User talk:Andy Dingley/Archive 2012 July

Nomination of Inline-twin engine for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Inline-twin engine is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Inline-twin engine 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 template from the top of the article. Dennis Bratland (talk) 14:17, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

Roots-type supercharger‎

Hi Andy Dingley, I'm not clear exactly why you're restoring redlinks to the Roots brothers? I did the article on their company, and my personal feeling is that there isn't really material for separate articles on the founders; further, there's no real advantage in having redlinks, specially at the top of an article. So personally I'd have been for cleaning up the redlinks in this instance. What is your reasoning on the matter - maybe you know of material on the brothers that we haven't made use of yet? - with best wishes Chiswick Chap (talk) 11:36, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

If the personal history is already entirely covered within the company article, then I'd keep links but I'd make them redirects. This also allows them to be easily categorized as US engineers or businessmen.

Wtshymanski

In case you hadn't noticed: he's back! I thought he would. He is not only back to rewriting others contributions to suit his own style again, but his unique brand of comments (i.e. sarcasm) is also back. See [1]. I am watching closely ... DieSwartzPunkt (talk) 17:05, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

Biting newcomers on Talk:Straight-twin engine

Please re-read Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Bridge Boy and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Inline-twin engine. Note the unanimity among a diverse range of editors and admins. Note the repeated agreement that WP:COMPETENCE is the core issue. Nobody is biting the newcomers. Bridge Boy has created nearly 30 articles and has 1600+ edits. He is not a newbie. He has had ample opportunity to read the relevant policies and guidelines, particularly WP:Summary style and WP:SNOW.

It is a violation of WP:AGF to repeatedly question the motives of editors who oppose this split and/or the rename of Straight-two engine. There are too many unbiased editors who have reached the same conclusions. There are no new editors joining the discussion who are convinced Bridge Boy has any case at all. The longer it goes on, the more opposition lines up against his proposed changes.

Please do not continue that line of criticism in the talk page venue; there are appropraite forums if you wish to make a complaint about an editor's behavior. I can provide copious diffs spanning three months showing Bridge Boy has been welcomed, treated with kid gloves, and gently guided into understanding Wikipedia. It's baseless to accuse anybody of biting the newcomers. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 15:40, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

"diffs spanning three months"

Precisely: a new editor.

Whilst at the same time you belittle editors who are interested in engines other than motorcycles as just "choo choo trains". You also cite AfD !votes as supporting evidence for your claim that transverse and inline engines are the same thing, just turned sideways. A statement that was not only wrong (do you really think transverse motorcycle engines are the same as inline?), but it claimed as its evidence that the Ferrari Dino has a longitudinal engine. Andy Dingley (talk) 15:46, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

Calling a locomotive a choo choo train does not belittle any editor. A train is a thing. An editor is a person. Using a jocular echoic term for for a train is not a personal attack on people who like trains. See choo-choo, n. Second edition, 1989; online version June 2012. First published in A Supplement to the OED I, 1972. "choo-choo, n. An imitation of the sound of a steam-engine, used as a nursery name for a railway train or locomotive. Chiefly U.S." See [2] "choo-choo  [choo-choo] noun, verb, choo-chooed, choo-choo·ing. Baby Talk . noun 1. a train. 2. the sound of a steam locomotive." See [3] [n.pl. choo-choos Informal A locomotive train."

Echoic. Baby talk. Informal. Do you see "derogatory" or "vulgar slang" or "disparaging" or "offensive" there anywhere? Also, I happen to be a train enthusiast myself. There is nothing to take offense from here.

Yes, I think transverse motorcycle engines are the same as longitudinal. Nothing about the engine is different. Transverse engine motorcycles are much different beasts than longitudinal engines; it's a vital difference. But the difference isn't in the engine. It's in the transmission, the final drive, the frame, the wheelbase, just about everything except the engine changes.

Nobody has offered a source showing the engine itself is different in any way if you turn it sideways. I have offered a number of expert sources that treat inline, parallel, and straight as interchangeable. This argument is a non-starter and it must end. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 16:14, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

Also, you misunderstand the three months. Bridge Boy has been actively editing for seven months. In spite of a large number of rookie errors and somewhat disruptive behavior, he was not criticized at all for fully three months, four months really. And even then he was criticized in the gentlest, kindest terms. It took three more months of steadily escalating disruption, combined with at total disregard for advice from others, before this came to a head. Don't accuse anyone of biting the newcomers unless you have checked the record. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 20:48, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

Credo Reference Update & Survey (your opinion requested)

Credo Reference, who generously donated 400 free Credo 250 research accounts to Wikipedia editors over the past two years, has offered to expand the program to include 100 additional reference resources. Credo wants Wikipedia editors to select which resources they want most. So, we put together a quick survey to do that:

• Link to Survey (should take between 5-10 minutes): http://www.surveymonkey.com/s/N8FQ6MM

It also asks some basic questions about what you like about the Credo program and what you might want to improve.

At this time only the initial 400 editors have accounts, but even if you do not have an account, you still might want to weigh in on which resources would be most valuable for the community (for example, through WikiProject Resource Exchange).

Also, if you have an account but no longer want to use it, please leave me a note so another editor can take your spot.

If you have any other questions or comments, drop by my talk page or email me at wikiocaasi@yahoo.com. Cheers! Ocaasi ^{t | c} 17:06, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

Largest steampunk event...

Actually, event-wise, I think the Steampunk World's Fair in New Jersey last year sold over 3000 tickets, so it would have been far bigger than The Asylum. But the record I was referring to, I think was the largest group gathered in one place at one time for a photo. And that was back in 2010, I'm sure someone will break that record soon. :) --Jonnybgoode44 (talk) 22:17, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

I don't know how big the US events are, but Tinker is adamant about the 1109 figure for Weekend at the Asylum 2011 (see talk). The photo on that article is of the count and photograph for the record attempt. As your Guinness ref is only 185 steampunks(!), even Waltz on the Wye had more guests than that. Andy Dingley (talk) 23:08, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

Well apparently it had never been recorded as such before by Guinness. But records were meant to be broken - gives them something to shoot for next year, since the bar was set so low! --Jonnybgoode44 (talk) 23:21, 11 July 2012 (UTC)