User talk:Andy Dingley/Archive 2010 July

Merlin engined cars
Sorry, Andy, no technical details. The piece I unearthed yesterday read in its entirety "The second Jameson Special, a six-wheeled torpedo which had its 26.7 litre motor two-stage supercharged, I actually drove within earshot of Dorking. That now languishes in a Dutch museum". It was somewhat peripheral to Ronald "Steady" Barker celebrating the registration of a project car, viz. a Daimler DS420 with a Napier Lion where one would normally expect to find the Lord Mayor. The 2-stage blower suggests a Merlin rather than a Meteor, though I'm pretty sure The Beast had the latter.

There was a much more comprehensive article in either Autocar or Motor when the six-wheeler first broke cover, but alas all my magazines from that era went to the tip many years ago, so nothing about fuel or installation details. I'd have thought an aero engine would have been fairly happy drinking leaded five-star (certainly the assorted 2.0l Pinto-engined Fords which transported Clan Larrington around that time much preferred it to the muck available in the early 90s). The only thing I do remember from the article is that the transmission originally came from a Stoke-on-Trent Corporation bus! Mr Larrington (talk) 14:44, 27 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Found evidence of another Merlin-engined car the other day, this being a Merlin-engined Phantom II which had been acquired incomplete by Nick --86.137.75.132 (talk) 17:39, 25 July 2010 (UTC)Harley (the bloke who paid five million quid for the ex-Briggs Cunningham Bugatti Royale Kellener saloon. Again no technical details chiz.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mr Larrington (talk • contribs) 13:26, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Industrial Robot - repeatability and Precision
Thanks Andy. You beat me to it! Robotics1 (talk) 10:59, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

I just drastically edited the lot - hope its ok. Robotics1 (talk) 16:58, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Fusible pug
Andy, that ref doesn't work, or am I missing something? --Old Moonraker (talk) 12:28, 30 June 2010 (UTC)


 * It's not a ref, it's a cite to an existing ref. I've tried to clarify and distinguish it a bit. Where we have one ref (i.e. external bit) and we have multiple citations (internal bit on the page) that refer to it, we often use  to merge cites to that one ref. If (as here) we have a longer ref and want cites that are targeted to distinct bits of it, yet obviously share their overall ref, we can use this format.


 * It does admittedly work better when we're citing multiple random pages from a large book. For here, where it's only a handful of pages in total, we can simply ask the reader to read the whole item. I'd have no problem if you wanted to change it to form: still two cites to what's now more obviously one ref.


 * I also need to find the ref I read just last week (can't remember which book though) on solid core plugs and the problems of partial freezing after melting. Andy Dingley (talk) 12:50, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
 * The revision using  works better for me. Thanks.--Old Moonraker (talk) 13:31, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm sure you are watching the page, but the GA reviewer has asked for a couple of extra refs that I haven't been able to find. Best. --Old Moonraker (talk) 05:35, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Quick click for the review: a lot to get through.--Old Moonraker (talk) 06:00, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Accusations of "making things up"
These are not appropriate in the Wikipedia. You clearly hadn't done any google checkes on the subject, and hadn't even bothered to read the article, which highlighted the differences between the gamblers fallacy and the hot hand fallacy; and then you accuse me of fabricating information, and in the subject line. I am very unimpressed.- Wolfkeeper 16:57, 1 July 2010 (UTC)


 * There are three possibilities (ignoring questions of their causality):
 * Streaks encourage further streaks ("I'm on a roll today").
 * Performance on the next shot is independent of the last shot (simple rolls with fair dice)
 * Streaks discourage further streaks ("My luck has to change soon")
 * The "hot hand" hypothesis depends on #1. This isn't the same as the gambler's fallacy: both rely on #1, but the sporting version bases its hypothesis on streaks as being indicative of variable performance being at a local peak, which is a more robust basis than "The dice love me today". It's not a great basis - the preceding sample size is too small to be rigorously valid, but it's an "effective, fast and frugal heuristic" according to your single cite.
 * Gilovich et al. (1985), cited in your ref, favours #2 instead. Gigerenzer & Todd (1999) (also cited by your ref) support #1, as does the overall position of your cite (qualified somewhat by restriciting itself to a longer-timescale team strategy, rather than an individual) - on the basis of adaptive behaviour, self-belief encouraging risk-taking, and risk-taking being itself a good strategy for basketball.
 * The problem is that you've presented this in the article as "the probability of a streak goes down as the streak continues", which is position #3. I cannot see any supporting references for this position at all, at least not in the basketball context. Yet when challenged to reference it, your response was to cite the same reference that already supports #1!
 * Maybe your position is that of the reference, but in that case the overly terse wording used at present is far from clear. Andy Dingley (talk) 18:59, 1 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Congratulations you seem to be incapable of understanding the hot hand fallacy:

