User talk:Andy Dingley/Archive 2011 June

Intel SDK
Dear Andy, I made this page (Intel SDK) & (Intel System Development Kit-) before more than two years they have the same content so I decide to rename the Intel SDK with new name (Intel Other Products) which I take the content of it from Intel Microprocessor List (Cut & Paste) and I add new link for this page on Intel Microprocessor List. So I think there is no problem if I make these changes..Best Regards..Mustafa — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mustafa1702 (talk • contribs) 10:08, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Drowned tube
Hi, re - a fire tube must be completely covered by water at all times that the fire is lit, otherwise there is risk of the tube overheating, leading to tube failure and a consequent boiler explosion. Do you have a source? -- Red rose64 (talk) 22:08, 2 June 2011 (UTC)


 * That's certainly the general case for locomotive boilers, but rarely so for vertical multitubes - there's even an obscure steam wagon vertical design with an annular steamspace, just to keep the tubes drowned. This is one of the reasons why vertical multitubes were never popular.
 * It's also not always true for 'locomotive' boilers. The real problem is keeping the firebox crown, which is radiant-heated, under water. As tubes are usually below this, it's implicit that they'll be submerged too. However if the boiler barrel is sloped, the tubes may then be partially above the waterline. The best example of that would be some of the pistol boilers and the Wallis & Steevens 'Simplicity' rollers. Andy Dingley (talk) 22:27, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

Editing
Could you please point at one or two specific examples of articles I've apparently left in an unreadable and fragmentary state? This would be useful to me. --Wtshymanski (talk) 15:04, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

TT-talkback
╟─ Treasury Tag ►  belonger  ─╢ 16:48, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Donkey boiler
Thanks for clarifying my clarification about the donkey boilers. Would it be appropriate to link to donkey engine here? And do you have any clue as to the origins of the name 'donkey' in these contexts? (For example, did the engine take its name from the boiler? And where did it originate?) -- EdJogg (talk) 15:12, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

Forgot my second point. Is the article title "List of boiler types, by manufacturer" strictly appropriate now? Many of the types, such as those added today, are not manufacturer-specific. -- EdJogg (talk) 15:15, 10 June 2011 (UTC)


 * I've no idea of the etymology, certainly not a referenceable one. However donkey engines existed on sailing ships (the last iron & steel hulled tall ships) before donkey boilers appeared as an in-port backup for steamships.
 * Until such time as I have a marvellously good idea for a better name, I'd leave it as it is. I certainly don't think splitting it would be good (although I only capitalise the ones named after makers) because that would make two lists to search through, by readers who have a name but no idea if it's a manufacturer, a model or a generic term. If you have any strong feelings for a better title, then feel free (but please fix the inbound redirs too). Andy Dingley (talk) 15:54, 10 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Nope, no better idea for a name, except perhaps to just drop the 'by manufacturer', as this is adequately explained at the start of the article. I certainly wasn't expecting to split the page. No strong feelings over this, so I'm not trying to force a page move, only pre-empting others who might want to. -- EdJogg (talk) 16:35, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

Propeller (aircraft)
Please clarify for me what "undercambered" means, and I will let your revision stand. Otherwise it will need to just be "cambered".--Raymondwinn (talk) 19:04, 10 June 2011 (UTC)


 * It's the opposite of camber - or at least, the diminutive of it. Santos Dumont was bending his propellers out of flat sheet, which was a strong way to do it, but couldn't achieve the best shape. The shape it gave was flatter than it ought to have been, with less camber than was known to be ideal. Replacing this with "cambered" is quite wrong, as it implies that they were too curved, rather than not curved enough. Andy Dingley (talk) 19:11, 10 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Hey - thanks for the explanation. I still think "heavily undercambered" is not the term you want to use. Why don't you either explain what you just told me, in the Propeller text or in a footnote, or on the Talk Page. Thanks in advance.--Raymondwinn (talk) 19:17, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

Le Mans
—David Levy 23:25, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

TT's editor review
Hi Andy. Can I please recommend you take a look at the post I left on Treasury Tag's user talk page, regarding his editor review? Your review is clearly heartfelt, but, if you take the step of AGF that TT is interested in improving his editing, it doesn't help him at all, because there's nothing he can take from it other than "I don't like the way you edit". Hope you have the time to have a rethink and repost over your comments. Thanks. --Dweller (talk) 11:14, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I think the best action would be an indef block and community ban. If you have a fluffy way to word that, I'd love to hear it. Andy Dingley (talk) 11:16, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
 * "That's unfortunate"? --Dweller (talk) 11:19, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Oxford spelling
You undid my edit to Oxford spelling.

