User talk:Andy Dingley

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search


/2007 •
/2008 1 - 3
/Archive 4
/Archive 2009 January
/Archive 2009 February
/Archive 2009 March
/Archive 2009 April
/Archive 2009 May
/Archive 2009 June
/Archive 2009 July
/Archive 2009 September
/Archive 2009 October
/Archive 2009 November
/Archive 2009 December
/Archive 2010 January
/Archive 2010 February
/Archive 2010 March
/Archive 2010 April
/Archive 2010 May
/Archive 2010 June
/Archive 2010 July
/Archive 2010 August
/Archive 2010 September
/Archive 2010 October
/Archive 2010 November
/Archive 2010 December
/Archive 2011 January
/Archive 2011 February
/Archive 2011 March
/Archive 2011 April
/Archive 2011 May
/Archive 2011 June
/Archive 2011
/Archive 2012
/Archive 2013
/Archive 4
/Archive 5
/Archive 6
/Archive 7
/Archive 8
/Archive 2014
/Archive 2015
/Archive 2016
/Archive 2017

List categories – for lists; wind farm categories – for wind farms[edit]

All other lists like e.g. are correctly NOT categorized as windfarm, like e.g. List of wind farms in Lithuania!

--Leoclerc (talk) 20:17, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

University ranking[edit]

Andy, could you please add to Template:Infobox_university_rankings and Template:Infobox US university ranking two more parameters: College_and_university_rankings#SCImago_Institutions_Rankings and Webometrics_Ranking_of_World_Universities?

See # 1.17 and # 1.23 in College and university rankings and

maintained by the Spanish National Research Council:

Thank you very much! — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 03:02, 27 June 2018 (UTC)

Sorry, but I can't. I don't have the necessary permissions to work on those. Also Infobox templates are highly political: any changes made by someone who's not one of the relevant clique will just get reverted immediately. I suggest asking at Template talk:Infobox university rankings (I see you've already been ignored at Template talk:Infobox US university ranking, but this might see more traffic). You could also ask at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Universities, which seems busier. Good luck with it! Andy Dingley (talk) 09:03, 27 June 2018 (UTC)

Good faith Maintenance reverts[edit]

Hello, You reverted a good faith maintenance edit on Arlesdale Railway with the edit summary "rv clueless edit". In reverting such policy based maintenance you failed to show how there was no policy violation or argue why I am in error in policy interpretation just indicating that I am clueless.
It shows you have been an editor since 2007 with over 133,000 edits so I am struggling to understand your rationale. Wikipedia is user-generated, not exempted as a self-published source, and not acceptable as a source, be it in-universe or "other" universe, on other Wikipedia articles. If "all of the sources used" are such then they have been found by an abundance of long-standing and broad community consensus to be unacceptable.
You are using some rationale of "in-universe" exemption for allowing a Wikipedia link to be used as a general source and considering your reported experience this is udderly flabbergasting. Wikipedia verifiability policy specifically states "Do not use articles from Wikipedia (whether this English Wikipedia or Wikipedias in other languages) as sources. Also, do not use websites that mirror Wikipedia content or publications that rely on material from Wikipedia as sources. Content from a Wikipedia article is not considered reliable unless it is backed up by citing reliable sources. Confirm that these sources support the content, then use them directly.". That seems pretty clear so if I am clueless then there is good reasoning.
As it is, and since my clear edit summary and talk page rationale, this is paramount to vandalism. You repaired the "Clutterbuck, Martin" link (archived) and not only left the link as a source also (duplicated: unacceptable as a source) but reverted the "dead link" tag.
In light of the above I suppose it would be in vain to ask you to self-revert and either find, or let someone else find, appropriate sourcing or allow the article to remain as unsourced to be tagged per a multitude of policies, guidelines, and even community accepted essays? Continuing in disregard of community practice can be considered tendentious editing and subject to reporting and WP:sanctions. Thank you, Otr500 (talk) 20:01, 30 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Blanking all the sources for an article is not "maintenance". Also, discuss that article there, and don't waste bytes on my talk: page. The specific nature of your evident cluelessness is that you can't tell the difference between a source, and a wikipedia article discussing that source. The fact that an independent source has a WP article about it, and that article has been linked in the citation, does not mean that WP itself is being cited as a source. Andy Dingley (talk) 20:24, 30 June 2018 (UTC)


Information icon There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Otr500 (talk) 22:46, 30 June 2018 (UTC)



Your reverting to a previous version of the pompatus article made it much better. Thank you for doing that. (talk) 19:47, 11 July 2018 (UTC)



As for this; I cannot find anything in WP:MOS which support that, what am I missing?

