[[email protected]]

233 articles now, it just keeps gowing...

Contents:
http://wiki.diyfaq.org.uk/index.php?...ecial:Allpages

Latest additions:
Insulation links
Door security
Roofing links
When shower curtains attack
Vacuum cleaners


NT

[Weatherlawyer]

On May 22, 9:17 am, wrote:
233 articles now, it just keeps gowing...

Contents:http://wiki.diyfaq.org.uk/index.php?...ecial:Allpages

Latest additions:
Insulation links
Door security
Roofing links
When shower curtains attack
Vacuum cleaners

I never use it but don't mind you spamming here with it. Just remind
Usenet users that only Usenet is unlikely to phish/feck with your
posts and remove them without your help.

[[email protected]]

On 22 May, 09:17, wrote:
233 articles now, it just keeps gowing...

Contents:http://wiki.diyfaq.org.uk/index.php?...ecial:Allpages

Latest additions:
Insulation links
Door security
Roofing links
When shower curtains attack
Vacuum cleaners

NT

and
http://wiki.diyfaq.org.uk/index.php?...c_installation

[Dave Plowman (News)]

In article .com,
wrote:

http://wiki.diyfaq.org.uk/index.php?...c_installation

The bit about never re-using cable of the correct spec is rather vague. It
may have been straight off the drum and clipped to a beam etc with hardly
being bent - or flexed many times while routing through walls and under
floors, etc. So common sense would apply. Although I doubt in practice
it's much of an issue unless extending an existing installation where it
might be thought all the cabling must be replaced?

--
*The most common name in the world is Mohammed *

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

[John Rumm]

wrote:

http://wiki.diyfaq.org.uk/index.php?...c_installation

Rather too much of that is complete nonsense... especially the last bit

--
Cheers,

John.

/================================================== ===============\
| Internode Ltd - http://www.internode.co.uk |
|-----------------------------------------------------------------|
| John Rumm - john(at)internode(dot)co(dot)uk |
\================================================= ================/

[EricP]

On 22 May 2007 10:26:54 GMT, Huge wrote:

On 2007-05-22, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article .com,
wrote:

http://wiki.diyfaq.org.uk/index.php?...c_installation

The bit about never re-using cable of the correct spec is rather vague. It
may have been straight off the drum and clipped to a beam etc with hardly
being bent - or flexed many times while routing through walls and under
floors, etc. So common sense would apply. Although I doubt in practice
it's much of an issue unless extending an existing installation where it
might be thought all the cabling must be replaced?

Blimey, where would I be without my "offcuts" box?

And I'd like to see a cite for this; "Electricity kills and injures many people
every year. A great many of these people are dead or injured because they tried
installations which they did not understand."

It would also help if it was written with a basic use of the language.

[Dave Plowman (News)]

In article ,
EricP wrote:
It would also help if it was written with a basic use of the language.

Yes - it's pretty appalling. If someone hasn't the basics of English can
they read and interprate regs correctly?

--
*Time is what keeps everything from happening at once.

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

[Dave Plowman (News)]

In article ,
Huge wrote:
And I'd like to see a cite for this; "Electricity kills and injures many
people every year. A great many of these people are dead or injured
because they tried installations which they did not understand."

Best then not to try an installation but to leave it untried. It can't
bite then.

Too many 'leave it to the pros' in this article. Must have been written by
someone with an axe to grind.

--
*Honk if you love peace and quiet*

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

[Stuart Noble]

EricP wrote:
On 22 May 2007 10:26:54 GMT, Huge wrote:

On 2007-05-22, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article .com,
wrote:

http://wiki.diyfaq.org.uk/index.php?...c_installation
The bit about never re-using cable of the correct spec is rather vague. It
may have been straight off the drum and clipped to a beam etc with hardly
being bent - or flexed many times while routing through walls and under
floors, etc. So common sense would apply. Although I doubt in practice
it's much of an issue unless extending an existing installation where it
might be thought all the cabling must be replaced?
Blimey, where would I be without my "offcuts" box?

And I'd like to see a cite for this; "Electricity kills and injures many people
every year. A great many of these people are dead or injured because they tried
installations which they did not understand."

It would also help if it was written with a basic use of the language.

and preferably by an electrician

[Peter Parry]

On Tue, 22 May 2007 12:14:45 +0100, John Rumm
wrote:


Rather too much of that is complete nonsense... especially the last bit

It seems somewhat unfair that Manuel should be singled out in law to
have the electrical installation in any house he buys or sells
checked each and every time.
--
Peter Parry.
http://www.wpp.ltd.uk/

[Dave Plowman (News)]

In article ,
Stuart Noble wrote:
It would also help if it was written with a basic use of the language.

and preferably by an electrician

No. By someone who understands the regs etc. The two aren't always
compatible.

