User talk:Andy Dingley/Archive 2010 September

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

Archive 1 | Archive 2

Warning of[edit]

Be advised that this IP is a shared IP across the Howard County Public School System. If you decide to take it to AIV, a short block would be a good option. Thank you. (talk) 15:10, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

An even better option would be for the Howard County Public School System to realise that editing here is a privilege, not a right, and to instruct its pupils not to abuse it. Andy Dingley (talk) 15:23, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
Or perhaps, if this happens again, a polite email to Principal Carl Perkins - - (Centennial High School). I'm sure the school would not like its IP address used in this way, or such comments added to the Principal's name see: here; it could be seen as bringing the school into disrepute. Acabashi (talk) 16:57, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Personal attacks? (Larkin 25)[edit]

Hi, would you please be so kind as to explain this edit? User:LarkinToad2010 has been repeatedly removing/reverting edits made by multiple editors, obviously going against consensus, all the while yelling that "his" article is getting vandalized. In addition to accusing User:DGG of being a vandal, well, that kind of behavior is vandalism in my book. --Crusio (talk) 09:32, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Information.svg Ouch! You've used a template to send a message to an experienced editor. Please review Wikipedia:Don't template the regulars or maybe listen to a little advice. Doesn't this feel cold, impersonal, and canned? It's meant in good humour. Best wishes. ~~~~

--Crusio (talk) 09:34, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
User:LarkinToad2010 isn't a vandal, they're a new editor, unfamiliar with policies, with some WP:OWN issues on that article. WP:AGF applies here. They're not repeatedly editing because they're vandalising, but because they genuinely think this is what the article needs. They may be wrong here, but that's still not vandalism. It is unhelpful and antagonistic to describe it as such.
Ping-pong edit & reversion helps no-one. As I say, they might be wrong here - but that's because they're unaware of why it's wrong, not from trolling. Progress relies on educating them on this before there can be progress, and that's made impossible by terming them "vandals" all the time. Who's going to listen in those circumstances?
There are two differences of opinion here, and unfortunately many examples of each, so it's a long step-by-step to remedy them. Each has to be done individually, otherwise communication breaks down again. Some of these issues are clearly against objective policy, others are more subjective and require discussion to consensus first.
In a case like this, it's actually better to have a worse article (according to policy) where there's at least some ongoing dialogue and hope of fixing it, rather than a dogmatic article (which is probably more "compliant", but far from "better") and an angry or blocked contributor who's no longer interested in working in a policy-based direction. Especially in a case like this, where (let's be honest) it's a minor-interest article that doesn't break Wikipedia if it's non-conformant. Andy Dingley (talk) 10:08, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
  • Have you bothered looking at the edit histories of him and me and the article involved? Have you seen that I have been trying for a long time now to have a dialogue with this person? Have you noticed all the other editors that have been trying to reason with this editor and that have been making the same edits that they keep reversing? Have you seen the other articles where there are problems? Have you seen the edits where I add an infobox to an article just to be reverted because it is "vandalism" according to LarkinToad2010's definition? This is the first time I call one of his edits vandalism (and notice that this editor is skirting 3RR) and you immediately slam a template on my talk page? Who here is calling good faith editors "vandals" all the time? Who is not assuming good faith all the time? Sorry for getting upset, but I have been going out of my way to help this person for a long time now and it obviously is impossible to have a polite conversation with them. --Crusio (talk) 10:23, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
Our policies don't stop applying because an editor is slow to pick them up.
As to edit histories, then the only edit of yours that I can see is one labelled "revert vandalism" and no discussion. It seems that your edit history with him at Amanda Vickery (an article I'd not even heard of) is spilling over into another article - I've only seen the Larkin 25 stuff.
For Larkin, much of the problem amounts to dogmatic removal of all ELs by some policy-absolutist editors. Now this might be right according to some policy, but that's not even a policy I'd support myself. Not having an EL "unless it adds content that would exceed a Good Article" is fine if you're looking at a good article, but in this case we're looking at a Start article on visual arts that has no photos of it, except via those ELs. There's still a lot of leeway in this article which relies on consensus, not obvious policy, and further winding up an editor who's clearly already tightly wound just isn't going to make better articles appear. Andy Dingley (talk) 11:00, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
Andy with regard to what Crusio is saying about User:LarkinToad2010 and his previous history of conflict. It seems that LarkinToad2010's first line of action to any alterations or revertions of his edits, since changing to his current username, from his multiple sockpuppets (See:- Category:Wikipedia sockpuppets of LarkinToad2010 ), is to accuse the conflicting editor of vandalism. May I suggest you take a look at his accusations in the following places:- Talk:Kingston upon Hull, Talk:Paul Crowther, Talk:John Forrester (historian) (accusations against Crusio of Trolling), Wikipedia Editor assistance (RE: Keith D), Wikipedia Editor assistance (RE: Crusio and Noq). Additionally his labelling of Keith D as a Troll here:- Talk:Theresa May, Talk:University of Hull, plus multiple warnings on his own talk page, amongst others. LarkinToad2010's incivility to other editors is beyond question. Note: one of LarkinToads2010's apparent sockpuppets has been blocked for repeated vandalism. Richard Harvey (talk) 23:42, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
His "sockpuppets" appear to be one previous account (obviously Hull-related) which has since been blocked as a legitimate name change. Also one other account as a possible, but with too few edits to really judge either way. Those, and a bunch of random IPs. Now whatever you or I might think, "accidental non-logged in edits" are accepted on WP as either something that happens to the best of us, or simply unprovable as socking anyway. So either way, this is hardly the behaviour of a problematic sockmaster in some terrible Fu Manchu / Shari Lewis crossover.
Incivility, yes. But our behaviour for kicking him as a vandal at every opportunity isn't conducive to encouraging any reform! Andy Dingley (talk) 23:58, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
I'm a little notorious at ani for leniency, proposing what people think unduly short blocks and giving people more chances than they deserve, but there comes a time when someone is more likely to learn after an extended break. btw, I can not think of a more absurd action than templating Crusio as a vandal. I have always looked up to him as one of the editors who set the standards for the best and most objective editing. DGG ( talk ) 21:21, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
As I've already discussed with Crusio, I templated him for two reasons. Thirdly, templates are sometimes just succinct, not a personal insult. Secondly he did make a one-off reversion labelled as "revert vandalism" - whether justified by other edits elsewhere, it's always an unhelpful action to start throwing that label around in an ongoing war over content. Mostly though, this was a very deliberate use of an identical copy and paste to warn two editors simultaneously, to avoid any further accusations of singling out one of them in particular (which does seem to have happened already). "Don't template the regulars" should perhaps be supplemented with "Don't poke the paranoid". Andy Dingley (talk) 00:16, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Larkin 25[edit]

