User talk:Andy Dingley/Archive 2011 April

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

Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3


Sorry; indeed, I was too quick to judge. Lorem Ip (talk) 00:28, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

User Alan Liefting[edit]

It appears this editor is engaged in wholesale removal of certain categories not based on guidelines but on some flimsy rationale. I notified this editor of his contradictory behavior. Please read what I added to this section [1] on his talk page. In particular there is this set of edits [2] pertaining to Category:Ecotourism that I most concerned about. Also, checking for accuracy, and then changing them back will take awhile. As far as I am concerned this is just another form of disrupting editing WP:DE ,i. e., an attempt to edit Wikipedia to personal preference. If rhia behavior continues I am open to the option of taking this to ANI. What is your opinion on this matter? ---- Steve Quinn (talk) 04:07, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

I encountered this at Wood & Firewood (or their cats).
Policy says this should be raised at WQA, which is poorly named for this purpose and usually creates an extra conflict because it's seen as an attack on the editor's civility (which may be fine), rather than a discussion of the edits. Next step if RFC/U, which is awfully heavy-handed as process. So most things (that end up being usefully addressed) are done out of process, by non-admins, although happening at AN/I. I'd see that as a reasonable place to bring it up, especially if there's a 'bot being used.
I would myself probably remove individual national parks from Ecotourism though, just to control cat size. They belong under "ecotourism sites" "ecotourism destinations" or (better) "ecotourism by country".

Andy Dingley (talk) 09:22, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

Andy, thanks for your feedback. I agree that RFC/U would be heavy handed. I certainly do not see that as needed in this case.
Also, I may be misunderstanding this situation, because I don't see how WQA works as a resolution process for this particular issue. Perhaps you could elaborate a little more about this. I don't see this person's responses as particularly nasty or uncivil. He just seems to be relying on faulty rationales for category adjustments to articles including categories other than Category:Ecotourism. ---- Steve Quinn (talk) 13:11, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
I don't see it either. However policy (see notes at RFC/U) says that it's the appropriate first step before RFC. I tried it recently about user:Bzuk (again, nothing to do with civility) and it was a failure. Andy Dingley (talk) 13:13, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

Electricity meter[edit]

I have closed this discussion and made the move. I have made KWh-meter, Kilowatt-hour meter and Electricity Meter (with capital M) redirect to Electricity meter, but have left the others that now point to Electricity meter (disambiguation) - you may like to check and see if any of them could have better targets. I couldn't see any sensible target for Creep Test, which points, unhelpfully, to "Electricity meter (disambiguation)#Accuracy". JohnCD (talk) 17:58, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

Kieu Tri Nguyen[edit]

No worries, it's at AfD. I got nothing on this fellow, but if you've got a reliable source in your pocket or two they'd be graciously welcomed. Best, --joe deckertalk to me 15:35, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

I know nothing on them, but when it's a question of "sins of omission" rather than comission, I think it's better at AfD. If there are such refs, they might be added. This is the sort of thing where WP:ARS can be useful. That's most unlikely through a prod that no-one else notices. If it's really unsupportable, we've just kept it around for a week longer. Andy Dingley (talk) 15:51, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
No worries. I'm more active at WP:URBLPR, but we have the same philosophy in general. --joe deckertalk to me 15:56, 4 April 2011 (UTC)


Hi Andy, I notice you re-reverted Schienenzeppelin. I can see where you are coming from, but I think the propeller (aircraft) article title is a bit misleading, and the propeller article contains sufficient description and history. I'm already discussing it with Dolphin51 (talk · contribs); it may be easier to add to that on his talk page. Tim PF (talk) 10:06, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Henri Coanda closed[edit]

An arbitration case regarding Henri Coandă has now closed and the final decision is viewable at the link above. The following remedies have been enacted:

