User talk:Andy Dingley

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


Archives[edit]

/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

Your Revert on M4 Sherman[edit]

Hi Andy.

Can you please explain your revert of my edit on this page. As it stands you look to have restored some incorrect information that I removed.

The pages as it stands suggests:

  1. The US used the M10 Wolverine
  2. The British used the 17pdr Achilles, and not the 3in M10

There are a number of problems with this statement:

  1. The M10 was never called the "Wolverine", either by the US or the British. It's a post-war invention of dubious origin and shouldn't be used in an encyclopedia
  2. The British used two versions of the M10: the basic 3in M10 (officially: "3in SP M10 Achilles") and the 17pdr M10C ("17pdr SP M10C Achilles"). Officially both versions were called the Achilles, but this name wasn't in widespread use during the war.

My edit cleared up this whole mess by simply stating that the M10 tank destroyer (all versions) was based on the M4 chassis, without any of the misnomers and confusion. I realise that the whole M10 = Wolverine, 17pdr M10 = Achilles misconception is really, really widespread but Wikipedia is exactly the kind of place we should be clearing up these kinds of common misconceptions. Thanks. 2p0rk (talk) 18:44, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

Superheater[edit]

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

Track gauge categories[edit]

re your reversal [1] and similar ones. In the es you refer to "per our policy for lead articles in eponymous categories". However, this categorisation is not putting the eponymous article in the eponymous category. (The eponymous category is Category:10¼ in gauge railways, which is served OK). It is putting the article in the parent category. For this, WP:CAT#Eponymous categories is not set in stone but it offers three options: in cat parent, child, or both. I prefer the third one (article only in eponymous cat), as in the container category it would add no extra. (As we did not do in this category, for example). -DePiep (talk) 07:09, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

This is an old, old issue. For eponymous categories with a clear lead article, the primary categorization belongs on the article not the category. This gives readers a navigational structure at Category:Miniature railways by size where the list of pages offers useful navigation.
The eponymous category should be categorized too, but only in those which has a primary role for it. Andy Dingley (talk) 09:21, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
What is "primary categorization"? What is "Categorization ... on"? -DePiep (talk) 13:51, 19 June 2016 (UTC)
Please. -DePiep (talk) 19:15, 3 July 2016 (UTC)
For lead articles in eponymous categories, categorization should be applied to the article, not the category. Apply all the categories which make sense, per our normal practices.
For the eponymous category itself, apply those categories where it would be an omission to not include them. These categories will almost always also be applied to the article.
In many cases, there is no need to apply all of the article categories to the category. Only if there is a useful navigational structure by this, or if the category would be an obvious omission, are they needed. Usually this means that one or two of the most important categories for the article are used.
DO NOT simply place the lead article in the eponymous category, strip all other categories and then categorise the category alone. This confuses readers: they look for an article in categories where they expect to find it, then when it is not there they do not realise they need to look for categories too. Andy Dingley (talk) 19:51, 3 July 2016 (UTC)
You are patronising (and not answering my Q: What is "primary categorization"? What is "Categorization ... on"?).
My actual point is: OK for article to be in the eponymous cat. But. As WP:EPONYMOUS says: "There are three options: ...". That is my question about: you do not respond to the actual options. -DePiep (talk) 22:58, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

A barnstar for you![edit]

Barnstar of Reversion Hires.png The Anti-Vandalism Barnstar
Thank you for reverting the vandal who undos my recent edits. Sro23 (talk) 15:29, 1 July 2016 (UTC)
Thanks! Getting a bit tired of it though, after three years of Europefan Andy Dingley (talk) 16:47, 1 July 2016 (UTC)

Suspension bridge[edit]

I have restored the latest edit by the Faust Vrančić sock. The image being replaced is more of a cable-stayed design (with the deck having to withstand compression forces longitudinally) than a pure suspension bridge. The new image is of a pure suspension bridge and is a much more appropriate image. I have verified that the image caption is accurate (it is his work and it was published in 1595). Please consider this my edit now rather than an edit by a block evading sock. Meters (talk) 00:48, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

Locomotives pictures[edit]

Ljungström locomotive (Wonder Book of Engineering Wonders, 1931).jpg

Do you happen to have more of these? Thanks for uploading! Chicbyaccident (talk) 11:47, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