My edit brought the table inline with the text. You have reverted it so that now the table contradicts the text again.

If you want to change the table then you must also change the text to justify it.

In fact the text is correct, the table is now wrong again, because it does not show the heirachical nature of language tags. If "normalize" is correct in en-GB-oed, then it must necessarily be acceptable in some text which is correctly tagged en-GB.

In your edit history you mention "common practice". If you wish to add a column "en-GB-mostcommonpractice" then you can, but if the column heading is to remain simply en-GB then it must list that both acceptable variants.

TomViza (talk) 10:49, 15 June 2011 (UTC)


 * No, you misunderstand the text and precisely what it means. Andy Dingley (talk) 11:16, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Thanks!
Hey thanks for defending my talk page while I was out! I appreciate it! Wizard191 (talk) 14:00, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Three-drum boilers
Another interesting article, although it took several goes to understand the Mumford and Woolnough types. I've applied a number of tweaks and left some inline comments for your perusal. The last three headings (Feedwater, Superheaters and Backwall) are in a section called 'Types', yet the headings would indicate modified components rather than distinct boiler types. I felt I wanted to move them into their own section, perhaps.

-- EdJogg (talk) 21:40, 16 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Thanks,
 * The Mumford is simple enough - should I add this half-section image?
 * The Woolnough is weird, as it's unlike all the others. Rare as anything and hard to find a picture of, let alone one that's copyright acceptable here.
 * (Admiralty) Headings are fixed, I'll take a read of the others. Andy Dingley (talk) 21:48, 16 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Headings: good -- makes sense now.
 * Mumford picture -- yes, I think it would be helpful. Ok, so I've read it 4 or 5 times now, but the new diagram helps understand the text and how all the weird shapes of the real boiler (ie in the existing pic) correspond to the components that are discussed.
 * On another reading, the Woolnough is starting to make sense :o)
 * -- EdJogg (talk) 22:01, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Wealden Iron Industry
I'm not sure that Category:Wealden is correct, as that seems to be about the distric council serving part of East Sussex. Category:The Weald would probably be a better one, but it is yet to be created, and would encompass a great many articles. No time to sort this, as I've got to go out in less than five minutes. Mjroots (talk) 12:41, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I'd agree. Should anyone care to sort out a better category structure, good luck to them. Andy Dingley (talk) 12:49, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

Cloud computing
Andy,

Can you please explain why our site CloudTweaks is being deleted?


 * Firstly because you're a careless editor. You posted here, but just stuck your two'pennorth in the middle of someone else's comment. At the Cloud computing article you posted your link so as to delete another (rather more useful) one.


 * Secondly because there's no useful content visible on your site. Please read WP:EL. External links aren't something we should be encouraging, only if they add somethign to the encyclopedia. A themed blog with no high-value content is way short of this.


 * Thirdly just because it is, your site. This isn't some resource you've found that you're enthusiastic to share because it's so useful, it's your own site that you're trying to push, for the sake of your site, not the sake of the encyclopedia.


 * Andy Dingley (talk) 19:30, 28 June 2011 (UTC)


 * "There's no useful content visible on your site"... I'm sure there are thousands of others who would very much disagree with you Andy. Not every site is perfect but "no useful content visible" is just so far from the truth. Anyway, keep your Larry Ellison video up there as a quality replacement for our site link that was recently removed.


 * Well I'm not the only one who has removed your content. One of those who did was Steve Loughran, and I've a lot more respect for his judgement. Andy Dingley (talk) 13:37, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Italian combat arts
If you have a problem with a deletion its better to discuss with the closing admin them edit warring over a perfectly valid G4 tag. Disagreeing with the outcome of an AFD is not a reason for a non-admin to remove a CSD tag - especially for a g4 of an almost identical article. Spartaz Humbug! 17:04, 19 June 2011 (UTC)