  • Lsorin (talk · contribs) is prohibited from editing or commenting on articles about the Coandă-1910 aircraft, its inventor Henri Coandă, or the history of the jet engine. This topic-ban shall be effective indefinitely, but Lsorin may request that it be terminated or modified after at least six months have elapsed. In considering any such request, the Committee will give significant weight to whether Lsorin has established an ability to edit collaboratively and in accordance with Wikipedia policies and guidelines in other topic-areas of the project.
  • The topic-ban imposed in this decision applies to all pages in all namespaces. However, the topic-ban does not preclude Lsorin from (1) responding to good-faith, reasonable inquiries from other editors on his user talkpage seeking information about the Coandă-1910, as long as Lsorin does not misuse this permission; (2) participating in the arbitration enforcement discussion of any allegation that he violated the topic-ban; or (3) posting an authorized request for the lifting or modification of the topic-ban after the specified time period has elapsed.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Salvio Let's talk about it! 21:50, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Discuss this


I am planning to change the Wireless article to what I suggested or something similar. I have started a discussion on the Wireless (talk) page. Please join in with your views. --Kknundy (talk) 17:24, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

Quicklink :Talk:Wireless#Wireless_services --Kknundy (talk) 17:38, 7 April 2011 (UTC)


I am not understanding your edit summary of "careless editing". The content consists of a sentence and a source which supports it. Wtshymanski removed the sentence but left the citation which is improper because it then suggests that the citation supports the previous sentence. I restored the sentence which corresponds to the citation. This action accords with WP:INTEGRITY which explains that "Editors should exercise caution when rearranging or inserting material to ensure that text-source relationships are maintained." Colonel Warden (talk) 22:51, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

Your edit seemed to be a simple undo of Wtshymanski's, and thus the restoration of a {{Contradictory}} tag. Now this doesn't look to me like a helpful direction to move in - this decoration with excessive tagging is just an excuse for the deletionists to remover yet more articles.
As to the chip weight question, then I now assume that this is what you meant by the removal of unsourced content. Yet this chip weight is an utterly unimportant factoid. This sort of accumulation of knowledge-free facts is precisely the reason why Wtshymanski is so rightly against these articles. I hadn't even seen this as the prime goal of your edit (I admit, I merely thought you were being careless and seeing a big red para in the diff as a majore change, when really it's just the removed tag throwing off MW's diff-generator). In that case I agree my edit summary was wrong, it should really have read "Remove unimportant factoid too trivial to warrant mention". Andy Dingley (talk) 08:05, 9 April 2011 (UTC)
  • The sentence in question is "The specification of this diode is adequate for most circuits which have a low voltage and an amperage of less than 1.". The citation which relates to this is Nigel Harman (2008), Electrical Installations Level 3 2330 Tech Certificate and 2356 NVQ, Pearson Education Ltd, ISBN 9780435401108 . The point of my edit was to restore the integrity of the article by keeping the sentence and citation together. The state of the tags was incidental and the edit had nothing to do with the chip weight detail, which is another part of the article. Colonel Warden (talk) 08:24, 9 April 2011 (UTC)
Well there's another demi-factoid that wants shoooting. If your current is below 1A, use a 1N400x, same as usual. The 1N540x series has a rating of 3A. Now the practical rating depends a little on duty cycles and average power over time, but de-rating to a third would be most unusual. It's not wrong - it's not even bad practice, if you're building reliable circuits that are going to pass that current from a DC source continuously (that's more than twice the duty cycle of a diode used for AC rectification), but it's far from being an encyclopedic fact, or a fact that belongs in this article. As Wtshymanski rightly tagged, it's confusing and apparently contradictory.
I'm increasingly inclined to think that deleting these articles would be for the best, and that Wtshymanski is right. Although the topics are justified, the articles are too poor and the Wikipedia editing model is failing to deliver useful content instead. This is certainly not helped by an ARS response of ramming factoids in by sheer volume, regardless of their usefulness. Andy Dingley (talk) 10:30, 9 April 2011 (UTC)