--
*On the seventh day He brewed beer *

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

[Lobster]

John Rumm wrote:
wrote:

http://wiki.diyfaq.org.uk/index.php?...c_installation

Rather too much of that is complete nonsense... especially the last bit

And doesn't the fact that it is sitting there in it's current form
rather suggest that the concept of a diy Wiki, however well-intentioned,
is fundamentally flawed?

It's a similar situation to the articles John Rumm cited here the other
day in his thread "electrical stuff" - AFAICS having been alerted to a
John's new wiki article lots of people duly suggested and discussed
various changes here in the newsgroup, whereupon John went off and
tweaked his article. But that's exactly what's always happened here
historically when people have penned articles for the uk.d-i-y FAQ,
isn't it? It's not how a wiki is meant to work. And if John hadn't
specifically invited the critique, there would have been none...

David

[John Rumm]

Lobster wrote:

And doesn't the fact that it is sitting there in it's current form
rather suggest that the concept of a diy Wiki, however well-intentioned,
is fundamentally flawed?

There are flaws with the concept certainly. Although the same is true of
our traditional FAQ approach.

It seems only fair to highlight there are things wrong with it, and give
the author chance to give it another going over. If not we can always
put it right. (or as I suggested in:

http://wiki.diyfaq.org.uk/index.php?...installati on

Have the useful stuff out of it (with the errors corrected) and merge it
into existing articles that cover most of the subject already).

It's a similar situation to the articles John Rumm cited here the other
day in his thread "electrical stuff" - AFAICS having been alerted to a
John's new wiki article lots of people duly suggested and discussed
various changes here in the newsgroup, whereupon John went off and
tweaked his article. But that's exactly what's always happened here
historically when people have penned articles for the uk.d-i-y FAQ,

It is, although the wiki adds a little speed to the system in that
changes can be implemented faster. Its also an opportunity to fiddle
with presentation and layout of material a little more to make it more
accessible without placing an unreasonable maintenance burden on Phil
(the FAQ maintainer) to keep updating things.

The wiki is still early days for the group, and I expect not many people
have plucked up the nerve to have a fiddle with it. It takes a little
time to work out a comfortable way of working with it that is
cooperative but still leaves authors enough control.

isn't it? It's not how a wiki is meant to work. And if John hadn't
specifically invited the critique, there would have been none...

Mostly but not totally true, you will note if you look at the history,
that Andy W and John S have made many improvements to it by themselves
as well.

Posting here is obviously a good way of drawing attention to a new
section, as one would for a new FAQ entry.


--
Cheers,

John.

/================================================== ===============\
| Internode Ltd - http://www.internode.co.uk |
|-----------------------------------------------------------------|
| John Rumm - john(at)internode(dot)co(dot)uk |
\================================================= ================/

[raden]

In message .com,
Weatherlawyer writes
On May 22, 9:17 am, wrote:
233 articles now, it just keeps gowing...

Contents:http://wiki.diyfaq.org.uk/index.php?...ecial:Allpages

Latest additions:
Insulation links
Door security
Roofing links
When shower curtains attack
Vacuum cleaners

I never use it but don't mind you spamming here with it.


I don't think anyone really cares whether you mind or not

This is a uk.d-i-y venture, run by uk.d-i-y members for uk.d-i-y members

--
geoff

[raden]

In message , "Dave Plowman (News)"
writes
In article ,
EricP wrote:
It would also help if it was written with a basic use of the language.

Yes - it's pretty appalling. If someone hasn't the basics of English can
they read and interprate regs correctly?


Why is it that people commenting on someone else's use of English always
make a mistake themselves. Is it compulsory ?


--
geoff

[Andrew Gabriel]

In article .com,
writes:
and
http://wiki.diyfaq.org.uk/index.php?...c_installation

Sorry, but that's a complete pile of crap and shouldn't
have the uk.d-i-y name in any way associated.

--
Andrew Gabriel
[email address is not usable -- followup in the newsgroup]

[Mike Barnes]

In uk.d-i-y, raden wrote:
In message , "Dave Plowman (News)"
writes
In article ,
EricP wrote:
It would also help if it was written with a basic use of the language.

Yes - it's pretty appalling. If someone hasn't the basics of English can
they read and interprate regs correctly?


Why is it that people commenting on someone else's use of English
always make a mistake themselves. Is it compulsory ?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Skitt's_law

--
Mike Barnes

[raden]

In message , Mike Barnes
writes
In uk.d-i-y, raden wrote:
In message , "Dave Plowman (News)"
writes
In article ,
EricP wrote:
It would also help if it was written with a basic use of the language.

Yes - it's pretty appalling. If someone hasn't the basics of English can
they read and interprate regs correctly?