 * That AfD is one of the worst I've yet seen on WP for its mixture of ignorance and arrogance; both nominator and closing admin should be ashamed of it. As I recall, the nomination was that this was, "a pointless list of so-called martial arts". The nominators evidence for this was that the arts listed had neither WP articles, nor coverage under Google. I hope I don't have to point out just what a thorough misunderstanding of WP:N this is.
 * I haven't seen the original article, nor had I seen the AfD at that time. The later article, a claimed recreation, included a fairly substantial list of books as reference material - a couple of which I have myself. Now if the references had been added to the second version since, then this wasn't a simple recreation of content and G4 isn't applicable. If the two articles were the same, then the article was already better referenced than much of WP and the AfD nomination was very clearly wrong.
 * The problem, having now seen the creator's talk page, is that this seems to have been a thoroughly prejudicial deletion, carried out between bites of a new editor. Whilst the article would have been improved by copy-editing and inline cites, this sort of improvement work is absolutely no reason to delete it. Nor is the basic notability of the subject under any real question.
 * I do not appreciate my removal of a speedy tag being described as "edit warring", especially not when you turn a blind eye to user:Andyjsmith using incorrect edit summaries to hide the fact that he'd speedied it, when instead claiming it was an AfD. If there is a policy that says non-admins may not remove a speedy tag, then please direct me to it. You might also wish to fix db-g4 itself, to record this newly-minted policy.
 * I would also note that neither you nor user:Andyjsmith have made any visible comment at the creator's talk page, either to them directly, or as any response to my notification to them there that I'd removed the G4.
 * I am of course guilty of not having brought this new article to featured status overnight, which must surely be why you've now chosen to delete it already, before any discussion with either the creator or myself. Congratulations, another article vanquished, another new editor driven away, and all the evidence tidied away neatly down the memory hole. Another truly typical wikitriumph of adminship for the sake of it. Andy Dingley (talk) 23:56, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

GCR C13
What is the problem (if any) with the C13 photo which I contributed to Wikipedia? Why is it being suggested for deletion? RuthAS (talk) 19:32, 21 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Sorry Ruth, I thought there was a note on it at the DR. Simply that it's a duplicate.
 * It looks as if both were uploaded as duplicates and rather over-exposed. Since then a passing Wikignome who understands image cleaning has redone the levels of one so it's rather more visible. I don't think we need both and one image is much more readable, so I think we should keep that one. I note that the licences are different, so if you have any preference for keeping one over the other, then please say so.
 * As far as I can tell, they were exact duplicates - if there's some difference I've missed, please tell me. Andy Dingley (talk) 19:41, 21 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Mr Dingley - the revised version of the photo of the condemned C13 at Garton is a great improvement - a much better illustration for the Engine shed article. When I first added the image, I did not have Photoshop - which I've now learned to use! RuthAS (talk) 11:08, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

Early discover articles
All seem to be pov WP:CFORKs, I'm not sure if we need a group AfD but I suspect we do. I'm not convinced about a group article either based on the author's ideas, I don't think he's a significant enough fringe writer. Dougweller (talk) 15:42, 22 June 2011 (UTC)


 * I would quite like to see a single article with his theory as its core topic. As I understand it, it does claim a single explanation for one group that travelled widely and recorded visits to all of the islands, from the Canaries to Rockall (I know, when you say it like that it stretches credibility even further!). I like fringe theories, I find them interesting, and even if they're incorrect as a piece of subjective interpretation, they often describe interesting objective observations of rare archaeology.
 * In this case though, there just doesn't seem to be any secondary coverage and so the article(s) fail on that point, no matter how credible the theory is otherwise. That's perhaps unfortunate (in this case), but it's a strong policy for the overall benefit of the encyclopedia, so we're stuck with it. I'm in no rush to delete these, and if there is secondary coverage then the author should be given opportunity and guidance for how to introduce it. I certainly don't support the aggressive deletion of one as a hoax. In the end though, I think they'll be gone in a week. Andy Dingley (talk) 15:50, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

Severn tolls
Why did you just revert my revert on the bridge article? You of all people being a long established editor should know that verifiability is key on Wikipedia. "I can see the tollbooth", or "I have paid with a credit card" just doesn't hack it. --Simple Boba.k.a. The Spaminator (Talk) 20:10, 22 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Your parroting of "Verifiability trumps truth!" is the sort of assinine misunderstanding that makes WP such a joke.
 * There is no policy, or even a good reason, why verifiability ever beats truth - even here. Sure, there is a strong need for verifiability, and in many cases when we "know" something, then we can't go beyond that and state it here unless we can also verify it, blah, blah. However nowhere should we ever extend this to "verifiability supports untruth", which is what you're doing with this. Perhaps we can simply say nothing about cards on the bridge. Perhaps the most we can say is that they weren't accepted in the past, but that the payment methods are changing (and not extend this to claim what is accepted today, or when cards will be/were accepted). What is certainly foolish to do though is to continually reinstate a large block that is now obviously out-of-date, whilst hiding behind a ridiculous proof by authority. This isn't even WP:POLICY, it's a childish failure to understand WP:POLICY. Andy Dingley (talk) 20:54, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

