|This user is a member of the Motorcycling WikiProject, a WikiProject which aims to develop and expand Wikipedia's coverage of motorcycles and motorcycling. Please feel free to join us.|
|Archives for the AndrewDressel talk page|
Leave a message by clicking here, and remember to sign your message with ~~~~.
- 1 A Bit of Recognition
- 2 Award of Good Fellowship
- 3 Cardboard bicycle frame
- 4 ANI notice: Cantaloupe2, assuming_bad_faith., Wikistalking, _misinterpreting_policies
- 5 Xtracycle pictures
- 6 DYK for Cardboard bicycle
- 7 Rolling resistance
- 8 Measuring characteristics of bicycle tires
- 9 Recumbent trail-a-bike
- 10 Who is the doctor?
- 11 Recumbent bicycle with drive shaft powertrain.
- 12 Open frame
- 13 About Bicycle wheel article
- 14 Question about your BikeLean picture.
- 15 DYK for Baisikeli Ugunduzi
- 16 Ross (bicycles)
- 17 Working Bikes
- 18 Undo on my manufacturer entry
- 19 sram dual drive
- 20 Articles not yet on Wikipedia.
- 21 unicycling taskforce
- 22 Bicycle and motorcycle geometry comments
- 23 Notification of automated file description generation
- 24 Revert article
- 25 File:Euler's_disk.png
- 26 Happy that I have found you
- 27 Definition of Saddle is incorrect.
- 28 Flying Eggs
- 29 Countersteering
- 30 My edit about SI units on Newton's Second Law
- 31 and dennnnn?
- 32 Motorcycle cornering when out of the saddle
- 33 Two-mass-skate bicycle
- 34 Interview for The Signpost
- 35 Unicycle Links
- 36 Edit warrring on wheel truing stand
- 37 Ownership issues, much?
- 38 fat bike entry
- 39 Humber (bicycle)
- 40 List of bicycle brands and manufacturing companies
- 41 an article you might be interested in
- 42 Eugène Meyer
A Bit of Recognition
|The Original Barnstar|
|Thank you for your tireless, ongoing work on bicycle-related content. Ebikeguy (talk) 19:26, 14 February 2011 (UTC)|
Award of Good Fellowship
|Good Fellowship Award|
|I am honored to present you with this Award of Good Fellowship in appreciations for your assistance in making the article Betrayal (1929 film) look much better. Such help makes a better place for everyone. Thank you. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 06:03, 18 April 2011 (UTC)|
Cardboard bicycle frame
You said that anyone can edit, and someone told me this information that was posted was untrue, so i changed it. that's all. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.127.116.11 (talk) 14:06, 19 January 2013 (UTC)
- Sure, anyone can edit, but those edits must confirm with the established rules for an encyclopedia. Your edit failed to meet that criteria in several areas:
- Encyclopedias are not written in the first person. Sentences should not begin with "I have". How is the reader supposed to know who the writer is?
- Encyclopedias contain verifiable information that conforms with the provided references. In this case, the reference already provided confirms the inventors name and makes no mention of wet cardboard.
- If you believe that the current text is incorrect, you must either show how it does not match the current provided reference, or provide a new reliable reference to support your claim. -AndrewDressel (talk) 14:44, 19 January 2013 (UTC)
ANI notice: Cantaloupe2, assuming_bad_faith., Wikistalking, _misinterpreting_policies
Hi AndrewDressel, are you interested in participating in the related RfCU drafting process (User:Dreamyshade/RFCU)? YuMaNuMa made a good-faith addition of your username due to involvement at AN/I, but I don't know if you're explicitly interested in being included. If you'd prefer not to be listed, feel free to remove yourself (or let me know and I'll remove you). Thanks! Dreamyshade (talk) 02:46, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
- This is not Andrew Dressels [sic] own CV advertising blog. This is Wikipedia
- How dare you put your own pic up as bike mechanic when all you've done is work in a bike shop for 17 months. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 18.104.22.168 (talk) 01:19, 12 July 2015 (UTC)
- We hav [sic] a class one nutter attempting to lay claim to all the cycling entries.
- Rewriting articles to put your name to. adding a picture of yourself working(allegedly) on a bicycle.
- how can you claim to be a mechanic with a mere 17 months experience ?. Those like myself who pick up on this are then personally attacked. Walter Mitty without a doubt. Clearly the foundation should go the special extra mile and in a change of policy ban the likes of you and your opinions. Much of then [sic] are only that. Wiki is to be factual and you know little. I bet you haven't even got a bike you fraud 22.214.171.124 (talk) 01:40, 12 July 2015 (UTC).
