User talk:Andy Dingley

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search


/2007 •
/2008 1 - 3
/Archive 4
/Archive 2009 January
/Archive 2009 February
/Archive 2009 March
/Archive 2009 April
/Archive 2009 May
/Archive 2009 June
/Archive 2009 July
/Archive 2009 September
/Archive 2009 October
/Archive 2009 November
/Archive 2009 December
/Archive 2010 January
/Archive 2010 February
/Archive 2010 March
/Archive 2010 April
/Archive 2010 May
/Archive 2010 June
/Archive 2010 July
/Archive 2010 August
/Archive 2010 September
/Archive 2010 October
/Archive 2010 November
/Archive 2010 December
/Archive 2011 January
/Archive 2011 February
/Archive 2011 March
/Archive 2011 April
/Archive 2011 May
/Archive 2011 June
/Archive 2011
/Archive 2012
/Archive 2013
/Archive 4
/Archive 5
/Archive 6
/Archive 7
/Archive 8
/Archive 2014
/Archive 2015
/Archive 2016
/Archive 2017


Hi Andy, please stop undoing the edits on ZX81, I'll only have to put them back again if it's to be correct. Before you do, can you explain what your motive was and what 'bizarre' is supposed to mean? Thanks.--ToaneeM (talk) 13:29, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

Please look at WP:RS and WP:V. This stuff needs to be sourced, and given in greater detail, if it's to stay. I've expanded it a bit myself, but it's relying on just the one source I've added.
As to "bizarre", then it's a long time since I've used a ZX81, but I don't remember them running at anything like 300 bps (compared to Kansas City on other contemporary systems). It needs robust sourcing to change the article from 50 to 300. Also it's almost never useful to use baud for anything, bps is far clearer. Perhaps this original "50" figure stems from that? Andy Dingley (talk) 13:35, 9 March 2017 (UTC)
I agree to need to add a source for the bitrate and that it should be a bitrate, not a baud rate by their definitions. But the speeds are spot on, not least because I double-checked them against the ROM listing. I did post that in the change notes...had you sorta glibly assumed I was lying or something? I did so because I remembered the ZX81->Spectrum speed listed as 4x faster and the latter was 1200 bps. I also remember it being a lot faster than the 6 bytes per second - that's a crazy claim. You realise that you're endorsing hopelessly wrong figures with these blind 'undo's. Successive improvement is better and what Wikipedia's for - add 'reference needed' instead and I'll gladly do it. Please follow that co-operative route, not the "my article, I decide" approach that one occasionally gets dragged down by around here :-)
Was "Such limitations, however, achieved Sinclair's objective of keeping the cost of the machine as low as possible. Its distinctive design brought its designer, Rick Dickinson, a Design Council award." Design-designer-design...ah, design of what -, the case, how obvious :-) Fixed. C'mon Andy, work with us here --ToaneeM (talk) 14:11, 9 March 2017 (UTC)
Dude, I'm the one doing the legwork and adding the references. Andy Dingley (talk) 14:15, 9 March 2017 (UTC)
Dear boy, how hopelessly absurd - you're the one breaking it and reinstating text that's wrong. You do realise the article does not belong to you, that you're not in charge of it, right? I understand this computer very, very well so I like it being correct. What's your motive - plain old interfering?--ToaneeM (talk) 14:39, 9 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Have you ever edited here before under another name? Factor-h for instance. You're starting to sound awfully familiar. Andy Dingley (talk) 14:52, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

No, never. Have you stopped breaking things? The joy of conversing with the pointlessly obstinate has faded... --ToaneeM (talk) 15:03, 9 March 2017 (UTC)


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

Velocity control[edit]

Some time ago you added this to the MCLOS article:

The Vickers Vigilant attempted to solve this by using a 'velocity control' method with an on-board gyroscope, rather than simpler 'acceleration control'.

