User talk:Andy Dingley: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively ← Previous edit Next edit →Content deleted Content addedVisual WikitextInline

Revision as of 12:42, 1 July 2013 editMiszaBot III (talk \| contribs)597,462 editsm Robot: Archiving 2 threads (older than 28d) to User talk:Andy Dingley/Archive 2013.← Previous edit		Revision as of 18:40, 1 July 2013 edit undo (Username or IP removed) →Alexander Montagu, 13th Duke of Manchester Next edit →
Line 257:		Line 257:
	: I raised this at ANI last night, ], mostly in regards to the talk: page reply to you having been deleted. The ANI thread was closed an hour after it was opened.		: I raised this at ANI last night, ], mostly in regards to the talk: page reply to you having been deleted. The ANI thread was closed an hour after it was opened.
	: It seems a new problem that Wikipediocracy are calling the shots at WP. However there is still the old problem that admins are faultless, and any attempt to challenge that is resisted. ] (]) 09:55, 1 July 2013 (UTC)		: It seems a new problem that Wikipediocracy are calling the shots at WP. However there is still the old problem that admins are faultless, and any attempt to challenge that is resisted. ] (]) 09:55, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
			:: Such a shame. You really should push this topic. I'd go for deadminning. See you at ANI. You schmuck. ] (]) 18:40, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

Revision as of 18:40, 1 July 2013

HTML element

Hi Andy

My apologies if I am stepping on any toes in editing this article. I have an experience based understanding surrounding the topic, but am attempting to gain more of an academic knowledge on the finer points of HTML. All I hope to achieve is to make a meaningful contribution to the greater knowledge base on the topic. I am not trying to start an edit war, but simply hope to improve on what is already being said :) One way I hope to do so is to rewrite the article in a standardized language format. I see now that in my attempt to do this, I have been inadvertently mucking up some of the finer points surrounding the lingo. I apologize for this, and will cease to do so immediately. I do however ask that you allow me to make some mistakes, and to learn from them. Your corrections have already sent me scouring the internet for more in-depth reading on topics I thought I understood well, and if that is all I take away form this, it would have been time well spent. In any event, I will continue to enhance the article as I see fit, with the understanding that you and other editors will alert me if my edits are causing any misinformation to slip into the article. If you would be so kind as to consider each edit before reverting all my edits at once, or helping me correct my mistakes, I would be ever grateful. — Preceding unsigned comment added by PhunderMerwe (talk • contribs) 17:57, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

Everything you have added is wrong. You have added it repeatedly. If you do not understand the topic, and if you do not add any sourcing (as required per WP:V and WP:RS), then please do not add this incorrect content to it. Andy Dingley (talk) 23:17, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

Refutal

Andy,
About dolly (trailer) please see my replies at User talk:Peter Horn#June 2013. Peter Horn User talk 14:35, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

Coultershaw Beam Pump

Hi - I am putting together an article on the Coultershaw Beam Pump but am slightly confused by the technology. I see that you have previously commented on Talk:Beam engine#"steam engine" so I hope you don't mind me asking you for advice. Can you explain (in simple terms) the difference between a Beam engine and a Beam pump? I had originally linked to the latter in my draft introduction, but this re-directs to Pumpjack which is a "nodding donkey" type of engine. Also, the Beam engine article starts by saying "A beam engine is a type of steam engine" whereas the one at Coultershaw is operated from a waterwheel. I am rather confused. Thanks for any help and advice. I have also posed this question to User:EdJogg and User:Parrot of Doom who also commented in that thread. -- Daemonic Kangaroo (talk) 07:17, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

It sounds like Commons:Category:Water-powered beam engines is going to be involved here too.

I'd not heard of these things until recently. I knew of Wanlockhead, but that was the only one. Now we're up to at least four or five.

Don't worry about contradictions. We do tend to worry too much about consistency sometimes, and lose clarity as a result. Readers aren't stupid, they understand the limitations of language. A beam engine article that begins, "A beam engine is a type of steam engine" is a reasonable opening statement and we can clarify the exceptions later, or in the other articles. Mind you, I'd want to get "early" and "with a beam" into there, if it were me. Newcomen or water power don't invalidate this as an opening statement.