- These comments must be from the person that used to edit under user:Cantaloupe2, right? Why else would they be inserted in this ANI notification section, be so full of typographical errors, and be so bitter? The change in the link to the old Administrators Notice Board discussion from "en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#User:Cantaloupe2.2C_assuming_bad_faith.2C_Wikistalking.2C_misinterpreting_policies" to "en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#User:Cantaloupe2.2C_hits_nail_squarely.2C_on.2C_its_head" is particularly hilarious.
- Anyway, as to your "points":
- Do you know what is the required time for a person to work as a bicycle mechanic before they may be referred to as a bicycle mechanic? I haven't seen that spec. I suspect, however, that working full-time at a bike shop, drawing a paycheck from a bike shop, and lasting more than a season at a bike shop, would be sufficient.
- Do you know where it is stated in the wikipedia policies or guidelines that uploaded images should not contain the likeness of the uploader? I haven't seen that either. I do know, however, that the easiest way to have the necessary rights to an image, which seems to be the main thing wikipedia cares about, is to create it yourself, as by taking a photograph.
- How on earth do you construe "working on articles in which I have an interest" as "attempting to lay claim to all the cycling entries?" How do you think I have laid claim? By having my userID appear in the edit history? You realize that happens automatically, right? And if an editor edited many articles, in an attempt to improve them, for example, their userID would appear in the edit history of many articles. Is that what you mean by "lay claim?"
- I know enough. I know I need to find reliable sources to support the assertions I make, and I know I need to be civil and avoid edit wars with other users. I know it is not a good idea to edit under an anonymous IP address to evade a block and make baseless accusations against another editor in good standing on their own talk page. What more do I need?
- And now, the best for last: do I even have a bike? You'll love this part. Several of them are pictured in the appropriate wikipedia articles, because there isn't even a rule preventing editors from taking pictures of their own bicycles and uploading them. Can you imagine?
DYK for Cardboard bicycle
|On 4 February 2013, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Cardboard bicycle, which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that a cardboard bicycle has been made that weighs just 20 pounds (9.1 kg) and can support up to 220 kilograms (490 lb)? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Cardboard bicycle. You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check) and it will be added to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.|
- Final numbers where 23,245 views on February 3, 2013 during the 8 hours it appeared on the main page: 2906 views per hour. -AndrewDressel (talk) 16:05, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
OK, I just edited the first paragraph of the article on rolling resistance and corrected a major error in the statement. The added references support my claim and therefore constitute undeniably a valuable contribution to this article on Wikipedia. I see no conflict of interest anymore... — Preceding unsigned comment added by GPZ76 (talk • contribs) 19:07, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
- I have moved your excellent addition from the lede paragraph to a section specifically about applied torque. Since you do not provide links to online versions of the references, I will accept on good faith that they support your not-unreasonable claim. It could be argued that a reliable online source for the same detail would be more valuable, but I'll leave that for another day. As for conflict of interest, I agree now that your references meet the guidelines spelled out in Wikipedia:Coi#Citing_yourself: specifically Using material you have written or published is allowed within reason, but only if it is relevant, conforms to the content policies, and is not excessive. Citations should be in the third person and should not place undue emphasis on your work. Thank you for your contribution. -AndrewDressel (talk) 19:27, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
- OK, thank you for having managed this contribution. The references correspond to publications in the International Journal of Solids and Structures (which is a reliable online source). Additional links are provided to online pages where authors' versions (of the same material) may be downloaded by the reader. — Preceding unsigned comment added by GPZ76 (talk • contribs) 19:55, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
Measuring characteristics of bicycle tires
I recently began studying tire properties to study their effect on bicycle dynamics at University of California, Davis. A former lab member recommended I look up your work, and indeed I found your paper titled 'Measuring sideslip and camber characteristics of bicycle tyres'. I was wondering if I could speak with you sometime about what you have done.
I noticed you posted a photo with recumbent trail-a-bike (trail-a-trike?), and I was wondering if you might able to point me to where I might acquire one. I'd like to do some bike touring with my sons, and a recumbent trailer seems to be the right option for us.
- I took that picture in the Netherlands, and don't know what brand or model it is.
- I hope some of this helps. -AndrewDressel (talk) 18:44, 26 February 2013 (UTC)
Who is the doctor?
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Quadracycle&diff=547932089&oldid=547907686 That is not the proper formulation of that question. The proper formulation is "Doctor Who?". 126.96.36.199 (talk) 10:34, 1 April 2013 (UTC)
Recumbent bicycle with drive shaft powertrain.
