User talk:Andy Dingley: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 10:58, 27 December 2017

Ababeel (missile)

Hi. How is the article more balanced? In all of the other missile articles, the claims are taken at face value but in this one they're purely reported as claims. How is that balanced? --110.93.236.75 (talk) 18:28, 29 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

WP:RS and WP:V apply to all.

For the Ababeel, it has been demonstrated as a launcher (a missile took off). However it has yet to demonstrate the MIRV feature of the multiple returning warheads achieving their targets. That is a lot harder than simply being an enlarged launcher intended to be used for MIRV. We cannot take a claim that Ababeel is capable of this without some evidence to support that.

If you have complaints about other articles not being checked equally, then the place to raise that is on those articles, or at least tell us which ones. Andy Dingley (talk) 18:37, 29 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Also see WP:EW. Andy Dingley (talk) 18:37, 29 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Mandatory notice

Hi Andy Dingley. This is just a friendly notice that serves to remind you that Discretionary Sanctions are in place for BLP articles. I see you were notified, most recently in January, about DS in another area, so I won't send you the boilerplate notice. I will however assume that you understand what is permitted on BLPs and what isn't. If you need any help understanding this, just reply here. Best, --John (talk) 14:52, 22 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The patronising tone seems strange when addressing an editor with more than 125,000 edits. MPS1992 (talk) 21:26, 22 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Would you prefer the template? SPECIFICO talk 22:00, 22 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Are you asking me, kid, or the person whose talkpage this is? Get a grip of yourself.

By the way, this page is quite boring to me, so if you want or need my attention, be sure to ping me. Thanks. MPS1992 (talk) 22:13, 22 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Asking MPS1992, the one who apparently has an opinion on the subject of using the routine template vs. using a paraphrase of template. SPECIFICO talk 23:38, 22 October 2017 (UTC)C[reply]

I happened to stop by here this evening, so I can tell User:SPECIFICO that I have read his message. It has been suggested to me that if I tell him what I have done with it, I might be subject to sanctions from User:John or his friends. So I will not tell you that. MPS1992 (talk) 20:24, 23 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Request

Hi Andy. Your choice to continue to parade your (deliberate?) misunderstanding of WP:BLPSOURCES throughout the project; the downside risk is that eventually you'll end up getting blocked for WP:POINT violations. I imagine you'll have thought that through though, and it is of course your risk to take. I'd be grateful though if you could correct your factual error here; making false claims without evidence isn't tolerated here. A strikethrough will be fine, I don't require an apology. Thanks in advance. --John (talk) 11:32, 24 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Factual error?

And perhaps you would care to join that discussion in the place for it. Andy Dingley (talk) 11:35, 24 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the mis-statement you made about me there. Perhaps, but I may not as I think you've already been answered satisfactorily there. --John (talk) 11:46, 24 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You may have missed this request so I will ask again. Please can you remove the mis-statement you made about me there? --John (talk) 17:05, 24 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Disappointed you didn't manage this yourself so I did it for you. Reinstate it and we're back at AN/I. You're so far into WP:POINT territory that you are out the other side. --John (talk) 16:44, 25 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thankyou for finally clarifying what you were complaining about. A shame you couldn't do it within the mandatory 24 hour response time that you demand for user talk pages, but no matter.

So do I have this right? The one piece of vaguely clear and agreed consensus policy we have here, WP:DAILYMAIL, was nothing to do with you and you haven't even done that much to clear up the issues you still persist in carping about? Thanks for clarifying. Andy Dingley (talk) 17:05, 25 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Removing spam links

Hello sir dont know why you remove my link page — Preceding unsigned comment added by Muwadat (talk • contribs) 20:00, 25 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please see WP:SPAM, WP:PROMO etc. Andy Dingley (talk) 21:27, 25 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Box girder edit reversion

Andy, it's bad writing. Please rewrite it if you don't like my edit, don't just revert it and claim I have a problem with my reading skills, which is quite beneath you. As is your attitude here, after working cooperatively on the Emery cloth article. It is most uncalled for, and, in a word, bullying, for which there is a Wikipedia action page you are familiar with.

