User talk:Yiba

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Teahouse logo
Hello! Yiba, you are invited to join other new editors and friendly hosts in the Teahouse. An awesome place to meet people, ask questions and learn more about Wikipedia. Please join us! Stuartyeates (talk) 23:25, 24 April 1928 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Thx for the thx. ;p I do hope you fixed my syntax goofs... :( TREKphiler any time you're ready, Uhura 14:44, 5 August 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

AtlanticRacingSeries revert[edit]

Glad you caught my mistake. I must confess that, when I did that, I did not know how to access a user's page at YouTube. When I did a YouTube search on "AtlanticRacingSeries", it responded "Did you mean 'Atlantic Racing Series'?", so I figured the spaces were needed. After you reverted it, I tried to figure out what was going on; and finally discovered that URL works. If this reference were worth anything nowadays, it might be better to provide the link itself. I am wondering how it is that you managed to catch my mistake. DrHow (talk) 21:00, 8 August 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi Yiba. Yes, it lists a bunch of videos posted by AtlanticRacingSeries, so I was not claiming that that the spaceless version was useless. However, for me, at the top it definitely did (and still does) say, "Did you mean: Atlantic Racing Series", which I incorrectly took to indicate that there was a correctable problem. Ironically if you go to the user page for AtlanticRacingSeries (which is where I was trying to get to in the first place), you find a heading that includes the spaces. Alas, there was a time when it was very interesting series to watch. DrHow (talk) 20:54, 9 August 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Engine balance[edit]

Good work on the Engine balance page. It's on my watchlist so I'll be re-reading/checking on it often. I may bring questions on the page directly to your talk page if I run into any.--Dana60Cummins (talk) 15:44, 5 November 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks. It became a lot longer article than I initially envisioned. Your questions and comments will be welcomed here, even if they have nothing to do with the article. I might know a bit about Weber DCOE/IDA3 carburetors, old Porsche 356/911 engines or European style racing, and I might turn to you for questions on American machinery, technology, etc. Yiba (talk) 16:45, 5 November 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I have a question on Otto cycle/Diesel cycle, you maybe able to answer. Right now on Talk:Inline-four engine bottom of the page Andy Dingely says that modern diesels run on the Otto cycle engine. I'm lost on the difference between the two. I thought diesels ran the diesel cycle. Not the Otto cycle. I have a degree with diesels, but this could be out of my league.--Dana60Cummins (talk) 16:07, 19 November 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
'Diesel' refers to the way air-fuel mixture is ignited by the heat generated by compression (in the cylinder), as opposed to Gasoline engine's way of doing the same by spark generated by electricity on the spark plug.
Otto Cycle refers to those engines with 4 cycles (intake, compression, combustion {sometimes called expansion, or power} and exhaust), each cycle corresponding to one piston travel for the stroke in the cylinder (hence called "4 stroke"). 2 stroke engines take care of the same four cycles in two travels of a stroke. So Otto Cycle means 4 stroke.
There are 4 stroke and 2 stroke Gasoline engines, as well as 4 stroke and 2 stroke Diesel engines. The recent advancements in fuel injection, forced induction (turbo/super-chargers), and engine management technologies have made 2 stroke Diesels efficient and effective for Truck/Bus and Ship applications, and I'd think some people may refer to these 2 stroke Diesels as "modern diesels" although 4 stroke turbocharged diesels in European cars are as modern as any.
A large 2 stroke diesel engine is not understood well by many people, so there are confusions, but the basics are simple. Just compare 4 stroke vs. 2 stroke, Gasoline engine vs. Diesel engine; and do not try to compare 4 stroke (Otto) vs. Diesel.
However, for the theoretical analysis of engine thermal efficiency, Diesel Cycle refers to the variation of Otto Cycle theoretical model that is unique to diesels, where addition of heat must be treated to be under constant pressure, as opposed to under constant volume in Otto cycle for gasoline engines. So, in this particular theoretical context for the calculation of thermal efficiency, Otto cycle is compared with Diesel cycle. But all diesel engine efficiency is calculated using the Diesel Cycle model, so I'm not sure where Andy Dingley's comment comes from. Yiba (talk) 02:34, 20 November 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I enjoy the constant editing. I have a double major in the subject at hand. Watching the edits/editing reminds me of my college classes.--Dana60Cummins (talk) 05:07, 1 December 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks. I would probably add 4, 5, 6 and 8 cylinder sections under Inherent Balance, but I now realize that it may be beneficial to have separate sections for Rocking Vibration and the discussion on uneven firing and uneven exhaust pulse. I have discussed rocking vibration under 2 cyl. section, and about uneven exhaust pulse in V8 Burble under Crossplane article, but am not sure how to incorporate them neatly in Engine Balance (by reshuffling sections?). I'd think the inclusion of them by expanding Items to be Balanced section would make the whole article much harder to read. Do you have any idea? Yiba (talk) 14:19, 1 December 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

You could consider making a separate page or pages. But I also think the content box does a good job of making wiki pages easier to read. That being said, engine balance isn't well understood by most mechanics. Engine balance is always a hard read. --Dana60Cummins (talk) 16:12, 1 December 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Intake pulse, which is also important for evenly filling the cylinders with the same volume and mixture of intake charge for 11. (uniform amount of torque) and 12. (uniform timing in torque generation), is formed the same way, so two carburetors or throttle bodies on two one-into-three intake manifolds each on the front and the rear three cylinders (when the three runner lengths are equal, strictly speaking) results in evenly spaced intake pulse at the throttles. Jaguar XK inline 6 had three SU carburettors each serving the front two, middle two and the rear two cylinders in the later models, which resulted in unevenly distributed intake pulse at the front and the rear carburetors (the middle carb gets an evenly spaced pulse at 360° interval). This configuration, while resulting in higher power due to the increased total flow capacity of the carburetors than the earlier evenly-spaced-pulse twin carburetor configuration, may have contributed to the later 4.2 Liter version's "rougher running" reputation compared to the legendary 3.4 and 3.8 Liter versions.
Should this be it's own subsection since this probably isn't a issue on diesel boosted engines I assume? --Dana60Cummins (talk) 16:24, 2 March 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Hmmmm...I see where your comment comes from, but my response is "Yes and No". Yes, you are correct that the concept of 'throttle' does not apply to Diesels. But no, the concept of "intake pulse" applies to Diesel design, and filling the cylinders with equal volume of air (which results in uniform 'mixture' in the cylinders, despite the 'mixture' concept may seem not to apply to Diesel) cannot be achieved with inproper pairing/routing and/or differing length/volume of intake tracts on an inline 6 Diesel.
For a long time, Diesels were used for lower performance requirements than gasoline engines, and the higher compression ratios do tend to mask slight variations in the volume of intake charge. But the latest Diesels utilize intake and exhaust design methods similar to gasoline engines because the same concepts apply. Take a look at the picture in Audi R10 TDI#Engine, isn't that a gorgeous Diesel !? Yiba (talk) 18:00, 2 March 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yes I am a fan of the Audi TDI LM. I ask because the main engine I studied in college was the Cummins B Series engine hence part of my user name. These engines have the intake plumbed into the engine around cylinder 2-3 area. I always thought it was weird, and I have seen custom intakes that center it. But the offset intake didn't have an effect on longevity. However my understanding of intakes & balance isn't where yours is. Maybe I'm not understanding the whole picture correctly? --Dana60Cummins (talk) 05:21, 3 March 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oh, now I see where the article is lacking. As it is a complicated subject that requires a lengthy explanation, I did not include any description of the "intake pulse" concept. There is some explanation in Inlet manifold#Volumetric efficiency where the statement "some intake systems operate at a volumetric efficiency above 100%" is very important. Although the statement might seem impossible to be true from a common fluid dynamics understanding, it is true when "at certain rpm" is added to it (I might consider editing that article in the future).
When cylinder 'A' sucks air 3000 times a minute, or 50 times a second, negative pressure pulse is created in the intake pipe, and you can hear the sound of 50 Hz frequency at the end of the pipe. Air is compressible with elasticity, so the dips (valleys) of pressue in the pipe also creates peaks at the half way between the dips, with a slight reduction in the depth (strength) of the valleys. If the pipe is merged at its mouth with another intake pipe that is connected to cylinder B, then this 50 Hz sound can be heard at the intake valve of cylinder B, meaning the wave (positive and negative pressures) has travelled from cylinder A to B. If the cylinder B intake valve is kept open when the peak of the wave is arrived there, cylinder B is filled with more air than if the pressure is atmospheric at the valve. Likewise cylinder B is filled with less air if the valve is open when the valley of the wave arrives there.
As the speed of the travel of air pressure wave is fairly constant at about 343 meters a second (which is called Speed of sound or Mach 1), we know the wavelength (distance from peak to peak, or valley to next valley) of 50 Hz wave is 343/50=6.86 meters. So if the intake runner lengths are 6.86/2=3.43 meters, then cylinder B gets the strongest negative pressure, and if it is 3.43/2=1.715 meters, it gets the strongest positive pressure. Of course intake runners of almost 2 meters is unrealistic, but this is the theory on 2 cylinder engines, and the length gets halved when the number of cylinders (which translates to combustion frequency) gets doubled, so 86cm for 4 cylinders, 57cm for 6 cylingers, 43cm for 8 cylinder engines, 28.6cm for 12 cylinders when the intake is designed properly. Jaguar V12 had about 40cm intake runners from intake port to intake plenum to take advantage of this supercharging effect at lower rpm than 6000 rpm (equalling 3000 intake stroke per minute on one cylinder). Would you say the Audi R10 TDI runner (valve to plenum) length is about 20-25cm? Do you see this halving with multiple cylinders works only if the merging of intake pipes resulting in equally spaced pulse like two 1-into-3 intake manifolds on inline 6, or 6 equal length intake pipes connected to two plenums in the case of Audi R10 TDI?
There are other topics like resonance frequency (which amplifies the wave) in the runner pipe, and the phenomenon of the wave going back and forth from end to end in the intake pipes as well. But irregular intake pulse as a result of improper merging of intake pipes kills/messes up these effects, and has much more negative influence than positive. Cummins B series probably never ran at 6000rpm, and slight variations in cylinder-to-cylinder intake volume wouldn't have mattered much, if at all, in working rather leisurely driving trucks. If the intake design of Cummins B is applied to the R10 TDI, the engine would likely self destruct due to the tremendous unbalanced torque generation probably at 7000-9000rpm. Thanks for pointing out the insufficient info, and I will think about how to improve the article on this front (not sure if it is possible without making the article too long). Yiba (talk) 08:24, 3 March 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Diesel cycle and Otto cycle[edit]

