User talk:Andy Dingley

Superheater

Hi Andy, Please stop undoing the edits on Superheater and take the time to read the text. Unsaturated steam and wet steam are the same thing. When I first read the article, it was confusing, which is why I took the time to edit it. The revised text should be clearer to everyone. Jonathan 123987 talk 00:34, 26 January 2014

Spoken Wikipedia

I see you noticed my many Spoken Wikipedia requests. I recently discovered the Spoken Wikipedia project and I just put in different articles on topics I felt were important. I included everything from U.S. Presidents (Abraham Lincoln, Donald Trump) to cars (Chevrolet Camaro, Ford F-Series, Willys MB) to video gaming (Nintendo Switch, Playstation, Casio Loopy, Burnout (series), Crazy Taxi, Q*Bert) to South Park (Matt Stone, Trey Parker, Mary Kay Bergman, With Apologies to Jesse Jackson, Casa Bonita, Scott Tenorman Must Die) to MLB Baseball (Boston Red Sox, New York Yankees, different world series) to popular tourism spots in the United States (Orlando, Florida, Virginia Beach, Virginia, Atlantic City, New Jersey) to popular movies (Satuday Night Fever, Miracle on 34th Street, Inside Out (2015 Film), Ferris Bueller's Day Off) to clothing brands and designers (Adidas, Aeropostale, American Eagle Outfitters, Calvin Klein, Hanes, Jockey, Nike, Ralph Lauren, Tommy Hilfiger) to a huge variety of other topics.

I like to listen to these while cleaning, working out, etc. and find the request tool very useful for gaps in Spoken Wikipedia.

By the way, ThatGirlTayler (talk) does a great job with this stuff. You should listen to her recording of Garage Sale.

Thanks

Lionsdude148 (talk)

Undoing Revisions Without Comment

Hello Andy,

You undid a change I made on the solder page without comment. This makes it nearly impossible to determine your intent. Per Wikipedia guidelines, the comment is requested as it helps in further edits and prevents "revision wars." I have changed the article to better reflect the subject and context of the original change.

Prosecreator (talk) 13:22, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Not all of us live in the USA. Your change assumes that we do, and that US policy applies everywhere. Lead-based solder is still widely used, and if withdrawn or formally forbidden, that is still largely restricted to potable water.

Your first change was to remove a qualification to potable water that had been added by an IP. A correct and useful qualification - we need more of that. Your reason was, "Copper is not used for drain lines, so the comment makes no sense." which is inaccurate on all three counts: the qualification might be incorrect (but still makes sense), copper is used for drainage lines (it's expensive so it's rarely used, but it is still used when the aesthetics justify it. My whole bathtub is copper, so I'm not plumbing that in with plastic), most importantly heating pipework is still substantially in copper - and soldered with a lead-tin solder.

This section should be expanded to indicate that lead is certainly shrinking, but that it went from potable water first, and its withdrawal generally is not internationally consistent. Whenever the US did fully withdraw leaded solder (if indeed it has yet), that doesn't mean it no longer needs to be covered in an international encyclopedia. Andy Dingley (talk) 15:02, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the response. It would have been great to include a bit of this in the comment for your revision. That was my suggestion.

Your point is valid, I have changed the article a bit. In the U.S. one cannot even purchase leaded plumbing solder anymore, it disappeared decades ago, thanks to the SDWA.

Prosecreator (talk) 20:08, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

FYI

You almost certainly know better than me, as I generally treat Commons as a fetid swamp into which the editors of the Wikipedias are occasionally obliged to venture, rather than somewhere to visit through choice; can the various other files at Commons:Deletion requests/File:Hatashe-Tye.jpg be lumped into a single nomination, or will they each require a separate listing? (Given that we're talking about a project that maintains that File:Tracy Fruit Loops.jpg has potential encyclopedic value, I have no idea whether these images actually are outside Commons's scope.) While his response here was in relation to my warning him for inserting them into articles and for uploading copyvios, rather than specifically for uploading them to Commons, I assume his attitude will be the same in both cases. ‑ Iridescent 19:43, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Adding a list of files with a related problem is certainly a recognised response, when the problem is broader than a single image. As to the efficacy of Commons debate, it really depends on how many people show up from the small pool there. And being such a small pool, it does tend to be dominated by the handful of loudest voices. The spectacle of half a dozen Germans with "professional levels of the English language" arguing over basic English grammar or convention is a regular favourite.