Hi! I am Having a bit of trouble over at N battery (see article history). Not quite sure how to handle it. Any advice? Guy Macon (talk) 14:28, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Well he's already at the (usually pointless) WQA and this seems clear edit-warring (my past revert is in the history list too), so I'd suggest 3RR. If this isn't "tendentious", I don't know what is.
He's right about a lot of what he complains about, but his actions are far from helpful. I'm working on 2N3055, but I'm doing it offline because I really don't want interruptions while I'm trying to do something useful, but that seems like his very favourite way of working. Andy Dingley (talk) 14:32, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Pneumatic Institute/ Institution[edit]

Hi Andy. I wonder could you provide any supporting refs for Institution? I would have thought the Stansfields ought to know what they were talking about? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:02, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

Off the top of my head for some pop sci that you might even have handy, try Jenny Uglow's recent 'The Lunar Men'. Probably doesn't support "Bristol Pneumatic Medical Institution" and maybe not even "Bristol Pneumatic Institution" (the fuller name, but rarely used) but it will certainly give you Institution vs. Institute. I've never been a member of it myself, although I have been of the still-extant Newcastle Lit & Phil (scene of the safety lamp demonstrations) and BRLSI (Bath Royal Literary & Scientific Institution), a significant local library (slightly later) with coverage of Beddoes. I'm also local and have been working in local history science education (on & off) since the mid '90s. So revert away, that's probably enough subject knowledge to get me dragged off to ArbCom again and banned. Andy Dingley (talk) 22:19, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
It's looking like Institution was the original name. But user Nczempin has raised the question of WP:COMMONNAME, which might explain the use of Institiute by the Stansfields. What is the jist of the argument in Jenny Uglow's 'The Lunar Men'? Do you agree we need a new article? Many thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 07:27, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
I don't think COMMONNAME applies, it's just tidying up slack wording and vague memories of two hundred years ago. "Institute" probably was used in period, at times, but the name on the door was clearly Institution with no real question about this.
It warrants an article, it warrants a separate article from Davy. Whether it warrants a separate one from Beddoes would depend on what content we have, and which gives the best structure for a finished article. Certainly there should be redirect(s), if not a whole article. Andy Dingley (talk) 08:44, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
That all sounds very fair. It almost sounded like volunteering, haha. Does anyone know where in Clifton that door was? Would it be better to add re-directs (to Beddoes?) until a new article gets written? Martinevans123 (talk) 08:51, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
It's not Clifton - Dowry Square, Hotwells, a very well-known address. At the time of Beddoes, Hotwells was a fairly posh destination alongside the river with the therapeutic springs nearby. It was outside central Bristol, certainly onto the River Avon and past the extremities of the pre-floating harbour Bristol docks. Clifton though was a cow pasture on the top of a hill. Andy Dingley (talk) 08:54, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
I am surprised, since the Stansfields use "Clifton" eight timres in their paper and also say this: "Since nothing has survived from the Institute at Clifton, Considerations in its various parts is our major source of information about the pneumatic breathing apparatus." But they do also mention: "There was room in the Dowry Square house for some eight patients; others were to receive their treatment as outpatients." Do we know the number of the house? Is it still there? Many thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 09:27, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
There's some argument for saying the Institution was in Clifton Wood (which borders Hotwells - precise boundaries would be a local matter for local people), but Clifton is wrong. It's indicative of someone who did their research from a map, not on the ground. Clifton Wood is a damn great hill, the beginnings of the Avon Gorge, with Hotwells alongside the river at the bottom off it and Clifton isolated by gravity at the top. Even today there's no easy way to get between them, that road is steep. This psychogeographical separation isn't obvious on a map, but it is on foot, or in the history of Bristol.
