User talk:Andy Dingley/Archive 2011 October

Orphaned non-free image File:Guy Moll.jpg
 Thanks for uploading File:Guy Moll.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Skier Dude ( talk ) 08:54, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

spectaclist x Spectaculist
I don't really matter, it's just that I took a look at the mentioned paragraph (14) and it was spectaclist See: http://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/debord/society.htm

Whatever.

Neomedes (talk) 18:53, 5 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Interesting - I did much the same (something off the bookshelf) and it was spectaculist. I guess it's a translation issue from Debord, as I doubt he ever wrote it in English himself. Use Spectaclist if you prefer, there's clearly no clear indication either way. Andy Dingley (talk) 19:14, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

India Education Program
I entirely agree with what you wrote at Wikipedia talk:India Education Program/Courses/Fall 2011/Machine Drawing and Computer Graphics and have added a rant of my own; but I have moved the whole section to Wikipedia talk:India Education Program because I think it applies to the whole program, not just the Machine Drawing section. You may like to watchlist that for replies or further comments. Regards, JohnCD (talk) 20:09, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

See also Wikipedia talk:India Education Program. I don't quite know what  can be done to  alleviate the situation. I have spent many  hours this week on  NPP  and it  looks as if the situation  is getting  out  of hand. Our patrollers are too inexperienced to  cope, and our admins are deleting  the pages as fast  as they  are being  recreated. I have written  to  all  the project's ambassadors, but  their  pages are being  deleted too, also  for copyvio. With CorenSearchBot  down, manual  use of the Duplication  detector is also  largely  ineffectual. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 12:34, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

Camilla & Annabel
Hi. You'll notice my latest edit links her current article title but pipes her first married name. (TBH, that's what you should've done rather than reverting my edit wholesale, but hey ho.) I do have one question though – if we are strictly using their name-at-the-time, should she be piped as Camilla PB or Camilla Shand? DBD 12:53, 8 October 2011 (UTC)


 * My apologies, I hadn't noticed that your third edit was different from the preceding ones.
 * I think PB is fine, as I expect (in the admitted absence of any hard sources) that she was still visiting Annabel's in those days. I just find it hard to accept any of that set still going to what it has become in recent years. Andy Dingley (talk) 13:09, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

Variator (variable valve timing)
Hi Andy. I've suggested we userfy the page to  you. That way you  can parse out the copyvios using  [the http://toolserver.org/~dcoetzee/duplicationdetector/ Duplication  detector], and move it  back  to  mainspace when you're ready. That should keep  the history  intact. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 00:03, 9 October 2011 (UTC)
 * A reply is for you  on  my  tp. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 00:10, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

I suggested the merge, but  I'm  not  going  to  challenge your CSD. be careful though, not to rub anyonr up  the wrong way ;) Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 13:53, 9 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't much care what Warden thinks - he's off into Joseph Heller territory, when he starts to see everything as a problem to be fixed by copywriting alone, yet he can simultaneously be so vehemently anti-content and anti-expertise. I'm still waiting to see anything useful come out of ARS - my worry is that the truly dreadful boiler design survives and then becomes an obstacle in the place of a real article on it. Band brake is looking iffy too, and those redrawn white-on-black images are horrible. Andy Dingley (talk) 14:04, 9 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't  much care either, but  he needs to  he constantly reminded of WP:CIVIL -  which  he also  knows off by  heart. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 14:10, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

About those images at Commons
Hi Andy, I've nominated three more images for deletion with their original sources, these include at least one that you were suspicious of but couldn't find the source. Check this for the latest ones I've nominated. Best, Voceditenore (talk) 16:58, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

IEP
FYI I've created User:DexDor/IEP status (although I'm hoping we'll be able to continue using the IEP page for recording article status). G'night. DexDor (talk) 21:47, 9 October 2011 (UTC)