I would like to see a constructive edit on your part here. Yours, Wikiuser100 (talk) 11:42, 24 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

" They sought an optimal design for a of beam made of the new material of riveted wrought iron plates." is not just bad writing, it is gibberish. Please do not add, and re-add after being reverted, that sentence to the article.

Nor will I re-write it, as I consider it to be perfectly acceptable as it was before. It includes "efficiency" for one, which was a new concept in civil engineering at the time and was being expounded by this new generation of mathematically literate engineers, such as Eaton Hodgkinson. Also wrought iron is already linked in the article and although I'm no stickler against repeating such links where relevant, WP:OVERLINK is nominally against them.

Andy, first, the sentence as written is bad writing. That is not arguable. My edit is not, by any measure. It may not express whatever it is you are seeking so passionately to; fine, if you are aware of more nuance in that convoluted statement, as you appear to be, great, then rewrite it in good English.

Second, I am going to restore the link to wrought iron, as it is not WP:OVERLINKing: the term is linked once in the lead; I linked it in appropriate section of the body.

Third, I do not understand - nor appreciate - your aggressive (and at times demeaning) manner in all this. You are not being a very good Wikipedia citizen, and, honestly, I do not intent to be on the receiving end of it passively any longer. Yours, Wikiuser100 (talk) 12:13, 26 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Why are you wasting so much time and effort on defending such a clearly poor change? Take it to ANI if you wish. Andy Dingley (talk) 12:22, 26 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

16.67hz mains?

You flagged the number in "Mains electricity". Yeh, I think you're right - it was special usage. I've sort of rolled electricity generation into mains electricity. Would you buy 25hz instead? If not, what's the lower limit here? Sbalfour (talk) 23:24, 4 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I wouldn't know - maybe we go by what's sourceable instead?

But claiming 162⁄3 as "mains" frequency for a distribution network is obvious bollocks. Andy Dingley (talk) 23:27, 4 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Certainly 16 2/3 was used in industrial and railway applications in the electrical stone age, and continues in use today in railroads. Whether it was ever provided to less specialized customers I don't know. E Eng 01:21, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

But that's the point: it was only used because powerful but compact motor technology (i.e. railways) required it. It was never used for the distribution networks, either industrial or domestic, and even most railways escaped it as fast as they could. Andy Dingley (talk) 01:26, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I remember the usage. What's a "mains"? If you worked for the railroard back then, the power was 16-2/3 hz. And then there were barely ten years when the proliferation of frequencies prevailed, so everybody 'escaped' or converted to something right quick. You're spot-on about sourcing such a definitive statement, so I've deleted it until I can source it. Sbalfour (talk) 02:46, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Well, be careful. Certainly railways used their traction power for extensive auxiliary applications we would think of as conventionally commercial or residential (stations, hotels, employee housing) so I'm not sure that saying "16 2/3 was never used for mains" is really justified. As Sbalfour says, it depends on that you think a mains is. E Eng 03:34, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Their 162⁄3 power? Where?

"Mains" here means either a commodity distribution network, where customers are sold a fungible product according to their ad hoc demand, or else (post WWI) a distribution and load-balancing grid network. I know of no instances where railways did this with their 162⁄3 power. Maybe they did - Italy would be the most likely place for it to happen. The problem is that 162⁄3 doesn't distribute well - transformer losses are too great to move it long distances. This made its generation difficult and was the main reason why railways such as the French avoided it, even though they had to develop new traction equipment to do so. Andy Dingley (talk) 11:39, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

SAG-FW

Hi Andy,

Shielded active-gas forge-welding (SAG-FW). See: https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s12289-010-0945-3 . I didn't put that link there, but I think someone got the idea from the forge welding article. (Just don't expect me to go write an article about it.) I hope that helps. Zaereth (talk) 02:57, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks - so the main aspect of that would seem to be as a sub type of forge welding, with added shielding gas? So the original redlink was also the wrong name. Seems like an interesting topic, but I'm not putting such an obscure link back into the lead of the main article, especially not when it's still red. Andy Dingley (talk) 10:28, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. It's a rather obscure and specializwd thing, used mainly for underwater pipelines. Zaereth (talk) 17:30, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Zabriskie Point

