User talk:Andy Dingley/Archive 8

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!

Views/Day	Quality	Title	Tagged with…
4,025		Pulimurugan (talk)	Add sources
829		Wrench (talk)	Add sources
93		Early timeline of Nazism (talk)	Add sources
64		talk )	Add sources
17		412 Transport Squadron (talk)	Add sources
671		Scissors (talk)	Add sources
521		Apache Hive (talk)	Cleanup
321		Being and Time (talk)	Cleanup
377		Gleichschaltung (talk)	Cleanup
10		Waterway restoration (talk)	Expand
778		Enabling Act of 1933 (talk)	Expand
12		talk )	Expand
68		Trace (deconstruction) (talk)	Unencyclopaedic
17		talk )	Unencyclopaedic
640		Inkjet printing (talk)	Unencyclopaedic
3,290		3D printing (talk)	Merge
432		Boiler (power generation) (talk)	Merge
424		Fused deposition modeling (talk )	Merge
204		Différance (talk)	Wikify
13		Belbury Poly (talk)	Wikify
515		Stereolithography (talk)	Wikify
2		Internarrative identity (talk)	Orphan
29		Open channel spillway (talk)	Orphan
4		Doncaster Education City (talk)	Orphan
12		1935 in India (talk)	Stub
49		Metaphysics of presence (talk)	Stub
7		William V. Spanos (talk)	Stub
11		439 Combat Support Squadron (talk)	Stub
15		Type 97 motorcycle (talk)	Stub
51		talk )	Stub

Note: All columns in this table are sortable, allowing you to rearrange the table so the articles most interesting to you are shown at the top. All images have mouse-over popups with more information. For more information about the columns and categories, please consult the documentation and please get in touch on SuggestBot's talk page with any questions you might have.

SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. Your contributions make Wikipedia better — thanks for helping.

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please tell me on SuggestBot's talk page. Thanks from Nettrom (talk), SuggestBot's caretaker. -- SuggestBot (talk) 20:18, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

Please check the number of incoming links ; before they had somewhere to go they were all going to the wrong article. In ictu oculi (talk) 14:17, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

Notability isn't conveyed by the number of inbound links, let alone inbound wikilinks. If this is a notable site, it can demonstrate that by independent secondary attention paid to it. If it can't show that, then use of this website on WP as a source doesn't show notability of the source, but rather it undermines the value of those links as sources. Andy Dingley (talk) 14:31, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

I'm really not interested in the legal issue. The practicality is that we have a very large number of editors linking to something. Anyway if you're aware of this and think differently fine. I didn't create this stub out of love, but because mislinks forced it. In ictu oculi (talk) 22:10, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

If you're sure that the site would meet notability, then you're welcome to contest the prod.

As noted though, should we be using a reviews site as a source (these aren't hard things to source elsewhere) unless that source carries enough weight itself? Andy Dingley (talk) 12:47, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

Find something better to do with your time than reverting needed edits to poor articles. Given that your sole non-undo contribution to said article was a typo fix eight years ago, it is likely to remain C-class for rather a long time should said stewardship remain in place. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 02:55, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

You do not get to tell any editor to, "find something better to do with their time".

As to my editing history here, that's first of all irrelevant, secondly a bit more than "typo fixes", more than just one of them, and is anyway more than yours.

The point here is that cordite is far different from both black powders and smokeless powders. The article needs some context. I would agree with you that the content at present might even be excessively detailed - it needs to cover the same scope, it doesn't need to go into such depth. But that's still a lot better than a simple hit-and-run blanking and there is zero chance of you returning to do it properly. You do this a lot, no, you don't come back and make real improvements. Nor is around an eighth of the overall article, itself short and incomplete, excessive. You might usefully do something like adding horse chestnuts and the foundation of the state of Israel to this article rather than simplistic uncomprehending blanking. Andy Dingley (talk) 10:13, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

