Talk:Level luffing crane

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Level luffing crane. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:02, 22 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Meccano section

I don't think an entire section about Meccano models is justified in an article about a crane. There should be evidence that this crane in particular is linked to Meccano. Linking websites that show Meccano model of this is irrelevant and does not represent a reference. I can find Meccano/Lego models of pretty much everything. --Ita140188 (talk) 14:24, 8 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Please see WP:CITEVAR for one thing and stop both edit-warring and inserting typos into the refs. Andy Dingley (talk) 14:26, 8 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure what you refer to with WP:CITEVAR. Also, please assume WP:GOODFAITH. I don't see how you can define edit warring the fact that I reverted my own edit. I opened this discussion specifically to address the issue without imposing my view, but you seem to go off topic. --Ita140188 (talk) 20:50, 8 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You removed a section. I restored it.

You removed the refs for that section. I restored them.

You again reformatted the refs, against CITEVAR. At no point have you reverted anything you did.

The Meccano cranes are these because they are specifically level-luffing cranes and are contemporaneous with the initial development of such cranes. They indicate how this crane design (which some have already wanted to delete, through not knowing that it was different to other non-level cranes) was making it to the public perception of the Meccano builders even in the 1930s. Similarly for block-setting crane. Andy Dingley (talk) 20:59, 8 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You reverted my edit that included more than removing the section. I reinstated the section and kept the other edits. Probably there was a mistake in copying that section and a piece of references got lost. I'm not sure how you think I was trying to remove references (which by the way, are not references at all, they are just people building meccano models of cranes). CITEVAR does not say anything about formatting the wikitext of references. Please read it again. Obviously you are not cooperative and assuming I'm in bad faith. Sorry but this is not my idea of Wikipedia, so I will stop arguing and leave this page. But it's editors like you that make a lot of good editors leave. --Ita140188 (talk) 09:22, 9 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]