User talk:Andy Dingley/Archive 2010 June

Hi Andy Do you have a scan of the British version of the plain (journal) bearing for RRs. Wizard has found the American version and if you give me your e-mail addres I can forward if to you. mine is [email protected] (I sugest "copy and paste"). Cheers, Peter Horn User talk 12:26, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Andy, please look at [1] and [2] and post your observations on Talk:Plain bearing/Archives/2013#Journal bearing link as to whether or not these resemble the British version. Peter Horn User talk 19:55, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Andy Dingley ... in case you hadn't noticed, Mensa BE‎ (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) was created today, and has been tagged for {{Db-club}} (see its talk page) ... its removal from the Mensa International article may have been premature, so I'll leave it to you to remove it again when the article is deleted.

Happy Editing! — 71.166.140.70 (talk · contribs) _{00:48, 2 June 2010 (UTC)}[reply]

A national group of a well-known international organisation is hardly a "local" group. This could be a candidate for AfD, but I'd suggest that speedy deletion is excessive. Andy Dingley (talk) 01:06, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, in my opinion, this is a kill it before it grows situation, so I didn't follow the

WP:AfD if it is declined. — 71.166.140.70 (talk) 03:19, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply

]

Is it an interesting topic? Is the particular article of worthwhile quality? Different questions. I've no personal problem with deleting this article, as I don't consider it adds useful content to an encyclopedia (as yet) and Mensa can surely arrange their own web hosting. According to policy though, I can't justify its deletion. Andy Dingley (talk) 08:46, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've notified the head of WikiProject:Redlinks BD2412 of the above, as he is the best person to comment on this, (please note that he is on a WikiBreak until June 5). I will be reverting the navigational templates that I edited. --kathleen wright5 (talk) 12:11, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Andy; re the photo caption in this and similar edits - I'm not sure, but I think that the "Nº" form is discouraged, see

Hi, I helped edit the article Red Rover (feat. Rap Barbie) and have removed the notability tag. The sources are rock solid; charts showing its standings, links to videos with extremely high view counts & general prowess via Google search. I would appreciate it if you could use your power to get it off of any list that would continue this notability tagging. I will add more sources and information as it comes. Thank you for your time! 66.41.49.195 (talk) 02:58, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Andy. Please can you take a look at this article. It is linked from the little article I attempt to look after,

As it happens the link to their site comes up with "Account suspended". I really feel this is a blatant advertisement and probably from a company that has problems. I really don't know if I am right. Please can you take a look? Robotics1 (talk) 09:10, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's certainly a valid article - most such articles are (did you see

Barden Precision Bearings

recently?). The bigger and more likely a company is to pull this sort of PR trick, the more likely they are to be notable just because their daily doings show up in the financial press. It probably has COI issues too, but that's no reason to kill an article.

Is it a good article? No, it's dreadful. Not because it's an "advert" (that's minor and usually easily fixed, mostly by stomping the weasels), but because it isn't an encyclopedia article. Why would I want to read this, and what would I learn by doing so? Not much. Barrett, IMHE, are best known for their tiny "puck" motor-controllers, which are one of the ways they manage to make their anthropomorphic hands. These are interesting and understandable to a WP audience, yet the article barely mentions them. There's karma for anyone who has time and interest to read the patents and turn them into an accessible article.

As to ST Robotics, then they might be notable (got 3rd party refs?, you're notable) and they might have technology or products that makes them interesting (even better). I'm no fan of "FooCo employ 2,000 minions in East Podunk" business articles, because although they stand up to policy, they're just not interesting to read. COI needn't be a problem because we have to meet

WP:V anyway - if the claims are verifiable through published sources anyway, it matters little who put them there. I'd also be happy to take an ST Robotics draft from your userspace and move it into mainspace with any copyediting I thought necessary. That should be a reasonable defence against COI. Andy Dingley (talk) 09:45, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply

]