Early Discovery of Atlantic Islands
Sir, you write: "I would incidentally favour a single article because I see the theory (across many islands) as being the important core of this content, not the history of individual islands." I agree. I shall change the individual contributions into a single one. Thank you for this suggestion.--Dr. R.M. de Jonge (talk) 20:44, 22 June 2011 (UTC)


 * I would be careful with this. Are you aware of the deletion listing that has now been opened? Articles for deletion/Early discovery of the Faroe Islands
 * The major issue is still that of secondary sourcing - without that, each and any such article will (rightly) be deleted.
 * Now if you were to create a new general article on the overall theory, and to do that either now whilst the AfD is running, or after the AfD has closed, then this would be taken badly by the WP editor community. If the article used only the same references as at present, then it would rightly be deleted. Even if it added the secondary sources we've needed all along, it is likely that most editors would see you as a "bad faith editor" who is recreating content that has previously been deleted. WP believes that it never makes mistakes and nothing ever changes, so any recreation of changed content is thus an act of vandalism by the "outsider" editor and will be punished severely, no matter how good the new article is. See Italian Martial Arts on this page. Creating a new article at present, even if sourced, would be an unwise and counter-productive move.
 * Your only real action that I can see is to find secondary sources, add them to perhaps the Faroe Islands article (if this is suitable) and also to join in the AfD discussion and note that you have added them. AfDs are not a "vote casting" (well, they are, but they're not supposed to be). If the situation changes and the problem is resolved, then the previous "delete" calls can be changed - hoping that the closing admin is competent and conscientuous, which I'm afraid is often a faint hope. Andy Dingley (talk) 21:02, 22 June 2011 (UTC)


 * And sadly he did that. Dougweller (talk) 14:39, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

Forks
I can't agree with your interpretation of WP:CFORK - even fringe claims about the history of a place belong in the article about the place. Forks don't have to include content from the article. Dougweller (talk) 14:39, 23 June 2011 (UTC)
 * You can't agree with it because I never attempted to define it. I very specifically phrased my comment that I wouldn't describe it as a CFORK, but I have neither time nor interest to worry over what the minutiae of that policy definition are. Especially not in this case, when I see the primary issues as firstly that he hasn't even explained what the theory is or what evidence there is that claims to support it, and secondly the obvious lack of secondary sources. The first is the more important because if we understood that much, we might possibly be able to search for some ourselves.
 * As I understand the theory, it is that some fairly homogeneous group of previously unknown travellers visited the range of these islands and left a single corpus of recorded petroglyphs to prove this. That's clearly a fringe theory, so it doesn't obviously want inclusion on each island's article - a "see also" or one sentence at most. As they're apparently a coherent single group of travellers, they'd be best discussed through a single all-encompassing article.
 * This is moot. We have no sourcing, we don't even have an article with useful content. Pretty soon we'll have no articles at all. Andy Dingley (talk) 19:31, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

re
sorry, my mistake--Coekon (talk) 09:00, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

Vaguely re... http://www.rexresearch.com/kidd/kidd.htm - w00t, it has pikturs n all. You learn something new every day William M. Connolley (talk) 10:55, 24 June 2011 (UTC)


 * You're in the UK aren't you? I'm surprised you're not more familiar with it.
 * They're gorgeous machines and work really well. I built one years ago, when coreless motors became cheap. With CNC and brushless motors now I should do a few more, maybe some steampunk ones.
 * Best part of course is handing them to physicists and asking them to explain what it does. It shows the ones who read Feynman and those who didn't. Andy Dingley (talk) 11:29, 24 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Okay - that was something pretty cool to read about. Love the random stuff you find out about here.  Ravensfire ( talk ) 15:14, 24 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I just love GWH's expert use of the law of unintended consequences. 8-) Andy Dingley (talk) 17:10, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