In this case, I'd agree that they're too much of a selfie and not enough of anything illustrative for clothing - also the problems of poor quality and poor focus. This week (and broadly against policy) Commons is deleting on the basis of "quality" (which really means IDONTLIKEIT).

As to your linked image, then I think that is there mostly to justify the existence of Category:Nude or partially nude women with purple hair, Category:Cereals in art & Category:Handbras, by one's own hands, let alone their intersection. Andy Dingley (talk) 20:07, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Consider me duly unshocked to see Neelix was the creator of Category:Handbras, by one's own hands. Nice to see Commons is still maintaining its role as Wikipedia's penal colony. ‑ Iridescent 20:20, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Commons used to be a bit more chilled out than WP. Now it just seems to have so few active editors that nearly every one is some sort of monomaniac. Andy Dingley (talk) 20:25, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

ANI

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. --Reaganomics88 (talk) 10:59, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Why do you think ANI would be at all interested in your year and a half old content dispute? Andy Dingley (talk) 11:17, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Bolted joint

Hi I do not think that my link is irrelevant. One of the paragraphs make references to calculate the torque required by a bolted joint. And this is what the web page I linked does. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fonebone83 (talk • contribs) 18:48, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If you read articles, rather than just spammed links into them, you'd discover that a bolted joint isn't what you think it is.

Your calculator (which is still largely in Spanish, not English) relates tightening torque to bolt tension. It does nothing in relation to the shear forces that are most relevant here. Andy Dingley (talk) 18:56, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Excalibur

Patience Andy, patience. I'm only just starting, there is much goodness to come. Maury Markowitz (talk) 14:02, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Chapman strut (Hooke joint)

Hi Andy. You reverted a change I made on this page regarding universal joint types. I'm confused about the revert because "universal joint" refers to the type of joint that Hooke invented, and not any other type (such as CV or rag joints). Or I should say, in the U.S. that's true, and Universal joint supports that. I notice you're from the UK, so perhaps you're used to a different usage of the term.

In any case, it's not great to have a link labeled "Hooke" (with no supporting documentation) redirecting to the universal joint page, where one can find no reason for the "Hooke" distinction - in fact, Hooke isn't even credited with the invention. Further, neither of the links in the Goggomobil section (Goggomobil and Drive_shaft) contain any mention of a Hooke joint. Indeed, the drive shaft page uses the term "universal".

The inconsistency is quite undesirable (which is what prompted my edit), and I think the simplest way to fix it is to just use the term "universal joint". Otherwise, the universal joint page should be updated to describe the distinction, and there should be a reference supporting the use of a Hooke joint in the Goggomobil suspension. Glenebob (talk) 00:09, 8 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hooke joints are only one form of universal joint. CV, giubos and rag joints (which all regularly get described as universal joints by our readership, even if some sources might exclude them) are commonly used for axle halfshafts, Hooke joints less so, yet Goggomobil were using Hooke joints (they also used rag joints, but not in this case). This is a distinction worth keeping. Admittedly it's less important for RWD, but Hooke joints in FWD are such a problem that they're exceptional by this time, except in 4WD vehicles.

As to the redirect, then see WP:NOTBROKEN. Although I'm inclined to restore it altogether and use the piped form, as possibly slightly clearer to those hovering the link without following it (although WP is against such, per WP:EASTEREGG).

Limitations of other articles are a problem for those pages, not this one. Andy Dingley (talk) 00:19, 8 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Universal joint also happens to describe "Cardan joints" which is not a term I've heard before. Famously Cardano didn't invent any sort of shaft joint, but invented the basic mechanism as a gimbal. Then Hooke applied it to a shaft, as a universal joint. Hooke also realised that a pair of them could address the CV problem, through a mechanism we do know today as the Cardan shaft, even though this much was entirely Hooke's idea.

