User talk:Andy Dingley - Wikipedia

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

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.

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: https://www.trms.org.au/rm_engine_frame.htm

Regards Bruce

A tag has been placed on Internally riffled boiler tubes requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under 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.

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.

Suggestions:

• 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.

Backlog:

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!

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.

Since we can't seem to discuss anything in a civil manner...

  There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.

Note - I won't be responding here or on my own talk page while this is open. Danners430 (talk) 12:10, 26 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

On this particular topic, looks like there's actually been some movement elsewhere that looks like it'll probably satisfy everyone - sub-referencing... does away with the need for both SFN/Harvb tags and bibiographies, and {{r}} and {{rp}} templates... thoughts? Danners430 (talk) 12:16, 19 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

A note to thank you for your Perrycroft uploads, which I have now used here. Hope you like the article. KJP1 (talk) 11:20, 4 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

You're welcome. It's a nice book, very useful for our purposes. I really must get round to scanning the other half of it. Andy Dingley (talk) 13:36, 4 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

I was beginning to think that while I wasn't paying attention, some disease had killed of all the people with a modicum of sense. EEng 21:15, 15 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

Are you here to write an encyclopedia, or to follow sacred policies to the letter? There's a reason I'm not a rabbi. Andy Dingley (talk) 21:27, 15 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

I'm all for adhering to policy. It's people who insist on adherence to policies they don't understand that get my goat. Perhaps you didn't notice, but this guy's been trying to edit war this one word out for EIGHT years. EEng 21:41, 15 August 2024 (UTC) P.S. And check this [1] out.Reply

  The redirect Ivorine 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 August 16 § Ivorine until a consensus is reached. 1234qwer1234qwer4 16:58, 16 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:09, 26 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

Hi Andy Dingley! Recently you deleted my contribution, because you said the sources didn't support my claims. Here you have a summary from sources(no verbatim, no copyright violation), to show my sources support my claims. I claim:

-That the rotary hand mill comes from Spain, between 6th and 5th BCE

-That a rotary hand mill is a crank

Source 1

"Moliendo en ibero, moliendo en griego»: aculturación y resistencia tecnológica en el Mediterráneo occidental durante la Edad del Hierro"

-Page 23 names the device, as rotary hand mill

-In page 25 Figure 1C, there's a drawing of rotary hand mill

-In page 28 describes the rotary hand mill, composed of two circular stones and a handle/crank (depending on the translation)

-In page 29 says the rotary hand mill is an Iberian invention(Iberian were natives of Spain before Roman conquest)

-In page 29 dates the invention between 6th and 5th BCE

-In page 30 says the rotary mill expanded from Spain to East(Greece and Middle East)

My Source 2

"A Relief of a Water-powered Stone Saw Mill on a Sarcophagus at Hierapolis and its Implications", Journal of Roman Archaeology"

-Page 158 says the rotary hand mill emerged in Spain in the 5th BCE and expanded East(Greece) and North(France)

-Page 159 says the rotary hand mill is a crank. With the handle being the crank and the person's arm being the connecting rod

My Source 3

Lucas 2005, p. 5, fn. 9

-Says: the rotary quern is a crank

Wikipedia already contains my very same claim( with the same sources:):

-Crank page picture. Description: "Tibetan operating a quern (1938). The upright handle of such rotary handmills, set at a distance from the centre of rotation, works as a crank."[My Source 2 page 159][My Source 3]

-Crankshaft page picture. Description: "Querns are a form of hand-operated crank"[My Source 2 page 159][My Source 3]

Both pages:

-"The Chinese used not just the crank, but the crank-and-connecting rod for operating querns"[Source: Science and Civilisation in China, Part 2, Mechanical Engineering, p118-119]

Compare to my claim:

-My Source 1: Verbal description and depiction of a device, identical to the pictured above, a rotary hand mill with a handle.[My Source 2][My Source 3]. See summary above for pages.

Why is the same device a crank in one place but not in other?

New source: Source 4

Science and Civilisation in China, Part 2, Mechanical Engineering

-Page 186 says: the rotary hand mill or quern, with the eccentric handle, it's a crank

Wikain (talk) 19:44, 30 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

Do you want to post diffs for bad moves at ANI? Sammy D III (talk) 17:45, 5 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

I don't see a big point. Certainly it ought to be reverted via WP:RM/TR. Maybe if I do that I'll just get posted to ANI again as 'disruptive'. (Oh sorry, didn't really mean that, it just slipped out. Oops.)