Just for info, I have a set of images of the toads but because they are not permanently installed structures they seem to be not allowed under our licensing. I dropped an e-mail to the organisation to see if they would allow permission to use them but did not get a reply. If you know a way round this then I can load them. Keith D (talk) 11:38, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Ah, Wikibollocks. They're permanently installed (this means fixed, not undemolishable in the future). Nor are they sculptures, they're two-dimensional painted artworks on a mass-produced moulded canvas. Andy Dingley (talk) 11:42, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
Besides which, doesn't this now mean that a GA can't have images, thus the image ELs are indisputably permissible 8-) Andy Dingley (talk) 11:42, 7 September 2010 (UTC)


Information.svg Please do not add commentary or your own personal analysis to Wikipedia articles, as you did to Livejournal. Doing so violates Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy and breaches the formal tone expected in an encyclopedia. Thank you. —David Eppstein (talk) 00:33, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Howling Laud Hope[edit]

Hi again Andy,

The biographical videos of Howling Laud Hope: Alan Hope

The OMRLP have embedded the videos on its web site which, with the fact that they are on You Tube, could make them a less than perfect for Wiki reference I suppose. I've always thought that a web video of obvious biographical and non-promotional content could be considered as viable... it's not everybody's point of view of course... and is less dubious than the common device in articles on extant subjects of linking "official" promotional web sites, myspaces, iTunes, and facebook pages.