 * We can certainly continue to use the IEP page for this, and I for one will be watching it to revert whitewashing as necessary.
 * There's also some relevant discussion re unblocking at user talk:Kudpung. I've replied, although I don't want to invade someone else's talk page and do too much of this.
 * My main regret is that ARS have become involved. Boiler design and digital storage oscilloscope are now heading for their usual worthless content-free drivel (which can be fixed by copy editing for grammar, style, cohesion, tone, or spelling!), but because they're no longer demonstrably wrong we won't be able to get rid of them and produce something better. Andy Dingley (talk) 21:54, 9 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Agree in part with your comments re ARS (and I've pretty much given up with AfD - if PROD doesn't work I usually replace rubbish content by stub or redir), but there's some good work at Symbols and conventions used in welding documentation. DexDor (talk) 05:54, 10 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Symbols and conventions used in welding documentation is certainly better, as it's now a reasonable minimal stub. The point with this article though is the crucial image that was deleted as a copyvio book scan. The article just cannot exist without that, or a close substitute. Andy Dingley (talk) 09:21, 10 October 2011 (UTC)


 * I saw your comment here: "the problems there are broader than AfD is appropriate to deal with". I tend to disagree - prods and AfDs are the normal ways of dealing with unacceptable articles and for the students to see this happen is, in my view, an absolutely central part of their project. If they just wanted to write essays, then they would not need Wikipedia! But my question is: if the problems are broader, where should they be dealt with and what are you doing to start that discussion? &mdash; RHaworth (talk · contribs) 09:48, 10 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Ambassadors is a reasonable start. User:Kudpung is also pretty central to this.
 * One big question is just what we ought to be doing about topics that are listed under this project. Userfication is good and deletion might be appropriate in some cases - they fix the encyclopedia quality issue but they permit ongoing student work. Rescue though does neither - it's no way to make useful articles in that indecent rush, and also it squelches the legitimate student project. Andy Dingley (talk) 10:16, 10 October 2011 (UTC)
 * :Just popping  in  to  say  that  we are now making  good progress on  the IEP  issues. Conferences are now taking  place at  top  level and I  expect  we shall be getting  some good news in  a day  or two. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 12:43, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

top gear
Andy could you  please compare Gear, an article you  worked on  in  2007, and Design and manufacturing of gears by User:Aniketam.mech of the IEP. I'm not  sure that  this new article offers anything  new, and the references need to  be checked against  the hard-copy  sources that  are probably  in  the faculty  library in  Pune. Cheers, --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 14:56, 10 October 2011 (UTC)


 * I really have got some work and phone calls to finish (4pm local), but I'll take a look tonight. Andy Dingley (talk) 15:03, 10 October 2011 (UTC)


 * There is some overlap here, particularly for nomenclature, which is as we'd expect. I'd like to see this bulky section split as a separate article from both, just for neatness and readability.
 * Otherwise, the issues aren't about overlap, but about failure to address the central point. "Gear design" is well documented historically - I've a dozen or so books on it just myself, and was a popular part of any Victorian handbook of patternmaking. Much of this is about the maths of the shape of the gear teeth themselves, something that's simply ignored in this new article.
 * I think the fundamental problems of this article, and why it doesn't reach any sort of "pass" mark for an engineering course, are twofold and common to many other articles here.
 * Firstly there's no structure to the article - students need to learn to write a plan first, and afterwards search for content to flesh this out. This "filter feeding" approach of googling for word matches and pasting the resulting sentences gives a rubbish article that is unreadable and uninformative, yet "not wrong" and so is hard to clean up.
 * Secondly, students just don't seem to understand the topic before they write about it. Gear design, cycloids and the like, is an interesting subject and an informative example of a practical application for some pretty abstract maths. Yet the author here very clearly doesn't appreciate any of that, so they haven't thought to include it - yet it's this shaping of individual gear teeth that is the core of "gear design", not materials science or even spoke strength. Analysing the beam strength of individual teeth is really unusual (I've literally never seen this done individually), but to go to this really esoteric step, yet to not mention tooth shape and standardised sizing, is just a giveaway that the article was "assembled", not written from an understanding. Andy Dingley (talk) 19:08, 10 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the detailed analysis. I've copied it to  the article talk  page. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 06:22, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