"The “hot hand” fallacy was observed by Gilovich, Vallone, and Tversky (1985), who noted that most people associated with the game of basketball believe that a player who has just scored several times in a row is now more likely to score—because he or she is “hot.” However, when these authors computed the sequential dependencies between successive scoring attempts of players, they found that there was no such dependency; indeed, if anything, players who have had a run of successful scoring attempts are somewhat less likely to score next time."


 * This is nothing at all to do with any of your 3 options.- Wolfkeeper 21:44, 1 July 2010 (UTC)


 * The only problem with your hypothesis is that Gilovich reports, "successive shots in basketball are independent events", i.e. #2 This isn't #1 admittedly (so they discount the fallacy) but nor is it #3, as you're reporting it. Andy Dingley (talk) 21:58, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Please contact me
Hi Andy, I just want to ask personal permission to use one of your images

Ringpicker(talk) —Preceding undated comment added 01:30, 2 July 2010 (UTC).


 * Email link (left hand column) works. Which image is it BTW ?
 * If this is an image on Wikipedia (there are very few of these) then it might have copyright issues and is only there under "fair use" (most of my handful of Wikipedia images are scans that are historically significant, but still under some publisher's copyright). If it's on Wikimedia Commons it will be (as is the case for all Commons images) there under CC-by-sa or a freer licence. In that case you know you can always re-use it, even without asking. Thanks for asking though, I'm always glad when people find a use for these. Andy Dingley (talk) 08:45, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Categories for discussion nomination of Category:Cranes by type
Category:Cranes by type, 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. Cgingold (talk) 16:20, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

WP:RSN
Re your post at WP:RSN, may I suggest that it would better next time to not mention editors. I understand your frustration, but WP:RSN is to discuss the reliability of a source, and editor behavior is totally irrelevant. Mentioning other editors spreads conflict and complicates what is really a pretty simple issue: the link is not appropriate. Johnuniq (talk) 01:57, 8 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Sorry, I'm unfamiliar with WP:RSN and its ways. Also (owing to an injured arm and inability to type) that was a simple mouse-paste from the previous RFC posting. This isn't really a sourcing issue anyway - the source is obviously inadequate - it's more about recurrent editor behaviour in forcing the link in. The escalation path for that is described as Talk:, RFC, RSN, before ANI. Andy Dingley (talk) 10:16, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

I need a little help ...
Hi,

I've seen that you are an active wikipedian member in the ORM category, so maybe you could help me a bit. I'm starting to use wiki so I don't really know all tricks...

I've written an article to present my ORM and I need some help to know if it's ok or what I should improve ...

The article : PdoMap_(PHP)

I also would like to create a comparison table with all php ORM with criterias such :

* type of sgbd * can override classes * have an alternative language * support XML configuration * have an generator from a database structure * can update the database * ...

Could you help me please, I need to find somebody experienced in wikipedia :))

Ioan CHIRIAC (talk) 18:58, 11 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Hi Ioan,
 * First off, I know little about ORM - something about Hibernate / JPA / Lucene, but not much else that is both recent and from outside the Hibernate world.
 * Secondly I do have some experience with WP, so I'm happy to assist, although very short of both time and working hands to type with (only one working arm at present).
 * The crux of WP is WP:NOTABILITY. For reasons that are pragmatic for the broad aims of the encyclopedia, WP's definition of whether an article is important and worth covering is tied to its "notability", not its "importance". Notability is judged by the attention paid to it by outside sources (see also WP:V and WP:RS), rather than any significance claimed for it by its author, or by WP editors. This is, on the whole, the best way to make a workable encyclopedia. On the other hand it also gives some editors an excuse to delete things without needing to bother their little fluffy heads about trying to understand any of an article's subject matter, merely citing policy by rote is enough. As you've now mentioned your article on my talk: page, there are a couple of editors who will probably now try and delete it, just from spite.
 * So you need 3rd party coverage. This can be shockingly bad (anything printed, or in "popular" media, is sacrosanct), however it's also difficult to have sources accepted for modern IT-related topics, because the peanut gallery will then claim that these sources are "self-published" (they fail to understand that IT does tend to discuss itself through the medium of, surprisingly enough, IT). Notable projects using a framework can also help.
 * I expect your article will be deleted soon. Don't worry about it. The point is not "Does my project need wiki coverage?" but rather "Does wikipedia need coverage of this topic?" The first is usually no, because web-related content can do quite well at publishing itself anyway. The second is often yes, when WP is then most vociferous about cutting its own nose off to spite itself. It's a bit grim to watch so much rabid stupidity in action (the attempt to topic ban anyone working on Semantic Web and a published authority was a classic), but the only mistake is to apply a sense of importance to Wikipedia that it just doesn't warrant. It's not Google: WP coverage isn't a condition of web coverage. Think of it more as a bunch of teenage kids with the world's biggest and best-indexed comic book collection, where their kid brothers still keep scrawling "Poo!" across Spiderman. To understand how the bulk of the Stupid works, perhaps watch a bit of WP:AFD in action first. I warn you, it's grim reading. Andy Dingley (talk) 22:11, 12 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Hi Andy,