No intention of getting into the above tussle ... :) Question: why does Chaim Weizmann need the considered to be the father of industrial fermentation puffery? - it is not relevant to the article. Also it seems that WP discourages the use of Dr or other honorifics within articles. - or have I missed something? Vsmith (talk) 16:32, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

Lose the Dr if you wish. The point about cordite though needs to be expanded - bulk fermentation (to produce acetone, thus cordite) is as important to the history of WWI and Israel as the Haber-Bosch process was to German production of fixed nitrogen and thus their explosives industry. Weizmann was the father of fermentation as a bulk non-food production process and only he was able to address the British production shortfalls. Andy Dingley (talk) 16:36, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

Would you remember telling me I was wrong to put those marine engine pics under David Napier? Well I'm working on it! Eddaido (talk) 12:51, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

Yes, sorry I haven't had a chance to dig into that pile of boxed books. Does Grace's Guide have anything useful on them?

BTW - Thanks for starting the Rolls-Royce B engine article. I've been meaning to do that for years. I've some stuff here on the engine internal design and the IOE aspect. Andy Dingley (talk) 13:16, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

Rolls-Royce "B", my pleasure but I've no plans to take the article further myself. I should have been more straightforward in my message above about Robert Napier. I have just written the article linked to, there was only a biography nothing about his (big) business building marine engines and ships. Working on it still because I have many more links to make in Commons and WP. I'm not myself a big fan for Grace' Guide. I do my own research and often show it to be wrong, generally by omission. I worked from an official approved history of D Napier and Son which of course set out to distinguish itself from Robert Napier and Sons which became part of William Beardmore then John Brown. Regards, Eddaido (talk) 20:45, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

Their lots of scans of The Engineer are always worth a look. Andy Dingley (talk) 20:57, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

I know, and my thanks to the uploader! Eddaido (talk) 20:58, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

• I'm sure you're aware that Dicklyon is not required to discuss every move. We are all required to RM moves that may be controversial, but that doesn't mean that you can declare a move controversial after the fact and then claim that Dicklyon has violated policy. My take is that pretty much any move Dicklyon does will be controversial to you, if it involves MoS. You have exhibited clear
  WP:BATTLEGROUND behavior in this matter, typified by your unretracted remark, "I don't give a damn what you think." Note that BATTLEGROUND and Wikipedia:Harassment
  are Wikipedia policies.
• You are free to contest any move made by Dicklyon. You are not free to personalize content disputes. You are not free to engage in a protracted war against MoS, or against one or two editors-in-good-standing whose viewpoint differs from yours. ―Mandruss ☎ 20:05, 1 February 2017 (UTC) ―Mandruss ☎ 20:05, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

This is not merely a single questioned move, this is a specific issue about one editor's repeated behaviour. Thanks for bringing this issue to my attention, clearly WP:ANI will be a better venue to raise the need for a topic ban upon them. Andy Dingley (talk) 20:07, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

That has already been raised and rejected, as I'm sure you know. I'm sure you also know how raising it again will be viewed by the community. You were close to boomerang last time. ―Mandruss ☎ 20:09, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

So while still at ANI he persists in making more of the same contested moves. And you think that's something in his favour? Andy Dingley (talk) 20:12, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

Again, you can't blanket-contest every move Dickyon does, at least not without community agreement to do so. ―Mandruss ☎ 20:24, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

Then it's fortunate that no-one is doing that. Unlike Dicklyon, those opposing seem to be putting per-case editorial thought into them. Andy Dingley (talk) 20:27, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

Re this edit. If we're using that element of policy do you have a source which states Stoker wrote in British English? Rather than Oxford spelling, most often used by authors? The second point I would make is that in your edit summary you wrote that Stoker had more "

Was Stoker famous (or even notable) whilst still in Dublin? That's my point. Now the ignorance of The Man on the Clapham Omnibus is infamous, but how many readers are familiar with Dracula et al, yet still have no idea at all that Stoker was a Dubliner? This isn't Joyce, nor even Wilde. Andy Dingley (talk) 09:23, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

Hi Andy

Gaunless Bridge is in Category:Railway bridges in County Durham.