It's a classic location for history walking tours of Bristol. You start in Clifton Village (top) at Rodney Place, where Beddoes lived and walk downwards, but you don't do it the other way! My gf works in the dental practice opposite Beddoes house, but they no longer use nitrous oxide. Despite the odd dose of carbonic acid and nitric oxide, Beddoes must have kept in good shape walking home every night. Down Granby Hill leads you to Hope Square, where Beddoes had his first TB clinic. Just along from there (now on the flat) is Dowry Square, where the Institution was. No 6 is in the top left corner, as you go into the square. Andy Dingley (talk) 10:02, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
I've just looked (for the first time) at Dowry Square. At least it's now fixed to point out that it was Beddoes' Institution, not Davy's! Just what sort off poor refs was this thing written from? That's wildly wrong even for one of Davy's post facto inflated claims (as I noted, I used to live in Newcastle where the real inventor of the safety lamp was recognised!). Dowry Square should also mention its other "pneumatic" claim, that Schweppe invented and manufactured his Schweppe's soda water there. Andy Dingley (talk) 10:12, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
So, it was (and is) No 6, Dowry Square then? I wonder do you have a ref for that? What about Roget of Thesaurus fame? You don't seem to be a big fan of Sir Humphry!? Martinevans123 (talk) 11:18, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
I see that the link for Images of England says this: "A plaque records that Sir Humphrey Davy lived here 1799-1801". Martinevans123 (talk) 11:29, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
The new Pneumatic Institution page is using Mike Jay's book as a ref. I think he's local - met him once at the (Bristol) Anarchist Bookfair - and he seems to know his stuff. I enjoyed his earlier air loom book, although I've not read this one yet.
As to Roget, then I know little of him. I thought he was in Manchester though, I didn't know a Bristol connection.
Davy seems to have had a problem with WP:AGF, amongst other things. Like Newton and Hooke, he seems to have hated to see annyone else get to a discovery before he did, and would decry their inventions afterwards as not being "properly done", because "a mere cart-wright" obviously wasn't on a par with someone moving in Davy's lofty circles. The mere cart-wright in this case was one George Stephenson, who's record can stand for itself.
No 6 is credited as being the site of the Institution (i.e. the plaque on the wall that the tourists gawp at), although I have some vague feeling that the building has been modified since. There's a gap between 5 & 6 and I think that much of the Institution in its day stood there. No good sourcing though, you're probably best looking at Jay's book. Andy Dingley (talk) 11:34, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── This source says "Peter Roget of Thesaurus fame also lived in Dowry Square and Jacob Schweppes opened a shop selling fizzy drinks in 1812." It now seems that Davy may have lived in the smaller of the two properties rented by Beddoes and used the larger, now disappeared one, as the Institute? Maybe Jay's book makes this clear. Martinevans123 (talk) 11:49, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Jenny Uglow has "Pneumatic Institution" - only a brief reference (p.461): "When the Pneumatic Institution was finally founded in 1798, with almost all the Lunar men as subscribers, Tom Wedgwood and Gregory Watt recommended a genius as Beddoes's assistant - the teenage Humphry Davy, son of their landlady in Penzance... " JohnCD (talk) 17:10, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
(talk page stalker) (<--I like that) How about we move to and/or continue this discussion at the article's talk page? Clifton, Bristol: The Clifton ward also includes the areas of Cliftonwood and Hotwells., This area corresponds roughly with the city wards of Clifton and Clifton East, although the former also includes the river side suburb of Hotwells. -- Nczempin (talk) 20:58, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
Am happy for this thread to be moved or copied wholesale to the article talk page, but unsure of wiki etiquette for this. Your call. Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 18:11, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
That's a very generous offer to get a photo, Andy. In fact the Dowry Square article itself certainly deserves at least one or two, I'd say. Let's hope that it's sunny and that your visitors all bring their cameras! Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:31, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
Thanks, Andy, for some very nice photographs. Martinevans123 (talk) 15:53, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

55022 Royal Scots Grey[edit]

I saw you reverted an edit on the British Rail Class 55 page about 55022 working North Blyth - Lynemouth Alcan tanks... as bizarre as an April Fool as it sounds, it is actually true! - Skarloey (talk) 17:21, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

What's next? Lion to be working into Temple Meads? So how do we get a ref for this, given that it's wordpress and some 'bot will probably eat it? Andy Dingley (talk) 17:25, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

exoskeleton chassis[edit]

Hi Andy - hope I'm doing this right, thanks for the comment on the MEV Ltd page.

