User talk:Andy Dingley - Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Andy Dingley (talk | contribs) at 14:10, 5 April 2016 (Undid revision 713675205 by DPL bot (talk)). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Revision as of 14:10, 5 April 2016 by Andy Dingley (talk | contribs) (Undid revision 713675205 by DPL bot (talk))(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)

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

Coping Saw (again!)

Good Morning Andy,

I was somewhat dismayed to note that the old myth regarding which way coping saw blades face has re-emerged :-( I refer you to our previous exchanges at https://en.wikipedia.org/User_talk:Andy_Dingley/Archive_5#Coping_Saw and within it the excellent Blog post you put me on to at http://www.popularwoodworking.com/woodworking-blogs/chris-schwarz-blog/coping-saws-from-bricks-to-fretwork-frogs

It is not worth 'going to the stake over' but all reversions cite TechnologyStudent.com as the definitive reference. V.Ryan's website is a most commendable effort by a practising D&T teacher in the north of England on behalf of his and other's students - and just as prone as anyone else to this perpetuated myth.

I can only repeat my evidence from 2014 - i.e. "that it all depends on how they are used, i.e. if pulled down on to a V board then, yes, backwards as with a fretsaw for the same reason, but if used more normally with work held in a vice then, if cutting on the back stroke, sawn waste would obscure the line being followed - and is unnecessarily uncomfortable to do. My evidence is in every B&Q store – the manufacturers Eclipse package their fret saws with blades facing the handle but they package coping saws with them facing forwards. Note also that jigsaws have teeth pointing downwards so the line is not obscured by waste during cutting."

Christopher Schwarz in his Blog cites several references to support this by clarifying "downward stroke" and only a “Band Saw Handbook” - the actual focus of which is perhaps another tool all together.

Is there no way we can remedy this once and for all? I would be very happy to write the necessary text but have no wish to star another round of confusing changes. I would cite “Trade Foundations”, “The Essential Woodworker”, “Tools for Woodwork”, “Carpentry & Construction” from the Blog (www.popularwoodworking.com) and http://wiki.dtonline.org. I only take issue with Christopher Schwarz in his comment that opinion is so divided - from what he cites there is clear consensus that blades only face the handle if they are pulled downwards - in normal use, the reverse is the case.

Kind regards.

DTOnline (talk) 08:27, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

Hi

Is there anything you would like to discuss with me? I'm asking based on your recent postings at ANI about me. Am really asking. Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 20:52, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

That would belong at Talk:RepRap I see your edit-warring over this as already being block-worthy and far from giving a good result content-wise. This was a poor article to begin with, with many of the problems you complain of. But some of the content you've removed was a highly subjective judgement as to what is important or not. There are a continual stream of spammy articles on 3D print startups all wanting coverage here - but RepRap is one of the four big names (MakerBot, Shapeways, Stratsys) that really do have a significant and decade-long history in the field.

Also removing such an extensive proportion of any article in one edit is just never a good edit, procedure wise. It makes it hard for other editors to work with such a monolithic change and it positively encourages a simple blanket reversion.

WP seems incapable of handling 3D printing as a topic area though (not the first such area). Andy Dingley (talk) 21:00, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

I hear you on problems with 3D printing generally in WP - like many DIY/internet thing, we get tons of crappy edits. Thanks for your feedback. Just to be clear, I wrote here to see if you had anything more global to say to me, not about reprap in particular. anyway, thanks again for replying! Jytdog (talk) 21:13, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

Well see ANI then, just now. You are still making some very thinly-veiled attacks on CaptainYuge. Andy Dingley (talk) 21:15, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

RepRap project

Wow.

RepRap are (almost) visible from my window, so I know a bit about the project.