I feel adding {{Commons category|Ein Hod}} is so...last year, now that we have a link direct on the left, Huldra (talk) 20:34, 15 July 2018 (UTC)

If you're claiming that {{Commons category}} (680,000+ pages) is now deprecated, then the onus is upon you to demonstrate this first. Andy Dingley (talk) 20:45, 15 July 2018 (UTC)
When you link it from commons, it automatically appear on the left side in all the languages (for Ein Hod that is 10 languages). Surely, this is a much easier and better way to link, than to write {{Commons category}} on each and every language, (Most of the {{Commons category}} are now removed from the IP area; you are taking a step backwards if you reintroduce them), Huldra (talk) 20:58, 15 July 2018 (UTC)
It's not a question of the editing effort in making links appear, it's about the page presented to the reader: readers do not read the LH sidebar - even experienced users don't know the link is there. Andy Dingley (talk) 21:01, 15 July 2018 (UTC)
Well, it isn't exactly rocket science; once you know it is there you will see it. As an example of this being easier: I made a commons cat for Michael Cherney a few minutes ago; with one click over at commons it is now linked on all the 5 different languages of his article. Sooooo much easier that adding {{Commons category}} everywhere...Huldra (talk) 21:12, 15 July 2018 (UTC)
But it's useless to our readers. If you have no interest in readers, then it is indeed easier. Andy Dingley (talk) 21:14, 15 July 2018 (UTC)
I think you greatly underestimate out readers, Huldra (talk) 21:19, 15 July 2018 (UTC)

Is this the right place to talk about your reversion on Coaxial power connector?[edit]

Hi, I'm pretty new to Wikipedia, so if I'm posting in the wrong place, please let me know. The reason I removed gendering from the two paragraphs I edited was because the previous paragraph seemed to say that the gender of Coaxial power connectors was debatable, so the subsequent use of genders only added confusion. I thought that standard terminology for Coaxial power connectors was plug and receptacle not male and female. Is this not the case? and if so, should this section be edited? Thanks. Anomalistic (talk) 00:05, 16 July 2018 (UTC)

Male and female are standard terminology, they need to be in this article.
It was right before. The plugs are female. They're barrel connectors. This used to be made clear in the article (there was a big rewrite a couple of years back). Note that plugs does not mean the same thing as "male". However many plugs are also male, but in the case of barrel connectors (and many other plugs, it's not that uncommon) the plugs are female. Andy Dingley (talk) 00:16, 16 July 2018 (UTC)
Are you sure the plugs are female? What about "Some, after consideration and surveys, found that user perception of which was male and which female was evenly split.[9]" from Coaxial power connector? Anomalistic (talk) 00:46, 16 July 2018 (UTC)
Yeah, let's rewrite articles on the basis of random polls done by suppliers! Andy Dingley (talk) 00:49, 16 July 2018 (UTC)
Apologies for my continued confusion, but I don't think sarcasm was necessary.
To alleviate a possible previous previous confusion, I am not against gendering electrical components where it adds clarity or is standard terminology—I only disagree with the use of gender where gender standards have not been defined and are under debate.
Also, I'm still not totally sure that the genders expressed reflect a neutral perspective (provided the paragraph above is correct). The way I read it, "there are varying opinions [on which is male and which is female]" and "they have not yet defined gender-based standards for low-voltage coaxial power connectors such as those discussed herein" so by describing the plug as female and receptacle as male, we are presenting only one viewpoint of two equally valid ones. Anomalistic (talk) 12:43, 16 July 2018 (UTC)
This is a problem aspect to the article and I do appreciate the issue you raise. However we have to try and go forwards, not back. Better sourcing for the "plugs are defined by convexity of the outer shell, maleness by the smallest connector pin" standpoint would be very useful. However just removing it is not good - even stating that "no-one can ever agree this" would be better than just removing it and making no comment at all (at which many people assume that all plugs are male). Bringing in "sources" that are little more than random polls is not an improvement - at most, that would only go to support the "it's complicated" view, not a way of deciding what the definition was. Andy Dingley (talk) 13:34, 16 July 2018 (UTC)
Good point about going forward. I thought that to gender these specific connectors would be going forward beyond the industry as a whole and thus unsourceable, but apparently I was in error. Is there a source already in the article supporting the fact that the plugs are female in this case or is that common knowledge and not needing a source?
In an effort to go make positive progress, would it be best to clarify that the smallest pin determines gender and that despite the facts that there are varying opinions and that users are split about half and half on the issue, there is a clear majority opinion among experts?
On a side note, is there a way to comment on talk pages with the visual editor? Anomalistic (talk) 13:53, 16 July 2018 (UTC)
I know nothing of the visual editor. My experiences with it have been unpleasant, and of all the ways in which WP makes life difficult, it's not the syntax that's the problem. Andy Dingley (talk) 13:55, 16 July 2018 (UTC)
Gender of connectors and fasteners#Electrical and electronic might be of interest. Andy Dingley (talk) 13:56, 16 July 2018 (UTC)
Is this blatantly wring then: "they have not yet defined gender-based standards for low-voltage coaxial power connectors such as those discussed herein"? It seems that gender-based standards have been clearly defined. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Anomalistic (talkcontribs) 14:21, 16 July 2018 (UTC)