Do you recall the source? I would like to expand that article but I cannot find any mention of this. Maury Markowitz (talk) 14:47, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

That would be Forbat's book - The 'Secret' World of Vickers Guided Weapons, J. Forbat, Tempus, 2006, ISBN 0-7524-3769-0 - which is well worth the read. He was a Vickers development engineer and there's some good obscure hands-on stuff in there. Andy Dingley (talk) 20:15, 21 February 2017 (UTC)


In what way do you mean accumulator would be more "misleading" than indirect address? HL holds direct addresses, just like all other 16-bit registers in the Z80 (BC,DE,IX,IY,SP,PC). Also, we cannot possibly source every single word... Note, I'm in no way not out for a fight here... but a honest discussion. :)

/Sven Ekeberg

But none of that is the function of the accumulator?
A Z80 has one accumulator, the A register. This is the only register with full access to the ALU. That's the meaning of "accumulator". Andy Dingley (talk) 23:38, 25 February 2017 (UTC)
Pardon my rhetoric tone, but in what way would HL be more "indirect" than BC/DE? I'm not really expecting an answer, so let me just say that it is used for the exact same type of adressing as BC/DE, i.e. direct addressing, using a (variable) direct address stored in a register.
The HL register was actually a rudimentary 16-bit accumulator already in the 8080 (not in the 8008). But it was intended for address calculations and therefore did not affected the sign-, zero- or the (non existent) overflow flag. The 8080 also had 16-bit addition only, no subtraction, and no support for signed numbers, it did not even set the sign flag for 16-bit numbers.
The Z80 changed this though! It not only incorporated a signed overflow flag but also new instructions, ADC HL,reg and SBC HL,reg that adjusts the full array of flags: sign, carry, zero, negative, and the new overflow flag, just like 8-bit arithmetics do. So the HL register is indeed a real accumulator in the Z80. The fact that it has fewer addressing modes than 8-bit operations does not change this fact.
Speaking of the ALU. The Z80 was implemented with a 4-bit wide ALU (making it different enough from the 8080 in order to avoid a lawsuit from Intel). As you may know we now have a very deep technical reference for this (more so than my 1980s engineer hearsay and the Faggin/Shima Z80 oral history), so I will probably add a paragraph on that and other interesting aspects of the implementation, as soon as I get the time to do it. Hope you don't mind? (This narrow ALU is why an ADD HL,rr takes 11 cycles on the Z80 but only 10 on the 8080, btw, although some other instructions became faster.)
I let you have your "indirect address" though... it's not really that important that everything in an article is 100% correct. But it's mostly because I really hate meningless time consuming fights. Life is far to short for that. :)

Take care. /Sven Ekeberg — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 01:30, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

‪Kingsgate Bridge‬[edit]

Dear Andy,

I'm glad as you referenced to created by me Wiki-article dedicated "Gear bearings". Could you present on ‪Kingsgate Bridge‬ -page or at least send on my email: any clearly stated photo of used in this bridge mechanism with mentioned linear gear bearing.

Best regards, Sergiy Sheyko — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sergiy Sheyko (talkcontribs) 19:28, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

Sorry, I don't have one to hand. I've just been rooting through old photos (it's some years since I was in Durham) to try and find one. It's a very elegant mechanism.
Here are some nice photos, including the joint: "Durham Bridges: 1. Kingsgate Bridge". The Happy Pontist. 28 November 2013. 
Andy Dingley (talk) 19:48, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

Good Sir[edit]

You state (per the following diff) that wiki guidelines prefer "World War II" over "Second World War", could you please point to the relevant policy (as I have not been aware of such a policy in over ten years of editing, is it new?)? In addition, you may note (on the aforementioned diff) I edited the article for consistency. You will note that both terms are used within the article; I would suggest editing the article for consistency rather than just reverting edits. Kind regards, Todayis03032017 (talk) 01:17, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

Not really my party this one, try asking at WP:MILHIST, but a month or so back there was a big push to make articles match the name at World War II as canon, rather than the previous mixture. As you're the one pushing to change this, it's your turn to justify it. Andy Dingley (talk) 10:18, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

Improved Military Rifle (IMR) propellants[edit]

You and I seem to have simultaneously focused on the same new IMR Legendary Powders article with somewhat different ideas to merge it into current content. Would you have any objection or suggested improvements to my proposal? Thewellman (talk) 01:44, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

Evaporator (marine)[edit]

You said "the idea that condensers are there primarily to save on water consumption is just wrong". The article previously said "or efficiency, as well as conserving feedwater, marine engines have usually been condensing engines". Doesn't that sentence mean that one of the two reasons for using condensing engine is to conserve feedwater? I agree that it might not be the primary reason (I make no claim either way). But otherwise I don't understand the logic of this paragraph and especially its context of an article about evaporators (rather than engine efficiency). DMacks (talk) 20:41, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