I did that, please see my user page. But it's cr4p. I will quite understand if you think it unsuitable. Robotics1 (talk) 15:38, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks for your input. I just was not sure, hence seeking your opinion. Now their site is coming up "account suspended" things may change. Years in business tell me they maybe didn't pay their bill but it might just be they are changing hosting service. I recently did a review of all those links and chucked out the ones that were not industrial. Barrett seemed ok. As for your offer many many thanks. I will draft something. I always felt it wouldn't be ethical but there is such a range here. Some major companies like Reis or Hyundai don't have pages. More: ST have sold hundreds of robots some into notable applications (like the UK DNA database) but the robot language RoboForth might be more notable as it has a long history and other manufacturers use or have used it. I'll draft both and let you decide. If you decide none at all I will respect that - not one of those people who takes it personally! Robotics1 (talk) 11:19, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not seeing "account suspended". Have you paid your ISP bill? 8-) Andy Dingley (talk) 13:08, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Touche! Fair comment. I see it's back now. Must have been a glitch at their hosting service. Or maybe the site was redesigned. Excellent products! Robotics1 (talk) 18:45, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(is 5 indents allowed?) Hi Andy, did you see my reply that I inserted above? (yes, who ever inserts a reply....) Robotics1 (talk) 13:10, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Saw it, haven't had a chance to comment in detail yet. Andy Dingley (talk) 13:24, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The SuperPanopticon is a concept developed by Mark Poster (of course in addendum to Foucault's interpretation of Bentham's Panopticon) and is well regarded by communication studies scholars the world over. Please do not delete articles based on unfounded/ignorant assumptions of notability. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.95.128.51 (talk) 14:59, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please learn the importance not only of spelling, but also

case-sensitivity

.

As to Superpanopticon, you're a bit late. This was deleted nearly two years ago. Three editors felt it wasn't an appropriate article, no-one (including yourself) spoke up for it. As I recall, it was simply a very poor article that wasn't so much about a non-notable topic, but was failing as an article to express this in any clear manner. I can't speak for the other editors, but I'm certainly familiar with Bentham and Foucault. This was nowhere in their league. Andy Dingley (talk) 15:36, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the message. You could be right, maybe he did dabble – I don't know, I'm not an expert on his life either (although I've been a huge fan for 20 years). But dabbling is not the same thing as being a full member of the sect (I won't say church), which is what he would need to have been for the category to apply. If anyone can provide a citation that he was a member, rather than just showing some interest, then that would be fine. Best wishes, --Viennese Waltz ^talk 09:13, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've just looked and Famous Blue Raincoat does actually mention this, with cites to a couple of newspaper refs. However they don't appear to be the most robust of claims and they're not obviously online. Andy Dingley (talk) 10:07, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I helped edit this article under my IP address and am asking you to remove your tags. There is no reason to put this under GNG when the sources are solid and the kid's popularity is actively increasing. I did some research and found out there was an article before, and all of the deletion arguments have been met; more sources, more popularity, *general notability.* Please consider this, I got an account just to write you formally. Bracelett (talk) 14:07, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

At 1,200 GRT, she's bigger that many cargo ships and coasters that were ocean-going, so I'd say yes. The original intentionat

Then that would be a list of "large, old merchant ships" (and would include half of the Mississippi), not "ocean-going merchant ships"

There are two problems with describing Nomadic as "ocean-going": firstly her design, particularly the classically "ferryboat" positioning of the doors on the main deck, only a few feet above the water line. Secondly the fact that she didn't cross any oceans - she spent her whole working life as an inshore tender.

Would you include SS Badger in this list? Andy Dingley (talk) 22:25, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

hey and thank you for the welcome message, Just want to say sorry if I was trouble about the red links, I am new and just wanted to help out and get to know how stuff works. —Preceding unsigned comment added by ScoBrit (talk • contribs) 00:30, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No problem - there's a ridiculous amount of new stuff to learn. Andy Dingley (talk) 00:33, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

For the record, those see-alsos in Dunaverney flesh-hook that you moved to external links were not mine :) (The article before I touched it recently) I have just been adding templates and an image. But you are right, those see-also look like external links. I suspect they are actually supposed to be references. I will have another look at the article sometime as I actually have hard copies of those references anyway (My interest came about due Little Thetford flesh-hook --Senra (talk) 00:05, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have responded to your request for comments at

Thanks, that's very helpful. Andy Dingley (talk) 12:46, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Andy Dingley. You have new messages at Benjamw's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Sadads (talk) 13:03, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]