User talk:Andy Dingley/Archive 2011 January

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

Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3

Happy, happy[edit]

Happy New Year, and all the best to you and yours! (from warm Cuba) Bzuk (talk) 15:25, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

Archimedes Plutonium[edit]

I corrected the text to the Archimedes Plutonium entry on Usenet celebrity, removing most of AP's ill-formatted (OR, fringe) text. Hopefully what's there now will suffice. AP is under the impression that I am in control of that portion of the article.[1] Of course, there's a lot about Wikipedia that he just plain does not understand. (This was also posted at User talk:Glenfarclas.)Loadmaster (talk) 17:11, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

His changes don't seem too bad, to be honest. He can reshuffle his own deckchairs as much as he likes, so long as he doesn't climb out of the pen and start causing trouble on those articles themselves. Andy Dingley (talk) 17:12, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Frivolous and mischievous intervention[edit]

I see that you have added a second clarification tag, one that had already been attended to and removed, to the W & J Galloway & Sons article. Just what, exactly, would you like me to clarify? Weiterbewegung (talk) 16:40, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Restoring sense at Musgraves[edit]

Shouldn't we use your reversion of 27 Dec as the baseline version- see and check for any potential phopahs before putting back any substantial chunks of text or images. --ClemRutter (talk) 13:38, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

AIUI, Laser Brain had already (5th Jan) taken it back to the June version, on just those grounds. I haven't had time to see if there are any useful edits since June that warrant re-applying. EdJogg had done some editing, but the likelihood is (given the relative sizes) that this was to the problematic content anyway. Andy Dingley (talk) 13:41, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
One thing we probably should do is to go to the "best" version and copy any references across to the new version. As non original work these aren't so problematic for copyright. The editor causing all this isn't too knowledgeable about copyright anyway, so they're unlikely to make much of a case against this under "sweat of the brow" or database right claims. Andy Dingley (talk) 13:45, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
My changes were all corrections to the 'problem' text (although, of course, it wasn't a problem at the time!), so don't worry about hanging on to them. BTW the June version was also mine... EdJogg (talk) 17:02, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

W - you - know - who[edit]

I shouldn't think there are any more articles to consider looking at his contribution history. The ones you listed at ANI are the only ones that his is the major contibution to. NtheP (talk) 20:01, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

reopened ANI[edit]

here - I also made a response on my talk page, but I've pasted it over to ANI. Xavexgoem (talk) 12:05, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Incident report[edit]

As per discussions: [2]. I'm sorry, for this! I really did hope that we can continue the discussions just on technical level, without any kind of personal attacks.--Lsorin (talk) 19:24, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Closed as no violation. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:26, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Concerned[edit]

Hello, I am coming to you with a concern. Everytime that I search for something on wikipedia, and I am not logged in, I am told that I have a new message in my talk tube. I open it and it says that IP user 75.105.128.54 has been blocked due to vandalism. I am not this IP user as I found out recently, but my IP number is similar but different than that which was stated..I was hoping that you or some one could look into this matter and hopefully stop my computer from recieving these messages.RedWings ninety one (talk) 06:05, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Hi RedWings,
My apologies for the message you've been receiving. I see that you're a university user, so the chance is that your IP is blocked for vandalism — It happens, don't worry about it, we know it's not you. I'd think (I'm not too familiar with the mechanics of this, but it's how I think this works) that this will (deliberately) block you from editing, unless you're logged in. There's also a further block level which would lock you out from that IP whether you were logged in or not, but that's rarely used. If you have your "own" computer to use, this isn't too much of a problem, just stay logged in. If you're sharing them in the library etc., then I see that it would be (obviously you don't want to leave your login left behind, or someone else can get access to it).
I'm a little puzzled in that 75.105.128.54 (talk · contribs) has some vandalism warnings, but doesn't ever seem to have been blocked, certainly not at the moment. Is this the right IP? You've probably got a range of them allocated at university and you might be getting the warning when you were using a nearby IP instead? If you can find an IP talk page that is blocked, then use the {{unblock}} template to request unblocking. We're usually quite relaxed about doing this, because we reckon that these are shared IPs and a block affects more than one person. If this doesn't raise an admin response (I'm just an editor, I can't do unblocks} then try posting to WP:ABUSE or one of the admin boards under WP:AN.
Really though, the best option is just to log in. It works better that way - you get watchlists and other editors can see who you are. Andy Dingley (talk) 12:15, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
The IP has been blocked again. I don't think RedWings account, however, is disabled. The administrator handling this was HJ Mitchell (talk · contribs). Jsayre64 (talk) 03:15, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

