User talk:Andy Dingley/Archive 2009 September

Re this reversion - how do you consider references to the

On the subject, we also ought to list the use of the Giesl on the Austerity saddle tanks, such as "Repulse" at the L&HR. Andy Dingley (talk) 13:49, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Read my edit again. I did not move the section about Edward Thomas to fiction, I moved the short sentence about its fictional counterpart "Peter Sam" to the fiction department instead. I'm fully aware that the picture of Edward Thomas's ejector is real - I took the photo :-)

I don't have any information about use of Giesl ejectors on Austerities I'm afraid - if you have any info feel free to add it. — 

t/c) 14:03, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply

]

Splitting discussion of the same Giesl into two sections is hardly clear. We're not so desperate for structure that we have to pull content out sentence-by-sentence because one talks about a book. Andy Dingley (talk) 14:12, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If one's real and one's fictional, I can't see how you can argue it's the same thing. — 

t/c) 14:55, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply

]

I saw your impassioned argument at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Radio Jackie North (2nd nomination)

You can actually contact everyone in the old AFD as long as you contact EVERYONE, including those who voted delete (unless they have already !voted in the AfD). The message must be neutral. A good example is:

==[[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Radio Jackie North (2nd nomination)]] ==

This article which you commented on in the first nomination is now again up for deletion, please take the time to comment there. ~~~~

You can also contact any editors you wish who edited the article before  : http://toolserver.org/~daniel/WikiSense/Contributors.php?wikilang=en&wikifam=.wikipedia.org&grouped=on&page=Radio+Jackie+North ...with a similar neutral message. I would suggest they have at least 3 major contributions, although there is no specific guideline I am aware of. But in this article's case, there are only 3 editors.

I thought you would be interested in an organization that I am involved with. We need more editors like you to rescue articles by adding sources.

Are you familar with userfication? If this article is deleted, you can get it userfied.

		The article you created was just deleted?
		All is not lost . Here is what you can do right now:
		Many administrators will be happy to give you a copy of your deleted article, either by putting it on a special user page for you (a process called userfication) or by e-mailing you a copy. List of administrators who will provide copies of deleted articles Wikipedia administrators who will provide copies of deleted articles‎ (empty) no pages or subcategories Once you have the article, you can try to resolve the issues why it was deleted. If you've repaired the article, or you believe the reasons for deleting the article were in error, you can dispute the deletion at Deletion Review. Generally, you must show how the previous deletion(s) were in error, but this is the place to resolve disputes about whether a deletion was wrong.

Hi Andy, since you have made a comment on a recent issue that is unrelated to templates, but does involve referencing, let me repeat the information provided to another editor. As to one of your concerns, see: talk. One of the issues that still remains with the type of information that the Wikiwacky masters of referencing have made is that there is no real understanding of bibliographical standards. The templates are one example of this. When Wikipedia started, there was a genuine effort to elicit responses from the great multitude, but with that came a flood of unverified and unsourced material. In order to establish some type of scholarly approach, various means were put in place to assist the contributor who was not "classically" trained in the vagaries and intricacies of bibliographical referencing, summed up rather tersely and inaccurately as "references". As things moved along, the templates were instituted, and as a cataloging librarian, I recognize the need and usefulness of templates as in over ten years in the position as a librarian, I and my staff were using templates in order to input cataloging information from sources such as the Library of Congress or from publishers' sites. The vast difference between the catalog templates that were provided by various software programs such as Columbia, was that the MARC (Machine-Readable Bibliographic Cataloging) record that was established was properly formatted. The templates in use in Wikipedia are not properly formatted and no end of asking has produced any budging from the folks who created them. Editors have taken it upon themselves to install "tweaks" into the templates to handle different functions, but even then, another editor often will reverse the change. A number of editors such as myself, have simply abandoned the cumbersome, "buggy" and often incompatible templates to revert to an earlier, "Stone Age" system of "scratch cataloging" that requires the editor to hand write the citation or bibliographic record, entry by entry. I have reverted to training that is now thirty years+ back in the dim past when I received my university training as a librarian. In order to use a hand written form of referencing sources introduces a new dilemma in that a basic understanding of cataloging conventions must be in hand. I reiterate, I have used templates extensively in my other life as a librarian, and had great success in applying them to cataloging software. The Wiki templates we are forced to use, do not allow variances, are "set" to one particular style, the American Psychological Association (APA) guide which is the preferred style for science-based research papers and works. The Modern Language Association (MLA), its offshoot, the Chicago Style Guide and other referencing formats that are more typically used in the social sciences, history and literature are not available as a Wikipedia template. I had asked for alternative templates to be available or at least "fixes" to be made and found there was a resistance to what was basically considered an optional system of referencing. Citation and reference templates are neither mandated nor even recommended, they are there as a tool, especially useful for those editors who prefer that form of inputing source information for references. FWiW, I believe we have had this conversation before. Since you do prefer the template style of referencing, all power to you, but others including myself, use a more arcane but effective hand-written system. Bzuk (talk) 20:01, 17 September 2009 (UTC).[reply]