"Efficiency" is itself a weak term. It might even be justified as "the only way to make a workable marine stream engine before about 1850 was to make it condensing". This is a very strong requirement, not just a minor bit of fuel saving. If anything, the previous wording should be strengthened, not weakened to imply a balance of fuel efficiency and reduced water consumption. Andy Dingley (talk) 10:04, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

Project E[edit]

I realise that you posted this question five years ago, but I updated the article on the weekend, and can confirm from Wynn, Moore and Stoddart that the RAF was indeed supplied with the Mark 5. Hawkeye7 (talk) 09:49, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

Thanks, that's a pretty major expansion. I look forward to reading it all in depth. Andy Dingley (talk) 10:28, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

GAR process[edit]

GAR process is started. Direct all future GAR process comment in talk page at (talk) 19:46, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

What does "close enough for jazz" mean, and how does it relate to Wikipedia policies[edit]

I'm new to Wikipedia jargon Sisima70 (talk) 19:48, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

Location? - Talk:Quartz, I presume.
It's not a WP term, I think it's mostly British slang. Andy Dingley (talk) 20:03, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

Hammer mills[edit]

Hi Andy, please help me understand why you moving hammer mill articles from the category designed for them to "power hammers" which is more generic. Are you planning to delete Category:Hammer mills and, if so, why?--Bermicourt (talk) 17:22, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

This seems to be a language variation between German sites being called "hammer mills" and the WP term at hammer mill.
A hammer mill or stamp mill is a device (usually water powered) for crushing minerals, usually at a mine site before taking them to a metal smelter.
These sites are not of that type or function. Instead they are what are more widely known as "battery mills", where a battery (like artillery, a group of individuals) of power hammers, usually water-powered trip hammers are used for metalworking of metal (i.e. metal after refining from ore). This includes large blacksmithing operations to make blades, or brass mills to produce sheet brass or 'battery brass'.
As usual, there is some overlap with historical names. But these German sites are of the metalworking type (a few tilt hammers) and neither stamp mills not hammer mills. We definitely should not link to hammer mill, we ought to reword for clarity. Andy Dingley (talk) 17:30, 15 March 2017 (UTC)
I think the confusion is that the term "hammer mill" may be variously used. It is certainly used in English sources for the historic German forges, but here's an example of it being used for an English forge: Abinger Hammer Mill which appears to have had just one hammer. I haven't got time to research further this week, but it seems, therefore, that "hammer mill" can also be a forge using a trip hammer. Let's not make any more changes until further research has been done and we can agree a way to handle the different usages. --Bermicourt (talk) 20:33, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

Blind cloth - thanks![edit]

Thanks for clarifying, I was trying to work out what it was and didn't think it looked much like a facecloth, but thought maybe that was what was meant, (as I was reading the two words together) and thought maybe it was one of those stealth anonymous edits where someone sneaks a random word into the middle of a sentence that tends to pass unnoticed for months/years. The note/definition is REALLY helpful, thanks - I couldn't find anything on quick searches for blind cloth (apart from fabric for roller blinds). Am more of a fashion historian than a textiles specialist, so sometimes these fine distinctions are alien to me.... Mabalu (talk) 11:04, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