Please provide references to support your re-addition of unsourced trivia to the Zabriskie Point article. Pop culture sections tend to become repositories of trivia (often rather promotional) with little relevance to the subject of the article. So I tend to chop stuff that is lacking sources. Thanks, Vsmith (talk) 16:23, 9 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion at Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/List_of_pioneers_in_computer_science

You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/List_of_pioneers_in_computer_science . Zazpot (talk) 20:14, 9 November 2017 (UTC)Template:Z48[reply]

Le Rhône

I think we may have got our wires crossed here in an edit-clash type situation. I had already explained to the editor who originally added the "descriptive passage" why it wouldn't do (inaccurate) - new quick definition of what a rotary actually is was added as a compromise, but even this is not really necessary. For an article on a particular engine we assume, I think, that the reader will seek details afforded by more general articles covering type of engine. --Soundofmusicals (talk) 10:15, 10 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I read that. It's a better description. Andy Dingley (talk) 10:19, 10 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use of living people

Just wanted to let you know that the fair use of images of living people generally fails WP:NFCCP #1 unless there are extreme extenuating circumstances. So I had to remark File:Portrait of artist Fuller with dog statue.jpg for deletion under a different criterion. --Majora (talk) 20:37, 10 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

ARBATC

I was going to leave a {{subst:DS/alert|at}} here, but you've received one within the last 12 months already. Comments like "Oh, make no question of it: it's just discomfort that's it's you doing it" (emphasis in original) is exactly the kind of uncivil personalization of titling disputes that led to WP:ARBATC; see in particular WP:ARBATC#All parties reminded. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ >^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ< 12:30, 11 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, was that not clear enough for you? Try reading the whole thread at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Trains#More_Line_capitalization_issues. It is high time that Dicklyon was topic banned from causing yet more trouble in this field, with his persistent, idiosyncratic and against policy renames. Andy Dingley (talk) 12:48, 11 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Signature

I'm responding here because your comment at AN didn't contain a question and I have stated there I wouldn't comment further unless a question was asked. My signature is now what it was when my 3-month block and the 0RR restriction were both imposed. What it had been for a year or more and no one mentioned it. Until yesterday. Just so you know... -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 15:45, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I am far from being interested enough to track just which version of your signature you're using with each particular edit (You are not that interesting to other editors. If you become that interesting to other editors, it is unlikely to have been for a good reason). I hope my concerns over your signature are clear enough (and if they're not, I'm not seeking to explain them further, just to have you blocked under WP:CIR).

Your signature exists to communicate to other editors. It should communicate your identity: your identity as represented in log files, so that we can cross-reference them; and to a tiny amount as a gesture of your individuality. It is not here to demonstrate CSS virtuosity. It is not here to hide the link between those two identities. It is also here to give a functioning link to a talk: page, which is both mandatory, useful to editors and also essential for keeping Talk: archiving properly.

You still seem to think that there is some great unfairness by other editors limiting your access. This is wrong. You have no right to be here at all, so do not demand one. You are tolerated here (same as everyone) if it's thought that you might contribute to the project. The project (in a corporate sense) might decide that it wants you. It doesn't matter if you want it, that's just not part of the agenda. Claiming or demanding that it is (and many have tried) leads to long blocks. Andy Dingley (talk) 16:28, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the comments and advice. Take care. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 16:45, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Renault FT

So for the United States subsection under Production, what do you think we should name it? I believe we should keep it short and clear, maybe something like "United States" or "Production in the United States" will do. I don't think we need to specify that the production was attempted or failed, or specify if either the FT or M1917 was the focus, because the short paragraph itself explains that already. The title just needs to tell the reader what the content in that (sub)section is about. Weslam123 (talk) 16:02, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Rhadow AFDs

I can't be bothered, but I think you would be correct to bring Rhadow to requests for Administrator Intervention. 198.58.171.47 (talk) 05:57, 24 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

92.76.123.142

I've blocked to prevent further disruptive editing, but do not have time to review and revert, please take a look. -- ferret (talk) 14:35, 27 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

ANI Experiences survey

The Wikimedia Foundation Community health initiative (led by the Safety and Support and Anti-Harassment Tools team) is conducting a survey for en.wikipedia contributors on their experience and satisfaction level with the Administrator’s Noticeboard/Incidents. This survey will be integral to gathering information about how this noticeboard works - which problems it deals with well, and which problems it struggles with.