Sorry I didn't see this earlier or I would have answered.

First of all, Diesel cycle and the compression ignition engine (and for that matter, two- and four-stroke) are just different types of things: thermodynamics vs. engineering.

IC piston engines begin with Lenoir and gas engines that can work without compression. Then Otto comes along, with his earlier engines, his theoretical cycle and then some petrol engines with compression and spark ignition. These all have a problem though, they needed a complicated and expensive fuel. The Otto cycle is a constant volume combustion. Combustion is faster than mechanical movement of the piston, so the combustion chamber is of fixed size and undergoes a large increase in pressure. This is difficult - the timing is crucial, so an ignition source is added, and it's chemically tricky to support rapid and complete combustion. Too little and unburnt fuel is wasted; too much and there's a risk of knock.

Several workers wanted to use a cheaper fuel of unrefined oil. Diesel was even looking at powdered coal. Akroyd Stuart develops the semi-diesel or hot bulb engine. Diesel starts to consider an engine design. Both are looking at the compression ignition engine and they recognise the principle of substantial compression being enough to raise the charge to its ignition point.

Diesel though is still thinking about heavy oil fuels. These can't burn fast enough to work with the Otto cycle. So instead he invents the Diesel cycle, with combustion slowly at constant pressure. Combustion begins, then as the piston moves downwards and the combustion chamber volume increases, further fuel is injected to keep combustion happening so that the pressure remains at its peak value. Controlling the burn rate requires the fuelling rate to be carefully controlled. In particular, the inlet mixture is plain air, without fuel, and the fuel is injected.

Diesel's Diesel cycle engine works well and is efficient. Although the engines are big, heavy, slow-moving and expensive for their injection equipment. They do become popular for municipal-scale water pumps and generation, but they're too big and heavy for railway locomotives.

After WWI, Harry Ricardo is successful with his turbulent head side valve combustion chamber, one of the first efficient petrol engines that's cheap to produce. He recognises the principles of gas flow and controlled turbulence. Demand for a lighter Diesel engine is obvious, and running it faster is an obvious way to achieve this. Diesel's air-blast injection can't achieve this though. Ricardo (following similar work by Prosper L'Orange) recognises that if the fuel can't meet the air, turbulence would allow the air to meet the fuel. This solid fuel injection, and careful design of combustion chambers, is the key to the high-speed diesel engine, from about 1930. These engines aren't universal, as the medium-speed engine appears too and occupies the fixed and railway markets for another 30-50 years. However cars and trucks adopt the high-speed engines very quickly. These compression-ignition direct-injection engines, and the diesel engines we still use today, are using the Otto (fast combustion and constant volume) cycle, rather than the (slow combustion and constant pressure) Diesel cycle though.