Also Misplaced Pages:Sockpuppet investigations/Andy Dingley (now deleted). Did Jytdog really raise an SPI on you?! Viam Ferream 13:42, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

That was a different car crash. See Talk:Plasticine (of all things!). Andy Dingley (talk) 19:02, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

Do you know anything about RepRapPro? I know they shut up shop early this year (sadly!) and I even did some work for them once, but what's with the "no connection to RepRap" that has seen the coverage of this pulled from the article? Surely that belongs in there? Just what was their relation to RepRap in Bath? Andy Dingley (talk) 20:54, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

Anjan Contractor

Hi Andy,

Thanks for checking out the Anjan Contractor page. I'll add sources. And remove what you pointed out as promotional. Let me know if you can withdraw your deletion request.3Dnasa (talk) 21:35, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

You are obviously Anjan Contractor himself. We discourage autobiography. Andy Dingley (talk) 22:37, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

Hi Andy, thanks but I am definitely not Anjan Contractor. I did used to work with him though and, as part of what is called a "Maker lab" he has one heck of a name in the 3D printing space. He has a significant amount of press on him, including near-daily articles. You're correct to point out that some are blogs and so on, but that's irrelevant. Wired has written about him as has Fox News, NBC, NPR, PBS, PC Mag and so on.

If you think the writing is promotional, then add an advertising flag. But going the route of notability just doesn't make sense given the sheer volume of coverage of what he's done, when and how particularly in the 3D printing space. He did receive the grant from NASA to create a 3D food printer. That got press. The actual finished product got a ton of press. And later developments, like commercializing it got press. I've added a number of other sources on the subject. Happy to find more-- and in other languages as this is a worldwide topic with him at the dead center of it. I respectfully request that you withdraw the deletion nomination. If it needs more work or "cut down" on promotion, then that's the path forward.3Dnasa (talk) 00:05, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

Hydraulic power network

The nicest alerts to receive are thanks for a correction; so thank you. Sir Harry Ricardo mentioned briefly in "Memories and Machines" (his autobiography) that he had developed a flexible hydraulic network for riveting in constructing Indian railway bridges (c1905). I have not got my copy to hand to check, but I would guess steam was used for the power. Unfortunately I have found little else as a source for flexible networks. The science museum in London had almost nothing when I checked ten years ago. SovalValtos (talk) 20:12, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

See hydraulic intensifier. It's not a "network" as such, as it didn't spread across further than the jobsite.

Thanks for the correction. I was unaware of the Geneva system, but if anywhere was going to have hydro right next to its consumers, I guess it would be Geneva. Andy Dingley (talk) 20:15, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

A Great Big 'Unencyclopedic' Thank You. Boulton Paul Defiant

Many thanks for restoring my admittedly clumsily worded and poorly typed addition (and faith in human nature): I hold my hand up to not providing citations but I was doing just that when I got an edit conflict and started over, hopefully improving on the first effort. (As a newbie I assumed, maybe naively, that the term 'citation needed' means 'please add a citation' rather than a slash-and burn notice, but I'll be wiser next time.)

So, just between us, do you have any idea what unecyclopedic means? I'm serious, I've had various WP yellow cards re. typography, what side of the Atlantic the article belongs on, the gold standard for articles etc, but un-encyclopedic isn't even in the dictionary: when I checked my Kindle I got 'unending', 'unendowed' and 'unendurable', while 'encyclopedic' means 'comprehensive in terms of information' so I'm beginning to suspect it was actually an encylopedia joke.

Getting back to the plot if you have time could you check out the new version and see if it makes sense?

The whole point of my addition was to place bald (but incomplete) facts into a context that makes sense of what the article previously implied was an example of typically British muddled thinking. Since there demonstrably was a logical underpinning that explains why a turret fighter might possibly be operated by the pilot in the direct fire role I thought it at least worth airing, with the side-benefit of eliminating the vastly irritating if unvoiced 'Wow, crazy, huh?' conclusion.

The (apparently) contentious aspect of the entire turret fighter imbroglio seems (to me at least) to revolve around the wider issue of responding to the entirely unprecedented new reality of 'lightning war'... so I can't help wondering if there is mileage in mentioning somewhere that in the context of the fall of France all bets were off. If that seems blindingly obvious as matters stand various articles seem to omit the words

'Because no one anticipated that within the design-life of this aircraft, conceived of five years earlier, swarms of high-performance enemy aircraft would be within in range of - to pluck an example out of the ether, London Docks, that's why'.

