User talk:Andy Dingley
I understand your feelings, and they do you credit, but I'm not sure I agree. I did think about whether to indef the master and decided it was appropriate for a number of reasons I'd rather not go into.
Your presentation of evidence was outstanding. It's rare for a wall of text at SPI to be readable and informative. Makes my job a lot easier. One small point. You said that the rather significant article intersection between the two accounts wasn't that important and compared it to the intersection between you and Trekphiler (which I didn't attempt to verify). In this instance, it is important. You and Trekphiler have about 114K edits and 63K edits respectively. The sock has only 96.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:49, 20 June 2019 (UTC)
Can we have computer-generated fan art? It doesn't seem appropriate to me at all when photographs are available.
I really don't want to upset anyone's feelings.
Someone must have spent hours and hours in MS paint producing various livery diagrams. Hours of work, that the author would be proud of. I applaud them for their mousework.
I guess the line of least resistance is to acquiesce and give the artist free reign to insert whatever he likes, so as to not upset his feelings. But are these actually professional or informative in any way? Do they add anything to the article? Or do they detract?
- That belongs at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_UK_Railways#Continual_criticisms_by_Tony_May, not here. Andy Dingley (talk) 16:18, 24 June 2019 (UTC)
- Thanks Andy. I'm not sure it does, need discussing actually, but in a grown up way that certain users are incapable of - obviously your contributions generally are sound. I've apparently upset a few people, for various different reasons, mostly removing their poor quality contributions. I think it probably best if we leave the issue of the awful fan art for a while and let it all calm down and then have a discussion on its merits at a later date. Unfortunately the articles will look crap with them, and they may proliferate. As usual on Wikipedia, who is aggressive gets their way, and I fear if I try to start a sensible discussion on fan art it will quickly spiral into infantile personal attacks against me which will prevent the discussion of original thread. Tony May (talk) 16:30, 24 June 2019 (UTC)
|This page which includes information related to a biography of a living person is being discussed at the biographies of living persons noticeboard. Please discuss policy compliance issues there. (July 2019)|
I apologize for the language but you have to realize that the gurgel g800 page took me several hours to do and it was extremely hard to find citations. I appreciate you checking my pages but I will say that it does hurt a lot when you say something like that. Aidansteffen (talk) 20:01, 6 July 2019 (UTC)
- Something like what? That unsourced content needs sources? That's policy here: WP:V / WP:RS.
- That your Gurgel article has some unclear (and yet very obvious) points to it, such as when in the last four decades was this thing built?
- That "news" content about De Tomaso needs to be sourced too, because if it's 'news' today, then you must have read that somewhere and you should pass that on as a citation.
- Or that the Devel 16 probably is using 16 cylinders in its engine (which would be notable), but that all the other claims for the Devel are so WP:EXTRAORDINARY that they will require very robust and secondary sources before we can say so here.
- Also, BTW, describing other editors as 'dipshits' is outside WP:NPA and you're likely to end up blocked for that. Andy Dingley (talk) 20:09, 6 July 2019 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tox (Python testing wrapper) has now been closed as speedy keep/bad-faith reprisal nomination. This is not an endorsement of the article, which is not in great shape. I would recommend improving the sourcing. Stifle (talk) 09:22, 8 July 2019 (UTC)
Sorry, that was a big mistake of mine. I didn't realised until now and I regret reverting it. I forgot to restore the previously correct content back on the Opel Corsa page. I dunno why I got the two models so mixed up. --Vauxford (talk) 13:04, 10 July 2019 (UTC)
By your own admission. There was no citation to Claire Fox’s thoughts on child porn. I am surprised that you have allowed this to be added previously. As it is such a sensitive subject, it seems only natural that there is an effective citation from a very vague one attributed to the Morning Star. Antifascistprotectionrampart (talk) 00:28, 11 July 2019 (UTC)
- You deleted sourced content. There was a reference there (actually three of them), you removed it. I made no "admission" of anything.
