User talk:Andy Dingley/Archive 2009 July

Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, we would like to remind you not to

When you're warned about making personal attacks, it's not a good idea to make more personal attacks. The article, when proposed for deletion, had exactly one reference which was in reference to the author dying of cancer. It was tagged for an entire year as needing more references. To call such an unsourced article's nomination for deletion "trolling" is ridiculous. 69.253.207.9 (talk) 04:47, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Mikerichi,

First of all, familiarise yourself with policy. We fix things by editing them before we delete them. We only delete if we can't fix them by editing.

Swells has been notable for 25 years (back to the early career as a

ranting poet

). Maybe the article didn't demonstrate this owing to lack of obvious sourcing, but that's a minor problem that can be fixed by adding references to it (Did you attempt to do this? No.) The subject's evident notability should be obvious to you, given the response to your AfD. You might also note that the article does now include adequate supporting references.

Your claim "death doesn't confer notability" is an obvious non-sequitur. Of course it doesn't, but neither does death remove notability from other aspects. Apart from which, have you AfD'ed Michael Jackson yet?

You appear to have some long-standing grudge against both Swells and a US soccer fan club. His death was an opportunity_(sic) for you to attempt to delete this article, by each and every of the means you could see for doing so. Even if this was such a ridiculous action that it attracted outside press comment! (not a first for wiki trolls, but itself rare enough to be notable)

You're also running what appear to be 3 IPSocks to do this. Quite obvious IPSocks too, although Checkuser on the Mikerichi account would be interesting.

Please, stop trolling the Swells article and learn to behave. Your actions have been repeatedly rebuffed by the community consensus, it isn't working. Andy Dingley (talk) 09:38, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You started a discussion around the above image and its Fair Use rationale, on the talk page of the

EdJogg (talk) 23:18, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Replied at the talk page of the Standard Class 4 article. Mjroots (talk) 11:25, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

[This edit] removed another editor's comments. You may wish to refactor that. ThuranX (talk) 17:21, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

thanks for spotting it - user:Big Bird seems to have fixed it already. Andy Dingley (talk) 17:45, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent comment has been removed from my talkpage. I'd like to know why that was directed at me, because I have never edited that article. sixtynine ^{• spill it •} 00:24, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think that would be this edit. Andy Dingley (talk) 00:26, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have nominated Category:Metalworking abrasives (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) for merging into Category:Abrasive (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs). Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at the discussion page. Thank you. Wizard191 (talk) 13:22, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have nominated Category:Woodworking abrasives (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) for merging into Category:Abrasives (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs). Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at the discussion page. Thank you. Wizard191 (talk) 13:27, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"Gravity Mill" under that exact name, is a form of perpetual motion machine that has been described for around 300 years. It is a highly notable piece of historical pseudo-science. It worked_(sic) in exactly the same way as this example, although on a less cosmic scale.

The question remains as to whether this particular example is to be considered the same thing as the historical machine. If it isn't, the article should go. If it is the same, it deserves expansion and preservation. If (as appears likely anyway) it might deserve expansion but won't receive it, then it should likewise go, but for a different reason. Andy Dingley (talk) 14:50, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The article specifies the object is in orbit, so I don't really think it's the same thing!- (User) Wolfkeeper (Talk) 15:21, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, the Bodging page is looking really good now. Blackash (talk) 07:10, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

FC pencils and paints and whatnot may not be luxurious, but you can hardly say the same of their leather products. And by the way, that adjective is used all over wikipedia, in practically every single high-end product's description page. What makes you God, and bequeaths you the right to undo someone's work, all on your own, without any consensus on your side, simply because you dislike the adjectives they use. Isn't wikipedia supposed to represents a (read unsustainable, because of users like you) democracy?

Oh, and, by the way, how was my grammar this time, Professor Dingley?

user:118.243.233.165 (Talk)

FC are a mainstream (albeit good quality) brand, but not luxury. That's why they invented Graf von Faber-Castell as a specific luxury brand. Your grammar, and spelling, still needs work. As to the rest, did you say something under that tinfoil hat? Andy Dingley (talk) 21:21, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You've got the expertise, you've got the experience, and (even though we bump heads sometimes) you have the right attitude towards this project as a whole. I'd certainly support such a candidacy. --Orange Mike | Talk 13:42, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the compliment Mike, but if I ever considered being an admin I'd put it down to too much cheese before bedtime. I hate adminwork and would much rather avoid anything like it, in favour of writing content. As it is, I can't avoid hitting refresh on the watchlist and

WP:OCD

stops me leaving the vandals to their own devilishness. As a result, I never get anything useful finished. 8-(

As an aside, any time I do spend here is displacement activity from a life that's horribly hectic at present (elderly parent). I don't have time to even browse here, let alone get dragged into fiddling with it. It Would Be Bad to get involved in any more of it.

Thanks for the thought though, I appreciate it. Andy Dingley (talk) 14:06, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I understand, and will pray a bit for the elderly parent. However: as a proud resident of Wisconsin, I must protest the amphigorous "too much cheese"! As lief say, "too much kissing of the spouse" or "too much good root beer"! --Orange Mike | Talk 13:25, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's not the quantity of the dairy, it's when you eat it. You worry me with this "root beer" though. Andy Dingley (talk) 21:23, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm a teetotalling Quaker; but a lot of the local craft breweries like Sprecher and Lakeside make craft root beers, with some real bite to 'em. --Orange Mike | Talk 22:02, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Andy, good catch on the Gyron, the box was arranged alphabetically as can be seen in the piston section, could add chronological groups as well I suppose. Cheers Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 17:05, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

After attempting to have the templates revised to include dates that match the body of the text in the article or to have variants of the templates created to match the cite/links of Harvard citations or Modern Language Association style guides, all to no avail, I have to "scratch catalog" the bibliographical record to keep a consistent date format, or to allow multiple editors, authors and fix a vast array of other "bugs". At present, the template designers will not consent to any revisions and that doesn't leave many options. To make some "fixes", it often takes more time and effort to insert a m-d-y or d-m-y date into the templates and so many differences in the current templates have led to constant revision to a hand-made form. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 19:33, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, Andy for your kind remarks about my first Wikipedia article on Dirk van Erp. I am going to try to figure out a way to get a few photos to illustrate the article. I am thinking of approaching a collector of his work, or perhaps surviving relatives. I am glad you noticed the article, and I hope to improve it.Cullen328 (talk) 02:58, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The point of removing that list is that (a) it's utterly half-assed and incomplete (due to the omission of Air France and the way the guy's edit summary clearly shows he has no idea what he's talking about) and (b) there is already a list on Wikipedia of the locations to which the Concorde airframes were distributed, and that list is already linked in the main Concorde article down in the "See also" section. Perhaps it ought to be linked under "Retirement" as well. I'll suggest that on the article's talk page. 1995hoo (talk) 14:58, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]