Today the Diesel cycle is the preserve of some large, slow-revving and very efficient ship engines. But the rest of us are using Otto as a cycle, whichever fuel and ignition method. Andy Dingley (talk) 02:35, 6 February 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Wow! Thank you very much for the explanation. Do you have any recommended reading on this "fast-burn Diesel engines that run on Otto Cycle" topic? The education I received on the closest subject is in line with:
in which there was no mention of "fast-burn Diesel engines that run on Otto Cycle". Yiba (talk) 08:54, 6 February 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
An article on the high-speed diesel engine, which is still one of my drafts after a few years of meaning to finish it.
For sourcing, there are lots of mid-century books that bother to explain this stuff, because it's still new and there are comparisons to be made across the variety of engine designs then in service. Nowadays a book will just say "This is how it is".
To understand it though, you still have to read the three editions of Ricardo. Three editions, because the pre-war, wartime (Glyde's book) and post-war editions are really quite different books.
Another point to bear in mind is that medium-speed diesels with indirect injection have a combustion chamber that is isolated from the main volume and runs on its own cycle. They're not isobaric. Much of the medium-speed mode of operation was a fast Otto-like combustion inside the chamber, feeding more slowly into the cylinder to give a more Diesel-like behaviour in there. It would be good to distinguish the L'Orange antechamber cycle (which is a lot like Akroyd Stuart) where combustion begins in the more-easily ignited antechamber from the indirect engines with a true combustion chamber that is where combustion takes place. Andy Dingley (talk) 12:08, 6 February 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
This is fascinating. high-speed diesel engine is a red-link, and I would like to see your draft very much (couldn't find it in User:Andy Dingley/sandbox). The way I understand it so far suggests that pre-chambered diesel engines (of which there have been many on automobiles) are not 'true-Diesels' in that the ignition is not pressure-induced, but instead induced (triggered) by the heat retained on glow plugs, in the same manner as in model plane engines. Is my understanding correct?
I referenced Ricardo's "The High-Speed Internal Combustion Engine" (3rd ed.) in Coventry Climax article without reading it, and am now ashamed for it. Yiba (talk) 03:03, 7 February 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
There are several stages in the separate combustion chamber history: Akroyd Stuart, L'Orange, Ricardo and direct injection.
Akroyd Stuart's hot bulb is a small isolated volume that is hotter than the cylinder. As such, it gets hotter when compressed and can reach self-ignition temperature by compression. This engine can use a fuel/air mixture, because its ignition is only marginal, relying on the extra heat of the small chamber and so avoiding the risk of bulk pre-ignition in the chamber (Ricardo is very good on explaining the real issues with pre-ignition). The main mixture is lit by a flame front propagating from the bulb. As the bulb is somewhat isolated from the main cylinder and its cooling jacket, it remains hot for the next cycle. Although these are only limited to slow speed engines, the bulb's ignition timing is much easier to control than the main chamber's. In fact, they're excellent slow speed engines – either hit & miss or throttled, there are few engines that will run smoothly as slowly as one of those old fishing boat Bollinders.
L'Orange's antechamber is similar to the hot bulb, but uses injection rather than carburation. The chamber mixture lights first, and the combustion then spreads into the main chamber. Squish is important for these, especially with something like a clerestory chamber, as only the well-mixed mixture in the antechamber is really capable of reliable ignition with accurate timing.
This develops into the indirect medium-speed engine. Nearly all combustion takes place inside the chamber, the cylinder is merely a working volume for the piston. Glowplugs are needed for starting, but these play no part in ignition timing - they're hot continuously. Like the blowlamp start hot bulb, they raise the temperature of one small volume so that it can reach self-ignition temperatures, even when the main chamber is still too cold. As they only need to heat this small volume, for many years they were seen as by far the better cold starter than a direct injection engine. Timing depends on fuel injection timing and that alone – other heat factors may stop ignition happening, but they don't really vary it. Once the engine is hot, the combustion chamber can look after itself. Helped in Ricardo's Comet chamber by a thermally isolated design that keeps the bottom part of the chamber hot by, once again, isolating it from the block and cooling system.
Separate chambers are inefficient for expansion efficiency of established combustion though, so the impetus is to develop direct injection. The first way to do this is the "cheat" of the bowl in piston design with high squish (i.e. very small clearance above the rest of the piston crown). When it first ignites, this is effectively a small, isolated chamber! The Saurer double toroid undercut bowl in piston design gives excellent mixing, so works with lean mixtures. Of course the chamber merges into the main cylinder quickly (as does the combustion chamber, when compared to the more-isolated antechamber designs) and so these have to be quick-burning engines, before the piston starts to move down and the volume increases – one reason why their cycles become more Otto and less Diesel.
I rather lost interest in this article (and in 1930s history, and in Wikipedia) when I had a couple of thousand scanned textbook uploads deleted. They're PD in the UK, but that's no longer enough for Wikimedia. There's increasingly little point in contributing to a project where so many people's main goal is to find excuses to make some "admin" action, even when harmful. I was supposed to be doing something on the Maybach MD series engines, the peak of 1960s high-speed locomotive diesels for the German diesel-hydraulic locos (and why it all failed when repeated in the UK or USA), but I've just published that elsewhere instead. I might try to upload it here too afterwards, but such things then tend to get blanked as "copyvioing" yourself. Andy Dingley (talk) 04:09, 7 February 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thank you very very much for educating me on this. Now I clearly see the distinction between Otto-esque quick burn and Diesel-esque slow burn in a mid to high speed "Diesel engine" is difficult, and understood what you meant by the original comment on Talk:Inline-four engine. I am grateful for my having studied on Honda's CVCC and stratified charge engine in the past for grasping the concept. I believe the general level of understanding by the people who are interested in the subject is much lower, partly due to the tendency of the academia in thermo dynamics to shy away from these "in between" phenomena that cannot be cut clean by the Otto model or Diesel model, which from my perspective is a reflection of their insufficient understanding on the matter. For this, I strongly urge you to keep contributing to Diesel related articles, which do not provide the understanding I have now come to posess.
I hear you loud and clear about the wiki editors' infatuation for 'policing' actions, which has been criticised aptly as "wannabe tin-pot dictators". I am feeling the same in watching Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Motorsport#Notability of amateurs in professional motorsport. Yiba (talk) 08:48, 7 February 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi. I saw your edit at Template:User ja, which changed 「母語」to「母国語」. Although sometimes confused with each other, they are actually different concepts: 母語 can safely be translated to "mother tongue", while 母国語 is interpreted as the national language of one's homeland (, which is not necessarily one's mother tongue). I believe 母語 is the proper expression for Template:User ja. Could you consider reverting your edit? -- Best regards, あるうぃんす (talk) 05:18, 19 January 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This discussion has been moved to Template talk:User ja Yiba (talk) 07:53, 21 January 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Nationality of Guy Moll[edit]

Could someone direct me to a page/resource on Wikipedia policy or guideline on categorizing people from former colonies? Guy Moll was born and raised in Algeria before its gaining independence, and has been categorized and described as a "French racing driver", and I find the description and the categorization could be offensive to the people of Algeria. Key points are:

  • 1.Algeria was a French colony when he was born, and then remained so until his death.
  • 2.Algeria has been a sovereign state at the time of article(s) creation until now.
  • 3.I would very much like to keep motorsport aricles out of past/present/future political developments.
  • 4.Guy Moll is not a living person.
  • 5.His nationality affects other (mostly race result) articles, and the use of "person from Algeria" will open a can of worms on many many articles, thus is not a good solution.
  • 6.I am not seeking comments like "He should be listed as French/Algerian because XXX" without citing Wikipedia policy, guideline, discussions/arbitrations in the past, or any info that might help establishing a new procedure in motorsport-related projects with reasonable grounds.