But hey, it's an article with bundled refs, so it's unworkable. Andy Dingley (talk) 00:28, 8 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

After doing some more reading, I'm even more confused. Depending where you look, the Hooke joint is either a single Cardan joint (that's the more common tern here in the U.S., after simply "universal"), or it is a Double Cardan joint (the nearly exclusively used term here for a pseudo-CV joint). Which are you referring to in the Goggomobil, the single or double joint? The Universal_joint page clearly needs some cleanup.

Glenebob (talk) 00:42, 8 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Goggomobil used swing axles, so obviously this is a single joint. Andy Dingley (talk) 00:58, 8 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, that doesn't seem very obvious. A single joint on a swing axle would cause the exact rotational problem Hooke discovered! The early VW beetle also used swing arms, but with CV joints. However, I have found pictorial evidence that you are correct. I still don't know for sure whether the Hooke joint is single, or actually the so-called Double Cardan. I'll keep looking. Thanks! Glenebob (talk) 01:25, 8 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Carpentry

Hi Andy, I noticed that you removed my addition on recycled carpentry as self-promotion. Assuming this is understood that way by others, I appreciate your fixing that. I still need to learn what is acceptable and what not. In this specific case, had someone else done that, would that be fine? And if so, how to distinguish? Thanks, Boaz Boaz.tsaban (talk) 13:28, 8 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello again, I understand the problem was with the link I provided, so I will next add the line without the link Boaz.tsaban (talk) 17:27, 8 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Finally, do you think you could edit your comment in "Articles for deletion/Boaz Tsaban" to be more precise/factual? The article was not self-written but self-edited, and the author was not "busy spamming" but rather added links to a website of his in this article and in another (which BTW I removed following your advice). Your choice; it is ok if you cannot change this, since the replies clarify matters. (As long as I write, I would appreciate your considering implementing the change I propose in the talk page of the article, which I cannot implement on my own.) Boaz.tsaban (talk) 17:27, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

spamming sock

about this comment you made, please see here. done. nice to agree sometimes! :) Jytdog (talk) 04:36, 18 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Wheel arrangements

Hi Andy, I've begun expanding the Category:Locomotives by wheel arrangement by creating sub-categories for Category:Whyte notation, Category:UIC classification, Category:AAR arrangement and Category:Commonwealth classification, the latter named Commonwealth classification for lack of an existing (known to me) name and covering the British (and SA and the rest of the old Empire's) way of describing electric and diesel-electric loco wheel arrangements. The idea is to create some order while also covering the other three widely-used arrangements. Present Whyte-type wheel arrangements will eventually all be categorised under Category:Whyte notation, similarly for the at present still sparsely populated UIC, AAR and "Commonwealth" arrangements - it may take a while since I'm doing it as I work through loco articles. This is why I'll be reverting your edit on 0-4-2 of this morning. Keep well! - André Kritzinger (talk) 13:37, 19 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

OK, so long as it stays somewhere. Andy Dingley (talk) 14:12, 19 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ship transport or maritime transport?

You have previously discussed the title of the ship transport article. There is a proposal to move this article at Talk:Ship transport if you care to participate. — AjaxSmack 21:28, 19 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Andy Dingley (talk) 21:31, 19 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Tower bridge Gallery

Andy, it seems that you are not happy with the section. As per Wikipedia article guidelines, gallery is an important aspect of article. The gallery is been prepared accordingly. If you have any issues, please discuss on the talk page but do not revert again. Kautuk1 (talk) 03:27, 30 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Galleries are almost always a bad thing and a poor way to display images. This one is especially poor. Also you've added it three times now, despite being reverted, so please see WP:3RR. Andy Dingley (talk) 08:53, 30 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Excalibur

Barring any updates from Hey or Hecht, who I've been corresponding with, I think the history section is getting close to being done. Would you mind fine-tooth-combing it? Maury Markowitz (talk) 13:49, 1 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Foolishness by you