- Her views on this have been clear (although poorly reported by most of our admittedly trashy press). Andy Dingley (talk) 00:30, 11 July 2019 (UTC)
- There is no actual sourced content. There is a vague reference, to what I am sure, was a more nuanced debate on the Moral Maze on Radio 4 (no audio). The sources and subsequent sources are based on nothing more than a recollection of a debate. If you are going to continue this slur on the site, I feel the least you could do was publish a direct quote from the original debate. Antifascistprotectionrampart (talk) 00:49, 11 July 2019 (UTC)
- The Guardian could actually make it much clearer, by attributing a quote. I can only presume that the lack of direct quotes from The Guardian as part of “our trashy press”. There is nothing in your biog of Claire Fox that, as other of the chair of The Moral Maze, she may have made an intellectual, admittedly provocative (but that is the point of the show), against censorship in all forms. As you are well aware, a reference to defence of child porn; which I am absolutely certain is not Claire Fox’s belief; is misleading in itself and betrays the “neutralism” of which you referred to in your original communication and betrays the very heart of Wikipedia’s principles. Antifascistprotectionrampart (talk) 01:05, 11 July 2019 (UTC)
A barnstar for you!Edit
|The Original Barnstar|
|Just to thank you for the magnificent reply on the Science Reference Desk regarding carbon dioxide from vinegar and baking soda (I'm not the person who asked the question, but I had to thank you regardless) Willbb234 (talk) 12:05, 15 July 2019 (UTC)|
Category:Summer kigo has been nominated for discussionEdit
Category:Summer kigo, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. —andrybak (talk) 05:11, 21 July 2019 (UTC)
GCR Class 9PEdit
Hi, re WP:HOUNDs - of the seven pages they have edited, five were created by myself; one (British Rail Class 22) has my name several times in its history; just one (Cave bear) has no involvement of mine at all. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 20:49, 25 July 2019 (UTC)- thanks for that, I wrote the passage concerned and sourced it at the time; most of the article was my work. You may not have realised, but is one of my
- I've seen their additions lately from a few IPs. Hard to call them out as absolutely wrong, but WP:COMPETENCE does require basic literacy and this isn't good enough. I've no idea how much involvement Gresley had (I know nothing about the GCR other than Peter Denny's models) but couldn't make any more sense from what they wrote. Andy Dingley (talk) 21:26, 25 July 2019 (UTC)
Why do you think WP:RS is optional for a cited source? The site owner himself says: "I am not a professional historian and have no academic qualifications in the field so please take my site as the work of an amateur enthusiast." Guy (Help!) 11:41, 26 July 2019 (UTC)
- The place to discuss this is at Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Global_ban_on_non-RS?, not here. Andy Dingley (talk) 11:52, 26 July 2019 (UTC)
You might want to refrain from talking about Jytdog, as you clearly did here. C. W. Gilmore was indeffed partly for violating his IBAN with a sitebanned editor, and Jytdog's ban had nothing to do with you and so could not by any stretch be considered to have invalidated your IBAN. Pinging User:Ivanvector who closed the IBAN discussion and User:Bishonen who proposed it. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 12:26, 26 July 2019 (UTC)
- Noting since I was pinged that I have seen this and am not taking any action. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 12:50, 26 July 2019 (UTC)
When I revert somebody's edits using the vandal rollback option, it does not automatically open their talkpage for me. Are you experiencing this issue too?
- Isn't that what it's meant to do? One of the options rolls back, the other rolls back and opens the talkpage.
- Try it. Just sit on recent changes for a bit and catch some obvious vandalism.
- I tend to not bother warning on large IP or mobile ISPs much, at least not for first offences, as they're too transitory. Andy Dingley (talk) 13:17, 26 July 2019 (UTC)
- What I am saying is that it does NOT automatically open the talkpage for me. It was working fine yesterday. CLCStudent (talk) 13:53, 26 July 2019 (UTC)
You are a good editor. I have seen your hard work on the project and I want to say I appreciate you. The editor who is coming after you is the same one who follows me and harasses me. My suggestion to you is to ignore this editor and keep going with your valuable contributions. The editor looks for areas where drama and friction occur, and I know that is not your purpose on the project. Lightburst (talk) 20:55, 26 July 2019 (UTC)
- I agree. You seem to be one of the competent editors amongst all editors that I have encountered on Wikipedia. I also really appreciate that you have helped me with "Wikipedia rehabilitation" back in Summer 2018. --Johannes (Talk) (Contribs) (Articles) 09:17, 27 July 2019 (UTC)
Your revert without giving a reasonEdit
Reverting without giving a reason is, well, at least not very polite; many consider that as vandalism.