With regard to exoskeleton chassis, as far as I'm aware it was first used in connection with the Ariel Atom, and it is this that has inspired the whole 'exo' genre. I'm not an engineer but it does seem a marketing term masquerading as an technical one: basically it's a spaceframe with no or few body panels leaving the structure exposed, hence exoskeleton; but as most rear threequarter panels and all pillars are stressed, and on view, in a conventional monocoque surely that also qualifies?... Seansverige (talk) 09:56, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

It's certainly used as marketing, but I think there's a technical issue here too.
What set me off was reading Ludvigsen's recent and excellent biog of Colin Chapman, "Inside the Innovator" (highly recommended). In this he points out that the early "spaceframe" Lotuses were nothing of the sort and it wasn't until the Lotus IX that it was a true spaceframe - owing to the involvement of some aircraft industry expertise. The difference is that a true spaceframe puts tension and compression into the members, but not bending. This exoskeleton chassis (by design, not exposure) is similar to the older Lotuses - it's really a ladder chassis, with longitudinal tube members that are stressed in bending, with the addition of deep sidewalls (effectively a truss down each side) and the passenger compartment placed between the chassis trusses, rather than on top of them (as used from 1900 onwards, original AC Cobra et al).
So this exoskeleton is clearly a technically interesting design of chassis (and thus deserves coverage anyway) - somewhere between ladders and spaceframes, and only usable for performance-oriented sportscars where rigidity is more important than convenient side doors. I think its origins are probably with the VW-based sand rails of the '70s. Again, these weren't space frames because they put major bending stresses into the main chassis rail.
So what about the "exo" bit? Did these truss-sided tube chassis exist before (only covered up)? Was the Lotus VI one of them? Or is there a real causal connection between the exo chassis as a deep truss, and also the current fashion for "letting it all hang out"? Does one encourage the other?
As to the monocoque, then I think they're separate. They're really a stressed skin chassis (originated with the Short Silver Streak, a 1920s aircraft) because they handle their stresses through tension in a surface sheet, not concentrated into tubes. The monocoque aspect is more of a constructional technique. Either way though, they're more of an "un-skeleton" chassis that doesn't have a frame, more than an "exoskeleton" that keeps its separate frame on the outside. Andy Dingley (talk) 11:53, 18 April 2011 (UTC)


Andy, you comments are noted.

The fact is that MagneGas is selling successfully against Acetylene.

Can you be more precise about what is needed in order to reference in Wikipedia? Cyro is an excellent 3rd party journal who are breaking the story about MagneGas.

Thanks, —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 16:56, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

My edit summary on reverting Oxy-fuel welding and cutting was already quite specific:
(rv MagneGas addition. No 3rd party WP:RS One cited source is paywalled.Other source is self-published and full of crank science terminology. Might be acceptable, but it needs real references.
There were two links added. The first is paywalled, it might be brilliant, but I just can't read it. The second is self-published by Magnegas themselves.
The main problem with MagneGas is that it's seen mostly as a crank technology. The magnegas site is full of crank terminology: claims about molecular theory that don't match with standard theory, and the inevitable criticisms of Einstein. These are classic indicators of crank science. It's also claimed that MagneGas is far safer than acetylene. Now acetylene has its hazards, for sure, but MagneGas is a mixture of hydrogen (a wicked ignition risk, usually requiring explosion proof electrical switchgear nearby) and also carbon monoxide, which is just toxic in its own right. It is far from benign.
You claim that 'MagneGas is selling successfully against Acetylene'. So where can I buy some? Why doesn't my acetylene distributor carry it? If it's so successful, then surely there's a reference to support this.
Finally, we don't have an article on MagneGas that can be linked from your addition. This isn't necessary - WP doesn't prove notability, it's not even a requirement for a topic to have notability before we mention it from another article. Yet it's still suspicious - if MagneGas is the panacea that you claim, surely we should mention it, and in its own article?
I'm also curious - have we met on WP before? Are you KVDP? Andy Dingley (talk) 09:19, 19 April 2011 (UTC)