The page Science and Technology - Kumar Trishul Deo is not creating any advertisement it is about a notable site ..... u people such a foolish Jockey Raj 786 (talk) 11:08, 2 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Kumar Trishul Deo/Archive Andy Dingley (talk) 19:02, 17 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

FV4401 Contentious

On the talk page, you asked for supporting evidence that the Char B2 was the origin of the development of gun-laying suspension, which I gave without further comment from you. After close to a year without any objections I made the changes, then you come and revert the changes without any discussion, and then accuse me of trolling. Mind if we get things settled in a civilized manner? If the two of us can not reach agreement on what the term "Comparable vehicles" mean, I suggest we use the steps given in Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution to solve the issue. That keeps things from getting personal, which would be really silly since we both take an apparent interest in military history and strive to make good articles better. BP OMowe (talk) 18:55, 5 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Really sorry

Sorry for the blanking of River Gaunless. Thing is, I only started Wikipedia 10 days ago, and I really need a bit of help getting to know Wikipedia. RullRatbwan (talk) 13:51, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. But big, BOLD changes like that aren't the best thing to start with. Try talking to people at the Teahouse for more of a suggestion. Andy Dingley (talk) 13:53, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

But SamRathbone (talk · contribs) makes it impossible to trust you. Andy Dingley (talk) 14:12, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Discourage edit warring

About this edit on Tiger I, where you reverted both my revert and also User:Mild Bill Hiccup's revert, did you consider the edit history or read my comment? I'm not that strongly against the addition itself, but I'm very much against promoting edit warring. The IP added the EL, Mild Bill reverted, and then the IP added again without discussion. IPs may not know about WP:BRD, but we do, and it's our job to promote that over edit warring; I reverted the IP's re-addition and linked BRD for the IP to follow. But you reverted the revert of a revert, disregarding BRD, which not only tells the IP that edit warring is the way to go, but (technically) is edit warring itself.

I've encountered your work on WP many, many times, and WP is certainly better for your help. I don't think this edit is up to your standards.

If you want to start a discussion on the EL on talk, I'd be happy to answer your rather weak argument for adding the fannish EL. But, as I said, adding the EL isn't what I'm most concerned about. That being noted, you can respond or not, as you please.

Thank you. --A D Monroe III (talk) 17:06, 9 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This is an excellent EL. I'm still waiting, despite requests, for any sort of explanation as to why you or Bill would want to remove it. Beating up IP editors is fine sport for some, but it's never an excuse for making an article worse, as you've been doing here. Andy Dingley (talk) 18:19, 9 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sigh. --A D Monroe III (talk) 18:21, 9 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Category:B'B' locomotives

You're right, sorry. The AAR and Commonwealth classifications are both B-B for diesel-hydraulics since there are no traction motors. I had to dig deep to (re-)find the Class 61-000 drawing... - André Kritzinger (talk) 21:19, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