Review of article : Evaporating dish
Hi, Andy Dingley. About the evaporating dish (Laboratory) articles, I would like to have some discussion with you. On top of that, actually this article is beyond my study field, and i always made much study before opening an edit. Besides, of this article, I really have made some revision on the internet, and done some imporvement on the article. If you are not believing my edit, you can check my references and make a search on the google. I just now make a double-check on the internet on other encyclopedia after your reverted edits, and the information is all true. And some of that is grammar error, you can check from the []. It is not like your comment in revision, stated that there is nothing of improvement. If you can, you can help me by reverse back to my version. Lastly, assuming good faith. Thanks.

Regards, Palaxzorodice (talk) 15:06, 11 October 2011 (UTC)


 * It was originally a translation from Polish and the grammar wasn't good. However the revised grammar wasn't any better, "or ensure that the dissolved substances is remain ". "carefully heats whole gently microtorch Bunsen (C)". Nor is answers.com anything like a WP:RS.
 * This article still isn't perfect and can no doubt be improved further. In particular it's unreferenced, but I don't have a highschool chemistry book to hand to cite. I'm also rather busy today. Andy Dingley (talk) 15:15, 11 October 2011 (UTC)


 * These two grammar error you stated above is the first version, Mike's article. I have not edit finish but already on the move. I think there is no need for you to reverse all because some of the information i corrected becomes error again, and you have to re-edit again to make it correct. On the article's reference field, me too have not cite and stated revision fully cause these few month i am not active.Palaxzorodice (talk) 15:21, 11 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry, but the quality of your grammar in even this simple reply is not encouraging. Andy Dingley (talk) 15:26, 11 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Ok. Hope you can do better than me. Wikipedia is welcoming all valuble editors. I do not mind I am worser or whatever. Thanks. Regards Palaxzorodice (talk) 15:29, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

The monthly Dingley
Do you have a strategy, or is just a dice-roll to decide which of my edits to protest? --Wtshymanski (talk) 21:25, 11 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Stop making bad POV edits, and editors (I'm not the only one) won't have to keep cleaning up after you. Andy Dingley (talk) 21:26, 11 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Do you have an objective criterion for what constitutes a bad or POV edit (strategy), or again, is it just a dice roll? --Wtshymanski (talk) 21:35, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

Categories for discussion nomination of Category:Henri Coandă
Category:Henri Coandă, which you created, has been nominated for discussion. 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. The Bushranger One ping only 01:27, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

Use of the term Solid surface in the United Kingdom
Here are six companies in the United Kingdom using "solid surface" or "solid surfaces" or "solid surfacing" as the generic name for the product Solid surface.


 * London Solid Surfaces
 * John Porter Worktops & Kitchens
 * Kitchen Worktops Plus
 * Mr Worktops
 * Premier Trade Surfaces
 * T Foley Interiors

Your thoughts?  Cullen 328  Let's discuss it  01:57, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

Renaming categories
Hi Andy. I have procedurally closed the move request you began at Category talk:Corrosion prevention because categories cannot be renamed through RM, they must go through the categories for discussion process (this is because categories can't simply be moved like all other namespaces). If you have any questions about this, feel free to ask. Best, Jenks24 (talk) 03:36, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

Solid surface and Engineered stone
Hello Andy,

I see from the section above that you have a contentious relationship with Wtshymanski. Please be aware that I know nothing about those issues, and am motivated entirely by my interest in these specific topics rather than any dispute between you and that editor. I am much more familiar with your work on Wikipedia than that editor's, and have confidence in your good judgment.

On the matter at hand, you wrote "the topic discussed under both these articles is clearer the same thing". I am assuming that there was a typographical error, and you meant to say "clearly". Please let me know if you had something else in mind. With all due respect, and leaving aside issues of variations in American and British terminologies, that simply isn't the case. These are not the same thing, any more than balsa wood is the same thing as ebony, or that petrified wood is the same thing as granite, or that a diamond is the same thing as cubic zirconia, or that a stone wall is the same thing as a concrete wall, or that particle board is the same thing as lumber.