I just wanted to point for your consideration that Miragebikes has designed a novel type of recumbent bicycle with drive shaft powertrain replacing chain drive. This alternative is good for urban commuting and easy maintenance. 188.8.131.52 (talk) 17:32, 1 April 2013 (UTC)
- I noticed that you have contributed to article about shaft driven bicycles. I am working with shaft driven bicycles and I have noticed that number of such bike models are on the increase. The improvements in hub-gears has made drive shaft more tempting option, and lately drive shaft has been adopted in many electric hybrid bicycles (Biomega, Wayel for example) In my company we have created first commercial recumbent bicycle with drive shaft. There are at least two commercialy used drive shaft systems in the market place. The other one is coming from the company Sussex (used by us, Dynamic Bicycles, Rugged Bicycles, etc.) and Chinese system from company whose name I do not remember now (Biomega and Wayel are using that one). Feel free to contact me if you want to continued discussion about the topic.
- Best regards
- Tatu Lund
My contributions to the bicycle frame page were both constructive and argumented. Please restore the changes to make Wikipedia useful to its readers.
As I stated, Open frame is the accepted term, both on commercial websites and colloquially. People searching should be able to find it. Here is also an old reference for its use, 
- "Nimrod road tests the Jack Taylor touring bicycle". Cycling. March 16, 1960. Retrieved 2013-04-02.
their range of seventeen models includes a woman's open frame bicycle
- Funny thing about that reference you cite: I found it and inserted it. Thus, I have a pretty good idea how hard it was to find. As things stand now, Wikipedia readers will have no trouble finding "open frame bicycle". Any further insertions of that synonym will simply be giving it undue weight. Further discussion of this topic belongs on Talk:Bicycle_frame#Open_frame. -AndrewDressel (talk) 18:22, 2 April 2013 (UTC)
- I am wondering why commercial advertisements are not a good reference source, as that's where most people would come across the terms. At the same time, I see your point that there is enough reference to open frame (where there wasn't before), so people who look for it will find it. Thanks for finding the old reference, since it gives it some legitimacy in non-commercial circles as well. 184.108.40.206 (talk) 21:08, 2 April 2013 (UTC)
- In the past, I have also wondered about and chaffed under the lack of respect shown to commercial sites, especially for the accepted name of things. Now I'm used to it. Thanks for getting this new name added to the articles, and I'm glad we seem to have come to an agreement about it. I hope this experience hasn't discouraged you from making future contributions. -AndrewDressel (talk) 21:22, 2 April 2013 (UTC)
- No, no. I appreciate it. It's often jarring at first when something is changed without a person understanding why. But I see there is not only a good reason, but people like you who care enough to find the reference for the common term they don't want to see overused. I am a big fan of Wikipedia and this is an experience in reaching reasoned consensus, that makes me appreciate it even more. As you mention, the lack of respect shown to commercial sites may be part of a philosophy. & as long as it doesn't ignore accepted names or otherwise interfere with reasonable usefulness of search, it's probably ok. 220.127.116.11 (talk) 21:35, 2 April 2013 (UTC)
About Bicycle wheel article
So Andrew Dressel, you’ve turned down some of my edits because Sheldon Brown’s references where not good enough for you, hmmm, data was thoroughly researched, beginning to have doubts about reject, should have given some time to discuss matters with other Wikipedians, at least given me a buzz in my talk page about matter, but you were too quick, plus other constructive edits where blown away. Let’s keep Wikipedia neutral dude!, let us not fall into promotional gimmicks, history has already been written, let us be real, that’s how Wikipedia strengthens! Cheers — Moebiusuibeom-en (talk) 01:07, 11 May 2013 (UTC)
- Yup. I checked the references, including Sheldon Brown, who is perfectly good enough for me, and none of them confirm that 650B is equivalent to 27.5", as you repeatedly asserted. In fact, neither reference even mentions 27.5" once. I don't know what there is to discuss. -AndrewDressel (talk) 01:50, 11 May 2013 (UTC)
- Its the other way around, 650B’s are NOT equivalent to 27.5", plenty of sources confirm that, which i've included a couple, ...and there's plenty more, lets not confuse facts by unfounded publicity contraptions, Sheldon Brown knows what his talking about, ...and i am very neutral, there's plenty of confusion about bicycle wheels and tires, let's not confuse even more, i've researched data thoroughly, so if you don't mind, i'll revert reverted version, peace brother — Moebiusuibeom-en (talk) 02:38, 11 May 2013 (UTC)
- And i repeat and have been very clear, a 27.5-inch mountain bike wheel uses a rim that has a diameter of 584 mm (23.0") and with wide, knobby tires ~27.5 x 2.3 / ISO 58-584, sum up to ~27.5".