Further to my overly effusive comments above, I consider myself mainly a writer, not a cataloger. I enjoy the effort of researching, writing, editing and consider the referencing of material that Wikipedia requires, as a necessary evil, and more of drudgery than anything else. I was a templater when I began, but find that hand writing is as fast, accurate and allows for many more options in cataloging information than any of the templates allow. I have studiously adapted and converted templates in the past especially when I assisted another editor in gaining an FA classification for a movie article, but I do not choose them as a primary tool. I will only begrudgedly use them if the article is a major article with an established referencing style based on templates. Most other editors once they see the other type of format, can see the advantages of a written out style. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 20:13, 17 September 2009 (UTC).[reply]

My final thought, find me a Wiki template that works in an MLA format, and I will gladly use that! FWiW Bzuk (talk) 20:18, 17 September 2009 (UTC).[reply]

Sorry I've not had a chance to reply beforehand, as this is a worthy topic that deserves serious consideration. However it does seem that you're going about it the wrong way: you have an issue with _what_ the template generates, but you're using that as an excuse for using templates at all, you're doing it in the forum of articlespace rather than templatespace (where most importantly, the people working on the templates won't see it), and you're doing it by reverting other GF editors contributions (which is one great way to piss off content authors!)

I don't understand your referencing formatting issue and I have no real wish to (mostly I have no real time to). My connection with librarianship is rusty, although I do appreciate the discipline. Mostly I'm a SemWeb geek and a MediaWiki template hack: it's especially valuable to format article content as calls to templates, it's much less important how these templates then format it. Firstly because whatever it is they do can be changed afterwards at little effort (the machines will fix it all for us), secondly because the details of reference formatting within Wikipedia are less important than _consistent_ reference formatting. Templating this isn't harmful, is helpful - therefore the templates are useful and although I wouldn't mandate them, I would encourage them and I certainly wouldn't edit to remove them. Editing, as you're doing, to rollback the work of others who are adding them is certainly a bad move! This is from the community aspect as much as anything - rolling back others' well-intentioned work is A Bad Thing unless you have a damn good reason for doing it, and this isn't it - even if your reference format really is "better" by some obscure measure that most of us don't even comprehend.