Leaving aside the issue of terminology choices, I don't think that you could point to a single reliable source anywhere in the world that would say that a solid surface material is the same thing as engineered stone. I work with these products every day, Andy. We use entirely different tools and techniques to fabricate them and install them, because their physical characteristics are dramatically different. To summarize and simplify, solid surface materials are fabricated using the same tools and techniques that cabinetmakers use, and engineered stone products are fabricated and installed using the tools and techniques that stone masons use. That's because they are physically so different.

You also state that "solid surface doesn't have much public recognition outside of the USA" and it is unclear whether you are referring to the terminology "solid surface" or the actual material described in the article as solid surface. If you are referring to the material itself, then you are wrong, with all due respect. DuPont Corian is the original brand of solid surface material, and it has been manufactured in Japan and in Germany as well as the United States for decades. It is sold worldwide, as are many of the major competing brands of solid surface materials. I was involved in exporting solid surface materials to Cambodia 20 years ago for a hotel project. I have been in gigantic high-rise apartment complexes in Hong Kong where all of the countertops were made of solid surface materials. I have seen it displayed in kitchen showrooms in the Middle East. The leading centers for solid surface manufacturing today are Korea and the People's Republic of China. So, please clarify that remark. As for engineered stone products, they are made using manufacturing equipment developed in Italy, and were originally manufactured for countertop applications in Israel, and are now made in many countries and sold worldwide. This is by no means a "US specific" topic area.

So, I would appreciate clarification of your thoughts. When I understand your concerns better, I can furnish specific reliable sources that will address those concerns. Thanks you.  Cullen 328  Let's discuss it  01:23, 12 October 2011 (UTC)


 * As I read those articles, they are discussing the same thing, and it's what DuPont sell as Corian (you can bond it invisibly, you can work it with simple tools). There is also a further world of engineered stone that is indeed different, and is more mineral based so that it needs abrasive tools. However that same wording gets used very widely, although perhaps incorrectly.
 * In our current article under engineered stone, we have this, "It is used primarily for kitchen countertops. " Now as I read that, it's taking the line that these are the same thing - i.e. it's taking the narrow (and possibly wrong) view that solid surface is an engineered stone, and that the market being described for engineered stone is limiting itself to these countertops.  I honestly don't know whether it is or not - I know that the most popular countertop UK material like this isn't Corian, it's a heavily filled (can't be routed) material that does however bond like Corian, made from the same resin. It's sold heavily as "an engineered stone" because those selling it see "stone" as an up-market selling point.
 * Of course engineered stone is much bigger than this. Home hearth slabs and lobby wall panels for two.
 * The question is, where do we take these articles? Merge them, or expand the engineered stone version to make it clear that the topic is broader? Either is possible and defensible. There's not even any disagreement over content, just over terminology. Overall I think clarifying solid surface as the bondable, machinable, Corian-likes and then broadening engineered stone to be the non-machinables with many purposes. There could be some merging with what we have (there is overlap at present), but what we wouldn't do is just make engineered stone a simple redirect to solid surface.


 * Solid surface is rare in the UK, even in hotels. We like tradition, so we like porcelain basins with gunky water traps round the edges. The idea of a sink made from glued Corian slabs is just bizarre to us. There's a restaurant in town where the washrooms were made from one angled slab of Corian (like a million high-grade fitouts across the US) and people still comment on them today as something unusual. Our "kitchen countertops" are nasty things made of round-edged chipboard with a melamine and paper laminate stuck on, then installed with gaps, rather than cutting to fit. It's still rocket science to use a router to cut a half-decent mason's mitre and leave a visible glued joint, rather than pushing in a cheap and rubbish plastic trim. Our kitchens (and Euro cabinets in general) basically suck. The solid surface fitters you quote are rare exceptions (and they really are rare) and also I doubt they use the words "solid surface" to a customer - there's zero brand recognition for such a term amongst the public. I'm a furniture maker, although not really kitchens or countertops, and I know it through talking to US woodworkers, not through hearing it locally. Andy Dingley (talk) 00:24, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