As the concept of 'nationality' itself is political in nature, Wikipedia's past dealings with politically-sensitive issues may be where the answers may be found (how were/are people of Hong Kong who died before 1997 categorized? British? Is the method recognized by Wikipedia policy?, what will happen to the nationality categorization when a colony gains independence in the future?), but I don't know how best to research. Thanks. Yiba (talk | contribs) 04:29, 23 March 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I know you want a source, and I am sorry that I have not found it yet in my brief search, but I am almost certain that, in the past day or so, I saw a guideline stating that geographical names should be given as they were at the time of an event, with an additional reference to the present name, e.g., Golda Mabovitch (Ukrainian: Ґольда Мабович) was born on May 3, 1898, in Kiev, Russian Empire, present-day Ukraine. I realize that isn't exactly what you asked, i.e., how to put people in categories. Current practice (again, I am sorry I don't yet have a link to a WP policy) seems to be the people can be put into categories that were valid for any part of their life, so that, e.g., Golda Meir is in Category:American people of Russian-Jewish descent. I will keep looking, but I hope this informatation will help spark someone else's recollection. I strongly feel that there should not be a separate policy for motorsports people, as this is an issue that would apply across all biographical articles. Peter Chastain (talk) 06:45, 23 March 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I think that categorization decisions might follow the same criteria used for lead paragraphs: according to WP:OPENPARAGRAPH, nationality is usually "the country of which the person is a citizen, national or permanent resident, or if notable mainly for past events, the country where the person was a citizen, national or permanent resident when the person became notable" [emphasis added].
The policy that governs placing people into categories is Wikipedia:Categorization of people. If you raise the question on the talk page there, you will probably get better answers. Peter Chastain (talk) 07:17, 23 March 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thank you very much for the info. I agree that WP:COP would be the starting line, and it points to Wikipedia:Categories for discussion for resolutions based on vote/consensus, but that method seems inappropriate in this case as the result may be offensive to one group of people or another, and may contradict authorities and reliable sources. Moreover, the Opening Paragraph statement seems very significant in its use of the word 'usually', which makes the guidance not applicable to this case in my view. I can't find the source now, but I remember reading something to the effect that Wiki person categorization method could be unique to his/her occupation (field of achievement/notability). In higher levels of motorsport, governing bodies of the races have been generally thorough in recording "what nationality a driver represents", so I don't mind the solution to be specific to motorsport, although across the board policy would be nicer.
In normal circumstances, I'd simply record the opposing views (Algerian and French versions in this case), but race result template accepts only one nationality per driver, which, in my mind, is almost a necessity in view of the vast data size in the history of motorsport.
A part of the question may be "Is Wikipedia willing to discredit/contradict governing bodies / authorities and their records in the name of NPOV?" (I'd think the answer is Yes), and "How does Wikipedia treat taking sides when it offends people either way and "describing the conflict" is not an option?" (I don't know the answer to this)" Yiba (talk | contribs) 08:28, 23 March 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
For sports-related articles, "nationality" is usually determined the way you suggest above: By the nationality assigned by the governing bodies of the sport. For example, {{Fs start}} has a comment about FIFA eligibility rules. For Moll I'd be rather surprised if anything but French had been recorded as his nationality. For comparison, assume Scotland becomes independent - would we then re-flag and re-nationalize the likes of Jim Clark? Also note that legally Algeria was not a colony but "part of the motherland", and that Moll's father was from France proper. Huon (talk) 22:30, 23 March 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks. The note on {{Fs start}} is a good info, and adding such note may allow Wikipedia to hide behind authorities without making the conviction/position known. However, my original question on Wiki policy remain unanswered and WP:FOOTBALL could/should not represent Wikipedia on this issue even if it deliberately chose that route for a good reason. Scottish players/drivers would be a good example in that if I am a Scottish, I would like to see them re-classified under Scottish banner especially if Scottland was a sovereign state at the time of writing (Algeria was at the time of writing. I might even demand the Clark article to be renamed The Flying Scot :).
"Part of the motherland" is another way of describing colony/remote territory/control zone/etc., and how it is called by the controlling government would have little bearing in their nature for the purposes of this discussion. It is this kind of political tactics/developments I would like sport-related articles to be distanced from if possible.
I can't think of a Crimean driver, but Viktor Ahn's parents are South Korean nationals (probably still living in South Korea), and he "is a Russian short track speed skating athlete of South Korean descent" according to the current article because he obtained a Russian citizenship. So the nationality/domicile/origin of the parents is not a good argument, and my original question may have larger scope than "former colonies" and might extend to "how Wikipedia will/should face the reality of 'nationalities do change'", in addition to the question of offensive content and disputing reliable sources. Yiba (talk | contribs) 07:17, 24 March 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Hi Yiba! Random editor here. I've removed the help request from your talk page only because it may confuse random editors such as myself, who come to your page looking to help you. It appears that you are actually trying to reply to Huon. If you wish to get Huon's attention, you might consider placing {{reply to|Huon}} before your response. Like this:
:{{reply to|Huon}} Hi Huon, I had a follow up question...
Or you could contact him directly on his talk page. Hope that helps! Cyphoidbomb (talk) 17:05, 24 March 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I usually add talk pages where I have commented to my watchlist, so there's no need to add specific templates to get my attention. Regarding Moll, classifying him as "Algerian" seems an anachronism to me. Throughout his life he had French citizenship, for all I can tell, and Algeria at that time was more than just a colony (at least the Mediterranean part) - for a person moving from France to Algeria at that time, such as Moll's father, the change would be little greater than when moving from Paris to Marseille. I do not see any indication that Moll considered himself not-French. Thus we would be imposing today's politics on people who lived a century ago. We should not do so. There is no historical basis for such changes, there is no way of telling what other political changes might happen, and all we do is turn Wikipedia into a battleground for all kinds of nationalists. For the sake of argument, let's assume we categorize Moll as Algerian today, and fifty years from now France conquers Algeria once more - does Moll then mysteriously become French again? Does Jim Clark's nationality really depend on a referendum 50 years after his death? Viktor Ahn is a completely different case because Ahn deliberately changed his citizenship to become a Russian. That's not at all comparable to Moll whose "change of nationality" happened decades after his death. Huon (talk) 18:40, 24 March 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
To all helpers, please read my original point #6 before trying to help. The comments from Huon (and Andy Dingley) are special to me in many ways, one of which is Huon's experience and knowledge in contributing to articles on national flags.
Huon, I think your comments represent a general (and healthy) common sense prevalent in the current world. Citizenship is most commonly used as the basis for categorizing nationalities in Wiki articles with exceptions like revolutionaries and some politicians (occupation and field of achievement). You probably know we are imposing historical figures to be categorized into certain nationalities in Wiki articles (and wear those national flags), which the person most likely never wanted to be classified under because of his/her belief/background, and there is no way of assessing a person's true intention/wish. I wouldn't be surprised if Jim Clark considered himself to be anything but Scottish, and the current Andrew Cowan article lists 'British' and 'Scottish' national flags with the opening paragraph "Andrew Cowan is a Scottish former rally driver" which seems to me is a good description. Cowan and Clark grew up in the same region at the same time, and we are treating them differently for what reason, Cowan is alive and Clark is dead? In a way, we are lucky in Cowan not scoring points in GP events (so F1 records not messed up), but many F1 drivers have moved to Monaco for tax reasons, and people with dual/multiple citizenship would likely turn up in the future (if not already).
To write about history is, to a certain extent, imposing the current views, meanings of words, and value sets on past events (It is rare to see historical cannibalism records to indicate the act was a reflection of love or admiration; -- the current Wiki article is impressive on this front.). Paper encyclopedias can hide behind the statement "believed to be true at the time of publication" on things like race records but Wikipedia is not, and "not to turn Wikipedia into a battleground for all kinds of nationalists" is what I am trying to do in finding, or may be alerting and forcing Wiki policy makers to establish, a policy. The act of categorizing people (along with the act of judging notability) requires setting a point of view from which to make the decision, and here lies the difficulty in balancing with WP:NPOV. Yiba (talk | contribs) 06:28, 25 March 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Well, WP:Nationality is a redirect to a page that you have already been pointed towards, a page that, while not dealing with how to add flags to F1 drivers' results, says the nationality or citizenship at the time the person was notable is relevant. I do not think that we need a policy for every single issue that may ever occur; in cases of doubt we use WP:COMMONSENSE to establish WP:CONSENSUS. After all, Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy.
If you're looking for precedent, I'd point to Jagadish Chandra Bose, a scholar who lived and died in British India and whose nationality we currently give as British Indian, not Bangladeshi.
Or take a look at the various Soviet sportspeople. I don't think any of those who died before the dissolution of the Soviet Union have been re-flagged according to what successor state may now claim them.
Yet another precedent would be Template:FlagIOCathlete, which will automatically assign historical athletes the corresponding historical flags, not the modern ones. See the "Italy 1920" example at the bottom of that page.
Or take 1950 Formula One season as precedent: You'll find that the flags used on that page are not modern ones, but 1950 flags too (the US had fewer states, and the Spanish flag also has changed since).
So there's ample precedent not to impose modern nationalities or modern flags on historical persons. Huon (talk) 21:26, 25 March 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks for a lot of good info. Please let me take a bit of time and go through them. Yiba (talk | contribs) 03:29, 26 March 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
There's another aspect. You pointed out that calling Moll French might be offensive Algerians. This is a non-argument, for a couple of reasons. Firstly, calling Moll Algerian might be offensive to the French. What then? Secondly, Moll was a scion of a rich French family and would likely be seen as one of the colonizers, not one of the colonized - calling him Algerian may even be offensive to modern-day Algerians, too. Thirdly and most importantly, Wikipedia is not censored, and we simply do not care if otherwise valid content is offensive to somebody. Huon (talk) 11:28, 26 March 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

OK, here is what I came up with:

Jochen Rindt = "was a German racing driver who represented Austria during his career." (Makes the distinction between nationality and representation.)
 Erika Salumäe (URS) = "is an Estonian track bicycle racer" (Represented USSR and Estonia)
 Sergey Diomidov (URS) = "is an Uzbekistani former gymnast" (USSR)
 Miroslav Cerar (YUG) = "is a Slovenian gymnast" (Yugoslavia)
 Natalia Nasaridze (TUR) = "She is formerly from the Republic of Georgia." (No mention of USSR.)
 Kilian Albrecht (BUL) = "is an Austrian alpine skier who represented both Austria and Bulgaria" (Just an example of a case similar to Ahn, but he represented Austria in 2002 before representing Bulgaria, and is described as Austrian, unlike Ahn.)
 Davor Šuker (YUG) = "is a retired Croatian footballer" (Yugoslavia)

As a sideline, an example of what to expect in the future may be:

 Yamilé Aldama (GBR) = "is an international triple jumper currently competing for Great Britain after formerly representing Cuba and Sudan."

