User talk:Andy Dingley

Brake fluid

March 2016

Andy , I have no reference for my warning on Antilock brakes and cold temperatures. It is a real problem if you care to research it. From personal experience my antilock brakes did lock up at -31C. When ABS came out the US NHTSA was left without a good brake standard for them because the valves in ABS sytems are narrower and thus vulnerable to restriction in cold weather. They had to come up with the DOT 5.1 standard. They couldn't name it DOT 5 because they had reserved that for the new silicone fluid which they named DOT 5.0 Your description of scaremongering and action of deleting my edit could lead to potential accidents. I only used the word potential so as to make drivers aware of a life threatening dangerous situation with using DOT3 or DOT 4 with ABS brakes and extreme cold weather. The DOT 5.1 standard was specifically developed for use with ABS which your present wiki article doesn't deal with.

Alan Tomalty 99.246.26.238 (talk) 19:33, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

First thing, this is unsourced, thus falls foul of WP:OR, WP:RS and WP:V, as far as WP is concerned.

My main point was to question the idea of using DOT 3 with ABS at -30C and then a failure being unexpected. DOT 3 has been superseded, if not obsolete, for years. Besides which, it's not the DOT 3 that gets you, it's the age and the moisture content of the DOT 3 (anyone changing their fluid as appropriate is unlikely to still be using DOT 3). To use it on an ABS system in such a climate is downright risky. Yes, this is a "problem", but it's so much of a problem that it's almost expected and we shouldn't present this in such a scare-mongering fashion. There's also DOT 1 and DOT 2 fluid (on paper at least) - should we warn about those too?

DOT 4 is even worse in cold weather than DOT 3. Source?
DOT 5.1 is hard to acquire though because very few manufacturers of brake fluid have been able to meet the standard. I only need one manufacturer. I can buy DOT 5.1 at my local spares shop (but I can't get Honda gearbox oil). It's not impossible. Andy Dingley (talk) 20:50, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

Taking it offline

" Almost all of the content is already in the turboshaft article,"

It's usually considered a good idea to read the article in question before advocating its deletion.

Also, aren't you just pissed that I reverted your blanking at Cementation process Andy Dingley (talk) 00:59, 21 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Mr Dingley,

First I would like to point out that I didn't advocate it's deletion, I advocated its MERGER. Perhaps you are the one who should read more carefully.
Second I noticed that it's deletion would remove almost no data from Wikipedia, and noted that for the record.
Third I actually supported your perspective directly IN THIS ARTICLE:
First I'd like to say that Andy (opposed, above) has a point:

So I would hope that you would infer (and I now state) that I bore no lasting ill will for reverting my premature deletion.
Fourth I think it's possible (I am not sure) that a snarky "Aren't you really just pissed" kind of addition to my own user page might have resulted in a "revert, attack page" response. I has in the past. Please note that I didn't do that - more evidence that I'm NOT baiting you or angry with you.

Please delete this once you've read it. It is NOT my intent to smear you or irritate you, but I thought that your dragging this conversation out into the talk page was inappropriate and that it was reasonable to reply. Perhaps, if you agree, you will re-edit the talk page to remove the more personal parts of your contribution.

Riventree (talk) 03:15, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[1] "Having said all that, I think [Gradebo] you're right and it should be deleted. "

Andy Dingley (talk) 07:45, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There are about three sentences in the lead where turboshaft and free-turbine turboshaft overlap. That's all.

I think a lot of the trouble here is because turboshaft has so little in it. It's like a plane-spotter's notebook, just busy name-checking someone's favourite plane to squeeze in a link to it. That explains nothing about turboshaft engines. I think Andy's point here is that the free-turbine article says something about them and why they're different. if you read that article, you might learn something. You're not going to learn much from reading turboshaft. Maybe they're better merged to a big section, but deleting it would be crazy (and you did say "it should be deleted") Why is WP always so keen to find a reason why to make things worse? Will people just stop finding excuses why some other editor deserves to be scrubbbed out and see about making stuff better instead?

Why does free-turbing say "Motorcycle engines" ? They aren't mentioned.