Andy -- If you agree, I will move the search vs codebook lookup limitation into the description which compares Memex as described by Bush and modern systems, rather than have it dangle as a separate section. I believe that would be respond to your concern and improve the readability of the article. Grlloyd (talk) 15:12, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Whatever you think best. It's not a particularly readable section, but I think it's important to keep some record of the fact that search had just never occurred to them as something that needed to be handled within the machine. Andy Dingley (talk) 15:52, 21 April 2011 (UTC)
Good, I agree, and will make a pass. Eventually I may tackle integrating content drawn from the "Criticism" section to respond to the NPV concern noted, and improve the readability without losing some interesting detail. Grlloyd (talk) 17:49, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

At ANI[edit]

Hello. I mentioned you at a current ANI. In case you are interested the ANI is here. ---- Steve Quinn (talk) 14:04, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

your recent revision of centrifugal compressors could easily have been reckless[edit]

hello Andy,

centrifugal compressors has been undergoing a major revision over the last two weeks through my best efforts. Losing a reference to an ASME paper might have made life a little more difficult for me than necessary..

The website that you substituted contains far more spam and less academic references than the link that I use to point me to a specific paper on surge. please keep in mind that the first of many selections at your site were "premium content" and "online store". I went so far as to try the "L spec" search engine on the types of turbomachinery papers that I would be searching for. All it found were different standards for nuts and bolts.

che resources is nothing but a commercial vendor website.

Please wait awhile until I take the cleanup header off before you start having commercial spam to the article. I'm very curious gesture motivations.

Regards Martin Koronowski, Mkoronowski (talk) 22:04, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Dear Martin,
Please check your edits very carefully before you accuse other editors of either adding spam, or deleting references.
I made one edit to Centrifugal compressor, which was to revert a multi-article spam-run by (talk · contribs). I did not delete any ASME papers, in fact I restored one link deleted by the spammer. Now if you think that this cheresources site is not up to the necessary standards of WP:EL, then you may be right (and we can delete it) - I haven't looked at it, I don't know if it is. I merely reverted the series of edits by the IP spammer - sometimes reversion brings things back that should indeed be deleted, but that's a separate question. Trying to do two things in one edit always runs the risk of confusion.
Are you claiming that you are also IPsocking as the editor In which case, your contributions history is one of serious spamming, without any attempt to expand articles. Looking at Special:Contributions/Mkoronowski it looks like an attempt to do serious editing to expand the article, but nor does it look related to's spamming. Your edits don't look as if they depend upon the link added by either. added ELs, not references, and I didn't delete any references that your changes might depend upon. Andy Dingley (talk) 23:04, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
hello Andy,
I am so sorry, I am to new to this and have made the same mistake before. I'm having a great deal of trouble looking at the before and after. In my previous life I have been able to use the diff command on both the DEC VAX and various UNIX machines.I have never had as much trouble as I do with the formatting that I see on wiki. most of my angst really is coming from a very poor quality of writing that I see in all of the turbomachinery entries. thank you for your help, thank you for straightening me out, I really need instruction. As far as the editor from IP address I'm clueless. I haven't the foggiest idea of what you mean by IP socking. Anyway I hope you can help in the future. Best regards, Martin koronowski, (talk) 01:27, 26 April 2011 (UTC)


TC has been blocked as a suspected sock of Tobias Conradi. See new proposal for a category tree at WT:TWP#Track gauge categories, part 2. Mjroots (talk) 09:26, 28 April 2011 (UTC)