Write a good narrative. Write a "story" that takes a naive reader in at one end and leaves them at the other end having learned something solid that they can remember. Worry about what they retain afterwards, and achieve this by what and how you tell them. Don't worry about trifling consistency with other articles or uses of terms.

I would link to either beam engine or (better) to a section within it as beam engine#Water-powered engines, even if you have to add or expand a section in that article (It's a weak article at present, wanting a lot of expansion). Chronologically, these water-powered pumps are much more of a relation to rotative beam engines (the use of linear motion to produce rotary motion) than they are to nodding donkeys (the use of rotary motion to produce linear motion, in a culture that now has cheap, small rotary engines and motors available). That's the crucial aspect here - nodding donkeys are a hundred and twenty (-ish) years later.

For scope of your article, I'm not sure about Coultershaw beam pump - would it be better to describe the overall pumping station there, with a section on the beam pump? This allows much more context as to why there was a pump there, and what it supplied, not just the narrow technical aspect of the unusual pump. It would also be possible (and I'd certainly welcome it) to write an article on these water-powered pumps in general, as there seem to be a few around. That would be an article with a broader readership too, although I can see how the research would be harder across the separate sites. There's no reason why both articles can't exist.

Name should probably be Coultershaw beam pump (sentence case), not Coultershaw Beam Pump (Title Case), unless you have sources for it being used as a proper noun.

I look forward to reading this, good luck with it. Andy Dingley (talk) 09:38, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

Can't really add much more to this.

As Andy has hinted, a 'beam engine' is perhaps generally thought of as a steam (-powered) engine, possibly through lack of awareness of other power sources, possibly because there are more of them still in existence.

The way Misplaced Pages (and Wikimedia Commons) tend to like a hierarchy of articles/categories means that you can get tied-up in terminology trying to describe something literally (for Misplaced Pages) that people generally understand using less precise terms. The result is that article development can stall (as has happened at Beam engine, I guess).

Good luck with creating the article, and feel free to post on our talk pages when you want some proof-reading done!

EdJogg (talk) 13:21, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

Thanks guys for your very interesting and helpful comments. I have changed the re-direct on Beam pump to point to Beam engine as this seems more appropriate, especially in view of what (few) links there were to it. As for the article title, as every source I have gives it in Title Case, that's what I'll stick with. Likewise, the site is known for the Beam Pump rather than the (ugly) mill building that was pulled down in the 1970s. I plan to include a history section which will trace the history of Petworth's water supply as well as the mill buildings and machinery right up to the recent addition of an Archimedes screw. -- Daemonic Kangaroo (talk) 06:21, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

Oh, this is the place with the screw turbine? Definitely cover that! Quite interesting gadget, I was looking at pics of it recently. Andy Dingley (talk) 09:51, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

Dolly (trailer)

Hello Andy,
Would this be acceptable? Peter Horn User talk 20:19, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

It's certainly better, but even here I'm not going to stand up and say, "Please add it".

This is just the wrong question. Asking "Of all the pages on this website, which one has the best chance of not being deleted on sight?" is clearly an action intended first and foremost to make that website appear as a link, more than it is about improving articles, or improving articles by adding relevant additional resources. As such it is clearly against the spirit of WP:EL. We are not here to be a directory. We are certainly not here to be a forum for improving the visibility of any particular vendor. This is a game I simply refuse to engage with. Andy Dingley (talk) 21:04, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

Problem is that verifiable technical info appears to be available from the manufacturers. See this one. Peter Horn User talk 02:04, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

Civility

Hi Andy, I assure you that I am taking your comments on board with each edit. Could you please stick to discussing the text, and avoid personal attacks? I find the repeated accusations of edit warring and comments such as "WTF", "edit warring tendentious vandal", "get something resembling a technical clue", "A random rag-bag of Google-droppings with no coherent thought" and "you have the nerve to start hatcheting other articles" quite hurtful. Regards, 1292simon (talk) 23:18, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

I find hatchet jobs on articles that don't deserve it pretty hurtful too. Not a great fan of edit-warring with no basis either. Andy Dingley (talk) 23:41, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

Herringbones

Andy : have you ever cut a gear ? I've been doing this for, oh ... 38 years. I *have* cut continuous-tooth herringbone gears as well as double-helicals (which have a clearance groove down the center.) If you look in Dudley (Handbook of Modern Gear Design ? I am in China now and don't have access to my books)you will see that this is the accepted terminology by people who know what they are talking about.