Why is it that people commenting on someone else's use of English
always make a mistake themselves. Is it compulsory ?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Skitt's_law

Ah

--
geoff

[[email protected]]

On 22 May, 17:45, Lobster wrote:
John Rumm wrote:
wrote:

http://wiki.diyfaq.org.uk/index.php?...estic_installa...

Rather too much of that is complete nonsense... especially the last bit

And doesn't the fact that it is sitting there in it's current form
rather suggest that the concept of a diy Wiki, however well-intentioned,
is fundamentally flawed?

It's a similar situation to the articles John Rumm cited here the other
day in his thread "electrical stuff" - AFAICS having been alerted to a
John's new wiki article lots of people duly suggested and discussed
various changes here in the newsgroup, whereupon John went off and
tweaked his article. But that's exactly what's always happened here
historically when people have penned articles for the uk.d-i-y FAQ,
isn't it? It's not how a wiki is meant to work. And if John hadn't
specifically invited the critique, there would have been none...

David

Wiki format has real strengths and weaknesses too - the strength in
this case is that anyone unhappy with it can put it right. Thats one
reason I mentioned the article here, as it does have issues to fix.

I dont agree with everything in it, but I appreciate the fact that
someone put a fair bit of effort into it, created an article, and that
theres useful information in it too. Its the first stage of the
process, then people come along and clean up any issues.

Some have had a pop here, now lets see the same people fix a mistake.
One correction is all it takes, then between us it would all be done.


NT

[Dave Plowman (News)]

In article ,
raden wrote:
In message , "Dave Plowman (News)"
writes
In article ,
EricP wrote:
It would also help if it was written with a basic use of the language.

Yes - it's pretty appalling. If someone hasn't the basics of English can
they read and interprate regs correctly?


Why is it that people commenting on someone else's use of English always
make a mistake themselves. Is it compulsory ?

Yes. And I'm nothing if not predictable. Even if it means switching off
the spell checker. ;-)

--
*Plagiarism saves time *

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

[John Rumm]

wrote:

Some have had a pop here, now lets see the same people fix a mistake.
One correction is all it takes, then between us it would all be done.

OK, here is my stab at it:

I have not touched the main article, other than to add a warning that it
is not as good as would be liked. I have ported the better ideas to the
existing "Cables" article and expanded that:

http://wiki.diyfaq.org.uk/index.php?title=Cables

I have also pulled in much of the material from the Cable Sizes one in
the process.

It seems I have inadvertently duplicated some information on wiring
colours, but since that article is a wikipedia left perhaps that is not
a bad thing.

--
Cheers,

John.

/================================================== ===============\
| Internode Ltd - http://www.internode.co.uk |
|-----------------------------------------------------------------|
| John Rumm - john(at)internode(dot)co(dot)uk |
\================================================= ================/

[nightjar]

"Huge" wrote in message
...
....
And I'd like to see a cite for this; "Electricity kills and injures many
people
every year. A great many of these people are dead or injured because they
tried
installations which they did not understand."
....

When I worked for an Electricity Board, we had to investigate all
electrocution deaths for the Coroner. ISTR the most common cause was using
mains electrical appliances on extension leads in the bathroom. We also had
a small, but steady, stream of teenagers who tried to climb pylons or, in
one case, the insulators in a 132kV sub-station. I only recall one death
that involved anything that could remotely be described as an installation -
one of our own electricians, who was found dead next to a set of traffic
lights he was maintaining.

Colin Bignell

[Peter Ashby]

raden wrote:

In message , "Dave Plowman (News)"
writes
In article ,
EricP wrote:
It would also help if it was written with a basic use of the language.

Yes - it's pretty appalling. If someone hasn't the basics of English can
they read and interprate regs correctly?


Why is it that people commenting on someone else's use of English always
make a mistake themselves. Is it compulsory ?

It's the fault of the red mist, as a sometime pedant I can attest that
it can be hard to proof read when trying to see the screen through the
stuff.

Peter
--
Add my middle initial to email me. It has become attached to a country
www.the-brights.net

[Peter Ashby]

Mike Barnes wrote:

In uk.d-i-y, raden wrote:
In message , "Dave Plowman (News)"
writes
In article ,
EricP wrote:
It would also help if it was written with a basic use of the language.

Yes - it's pretty appalling. If someone hasn't the basics of English can
they read and interprate regs correctly?


Why is it that people commenting on someone else's use of English
always make a mistake themselves. Is it compulsory ?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Skitt's_law

I very much liked the alternative title: Merphy's law. Made me laff that
one did.

Peter
--
Add my middle initial to email me. It has become attached to a country
www.the-brights.net

[ARWadsworth]

"nightjar .uk.com" nightjar@insert my surname here wrote in message
...