Many (most?) Scottish and Welsh people are described as Scottish/Welsh:

Andrew Carnegie = "Scottish-American" (Obviously this is not nationality or citizenship, but ethnicity. Being an immigrant is not his field of achievement.)
Anthony Hopkins = "is a Welsh actor"
Tom Hunter = "Scottish"
Irvine Laidlaw = "Scottish"
Howard Winstone = "was a Welsh world champion boxer"
Ian Wood = "Scottish"

I agree that starting with WP:COMMONSENSE is the best practice in resolving most problems in Wikipedia. I also agree that Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy, and I prefer less policies if possible. But many political issues can/should not be resolved in voting because, for example, Algerian/Scottish/Welsh people for my examples above can never be reasonably convinced if decided against, and I think WP:CONSENSUS is quite clear on the limitation of voting-style democracy.
Template:FlagIOCathlete could be a precedent if it automatically assigns a nationality to a given athlete name based on a table built with Wikipedia concensus, but it doesn't. Here is a stupid source example:

{{flagIOCathlete|[[Michael Schumacher]]|USA|1952 Summer}}

and here is what it displays:

 Michael Schumacher (USA) --nationality and the year are entirely left with the choice of the editor, without checking if he/she is an Olympics athlete.

I would use a flag that best represents the nationality in the appropriate era if available, so the accuracy/timeliness of the flag design is not the issue, but the nationality is. (Was there a flag for Algeria under French governance?)

I agree that Wikipedia is not censored, but we do need to try making contents as less-potentially-offensive as possible, and when the result is still potentially offensive, then we need to make sure it is covered under the Content Disclaimer. (WP:NOTCENSORED does not give a complete freedom on potentially offensive content even if it is accurate and valid, I'd think.)

Wikipedia:Content disclaimer says about potentially-objectionable content: "Wikipedia's current policy is to include such content, provided it breaches neither any of our existing policies (especially Neutral point of view) nor the laws of the United States" implying that any content that breaches WP:NPOV is outside of this inclusion policy and the disclaimer. WP:NPOV is very clear on things that can be viewed from two (or more) opposing (or different) points of view, that they need to be described/presented as such, never to be presented with one-sided view point. Of course this logic assumes there isn't a policy (which we haven't found, and might be lurking somewhere on Wikipedia:List of policies or Wikipedia:List of guidelines or elsewhere well hidden) that qualifies nationality to be an exception to NPOV.

So, when the Algerian and the French views (or UK and Scottish, etc.) are potentially conflicting and only one side is presented, then the article is in breach of NPOV in my view, and the potential offensiveness/objectionability is not covered under the disclaimer. It may be less important if majority or minority of Algerians are offended (or which of French or Algerian are more offended, or they are actually offended at all), than the fact the lack of policy (assuming there isn't one) is leaving the articles one-sided with potential objectionability and not being covered under the disclaimer. Of the examples I listed above, Jochen Rindt, Andrew Carnegie and Yamilé Aldama may be the only ones that's not one-sided at the time of this writing. I am learning a lot in this process, and am still convinced that there should be a policy.

  • Not yet knowing if there is a policy, or how to make sure there isn't one, or if this is an acceptable step, I have changed the request from {{help me}} to request for comment on Wiki policy. Just reading the preceding three sentences should give you a gist of my concern on nationality of people from once-disputed areas. Any meaningful help/advice would be appreciated. Yiba (talk | contribs) 18:01, 26 March 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

As my request for comment format was not bot-friendly at all, I am moving this discussion to Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Biography/Archive_47#Nationality_of_people_from_disputed_territory/country/colony/region Yiba (talk | contribs) 05:50, 27 March 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Flat engine[edit]

There are multiple sections in the Flat engine that describe boxer engines that share crank pins as: Not true boxer engines, but 180 degree V engines. Maybe the page needs your help, or maybe I do. --Dana60Cummins (talk) 16:24, 24 March 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I currently don't have time for editing Flat engine, so please go ahead. But be careful as "flat engine with shared crank pins is not a boxer engine" is a true statement. Also, some people in the past did call them "180 degree V". Although I don't subscribe to the notion that "true V engines must have shared crank pins", the intention behind calling it a 180 degree V is correct in that the pistons do not move in the boxer fashion. Yiba (talk | contribs) 06:21, 25 March 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thank you[edit]

Thank you for the help with sorting out the mess regarding the corporate structure of Porsche. I know that the past history really complicated. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 06:32, 30 March 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Not at all. Thanks for blocking the vandal. The complication not only comes from the hard resistance by VW management in the past several years, but also from the Porsche-Piech family's feeling "VW was established by our great grand father", which is legitimate from the family's stand point, but inaccurate in the eyes of VW management as the entire construction of Wolfsburg was financed by the government. Also, allowing companies to have multiple classes of equity shares is a practice still prohibited by many countries and exchanges, and the concept may be difficult to grasp. Yiba (talk | contribs) 07:09, 30 March 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
You know far more than I. =) I'm vaguely aware of what is going on from business articles I've skimmed from time to time. Mix in politics, family pride, piles of money, and different share classes you are bound to get a mess.
I see that the editor returned under an IP address. I reverted it yet again (funny that they still can't add) and blocked the IP. I put the article on my watchlist for awhile. The problem appears to have started over in the Wanxiang article when probably the same person added in this 29% thing. I thought maybe something was getting lost in translation where Porsche owns 29% of Wanxiang. I tried to verify that, but Googling for Wanxiang and Porsche resulted in the Wikipedia article and somebody questioning the Wikipedia article. So it was just somebody's wishful thinking, I suppose. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 18:09, 30 March 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Porsche SE's listed stock at the exchanges are prefered shares that has preference over ordinary shares in distribution of profit (and distribution of proceeds in the case of liquidation), but has no voting rights at shareholder meetings attached. I don't know about Wanxiang, but it is theoretically possible that up to 50% of Porsche equity to change hands on any trading day. When a large block of shares change hands, ownership composition does change significantly. But even if 100% of listed stock is owned by a single investor on a given day, it is just 50% of Porsche equity, with the clear understanding by the investing company that it does not gain any voting rights to control Porsche SE. When the 'Owner(s):' technically include investors on traded stock, it is customary to list only the control interests, and in the case of Porsche SE, Porsche-Piech family is the only 'controlling' owners after 2013. Yiba (talk | contribs) 01:46, 31 March 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.

You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. This is a notice that the page you created was tagged as a test page under section G2 of the criteria for speedy deletion and has been or soon may be deleted. Please use the sandbox for any other tests you want to do. Take a look at the welcome page if you would like to learn more about contributing to our encyclopedia.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, you can place a request here. SFK2 (talk) 11:11, 23 June 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

July 2014[edit]

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Engine balance may have broken the syntax by modifying 2 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:
  • is higher than the original C position) is equal to the half-way point of stroke for the small end.]]