Question about your BikeLean picture.
In this picture, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:BikeLeanForces3.PNG, I want to understand the term (mv^2)/r at center of mass. Why is this term at center of mass? Wouldn't this term negate friction force and make centripetal force zero? SkonMatayatana (talk) 17:58, 18 May 2013 (UTC)
- As the caption under the picture in the bicycle and motorcycle dynamics article attempts to explain, (mv^2)/r is an inertial force that appears in the non-inertial reference frame that is accelerating with the bike. It acts at the center of mass because it is an inertial force caused by the acceleration of the center of mass. In this non-inertial reference frame, the bike is at equilibrium in a steady-state turn, so yes, (mv^2)/r is equal and opposite to the friction force. -AndrewDressel (talk) 00:47, 20 May 2013 (UTC)
DYK for Baisikeli Ugunduzi
|On 30 May 2013, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Baisikeli Ugunduzi, which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that Baisikeli Ugunduzi has developed a replacement for bicycle tire inner tubes specifically for Sub-Saharan Africa that cannot go flat? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Baisikeli Ugunduzi. You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check) and it will be added to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.|
Undo on my manufacturer entry
Hi, why did you canceled my entry on the manufacturer list? Mbm (www.ciclimbm.it) was established in 1974 and is a well known italian bicycle manufacturer. Why would you want to cancel it from the list??
- The simple answer is that entries in the list must be notable, and that notability is indicated the be presence of a Wikipedia article about the brand or manufacturer. No article? No entry in the list. If you believe the brand or manufacturer would pass Wikipedia's notability criteria, by all means, create the article and add it to the list. -AndrewDressel (talk) 12:19, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
- So the page should be named Bicycle Manufacturers that you like ..... You give readers only the information you like and not complete . Please note that I've sent you as reference that company official website and only a simple search would show that is a real manufacturer missing from the list. Waist of time trying to do something good .... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dawgkernel (talk • contribs) 14:16, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
- It certainly is not a list of only manufacturers that I like, but I do my best to keep it a list of only manufacturers that meet Wikipedia's notability criteria, and the first paragraph of the notability guidelines explains exactly why that is necessary. The article specifically states that "this is an incomplete list, which may never be able to satisfy particular standards for completeness. You can help by expanding it with reliably sourced entries." If you feel strongly that some manufacturer should be on the list, then write the article about it, and there will be no problem. -AndrewDressel (talk) 14:44, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
sram dual drive
It is a Sram dual drive hub with 3 internal gears and a 9 sprocket cassette and disc brake assembly. The first internal gear, that's the high torque low speed for climbing steep slopes does not engage. The other two positions for level and downhill work OK when shifting. The Click Box is properly aligned at the 2nd middle gear position as per instructions. Understand that the 9 sprocket cassette coupled with the three internal gears of the dual drive will result in 27 separate speed combinations. In this case, the low internal gear not engaging, freewheels the entire cassette, resulting in only 18 operational speeds, not the 27 nominal that it has been designed to do. I need your advice to correct it. I have to walk the bike for steep hills... Thank you.
- The first thing I would suggest is that it is out of adjustment, but since you say that "the Click Box is properly aligned at the 2nd middle gear position as per instructions," it seems you have already checked that. I don't have any more knowledge about the system than that. It sounds like you will have to bring it to a dealer. Before I did, though, I would separate the drive from the shifter to try manipulating each manually and isolate the problem into one or the other. Sorry I can't help more. Best of luck. -AndrewDressel (talk) 12:43, 9 August 2013 (UTC)
Articles not yet on Wikipedia.