In the videos he doesn't mention the "Catmando" spelling, but I will be covering, by request, the OMRLP conference at the end of September - myself having requested a short video of Hope clearing up the matter - he mentioned the spelling confusion in conversation after filming. Note that I have interpretted the cat's name wrongly - it's one word. Even though I am not Keef Trouble as might be erroneously gleaned from the OMRLP web site, but nom-de-vid Jack Slipper behind the camera, it might be deemed that I am becoming a little too close to the subject. Just a thought: one way of tidying-up the Hope/Cat Mandu articles might be to merge them at some point, as the cat was Hope's - a Catmando section in Hope's article? Best wishes,

Acabashi (talk) 12:43, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

dropping by, the usual way to use such videos is in the External Links section. DGG ( talk ) 20:08, 14 September 2010 (UTC)


I have opened a case at ANI about LarkinToad2010 in which you are mentioned: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#User:LarkinToad2010. --Crusio (talk) 14:11, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Cheers, it's not before time. Andy Dingley (talk) 16:36, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Category:Preserved beam engines[edit]

Are you sure there are enough articles (or engines) to form a useful subcat of Category:Preserved stationary steam engines? With the number we have at present, I think I would prefer to see these cats merged for simplicity. Globbet (talk) 22:53, 15 September 2010 (UTC) thanks for correcting my FU here Globbet (talk)

There certainly are (Currently 19, which is probably close to being most of the actuals). If anything, and if we were to (foolishly IMHO) remove one of these cats of the grounds of being currently under-populated, then it ought to be Category:Preserved stationary steam engines instead. However there's then a rather obvious hole in a consistent, orthogonal category structure. The meaning of Category:Preserved stationary steam engines is clear and straightforward, so it then becomes an odd question as to why it wouldn't be there.
These are categories, not lists. They're there to describe articles that we have (i.e. the article exists first), not to try and provide complete lists, like some sort of Ian Allan spotter's guide. We could do this if we wished; it would be done through such a list.
Given the significance of single engines (in most cases), there could be some scope for shifting Category:Preserved stationary steam engines to Category:Preserved stationary steam engine museums or Category:Preserved stationary steam engine collections. There are few non-beam engines that are individually notable enough to warrant articles. However, to restate the point above, these are descriptive, annotational categories rather than some ordinal definition. We can easily list museum collections under Category:Preserved stationary steam engines, even when they're collections of minor engines rather than a single individually notable example. Andy Dingley (talk) 23:04, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
Collapse of (not particularly) stout party. Globbet (talk) 23:47, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

The Cabal[edit]

That was quite a hilarious message that you posted on the Toad's talk page :-DD I know we should not do such things, but I enjoyed it all the same. Toad seems to be taking it serious, though, and is using it as an argument to ask for unblocking. Apparently he still doesn't realize that this kind of remarks will not only not get him unblocked, but may likely lead to an ever longer block... Well, I'm glad he's out of our hair for a while so we can get back to work. See you in the treehouse tonight! --Crusio (talk) 17:06, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

I find the humor in it but I don't think it was a good idea. See WP:BEAR. When an editor feels persecuted, giving them reason to think that it might be true is just making it worse. Clearly much of your comment was sarcasm, but sarcasm doesn't work very well in written text at times. -- Atama 17:53, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
You only think it's humour because you're not a Cabal member...
Read the track record for this editor. We've tried the nice approach. I've never seen an editor before (who has been vaguely rational) quite so resolutely rude to other editors. Read my past attempts to try and encourage this editor to play ball, and look at the response we've all received for it. This editor isn't going to change their opinion of others, but it was time to point out a few home truths: paranoia or not, it was time that people were going to be out to get him, if he didn't shape up sharpish. It's a simple situation, but he couldn't even grasp that.
Feel free to take me to WP:ANI - I'm sure you'll find plenty of support to block me, and probably faster than it took to get LarkinToad off the streets. Andy Dingley (talk) 18:00, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
I don't have any desire to block you, and I know you've tried to help LarkinToad in the past (and was attacked yourself for it). I'm concerned that if this editor doesn't change his tune he'll end up either quitting in frustration or becoming blocked indefinitely, which is a shame because he's productive otherwise. I was just saying that I don't think your comment will help, even Crusio above acknowledged that "we should not do such things". This isn't even a warning, just a suggestion. -- Atama 18:11, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
  • I do indeed agree with Atama. The best outcome would be if LT2010 would get the message and starts learning to collaborate in a constructive manner. LT2010 does have things to contribute. Without him, the whole Larkin25 article would not even exist (note that some editors are now going to try to go for GA status) and several other articles that he created turned out quite nice. Of course, a lot of fighting was needed to get there and LT2010 fought any improvements hand and tooth, which is why the block was necessary, and with a more constructive attitude the articles could have gotten to this state with 10 times less effort and 100 times less aggravation... Your note was hilarious, but in the end is was not a good idea... Thanks for the laugh anyway :-) --Crusio (talk) 18:52, 16 September 2010 (UTC)