Even worse is *this* - "the alignment may be staggered, so that tooth tip meets tooth trough. The latter alignment is the unique defining characteristic of a Wuest type herringbone gear, named after its inventor." How can you even call that a herringbone ? The teeth are offset by half a tooth space and don't even resemble herringbones. I won't go into what a dumb design the "wuest" is but anyhow, it's going to be about as popular as the novikoff and wildhaber non-conjugate forms that never took off. If you want to talk weird crap, there's plenty of that in the gear world but it's my own opinion that[REDACTED] should stick to mainstream designs when discussing mainstream topics. If someone wants to create an article about the "wuest gear" that sounds fine but they are not herringbone gears anymore than a spiral bevel is a wormgear just because the teeth are curved. Different animules ....

If you cut gears, a continuous tooth gear is called a herringbone (or sometimes a Sykes gear, after the most common machines they were made on) and an opposed-helix 30* right-and-left helical with a clearance gap in the center is a double helical. (They don't have to be 30* helicals but they almost always are.)

I'm not going to fight over it but if people who know anything read the article, they will be snickering.

Added: Looked a little deeper - the other reversions you made are not correct either. On the other hand, my changes were not all that great so I'm not what you'd call upset. The entire article is not very accurate. The "smoothness" of a helical is NOT because "multiple teeth enter and exit simultaneously" - if that happend there would be vibration up the kazoo. And in fact, if you draw the line of action you will see this is not possible. What happens with a well-designed helical is two things - one is that the contact ratio stays over 2, so you always have at least two teeth in mesh. That has several good effects which I'm not going to type here, it'd take me all night. The oother positive feature of helicals is that the teeth slide into mesh across the face, rather than bang bang bang across the entire face width at one time. Teeth bend under load so the unloaded teeth are not in the correct position relative to each other when the gearset is loaded. At the initial point of contact they actually hit each other (across the full face width in the case of spur gears)unless you have tip and root relief. This creates rough running. And if you do have tip and root relief, they don't mesh nicely when UNloaded. Can't win for losing :)

Anyway, I didn't want to rewrite the entire article but as it is, it's not very accurate.

210.22.142.82 (talk) 14:17, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

Whether you or I have made gears just isn't the issue. Per policy, content in articles has to be independently sourced. Neither your or my prior knowledge counts for any of this. At most, such knowledge might produce a good article more quickly, but we still need to source externally for confirmation.

As it happens, I've cut only a handful of gears and not commercially. However I have also built production line machines that assembled and tested gears and gearboxes after their assembly, so I'm not entirely ignorant of them.

If you're going to change an article, go forwards with it. If it's wrong, fix it. Ideally with sources.

As to the specifics here, then I'd agree many of your points. Your phrasing change is better ("simultaneously" was certainly wrong) and if there really is a terminology difference for "double" and "grooved", then let's have that too.

As to the staggered form, then I know little of them. However they do exist, and they're within the scope of this article. Article titles are somewhat restrictive and it's common that scope will be wider than this. Add what you like here, but we can't just blank a section like this.

As to precision of the "solid V" form, then Citroen managed to make a rear axle bevel gear with them. They can't have been that crude - there's a bunch of sliding in such a gear and Citroen's lasted well. If you had any knowledge of their manufacture, I'd really love to hear it. Andy Dingley (talk) 02:01, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

The Citroen rear end gears would probaly not be called herringbone today ... although there's not much else that would describe them, either :) I would guess that the pinion was cut and the gears were cast. It is coneivable that you could cut something like that on a Sykes or Sunderland machine with a right-angle adapter but I'm not sure those existed then. How do you know how well a Citroen lasted ? have you ever owned one ? :)

Anyway, they are not a good example of anything because they were extremely rare. There were probably more Squires built. The Peugeout worm gear drive rear ends are more interesting and successful.

About the max accuracy you can expect from a Sykes machine is AGMA 9. Automotive gears today are commonly 10 or better. What is worse is that due to their shape the teeth are stiffer in the center than at the edges, so they don't bear the load evenly across the face no matter how accurate they might be. High performance double-helicals all have a center groove now for that reason, even if they could be made continuous-tooth. And of course you can't grind or shave or anything else on a tooth shaped like that. They used to lap them but that's not good, either. Lapping removes metal on the entering and exiting areas of the tooth face a lot more than it does around the pitch point because the rubbing speed is so much higher on entrance and exit.