I was looking for the definition of a Power Lock on Wikipedia and couldn't find it. From the Keyed joint page the Hirth joint seemed the closest match, but definitely the wrong category. I was hoping someone might see the referenced PDFs, know something about these devices, and create a page, but after you deleted it I figured I might as well start it. I've added Power Lock to Coupling#Others in the hopes that someone will see it and fill it in. I now know from the manufacturers data sheets how it works and what it does but not much more so that's all I've added to the new page. Uno b4 (talk) 08:30, 9 October 2013 (UTC)
- Congratulations on creating the new page, but as you can see by checking it, there are some remaining issues. First and foremost is the lack of reliable 3rd-party sources. Does anyone other than the manufacturer write about Power Lock's anywhere? If not, then it just might not be a topic suitable for an encyclopedia. I appreciate that you are trying to get the word about about a product that you find important, but a key aspect to Wikipedia, and arguably one of the keys to its success as an information resource, is that everything in it needs to pass a minimal notability criteria, and all facts have to be verifiable. -AndrewDressel (talk) 15:10, 9 October 2013 (UTC)
I wondered if you got anywhere with that in the end, and if it might be better to just crack on with labeling unicycle articles as both wikiproject cycling and wikiproject circus? EdwardLane (talk) 11:36, 6 December 2013 (UTC)
Bicycle and motorcycle geometry comments
The terminology used throughout the Bicycle and motorcycle geometry page is confusing. This seems to be in large part due to the different way that "rake" is used on bicycles and motorcycles. I suspect that multiple authors were at work and they failed to seamlessly merge their contributions. What follows is mainly an attempt to straighten this out. I don't have a Wikipedia account and am new enough to editing Wikipedia pages that I thought it best to run this by you, who I gather is the biggest contributor to the page. There are two images below that I couldn't insert, apparently because of my not having an account, so I've uploaded them to Tinypic and included links in the text. -Bill Vyn 18.104.22.168 (talk) 21:39, 12 December 2013 (UTC)
- Bill, I've moved your detailed comments to Talk:Bicycle and motorcycle geometry and replied there. -AndrewDressel (talk) 16:01, 14 December 2013 (UTC)
Notification of automated file description generation
Your upload of File:Ape Hanglers.jpg or contribution to its description is noted, and thanks (even if belatedly) for your contribution. In order to help make better use of the media, an attempt has been made by an automated process to identify and add certain information to the media's description page.
This notification is placed on your talk page because a bot has identified you either as the uploader of the file, or as a contributor to its metadata. It would be appreciated if you could carefully review the information the bot added. To opt out of these notifications, please follow the instructions here. Thanks! Message delivered by Theo's Little Bot (opt-out) 12:08, 30 December 2013 (UTC)
- Another one of your uploads, File:Buddy Bike.jpg, has also had some information automatically added. If you get a moment, please review the bot's contributions there as well. Thanks! Message delivered by Theo's Little Bot (opt-out) 14:25, 2 March 2014 (UTC)
I'm wondering why you removed my contribution to the belt drive article. I saw text of "non-notable". Spot Brand belt drive bikes do not seem non-notable to me. Thx. -(Ronpage80 (talk) 15:47, 14 February 2014 (UTC) Ron
- I am using Wikipedia's notability criteria, and there is not yet an article on Wikipedia about the company you added. If you feel that Spot Brand is notable, please create an article about it. -AndrewDressel (talk) 13:45, 15 February 2014 (UTC)
Hi, AndrewDressel! Thanks for uploading your illustration of Euler's Disk. I just uploaded it to Wikimedia Commons, since it is potentially suitable for inclusion on multiple wikimedia projects. In the future, you may consider uploading it there yourself, instead of uploading it here, where only English Wikipedia can use it. Cheers, and thanks again for the illustration! Storkk (talk) 15:26, 21 March 2014 (UTC)
Happy that I have found you
Hello Andy, hope you remember the Sheremet family from Kiew. I am Anna the sister of Vitali and I life in Germany now. Mom is in Rome Italy an Vitali still in Kiew. Would be proud to hear from you. You can contact me anytime you want email@example.com It is the email addy of my husband. Many greetings Anna Vitali and Raisa and now Eva and Oskar (they are the new memners of the family) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 22.214.171.124 (talk) 16:15, 26 March 2014 (UTC)
Definition of Saddle is incorrect.
Stop trying to back up absurd lying with made up definitions. Oxford English Dictionary
- 1) Saddle: n. A seat for a rider, typically made of leather, which is raised at the front and rear, and which may be secured to the back of a horse or other animal.
- 2) Saddle: n. A type of chair or seat: a bench, a settle. Chiefly as the second element in compounds
- 3) Saddle: v. transitive : to put a saddle upon (a horse or other animal).
What you are trying to do here, is uphold the incorrect definition of an item, for the sole purpose of having a more elitist name over the common and correct word of Bicycle Seat. As the seat is affixed to the Seat Post, not the Saddle Post. This does not need an entry by itself, but should be a subsection of the proper term bicycle seat. The example of the word bicycle seat is absurd at most. 126.96.36.199 (talk) 20:03, 26 July 2014 (UTC) Mike
- I have made up no definitions, and I advise you to refrain from make such baseless accusations. Instead, I cut and pasted the definition I cite directly and verbatim from the Oxford English Dictionary online. Here it is again along with all the historical examples upon which it is based:
- 4. A fixed seat for the rider of a bicycle, motorcycle, etc.