I fell over this template and your comment on 15" and 18" gauges. I agree. Unfortunately the template has other problems indicating a deficit of input from anyone with engineering nous, often resulting in absurd fractions. Before I wade in, I need a clue about gauge tolerance. Do you happen to have one? Globbet (talk) 20:15, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

Thank you[edit]

Thank you, very much, for your kind words during Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Most Hated Family in America about my efforts to improve the quality of the article, The Most Hated Family in America. Much appreciated. Cheers, -- Cirt (talk) 00:17, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Charles Fryatt[edit]

Wrexham was a GCR ship, per the quoted source - you only had to check! Face-grin.svg Mjroots (talk) 19:23, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

I checked it, I just didn't trust it. Was that parenthetic note in the original, or added as a modern comment? There's already confusion in some reports as to just when he was on the Wrexham. I've since added a cite to a postcard image of the pre-war period that puts Wrexham, GCR and Grimsby Docks together quite nicely. Andy Dingley (talk) 19:42, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
I certainly trusted the source, as it is reproduced from the contemporary originals. Many railway companies in the UK operated ships, although the article on the GCR is currently lacking info about their ships. I thin the note was probably mine from when I originally wrote the article to replace a previous copyvio version. Mjroots (talk) 20:12, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

About faraday's law.[edit]

Ok, ok, i agree with you on that, but think a little, if a moving conductor has a speed vector that is parallel to the magnetic field lines and the same conductor has a normal that describes a 90 degree angle with the said lines, there will be movement and no potential difference will be induced, i believe that kinda breaks your "narrower case", proving that, in fact, it is wrong.

I say that respectfully, because now i know that you were just trying to improve the article, and not to keep it wrong. I praise you on the use of Occam's razor, as it is very important for a site like wikipedia, but i'd like to say that, in Occam's razor, the simpler explanation must also be right, if it is wrong, then the more complex explanation prevails. Thanks for the concern, and good day to you(i don't know if it's daytime where you live..." —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 01:08, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Babbitt (metal)[edit]

I added MMC back in. How does the head section read now? --cbdorsett (talk) 16:40, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, that's a lot better copyediting for readability now.
I'm still concerned over accuracy and referencing. The term Babbitt is widely used, even when it's not Babbitt's alloy (and doesn't behave like it). Our sourcing needs to be pretty good here, or else we go down the same hole. In particular, I'd see a need to avoid confusion with replaceable shell and thinwall bearings. Although similar, they're not Babbitt.
It might also be useful to mention Tabitha Babbitt, the Shaker inventor of the circular saw. She's widely (but mistakenly) credited with the bearing alloy too.
Needs images too. There was a category on Commons for Whitemetal bearings, but I see that someone has just deleted it as empty (which it wasn't, I'd uploaded a good few myself). Andy Dingley (talk) 19:53, 23 September 2010 (UTC)


Thanks for cleaning up after me on the Hacksaw article. When I reverted it, I hadn't realized that the vandal had left more than one instance of vandalism. EricWesBrown (Talk) 03:51, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Coanda 1910[edit]

Could you please help me to do the AFD. I'm really not a Wikipedia expert. Thank you very much in advance for any hint! --Lsorin (talk) 19:27, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

No, but I can direct you to WP:POINT
I asked my point [1].

--Lsorin (talk) 19:33, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

River Severn[edit]

Hi Andy Dingley/Archive 2010 September! an article you have contributed to, has been selected for the Wikipedia Version 0.8. offline release on DVD and iPhone. If you would like to make any last minutes changes or improvements, you are most welcome to do so. Deadline is midnight UTC on Monday, 11 October. See also: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Worcestershire#Worcestershire articles have been selected for the Wikipedia 0.8 release. --Kudpung (talk) 04:32, 27 September 2010 (UTC)


Hi Andy Dingley/Archive 2010 September! an article you have contributed to, has been selected for the Wikipedia Version 0.8. offline release on DVD and iPhone. If you would like to make any last minutes changes or improvements, you are most welcome to do so. Deadline is midnight UTC on Monday, 11 October. See also: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Worcestershire#Worcestershire articles have been selected for the Wikipedia 0.8 release.--Kudpung (talk) 04:46, 27 September 2010 (UTC)


Nuvola apps edu languages.svg
Hello, Andy Dingley. You have new messages at Talk:Mark I tank.
Message added 18:35, 27 September 2010 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

EL in Accelerometer, etc[edit]

Thanks for giving a third opinion to the spammed link in Accelerometer. I don't understand why it belongs in Gyroscope (sorry about my removal of it without a comment). I had left it in Miniature Inertial Measurement Unit (MIMU), but decided it didn't belong there after a closer look.