Don't turboshaft engines go back to pre-war stuff and big static power turbines, long before Whittle? They should be included too. Were they free-turbine or single shaft? Viam Ferream (talk) 09:56, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Betrayed by a mouse

Just for you, Andy. [2]. Kendall-K1 (talk) 16:01, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Fairey N.4

Hi Andy, I just updated this image [3], but it remains with the border, does it take a while for the servers to catch up?Rstory (talk) 13:12, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Its updated nowRstory (talk) 13:15, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

British shadow factories

Hello Andy. I wanted to follow up with you personally regarding recent changes to the British shadow factories article. JIMDO hosted websites are self-published, user-generated. Is there a more appropriate source available for this material? Regards, Yamaguchi先生 (talk) 23:43, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

We should always look at stuff like self-publishing carefully, with an editorial view, otherwise we're just being 'bots.

This source is trivial (if it has a problem), more than problematic for being self-published. It says too little, not too much to stand. I see no reason to question it, although better sourcing is certainly needed. There's nothing in the Acocks Green site that isn't backed up my a myriad other sources, mostly because it's simply so bland. It's also a local history group and the tendency for those in the UK is to be pretty solid as sources (obviously with a somewhat critical eye).

In general, there's surprisingly little published about the shadow factories. There were two sorts in practice: the large above-ground ones that built everything important, and mostly became car or washing machine factories post war. These are largely ignored. Then the handful of underground plants, which because of the "bunker" aspects get huge amounts of coverage, mostly from Nick McCamley (who is certainly RS on such). However these factories also had very little influence on wartime production. Andy Dingley (talk) 16:30, 28 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Congratulations

		100000 Edits
		Congratulations on reaching 100000 edits. You have achieved a milestone that only 360 editors have been able to accomplish. The Wikipedia Community thanks you for your continuing efforts. Keep up the good work!

If you like you can add this template to your page.

This user has been awarded with the 100000 Edits award.

 Buster Seven Talk 12:56, 26 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ye Gods! Congrats! I'm gobsmacked by the idea of that many edits.

Riventree (talk) 02:12, 28 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it's a bit pathetic really, isn't it. So much more useful stuff I ought to have been doing. Andy Dingley (talk) 16:30, 28 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Awesome edit count! Deep respect and congratulations. Robevans123 (talk) 20:26, 29 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Well done, Andy. That's a lot. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:33, 29 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hengistmate

Andy, are you aware of this Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Andy Dingley and just as importantly Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Hengistmate#01 March 2016. The latter was raised when another of Hengistmate's IP socks attempted to close your AN3 case as stale (shortly before an admin blocked for 48 hours). In view of [[User:Burninthruthesky|Burninthruthesky]'s continued attempts to defend Hengistmate, I decided to lump him in with the SPI complaint. A CU will decide it one way or the other. 86.153.133.193 (talk) 14:15, 1 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm so sorry this has gone this way and thanks for your support at the SPI - I saw it briefly before it was blanked. I can't imagine what Bbb23 was doing here, shooting the messenger like this. 8-( Of course, raising an SPI against me is no problem, he even gave Burninthruthesky a nice little note that no action would be taken for it. Andy Dingley (talk) 02:32, 3 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Bbb23 added an explanatory note at my talk page. He does say that he did not regard my SPI report against Burninthruthesky as retaliatory. In which case it is not clear why he applied the block. Anyway, he has now lifted the block so all's well that ends well. The original problem seems to have gone quiet for now.

Following the experience, I decided to register an account. Am I allowed to move the barnstar? Anyway, thanks for your support. I am now Elektrik Fanne (talk) 15:21, 3 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Avro Vulcan

With this edit you removed referenced information and restored a paragraph referenced solely to someone's alleged personal reminiscences. Why should standards on reliable sourcing be ignored in this case?Nigel Ish (talk) 13:48, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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/wiki/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 [or Piercing Saw] 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 [and Scroll Saws] 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

RepRap project

Wow.

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

Also Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Andy Dingley (now deleted). Did Jytdog really raise an SPI on you?! Viam Ferream^Talk 13:42, 18 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

Archives