User talk:Andy Dingley
Dear Andy, The Slavic etymology proposed by an anonymous editor contradicts the accepted academic knowledge of the language. No Slavic languages have been ever recorded in the area, whereas the words "Gobannos", "nanto", "dobnos"/"domnos" are well-known in Celtic. "Interpreting" various ancient inscriptions as Slavic is quite common among nationalistic pseudo-scientists here in Russia.
- "Slavic" doesn't appear in the article, or in the section you deleted. Gaulish does, and that has a much closer relationship to Celtic. So I don't really see how your point (which may be valid - I'm no linguist) relates to this edit? If you're objecting to particular words, then why not remove them, not the whole section?
- Mostly though, unexplained deletions like this resemble simple vandalism. If there is a reason to delete it, then please use an edit summary to explain why. If it's complicated, or likely to be restored, then maybe make a comment on the Talk: page. Andy Dingley (talk) 19:31, 8 January 2016 (UTC)
- Yes, it does not appear in the article, but "govno"="shit" and "davno"="long ago", which are proposed by the author, are Russian words. I understand you and I will add my comments to the original article. Thank you!
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
I removed the sentence referencing TTT sheet plastination because it didn't appear to add anything to the article, it merely referenced a specific type of plastination and mentioned that it was used in teaching, which the rest of the section already appeared to discuss. The sentence was almost like an advertisement for TTT plastination and gave no further information on the technique or any other uses for this form of plastination. It also lacked a citation.CV99 (talk) 00:44, 24 January 2016 (UTC)
- You went through the article changing refs for "New York" to "Mega York". So don't tell me that's a constructive change. Andy Dingley (talk) 01:06, 24 January 2016 (UTC)
- Also  Andy Dingley (talk) 01:07, 24 January 2016 (UTC)
Sorry, I thought it was an issue with the edit I made instead of what appeared to be a blatant case of vandalism. The change was done by a browser extension of mine, XKCD substitutions. I had it set to replace new with mega. I had an issue with it before, though it was a one time thing; I do note that the burden of insuring that this browser extension does not make changes in the editing window lies with me. I typically turn if off when editing, and I usually do catch the times that I do make mistakes (though in this case I should have as it would have created red links). I have now set to turned off on the english wikipedia. I hope that this resolves the issue. CV99 (talk) 01:28, 24 January 2016 (UTC)
- We've had far too many problems with XKCD before. I know he has some sort of issue with Wikipedia, but if you choose to run such an extension configured to auto-vandalise wikipedia, you're the one responsible for it. Andy Dingley (talk) 01:43, 24 January 2016 (UTC)
I have been consistent in giving a reason for each edit. If you mean that no reason was recorded, this must be due to some technical factor, as I gave the same reason for each of these edits: "no link," meaning that a term such as "Ford," "coal" or "air pressure" is assumed to need no further explanation via a linked Wiki article. I thought this excess linking was considered a detriment to Wikipedia, and went out of my way to amend it.--188.8.131.52 (talk) 02:48, 31 January 2016 (UTC)
- Blanking all the links from an article and "explaining" this as "no link" is not a constructive edit.
- If you think these links don't belong here, then go to Talk:Sand casting and explain why, per WP:BRD. Repeatedly removing them over and over instead will not be seen as constructive. Andy Dingley (talk) 11:26, 31 January 2016 (UTC)
- What do you mean by "all"? I left the links to articles on more obscure topics, which was a distinct minority of the links. I have been using the reason "no link" for several years, with no complaints. Is "unlinked excess Wikilinks" an acceptable wording for my reason?--184.108.40.206 (talk) 20:46, 31 January 2016 (UTC)
Andy, have you seen the article at Bellfounding? It uses a sand casting process, though not always with sand. You might consider either a link or a else short precis with a hat note. Martin of Sheffield (talk) 09:29, 1 February 2016 (UTC)
- Yes, not a bad article that. Could use more on Chinese bells though - they're significantly different and cast differently (try old Sci Am articles for a good one). Certainly it deserves trailing from the main casting article.Andy Dingley (talk) 00:41, 4 February 2016 (UTC)
I saw your comments on the AfD for this. Now it's getting blanked anyway . Any thoughts?
- I would support trimming it, but yes, that was too far.
- This is an encyclopedia. It's supposed to be self-contained, but not isolated. We need enough manual to make the article stand up, but there's no need to replace the manuals. Anyone who wants a manual still has access to them - we might even link them.
- So the command should be covered, and the syntax of how to use it, but there's no need for the parameter switches. I think anything here that explains itself in prose is probably useful, anything that's a list of sub-word flags doesn't belong.
- Beware anyone quoting ALLCAPS. That's never a good sign. There's an old joke about drunks hanging onto lampposts for support more than illumination - WP policy is all too often used like that. Nor am I happy with Intgr quoting me right out of context on the Schilly AfD 8-( Andy Dingley (talk) 18:40, 1 February 2016 (UTC)