But just as a matter of interest: The category "Twin-engined tractor aircraft" has been here during the last six years and more than 100 edits, so why haven't you changed or deleted it during that very long time ? --Uli Elch (talk) 12:02, 27 July 2019 (UTC)
- Because a moment's study of the Fairey Rotodyne will show that it doesn't belong there. It is not a fixed wing aircraft, it is an (admittedly obscure) derivative of rotary wing aircraft, i.e. helicopters.
- If you think it's vandalism, then take it to ANI. But WP:COMPETENCE is required, and if you're going to do these massive and previously contentious categorisation runs, then the BURDEN is on you to get it right, and certainly not to complain too loudly when someone else has to clean up your errors. Andy Dingley (talk) 12:22, 27 July 2019 (UTC)
- "errors" (plural) might have to be proven by you, and if you quote WP:COMPETENCE please note:
Be cautious when referencing this page, particularly when involved in a dispute with another editor, as it could be considered a personal attack.
- But you appear to be unwilling or unable to answer my question: Why do you make such a noise just now instead of quietly correcting it between 2013 and now - during more than 100 edits you left it undisputed. When looking at that as a neutral observer someone else might think of possible Wikipedia:Hounding. --Uli Elch (talk) 12:32, 27 July 2019 (UTC)
Someone evidently missed these Tweets... the whole 'crowdfunded private prosecution' lark made even your own favourite Twitter QC (an actual legal professional) embarrassed!
"Marcus Ball should never have brought that case which has no realistic prospect of succeeding and I implore people not to waste their money on it and whatever Marcus takes from it." (25 Mar 2019)
18.104.22.168 (talk) 05:08, 28 July 2019 (UTC)
Notice of Dispute resolution noticeboard discussionEdit
This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult for editors. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help this dispute come to a resolution. The discussion is about the topic TERF. Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you! — Æµ§œš¹ [lɛts b̥iː pʰəˈlaɪˀt] 16:31, 28 July 2019 (UTC)
Raising in relation to allegations at Talk:Jessica Yaniv genital waxing case and Talk:British_Columbia_Human_Rights_Tribunal#Proposed_merge_with_Jessica_Yaniv_genital_waxing_case --Fæ (talk) 23:43, 3 August 2019 (UTC)
Isle of Man Railway locomotivesEdit
Hi Andy. I realise you have a dislike for the Whyte template. But your edit summary when you reverted my change to Isle of Man Railway locomotives "Restore links to the specific topic, not these vague and less useful targets" is inaccurate. Both 2-4-0T and 2-4-0 T link to the same article, so I'm not sure how this could be described as a "vague and less useful target"? Railfan23 (talk) 21:47, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
- I hadn't checked those two specifically, but my understanding was that for most of the tank loco articles we either had two separate articles, or (mostly) two clear sections within an article. The tank redir can thus go to a more specific target – and the Whyte template breaks that.
- Looking at these, that's not working here. So if you want to revert it, go for it. I still think the redir is a better link (because we can improve its target, and not have to go back and change the links), but then much the same thing could be said about the template. However as it is, I hate that template implementation. Andy Dingley (talk) 21:59, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
Yes, I perfectly understand what you are saying, but the problem with your edit is that the sources you are referring to are not stating that it WAS 'Burevestnik' that exploded. They are just ASSUMING it was "Burevestnik" based on some intelligence data (satellite imagery with the launching site similar to the old one) and a general distrust towards Russian officials, which, of course, is not misplaced in many cases, but is still not a sufficient reason for putting something in Wikipedia. At least, in my opinion. My solution to this problem would be strictly following the official information and then, if overwhelming proof of the opposite is provided, making the required edits. And I also don't agree with you on the "offensive" part, because those who are willing to be offended, will be. Besides, I don't quite understand how you can edit something on Wikipedia, not being at least somewhat familiar with the topic, because confusing RITEG with a nuclear reactor is just not serious. Also, your definition of "trusted" source is somewhat vague. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nicholas Velasquez (talk • contribs) 17:42, 10 August 2019 (UTC)
- This might be better in one place, at the 9M730 Burevestnik talk: page.