Your warnings removed
I wanted to let you know that the warnings and templates that you added on User talk:137.82.100.75 keep getting removed. You may want to take a look at this. Best regards. Rafał Pocztarski 00:51, 13 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks, but see Srobak's comments below - it's one editor running two accounts and two IPs. See Millionaire. Andy Dingley (talk) 07:03, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

October 2011
Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to delete or edit legitimate talk page comments, as you did at User talk:Bigsean0300, you may be blocked from editing. ''We have been over this. While I dislike it - Bigsean is within his rights per WP:BLANKING to remove your notice of being a suspected sock. You are not only violating WP:TPO by reverting his edits, but you are also falsely reflecting in your edit summaries that he is blocked for sock. Until and unless that is actually the case - you are not to do that. Your continued conduct is both vandalistic in nature as well as WP:HARASSMENT of another user. If your conduct continues down this path once more, you will be ANI'ed. '' Srobak (talk) 02:00, 13 October 2011 (UTC)


 * @Srobak: WP:DTTR and WP:CIVIL. I know that  you  'do very, crystal clear. I say what I mean and I mean what I say' but  warmer tones go  a long  way  toward better  collaboration  on  Wkipedia. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 06:34, 13 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I was quite civil the first time around with him on this, and he decided to turn it into a pissing match back then. I only allow that to happen once per person. That being said - it appears I am eating crow in this instance. See below. Srobak (talk) 13:55, 13 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Srobak - take it to ANI and save me the trouble. Why are you defending such a clear vandal and blocked sockmaster?
 * This account is currently blocked. The latest block log entry is provided below for reference:
 * 23:36, 4 October 2011 Kuru (talk | contribs) blocked Bigsean0300 (talk | contribs) (account creation blocked) with an expiry time of 2 weeks ‎ (Abusing multiple accounts: Angersfury)
 * Andy Dingley (talk) 07:00, 13 October 2011 (UTC)


 * As I indicated the last time I went around with you on this - I was not defending him based upon his actions - but rather against yours. However - as you have pointed out he is blocked, so I do apologize for the above.  The notice does not appear on his talk page as it is supposed to however, and I will be requesting Kuru place one there so further confusion is avoided. It would have also helped if you had placed a confirmed sock notice on his page rather than a suspected one - as he was indeed blocked for it. Again - my apologies, I was in error here.  Srobak (talk) 13:55, 13 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I located and placed the proper notification on the user talk page and retracted the request from Kuru's talk page. Srobak (talk) 14:47, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

Thanks
Last night I was looking at someone's long good faith edit and debating whether to revert. I went and did something else for awhile, and when I came back you had saved me the headache by reverting ahead of me. I looked at another edit that I was going to remove, but you were there ahead of me. Today there was a nice comment about a flame at Talk:G-code. Thanks. Glrx (talk) 16:09, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

Knowle West, Bristol
Hi Andy. The above is now at WP:FAC. I would appreciate any comments/support that you may care to offer at Featured article candidates/Knowle West, Bristol/archive1. Tx. Jezhotwells (talk) 20:11, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