- 1819 Belles-lettres Repository May 31/2 The Velocipede, or Swift-walker... consists of two wheels, one behind the other, connected by a perch, on which a saddle is placed for the seat of the traveller... The saddle may be raised or lowered..at pleasure, and thus suited to the height of various persons.
- 1869 Times 5 June 1/5 Velocipedes.—The best bicycle yet introduced. Wrought ironwork, with brass bearings, best tempered steel springs, leather saddle, [etc.].
- 1887 Visct. Bury & G. L. Hillier Cycling (Badm. Libr.) 340 A suitable saddle is a necessity for the comfort of the cyclist.
- 1916 Motor Cyclists' A.B.C. 107 A kick starter is fitted to a machine for the purpose of allowing the engine to be started whilst the rider is in the saddle.
- 1923 H. L. Wilson Oh, Doctor! xxiv. 333 [He] threw a confident leg across the saddle and worshipfully grasped the spreading handle bars.
- 2003 S. Mawer Fall (2004) x. 146 He wiped the saddle of the bike and climbed astride it... ‘Hop on.’
- 4. A fixed seat for the rider of a bicycle, motorcycle, etc.
- If you do not have access to it, I suggest you try consulting your local library. In the meantime, let us move the discussion to Talk:Bicycle saddle. -AndrewDressel (talk)
I did a school project on flying eggs. They are mentioned in a few historical sources. Do you know where a english translation of the relevent passage in the Huainanzi could be found. Do you think they are noteworthy for a Wikipedia article, or a passage in Hot Air Ballon, with a redirect to the passage? Naytz (talk) 20:58, 8 August 2014 (UTC)
I see you previously have been active on the article on countersteering, so I'll bugger you a bit now. I've done some huge amounts of editing on it now:
- Reorganizing paragraphs
- Move related contents together
- Create a flow from top to bottom
- Remove duplicate text
- Remove stuff not related to countersteering
- Countersteering is performed by the driver, it is not a physical phenomena (referenced). The physics of what happens when the driver countersteers is still explained in great detail.
On the talk page there are some older discussions about "bikes vs. automobiles". I was bold and removed the whole thing (cars aren't bikes), and this did not relate to countersteering, only steering/turning. I removed the definition section, only one paragraph here was about definition and that one is moved to the top. This gymnast swing stuff was also rather hard to find related to countersteering...
Maybe you can have a look an see if I removed too much or if the article is fine now.
My edit about SI units on Newton's Second Law
I am not sure I agree with your reasoning as of yet, for three reasons. The reasoning you gave was, "It is true in any consistent system of units. No need to mention a favorite here."
1) The units I mentioned are the standard SI units. SI units are the ones used around the world. It is not that the units are my favorites but that they are the ones universally accepted.
2) The second law is not true if the units are changed. For instance if the second law is given in terms of Newtons, meters per second squared, and grams, it is no longer true. Units give physical meaning to a law and insight into what the law is saying.
3) In practice calculations involving the second law always involve units. It seems appropriate to mention units in a section about the second law because the second law is always used with units.
I would be interested in hearing what you have to say.
P.S. This point may not be worth mentioning. I mean, it's not my main argument, but that we would leave this statement, "Thus, the net force applied to a body produces a proportional acceleration. In other words, if a body is accelerating, then there is a force on it," which was adjacent to the statement I made about units, which you removed, but then remove a statement about units, really boggles my mind. It seems much more relevant to me to mention that there are units in which the force, mass and acceleration are mentioned than the restate the law in a sentence when it has already been stated as a formula. Just making the point that it is not like we're in dire need to save space. Units are so inherent in any calculations or understanding involving the second law that it seems strange to mention the law without mentioning units, and since SI units are the universally accepted system of units, those are the ones to go with. makeswell (talk) 03:50, 13 October 2014 (UTC)
- The truth of Newton's second law is independent of any system of units, and can just as easily be calculated correctly in US customary units, where force is in pounds, mass is in slugs, and acceleration is in ft/s^2. As your example in item 2 demonstrates, simply using SI units is not sufficient to be successful. It is always necessary to be aware of the units going into a formula in order to know what units come out of a formula and to make conversions when necessary. My objection was not specifically with providing an example calculation with units, but to the implied assertion that the law is only true if the correct units, or SI units, or even N, m, and kg, are chosen. Finally, the second law is not always used with units. Plenty of analyses are performed that incorporate the second law and many other laws to produce algebraic or unit-less results. After all, Newton published his laws in 1687, and the forerunner to SI units wasn't implemented until the 1790s. Let's continue this conversation on the article talk page. -AndrewDressel (talk) 21:31, 13 October 2014 (UTC)
Motorcycle cornering when out of the saddle
Hi Andrew You are clearly well versed on the subject. I am interested in your comments on the following: Motorcycle_cornering_when_out_of_the_saddle. Thanks! Mike163 (talk) 21:01, 13 November 2014 (UTC)
- Mike, thanks for the reminder. I've replied to your question there. -AndrewDressel (talk) 15:00, 15 November 2014 (UTC)
I felt confused about the need for "positive trail" when reading the article on the two-mass-skate bicycle. The history section seemed to be contradicted by other sections, until I read the entire article several times, and realized that the last sentence in the history section is in the past tense. I thought I could improve the article, by making it clear that the "presumption" mentioned there is no longer true.