If that's a little parochial-sounding in mitigation I plead that being an ethnic cockney who grew up on a street in East London with vacant lots nearby called 'bomb sites' I don't find the Blitz the least bit amusing, so the silent snarking was - to say the least - annoying, as is a general trend towards ahistoric revisionism based on twenty-twenty hindsight that is, for the want of a better term, 'unencyclopedic'. As such perhaps the business about the new realities of air defence circa 1939 demands a separate article?

Or addressed in a pre-existing article, assuming it's not already there and only needs finding and linking?

Having fallen foul of the dread guardians of all things Wiki that fly without flapping their wings because I didn't use the right template to describe an aircaft that never got off the drawing board I'm loath to stick my head up over the parapet again (at least until I've done a lot of homework) so for now I hope my revised version is authoritative, well-reasoned and objective, and sufficiently complete it stands alone, rather than being merely as a footnote to the seldom-referenced Schräge Musik article.

~~Ebookomane~~ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ebookomane (talk • contribs) 15:24, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

I have no idea. I barely care. I might even agree with them.

My point is though that we should try to move forwards. Your addition was unsourced, and that's a real problem. This vague handwave of "not encyclopedic" though? If they'd tagged it as uncited I'd have supported that. If they'd said it was unclear I'd have agreed. Even if they'd removed it as unsourced, I'd have had no good argument against that. To simply dismiss it like this though, on an aircraft that's all about the unorthodox approach to gunnery - makes no sense to me. Whatever should be done with this, it needs to make some attempt to make things better, not conveniently worse.

As for most people, I know little of the Defiant. I'd appreciate more coverage on a few things: was it bad or was it mis-used? Was it competent at attacking unescorted He111 and could it have taken the Hurricane's BoB role? Did it have any place with the BEF, or did this merely lose aircraft in a contest it was inappropriate for? How did it stand against the Roc? No-one has a god thing to say about the Roc (except Misplaced Pages, who once credited it with the first airborne kill!), but there is a viewpoint (minority?) that the Defiant did have some uses. Andy Dingley (talk) 15:36, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

I'm trying to find sources and expand citations made since your reply (arguably my alterations should have been completely authoritative but it's a pain when disparaging comments - themselves unsourced - seem to have buried the subject matter) but I'll keep on digging and hopefully answer your points.

While my gut says the type was thrown into a conflict for which it wasn't designed and was tragically ill-suited as a panic measure I can't find anything to back it up, so it's sitting in the wings (pun intended) until I can quote chapter and verse.

Something that bugs me about this specific aircraft is why there was no serious attempt improve the type by removing the turrets. Okay, they were the whole point of the design but it's not unusual for a decent airframe to be re-purposed (and not just as target tugs):

As drop-in systems the turrets could have been hoiked out, the existing guns mounted for 'zero deflection shooting' in the vacant space, the gap faired-over and the things flown as single-seat interceptors. I'm astonished I can't find any evidence the option was mentioned, mighty odd for a time when biplanes were being retrofitted as wing-and-a-prayer attack planes but in context there was a lot going on...

~~Ebookomane~~ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ebookomane (talk • contribs) 10:06, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

Check something for me?

Something went weird on my edit to 76 mm gun M1, can you check it is as you expect it to be? Maury Markowitz (talk) 13:43, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

Looks fine now. I think we agree that the 17 pdr belongs on a list of comparable main guns.

Was this a Twinkle edit or similar? I've seen a few of these happening recently where sensible editors have restored clear nonsense that had already been restored once, and they unintentionally un-restored it. I don't know if the wheels have come off one of the scripts or the like? Maybe see if Village Pump is reporting this as a generalised problem. Andy Dingley (talk) 13:50, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

No, when I went to the diff it said the section in question was removed. And then when I was trying to fix that I managed to undo the edit, at which point it really disappeared. I rolled back, hoping that fixed it. Maury Markowitz (talk) 22:05, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

Article talk pages, WP:NPA

Your comments here and here are inappropriate for an article Talk page. You seem to be more focused on me than on the actual sources and contents there - you have not dealt with what the GE reference actually says and what its purpose is, which is to make some argument about when and if Be was used in fluorescent light bulbs, which is not what citations are for in Misplaced Pages.