The survey should take 10-20 minutes to answer, and your individual responses will not be made public. The survey is delivered through Google Forms. The privacy policy for the survey describes how and when Wikimedia collects, uses, and shares the information we receive from survey participants and can be found here:

https://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/2017_AN/Incidents_Survey_Privacy_Statement

If you would like to take this survey, please sign up on this page, and a link for the survey will be mailed to you via Special:Emailuser.

Sign up here to receive a link to a survey

Thank you on behalf of the Support & Safety and Anti-Harassment Tools Teams, Patrick Earley (WMF) talk 18:24, 1 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2017 election voter message

Hello, Andy Dingley. 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]

Peter Du Cane (engineer)

Hi Andy, saw your recent edits, much appreciated. Do you know of a way of linking this Du Cane back to the family Du Cane which is so prominent and has a number of bios here? I failed miserably, although Google was my only research tool in short order.... The Rambling Man (talk) 21:13, 10 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but I know nothing about his personal life - just a bit about his technical work. Andy Dingley (talk) 21:26, 10 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, well thanks anyway. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:40, 10 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ironsand

Is this a subject you have knowledge in? Please consider reverting your recent revert of me. I also just posted about this issue in talk, if you wish to discus there. Your revert of me was all to quick. Please slow it down :) 76.90.112.41 (talk) 19:59, 12 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Precious

transport solutions

Thank you for quality articles written in eleven years, such as Renaissance Wax, Mercury relay, Ebbw Vale Garden Festival Funicular and SNCF Class BB 13000, for practical solutions to problems that shouldn't be problems, - Andy, template monkey, you are an awesome Wikipedian!

I wasn't a member of "Dingly and his friends" (because of an old grudge of mine) but may become one ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:55, 13 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Andy Dingley: Enjoy the holiday season, and thanks for your work to maintain, improve and expand Wikipedia. Cheers, -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 16:14, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Spread the WikiLove; use {{subst:Season's Greetings1}} to send this message

Merry Christmas

And a Happy New Year. Thanks, Andy, for all you do around Wikipedia. I hope your holiday season is a joyous one and the coming year brings many days of happiness and wonder. _{(By the way, if you don't celebrate Christmas then please take it as a Happy Hanukkah, Merry Makar Sankranti, Enlightening Bodhi Day, Merry Yule, Happy Tenno no tanjobi, or fill in whatever holiday is your preference.)} Zaereth (talk) 00:44, 23 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Merry Christmas!

Merry Christmas Andy Dingley!!

Hi Andy Dingley, I wish you and your family a very Merry Christmas and a very Happy New Year,
Thanks for all your help and contributions on the 'pedia! ,
–Davey2010 ^{Merry Xmas / Happy New Year} 13:20, 23 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Seasons' Greetings

...to you and yours, from the Great White North! FWiW Bzuk (talk) 17:36, 23 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks everyone, Merry Christmas to you all. Andy Dingley (talk) 11:44, 24 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The PIAT

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PIAT

You removed me edit stating it was used until '71. I'm a bit confused as it clearly states that it was used in the Indo-Pakistani war in '71. So, if it was used in '71 in Pakistan/India, how it is possible it was retired in 1950? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Old Ukraine (talk • contribs) 18:02, 23 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I know nothing of its use in that conflict, there's nothing in the article about that, and there's certainly no sourcing to back it up.

If you can source this, then go for it. But it does need sourcing first. Andy Dingley (talk) 11:40, 24 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

My new project

Hello, my beloved colleague.

An admin dropped me an email saying that you named me in ANI. More accurately, you leveled sockpuppetry accusation in a discussion that I was nowhere near it.

Alright. Starting today, I have a new project. Instead of following Codename Lisa's contribution log, I follow yours. I make no other edits to Wikipedia and just watch what you do. Well, not just watch. I'll record too. And when I amassed a lot of interesting stuff—

But you needn't worry. After all, it is not like you do anything wrong in Wikipedia. And admins have never served you friendly Discretionary Sanction notices!

So, see you are around. Literally.

Supreme regards,
your most friendly fellow Wikipedian,
whom you can call your dedicated fan,
FleetCommand (Speak your mind!) 10:58, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]