User talk:Andy Dingley: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 04:36, 18 June 2017

Superheater

Hi Andy, Please stop undoing the edits on Superheater and take the time to read the text. Unsaturated steam and wet steam are the same thing. When I first read the article, it was confusing, which is why I took the time to edit it. The revised text should be clearer to everyone. Jonathan 123987 talk 00:34, 26 January 2014

Spoken Wikipedia

I see you noticed my many Spoken Wikipedia requests. I recently discovered the Spoken Wikipedia project and I just put in different articles on topics I felt were important. I included everything from U.S. Presidents (Abraham Lincoln, Donald Trump) to cars (Chevrolet Camaro, Ford F-Series, Willys MB) to video gaming (Nintendo Switch, Playstation, Casio Loopy, Burnout (series), Crazy Taxi, Q*Bert) to South Park (Matt Stone, Trey Parker, Mary Kay Bergman, With Apologies to Jesse Jackson, Casa Bonita, Scott Tenorman Must Die) to MLB Baseball (Boston Red Sox, New York Yankees, different world series) to popular tourism spots in the United States (Orlando, Florida, Virginia Beach, Virginia, Atlantic City, New Jersey) to popular movies (Satuday Night Fever, Miracle on 34th Street, Inside Out (2015 Film), Ferris Bueller's Day Off) to clothing brands and designers (Adidas, Aeropostale, American Eagle Outfitters, Calvin Klein, Hanes, Jockey, Nike, Ralph Lauren, Tommy Hilfiger) to a huge variety of other topics.

I like to listen to these while cleaning, working out, etc. and find the request tool very useful for gaps in Spoken Wikipedia.

By the way, ThatGirlTayler (talk) does a great job with this stuff. You should listen to her recording of Garage Sale.

Thanks

Lionsdude148 (talk)

Blorenge

Sporange. Ghmyrtle (talk) 14:42, 16 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'd heard that (in Blaenavon, naturally), but only for it being rejected as too latin and too made-up. Andy Dingley (talk) 16:59, 16 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Warren Truss Bridge

In what way is this mot a duplicate of Warren truss, which is largely about bridges???TheLongTone (talk) 15:40, 21 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

See Talk:Warren Truss Bridge where I've already explained this.

Also please stop adding CSD tags to it. If it's challenged, you can't re-request speedies over and over. Please discuss at talk:, or else use AfD.

First of all, I'm not looking at if "it's a duplicate", it's about a longer-term view as to whether the organisation of trusses and Warren trusses is best in the list articles or split into a separate one. I'd support the separate one - especially as the truss list is tiny and the truss bridges list isn't a good place for a description of three uses of the truss when 2/3rd aren't bridges. Andy Dingley (talk) 15:44, 21 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I see your point, but the article needs to be rewritten. Or written; there is zip about bridges here. As it stands there is a brief explanation of the principle of the Warren Truss, followed by a lot of stuff about its use in aircraft. It seems bizarre to have not a single illustration of a bridge but two of aircraft.TheLongTone (talk) 13:18, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This belongs at Talk:Warren Truss Bridge, not here - I'll copy it over.

I don't think it needs rewriting, so much as renaming. The scope should be that of the warren truss, not just the bridges.

The deleted content ought to be restored, as relevant to the broader truss scope. It can't be restored to the truss bridges article, as it was, as that's the place that is limited to bridge scope. Andy Dingley (talk) 09:32, 23 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Commons links

Re: this edit: Can you point me to the specific MOS provision you're referring to? Thanks. — Ipoellet (talk) 20:52, 23 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for this BTW, I hadn't noticed the accent.

The MOS guidelines (there are several overlapping, many of which contradict) are poorly written and are often misinterpreted. It states, and should be read as, "Use the box format to link to Commons. Place this box in the last section, don't create a new empty section just for the box." The problem is that this keeps getting mis-read as "If there is some minor formatting issue, such as a dangling RHS of boxes, then completely change the format used for linking to Commons to make it unfamiliar, unrecognised and too small to even notice." Some editors insist on this, but it's still deeply unhelpful to our readers to flip formats. Andy Dingley (talk) 21:25, 23 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