- This is not perfect. But it is how we work. It is clearly better than a lot of voices all shouting "I know more about this topic than you do!" because that's what we'd have otherwise. If you discuss the issue, then a lot more progress can be made.
- I do not know what the accident was. I do not know what the Burevestnik is. I do not know if it was Burevestnik which exploded. I certainly do not trust Russian news media, either for technical accuracy in translation, nor for simple honesty and lack of bias. I have yet to hear anything from Bellona, who I would trust rather more. I do not believe the story that James Bond blew it up, mostly because I no longer believe in the UK capacity to do such a thing.
- I too have no idea how you power a cruise missile with an isotope source. But then, given how difficult it proved to be in the 1950s, I don't know how you do one with a reactor either.
- My comment re keeping and correcting those references, as we learn more, rather than simply dismissing them immediately would still stand. Mostly because we have to think of our audience: many readers are likely to come to this article because of the Gruadian and like articles (Just look at the pageviews spiking). We have to answer their questions, even when they're not related. At the most extreme, sometimes our role here is to debunk falsehoods more than simply giving a truth. Andy Dingley (talk) 17:52, 10 August 2019 (UTC)
Burevestnik, last version.Edit
- And now, because you posted here rather than at the talk: page, another editor has undone it all. That's why discussions like this belong on article talk pages, where they're clearly visible to all concerned. Andy Dingley (talk) 09:41, 11 August 2019 (UTC)
What you are basically saying is "I don't know what I am editing, I just grab the sources and throw them at readers". Well, I think I am missing the point of Wikipedia then, because all that time I thought it was something more than a news aggregator. Of course, I am not saying you have to be an expert in the field, or possess a technical degree in order to make edits there, but even the most basic research into the topic would have spared you of the embarrassing mistake of confusing a RITEG with a nuclear reactor. But, anyway, your latest edit is quite pretty, so enough with that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nicholas Velasquez (talk • contribs) 18:31, 10 August 2019 (UTC) There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Amisom (talk) 14:03, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_UK_Railways#(draft)_RFC_on_the_use_on_livery_art_and_other_editor-constructed_diagrams_in_articles. Please help complete it or tell me if I'm missing key issues. Dicklyon (talk) 15:12, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
- If Dickylon is doing this well then I don't need to involve myself too much. Tony May (talk) 15:17, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
- You might be the strongest or only voice on one side of the question, so your participation could be valuable. Please help complete the RFC if interested. I will be studiously neutral on these questions, since I can't see supporting either one of you at this point. Dicklyon (talk) 15:21, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
Thank you for your comments on the pages I added content to. You mentioned copyright violations. If you look at my email, I actually work for Tektronix, so I have permission to quote directly as a source. A lot of the information I was trying to add was to breakdown the exiting information on the pages (such as Multimeter , Oscilloscope , and Signal Generator ) Would you like me to rephrase the information instead and then cite it via footnotes? Thanks again! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Laurendevera (talk • contribs) 17:45, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
Perhaps you could help me with my sockpuppet query?Edit
You have accused me of calling multiple people sockpuppets. I'm happy to confirm to you, that this, like most of the basis of your unnecessarily confrontational attitude towards me, is not the case.
I have raised concerns about one editor. I'm not used to dealing with this sort of thing, I don't even know how to file a request for a sockpuppet check. So I'd like to confirm what you would think about an editor who has (1) made about 11 total edits, 10 of those in December 2018 - 9 of which were in the article namespace and 1 of which was in the Template namespace, and who (2) suddenly shows up into a comment on a talk page of a minor article and posts a message about content. I will of course assume in good faith, that he's not your sockpuppet. Am I right in thinking I should therefore accept and stretch my good faith to consider that this arrangement was entirely coincidental?
Would you be kind enough to withdraw your comment that I have been "attacking/accusing multiple editors of being sockpuppets" because it is simply not true. I have raised tentative concerns about one editor, which I admit may be wrong, and I am trying to stick to policy and content discussions. I'd be glad if you were to try to stick to truths rather than personally attack me.
I'd be grateful if you could please also limit yourself to the discussion of the point I have raised, and not try to deflect the issue by taking the discussion off on an unnecessary tangent. Tony May (talk) 14:54, 22 August 2019 (UTC)