Voltage spike
Is there a purpose to restoring something that says it's off topic, or do you just have a surfeit of time on your hands? --Wtshymanski (talk) 21:34, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Your enthusiasm to blindly delete anything trashed the page. Andy Dingley (talk) 21:43, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Piffle. I put back the when I noticed the problem. Again, you've restored something that's technically unsound(and in this case evidently a product of someone's beef with a supplier) just because you enjoy contradicting me. --Wtshymanski (talk) 21:54, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Andy, take a look at this and the content of the previous few edits by (now blocked) user Potentilla. There is obviously an agenda there. Your reversion was hasty, and I have since pulled out the embellishments from the section you guys are fighting over to reflect accurately. Srobak (talk) 23:50, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Your own track record for accuracy (see above) leaves you in no position to lecture others.
 * If this were a lecture - you would know. It also has nothing to do with "above". I was being informative. You need to adjust your perspective to understand the difference of when people are talking to you vs. at you.  A hint - this was not the latter. Srobak (talk) 01:48, 22 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Wtshymanski was probably right in his subjective judgement about this meter content. However his careless editing also broke the page and his continual disregard for the basics of collegial editing (three revisions isn't just a guideline) is tiresome in the extreme. He has other options to deal with a POV pushing editor, yet he clearly considers them beneath his almighty wisdom. Potentilla may have damaging one section, but Wtshymanski's behaviour damages whole projects. Andy Dingley (talk) 23:56, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
 * He fixed the refsec he broke almost immediately - and you are being quite melodramatic about Wtsh's behaviour and their impact. Srobak (talk) 01:48, 22 October 2011 (UTC)
 * It's about collateral damage. W. shouldn't be in such a rush to delete sections (what is it with this obsession?) that he trips over the furniture to do it. Nor is it possible for other editors to assess or discuss a contentious change when he's busy blindly edit warring over it. He's often right, he was right here, but he goes about it in a way that is needlessly destructive to the smooth process of editing overall. There's no need for that. Andy Dingley (talk) 09:34, 22 October 2011 (UTC)
 * You've never made an error in your edits which you have fixed a moment or even an hour or more later? I agree that care should be taken when editing live articles and that preview should be used when conducting major edits... but this was a very small and simple problem that was introduced - and it had all of one minute of exposure. It seems that you might be picking a nit here - and I'm someone who is usually quite critical of other people's edits. $.02  Srobak (talk) 14:11, 22 October 2011 (UTC)
 * If I may interject here, when one has had dozens and dozens of negative experiences with an editor, there is a tendency to view the slightest deviation from correct behavior as "the last straw." While this is a natural reaction, it is also a mistake. If some random editor had done the exact same actions, would Andy had treated him or her the same? Probably not. I, like Andy, am convinced that Wtshymanski is here for a purpose other than improving the encyclopedia. But I also believe that it is an error to get sucked in to an attitude of opposing all thing Wtshymanskish.  Better to deal with each new incident anew.  There is a place for taking a long look at Wtshymanski's past history, but in my opinion this is not that place --Guy Macon (talk) 21:48, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

ding
Hi Andy. I'm just  letting  you  know that  I  have semi-protected the page for a month. There is too much  disruption  from  IP  editors. It's not vandalism, but it a serious nuisance. If you think  the protect  should be lifted at  any  time, please let  me know. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 01:51, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

Non-Von
Arduino and BASIC Stamp just for two. I'm not a subject matter expert but I know what I read in the comic books. --Wtshymanski (talk) 22:17, 22 October 2011 (UTC)
 * The point is that these are built out of single-chip controllers, one of them being the AVR that I cited in my previous comment. They don't need a whole board to make a workable system, unlike the chipsets of the period about which we're discussing. Where is the Harvard architecture that was a single-board, but not a single-chip (i.e. with no exposed bus onto the board at all) ? Are you really incapable of understanding this distinction? Andy Dingley (talk) 22:24, 22 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I just reverted Wtshymanski's edit to Single-board microcontroller‎ with the comment "You cannot use attributes of a modern microcontroller-based board as justification for removing content about early single-board devices." Basic stamps are not early single-board microcontrollers. Arduinos are not early single-board microcontrollers. The portion that Wtshymanski deleted clearly says: "When single-chip microcontrollers became available later on, the bus no longer needed to be exposed outside the package and so the Harvard architecture of separate program and data buses (both internal to the chip) became popular." You can't use examples using single-chip microcontrollers to dispute a statement that specifically excludes single-chip microcontrollers. --Guy Macon (talk) 02:33, 23 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks. This is what I don't understand about his changes - I don't even disagree with him and the LSI-11 might be an interesting addition to the early history, but he just seems to be failing to read the paragraph (beyond the first sentence anyway). Is that a failure of language, or hitting delete prematurely after one sentence, not the whole para? Andy Dingley (talk) 09:38, 23 October 2011 (UTC)
 * My theory is this (and it is just my personal opinion): As we all know, there exist people who are here not to improve the encyclopedia, but rather to "make their mark."  When someone makes their mark by replacing the Obama article with the words "poopy head" we call that vandalism and instantly revert it.  Some small percentage of the vandals move on from such obvious vandalism to making legitimate-looking edits that introduce false information. But what if an individual decides to make his mark by removing things? Could such a person also try to see if his deletions will fly under the radar and stay unreverted? In my opinion, that is what we are facing with Wtshymanski.