Apparently, I also implied something else, which is not true, but I am not sure what it is. I would like the history section bring the reader up to the current state-of-the art, without the need to read the following paragraph. Otherwise, I suggest changing the history section to "Background."
You are obviously more knowledgeable about this subject than I, so I must leave it to you to decide what is true and what is not. I hope you can find a better way to improve the article, so it is less confusing.
Thanks for reviewing my change to two-mass-skate bicycle, and for your many other contributions to Wikipedia.
Interview for The Signpost
This is being sent to you as a member of WikiProject Articles for creation
The WikiProject Report would like to focus on WikiProject Articles for creation for a Signpost article. This is an excellent opportunity to draw attention to your efforts and attract new members to the project. Would you be willing to participate in an interview? If so, here are the questions for the interview. Just add your response below each question and feel free to skip any questions that you don't feel comfortable answering. Multiple editors will have an opportunity to respond to the interview questions, so be sure to sign your answers. If you know anyone else who would like to participate in the interview, please share this with them. Thanks, Rcsprinter123 (babble) @ 20:35, 4 January 2015 (UTC)
Yes you are right. No limits on Wikilinks. Was doing a clear out on various articles of external links which were dead, incorrect or promotional and I was too keen. However a list a manufacturers is not very informative without a link at all. Maybe those that aren't Wikilinked should go -Robynthehode (talk) 17:58, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
- Yes, I agree with you about the list items that do not link to a separate article. That is the criteria in the List of bicycle brands and manufacturing companies and Tandem bicycle articles. -AndrewDressel (talk) 19:31, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
Edit warrring on wheel truing stand
Your recent editing history 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 get 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. --Wuerzele (talk) 06:49, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
- P.S. Before I ever accuse someone as a WP:vandal, as you did on Talk:wheel truing stand, I look at their editing history, their user page. I first rule out an honest error, before insulting someone.( You didnt and shot from the hip)
- Your userpage very proudly claims that you are one of the 5,000 most active wikipedians of "all time" (which is idiotic hybris if you think about it - how can anyone claim into the future? ) I honestly cannot find you as such and not even as one of the 10,000. Looks like this decor is a shot in the foot. Have you ever thought about removing your unsourced (maybe outdated?) claim, before someone -equally martially as yourself- accuses/shoots you of misconduct? Live and let live, man--Wuerzele (talk) 07:35, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
- Let's see...
- The link you inserted in this edit is to Howard Hawkins, "an American politician and activist with the Green Party of the United States."
- I checked the link you inserted, and even though I reside in Milwaukee, as my user page indicates, and ride a bicycle to work every day, I did not find any indication that the linked article mentioned truing stands, so I removed it with the edit summary "No mention of truing stand in linked article."
- You reinserted the link with this edit to an article about "an American politician" without addressing the issue of there being no mention of truing stands that article. Your edit summary simply asserted that it was "sourced" material,
- I once again checked all the sources provide in the article, read the linked article, and found no mention of a connection between truing stands and the subject of the linked article. I even checked your user page, but I found no mention of bicycles or cycling, so I removed it again with the edit summary "No source provided. No mention of truing stand in linked article. Stop adding link spam."
- I came to this talk page and itemized the reasons for removing the link.
- You went to my talk page, accused me of edit warring, and began making personal attacks:
- a. I display idiotic hubris by having some little box on my user page.
- b. I display unsourced and maybe outdated claims on my user page. Simply following the provided link would lead you to the list which indicates that I have made 14,489 and which lists me as the 4628th active editor.
- c. I "shot from the hip" when I did no such thing.
- 7. You came to this talk page and began making more, uninformed personal attacks:
- a. I don't ride the right type of bike to edit this article correctly.
- b. I don't live in the right location to edit this article correctly.
- 8. You finally discovered your mistake and inserted a link to the correct article with this edit and falsely suggested that you were reverting my edit with the edit summary "Undid revision 645844543 by AndrewDressel".