Since there's a spam report, and I disagree with it's inclusion in Accelerometer and Gyroscope, could you please explain in some detail why it belongs there, especially when it's already in Inertial navigation system? --Ronz (talk) 23:46, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

I'm assuming that your incivility in your edit summary was due to the lack of one by me, and just a mistake on your part. --Ronz (talk) 23:39, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

If you think it doesn't belong in Accelerometer or Gyroscope because it's irrelevant, then fine - delete away. However the response to this broad spamming has been to assume that anything delivered via spam ought to be deleted for that reason alone, regardless of its usefulness. It's a good piece (unlike some in that spam batch). Maybe not meeting the gold standard of "content beyond what would be in a Good Article", but the fact is that these aren't good articles. A 40 year survey of IMU belongs in these articles, and in ballistic missile too, because it's the development of IMU for ballistic missiles that has in-turn driven the development of accelerometers and gyroscopes. What else do you think drove development of these components over the last 50 year? Kids' toys and Segways? Especially gyroscopes, and particularly the ring laser. Maybe less so for the micromachined accelerometers that are so cheap and plentiful these days.
If you think my comment was uncivil, then I'm sorry but that's just my reaction to edits that appear to be based more on a blanket reaction than on an assessment of the content involved. Andy Dingley (talk) 00:40, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
Sorry. My edit summaries are often very terse, especially when it comes to spam and vandalism cleanup. I do try to consider the quality and appropriateness of the linked material, as well the state of the article where the link was added. I can't speak for the editor(s) that did the majority of the cleanup though. Thanks for replying here and elsewhere on the matter. --Ronz (talk) 17:26, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Battle of Passchendaele[edit]

Thanks for catching that. It looks like I didn't revert enough revs. LeadSongDog come howl! 18:10, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

You're welcome. Vandal hasn't stopped though, looks like they've just registered an account instead. Andy Dingley (talk) 22:12, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Your comments on the File:Schräge Musik cannon.jpg[edit]

Thank you for your support in the Schräge Musik cannon image conundrum. I still find it extremely difficult to deal with some editors who are hell-bent to remove all images that don't fit their concept of what is proscribed or deemed "appropriate." FWiW, you sure this is the same Andy Dingley? (I always thought that it was a perfect porn actor's name and assume it's your nom de plume!) LOL Bzuk (talk) 14:26, 29 September 2010 (UTC).

I'm not that Andy Dingley, nor am I the other Andy Dingley (the propmaker on IMDB). I am however Andy "Clueiron" Dingley. This was particularly awkward when I was talking to propmakers recently, having just been given an award for propmaking. Especially as I was advocating professional propmakers being discouraged from entering - some of them (not surprisingly) saw this as rather hypocritical, as they assumed I was t'other one.
You'd think a name like Dingley avoided this sort of confusion 8-( Andy Dingley (talk) 14:31, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
Props as in movie props? I work occasionally for the film industry and have also been a model maker in the past. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 14:36, 29 September 2010 (UTC).
We don't have a movie industry in the UK, we just have TV (and the odd James Bond). So prop makers are a lot less well known for their work, unless you get to redesign the Tardis or something.
My interests these days are in the Steampunk genre. Something I hope to have an interesting announcement about in the next couple of days. 8-) Andy Dingley (talk) 14:39, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
Is this image PD by any chance anyway? If it were British it would be crown copyright, and expired by now. What's the comparable position for WW2 German? It's less than a thousand years, surely. Andy Dingley (talk) 17:08, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
I think you are on to something, the image is from a wartime German operational manual although there is great confusion on German World War II images in the public domain. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 17:56, 29 September 2010 (UTC). This is the relevant documentation on German World War II images. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 18:01, 29 September 2010 (UTC).