 * Normal vandals are mostly morons. But Wtshymanski is smart.  He morphs his technique so as to avoid being blocked. A prime example of this is his recent posted arguments in support of deleting part of Single-board microcontroller‎.  Wtshymanski knows full well that Basic Stamps and AVRs are not "early single-board devices."  What he is counting on is that any admin we appeal to won't know or care about the technical merits of the dispute, and will decline taking action based upon Wtshymanski appearing to be discussing and appearing to be seeking consensus. Those of us with an engineering background all know that his arguments are bogus and those who have dealt with him before know that there is a zero percent chance of him changing his position, but the admins don't know that.  That's why we need to be more clever ourselves in dealing with him, and especially to make sure our own actions follow Wikipedia guidelines. --Guy Macon (talk) 16:36, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

Survey for new page patrollers
Delivered by MessageDeliveryBot on behalf of Wiki Media Foundation at 11:06, 25 October 2011 (UTC).

Single-board microcontroller
If you have time, could you do me a favor and look over the comments Jeh made at Talk:Single-board microcontroller, and possibly copyedit the article as appropriate? I am on a hot project and can't get to it, but I feel bad about the possibility that some good-faith edits by Jeh got nuked along wit W's attempted unsourced changes. Thanks!Guy Macon (talk) 04:42, 24 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Looks like Wtshymanski is continuing his behavior pattern. There is a reasonable chance that eventually this is going to get some serious admin attention, so let's make sure that our responses are squeaky clean - no incivility, no bending the rules, etc. Guy Macon (talk) 00:44, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

Help
Hello Andy,

I was going through the following article and noticed that it has many issues.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Variator_(variable_valve_timing)

I really want to help improve the article but I cannot figure out how I can do so. The talk page of the article is blank and hence there is no other place where I could leave a message for help. Through the history of the article I noticed that you had left a message on it's talk page. I would be grateful if you could help me figure out how I can improve this article.

Thank you. Regards, Gunit. Gunit31 (talk) 15:45, 25 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Hi Gunit,
 * This sort of thing is usually best discussed on article talk pages, because then all the interested parties are more likely to see it. Feel free to copy over sections from here to there.
 * A couple of specific issues I can think of:
 * References. VW is quite good, but the others aren't.
 * Other types. There are two other makers listed, Ford & BMW, and these could be expanded in this article.
 * Images. A drawing of either variator would be good. The VW could be drawn in Inkscape or Autocad without too much trouble. The Alfa, with its helical splines, would need a bit more CAD skill than I have.
 * Andy Dingley (talk) 18:54, 25 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Hi Andy,
 * I have added extra content and sources to Diecast Model World - Brett Brute — Preceding unsigned comment added by Brett Brute (talk • contribs) 11:38, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Renaming categories
Hi Andy. I have procedurally closed your move request at Category talk:Robot because categories cannot be renamed through the RM process, they must go through CfD. Best, Jenks24 (talk) 18:48, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

No Need...
No need to ever apologize for reverting me. I trust your judgement. Besides, if I ever find myself disagreeing, I would want the last stable version to be up while we discuss the proposed change Cheers! Guy Macon (talk) 10:35, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Take a look at it now. I've expanded it a bit further to try and clear up someone's comprehension problem. Andy Dingley (talk) 10:41, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Steampunk
Thanks for your (seemingly) supportive comment on my talk page. I cannot fathom why good editors like you could possibly support the actions of people like this Jacobite whatever-he-is. He attacks me, then somehow magically I attacked him? Then he removes my post from a talk page? That is not legal, and even admins do not normally do that.

