a language, such as Simplified and Traditional Chinese. Apteva (talk) 22:38, 6 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Archives