 * Thanks for your reply.


 * Ioan CHIRIAC (talk) 13:03, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Liverpool Tunnels.
Our friend is a bloke called John from Milton Keynes. He is a known vandal and site nuisance having been banned from the LiverpoolWiki site for similar vandalism and removal of content, he's also been banned multiple times under multiple aliases from the skyscrapercity forums and other websites such as the Liverpool Echo. John aka Waterways aka kitchenKnife aka Save our Docks, is a violent opposer of any idea of a stadium being built on docklands Liverpool. He led a campaign against the building of the Kinds Dock ACC Arena and was banned from skyscrapercity.com for the way he went about stating his opinions. John will revert any submission to wikipedia relating to the proposed stadium at Clarence Dock. He did this on LiverpoolWiki site, removing people's work, leading to him being banned there. He runs a site called Save Our Docks, that is set violently against any idea of dockland stadia being built. He was banned from Keep Everton In Our City's web forum because he was unable to behave on that site also.

I am looking for a direct internet link as we speak and ask for some time to find this, baring in mind that the proposal is long dead and was put forward 6 years ago. The Liverpool Echo website, which held interviews with Nick Broomhead, the leader of the NWDA stating that they were interested in re-opening the dissused tunnels to service a dockland stadium as well as the Kings Dock Arena, to rapidly transport fans, does not seem to hold the old pages. It does not seem to have the stories saved. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.137.75.132 (talk) 17:40, 24 July 2010 (UTC)


 * First point, this is Wikipedia. It (by deliberate policy) doesn't take account of stuff that happens elsewhere. For every case where that might be useful, there are any number more where it's a false positive (I'm not the "Andy Dingley" I've been identified as on WP a couple of times) and even more where it's simply unhelpful to extrapolate from elsewhere to here. If someone is a regular troll and vandal, we'll probably notice for ourselves and deal with it.


 * Secondly, he's right. Whatever the truth of your argument, WP doesn't work by truth but rather by verifiability (hey, I just report this stuff, I don't make it up). Unless you can demonstrate (the holy trinity of WP:N, WP:RS & WP:V) that a plan was discussed to re-use the tunnels, and you can refer to some external source to support it (Liverpool Echo?) then he might be wrong, but he's still correct according to WP:POLICY to revert your edit. This is (in the bigger picture of WP) probably for the best, even if it's not working here. Then you get slapped for it, and the content doesn't appear. Like I said, you have to find refs to support it beforehand, because wikilawyers just _love_ a nice against-policy editwar to sink their fangs into and once that happens, you're clearly definable as A Traitor To the Party, no matter whether the content was actually right or wrong. Andy Dingley (talk) 18:05, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Several point here I have never been to MK. I was born and bred in Liverpool and can see the Metropolitan Cathedral through my window. I have never campaigned to stop development down the docks. I do know about the various plans to reuse both tunnels as I have put in FOI's to Merseytravel for the info. I have never been banned from those sites, or even contributed to them and if fact have only read SkyScrapperCity a couple of time.--Kitchen Knife (talk) 18:27, 24 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Do you have any refs for the tunnel plans that would be useful here?
 * Without wishing to fan this argument any further, how do you feel about adding a section of future plans to the tunnel articles? Are you reverting this because it's unreferenced, because you feel it's against WP:CRYSTAL, or some other reason? Andy Dingley (talk) 18:31, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