No wonder he has a protected talk page. Who else has he insulted and mistreated?

And as I stated on my talk page, I have no intention of "battling" the fool. An attack is one thing; calling a fellow out of line for his actions, that is NOT an attack.75.21.113.40 (talk) 15:24, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I do not support Jacobite's actions. The page history ought to make that clear. Just read Talk:Steampunk. This goes back a long way, with some other editors too - I recall a debate over the Paris Metro and station decor at Arts et Metiers.
 * However one's editing efforts are limited and I prefer to spend my time more productively on things that I might achieve, rather than beating my head against a page owner. The steampunk article does seem particulary ossified though, with no substantive changes for the last few years, despite the huge public interest in steampunk itself. Andy Dingley (talk) 15:31, 31 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Ossified
 * If you can possibly show WP:RS that suggest steampunks might have a certain fondness for top hats, then no doubt it would be allowable. Otherwise, the great and the good of Wikipedia have clearly decreed otherwise. Next they'll be questioning whether steampunks ever go to events. Andy Dingley (talk) 17:06, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Dear Dingley, I thank you for your candid answer, and of course I did note your position on steampunk. It simply beggars the imagination why people stand by and allow Republican Jacobite - who seems to have the temperament of a 13-year-old girl - to do what he wishes.

As to the top hat: I am having some trouble finding the milliners who feature "steampunk" top hats in their top hat sections. But they are there, do not doubt it! As for my own search so I could pop in a reference, I went to my regular hatter's site and found steampunk goggles but no reference in the top hat section! This is all very young and underdeveloped, as Groucho Marx said of the photographs of the young native girls.

You see, I wish to de-ossify (or shall I say rehydrate) the page and the topic. I'm an old codger and an enthusiastic newcomer to steampunk. I happen to wear Victorian-influenced things most of the time and look good in them. I don't like to see this kind of wonderful thing being ruined by one difficult blackguard.75.21.113.40 (talk) 20:42, 31 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Sorry old bean, I want you to read this courtesy of Republican, posted on Orangemike's talk: "Thanks for those reverts! I had decided to step back, and hope that someone else would revert those claims, both because of Andy Dingley's multiple accusations of article ownership, and my previous conflicts with 75.21.113.40. The latter has continued using the article talk page as a billboard for his grievances, and is forum-shopping for someone to smack my hand for deleting his personal attacks. I am glad to see that Jpgordon wasn't having any of it. On the other hand, I am dismayed, honestly, that an experienced editor like Andy Dingley, whatever our differences, would countenance and encourage the IP's nonsense. The attitude he evinced on alternate talk page speaks for itself.

Let me just say, in general, that I am glad you are still around, and still at it. Cheers! ---RepublicanJacobiteTheFortyFive 17:20, 31 October 2011 (UTC)"


 * You see now, do you not, that this foolish troglodyte is out of control. How many of the articles do you think I have edited - and created? How long do you think I have been working on Wikipedia? Long enough to know a damnable bully when I see one. I hope this spurs you all to slap Republican.75.21.113.40 (talk) 20:51, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Argentina may have tearducts, but does Wales cry for anybody? IN ref: Steampunk
You know I come to you with a sort of farewell, Andy my dear, because frankly you have a good head on your shoulders, seem very sweet to me, and my goodness how you do battle with that Republican Jacobite creature!

In any event, I say to you: keep up the good fight and the work. As I said from the beginning, I am a deeply interested, enthusiastic newcomer to steampunk, but I was dressing that way in the 1950s. I spent the early 1970s as a Goth. I'm too old and slow to be in this discussion, especially with Orangemike and Jacobite splitting pseudo-academic Wikipedian hairs.

My only regret is leaving a person like you to sort of fend for yourself. Sadly, I had enough of this bickering years ago, yet I keep coming back only to be throttled again and again and again ....75.21.113.40 (talk) 22:37, 31 October 2011 (UTC)