User talk:Andy Dingley

Page contents not supported in other languages.
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.


/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
/Archive 2018
/Archive 2019
/Archive 2020
/Archive 2021
/Archive 2022
/Archive 2023

Andy... again?! after all this time? Riventree (talk) 23:49, 8 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of
Bridge rail
for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article

Bridge rail is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bridge rail until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article.

Rolls-Royce C Range Diesels

Hi Andy

You may remember some years ago (2015?) we had a conversation about the correct title for Rolls-Royce C type diesels - "Range" or "Series". I did mange to find a photo on the www of an RR engine makes plate. This shows that they are "C Range". You can find the photo on the following page:

Regards Bruce

Internally riffled boiler tubes

A tag has been placed on

section R3 of the criteria for speedy deletion
, because it is a recently created redirect from an implausible typo or misnomer, or other unlikely search term.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by

visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines

New Page Patrol newsletter October 2022

Hello Andy Dingley,

Much has happened since the last newsletter over two months ago. The open letter finished with 444 signatures. The letter was sent to several dozen people at the WMF, and we have heard that it is being discussed but there has been no official reply. A related article appears in the current issue of The Signpost. If you haven't seen it, you should, including the readers' comment section.

Awards: Barnstars were given for the past several years (thanks to MPGuy2824), and we are now all caught up. The 2021 cup went to John B123 for leading with 26,525 article reviews during 2021. To encourage moderate activity, a new "Iron" level barnstar is awarded annually for reviewing 360 articles ("one-a-day"), and 100 reviews earns the "Standard" NPP barnstar. About 90 reviewers received barnstars for each of the years 2018 to 2021 (including the new awards that were given retroactively). All awards issued for every year are listed on the Awards page. Check out the new Hall of Fame also.

Software news: Novem Linguae and MPGuy2824 have connected with WMF developers who can review and approve patches, so they have been able to fix some bugs, and make other improvements to the Page Curation software. You can see everything that has been fixed recently here. The reviewer report has also been improved.

NPP backlog May – October 15, 2022


  • There is much enthusiasm over the low backlog, but remember that the "quality and depth of patrolling are more important than speed".
  • Reminder: an article should not be tagged for any kind of deletion for a minimum of 15 minutes after creation and it is often appropriate to wait an hour or more. (from the NPP tutorial)
  • Reviewers should focus their effort where it can do the most good, reviewing articles. Other clean-up tasks that don't require advanced permissions can be left to other editors that routinely improve articles in these ways (creating Talk Pages, specifying projects and ratings, adding categories, etc.) Let's rely on others when it makes the most sense. On the other hand, if you enjoy doing these tasks while reviewing and it keeps you engaged with NPP (or are guiding a newcomer), then by all means continue.
  • This user script puts a link to the feed in your top toolbar.


Saving the best for last: From a July low of 8,500, the backlog climbed back to 11,000 in August and then reversed in September dropping to below 6,000 and continued falling with the October backlog drive to under 1,000, a level not seen in over four years. Keep in mind that there are 2,000 new articles every week, so the number of reviews is far higher than the backlog reduction. To keep the backlog under a thousand, we have to keep reviewing at about half the recent rate!

  • Newsletter feedback - please take this
    short poll
    about the newsletter.
  • If you're interested in instant messaging and chat rooms, please join us on the New Page Patrol Discord, where you can ask for help and live chat with other patrollers.
  • Please add the project discussion page to your watchlist.
  • If you are no longer very active on Wikipedia or you no longer wish to be a reviewer, please ask any admin to remove you from the group. If you want the tools back again, just ask at PERM.
  • To opt out of future mailings, please remove yourself here.

New Pages Patrol newsletter January 2023

Hello Andy Dingley,

New Page Review queue December 2022

The October drive reduced the backlog from 9,700 to an amazing 0! Congratulations to WaddlesJP13 who led with 2084 points. See this page for further details. The queue is steadily rising again and is approaching 2,000. It would be great if <2,000 were the “new normal”. Please continue to help out even if it's only for a few or even one patrol a day.

2022 Awards

Onel5969 won the 2022 cup for 28,302 article reviews last year - that's an average of nearly 80/day. There was one Gold Award (5000+ reviews), 11 Silver (2000+), 28 Iron (360+) and 39 more for the 100+ barnstar. Rosguill led again for the 4th year by clearing 49,294 redirects. For the full details see the Awards page and the Hall of Fame. Congratulations everyone!

Minimum deletion time: The previous

WP:BLAR). Due to complaints, a consensus decided to raise the time to 1 hour. To illustrate this, very new pages in the feed
are now highlighted in red. (As always, this is not applicable to attack pages, copyvios, vandalism, etc.)

New draftify script: In response to feedback from AFC, the The Move to Draft script now provides a choice of set messages that also link the creator to a new, friendly explanation page. The script also warns reviewers if the creator is probably still developing the article. The former script is no longer maintained. Please edit your edit your common.js or vector.js file from User:Evad37/MoveToDraft.js to User:MPGuy2824/MoveToDraft.js

Redirects: Some of our redirect reviewers have reduced their activity and the backlog is up to 9,000+ (two months deep). If you are interested in this distinctly different task and need any help, see


Discussions with the WMF The

revamping the landing pages
that new users see.