Unusual deaths[edit]

Hi there! The edit I removed wasn't because the source wasn't reliable, but because the source doesn't refer to the death as unusual, which is the criterion for inclusion on the page. I've asked the IP to provide a source that does so, and if they can, it's definitely worth including. If I can clarify anything further, just let me know! NekoKatsun (talk) 22:56, 23 July 2018 (UTC)

You could clarify this: are you familiar with WP:3RR, and why are you referring to The Independent as a "tabloid journal[s] who regularly fling around these words for fun"? Andy Dingley (talk) 22:59, 23 July 2018 (UTC)
I was quoting the section of the Unusual Deaths talkpage that has the standards, which is why I put it in quotation marks. I am indeed familiar with 3RR, although I'm not sure why you're bringing it up? NekoKatsun (talk) 23:23, 23 July 2018 (UTC)

ANI notice[edit]

Information icon There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. — Maile (talk) 19:58, 27 July 2018 (UTC)

The ANI was not there by the time I got to it but was going to leave the following reply there. Since it contains some explanation and an apology to Andy if I seemed to be acting Bizarre I leave it here;
  • The grass skirt article had one source that was not added as an inline citation after 7 years. I redirected the page to Cultural appropriation#Costumes. An editor reverted sometime later and began a talk page discussion where they made claims about the edit and redirect; "It is also Hawaii-centric to believe that it only refers to the modern garment for tourist inspired hula since other Polynesian people and African people who wore grass skirts. If this was grass hula skirt that be a different story. I suggest deletion rather than redirect to a non-related article. " Since a redirect keeps edit history and a deletion loses it, I had preferred the redirect over the deletion. The editor attempted to add sources and content that were of passing mention of the term "Grass skirt" which I felt were merely English descriptions of cultural dress of various indigenous peoples. But it is frustrating to have this editor jump into many of the Hawaii related articles when he sees me editing and begin reverting or trying to quickly work over me. There are always going to be disputes over content but the editor has a habit of stepping in on articles I have begun editing or even created to make major changes to titles and content as I am working. Personal attacks on the talk page as well as accusations of bias have been a problem to me but my reaction just makes it worse because the two of us can just go on without end on the talk page. I personally think the term is simply not encyclopedic but I never made any remarks like the other editor that accused me of being overly sensitive by saying that they don't object to the Fu Manchu mustache article even tough it puts down their heritage. These types of comments are unjustified and have no place in the discussion and is what I felt was bizarre for sure. I have a Chinese ancestry as well so it seemed to be lobbing race around a bit too loosely on top of the accusation of censoring Wikipedia. I have a lot of respect for Andy Dingy so I apologize if they felt I was acting bizarre.
Maile above strikes me as overreacting and I will certainly say that the comment; " Mark Miller's pattern there is pretty much how he operates" is certainly not accurate And I am unsure how they could make the claim since we have really only worked on the one article. I have worked very hard over several years to improve my myself as an editor and I feel very comfortable saying that I do not have a pattern of disruption. I helped create Wikipedia:WikiProject Editor Retention, am a regular helping at the Reliable sources notice board and a mediator at WP:DRN but I know I am far from perfect. The Liluokalani article is another example where I had begun editing the article and the other editor decided to edit as well. In this particular case he requested Maile's assistance editing the article. But it seems we all had differing goals. Yes, Project Hawaii is a small project and we do encourage editors to edit subjects relating to the project but suggesting I be topic banned is hardly the answer nor is it justified. ~reply to ANI no longer filed~