"Huge" wrote in message
...
...
And I'd like to see a cite for this; "Electricity kills and injures many
people
every year. A great many of these people are dead or injured because they
tried
installations which they did not understand."
...

When I worked for an Electricity Board, we had to investigate all
electrocution deaths for the Coroner. ISTR the most common cause was using
mains electrical appliances on extension leads in the bathroom. We also
had a small, but steady, stream of teenagers who tried to climb pylons or,
in one case, the insulators in a 132kV sub-station. I only recall one
death that involved anything that could remotely be described as an
installation - one of our own electricians, who was found dead next to a
set of traffic lights he was maintaining.

Colin Bignell

Sadly people do die, the phrase "a great many" seems to be a bit of an
exaggeration. Article 1 on the link is the last one I remember locally.
http://www.rotherham.gov.uk/nr/moderngov/Data/Health%2C%20Welfare%20and%20Safety%20Panel/20010406/Agenda/$Bulletin.doc.pdf

Adam

[Dave Fawthrop]

On Wed, 23 May 2007 19:51:46 GMT, "ARWadsworth"
wrote:

|!
|!"nightjar .uk.com" nightjar@insert my surname here wrote in message
...
|!
|! "Huge" wrote in message
|! ...
|! ...
|! And I'd like to see a cite for this; "Electricity kills and injures many
|! people
|! every year. A great many of these people are dead or injured because they
|! tried
|! installations which they did not understand."
|! ...
|!
|! When I worked for an Electricity Board, we had to investigate all
|! electrocution deaths for the Coroner. ISTR the most common cause was using
|! mains electrical appliances on extension leads in the bathroom. We also
|! had a small, but steady, stream of teenagers who tried to climb pylons or,
|! in one case, the insulators in a 132kV sub-station. I only recall one
|! death that involved anything that could remotely be described as an
|! installation - one of our own electricians, who was found dead next to a
|! set of traffic lights he was maintaining.
|!
|! Colin Bignell
|!
|!Sadly people do die, the phrase "a great many" seems to be a bit of an
|!exaggeration. Article 1 on the link is the last one I remember locally.
|!http://www.rotherham.gov.uk/nr/moderngov/Data/Health%2C%20Welfare%20and%20Safety%20Panel/20010406/Agenda/$Bulletin.doc.pdf

Just compare that with the about 9 people we kill per day on the roads.
--
Dave Fawthrop sf hyphenologist.co.uk 165 *Free* SF ebooks.
165 Sci Fi books on CDROM, from Project Gutenberg
http://www.gutenberg.org/wiki/Main_Page Completely Free to any
address in the UK. Contact me on the *above* email address.

[Lurch]

On Wed, 23 May 2007 20:56:08 +0100, Dave Fawthrop
mused:

On Wed, 23 May 2007 19:51:46 GMT, "ARWadsworth"
wrote:

|!
|!"nightjar .uk.com" nightjar@insert my surname here wrote in message
...
|!
|! "Huge" wrote in message
|! ...
|! ...
|! And I'd like to see a cite for this; "Electricity kills and injures many
|! people
|! every year. A great many of these people are dead or injured because they
|! tried
|! installations which they did not understand."
|! ...
|!
|! When I worked for an Electricity Board, we had to investigate all
|! electrocution deaths for the Coroner. ISTR the most common cause was using
|! mains electrical appliances on extension leads in the bathroom. We also
|! had a small, but steady, stream of teenagers who tried to climb pylons or,
|! in one case, the insulators in a 132kV sub-station. I only recall one
|! death that involved anything that could remotely be described as an
|! installation - one of our own electricians, who was found dead next to a
|! set of traffic lights he was maintaining.
|!
|! Colin Bignell
|!
|!Sadly people do die, the phrase "a great many" seems to be a bit of an
|!exaggeration. Article 1 on the link is the last one I remember locally.
|!http://www.rotherham.gov.uk/nr/moderngov/Data/Health%2C%20Welfare%20and%20Safety%20Panel/20010406/Agenda/$Bulletin.doc.pdf

Just compare that with the about 9 people we kill per day on the roads.

We as in us or we as in you and your mate?
--
Regards,
Stuart.

[raden]

In message , Dave Fawthrop
writes
|!
|!Sadly people do die, the phrase "a great many" seems to be a bit of an
|!exaggeration. Article 1 on the link is the last one I remember locally.
|!http://www.rotherham.gov.uk/nr/moder...%20Welfare%20a
|!nd%20Safety%20Panel/20010406/Agenda/$Bulletin.doc.pdf

Just compare that with the about 9 people we kill per day on the roads.

I don't recall killing anybody today (or any other day) on the roads

Makes note to self - must make more of an effort tomorrow


--
geoff