Please - the appropriate forum for this is over by the templates and the wikipedia technical namespaces, not in article content space. Andy Dingley (talk) 19:51, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Let me correct some misconceptions. I do not remove templates, I correct them where possible, but when they do not correspond with the established system, I use a basic "two-error check" and what is present in most templates is the "garbage in, garbage out" conundrum, where inconsistent dating is introduced such as an ISO dating system when the rest of the article is using m-d-y or in using an APA system where the rest of the bibliography is in MLA standard. What was done in the "Supermarine" articles was exactly that, editors using a less than consistent system. Changing perfectly good written out references into templates that change the order, date or other information is what was being instituted recently. As for forum entries, note the comments above, I gave up on templates after trying to engage others in looking at the inconsistencies in the template coding. I was basically told that no changes would be forthcoming, no new templates for all the other referencing systems, no change in the dating conventions, and, most importantly, that templates are neither mandated nor necessary, and that if I didn't like it, don't use them. That argument decided it for me and many others. The templates cause more problems than solutions when editors unfamiliar with their use, constantly input incorrect data or use the wrong template and these entries are regularly being ammended by knowledgeable editors. I am primarily a content editor not a templater, rules stickler or details person. I research, write and edit 90% of the time. Take a look at any of my articles (over 6,000 and counting) in which I have contributed, and that will be the overall pattern. In the case of the moribund Supermarine S.6B, take a look at the changes recently made and what they revolved around, mainly content, content, content. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 14:05, 20 September 2009 (UTC).[reply]

As you know, I processed your request on cleaning up your sandbox. In the future, please use

Have you seen the relevant talk discussion for this? The deleting editor keeps removing two valid ELs, claiming falsely that ELNO forbids them and yet they're not even able to cite the section of ELNO that they're deleting them under. They grudgingly promised to leave one intact, but their actual edits didn't even keep that promise. Andy Dingley (talk) 09:44, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I have. None of that makes it ok to EW. Toddst1 (talk) 16:24, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have no wish to edit war, but it's impractical to achieve a consensus between two - so as you've had some past involvement with this article's content itself, would you care to express an opinion as to the validity of the two links? Andy Dingley (talk) 19:40, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I also note that the link-stripping editor appears to be on something of a crusade to strip EL's from car-related articles and their talk page is collecting comments against this from other editors too. Andy Dingley (talk) 20:01, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Andy - thanks for your contribution to the discussion at

In addition, I am concerned by this edit where you reverted an unquestionably good faith edit by another user. I'm sure you're aware that you should revert vandalism on sight, but

Good faith? That's a one-edit driveby by a new anon IP deleting half a paragraph with no explanation. That is _not_ a GF edit. I would have warned on their talk, but don't usually do so on a first edit, as it only encourages them. Andy Dingley (talk) 09:44, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like rewording to me. Clearly not vandalism. I believe you are abusing your rollback privileges. Based on this discussion, I don't see this behavior changing, so I have revoked those privileges. Toddst1 (talk) 16:27, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Excuse me? Do you think that this is really a GF edit? They've deleted half of an non-controversial paragraph, they've made the intro far less readable ("radix" does not belong in a first sentence) and they've broken formatting. That is a hit-and-run deletion and clearly _is_ vandalism.

Now I'm expected to assume GF on your part, and you're also expected to assume it on mine. Let us agree to differ on the assumed moral intention of an anonymous editor of which we both know nothing. However I would ask that you re-instate my rollback rights - even if I had acted incorrectly here (and you have failed to convince me that I have), then _one_ judgement call on an edit you'd have to admit was "dubious" in the least is hardly reason to withdraw them. Andy Dingley (talk) 19:37, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't want to get more involved with this than I have to (sorry, your page is still on my watchlist!) but...

Having looked at the ("Binary") edit mentioned, this is clearly a drive-by deletion. The obvious clues are the careless handling of bold formatting for the article title (whole first paragraph now bold) and the article name on the first line being part-deleted. That the result doesn't make sense might not be as obvious to someone unfamiliar with the subject. I would have used rollback here too. It's a fairly simple matter for a determined vandal to reapply the same deletion like this, and they will not be concerned or restricted by a 3RR rule. If you need an 'independent opinion' to support your case, let me know. EdJogg (talk) 23:02, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with EdJogg. Wdl1961 (talk) 23:59, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And so do I. Globbet (talk) 00:09, 20 September 2009 (UTC) And I have told Toddst1 so. 00:24, 20 September 2009 (UTC) [reply]

Thanks guys, it's appreciated.