L&HR history[edit]

I thought the Fairburns both belonged to the Mahers, one each to Austin & Charlie?

Is there any citation for the (quite ludicrous, even in the mid-70s) "scheme" to reconnect through Greenodd?

Is it time we had a category of "British railway preservationists" (ideas?) for articles like your (most welcome) Peter Beet, Eric Treacy et al.? Andy Dingley (talk) 03:38, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Hi, hope this finds you well! I thought that as well re the Fairburns, but this pdf (Googlised quick-cache version) from an official GCR press-release for 42085 suggests otherwise. Yes, I think there is a need for a category along the lines of British steam preservationaists: perhaps start as a list? Rgds, --Trident13 (talk) 03:42, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
Sold to Charlie in the mid 70s, per the last line of that press release. The bit about LRS members wanting to volunteer to work for Stephen Maher made me laugh (rather hollowly) though!
What's this about "motorways" too? There's no motorways up that way.
Do you happen to know who owns Leander now? Is that George Beet? Damn, this all makes me feel old. Andy Dingley (talk) 03:48, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
Leander is presently owned by a Beet family trust, so they have thought about the tax. After the news re King Edward I, I found enough material to write an article on Jeremy Hosking. Any thoughts on that category name yet? Rgds, --Trident13 (talk) 00:16, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Coanda effect?[edit]

A small stream of gas at high velocity can be used to produce a larger flow in some other fluid. I agree with that, but what about the time-machine Coanda must have used to apply this principal on just about every locomotive of the late 19th century? (that's what makes the chugging sound, Andy). How is it justified to imply that he came up with something that was commonplace years before he was born? He didn't even originate it's application in aircraft(Maxim is an early, but not the sole, example of this), but that's a bit off the point unless some one tries to make an issue of it in the article.Ion G Nemes (talk) 18:00, 11 January 2011 (UTC) I have also removed your references to the avrocar because the description you present for it's mode of operation is completely wrong. If you had bothered to look at that diagram you restored to the page you'd see a large ducted fan in the center.Ion G Nemes (talk) 18:00, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Steam locomotive exhaust systems rely on Coanda effect? Simply put - No. If you want references, go and read Koopman's The Fire Burns Much Better, which is by far the most comprehensive study of both this, and the history of theories for how it worked. Sadly it's hand-printed by elves with a print run of a dozen (an MSc thesis) and damned hard to find a copy of, but it is the book on the subject. Livio Dante Porta, and of course Chapelon (I'm hoping you can read French, as you have an interest in Coanda), are also the usual texts on the subject. But no, it doesn't work by the Coanda effect.
As to the rest, then Coanda described the Coanda effect and the Chinese had probably been cursing the dribbling teapot quite well without for centuries beforehand. Discovery and description isn't, of course, invention.
For the Avrocar, then the use of the fan for lift doesn't have much to do with the periphery jets and their use of Coanda for horizontal propulsion and control in all three axes. Andy Dingley (talk) 02:39, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
Actually, I wasn't trying to suggest that forced-draft in locomotives used the Coanda effect(hence the question mark, and the complete lack of any such assertion in my post). I was trying to suggest that forced-draft in locomotives was produced by a small stream of gas at high velocity being used to produce a larger flow in some other fluid(Am I correct sir?). And that therefore the use of a small stream of gas at high velocity to produce a larger flow in some other fluid is not necessarily a consequence of Coanda's work(Am I correct sir?). Your edit gives the impression that it was giving credit to Coanda for the Idea that a small stream of gas at high velocity can be used to to produce a larger flow in some other fluid. Was this your intention? But perhaps this discussion would best be continued on the Coanda page.(By the way, In my ignorance I always thought teapots dribbled because of surface-tension effects, but your statement that the Coanda effect is actually responsible makes me appreciate yet again the true depth of your expertise. Thanks for the information, I love learning new things!)
As to the Avrocar: I see that you have recruited the aid of your old pal Lsorin for editing this page. What a nice gesture. That should certainly improve the discourse to no end. Maybe if you can track down that anonymous poster with the dynamic IP from the coanda 1910 page you'll bring him along too! Ion G Nemes (talk) 04:23, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Coandă-1910[edit]