There were some more, but they were all deleted from Commons. I don't use Commons any more.
Doug Self's "Loco loco" website is worth a look. Andy Dingley (talk) 12:01, 8 July 2016 (UTC)
Why were they deleted? Chicbyaccident (talk) 12:51, 8 July 2016 (UTC)
I annoyed someone on Wikipediocracy, so they had their admin friends go after me. Andy Dingley (talk) 14:23, 8 July 2016 (UTC)
Oh. Sorry. Chicbyaccident (talk) 19:24, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

Balkan[edit]

Why are you constantly dedicating yourself from preventing the balkan region from receiving credit for inventions. You are a biggot and fascist. O12j3x (talk) 14:34, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

Not to mention you are reverting edits on other cultures to keep dubious and unsourced claims under their Category. It's sickening O12j3x (talk) 14:36, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

You are a sock of Filipz123 (talk · contribs). If you are not, then make the case at WP:SPI/Filipz123. As a sock of a banned user, you don't get to make any edits. Andy Dingley (talk) 14:39, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

I don't know what you are talking about. I just registered to Wikipedia I don't know what you mean by make a case. For what? What is going on? — Preceding unsigned comment added by O12j3x (talkcontribs) 14:43, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

You have serious personal issues[edit]

Looking at your talk page here with all the other posts of people upset at your demeanor, it's all too evident that you have serious personal issues. Does agitating wiki contributors by removing their educational contributions give you some sort of sick pleasure?

You senselessly removed my post on the Graphite page while offering only this explanation: "This is worse than it was when added"

If you can't make useful contributions and don't have a life of your own, then look for it elsewhere outside Wikipedia, and refrain from harassing others who are sane and helpful contributors. You apparently don't even know how to make a meaningful sentence based on your comment. Who put you in charge of editing? (The shaman poet (talk) 00:50, 11 July 2016 (UTC))

You added this section twice in 2014 [2] "repaired undo done by ignorance". It was promptly removed by Vsmith (an editor who is familiar with mineralogy) both times. You've now waited a while and just re-added it again. This is very slow, but it's still heading to edit-warring. The section added yesterday wasn't even as good as the original section, as it had lost the links. It was still unsourced. It still had the glaringly misleadingly opening "being composed mainly of the same element". This was just not an addition strong enough to stand. And did I mention that it was completely unsourced? See also your new unsourced article at [3].
As it happens, I agree with you. A section comparing diamond to graphite would be a good thing. I would like to see you re-add this section, as it was originally with the links, with sourcing (it is not hard to source this stuff), and with only a few edits to the text. As it has been removed repeatedly by separate editors though, you're going to have to discuss this through the article talk page first. As noted, I would support having this section, but it needs to be a better section.
As to your comments here, then how's that working out for you? You're reverted, and not for the first time, so you turn on the editor doing it. Way to go! And now you're going to be looking for support for this section over at the article? Would you expect me to still support its addition in that case? (of course I will, it would be an improvement to the article, see Talk:Graphite#Comparison w/ diamond). Why are you calling yourself a "shaman" when you are so attached to ego? Andy Dingley (talk) 08:40, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

In response[edit]

I've been away for a while, particularly cause Vsmith also agitated me as you did for not using his head, where ever it was stuck up in! Don't look over other people's shoulder when making decisions and learn to think independently.

As for providing sources, you apparently didn't get good quality education if you think sourcing is required for making comparisons. That's called analytical thinking. Make a note of it. The facts stated within the comparisons are in the Diamond and Graphite articles. Why are you so clueless?

Please do the right thing and replace my contribution. It is not meant for my ego. It was meant to intrigue the reader about the vast contrasts or natural irony created by the mineral's environment of formation, as was stated. (The shaman poet (talk) 02:39, 12 July 2016 (UTC))

There are a lot of problems with your approach here, at that article, and at Common Misconceptions. The concepts and the agreed approaches here to WP:V, WP:OR and WP:SYNTH are just the beginning of it. Your style of editing, where "[no] sourcing is required for making comparisons." is not how we have chosen to work here.
Also you are way into WP:NPA territory. You've been blocked for that before, I expect to see you blocked for it again before long. I have a thick skin, others don't. Andy Dingley (talk) 09:02, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

You just proved my point that you are not fit for editing by offering distractions rather than addressing the issues at hand. Obviously, it is your ego that is creating a conflict, not mine. As I pointed out in the beginning, You have issues with a lot of people here. Not just skin, you also have a thick skull!