Herringbones really aren't that good except for a few niche applications. Double helicals are much better. Check your Dudley :) (Darle Dudley, THE authority in the literature. There have probably been better gear engineers but Mr Dudley is the authority who did the most in print. He should have a[REDACTED] entry but I bet there isn't one ... even tho there is an entry for every rap song that placed above 50 on the pop charts. Encyclopedia, yeah :) )

I'm in the midst of installing two five-meter Maags for cutting double helicals right at this moment, so .... back to the shop. Enjoy yourself :) 210.22.142.82 (talk) 07:22, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

He won the Edward P. Connell award in 1958 from the American Gear Manufacturers Association, wrote "Practical Gear Design" first published 1954, and may or may not be the current president of Dudley Engineering- that appears to be the sum of searchable info. Maybe some trade mag gives a fuller bio (or he's acquired an obituary). I see the Marquese Scott article needs updating- apparently he's left Remote Kontrol. Ning-ning (talk) 07:43, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

That Marquese Scott reference is pretty funny :) If I were god, that kind of thing would have no place in an encyclopaedia ... Dudley is not in that category, however. And as you noticed, it's not likely the one at Dudley Engineering is the original Dudley. That would make him ... oh, 90 years old at least. I think it's his son. Darle Original edited and wrote what were about the only reference books on gearing for decades. Analytical Mechanics of Gears by Buckingham was all math, the rest of the texts were all either edited or written by Darle D. Any gear shop that spoke English had a copy of Jones and Ryffel (Gear Design Simplified, I think) for a quick-n-dirty reference to the basic formulas and Gear Handbook and Handbook of Modern Gear Design (two separate reference books) by Dudley for deeper insight. A real gear person will recognize the name instantly.

But he dooesn't have a youtube channel :)

None of this makes a double-helical into a herringbone, by the way ... they are *not* the same thing. Nor does it make a Woosey-Goosey into a herringbone. Misplaced Pages has a tendency to be slipshod :( 210.22.142.82 (talk) 00:52, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

A touch of confirmation : look at http://akrongear.com/cutting.html and notice how they specifically differentiate between "Sykes herringbone gears" and double helicals. This is common among people who actually cut gears. We get sick of people asking for the wrong thing. Amateurs, on the other hand .... 210.22.142.82 (talk) 04:33, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

Anglo-Irish

It isnt a nationality, its an ethnic group. Any ideas why you call it a nationality? Please expand..... Murry1975 (talk) 19:28, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

Why are you claiming that it doesn't exist? or that Parsons, and his family connection to the Lord of Rosse, doesn't meet it? The mere name of a template parameter is no RS for anything! Andy Dingley (talk) 19:30, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

It is not a nationality, its an ethnicity, your edit is incorrect and misleading, the template has a parameter for ethnicity (its filled in with..... Anglo-Irish). Murry1975 (talk) 19:39, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

There is no 'ethnicity' parameter in this template. However there is a nationality parameter. Andy Dingley (talk) 19:42, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Charles_Algernon_Parsons&oldid=559435047&diff=prev shows right below nationality- ethnicity-then fields. And again Anglo-Irish is not a nationality, and your edit is wrong. Murry1975 (talk) 19:47, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

There is no 'ethnicity' parameter in the template {{Infobox scientist}}. If someone has added one to the article text that's optimistic of them, but (for the third time) there is no 'ethnicity' parameter in this template and it ain't going to work. Andy Dingley (talk) 19:51, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

Well then use his nationality in the nationality feild, that is what its there for. Not a ethnic group, as per WP:MOSBIO. Murry1975 (talk) 19:59, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

And from infobox scientist "citizenship= Scientist's citizenship. nationality= Use if nationality not the same as citizenship above". Murry1975 (talk) 20:06, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

Anglo-Irish is more specific, clearer for our readers and more relevant for Parsons. Andy Dingley (talk) 20:31, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

Its not a nationality. Wipe your eyes and read. Murry1975 (talk) 20:35, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