Hi. Your revert removed my copyedit. Was this intentional? --John (talk) 16:10, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Yes and sort of. I crudely reverted a whole block of Lsorin's changes to take out the obvious problematic one. Now I'm off at AN/EW to try and get a block on him because I'm so tired of this same damned revert every time we turn our backs on it.
From first glance, your change appeared to relate to his prior changes, in which case it would now have become moot. Once I've done the AN/EW, I can have a better look and see if it's more general. If it is, of course I'd be delighted to restore it. I'd even restore some of Lsorin's edits, if they're like the recent ruddervator change. If of course you get to yours first, please feel free to put it back - I've no problem with it, if it's still relevant to the latest state of the article. Andy Dingley (talk) 16:15, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
I've re-added your text copy-editing. I've left the wikilinked Romanian in the head though, because I personally consider that it's a useful note and link (Coanda isn't too well known and he's a respected figure by the Romanians) and also, probably more importantly, because I don't wish to invoke an angry Dacian horde. If you really think it's better without, please feel free to remove it again. Andy Dingley (talk) 16:45, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

category:shot blasting[edit]

Hi Andy, why did you name the category "shot blasting" instead of "abrasive blasting", which is far more inclusive and commonly used. Honestly, I've never heard anyone use the term "shot blasting" before. Wizard191 (talk) 18:47, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Because I'm an idiot mostly, and I was doing it at the same time as shot peening. In the UK though, "shot blasting" is fairly common, second only to "sand blasting" (used for everything, from corncobs to steel) and grit- or abrasive- blasting are far behind. It ought to be renamed. Feel free, but I doubt I'll have time soon. Andy Dingley (talk) 19:03, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
OK, thanks for the clarification. I'll start a CfD. Wizard191 (talk) 19:24, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Categories for discussion nomination of Category:Shot blasting[edit]

Info talk.png

Category:Shot blasting, which you created, has been nominated for deletion, merging, or renaming. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. Wizard191 (talk) 19:25, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Do you think this would help any at all?[edit]

Is this analogy useful at all?

A driver, who is driving below the posted speed limit is stopped by a police officer.

Policeman: “You were going too fast. I’m citing you.” Driver: “I was driving under the speed limit.” Policeman: “Yes, I know that, but the police manual says you can’t drive to fast. So I’m citing you.” Driver: “But why would the police manual say you can cite me for driving ‘too fast’ if I was driving under the speed limit.” Policeman: “I don’t know. That’s what the manual says. Policy is policy.” Driver: “But aren’t you trained to understand the reasons for the speed limit? Are you trained in the law?” Policeman: “No, I only follow the police manual. It is what it is.” Driver: “You’re kidding. So you can still cite me even if I was driving under the speed limit?” Policeman: “Yes, I call them as I see them.” Driver: “But why would the police manual be more restrictive than the speed limit?” Policeman: “I don’t issue citations based on the speed limit. I follow the manual. If you don’t like the manual, get it changed. For now, you’re still getting a citation.” Driver: “But when I received driver training, I was taught to follow the speed limit. Isn’t that enough?” Policeman: “No. It doesn’t matter. We obey the police manual. And we changed the manual a short while ago, you should know that.”

