User talk:Andy Dingley/Archive 2009 November

• 4
• Archive 5
• 6
• 7
• 8

Glossary of boiler terminology

The boiler pages have been quiet since your retirement, but a new-ish editor has commented on the layout of this glossary and, I think, would like to re-format it. Do you have a view on this? I know I suggested (recommended??) this style for the page, but I no longer have strong feelings about it. -- EdJogg (talk) 13:45, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Andy Dingley. You have new messages at Airplaneman's talk page.
Message added 17:50, 9 November 2009 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Airplaneman ^talk 17:50, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Andy Dingley. You have new messages at Netalarm's talk page.
Message added 18:49, 9 November 2009 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Netalarmtalk 18:49, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

I was very nearly put off posting by the "retired" notice above, but, on seeing that you have contributions more recent than that notice, I have decided to go ahead, so here you are:

Hello, Andy Dingley. You have new messages at JamesBWatson's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Shhh! Don't tell everyone! He's now editing undercover... (Looking at his contributions list is cheating!) -- EdJogg (talk) 02:07, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Only because I'm getting paid for it...

ceci n'est pas une talk page

I just have to say that I loved your reply to The PIPE: ceci n'est pas une talk page LOL :-D -- Phoenix (talk) 22:03, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

OpenPSI

Hi Andy. Could you expand on [1]? I can think of dozens of JISC funded projects in the semantic web / linked data-ish area. Is there any reason why you feel this one is especially prominent? I work in this field, and I've never heard of it. Cheers shellac (talk) 16:48, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

I don't feel it is, "especially prominent"

Why does it need to be? We have WP:Policy, and that means WP:NOTABILITY - AND NO MORE THAN THIS. Despite some recent AfDs, SemWeb articles are not held to some higher standard of "prominence" as well as notability. Any attempt by some editors to do this should be resisted - or else redirected to WP:Policy until they've re-written WP:N.

As to WP:N, then pretty much anything of this size and with these parties involved in it generates a large footprint that meets WP:N, WP:RS & WP:V, just because it's the nature of government projects. Doesn't mean it's interesting, certainly not "interesting enough I'm going to get off my backside and write it", but it is good enough grounds to leave an article alone if someone else has done the legwork on it.

Personally I know of OpenPSI because I'm a SemWeb geek (although that now appears to mean that I must never edit WP again!) and I'm also interested in family genealogy - so when I saw it through some National Archives mailings, I happened to pay attention. Andy Dingley (talk) 17:35, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

It's a JISCRI project, a 6 month, <40k, chance to do some quick hacking. At Bristol we've got at least two of them, one semweb one. OpenPSI was added by one of the members of the project. shellac (talk) 20:10, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

So what's the budget cutoff to be notable these days? I just don't understand why SemWeb is being expected to exceed the usual policy levels.

PS Where in Bristol? ILRT? Andy Dingley (talk) 23:25, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Napier deltic

I see you have re-added the faulty image. As I don't currently have the time, skill, or knowledge to create an animated replacement I have added a small note to the image description to prevent potential confusion.

Best wishes.87.102.78.86 (talk) 17:09, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Haven't touched that image in months.

This was actually re-added by user:Wdl1961. I happen to agree with this, and with your note, but I wouldn't have re-added it myself. Andy Dingley (talk) 17:40, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Image source

Hi Andy, I wonder if you could add all and any publishing detail that you may have to the permission of File:ArticulatedConnectingRod.jpg? It has been questioned at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Rolls-Royce R/archive1, I would really like to keep the image in this article. Cheers Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 23:48, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Ah, beancounters. I assume this means that the whole manual and (again!) the entire Florida collection will have to be deleted from Commons. Great. 8-( Andy Dingley (talk) 10:00, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Incidentally, why not pull the connecting rod image on the grounds of being the wrong engine? It doesn't even look all that much like a R-R rod. Andy Dingley (talk) 10:02, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

No matter, I have used my own images now, sorry to have troubled you. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 13:09, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

No problem - it's just that the Florida collection images have been regularly stomped by the clueless and powerful (or at least vociferous). It's particularly a problem when I had to explain to the helpful folks there the snub they felt when, just after their efforts to explain their licensing to WMF, they then found the content deleted! Especially so as it was alleged that Florida were themselves in breach (probably by yet another of our jumped-up teenagers). Not surprisingly this does suggest to them that, "we just don't want their content".