NS320xx

Hi Andy. If you look at Category:Microprocessors you'll see that even the x86, ARM, 6502, 68000, and Z80 aren't listed. That's because they're in the "Microprocessors by company" category, and not directly in Microprocessors. the NS320xx series wasn't following that convention. Dgpop (talk) 14:04, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Then the others need to be added. It's ridiculous to have something obscure like the Signetics 2650 directly under the top-level category of Category:Microprocessors, but not the Z80. The Z80 is there of course, but hidden away under unrecognisable sub-categories. In which case, the Z80 also ends up hidden away in a separate tree from from the 8080, which is just ludicrous. The 8080 being under Category:Intel x86 microprocessors is just plain wrong, but then hey, Wikipedia and simplistic WP:SUBCAT overruling truth and accuracy, yet again. Andy Dingley (talk) 16:10, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I agree; it's a mess. There aren't so many microprocessors that a big category of ~500 would be a problem, and it's easy to have sub-categories for large families if needed. Dgpop (talk) 02:10, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Also, I fixed the 8080 categories. The x86 category, unexpectedly, comes from using the template "Intel processors|discontinued". Dgpop (talk) 02:20, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That's great, thanks. Andy Dingley (talk) 09:18, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Crank

Hi Andy, my thinking is that since the handle of the quern is fixed in place it offers no rotational translation. It is merely a guide for the hand which is providing all the rotational force, cheers Unibond (talk) 19:08, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This belongs at Talk:Crank, not here. I can see two issues - one is the need for a connecting rod: There are enough "crank" mechanisms widely described that either don't use them, or use the human arm or leg as one, that we might separate sections in the article for the two forms, but we definitely have to include them.

Secondly, this idea here that a fixed crank without an inherent rotating sleeve isn't a crank. Again, examples without are widespread and we simply use a loose hand grip to take its place. Andy Dingley (talk) 10:09, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I still think it's not a crank mechanism, maybe because the handle is being mistaken for an axle, but you are right, it is a can of worms, I shall leave it alone, cheers Unibond (talk) 01:50, 6 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

DU - keep up the good work

but if Kim and Aggie are ever let loose on loose respirable alpha contam, I hope they at least go at it with bucket and mop rather than a vacuum cleaner ('a leaf-blower with filtration' as it may or may not have been described to me once by a professional health physicist - not one of the amateur ones that frequent the DU talk page) In fact I would expect any method statement to note in large bold type that vacuum cleaners must not be used. Best practice would be to immobilise the activity and then shovel it up (although once it's immobilised a JCB is probably quicker and cheaper than two women with Marigolds). Rjccumbria (talk) 21:56, 14 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Welding

Andy,

I am confused by the reversal of my edit to the welding page. The reason given is: (rv unsourced claim that flux is there to stabilise the arc. Undid revision 780799836 by Waynems (talk))

The two sections below say exactly the same thing, in that one of the things flux does is stabilize the arc. My change simply makes the sentence less awkward.

Please explain your reasoning.

MY EDIT It was largely replaced with arc welding, as advances in metal coverings (known as flux) were made. Flux covering the electrode stabilizes the arc, and shields the base material from impurities.^[1]

ORIGINAL It was largely replaced with arc welding, as metal coverings (known as flux) for the electrode that stabilize the arc and shield the base material from impurities continued to be developed.^[1]

Thanks!

Michael S Wayne 03:13, 18 May 2017 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Waynems (talk • contribs)

Sorry, my mistake - it was pretty bad beforehand. The idea of the flux stabilising the arc is the problem. This just doesn't happen. At most it has a minor role in the establishment of the arc (not a positive one - just that a damaged rod can strike sideways), but stability after that is electromagnetic. Hafergut showed this in the 1960s. Andy Dingley (talk) 05:47, 18 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the response, and the additional information. Best. Michael S Wayne 00:22, 19 May 2017 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Waynems (talk • contribs)

BTW, see firecracker welding. When this was developed it was realised that the arc would happily go right through the flux coating sideways. Andy Dingley (talk) 08:29, 19 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ ^a ^b Weman, p. 26

Web Developer

Andy please explain why you reverted my change on the Web Developer page? My addition was completely relevant and cited from the source of a web developer. Nothing posted violated any terms of use and was completely relevant to the subject at hand. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Webtrex (talk • contribs) 02:58, 19 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"Webtrex", posting links to "Trex technologies"? Andy Dingley (talk) 08:30, 19 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I still fail to see how this violated any policies and wasn't a true statement of fact regarding the topic at hand and very much related to the education and skills that a web developer should possess? Webtrex (talk)

Then please read WP:EL, WP:COI and WP:SPAM. Andy Dingley (talk) 14:25, 19 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Undoing Revisions Without Comment

Hello Andy,

You undid a change I made on the solder page without comment. This makes it nearly impossible to determine your intent. Per Wikipedia guidelines, the comment is requested as it helps in further edits and prevents "revision wars." I have changed the article to better reflect the subject and context of the original change.