Frustrated, the driver goes to the police station to talk with a police administrator because he didn’t think the policeman’s explanations made much sense. Upon entering the police station, the administrator says, “Oh look, another complaint about speed enforcement” and proceeds to say that the officer is only human, and he might occasionally make mistakes. “He is very hard working. He writes 500+ citations per day, and you’re complaining only makes his job more difficult.” For the most part, he follows the police manual.” The driver, thinking that the police administrator doesn’t appear very objective from the start, waits to speak with a second police administrator. The second police administrator basically agrees with the first two officers and says, “If you don’t like the police manual, you can get it changed. Besides, all of these police officer’s citations have to approved by a police administrator before you are fined.”

So the driver walks away, having only a few days to pay the fine or talk with a third police administrator. The officer doesn’t get paid but works long very long hours, thinking he is being helpful to the community. Meanwhile, the driver, who was only volunteering to drive for a good cause, wonders whether any of the administrators really understand the reasoning behind the police manual and wonders whether the third administrator will be enforcing the police manual or enforcing the speed limit. The driver also thinks to himself that changing the police manual will require lots of discussion, will take a long time, and wonders why it wouldn’t make more sense for the first officer to more cautiously issue citations to drivers who really were driving over the speed limit, saving time for all drivers, himself, and the police administrators will have to review over +500 citations per day.

You can poke holes in any analogy, but isn’t this all that the editors are trying to say?

Feel free to use this if it is at all helpful. Maybe get another editor to post it? If I do it, I might have to spend hours editing dozens of licenses. Hope you understand. I’ll post this on Rexx’s talk page too. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.43.22.132 (talk) 18:54, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Happy 10th Anniversary of Wikipedia![edit]

The Incidents' noticeboard[edit]

is an unhealthy place. Is it me, or has the number of times you've gone there increased since I last met you? :| TelCoNaSpVe :| 03:55, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

I agree. It's unhealthy at best, usually a waste of time and sometimes downright malevolent. I avoid it wherever possible, however there has been need of a little trout-farming lately. Besides, did you mean ANI, RFC, or EW? Andy Dingley (talk) 02:44, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Some help requested[edit]

I've tried to expand British_diesel_and_electric_multiple_units a little , based on summarising content from other articles.

However, my knowledge of the pre BR units is minimal.

Sfan00 IMG (talk) 13:55, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

Not really my field either. The pre-Grouping electrics are looking a bit sparse, so I might see if there's anything I can add there. Particularly the L&YR stuff is missing at present. Andy Dingley (talk) 02:45, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Computing subject at AFD[edit]

You might want to go back to this one. At the time that you edited, the article had stood like this for some two and a half minutes. But if your Internet connection is like mine, it could have taken you that long to make your edit. ☺ Uncle G (talk) 21:23, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

  • Thanks for the heads-up, but the problem is what's in there and too much of it, rather than it needing addition. It's not a bad article, but it's a programmer's WP:HOWTO, not an encyclopedia article. Andy Dingley (talk) 21:26, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
    • I've seen programmers' how-tos. One thing that they have, that isn't in what we are looking at, is instructional content telling someone step-by-step how to do something. ☺ This article here is an actual programmers' how to, for reference and contrast with the encyclopaedia article before us. Uncle G (talk) 21:49, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Image deletion[edit]

First off, you've not considered the possibility that this is {{PD-textlogo}}. Second, policy does not permit deletions of this sort: if you want to have it deleted as replaceable, use {{rfu}}, which requires a waiting period. Simply claiming replaceability (regardless of how solid your claim is) is not a valid reason for immediate deletion. Nyttend (talk) 13:17, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Your latest edit to Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Sfan00 IMG[edit]

[3]. That was a magnanimous concession on your part. Honestly, I am quite impressed. So many times I see trench mentality around here where people absolutely refuse to give way on even the smallest of points even when they are blatantly wrong (not saying that is the case here). Maybe I'm becoming jaded :) At any rate, I was very, very impressed by this edit. --Hammersoft (talk) 00:46, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