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 02:22, 15 July 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello. You're correct in pointing out that {{cite web}} only allows for a single ISBN. I redid your change. Apologies for not paying enough attention and thanks for contributing to Wikipedia. QrTTf7fH (talk) 02:45, 1 August 2014 (UTC).Reply[reply]

Thanks. Just for your information, it is customary to keep conversations like this in one place. So if I initiated a dialogue on your talk page, then you normally respond to it on your talk page (usually with an indent like I have done here, the syntax of which you can see by clicking on the [edit] to the right of the above title 'ISBN' without saving the edit). Yiba (talk | contribs) 05:41, 1 August 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Ok, thanks for the information. QrTTf7fH (talk) 16:18, 1 August 2014 (UTC).Reply[reply]

Willi Kauhsen[edit]

Hi Yiba. Thanks for the great work you have done with the Willi Kauhsen article. Feel free to make changes to the "Team ownership" section - I just wanted to put something there to justify adding the Formula One categories to the article. Regards. DH85868993 (talk) 23:28, 4 August 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thank YOU for the great work you've done to it. Looking at the page, it's amazing how much can be done in just one day when you and I joined forces. I couldn't have done it alone. Please do make changes to the page. I really saw the power and the reasons behind red links with over 30 articles now linking to the new page immediately upon creation.
I have a slight concern on the title 'Kauhsen' being on the article on the racing team that had dismal accomplishments that are in my mind less noteworthy than his activities as a driver. Of course it is a reflection of the fact "Willi Kauhsen" article did not exist, but am wondering what's your opinion on it. I do see that Willi Kauhsen "as a driver" did nothing from the F1 perspective, but from the Sports Car Racing perspective, his accomplishments are much more noteworthy as a driver than as a team owner, and we know WikiProject F1 has far more influence on things in Wikipedia than WikiProject Sports Car Racing.
btw, I did watch the Sportscar vs. Sports Car discussion with interest after having the dialogue on "[[sports car]] racing" with you. It's always a pleasure to work with you. Yiba (talk | contribs) 06:55, 5 August 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I found 1975 info on Willi Kauhsen Racing Team and added it to Willi Kauhsen#Team ownership. The team's success in 1975 somewhat speaks against what I said above :P Yiba (talk | contribs) 03:28, 6 August 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for August 5[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Willi Kauhsen, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Laguna Seca and Group 7. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:44, 5 August 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for August 12[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Willi Kauhsen, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Derek Bell and ACO. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:25, 12 August 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Move discussion notice[edit]

I've initiated a move discussion at Talk:Porsche (disambiguation)#Requested moves. Your comments are welcome there. Thanks. - BilCat (talk) 06:31, 30 August 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Formal mediation has been requested[edit]

The Mediation Committee has received a request for formal mediation of the dispute relating to "Porsche". As an editor concerned in this dispute, you are invited to participate in the mediation. Mediation is a voluntary process which resolves a dispute over article content by facilitation, consensus-building, and compromise among the involved editors. After reviewing the request page, the formal mediation policy, and the guide to formal mediation, please indicate in the "party agreement" section whether you agree to participate. Because requests must be responded to by the Mediation Committee within seven days, please respond to the request by 17 September 2014.

Discussion relating to the mediation request is welcome at the case talk page. Thank you.
Message delivered by MediationBot (talk) on behalf of the Mediation Committee. 10:02, 10 September 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks for your message.

I know little about formula 1 or what they're up to these days. There's relatively little use of it in the '40s for aircraft and that's fairly well known - except the R-R Griffon, which had some experimental use as a turbo-compound but is still in the archives.

What I can add is about the origins. In the 1930s, diesels were undergoing substantial development. High-speed diesels were having forced induction applied. Particularly in work by Saurer, there was an effort to see just how much boost was practical. In contrast to petrol engines, it was found that it was relatively easy apply a high boost of maybe 6 bar without problems such as detonation. These high boost engines were mostly using centrifugal superchargers. What then became a problem was how to extract mechanically all of the extra thermodynamic energy released. The engine was now running with an effective compression ratio far in excess of the piston's mechanical compression. Considering the piston power stroke as an expansion phase in a heat engine, there just wasn't enough stroke or expansion for the combustion gases to do enough work on the crankshaft! The exhaust still remained hot and pressured, with much of the energy still remaining in it.

A solution was the turbo-compound. By running the exhaust through an expansion turbine, more of this energy could be extracted.

Turbo-compounds were difficult though. Just coupling the fast turbine shaft to the slow crankshaft was a problem, especially as there really needed to be a variable speed drive in there too.

What was realised though was that driving the mechanical supercharger required substantial power. About as much power as could easily be extracted from the exhaust turbine. So coupling one to the other directly provided a neat solution to supercharger drives, and avoided the need for turbo compounding the exhaust turbine. This was effectively a parallel evolution to the Büchi turbocharging system that had been tried some years earlier and would now become the dominant approach for supercharging large four stroke diesels at constant loads (Two strokes in vehicles usually stuck with Roots blowers, as they gave better scavenging at low speeds). This is incidentally why turbo exhaust manifolds can run red hot (and why sodium cooled valves might be needed), yet their outlets don't and neither do normally aspirated exhausts.

As to the other matters, then yes, I've probably given up as a contributor to Wikipedia. One admin stated that it would be better if I were blocked than Betacommand and the other has told me that he considers me de facto banned anyway and will indef block me if I post to ANI again. Andy Dingley (talk) 11:51, 29 September 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Request for mediation rejected[edit]

The request for formal mediation concerning Porsche, to which you were listed as a party, has been declined. To read an explanation by the Mediation Committee for the rejection of this request, see the mediation request page, which will be deleted by an administrator after a reasonable time. Please direct questions relating to this request to the Chairman of the Committee, or to the mailing list. For more information on forms of dispute resolution, other than formal mediation, that are available, see Wikipedia:Dispute resolution.

For the Mediation Committee, User:TransporterMan (talk) 16:46, 1 October 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
(Delivered by MediationBot, on behalf of the Mediation Committee.)


The Talk:V6 engine as well as the regular page desperately need your help.--Dana60Cummins (talk) 18:31, 9 December 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Re: Porsche[edit]

Re your message from months ago: Sorry about the ridiculously long delay. I took a break for awhile. It appears that you also took a break a little while after mine. To answer your question, protection is not automatically done when there is a mediation, RfC, or any other discussion going on. Protection in this case usually only applied when there is edit/move warring going on. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 03:31, 2 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:58, 24 November 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

ArbCom 2017 election voter message[edit]

Scale of justice 2.svg

Hello, Yiba. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

ArbCom 2018 election voter message[edit]

Scale of justice 2.svg

Hello, Yiba. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for August 10[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Mercedes-Benz M276 engine, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page IHI (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:05, 10 August 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Your signature[edit]

Please be aware that your signature is causing Tidy bug affecting font tags wrapping links lint errors, and also uses deprecated <font> tags, which are causing Obsolete HTML tags lint errors. The behavior of the Tidy bug has changed; starting in June 2018 the font color effect was removed.