On a cheerier note, I've used up some of my scanning backlog and nearly finished

Vertical boilers with horizontal firetubes. It could still use a good masthead photo, but comments are welcome on the text. Andy Dingley (talk) 09:53, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply

]

Wikipedia:Revert is in an essay, at the top of which it says: "Essays may represent widespread norms or minority viewpoints. Consider these views with discretion." It is not a guideline, it is not policy, and it is not a 'rule', so relying on it to deny privileges to another editor on the basis that he has not satisfied you that he accepts it, seems, well, excessive, at least. Globbet (talk) 12:59, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply

]

Sorry folks, rollback is a privilege. In this case, it has been abused and the issues were not at all addressed. Read when not to use rollback. I'm done here. Toddst1 (talk) 14:58, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Andy: (disclosure, someone asked me to opine here) is it reasonable to ask that you undertake to use rollback only in non controversial situations? Rollback is a privilege not granted to all, and if there are community concerns they probably should be addressed. I see not everyone agrees that your rollback in this instance was problematic, but still perhaps such an undertaking might be useful. ++Lar: t/c 16:09, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Of course I would undertake to only use rollback in cases where I see clear evidence of simple vandalism, rather than anything resembling a content issue - that's the basis of being granted it in the first place. Has anyone even seriously questioned my behaviour on that basis?

Is it reasonable to ask? That's a good question - the most I can possibly promise is (as anyone requesting rollback already does) is to only use it where in my judgement it's a non-controversial situation. Clearly this situation is controversial, but I still cannot see how it can be judged not to be a reasonable situation of simple vandalism, or at very least sufficiently close to such that a reasonable person might be expected to see it as such, without risking the removal of privileges for doing so. There is of course scope for disagreement here. If another editor thinks that the vandalism was a legitimate good-faith edit, then I'd be surprised to see that, but would respect their difference of opinion. I'd also ask that they respect mine (which seems to be shared by at least a few others) and even if they disagreed that it was a vandal's edit, they shouldn't punish other editors who did. Andy Dingley (talk) 17:59, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not terribly familiar with your overall edit history but based on what you've said, and taking on faith you'll be careful going forward, I'd be inclined to regrant rollback. Let me touch base with Toddst1 first. ++Lar: t/c 22:52, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Per Lar, I've restored rollback privileges given the promise to only use rollback/revert in clear cases of WP:Vandalism. I strongly suggest you re-read that policy and be much more careful going forward. Toddst1 (talk) 19:54, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have nominated Category:Folksonomy (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at the discussion page. Thank you. Cybercobra (talk) 00:51, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I see you've recently reverted some undiscussed moves involving "car" to "automobile". Thanks. I wonder if you'd consider another one – the change from "List of cars" to

Also, had you noticed that

steam automobile? -- EdJogg (talk) 18:23, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply

]

Yes, I had. I can't say that I'm all that bothered about

List of automakers, as this is a term that has some currency, although List of automobile manufacturers

would indeed seem clearer. As to moves over redirects, I think that anyone can do this, so long as the redirect already pointed to that same article.

Steam cars vs. steam autos might have a bit more mileage if Stanley, Doble & White hadn't been Americans, so maybe they get to win that one? OTOH, Brits hold the land speed record for steam (and Jet A-1) 8-)

What really got me was Princess (car). If they'd wanted the unholy batwedge, we'd surely have given it to them, but Britain really ought to bear its own shame for that one, not rename it as an automobile. Andy Dingley (talk) 19:27, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion here Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Automobiles#Renaming_articles_with_.22car.22_in_their_title_to_.22automobile.22 ----Typ932 ^T·C 20:13, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for that. Andy Dingley (talk) 08:42, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have nominated Category:John Brogden and sons (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) for renaming to Category:John Brogden and Sons (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. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 23:08, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]