It's not even an ethnic group. It's a socio-economic classification. You might as well say that his nationality was "landed gentry" or "robber baron" or "plantation owner". The Science Museum describes him as English, the American Society of Mechanical Engineers calls him British, Britannica calls him British, Cambridge University describes him as " one of the greatest engineers that this country has ever produced". I'm not sure that his (or anyone's) nationality is particularly relevant, but why is his social stratum "even more" relevant? He was born in London, and spent a couple of years in Ireland but the rest of his life in England. Any Irish ethnicity, if it can be established, might be worth a passing mention in his biog, but it's not relevant to his invention and is certainly not his nationality. You could hardly find a better example of Anglo-Irish Protestant Ascendancy than the Dublin-born Duke of Wellington, and Misplaced Pages describes him as "British". Parsons was even more so. Amandabum (talk) 12:16, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

Even better. The Parsons family was of English descent, so Irish ethnicity don't enter into it. Bit like saying someone is Anglo-Spanish because they've got a timeshare. Amandabum (talk) 12:39, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

Anglo-Irish is a specific ethnic group, which included peers, lords and the upper class in Ireland at the time. It is commonly used where appropriate. It is not appropriate as a nationality, but it is notable as the ethnicicty of a person as it would contribute to is notability, most in his day would not have had the education or finances to be engineers or scientists. As for the Duke, in the very first line it indeed mentions Anglo-Irish. Murry1975 (talk) 13:17, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

That link describes the Anglo-Irish as a "privileged social class", which isn't a million miles from "socio-economic classification", if you ask me. It says it right there. There's no suggestion they were an ethnic group. Privileged social classes enjoy certain advantages, but that doesn't make them an ethnic group. The Dook could claim to be both British and Irish, in view of the year of his birth. Sure, the article mentions the Anglo-Irish but doesn't make out a case for ethnicity. It says on more than one occasion that Wellington was British. But there's no point in arguing about ethnicity. The issue is that they're not a nationality. References to Parsons's nationality being Anglo-Irish seem to be largely based on the Wiki article, which isn't usually a good omen. Parsons was British, and Andy's got it wrong. Amandabum (talk) 10:23, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

It's clearly an ethnic group, as they were of a distinct heritage and didn't intermarry locally. This group also carried privilege with it, although not to all of its members and its definition is broader and based on inheritance, rather than inherited wealth. Andy Dingley (talk) 10:30, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

"It's clearly an ethnic group", as my point above why use it as his nationality, however I do agree that it is notable, again as I have mentioned above, and I do believe it should be in the lead.

@Amanda, please resolve through discussion and consensus (this could take a long time but thats how it works) instead of edit warring, as your account seems new, and solely based on one edit style, discussion would be your best route. Murry1975 (talk) 17:31, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

I feel no strong need to conform to a narrow definition of nationality vs ethnicity, just because of a template parameter name.

"British" is not an interesting nationality. There are plenty of Brits, very little value to enumerating them. However in some cases, Parsons is one, then there's a substantial additional value given to an article by highlighting some subdivision within this (which I'm happy to call "ethnicity") and doing so within the highlighted infobox, because it's that important. This applies to some of the Anglo-Irish, like Parsons or Wilde, it also applies too to Ugandan Asians who form a distinct group within UK society that has a characteristic aspect with an interesting and encyclopedic history. These are just the sort of things that a good encyclopedia, as opposed to a formulaic one written by machine, would cover in detail. Andy Dingley (talk) 18:36, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

But the parameter is there as qouted above about what should be filled in the nationlity field. A POV that ethnicity can be entered is incorrect, opposed to guidelines and consensus, just because you view it as more interesting. I am reverting as per consensus in biography articles. Any further discussion should take place at the relevant wiki project page, please inform me if you start a thread, thank you. Murry1975 (talk) 19:59, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

Titanine Ltd.

G'day from Oz; your edit to Titanine Ltd. added a ref from Flight magazine, but the URL is for an advertisement for a fire tender. Leaving aside the issue of the suitability of using an advertisement as a ref (presuming it was an ad for Titanine that you wanted to link), you'd better find the correct page and redo the reflink. Cheers YSSYguy (talk) 08:06, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

Ah, thanks. I added a bunch of links from Flight yesterday, must have pasted the wrong one.