You have placed it in Category:Wikipedia requested photographs in Yorkshire. One of those two is wrong. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs)

Please read the article. Andy Dingley (talk) 14:45, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

Fair enough, it has been re-erected in York.

I simply fixed the template ti fix a redlink. When you replied here, you could simply have told me that it was now in York. Why make me read the article? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:50, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

Because if you didn't see "The bridge is now in York" or "Because that's where the bridge is." and were reverting me too quickly to even let me create Category:Wikipedia requested photographs in York (York being the most photogenic and tourist-dense spot in Yorkshire and thus worth its own category), I don't know what else I can add other than to point you at the existing article. If you revert another editor, maybe consider that they might just have a point? Andy Dingley (talk) 14:55, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

Sorry, I just checked the revision history -- I had missed the edit summary. My mistake.

I thought that you probably had a point, but was unclear what it was, and saw no point in leaving the request in a redlinked category.

Glad it's all sorted. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:26, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

I noticed your edit here and was wondering where this MOS page was (I searched up and down and couldn't find anything)? May I request that you link to the MOS pages in your edit summaries in the future? It'll save folks some trouble. — Huntster (t @ c) 04:40, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Layout#Links_to_sister_projects is where this ought to be. Unfortunately the wording is poor, and regularly edit-warred, after some poor wording years ago was misinterpreted and has now become canon.

The Talk: pages might be clearer: the issue is what should be done when what's usually the last section (where a floating box like this needs to go) would otherwise be empty? Should the same Commons box just be moved to the section above, or (as the poorly worded version suggested) the entire presentation format for the Commons link flip-flop to the inline format and then be placed bizarrely in a section on its own? Andy Dingley (talk) 11:08, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

Yeah, there's no great way about it. At least when it's in the inline form, it resembles traditional external links and so matches the formatting. — Huntster (t @ c) 02:06, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

But they're not external links, they're Commons links, which we give a distinctive box format to.

They're only associated with external links because they usually end up coded into the last section, which is usually external links. It's not an implication that they are such links. Andy Dingley (talk) 10:13, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

The US helicopter patrols take vigilant care to only shoot armed militants and terrorists. Labeling the one victim and one survivor who escapes into a house and is not killed because of the humane approach they use (kill shots after initial explosion if they are wounded and in pain) as "people" just acts to undermine what they actually were. Sure they were people, but we all are people and it is bipartisan and anti-American to use that tone in a description as if you're catering to anti-American people. They would have blown up the house the "person" ran into if they were killing innocent people. Get it right, politically correct stooge. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.196.189.66 (talk) 10:13, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

1. The specific problem here is "

unsourced

". You are adding your own claim, beyond the sourced material that we have to work with.

2. If you want to see some of the issues with US helicopter gunships, then the gun camera footage from LiveLeaks is a good place to start. Look for the one where they shoot up a marketplace of women and children, or the one where they

attack a Reuters film crew

.

3. "kill shots after initial explosion if they are wounded" is forbidden by the Geneva Convention, thus a war crime. [1]

Andy Dingley (talk) 11:58, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

Re your restoration of a comment at Talk:5 ft and 1520 mm gauge railways, while the term "useful idiot" may be a well-recognised term in Soviet politics, it is pejorative even there and It constitutes a personal attack on the person who made the good-faith suggestion of changing the gauge in the U.S. It was already pointed out in 2010 that this is very unlikely to happen, ever, and was rejected for inclusion in the article. The comment you restored seems to be nothing but an expression of animosity directed at the original contributor in a thread long dead, and does nothing to contribute to improving the article. Why do you think it belongs on the talk page?--agr (talk) 18:11, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

• This belongs at that talk: page, not here.
• I don't care if it's pejorative. It's not aimed at a WP editor, and so we just don't care.
• Please see
  WP:TPO. This is nowhere near reason to revert additions to a talk: page. Andy Dingley (talk
  ) 18:31, 24 August 2017 (UTC)