You're welcome - it's impossible to search for this, owing to the false positives and the number of novels about blind weavers (really!). If I can tidy the study enough to reach the piles of bookshelves behind the piles of book boxes behind the piles of books I might even get to a "dictionary of tailoring terms" or something. Andy Dingley (talk) 11:14, 17 March 2017 (UTC)
I just did some quick reading to try and clarify what was with this "cotton broadcloth" weirdness and discovered that it's an Americanism for poplin. Should there be a hatnote at the top to redirect people looking for American broadcloth to poplin? I've added referenced notes to both pages to explain this. Mabalu (talk) 16:19, 17 March 2017 (UTC)
Probably. It's usually better to over-explain than under-explain. Not being American I'm unfamiliar with this, but I know that "poplin" has a lot of local differences in its meanings. Andy Dingley (talk) 18:09, 17 March 2017 (UTC)
For what it's worth, @Mabalu:, that's simply untrue. Here's Bennett's Cotton Fabric Glossary, showing USAnian use a decade before. Anmccaff (talk) 19:22, 17 March 2017 (UTC)
(Also, "poplin" remains the dominant name for cotton plainweave used for better men's shirts.) Anmccaff (talk) 19:23, 17 March 2017 (UTC)
Hello Anmccaff. Thanks for that link, but I'm a bit confused because when I tried to search for broadcloth or broad cloth in that book nothing came up. How does it prove that broadcloth was used to describe shirt quality poplin 10 years before the early 1920s? Mabalu (talk) 12:24, 18 March 2017 (UTC)
It doesn't. It shows that cotton poplin was available and known as such; has been continuously. Not something that was introduced in the twenties.
"Cotton broadcloth" was, and is, a term so all-encompassing as to to be almost meaningless. From the twenties, the USDA proposed standards for the term, and much US and some Canadian (and a surprising amount of British, BTW) usage later consolidated around those standards. Here's their take from 1938: Broadcloth is another fabric that has been lowered in quality until the word means nothing at the present time. An analysis of a great variety of fabrics sold as broadcloths discloses that constructions vary from those originally associated with the word to fabrics more like muslin than broadcloth. In the twenties, "cotton broadcloth" did not mean "cotton poplin", necessarily. It could be anything from a short-napped blind face fabric that looked and felt a good deal like the original all the way down to bad muslin. Anmccaff (talk) 16:10, 18 March 2017 (UTC)
It's clearly quite a minefield, but as it is, the current edits (even if I say so myself) are an improvement on the previous version that had cotton quite early on, with a rather sketchy cite. Incidentally, should we move this discussion over to Talk:Broadcloth? I'm inclined to trust the Fairchild given that it is considered an industry standard text and is edited by two established experts/academics in the field. Of course, experts make mistakes too, but they are certainly very specific on the question. They even use an illustration of a man's cotton shirt as the leading image under broadcloth, which does make me raise an eyebrow, but if the "industry standard for textile terminology" is so explicit, then I guess they've a reason for that. We may disagree with them (I certainly think they should have wool broadcloth as the primary definition, not definition no.4(!)) but it's not a source we can justifiably discredit/ignore even if we know better. Mabalu (talk) 19:11, 18 March 2017 (UTC)
Yeah, if no one (I guess that would be Brother Dingley, in this case) objects, xfering it intact to broadcloth makes good sense. To add a little more to be transferred over, one thing which the Fairchild cite does not make clear is that the so-called "English Broadcloth" (which appears to often have hailed from Scotland, just to compound the mess) was a very heavily callendered cloth, that came close to a uniform, threadless appearance in the way that the broadcloths do. Note the plural; a big part of the reason why broadcloth shows up less in later years is that specific variants of the technique were beginning to be seen more as their own selves. Melton, duffel, mackinac, or brushed wool serge (as opposed to woolen or unbrushed worsted serge) would be described as such, and woolen and brushed wool serge had pretty well taken over the old broadcloth turf, except for the areas where weather resistance was paramount, and then the cloth was more likely to be called melton. Anmccaff (talk) 19:42, 18 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Have boldly transferred discussion to Talk:Broadcloth, leaving this as a record. Its up to User:Andy Dingley if he wants to archive or delete the thread now it has been relocated. Mabalu (talk) 12:52, 20 March 2017 (UTC)
Sure, that makes sense. Andy Dingley (talk) 13:01, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

Hounding, again[edit]

this and this is a continuation of the behavior that got you blocked once already. I am now requesting a one-way Iban. That is it. -- Jytdog (talk) 20:15, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

Spoken Wikipedia[edit]

I see you noticed my many Spoken Wikipedia requests. I recently discovered the Spoken Wikipedia project and I just put in different articles on topics I felt were important. I included everything from U.S. Presidents (Abraham Lincoln, Donald Trump) to cars (Chevrolet Camaro, Ford F-Series, Willys MB) to video gaming (Nintendo Switch, Playstation, Casio Loopy, Burnout (series), Crazy Taxi, Q*Bert) to South Park (Matt Stone, Trey Parker, Mary Kay Bergman, With Apologies to Jesse Jackson, Casa Bonita, Scott Tenorman Must Die) to MLB Baseball (Boston Red Sox, New York Yankees, different world series) to popular tourism spots in the United States (Orlando, Florida, Virginia Beach, Virginia, Atlantic City, New Jersey) to popular movies (Satuday Night Fever, Miracle on 34th Street, Inside Out (2015 Film), Ferris Bueller's Day Off) to clothing brands and designers (Adidas, Aeropostale, American Eagle Outfitters, Calvin Klein, Hanes, Jockey, Nike, Ralph Lauren, Tommy Hilfiger) to a huge variety of other topics.

I like to listen to these while cleaning, working out, etc. and find the request tool very useful for gaps in Spoken Wikipedia.