User:Chernobog95

Hi Andy, I'm SamaranEmerald, I believe we may have met (albeit indirectly) on Chernobog95's talk page. Well I have some news for you, ever since your latest post, things have gotten worse. Chernobog95 is continuing to reject his guilt by citing his so-called claims he made over and over again to the point that it is becoming harrassment. He even went on to admit that he attacked User:Hornetzilla78 and accused him to the point of calling him "unprofessional", I pointed this out, and then he quickly covers this up, stating that it is "sarcasm". In one of his most recent posts, he criticized me for supporting Hornetzilla78 (and the other users against his actions), intimidating me by calling him "my gem" (thus suggesting that I am homosexual, which I am not), he then intimidated me further by taunting me to "pick my poison". Is there anything you can do to stop his absurd rantings before he causes further damage? --SamaranEmerald (talk) 01:12, 13 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Since when telling the truth is harrassment? Oh I get it, you are offended by it and can't accept it as you continue to lie more and more as you take out of context more and more of what I have written like a pathological liar as evident by your behaviour and manipulation of others as you intentionaly take everything literally to attempt to discredit me. I didn't admit I attacked him and lets say I did then I would be lying and as for so called cover up under sarcasm, I wrote attacked under " to indicate sarcasm before so called cover up you falsely claim. All I did is criticize and that is somehow against rules or does it only apply on me apparently thus double standards and hypocrisy. Another way you mislead is by suggesting that I suggested you are homosexual as you again take out of context and astroturf about what I have wrote thus I wrote what I wrote to visualize pinnacle of your trolling, most often term that is being used is gold or pure gold to rate/grade someone figurelatively for their action for which I described your actions of taking out of context what I have wrote and your astroturfing thus wrote your gem as in example of what you wrote as valuable example of astroturfing from which can be learned. Another is you taking literaly is pick your poison which is a term used when there are no good options for you after I wrote that either you took literally what I wrote or you have intentionaly took it out of context which is now proven to be the latter as you are a dishonest unreliable fallacious individual incapable of apologizing for own wrong doings. In the end you are causing yourself further damage by continuing to take out of context what I wrote as you astroturf thue reducing your credibility further. Now it is wait and see if you are going to continue which such indecent behaviour of manipulation. Chernobog95 09:36 July 12th 2017 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chernobog95 (talk • contribs) 07:35, 13 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This belongs at WP:ANI, not here. I would stand by what I posted at Chernobog's user talk: - this is clearly the initial stages of an indef behavioural block. We are not here to be abused as Chernobog keeps doing, even when they frame it in terms of making articles more accurate. This is not an unusual situation, we've seen it played out with so many editors before.

Chernobog - you can choose to defuse this at any point, just by stopping with the abuse of other editors. Your call. Andy Dingley (talk) 09:08, 13 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The problem with your notion I am not abusing them, they make false accusation, I got blocked for "unsourced material" that is sourced and not it is apparently "vandalism" when I haven't broke any of the rules involving. I add sources and don't change the context of it. I am not framing as that is what it is, making articles more accuracte and depends on you if you are going to claim otherwise thus commit conjecture/assertion. Chernobog95 14:08 13 July 2017 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chernobog95 (talk • contribs) 12:08, 13 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

In your world view, "Everyone else is wrong" and there's probably some sort of "conspiracy" by "the cabal" who are all "out to get you" because they're fools and terrible people.

That is your world view of misunderstanding/misinterpret my reasoning involving their actions, the issue is they are take out of context and make false statements. They are unable to accept that David Wright has acknowledged that he did not take into account Earth's rotation in his analysis and that missile would go further when fired in eastern direction thus above 6700km. John Schilling first estimated maximum range of 9700km and beforehand he said it is likely while Thomas.W falsely claimed Schilling stated maybe which has a different meaning as one is probably/going to happen while other is possibility as in not above 50% chance of happening. I got blocked for unsourced material despite the fact that all of it is sourced. In the end they are forcing flawed piece of information that originator/creator acknowledged as such thus it is not a reliable accurate information. Now again they deny with even more sources. Chernobog95 16:00

But you've done nothing to present a coherent argument as to why one source is good, another bad. When you keep assigning motives to people and calling them "vandals", it shuts down any real debate and just becomes a disciplinary problem. Instead you should present a clear argument, ideally on an article talk page, as to why you're favouring one set of sources, and one set of conclusions. Is their source thought to be more reliable? Is their technical conclusion more convincing, or is another one technically implausible? Andy Dingley (talk) 14:17, 13 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Their source? I placed it for fuck sake! My argument is clear and simple, David Wright made 6700km estimate on July 3rd and he later acknowledged that he did not account for Earth's rotation and that missile would go further if fired towards eastern direction. John Schillings initial estimate was at maximum 8000km which he later on raised to 9700km. Hornetzilla78; So far estimates only from confirmed tests suggest it can reach 6700 km for the time being, and even then it is only based off of a lofted trajectory test, in addition source appears to have be under copyright. All of those estimates involve that test and source I used is allowed on wikipedia, that is my argument which I repeated over and over again and you people refuse to accept it. Chernobog95 16:58 13 July 2017