You are encouraged to change

[[User:Yiba|<span style="color:#B20000;">Yiba</span>]] ([[User talk:Yiba|talk]] &#124; [[Special:Contributions/Yiba|contribs]]) : Yiba (talk | contribs)

If you do want the font color, to

[[User:Yiba|<span style="color:#B20000">Yiba</span>]] ([[User talk:Yiba|talk]] &#124; [[Special:Contributions/Yiba|contribs]]) : Yiba (talk | contribs)

If you do not want the font color, to

[[User:Yiba|Yiba]] ([[User talk:Yiba|talk]] &#124; [[Special:Contributions/Yiba|contribs]]) : Yiba (talk | contribs)

Anomalocaris (talk) 07:28, 29 September 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

ArbCom 2019 election voter message[edit]

Scale of justice 2.svgHello! Voting in the 2019 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 on Monday, 2 December 2019. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2019 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:11, 19 November 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Ship gun fire-control system[edit]

Yiba-san: I am honored by your request that I edit the information you recently provided to the subject article. Your written English is excellent, and better than many native speakers in my country. I hope my minor changes earn your approval. Thank you for allowing me to assist. Thewellman (talk) 03:41, 4 September 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thank you very much for your help (I was hoping for a more drastic polish :). I found a Mikasa rangefinder pic on Japanese Wikipedia, and wanted to use the image in this article. But no matter what Interwiki linking method I tried (like [[ja:articlename#imagename]]), I couldn't embed the image in this article (rather than as an URL in <Ref> as I had to settle with), and I consider it should be possible to do so. Do you happen to know how it is done? If you do, could you move the image from the Ref section to above "The Chief Gunnery Officer" as a thumbnail? Yiba (talk | contribs) 05:38, 4 September 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I truly think your original text was very clear, but I have made another attempt to meet your goals. I hope you will tell me if my edits have misconstrued your original meaning, or where further clarification might be useful.
English Wikipedia is greatly concerned with copyright laws, and differences between United States and Japanese copyright permissions may be a potential source of the difficulty you have encountered. I suggest you might try to upload the image to Wikimedia commons. If you are able to do that, either of us might add the image to this article as you intended.
If you have the interest and time, I would appreciate your help with the English Wikipedia observation seaplane article. It was a type of aircraft most widely used by the Imperial Japanese Navy, but those uses have not been fully explored by the English language sources I have found. I would value any edits you might make to that article, and I am especially interested in the intended differences between the type E reconnaissance seaplanes and the type F observation seaplanes. Thewellman (talk) 20:17, 4 September 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks a lot! This is a lot more presentable and is what I expected.
Your edit made me realize some areas I need to elaborate, and I've also found some mistakes I made. So I'll be working on this for a while, but at the same time, Observation Seaplane piqued my interest, so I'm looking into it now. lists all the Alphabet letters used, and it seems F(serveillance) is mostly for spotter purposes in shorter distances with speed, while E(reconnaissance) required long range flight. The distinction got blurred when F1M debuted with speed, range and combat capability, and as flying near enemy fleet as a gunnery spotter plane became unrealistic during WWII. What is interesting is Q(sea patrol) that required extreme long range in 'slow' flight, which was for anti-submarine warfare of the time. Kyushu Q1W is a rare example. Yiba (talk | contribs) 10:32, 5 September 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thank you for expanding the description of Japanese observation seaplane operations. How do you think the article might be improved to avoid confusing these ship-launched seaplanes with the much larger multi-engine flying boats? Thewellman (talk) 02:23, 9 September 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I'd think we need to consider the statement "Observation seaplanes are military aircraft with flotation devices" to answer that. There was Aichi H9A flying boat that was intended for observation roles as well as training, and 'if' the UK designers had chosen to install 2 smaller engines instead of 1 larger engine to improve on Walrus to come up with a different design Sea Otter (of the same span, length and use) for a better survivability, how would we have treated that? Do you foresee "Single-engined shipboard observation seaplanes of WWI and WWII" article in the future? Yiba (talk | contribs) 05:35, 9 September 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I think the combination of floatation devices plus catapult launch were definitive. I would consider the Aichi H9A as a flying boat too large for catapult launch. The Sea Otter appears to be an enlargement of the Walrus sacrificing catapult launch capability for the flying boat patrol roles. I think the flying boat and observation seaplane articles appropriately cover the most militarily significant roles; although some aircraft like the Heinkel He 115 and CANT Z.506 or experimental Convair F2Y Sea Dart don't fit neatly into either category, but I question if their effectiveness was notable enough to define separate mission types. Thewellman (talk) 07:24, 9 September 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Oh, oh, I did not realize the original omission of Sea Otter from that table was intentional for "not being catapult launchable"! Please remove Sea Otter from the table as I can't think of a good solution for your problem right now. May be a note in the article talk page describing the issue for other potential editors? (I did not see the "military/float/catapult" criterion.) Yiba (talk | contribs) 08:17, 9 September 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thank you for illustrating the efn format for notes. It's very clever. Thewellman (talk) 04:25, 15 September 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Custom signature fix needed[edit]

Hi there! You have a custom signature set in your account preferences. A change to Wikipedia's software has made your current custom signature incompatible with the software.

The problem: Your signature contains a syntax error, specifically formatting tags that are in the wrong order.

The solutions: You can reset your signature to the default, or you can fix your signature.

Solution 1: Reset your signature to the default:
  1. Find the signature section in the first tab of Special:Preferences.
  2. Uncheck the box (☑︎→☐) that says "Treat the above as wiki markup."
  3. Remove anything in the Signature: text box.
  4. Click the blue "Save" button at the bottom of the page. (The red "Restore all default settings" button will reset all of your preference settings, not just the signature.)
Solution 2: Fix your custom signature:
  1. Find the signature section in the first tab of Special:Preferences.
  2. Change the signature as shown below, or make other edits to make the signature appear how you want it to appear.
  3. Click Save to update to your newly fixed signature.

Current signature:
[[User:Yiba|<span style="color:#B20000;">Yiba</span>]] ([[User talk:Yiba|talk]] | [[Special:Contributions/Yiba|contribs]])

Fixed signature:
[[User:Yiba|<span style="color:#B20000;">Yiba</span>]] ([[User talk:Yiba|talk]] | [[Special:Contributions/Yiba|contribs]])

More information is available at Wikipedia:Signatures#Customizing how everyone sees your signature. If you have followed these instructions and still want help, please leave a message at Wikipedia talk:Signatures. Thanks. – Jonesey95 (talk) 18:43, 10 September 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Missing Sources in Tsushima article[edit]

Hi, as you know I've been tidying up the references in Battle of Tsushima. There are two sources that are mentioned in edits that you've made - "McLaughlin" and "Campbell" - that don't have entries in the bibliography. Could you add them in your next edit? Thanks Chuntuk (talk) 11:40, 26 October 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks. I will. Yiba (talk | contribs) 12:08, 26 October 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

ArbCom 2020 Elections voter message[edit]

Scale of justice 2.svgHello! Voting in the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2020 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:44, 24 November 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Director at Tsushima[edit]