Flight was pretty good on ads in this period. There's a tradition there of news-themed ads from plane makers. When an aircraft had its first flight, or some new record set, lots of the plane and component makers would do a one-off ad celebrating this. Andy Dingley (talk) 09:36, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

German inventions

Andy, thanks for your comments. You might want to consider what is going on in the context of this - Misplaced Pages:Sockpuppet investigations/Europefan. --Biker Biker (talk) 12:30, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

You might note that I was one of those contributing to that SPI.

I'm less concerned about the sockpuppeting than I am about these nationalist categories in general. I've repeatedly tried to raise this issue across a range of WP:FORUMS, with no success. These things are always a nuisance and we still have no clear policy for several aspects of inclusion. Andy Dingley (talk) 12:33, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

Why on earth?

Why did you redirect the term floating dry dock in the HMS Agincourt article, which redirected exactly to the place it was supposed to, to floating dock, which is itself a DAB?--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 21:46, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

Read the edit and it should be obvious.

Nomination of Kings Weston Action Group for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Kings Weston Action Group is suitable for inclusion in Misplaced Pages according to Misplaced Pages's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Kings Weston Action Group until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. SP-KP (talk) 11:22, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

Gilding or Gliding?

Hi Andy, I read a comment in the talk section for the metal we're calling "Gilding Metal" and I think we're calling it the wrong thing. Other sources are calling it "Gliding Metal", which I think is the right name. It is the alloy used for parts that glide past each other. Please take a look at some of the material on the web and see if you agree.Longinus876 (talk) 22:00, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

"Other sources" - feel free to add them. Andy Dingley (talk) 22:04, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

Hello! There is a DR/N request you may have interest in.

This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Misplaced Pages:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult for editors. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help find a resolution. The thread is "deadmaus, deadmau5". Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you! EarwigBot 03:11, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

Your AN3 report

There is currently a discussion at ANI. AN3 admins may be reluctant to get into the matter when those at ANI have already looked at it. Would you consider withdrawing the AN3 complaint? Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 23:33, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

So not only does Malleus get a free pass for AN3, he gets one specifically because he's also on the carpet at ANI? Andy Dingley (talk) 23:35, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

Dennis Brown surely knows how to count reverts if he thinks that a block for 3RR should be considered. Taking the same complaint to AN3 is like asking the other parent. I'm not impressed by the reported behavior, but we are used to thousands of words being spilled over trivia and maybe we don't have to do that this time. EdJohnston (talk) 23:44, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

If m'learned friends at AN3 wish to close this, then so be it. Let them do so. Andy Dingley (talk) 23:54, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

What? Are you kidding?

Kindly be specific. WHERE did I describe you as an "asshole"? Anywhere? Ever? Nope, I don't think so. I have said absolutely NOTHING about you anywhere ever at all at any time. Please leave your WikiLawyering to someone else's Talk Page, I'm not interested in your speculations. =//= Johnny Squeaky 21:48, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

Andy Dingley (talk) 23:09, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

Hi Andy, I'm not sure where you got the idea I called you an "asshole", I just don't see that anywhere. Can you provide a reference where I called you an "asshole"? Not really sure what you're talking about, but really, I think you and "Span" need to step back and take a deep breath. I really think you need to take a look at your own ego trip and personal motivations in "pounding" my talk page with such unkind and quite frankly, aggressive comments. Seriously, Andy, I'm sure you can round up an Admin to "slap" me for you, but really, what you need to do is step back and take a deep breath and devote your energies to something worthwhile. By the way, I am not really impressed with WikiLawyering, really you should make your case with common sense, if you can. Listen, "Andy", if you can not be a gentleman, don't post on my Talk Page again. I'll simply delete it without reading it, your efforts wasted. By far the best way to work out disputes is to have CIVIL dialog. If you can't do that, go gripe someplace else. =//= Johnny Squeaky 22:36, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

Regards to External Links on Solenoid & Piston Valve

Hi there,

I recently added an external link to both Piston & solenoid valves. I am not quite sure why they are deemed as spammy like you said, one is a link to a tutorial on solenoid valves, furthering the readers knowledge with the second being a look at Piston Valves, have you clicked through to the articles or just seen the name 'forum' in the URL and deemed it as spam? I can assure you it isn't.