86.137.75.132 (talk) 18:37, 24 July 2010 (UTC) I give in. Let John delete my work. I cannot find the links I need. Andy....watch the Clarence Dock Liverpool wiki. I have updated that to add the 2004 historical NWDA stadium propsal. I GUARANETEE JOHN/KITCHENKNIFE WILL UNDO MY WORK. Just watch, you will see what a nuisance this guy is. 86.137.75.132 (talk) 18:37, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I reverting it because it is unreferenced. I also think it is wrong because the reference he does give shows a station on the Northern Line. The Wapping Tunnel is the other side of the city from the proposed Everton site and the Waterloo Tunnel is a fair distance away. I think he is confusing the proposed reuse of the Wapping tunnel for LFC's proposed stadium at Kings Dock, but I'm pretty sure that the proposal was for reopening Saint James station, again on the Northern Line. Some slight mention of plans could be made but the plans so far a very speculative, the Echo has The trams are dead, long live the train. I can't disclose the FOI stuff as Merseytravel wouldn't release copyright.--Kitchen Knife (talk) 18:43, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

The icliverpool site does report possible plans for both Waterloo and Wapping tunnels:
 * Merseytravel will also look at reopening the mothballed Wapping and Waterloo tunnels to create faster rail and road links from Edge Hill to the city centre and docks.
 * Cllr Peter Millea, Liverpool's executive member for transport, said: "Waterloo tunnel would create anew freight link from the M62 to the docks, taking traffic away from Switch Island, Queens Drive and Edge Lane.
 * "Wapping tunnel would allow anew city centrerail loop, connecting the Northern and City lines."

I'm unfamiliar with stadium plans, but if there are plans for one just South of the canal basin, it's entirely practical that Waterloo could be a route from it to Edge Hill (and thus the M62). Given just this ref, I'd consider some addition to the tunnel articles to be in order. Andy Dingley (talk) 20:12, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
 * The Waterloo tunnel ends |17|32&bd=useful_information&loc=GB:53.41506:-2.99669:17 here and the Wapping Tunnel |17|32&bd=useful_information&loc=GB:53.3981:-2.98309:17 Here and Clarence Dock is |17|32&bd=useful_information&loc=GB:53.3981:-2.98309:17 Here. If you look at the Wapping Tunnel article it has a future section. --Kitchen Knife (talk) 20:26, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
 * So doesn't that support just what I'm saying about Waterloo, assuming the stadium goes on the old Clarence dock site that's now being infilled. The Vandries St area would be no great loss. Sadly it's years since we owned property round there, or we might even have made a few quid on the deal 8-) Andy Dingley (talk) 20:32, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
 * BTW - Is the Stanley Dock bascule bridge working these days? last time I was there it was closed to traffic and diverted around. Andy Dingley (talk) 20:33, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Bascule_Bridge_on_Dock_Road.jpg This one. It was being worked on last week. I'm not disputing the it could be used for the stadium. I just do not think it has been. Personally I'd see them both used as train-tram with them connect Edge Hill and Broad Green with a tram that ran the course of the LOR. There are no end of proposals from people without any authority like me, trying to keep to just the ones that officials have spent some money on is the only way to prune them down IMHO.--Kitchen Knife (talk) 21:17, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

As predicted John/KitchenKnife has deleted my work on the Clarence Dock Liverpool wiki. I have resubbmitted with the masterplan drawings by the architects KPMG and with a link from Bill Gleeson's Daily Post story. http://www.thefreelibrary.com/New+pressure+for+clubs+to+agree+ground+sharing%3B+pounds+10mat+risk...-a0118082257 This guy will delete this again. I guarentee. He is a serial pest. 86.137.75.132 (talk) 17:39, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I haven't edit Clarence Dock article since October 2009 so yet again you wrong. Someone else deleted it. You are very very rude. Perhaps that is what happens when you grow up in Wigan, which would explain you lack of local knowledge, are you perhaps an Everton supporter.--Kitchen Knife (talk) 18:42, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

I grew up in Walton and I live in Wallasey. I have lived in Merseyside all my life. Unlike some who live in milton Keynes, isn't that right John! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.137.75.132 (talk) 19:26, 25 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Never been to MK in my life. My opinion of the place is that given in GBH which is "the biggest open prison in Europe". Strange your IP seems to be in Bolton, have a look at http://www.ip-adress.com. --Kitchen Knife (talk) 20:42, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Satellite campus
Hi. You commented at Articles for deletion/Satellite campus a few days ago. The article Satellite campus is now greatly expanded. I wonder if the changes would cause you to reconsider your opinion there. --Orlady (talk) 13:20, 25 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Sure, someone has clearly put work into that. Andy Dingley (talk) 13:36, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks. --Orlady (talk) 16:40, 25 July 2010 (UTC)