The Renault manual has almost no metadata printed in it, so it's hard to judge which licences could be applied. The US position for it is obvious enough, and we are all working in the USA by proxy anyway (WP's holier-than-thou stance on copyright is all a bit ridiculous when it relies on the simultaneous use of "fair use" and PD dedications!). I can see little justification for making UK-based claims, especially given that we don't know the author. I know little of relevant French law either.

I'm trying to get to take some photos of an old Sunbeam Arab, particularly the rods, as rod articulation was such a noted problem for that engine.

Jack Parsons

Hi, and good quick work on the Parsons page. Re. the paragraph on the couple who assisted in the working, I haven't heard of them before. Since it was unsourced since Feb. of '08, not '09, it seemed an appropriate edit. Any further data? Thanks, Aleister Wilson (talk) 18:47, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

Just looked at the discussion page of the article, and someone had already brought that up, no other citing of the data. The poster said a google search just reverts back to the page. A mystery within a mystery!Aleister Wilson (talk) 18:54, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

Remove it again if you wish, but the para afterwards then needs work if it's to read well.

As it wasn't an outlandish claim, I see no desperate need to remove it, but obviously citation would be good. I wouldn't mind reading a decent biog of Parsons, but there's a lack of time for such things. Andy Dingley (talk) 20:18, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

It was vandalism. I traced it back to May 13, 2007, when an anom. user placed the same name into several articles as vandalism. In the Parsons article he wrote it in context and with enough adequate language that nobody caught it, so it stayed there for 2 1/2 years. The article does need work, in the occult section and in the scientific data. The book 'Sex and Rockets' is a good one if you want a good bio of Parsons. Thanks for being part of catching a vandal, although his vandalism had taken roots. Aleister Wilson (talk) 10:17, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Took out two more of his vandalisms. Look at the edit removed from Ludwig Bieberbach, it was very well written. Vandal of the year award. His first edit was removing his own name when someone else vandalized a page, which probably gave him the idea. Aleister Wilson (talk) 10:47, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Devious little buggers! If only they'd put half that effort into copyediting, or something useful. Andy Dingley (talk) 11:06, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Folly Tower

Aye, I have no info for sure if the Luftwaffe actually had the folly down as a marker for ROF Glascoed - so "mistaken" was probably rightly removed. In passing, I don't think the reservoir existed at the time, though :-) Londonclanger (talk) 16:21, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Building of the ROF began, AFAIK, around 1938 and a good time before the Tower's demolition. I'm assuming the dam was started at the same time. I'd be interested to know what the building schedule for the ROF and the dam were. Andy Dingley (talk) 17:20, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

The ROF was definitely up and running prior to the second world war and the tower had been there a long, long time by then. From info I can find the res was not in operation till the 60s. I am from this neck of the woods and can recall people talking of the "flooded village" that sits somewhere at the bottom of the res. I believe this more apocryphal than real. As for the Luftwaffe - I'd love to know for certain what they might have been using for location of ROF. AFAIK it was never attacked. Londonclanger (talk) 14:19, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Wasn't the whole point of siting the ROF there that it could have the plentiful supply of water they needed, by building the reservoir? Seems odd if the reservoir wasn't built during the WW2 period. I'll ask locally, next time I'm up there. Andy Dingley (talk) 14:27, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Previous Bose headphones

An article that you have been involved in editing, Previous Bose headphones, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Previous Bose headphones. Thank you.

Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. <sigh> again -- Phoenix (talk) 06:17, 30 November 2009 (UTC)