What you've done has been entirely on the article pages, not the article talk: pages. If you remove one source and replace it with another, what other editors see first and react to first is that you've reverted them, and that you've pushed some other content in. You might be right, but they don't know why you're right. It's better if you explain this on the talk: page. Say, "I don't like XXX as a source because YYY is more credible, because ZZZ" or "I don't like <foo> as a claim, because it conflicts with some previous test we saw, or the weights don't make sense, etc." It works better this way. Andy Dingley (talk) 17:22, 13 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

In our world view, you're rude and disruptive. We don't like you. I recognise the value of what you're doing, but you've tried my patience so long that I no longer care. Yes, maybe we are all fools and terrible people, but we're also the stratocracy in power.

Your world view is labeling critical people as rude thus you and other can't handle criticism while you consider ones who want up to date information on articles as disruptive. All of this is proven by reactions and actions by others and your partial support for their behaviour and abuse of moderator power. Chernobog95 16:00 13 July 2017

How do you think this plays out? Now either behave like a civilised editor, or you'll just end up indef banned before too long. Your choice. Andy Dingley (talk) 12:22, 13 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You propagate about being civilised while partialy supporting individuals who's claims are unjustified as they dare to speak about rulesnof Wikipedia which themselves violate with fallacies from false accusation to out of context astroturfing with their double standards, hypocrisy at its finest. I am not here for people to like me and my choice is not to submit to bunch of astroturfing saboteurs. Chernobog95 16:06 13 July 2017

You're at ANI now. Calling other editors "astroturfing saboteurs" isn't acceptable here. Even if it's right, it's not acceptable to say it. So you'll get indef blocked for that sort of stuff.

You have two choices: keep calling people "astroturfing saboteurs" and be indef blocked, after another block or two.

Or else stop insulting other editors. You can disagree, you can give reasons why you disagree, but you will have to stop simply insulting them. Your choice. Andy Dingley (talk) 17:25, 13 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I will stop insulting. Just remember I will remember you forever as individual who's definition of insulting people is describing their actions as proven by their actions thus telling you did that thus you are that is an by your standard an insult. Chernobog95 (talk) 19:27, 13 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Umm... I have been following this since it came up at AN/I, but I have no idea what you're saying here. - Nick Thorne ^talk 09:45, 14 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Seriously? Any criticism is by default insult according to him. Chernobog95 (talk) 10:37, 14 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page stalker) I wonder could someone possibly explain to me the meaning of ""astroturfing saboteur"? I suspect I'm not feeling sufficiently outraged about this. Martinevans123 (talk) 13:02, 14 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Associated Locksmiths of America

Hi Andy. Could you please revisit this article and perhaps review your comment in the deletion debate? Thanks, — tim /// Carrite (talk) 12:16, 15 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sammy Davis (racing driver)

Please read WP:QUOTENAME before reverting my edits. 92.26.167.157 (talk) 20:15, 15 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm well familiar with it. I strongly suggest actually reading it. Andy Dingley (talk) 20:21, 15 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry - my mistake! 92.26.167.157 (talk) 20:22, 15 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Too late: Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Edit_warring#User:_92.26.167.157_reported_by_User:Andy_Dingley_.28Result:_.29 I've no idea who you are when you bother to log in, but you're due a block. Andy Dingley (talk) 20:44, 15 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

July 2017

Your recent editing history at Comparison of European road signs shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.
I invited you to take part in discussion. You refused to do so. You re-reverted uncommented. ZH8000 (talk) 22:23, 16 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

See the article talk: You are clearly on your own for adding these images, all other comment has been against them.

If you need a link for WP:ANEW, it's there. Please report me, it'll resolve this issue so much more quickly against you. Andy Dingley (talk) 22:28, 16 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you!

Thank you for restoring my edit.

Listen to latest armscontrolwonk podcast, they touched upon wikipedia and denial of people about Hwasong-14's range.