Early Discovery of Atlantic Islands
Dear moderators, dear Sir: The claim has been mainly based on decipherment of the two mentioned groups of petroglyphs. The only text which could be added to the articles is the following: "Both groups of petroglyphs are prooven to be megalithic (Ref.1). Both the passage grave of Cairn T at Loughcrew, and the petroglyphs in it, date from the time of the construction of Stonehenge I in South England, c.3200 BC (Refs.1-5). The eleven petroglyphs of Dissignac were made one after the other, spread in time from before the construction of the passage grave, c.4500 BC, to c.2500 BC, after which the monument was closed (Refs.6-9). As far is known, the interpretations of both groups of petroglyphs are not disputed in the literature."

References: 1. Twohig, E. Shee, The Megalithic Art of Western Europe, Clarendon Press, Oxford, 1981 2. Eogan, G., Knowth, and the Passage Tombs of Ireland, Thames and Hudson, 1986 (ISBN 0-500-39023-1). 3. Dames, M., Mythic Ireland, Thames & Hudson, London, 1992 (ISBN 0-500-27872-5) 4. Richards, J., Stonehenge, English Heritage, 1992 (ISBN 0-7134-6142-X)) 5. Atkinson, R.J.C., Stonehenge, London, 1979 6. Briard, J., The Megaliths of Brittany, 1991 (ISBN 2-87747-063-6) 7. Giot, P.R., Prehistory in Brittany, Ed. JOS (ISBN 2-85543--123-9) 8. Giot, P.R., La Bretagne. des Megalithes, Ed. Ouest France, 1995 (ISBN 2-7373-1388-0) (French) 9. Batt, M., and others, Au Pays des Megalithes, Carnac-Loc-mariaquer, Ed. JOS, 1991 (ISBN 2-85543-001-1) (French) --Dr. R.M. de Jonge (talk) 15:11, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

June 2011
Hello, Andy Dingley. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikiquette alerts regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. --Wtshymanski (talk) 15:00, 27 June 2011 (UTC)


 * The above WQA Notice appears to be malformed. The text starting with "The discussion is about the topic..." is in the WikiMarkup source, but is not being displayed. Alas, the text strings "Dingley" and "Wtshymanski" are found in multiple sections of the Wikiquette alerts page, so it is difficult to determine which section the above is referring to. Guy Macon (talk) 03:02, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I wish these templates did a bit more to manage section headings and links to them. Andy Dingley (talk) 08:45, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

Deletion review for File:FARC-child-soldiers.jpg
An editor has asked for a of File:FARC-child-soldiers.jpg. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. damiens.rf 14:18, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Gertrude Sheldon Sands Whitney
Since you dePRODed the article, I thought I should inform you that I opened an AfD for it, in case you wanted to participate. Thanks, Yaksar (let's chat) 02:49, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

Request
Please do not edit my talkpage again other than to leave AN/ANI notifications. This is not a demand, and it is not binding; it is merely a request. Thanks. ╟─ Treasury Tag ►  Counsellor of State  ─╢ 09:01, 30 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Noted, but I would point out that it will make very little difference. I will of course continue to inform you of the relevant necessary notifications, including AfD (and there's nothing personal about that one, I assure you). However if you use your talk page for attacks on other editors, like your comment on BoP (however deserved, that was just plain bitching to no positive purpose), then you should expect it to attract comment and criticism from others. Andy Dingley (talk) 10:06, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
 * My request is that you do not edit my talkpage other than to leave AN/ANI notifications. If you choose not to comply with my request, then I obviously can't prevent that, but it would be an unfortunate situation. That's all. ╟─ Treasury Tag ►  collectorate  ─╢ 10:10, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I recognise that you don't wish to have any avoidable contact with me, probably on the wise grounds that it is likely to escalate on either side. I do regard AfD notifications as a courtesy (do you create articles? I have no idea) and would see it as a rather feeble excuse in fact to AfD some of your work and not notify you, hiding behind a weak "but he asked me never to call again".
 * I recognise your wishes here and will generally respect them. But there are limits, and I see attack pages on other editors, like your BoP complaint, as being well beyond that. Andy Dingley (talk) 10:19, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
 * In answer to your question, I do indeed create articles; see the "achievements" section of my userpage for some examples. ╟─ Treasury Tag ►  directorate  ─╢ 10:21, 30 June 2011 (UTC)