  • Newsletter feedback - please take this
    short poll
    about the newsletter.
  • There is live chat with patrollers on the New Page Patrol Discord.
  • Please add the project discussion page to your watchlist.
  • If you no longer wish to be a reviewer, please ask any admin to remove you from the group. If you want the tools back again, just ask at PERM.
  • To opt out of future mailings, please remove yourself here.

New Pages Patrol newsletter June 2023

Hello Andy Dingley,

New Page Review queue April to June 2023


Redirect drive: In response to an unusually high redirect backlog, we held a redirect backlog drive in May. The drive completed with 23851 reviews done in total, bringing the redirect backlog to 0 (momentarily). Congratulations to Hey man im josh who led with a staggering 4316 points, followed by Meena and Greyzxq with 2868 and 2546 points respectively. See this page for more details. The redirect queue is steadily rising again and is steadily approaching 4,000. Please continue to help out, even if it's only for a few or even one review a day.

Redirect autopatrol: All administrators without autopatrol have now been added to the redirect autopatrol list. If you see any users who consistently create significant amounts of good quality redirects, consider requesting redirect autopatrol for them here.

WMF work on PageTriage: The

when we are ready for beta testers.

Articles for Creation (AFC): All new page reviewers are now automatically approved for Articles for Creation draft reviewing (you do not need to apply at

AFC helper script, visit Special:Preferences, visit the Gadgets tab, tick "Yet Another AFC Helper Script", then click "Save". To find drafts to review, visit Special:NewPagesFeed
, and at the top left, tick "Articles for Creation". To review a draft, visit a submitted draft, click on the "More" menu, then click "Review (AFCH)". You can also comment on and submit drafts that are unsubmitted using the script.

You can review the AFC workflow at

draftspace is optional
, so moves of drafts to mainspace (even if they are not ready) should not be reverted, except possibly if there is conflict of interest.

Pro tip: Did you know that visual artists such as painters have their own

4b (solo exhibition, not group exhibition, at a major museum) or 4d (being represented within the permanent collections of two museums).


Maersk Hangzhou has an RfC for possible consensus. A discussion is taking place. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments on the discussion page. Thank you.

re [1] - I don't think the commons link is useful, since not every photo in this Commons category will show this type of girder. I would encourage you to create a new, more specific, Commons category there instead. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 21:44, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Andy. My apologies - I triggered the 3RR when removing the facebook sourced material and I rolled back my own edit after the summary got mangled. See my entry on the talk page. Springnuts (talk) 12:25, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

One could argue if this is currently 2RR or 5RR. But you're certainly edit-warring. All on an article where a 1RR restriction might too be argued as being in place. Andy Dingley (talk) 12:37, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, fair point. The original revert was of the IP edits when the status was changed to “on fire” and then the tense changed to “was a ship …”. I failed to notice that your edits were more nuanced. Time will tell whether this news is true or not. Springnuts (talk) 13:11, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I’m not seeing any RS of anything at all actually having happened here - just a bare assertion picked up and repeated (and overlinked). Do you still feel that this is noteworthy? Springnuts (talk) 14:25, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Why would you expect any updates? Levchenko is still at sea (burning or not) and no-one outside will know until she's back to Severmorsk. At which point this uncertainty collapses to either confirming the fire, or giving a slant on fake Ukrainian propaganda (which isn't something they've used so far). But as yet, we don't know, and there's no change since the first news. Andy Dingley (talk) 16:20, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I minded to ask for a third-party opinion about whether this information should be in the article at the moment. Would you find that helpful? Springnuts (talk) 16:33, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Andy Dingley, you obviously feel very strongly that this should stay in the article: what do you think about a third opinion? Springnuts (talk) 15:53, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You would always be at liberty to seek one.
But your repeated deletions of this have argued it on the basis of inadequate sourcing, which is untrue. The sourcing needs two sources to be cited, the primary one from Pletenchuk and a competent secondary commentary on that. The Kyiv Independent is entirely adequate for that. We don't even need all the others that were added, they simply duplicate this.
We still don't know the state of the ship. Not that we can't reliably source a rumour, we just have no idea at all. There (AFAIK) has been no further comment made from either Ukraine or Russia. A lack of denial from Russia (even AFAIK on Russian Telegram) is surprising, if it's really unaffected or the fire was minor. But as yet, still we just don't know. Until we do know, we shouldn't make major changes to this content, in either way.
The point is that the Pletenchuk claim is still significant enough to belong here, whether it's true or false. It isn't even the first major Russian ship fire, but as a piece of black propaganda from Ukraine it would be exceptional if it turns out to be a false claim. Obviously a major edit would be needed, but only if it turns up soon without any fire damage!
If you think that the claim is false (which is pure
WP:OR) then I wouldn't object if you added that. Once we have any indications one way or the other, we certainly should. But what we can't do is undo the statements that have happened so far. Andy Dingley (talk) 20:24, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply

The redirect Red Flag (nuclear weapon) has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Anyone, including you, is welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 June 23 § Red Flag (nuclear weapon) until a consensus is reached. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 13:04, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]