I referenced those in articles, a lot of information. Chernobog95 (talk) 22:06, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

He just admitted to edit-warring and being an edit-warrior on his latest edit on North Korea and weapons of mass destruction, as seen [here]. Note the lack of quotations, indicating that this is intentional and not sarcasm. In addition, he also attacked me on my talk page. SamaranEmerald (talk) 23:57, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You and others reverted my edits without a valid reason, he restored my edits and would have continued to do so if I wasn't quick to react. Thus (at best?) I have partial approval from him for my edits and references I placed. I was already once edit blocked due to fallacy of "unsourced and or poorly sourced" information for referencing information from sources extensively used on wikipedia. Edit warring is allowed against vandalism. I am "harrassing" you for basically telling you to stop harrassing me with your reverting of references from sources extensively used on wikipedia that I added. Chernobog95 (talk) 01:41, 19 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The correct lubricant

Hi Andy

You wrote:

Rv bulk spammer - not a bad book, but this is so far from the way to go about it.

I am not a spammer, I have just made my book available for free downloads so I included a link to it in a few relevant pages. So it looks like a spam but it is not. The link belongs to all those pages but 'Lubricant' is the most important page.

You deleted the link in 'Lubricant' and I put it back. Please do not deny people interested in the subject opportunity to download a ready reference guide/textbook that expands on the information in the page.

I am sorry if I did not follow the right procedures. I would need your guidance as I do not have any experience with this.

Best regards Petr Vavruch (Petr10)Petr10 (talk) 13:30, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The planned article Lunar Zenith Line chosen not to be created, a request for the creation of an article titled the Lunar Equator has chosen

You have reminded me on the creation of a new article titled "Lunar zenith line" and as a stub. I don't favor the article as a stub. The article "Lunar Zenith Line" is not going to be created as it is put on hold, but another one, an article titled the "Lunar Equator" should be created (possible). As places and nations of Earth that are (or have one part) being included in the Equator and is put it in the tabled list section, for the Moon, the craters, the mountains and other selenographical (not geographical) features are to be put in the tabled list section (the same as the list in the article titled the Earth's equator) in the proposed article. Terriffic Dunker Guy (talk) 15:38, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Croatian Edit War

Hey Andy,

I just was doing a vandal patrol and saw an unexplained removal of sourced content. The main reason why I accidentally got involved. I'll stay out of it unless you need any help...TJH2018 talk 17:59, 24 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Blindly restoring the additions of an editor who is very probably another of WP's most prolific sockpuppets is the sort of help I'd rather avoid, thanks. Andy Dingley (talk) 18:01, 24 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Well, again, I didn't know that, so hence why I came here and tried to tell you my reasoning. It would make the most sense to revert the article to the version before both Sheldonium and Carlos got involved. TJH2018 talk 18:02, 24 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That would merely feed the edit war. Sheldonium, given their recent behaviour, would almost certainly simply reinstate these edits. As there is no clear criteria for these articles anyway, it is hard to refute any sort of nonsense at them.

The only useful direction right now would involve the project talk page and trying to agree some sort of criteria for what ought to be included and what not. Also blocking some more of the banned socks. Andy Dingley (talk) 18:08, 24 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Re:July 2017

I did not edit nor delete your comment on purpose, I copyed the name of the inventor and accidentally pasted it on the same comment you wrote. Later, I did not find tha name in the whole mess. So I apologize. Although your nationalistic behaviour and undoing sourced content is unforgivable.--Sheldonium (talk) 19:43, 24 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Indigenous inventions

I agree. However all of the inventions of pre Slavic people of Serbia have been removed and I'm not sure why as sources have been provided stating that slavs absorbed and assimilated the natives User:Carlo0 Carlo0 (talk) 10:17, 25 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Archives

Spoken Wikipedia

Undoing Revisions Without Comment

FYI

Excalibur

spamming sock

Wheel arrangements

Ship transport or maritime transport?

Tower bridge Gallery

Excalibur

Foolishness by you

FV4401 Contentious

Really sorry

Discourage edit warring

Category:B'B' locomotives

July 2017

Thank you!

The correct lubricant

The planned article Lunar Zenith Line chosen not to be created, a request for the creation of an article titled the Lunar Equator has chosen

Croatian Edit War

Re:July 2017

Indigenous inventions