At any rate, thanks for stepping in at the article and I am sorry if I created work for you or if you felt I was just being a jerk.--Mark Miller (talk) 23:25, 27 July 2018 (UTC)


Hi Andy, I won't clog wp:ukrail with a reply, so I'll do so here because it is clear that we agree on the conclusion even though we come at it different directions. By "those of us", I meant "editors who want an encyclopedia that is accessible to reasonably intelligent people from around the world who we don't want to be turned off by the first couple of lines“. The article that winds me up is Clapham Junction. I fully accept that chainage should be included in the article but just not in the lead. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 10:49, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

Even then, I don't particularly object to Clapham.
The problem is that there's no good unit for fractional miles. Quarter miles are recognisable, but quite blunt. Chains are good, but obscure (maybe why they've stayed in use?) Yards are no use at all because they're neither used by surveyors nor understood by a wide audience (who, of less than pensionable age, remembers how many yards to a mile?) Decimal miles? That's an ugly hybrid which is clear enough, but no-one uses them. Andy Dingley (talk) 11:07, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

Category:1′D1′ h3 locomotives and Category:1′D1′h3 locomotives are they different or should they be merged?[edit]

Hello Andy Dingley,

I noticed you created the 2 categories listed above and I doubt whether they should not be merged to one category.Robby (talk) 07:53, 10 August 2018 (UTC)

Duplicate - there are some with the space missing and they all ought to be renamed (eventually, not important), just for consistency. Andy Dingley (talk) 09:39, 10 August 2018 (UTC)

Missing categories[edit]

There's another missing category at Category:BB,BB n4v; I also created Category:1′Co1′ locomotives which I hope I've done right. Please can you be more careful to check whether you're creating WP:REDNOT categories, it's not really fair on the editors who have to clean up your mess, particularly as these are quite specialist categories. You might want to keep a regular eye on Special:WantedCategories. Cheers. Le Deluge (talk) 13:48, 11 August 2018 (UTC)

There's an approriate reply to that; WP:CIVIL prevents me using it. If you have a problem with my editing, then WP:ANI is over there. Andy Dingley (talk) 14:42, 11 August 2018 (UTC)

Shmurak, iwl[edit]

Not clear what's going on here, but the edits are extremely rapid-fire and widespread. --JBL (talk) 13:42, 13 August 2018 (UTC)

It's just (yet another) of the faults in wikidata. Having put no effort into designing it, and having driven away anyone with experience of such systems, they now find that there's a well-known problem of semantic mismatch which they just never saw coming. If one language calls a concept "foo" then another language might call it "fooish" (which is easy to link) but also distinguishes concepts of "fooish" and "barish" and has two separate articles on the two of them. Wikidata can't represent this, so they just delete all the old links from from "barish" to "foo" - even though the "foo" article covers that sub-topic. It's a mess, and it's much more important to them to force wikidata onto everyone else than it is to have a working encyclopedia. Andy Dingley (talk) 13:49, 13 August 2018 (UTC)

I am asking you for help[edit]

Hello Andy,

I have created an article on air-blast injection, but I don't know if it violates the tban. I suppose that some 'experts' might say so, so I want to ask an actual expert. Can I send it to you via e-mail? Several administrators didn't want to help me with this. Best regards, --Johannes Maximilian (talk) 17:36, 13 August 2018 (UTC)

Obviously an article on air-blast injection is way outside any scope for automobile. However at least one admin has told you that it is within scope, thus tbanned. Admins are omniscient and infallible, especially when it comes to later blocking you to defend their decisions (don't try to argue for an unblock on the basis that it was outside the scope of automobile - you will lose that argument). It would thus be risky for you to either post it, or to work on it later if someone else posts it for you. I strongly suggest getting the ANI closing admin to agree to you posting this first.
Of course you're at liberty to email this to me. If it's a suitable article (and I'm sure it would be) then I'd be happy to post it into article space. However you'd then still have the problem mentioned above.
TBANs are there for a reason. If you're happy to work within the problems that led to it, then I think this article might be a good basis for now appealing that TBAN. It's over a year since the ban, well over the six month date for an appeal. Andy Dingley (talk) 18:50, 13 August 2018 (UTC)