Regards

Alex Wall — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alexjwall91 (talk • contribs) 12:25, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

Hi Alex, thanks for discussing this. Yes, I did read the articles. I always do. Please read WP:EL, as it explains the basis for when it's acceptable to add an EL. The confusion is usually that WP is not meant to be a directory of links, even good links. It's an encyclopedia: if something is worth saying, say it on the page. We should not link to stuff when it ought to be in the article anyway. Maybe some of this could be added to the article, then use the site as a reference (rather than an EL) to support it.

There are a few other issues. WP:ELNO has a real downer on any site calling itself a "forum". I don't see that as a big issue here, but others would. Also your own editing history - adding a bunch of links to the same site - is the same as that added by a lot of real spammers, so auto-sniffing your edits is likely to be flagged up by 'bots as suspicious.

I don't see your link additions as spammy, but I don't see them as being detailed enough to meet WP:EL either. Maybe the butterfly valve one, which is why I left it. Piston valve and solenoid valve though, that sort of comment ought to go straight into our articles, rather than being linked, and the EL site can be used as a reference to support it. Andy Dingley (talk) 12:34, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

Toynbee article

Terrible article, but I think you should remove the PROD as it is a known 'law'. (which calls it a well-known law). It is however a bad article, pov and written by an author with a COI. Dougweller (talk) 14:26, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

Redirected to Arnold J. Toynbee#Civilizations. Dougweller (talk) 14:33, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

I'm leaving it proded, because it's a bad article. I suspect that although Toynbee's law exists, I doubt if this article is a fair statement of it (I've researched enough to judge the first, but not the second). In the nature of such eponymous laws, they're going to be either little more than WP:MADEUP with elbow patches, or they'll be widespread and trivially sourceable. Although we should have an article on this, it's better (per WP:V) to have no article than an article so dubious, when it could easily be of at least an acceptable standard.

If this article was on the ethology of the sasquatch, I'd be happpier to leave it unsourced. That's a hard topic to find sources for. This is an easy topic to find sources for, and they should have been used by now. Andy Dingley (talk) 14:37, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

BC548

Please don't replace un-cited and irrelevant material without an explanation. If you have questions about my edits, please post them to the article talk page or my own talk page. Or, at the very least, provide a useful edit summary. -- Mikeblas (talk) 03:22, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

You tagged the whole article for speedy deletion as a copyio, after one bad copy-paste edit by a passing IP. You've now repeatedly blanked the only sections in this article that add any content above that of a parts catalogue. You've made no positive edits to this article. Are you familiar with WP:IMPERFECT? We don't expect all content to arrive fully sourced and perfectly written. When it isn't, we work to improve it, we don't simply blank it on a personal whim. We certainly don't repeat the same blankings over and over. Andy Dingley (talk) 07:57, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

The sections that you were referring to are original research and have been uncited for more than two years. They're likely impossible to site since they're speculative and referenced. With those OR sections removed, more than half the article was copyvio. You removed the copyvio and reverted the edits while I was probing to see if the rest of the article was plagiarized. I've made several improvements to the article, but you've unilaterally reverted them when you decided to throw the baby out with the bathwater. Removing bad content is improving the corpus--it lets us focus on the topics that are savlabeable and meaningful, rather than the content that is hopelessly flawed and unrecoverable. -- Mikeblas (talk) 19:28, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

Alexander Montagu, 13th Duke of Manchester

The page needs to be brought back to life. I don't think this needs much explanation...he's a Duke. I read the deletion thread and it doesn't look serious at all to me--can't a senior[REDACTED] editor override it?Zigzig20s (talk) 02:11, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

I raised this at ANI last night, WP:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Alexander_Montagu.2C_13th_Duke_of_Manchester_and_canvassing_at_Wikipediocracy, mostly in regards to the talk: page reply to you having been deleted. The ANI thread was closed an hour after it was opened.

It seems a new problem that Wikipediocracy are calling the shots at WP. However there is still the old problem that admins are faultless, and any attempt to challenge that is resisted. Andy Dingley (talk) 09:55, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

Such a shame. You really should push this topic. I'd go for deadminning. See you at ANI. You schmuck. Andy Dingleberry (talk) 18:40, 1 July 2013 (UTC)