Is there a JACAR link for the "director" section of the Tsushima article, "Imperial Japanese Navy Records, Report from Battleship Mikasa, Nr.205, Classified, 1904 (in Japanese)"? Someone just claimed that the practice was assisted by "a Royal Navy advisor" which sounds dubious as the man on Asahi, Captain William Pakenham, was utterly opposed to centralisation of fire control. Of course it could have been the other British observer, Thomas Jackson, but given that Pakenham had complained vociferously about a slightly more senior captain interfering in what he saw as "his" squadron, I can't see him allowing the junior Jackson to encroach directly on his territory. —Simon Harley (Talk | Library). 16:45, 5 April 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I would think that someone is referring to Walter Hugh Thring of the Royal Navy Gunnery Division, whom I described in
Not sure "assisted by" is appropriate as he was not at the Battle of Yellow Sea, but it is quite appropriate to say Kato Kanji and other Japanese Navy gunnery officers had received guidance (most probably lectures) from Thring, who was the youngest Royal Navy officer to command a ship at the time. FYI: Yiba (talk | contribs) 04:34, 7 April 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Some of the details are not quite right. Thring was never in the Naval Ordnance Department at the Admiralty (the Gunnery Division was a later and quite different body), but did serve on the staff of the Admiral Commanding Coastguard and Reserves (overseeing the basic training of reservists and coast guard stations). There is no doubt he was a gifted gunnery officer, however, and his "rate of change of bearing lines" for the Dumaresq were later adopted by the Admiralty. As a Commander he went out in the battleship Barfleur from the United Kingdom to Ceylon in February 1905 to exchange crews with the Vengeance. It is doubtful he was in command of Barfleur, as the records of Captain Charles Adair state he was in command of Barfleur, then Vengeance, at this time. The crews were exchanged at Colombo at the beginning of April. Thring became second-in-command of Vengeance on 4 April. In order for him to reach Japan by the middle of the month as per the article you linked to the ship would have had to have proceeded at full speed for 11 days non-stop without coaling which is physically impossible. At cruising speed she could have done it in just under three weeks without coaling. Next time I'm at The National Archives I'll check the ship's log, as the timings seem rather important given the repercussions.
I'm not sure that "director" is the correct word in English for what you've described in the fire-control and Tsushima pages. The appropriate word from contemporary Royal Navy literature is "control". The British system adopted in 1904 was that a control officer aloft and his team had a Dumaresq and relayed range and deflection to the turrets by instrument or voice pipe. Firing was at the discretion of the turret officer under a certain set of parameters. Everything was duplicated so that there was a control officer for each 12-inch gunned turret which therefore acted independently. If Kato was controlling both turrets and giving orders to fire simultaneously then his system was clearly an improvement on British practice. —Simon Harley (Talk | Library). 19:45, 7 April 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks for the swift reply by the way. —Simon Harley (Talk | Library). 19:47, 7 April 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thank you for your research. Please feel free to correct my mistakes, etc. as English is not my first language. I'm not sure how best to use old Japanese publications without an English name or ISBN as sources, but "日本軍艦発達史" (History of Japanese Military Ship Progression) published by Gakken ( states First Lieutenant Thring arrived commanding a "special transport ship" to Japan on April 14, 1905. If this is true, then it is unlikely that Thring held lecture sessions before the Battle of Yellow Sea. Although it is still probable that Thring had contacts with several of the Japanese Military Attaches in London (there were many, especially the Imperial Navy officers) before, I could not find any publication/record/source for that. In that book or a magazine, a researcher Mr.Endo stated that Thring held a presentation on Dumaresq on April 15th, a Navy meeting on this subject, in which Admiral Togo decided on salvo firing (and the use of Dumaresq), was held on April 16, and the adoption order went out on April 17th, 1905. That order, Combined Fleet Classified Nr.278, is apparently on record although I have not seen it. I'm very hesitant to believe the Endo statements are true, though. Having a source publication does not make it a truth, in my mind.
I would still consider that Kanji Kato invented the single control officer on the bridge for salvo firing without any influence from someone like Thring, to be a bit far fetched. I have seen a modification order on Battleship Mikasa to install additional telephones/lines connecting turrets.
You mentioned about 'both' 12" turrets, but I'm not sure if 6" guns kept the traditional independent aiming/firing. Although 6" guns fired together with the 12 inchers may be unthinkable, it is logical (if the benefits were recognized by the Navy) that 6" guns also had a single control officer on the bridge. I have seen several Japanese Navy classified orders stressing the importance of 6" guns as the basis for firing calculations, probably because of their excellent accuracy. In any event, the true content/composition of Shimose Powder and the gun firing method were two of the highest classified military intelligence at the time, and the Japanese Imperial Navy making the decision not to record it on paper is quite probable/believable. Yiba (talk | contribs) 11:11, 8 April 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
This has certainly got me thinking, and also got me going through archival material I've never looked through before which has been lurking on my hard drive for years. Pakenham specifically refers to the centralisation of fire control in his report of 17 April 1905:
On asking the captain of a battleship what improvements he had made in his fire-control since the last engagement, he replied that everything was now all right: both range-finders had been set up forward, and strict injunctions had been given all guns were to fire with elevations to be passed by him, and that without his orders no sight was to be readjusted.
As noted before Pakenham was no fan of this, although I wasn't expecting this observation:
As to the centralisation of control of sight-adjustment, desire for Japanese success suggests the good and gallant inventor of anything so foolish should be instantly put to death. Fortunately all captains are not alike, and it is very hard to keep the Japanese from thinking and acting for himself.
Judging from what you've written and referenced it is possible that centralisation was more common than he realised, or accepted. It's perhaps noteworthy that Pakenham doesn't appear to mention any other officers visiting the fleet in the reports that I've gone through from 1905.
I think that the "History of Japanese Military Ship Progression" you refer to is categorically incorrect with regard to Thring being in command. I'd also be wary of placing too much reliance on him as a vector for sharing information. His undoubted technical skill to one side, he had been on shore for a year and a half while the Channel and Mediterranean fleets were actually experimenting with new methods and the Dumaresq. The gunnery officer of Vengeance, Lieutenant Walter Lake, would be a far more likely candidate for passing on new information. By the sound of things the Japanese Navy had matters well in hand, however. Hopefully I'll clear it up one way or another by the summer. Who knows, I could be extremely surprised at what the log of Vengeance says!
With regard to the secondary armament I didn't mention that for fear of confusing the issue still further. They were supposed to have a control officer for each side or, failing that, one officer for all of them. The British system adopted at the end of 1904 was extremely manpower intensive as well as requiring lots of new equipment to be fitted. Regards, —Simon Harley (Talk | Library). 14:48, 8 April 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Given the level of understanding and the sources you presented, I would like 'your' removing my references to Walter Thring on central control firing system, even before your visiting the National Archives next time if you deem it appropriate. Although History remains one of my hobbies, I'm no longer active as a wiki editor. My personal opinion is that high ranking officers (and their opinions), especially generals and admirals, tend to be over-rated by design. They are good politicians and often good writers. An effective military system has/had mostly informal ways to counteract that tendency in times of war. Good luck. Yiba (talk | contribs) 16:03, 8 April 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi, Yiba. I finally got around to following up on the Thring story (my father died in August which unsurprisingly caused quite a few problems). I checked the logs of Barfleur and Vengeance at The National Archives, got in touch with John Brooks (probably the leading authority on British naval gunnery) and incorporated it into the Dreadnought Project article on Thring. I mention this as you've put a lot of work into the Tsushima article recently, so I may have a go at trying to improve the fire control section. —Simon Harley (Talk | Library). 13:43, 14 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oh, hey, nice to hear from you. Yes, I am back editing now. And yes YES, please help on the fire control and other sections. I recently found a blog in Japanese by a retired Japan Maritime Self-Defense Force gunnery officer who firmly believes the centrally-controlled salvo firing during the Battle of Tsushima is a myth. I also found a record stating the opening shot for the battle from the Japanese Combined Fleet was "a 6-inch salvo test shot from Mikasa to Oslyabya", and incorporated this info into the Timeline section. As you and I discussed before, if the 6-inch guns were fired in salvo, then it makes sense that 12-inch guns fired (at least could) in salvo, which contradicts this JMSDF officer's belief that centrally-controlled salvo firing was simply 'impossible' at the time. But as he is an 'expert', I feel uneasy in holding my position (which is shared by many in Japan) alone here, so any help/research will be appreciated. If I am proven wrong, that is a good progress, too. Yiba (talk | contribs) 16:02, 14 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
ps. I just finished reading your Thring article on Dreadnought. This is excellent! Could you tell me why you opted to place it on Dreadnought Project? I don't see any reason why the article shouldn't be placed on en.wikipedia in its entirety. I think I'm still a member at DP, but I'd consider the project to be practically dead. Yiba (talk | contribs) 02:48, 15 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

ArbCom 2021 Elections voter message[edit]

Scale of justice 2.svgHello! Voting in the 2021 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 6 December 2021. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2021 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:21, 23 November 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for March 19[edit]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Coventry Climax, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Jim Hall.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:09, 19 March 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for March 29[edit]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Formula One engines, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Adam Cooper.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:07, 29 March 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message[edit]

Scale of justice 2.svg

Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 12 December 2022. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2022 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:39, 29 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for February 10[edit]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Winfield Racing School, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Marcel Fässler.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:04, 10 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]