You appear to have been attracted to the Talk page via the Talk page of Wtshymansk where I had left an left] a 3RR notice, which appears to be on your watchlist as you have commented there many times; as shortly after I left that you came to the article, which you had never edited before, and reverted me and then shortly after that responded to me at W's Talk page here. That is blatant HOUNDING.

As I did at W's talk page, I will warn you again not to turn Misplaced Pages into a WP:BATTLEFIELD and do not follow me around picking fights. If you continue to personally attack me at article Talk pages I will bring you to ANI and based on this very clear pattern you will not have a leg to stand on. If you have something to say to me, say at my talk page, and do not abuse article Talk pages going forward. Jytdog (talk) 18:24, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

You're right - they clearly belong at ANI. I'll copy them over. Andy Dingley (talk) 18:37, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

Do as you will. Going to ANI with unclean hands is foolish, and this will boomerang on you, even if you get me chastised - which I will acknowledge even now is not unlikely. I know I am too harsh sometimes - this is not some big revelation. Your turning an article Talk page into a battleground and screwing up an article is a much worse offense, in my mind. The article is about a medical condition and you are going all ballistic on something OFFTOPIC. It is completely inappropriate and just WP:POINTy. Unclean hands you have. Jytdog (talk) 18:40, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

You suggest I need a "Moron Diploma", and then you accuse other editors of having "unclean hands"? Andy Dingley (talk) 20:22, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

a) what I had written was if you accept the one source you should accept the other - perfect parallel construction; b) I removed that (I disowned it - because it is clearly inflammatory and there is no point in going there) and my final comment is here; while your inappropriate comments still stand and you are fully owning them. And it is bad sign when people go digging through edit versions for dirt. You are really battlefielding this Andy, and yes it is frustrating me and i am allowing myself to write some unhelpful things. But i am catching myself. Jytdog (talk) 20:52, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

WP:ANI#More WP:BATTLEGROUND from Jytdog at Berylliosis: Andy Dingley (talk) 21:13, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

Edit warring at article Berylliosis

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Berylliosis. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Please be particularly aware that Misplaced Pages's policy on edit warring states:

Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made.
Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing.— Cirt (talk) 02:11, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

This still belongs at Commons:Commons:Deletion requests/File:Heidi Cruz MontTXFundraiser Feb 27 2016--two3.jpg, not at en:WP. Andy Dingley (talk) 09:50, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

Proposal to rename categories

Please see my proposal to speedily rename Category:Defunct villages by country and subcategories to Category:Former villages by country etc. Hugo999 (talk) 18:43, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

Don't care - either would work. Andy Dingley (talk) 19:49, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

Marc Brunel

I noticed an edit of yours to the talk page of this article questioning Marc's relevance to WikiProject Railwats or some such. I'd agree, but what struck me is that of all the Wikiprojects he is 'of interest to' there does not seem to be any that relate to the block-making machinery, which to my mind is undoubtedly the most significant of all the many things he worked on. I'm not familiar with all the wikeprojects...any suggestions?TheLongTone (talk) 13:01, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

I've no great faith in WikiProjects. Most are inactive, the active ones are largely dramaboards, there are some obvious ones missing. "Engineering History" would be such a project. If you created it, I'd join it - but given the lack of benefit from other projects, I've not worried about it.

As to "his greatest project", then it was a time of polymaths, not specialists. I couldn't distinguish between the block-making or the civil engineering. Andy Dingley (talk) 13:04, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

Obviously...

I keep the hammer in my pants. ;P (Apologies if you don't appreciate toilet humor, I just couldn't resist.) MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 21:10, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

Archives