Prosecreator (talk) 13:22, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Not all of us live in the USA. Your change assumes that we do, and that US policy applies everywhere. Lead-based solder is still widely used, and if withdrawn or formally forbidden, that is still largely restricted to potable water.

Your first change was to remove a qualification to potable water that had been added by an IP. A correct and useful qualification - we need more of that. Your reason was, "Copper is not used for drain lines, so the comment makes no sense." which is inaccurate on all three counts: the qualification might be incorrect (but still makes sense), copper is used for drainage lines (it's expensive so it's rarely used, but it is still used when the aesthetics justify it. My whole bathtub is copper, so I'm not plumbing that in with plastic), most importantly heating pipework is still substantially in copper - and soldered with a lead-tin solder.

This section should be expanded to indicate that lead is certainly shrinking, but that it went from potable water first, and its withdrawal generally is not internationally consistent. Whenever the US did fully withdraw leaded solder (if indeed it has yet), that doesn't mean it no longer needs to be covered in an international encyclopedia. Andy Dingley (talk) 15:02, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the response. It would have been great to include a bit of this in the comment for your revision. That was my suggestion.

Your point is valid, I have changed the article a bit. In the U.S. one cannot even purchase leaded plumbing solder anymore, it disappeared decades ago, thanks to the SDWA.

Prosecreator (talk) 20:08, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

FYI

You almost certainly know better than me, as I generally treat Commons as a fetid swamp into which the editors of the Wikipedias are occasionally obliged to venture, rather than somewhere to visit through choice; can the various other files at Commons:Deletion requests/File:Hatashe-Tye.jpg be lumped into a single nomination, or will they each require a separate listing? (Given that we're talking about a project that maintains that File:Tracy Fruit Loops.jpg has potential encyclopedic value, I have no idea whether these images actually are outside Commons's scope.) While his response here was in relation to my warning him for inserting them into articles and for uploading copyvios, rather than specifically for uploading them to Commons, I assume his attitude will be the same in both cases. ‑ Iridescent 19:43, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Adding a list of files with a related problem is certainly a recognised response, when the problem is broader than a single image. As to the efficacy of Commons debate, it really depends on how many people show up from the small pool there. And being such a small pool, it does tend to be dominated by the handful of loudest voices. The spectacle of half a dozen Germans with "professional levels of the English language" arguing over basic English grammar or convention is a regular favourite.

In this case, I'd agree that they're too much of a selfie and not enough of anything illustrative for clothing - also the problems of poor quality and poor focus. This week (and broadly against policy) Commons is deleting on the basis of "quality" (which really means IDONTLIKEIT).

As to your linked image, then I think that is there mostly to justify the existence of Category:Nude or partially nude women with purple hair, Category:Cereals in art & Category:Handbras, by one's own hands, let alone their intersection. Andy Dingley (talk) 20:07, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Consider me duly unshocked to see Neelix was the creator of Category:Handbras, by one's own hands. Nice to see Commons is still maintaining its role as Wikipedia's penal colony. ‑ Iridescent 20:20, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Commons used to be a bit more chilled out than WP. Now it just seems to have so few active editors that nearly every one is some sort of monomaniac. Andy Dingley (talk) 20:25, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

ANI

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. --Reaganomics88 (talk) 10:59, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Why do you think ANI would be at all interested in your year and a half old content dispute? Andy Dingley (talk) 11:17, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Bolted joint

Hi I do not think that my link is irrelevant. One of the paragraphs make references to calculate the torque required by a bolted joint. And this is what the web page I linked does. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fonebone83 (talk • contribs) 18:48, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If you read articles, rather than just spammed links into them, you'd discover that a bolted joint isn't what you think it is.

Your calculator (which is still largely in Spanish, not English) relates tightening torque to bolt tension. It does nothing in relation to the shear forces that are most relevant here. Andy Dingley (talk) 18:56, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Excalibur

Patience Andy, patience. I'm only just starting, there is much goodness to come. Maury Markowitz (talk) 14:02, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Chapman strut (Hooke joint)

Hi Andy. You reverted a change I made on this page regarding universal joint types. I'm confused about the revert because "universal joint" refers to the type of joint that Hooke invented, and not any other type (such as CV or rag joints). Or I should say, in the U.S. that's true, and Universal joint supports that. I notice you're from the UK, so perhaps you're used to a different usage of the term.