I'll leave you to your self pleasure. — Preceding unsigned comment added by The shaman poet (talkcontribs) 00:26, 15 July 2016 (UTC)


S.T.A.L.K.E.R.: Shadow of Chernobyl[edit]

I'm not going to get into an edit war over a dumb category, that would be silly of me. But it WAS removed by socks: see [4], [5] etc. But if consensus is to remove than I will leave it alone. Sro23 (talk) 12:26, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

Likewise. But I can't objectively justify it being there and if another GF editor wants it gone, I'm happy with that. I haven't looked to see when it was added, but it was there in 2014. BTW - Special:CentralAuth/Yoho66 for another incarnation of everyone's favourite hosiery. Andy Dingley (talk) 14:25, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

Hendersons[edit]

Just added a note to the talk page about hendos - it seems we are both right, there are versions of the slogan with the "a" and versions without! Not sure how that should be represented on the page. Auto98uk (talk) 21:31, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

6502 home computers as microprocessors[edit]

Categorizing systems that use the 6502 under the category for those processors is a bad idea for the obvious reason I had for my edits. And I did not edit-war with you, as per WP:3RR, which states "An editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page—whether involving the same or different material—within a 24-hour period." As you can see, only one revert was performed by me in a 24-hour period: [6]. L9G45AT0 (talk) 18:52, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

The application is a subset of the processor. Making the processor a subset of the application implies that the only function of the processor is to be used for that one application. Andy Dingley (talk) 21:17, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

The West Country Challenge[edit]

I presume you have heard about The West Country Challenge?

The The West Country Challenge will take place from 8 to 28 August 2016. The idea is to create and improve articles about Bristol, Somerset, Devon, Cornwall and the Isles of Scilly, Dorset, Wiltshire and Gloucestershire.

The format will be based on Wales's successful Awaken the Dragon which saw over 1000 article improvements and creations and 65 GAs/FAs. As with the Dragon contest, the focus is more on improving core articles and breathing new life into those older stale articles and stubs which might otherwise not get edited in years. All contributions, including new articles, are welcome though.

Work on any of the items at:

or other articles relating to the area.

There will be sub contests focusing on particular areas:

To sign up or get more information visit the contest pages at Wikipedia:WikiProject England/The West Country Challenge.— Rod talk 17:17, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

A cupcake for you![edit]

Choco-Nut Bake with Meringue Top cropped.jpg Hi! your message lead me towards here :) and yes WP is all about users, its like "What we do makes us learn", and this is what inspire me again and again to do WP editing, and to share knowledge and to dig more to know more. :)

Here a yummy one for you. keep WP-ing up! Cheers :))))) Abhidwip (talk) 07:14, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

Understanding Z80 and ZX Spectrum[edit]

Thanks for pointing me at WP:ENGVAR -- I'd like to clear up the Z80 and ZX Spectrum articles accordingly... the ZX Spectrum one has a UK pronunciation marked as such. How do I generate those and how best to add it to the ZX Spectrum article, given it is a point of contention? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mattl (talkcontribs) 17:26, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

I don't think anything needs to be added to either. The ZX Spectrum is strongly UK-based, the Z80 is international (most were made in Japan). I'm not seeing a pressing need to add pronunciation to any of these, as they're hardly difficult, but I wouldn't argue if someone has already added it to the Speccie. I can't see any need to add a US pronunciation to an article on a UK computer. Andy Dingley (talk) 18:38, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

Pratt & Whitney R-4360[edit]

Hello,

Thanks for correcting this apparent error [7]. It appears that Clue bot previously reverted this same edit by this same IP [8]. So, I figured Clue bot was correct. I guess not ---Steve Quinn (talk) 02:07, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

Use of they/them for an organisation[edit]

G'day, I can easily find scholarly references for the use of "they" in its various forms in referring to an organization in spoken English - and do it myself all the time. I cannot find references stating it is acceptable in written English and can find plenty stating that it is not; in other words, "them" and its variants is colloquial English. If you can find somewhere that states we write in colloquial English, or that "them" is acceptable in formal English, I will happily stop spending time making the change. Just as an aside, apparently the Financial Times invariably uses "it" when describing organisations. YSSYguy (talk) 01:41, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