- Obviously there is no reason to revert your third attempt to insert the correct link, because you finally inserted the correct link. If you had instead, continued to insert the incorrect link, I believe that my previous assessment would have been correct. It would have been spam at best, and more-likely persistent vandalism. I stand by every edit I make, and I sign my real name. -AndrewDressel (talk) 12:16, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
- Let's see...
I'm not going to edit war with you over something so pedantic, but I think you should probably acknowledge that it appears you are not being NPOV on this issue based on your biases as a bike wrench. - CompliantDrone (talk) 19:15, 4 April 2015 (UTC)
- You have made some hilarious accusations, but let's examine each of them in turn, just in case you were serious. To be clear, we are talking about this edit of mine, right?
- You seem to suggest that I am somehow being pedantic, that is excessively concerned with formalism, accuracy, and precision, or making an ostentatious and arrogant show of learning.
- I didn't add the odd detail suggesting that traditional pneumatic tire designs, which required a separate inner tube, are somehow specific to automobiles. I simply removed it with the edit summary "inner tubes not specific to automobiles." I cannot see how my actions can be construed as excessively concerned with formalism, accuracy, and precision, or how I might have made an ostentatious or arrogant show. Perhaps you are thinking of another meaning of the word "pedantic".
- You appear to feel that I am somehow not editing with a neutral point of view.
- What point of view exactly are you suggesting I am exhibiting? If anything, by removing the limitation that separate inner tubes are somehow specific to automobiles, I am actually demonstrating the most neutral point of view. I fail to see what my experience as a bicycle mechanic could possible have anything to do with allowing the description of tubed tires to include motorcycle tires, truck tires, tractor tires, etc.
- You question whether I am exhibiting ownership behavior of the article.
- I have made five edits to that article in the past year, out of 23 total edits, and none in the two years before that. You have made nine edits over the same three years. How anyone could construe that as me exhibiting ownership of this article is a mystery to me. On the other hand, I have done some research on tires, I have created several tire-related articles, and continually work to improve them. If you mean to accuse me of stewardship, then I take that as a compliment.
- After careful consideration, I am afraid that your comments just sound like sour grapes. -AndrewDressel (talk) 23:42, 5 April 2015 (UTC)
- So you won't mind that I rolled back your removal of material. - CompliantDrone (talk) 00:47, 6 April 2015 (UTC)
fat bike entry
Hello Andrew, I was trying to edit and add to the fat bike entry to get the facts straight and to give pioneers in fat bike making like Mark Gronewald from Palmer credit for what he did. He created the first fat bike. Mark named it a fat bike and gets no credit for that. He met Ray Molina at Interbike in Lad Vegas in '99 when Ray brought a prototype with him from New Nexico. Mark Gronewald, created a bike with the help of welder John Evingson from Anchorage and built a bike that could accommodate the 80 mm Remolino rims and Remolino tires that Ray Molina had produced in Mexico. Thanks Kathi Merchant Iditarod Trail Invitational race director my email:firstname.lastname@example.org or email@example.com (formerly known as Iditasport) The bike event on the Iditarod Trail was actually the driver of the development of fat bikes for the race. Both Ray Molina and Mark Gronewald have done the race in 2000 and 2001. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alaskaultra (talk • contribs) 18:30, 6 April 2015 (UTC)
Andrew, you are very quiet. The article named above seems to be an accumulation of sundry, possibly related facts. One of the stranger ones is this: "One model is the Humber Sport 3-speed pictured on this page." Where is this picture?
- The picture is in the gallery at the bottom of the page. See what you can do. I do not have the time right now to work on it. -AndrewDressel (talk) 13:25, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
I added a couple of bicycle brands on your page which were missing, but I just found out that you delete them. I would like to know what was wrong with the addition on the page.
- I followed the long established practice, described on that article's talk page, of removing entries that do not link to existing articles about bicycle brands or manufacturing companies. -AndrewDressel (talk) 13:59, 14 May 2015 (UTC)
an article you might be interested in
I'm getting into a disagreement over on the Bicycle cooperative talk page, with an editor who insists that Bicycle cooperatives are not cooperatives. Maybe I'm being too pedantic, (or maybe the article is just too much of a mess to be worth trying to fix) but I'd like your point of view if you have a moment. --Keithonearth (talk) 08:13, 15 June 2015 (UTC)
- Good point. I did a search for what to do in this situation, and couldn't find anything, so did the best I could. Not so great, obviously. Is there a better solution? You seem to be familiar with biographical articles. -AndrewDressel (talk) 16:08, 23 June 2015 (UTC)
- I am trying to find his birth and death years, do you have any clues, other than his age at death? Some of the Alsatian birth records are online.