But overall, this is all a bit of a lost cause. It's a fashion parade, not anything about sourcing. At least it's not quite as bad as the original mess at Motor Torpedo Boat where it actually changed the scope of the article. Andy Dingley (talk) 17:58, 5 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

Ok, your world, your call. I'm sure not popular. I reverted something at Land Rover whatever using the word "bad faith", maybe someone will notice one way or the other. I've got nothing to lose, every time I come back I have to shake my head longer. Sigh. Have a nice one. Sammy D III (talk)

Is there a reason a notification hasn't been posted to MILHIST? Sammy D III (talk) 01:43, 10 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

There's no reason that it needs to be (as policy, like notifying ANI'ed users), but equally it certainly could.

However WP is losing so many editors these days that most projects are moribund. Andy Dingley (talk) 09:53, 10 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

Rematch is almost ready. Here a hint: 5-22. No reply needed. Sammy D III (talk) 14:50, 15 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

I see you are also involved with Draft:Spartan Cars, which was draftified by the deletionist cabal. I have blue chip newspaper references which I will add as soon as I get a chance, after which I think we should submit. Any thoughts?  Mr.choppers | ✎  13:40, 11 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

I think that if you're looking for collaboration and support against "the deletionist cabal", then you would be well to not describe editors as "vandal"s whilst you're deleting their articles.

See WP:ANI#WP:OWN, with personal attack and vandalism accusation by Mr.choppers Andy Dingley (talk) 14:25, 11 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

  You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Layout. Regarding the links to German coal mines in de.wiki, I am asking for clarification. ☆ Bri (talk) 15:42, 17 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

The article is tagged as being in US English, and was in a mixture of both spellings. I've raised it at talk; I really don't mind which spelling is used, but it annoys me seeing the same words spelled two different ways in one article. John (talk) 22:49, 26 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

Isn't this getting rather ridiculous? The paragraph you have restored bears little relevance to the topic. It is an opinion piece well pre-dating the events, and is of more relevance to a page on Bill Smith or on the Ruskin Museum rather than a page on Bluebird. That comment could also be applied to most of what has recently been added. The page is clearly becoming a battle-ground between warring factions. I suggest the page could usefully be split so that the original undisputed information up to and including the accident which claimed Donald Campbell's life is retained with a small final paragraph stating the wreck was recovered, restored and is displayed at Ruskin, and the rest is removed for possible inclusion in a page on Bill Smith if such is considered suitable. Sooty655 (talk) 09:08, 5 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

See WP:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:80.3.122.252 reported by User:Andy Dingley (Result: Blocked one month)

Whatever the 'ridiculous' aspect of the content, that is 6RR edit warring.

Now maybe the paragraph does indeed have little relevance to the topic. But that's something to sort out by discussion at the article talk:, not by edit-warring and then following editors to their own user talk pages to browbeat them individually. Maybe I could have been convinced by such an argument (certainly it's not the most important aspect of K7's history). But as a tactic to switch to only after a month's block on the simple edit warring account, when that approach failed? No. Not a convincing argument.

"a small final paragraph stating the wreck was recovered, restored and is displayed at Ruskin"

You mean this edit ? Was that you?

possible inclusion in a page on Bill Smith

You mean the page that's, once again, up for deletion and that you yourself are busy removing the links to? It would indeed be convenient to wrap all the non-Ruskin content into one bundle, pop it into a Bill Smith page and then delete that page! Problem solved and Ruskin / CFHT get all the credit.

I don't understand the antipathy to Bill Smith on Wikipedia (OK, of course I do, I've been here long enough). But I don't understand antipathy to him from someone involved in a Vulcan preservation project? Whether he's a 'sonar search expert' or not, he achieved amazing results with the K7 rebuild. The Bill Smith article is justified just from that aspect. Will WP go after Owen Wyn Owen next? IMHO, the restoration part of K7 is every bit as interesting as its record-breaking history (and the article could still use more on the pre-'67 runs). Andy Dingley (talk) 10:02, 5 October 2024 (UTC)Reply