We use British English, and this article is about British English in the 1950s. "Napiers" were always referred to (per COMMONNAME) in the plural (that's not a possessive), about as much as "Rolls-Royce" (originally a partnership) were always phrased as singular. If you think of what the term "a company" means, its plural origin is obvious, even though seen as anachronistic today. For reliable descriptions on Napiers' products at this time, such as from Flight, the plural form is the one commonly used. I'm not claiming that this is universal for companies, or even for companies of that period, but it is how some companies (Napiers, Armstrongs) were commonly referred to.
But I see you've already proceeded to Bold-Revert-Edit war it again-Lecture. It's not "Discussion" if you've already reinstated your change anyway. Andy Dingley (talk) 09:33, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
As you can see from the diff and my edit summary, there was more to the edit than "them-vs-it", and the sentence "They moved to Lambeth, South London in 1830" might well have referred to the family Napier and not the company. I was genuinely surprised that anyone would undo such an edit. "A company" is a collective singular, like a flock, a mob or a herd, a herd of cattle is one gathering of bovine mammals (actually "bovine mammals" seems somewhat appropriate - here we are arguing over them-vs-it, what a first world problem; feel free to change it back, but turboprop engines are definitely not used in helicopters and there is one sentence in the article which was rendered "Napier was...their..." which is having it both ways). YSSYguy (talk) 14:31, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

Night soil[edit]

I'm interested in your recent statement on the Science RefDesk:

Victorian dustbinmen (at least in Britain) didn't collect night soil. They were two separate trades, and turf was fought over. Particularly in South Bristol, where night soil was something of a local specialty trade (Night soil from the whole city went out through Bedminster, towards the market gardening areas beyond.)

Do you have sources for this? As I mentioned, I've been working on the toilet-related articles, and more information would be handy. Thanks! Carbon Caryatid (talk) 13:45, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

I knew there was a reason I stalked Andy's page! I saw a documentary a while ago on the building and development of the Leeds-Liverpool Canal (and the moving of nightsoil out from Liverpool). A google search produced some interesting articles, here, here, and finally here. Interesting stuff on demand, economics, quantity etc. I was also reminded of a cesspit emptying tanker I used to see regularly on the road between Malmesbury and Swindon which had two bumper stickers: "You dump, we pump" and "No jobbie too big or too small". Robevans123 (talk) 15:16, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Oh, Liverpool? And haulage in North Liverpool, especially relating to cabbages? In which case I probably had a distant uncle or two with a hand in it. One of them invented the Brussels sprout (the first practical commercially growable sprout in West Lancashire. "Spencer's Supreme" or something). Most of them were some sort of scrap merchant / demolition. Yes, the one on the Irish side was a horse trader, and one was a copper. Like your very own domestic Peaky Blinders, but with different accents. Andy Dingley (talk) 15:30, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Not for years I'm afraid. Somewhere in Victorian Bristol's court reports there are a series of appearances for an extended family who "owned" the Bristol nightsoil trade and made good money from it. They were violent to any other nightsoil collectors, or those who weren't either part of their gang or were paying the appropriate rake off. For reasons, probably rooted in medieval Bristol, it was forbidden to take night soil through the gates of the city. Except that (as was always the case for Bristol) the part of the city South of the Avon and the harbour was controlled by the bishop of Bath and Wells instead, and had its own rules. So Bedminster developed the trade which the snooty main city North of the harbour didn't want. This in turn encouraged / was encouraged by the development of market gardening and smallholdings on the flatter land out towards Dundry.
Dustmen in Bristol seem to have been based on the back of the old harbour, around Castle Green and Temple Meads. Much of it was collected by boat, sorted in yards around Old Market, then the ashes part of it moved up the Avon to brickworks around Hanham and Kingswood. These bricks never had the same reputation for strength as the high quality bricks from Cattybrook! (If looking on old maps, note that a "pottery" around Bristol usually meant a tile works or brick works, not other pottery vessels.)
I came across this stuff around 2000, when there were projects to digitise many old paper records, such as court records. They ended up with one of the museum bodies in Bristol, probably the records office in the vast brick warehouse out by the Create Centre. Or the M Shed Museum might know - but I rather cut my ties with Bristol Museums when the Industrial Museum was closed. Andy Dingley (talk) 15:25, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
Thanks both for your responses. I'm reading Living in Liverpool: fascinating, and I never would have found it, but for your tip. Too bad teh Bristol material languishes in store-rooms. Carbon Caryatid (talk) 18:47, 26 July 2016 (UTC)