CFDS[edit]

Reponded to your query at CFDS. Good Ol’factory (talk) 01:15, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Adding Categories[edit]

Hello. I'm replying to your request to add categories to the new article for What Engineers Know. First, I'm new. I'm not even sure if it is ethical to add a separate section like this to someone else's talk page! I don't see any other way to reply. Second, I reviewed the Categorization guidance and the wiring diagram left me unsure how to act. So here are some relevant categories for the book (history of science, history of technology, engineering, aviation, aeronautics, aerodynamics, aircraft design, astronautics, aeronautical engineering, epistemology). First, how shall I choose? Next, how many shall I use? Last, how do you actually "enter" them to solve the uncat problem? Many thanks and don't feel burdened to answer if you have too much to do. --pjm (talk) 05:28, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

I added four categories that seemed best to me. This leads me to a wiki-ethics question. If someone put a tag in an article, can you remove the tag if it has been satisfied? Thanks. --pjm (talk) 06:07, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
Sorry for butting-in, such are the side-effects of watchlists!. I'm sure Andy will be along to help with the other issues later.
I have re-added three of the four categories. Look at my edit and you'll see the difference: categories are listed individually. Also note that using a colon before 'Category' will cause the category to be shown as a normal wikilink, rather than as a category. (Same works for images -- shows a link to image name rather than the image itself.)
As for removing the tag, yes, anyone can remove the tag if they have satisfied what is asked for. So, I've done just that.
Finally, your user and talk pages redirect to that article/talk page which is (a) bizarre, (b) 'not the done thing' (technically: redirects across wiki namespaces are not allowed) and (c) why I had to reply to you here rather than on your own page! I'll let Andy advise you further on this, as you're clearly new here, and I'll be off-wiki until tonight, but don't lose any sleep over it....
EdJogg (talk) 10:07, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
Hi Grizanthropy, congratulations on a good article on this very interesting book (I'm a big fan of it). Very impressive for a first article.
Ed has already answered most points. The only real rudeness around here was drive-by tagging something that was clearly "under construction", rather than just getting in there and fixing it properly. However I was off to bed, and couldn't see an obvious cat for it. I think we probably need a cat for "Significant engineering books", but these are always tricky - the Usual Suspects will try to delete it for lack of 3rd party acclaim. Ahrons, Ricardo, Machinery's Handbook, Rubber Bible, A Pattern Language
One thing I think this article could use as well is a "see also" list (renamed though, as that's a rather feeble and vague name) to the specific topics discussed in the book: flush riveting, Davis wing etc. Davis wing has long needed a rewrite as Davis airfoil too, as it's so obviously written by Liberator fans who haven't read this book and the real background! Andy Dingley (talk) 11:06, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
Hello Ed/Andy, I can't describe how indebted I feel for your help. Thank you. As for my talk page problem I simply hit "move" on my user page once I built the draft therein per the article wizard. Not sure how to fix that weirdness. On a cat for "Significant engineering books," agree and I attempted to update this at WP: WikiProject Engineering but ran out of self-study time to figure it out... left a message on some page I can't find now. All good--just a newbie lost in wiki universe. I'll be happy to work on the "see also" and yes, it does seem there is room to improve those related topics. All the best.pjm (talk) 20:47, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
I suspected as much. That is a correct way of creating an article, but it is usual to use a sub-page of your user page (sometimes known as a sandbox), rather than your user page itself. For further information follow this link: WP:USERSUBPAGE. To create a sub-page, write the required name as a redlink, preview your edit and then click the redlink to start editing the new page (for example User:Grizanthropy/New_article ).
By the way, your user pages are now fixed.
Incidentally, when editing, if you click on 'Show preview' you can check that your edit is correct before you select 'Save page'. This is more efficient than making a number of small edits and saving between each. -- EdJogg (talk) 02:03, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for the user page fix... didn't know people had wiki-powers to help. Also, thanks on the show preview, I definitely needed that ray of light. --pjm (talk) 04:01, 31 January 2011 (UTC)