In any case, it's not great to have a link labeled "Hooke" (with no supporting documentation) redirecting to the universal joint page, where one can find no reason for the "Hooke" distinction - in fact, Hooke isn't even credited with the invention. Further, neither of the links in the Goggomobil section (Goggomobil and Drive_shaft) contain any mention of a Hooke joint. Indeed, the drive shaft page uses the term "universal".

The inconsistency is quite undesirable (which is what prompted my edit), and I think the simplest way to fix it is to just use the term "universal joint". Otherwise, the universal joint page should be updated to describe the distinction, and there should be a reference supporting the use of a Hooke joint in the Goggomobil suspension. Glenebob (talk) 00:09, 8 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hooke joints are only one form of universal joint. CV, giubos and rag joints (which all regularly get described as universal joints by our readership, even if some sources might exclude them) are commonly used for axle halfshafts, Hooke joints less so, yet Goggomobil were using Hooke joints (they also used rag joints, but not in this case). This is a distinction worth keeping. Admittedly it's less important for RWD, but Hooke joints in FWD are such a problem that they're exceptional by this time, except in 4WD vehicles.

As to the redirect, then see WP:NOTBROKEN. Although I'm inclined to restore it altogether and use the piped form, as possibly slightly clearer to those hovering the link without following it (although WP is against such, per WP:EASTEREGG).

Limitations of other articles are a problem for those pages, not this one. Andy Dingley (talk) 00:19, 8 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Universal joint also happens to describe "Cardan joints" which is not a term I've heard before. Famously Cardano didn't invent any sort of shaft joint, but invented the basic mechanism as a gimbal. Then Hooke applied it to a shaft, as a universal joint. Hooke also realised that a pair of them could address the CV problem, through a mechanism we do know today as the Cardan shaft, even though this much was entirely Hooke's idea.

But hey, it's an article with bundled refs, so it's unworkable. Andy Dingley (talk) 00:28, 8 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

After doing some more reading, I'm even more confused. Depending where you look, the Hooke joint is either a single Cardan joint (that's the more common tern here in the U.S., after simply "universal"), or it is a Double Cardan joint (the nearly exclusively used term here for a pseudo-CV joint). Which are you referring to in the Goggomobil, the single or double joint? The Universal_joint page clearly needs some cleanup.

Glenebob (talk) 00:42, 8 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Goggomobil used swing axles, so obviously this is a single joint. Andy Dingley (talk) 00:58, 8 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, that doesn't seem very obvious. A single joint on a swing axle would cause the exact rotational problem Hooke discovered! The early VW beetle also used swing arms, but with CV joints. However, I have found pictorial evidence that you are correct. I still don't know for sure whether the Hooke joint is single, or actually the so-called Double Cardan. I'll keep looking. Thanks! Glenebob (talk) 01:25, 8 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Carpentry

Hi Andy, I noticed that you removed my addition on recycled carpentry as self-promotion. Assuming this is understood that way by others, I appreciate your fixing that. I still need to learn what is acceptable and what not. In this specific case, had someone else done that, would that be fine? And if so, how to distinguish? Thanks, Boaz Boaz.tsaban (talk) 13:28, 8 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello again, I understand the problem was with the link I provided, so I will next add the line without the link Boaz.tsaban (talk) 17:27, 8 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Finally, do you think you could edit your comment in "Articles for deletion/Boaz Tsaban" to be more precise/factual? The article was not self-written but self-edited, and the author was not "busy spamming" but rather added links to a website of his in this article and in another (which BTW I removed following your advice). Your choice; it is ok if you cannot change this, since the replies clarify matters. (As long as I write, I would appreciate your considering implementing the change I propose in the talk page of the article, which I cannot implement on my own.) Boaz.tsaban (talk) 17:27, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

spamming sock

about this comment you made, please see here. done. nice to agree sometimes! :) Jytdog (talk) 04:36, 18 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[Weman26-1] Weman, p. 26

[1]

@@ Line 217: / Line 217: @@
 (As long as I write, I would appreciate your considering implementing the change I propose in the talk page of the article, which I cannot implement on my own.)
 [[User:Boaz.tsaban|Boaz.tsaban]] ([[User talk:Boaz.tsaban|talk]]) 17:27, 13 June 2017 (UTC)
+== spamming sock ==
+about [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3ASockpuppet_investigations%2FIMZahidIqbal&type=revision&diff=784252635&oldid=784249398 this comment] you made, please see [https://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Spam_blacklist&oldid=16890742#psychologydictionary.org here]. done. nice to agree sometimes! :) [[User:Jytdog|Jytdog]] ([[User talk:Jytdog|talk]]) 04:36, 18 June 2017 (UTC)