User talk:Andy Dingley/Archive 2008 October

Steam locomotive
I was just asking for sources, you provided them, then the edits can stay; but it was not a perfect edition if there are no souces to it. I asked the IP to place sources in its talk page as well. Thansk, Miguel.mateo (talk) 05:26, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

White Russian
Hi Andy. I'm sorry if you feel that there is a concern with White Russian, but in any case, :OWN is not a reason to revert a removal of unsourced trivia. There are already 3 "pop culture" items on the article, which provide more than sufficient depth of trivia for such a short article, and are associated with very well known, globally recognized topics. WP:V would also apply here, a Wikipedia policy which allows for any unsourced information to be removed. Good work in adding the source to the BBC article, I came across it myself on the BBC website earlier, and it is exactly the kind of sourcing we should be seeking to establish significant pop culture references, rather than the "I saw this here" type of trivia that is rife on WP. As is evident on the White Russian talk page, I am certainly not against adding different items to the trivia section, but any additions or replacements would have to be reliably sourced as significant - ala the Lebowski example - or, at the very least, demonstrably more significant than the existing examples. Regarding the :OWN concern, please don't confuse "owning" an article - usually associated with people who have a certain point of view they are trying to push, or are editing on a niche topic they are emotionally, financially or otherwise connected to - with being the only editor who is keeping an article compliant with WP policies and guidelines. I didnt get through 15,000 edits and an adminship approval without being more than happy to discuss and explain my edits, and help others understand some of the finer points of WP policy and style. If you have any questions, please feel free to ask on my talk page or the relevant article talk page. Thanks,  Dei z  talk 19:44, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Like I said, you have huge and very obvious WP:OWN issues with this article. While you might have a valid point (Lebowski does indeed add something to White Russian in a way that Lose Friends is merely listing its inclusion in the movie), your attitude weakens an objective assessment of this. Waving your adminship and 15,000 edits around as if they make your personal viewpoint somehow more important is just another example of the same ego. Andy Dingley (talk) 19:53, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
 * You would accept, I hope, that Wikipedia is not a repository of miscellaneous information, and that verification is important? But if only one editor is active in ensuring an article complies with those policies, in the face of many who would add trivia and nonsense, he "owns" the article? Bizarre man, bizarre. If various editors kept adding and re-adding the same weak, unsourced, unencyclopedic trivia to Friedrich Tinner, I'm quite certain you would remove it in exactly the same way. The point about edit count etc. and discussing edits was perhaps not clear, so I'll try again: if you have an issue with an experienced contributor, consider asking them quite directly about your concern, rather than making unexplained remarks on talk pages and in edit summaries.  Dei z  talk 03:02, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Diana Barnato and the other one
I removed my comment as I am trying to work out if there is a difference between sound barrier and supersonic, according to Wikipedia there is. If this is correct then the American may have broken the sound barrier but may not have been first to go supersonic, her flight in a F104 came later than Barnato Walker's Lightning flight (also a point to bear in mind of how fast the Lightning is, it was the the only NATO fighter capable of intercepting Concorde and getting in front of it), if this is the case its needs a re-write.--Pandaplodder (talk) 11:34, 14 October 2008 (UTC)


 * The difference is only one of semantics, not speed. Both relate to Mach 1 (which of course may vary as an airspeed). Twin-seat F104s were also appreciably faster than Lightning twins, as the aerodynamics were affected less by the tandem seats than the side-by-side.


 * I'm also dubious about the Concorde thing. Apart from the very early tests flights around the West of Scotland, did a Concorde ever go supersonic close enough to a Lightning base (or a deployment) to be within range of them for a M2.1 dash? Possibly in Saudi, I guess? Andy Dingley (talk) 13:05, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Stothert & Pitt
Started an article on S&P in place of the redirect. Based on an article I started at Tractor Wiki. Dont know if you have any info to expand it but see you have mentioned them several times on talk pages. - BulldozerD11 (talk) 03:01, 16 October 2008 (UTC)


 * I was planning on starting such an article in my userspace, then moving it (see User:Andy_Dingley/My_created_pages) but haven't got round to Stothert & Pitt yet. I've some off-line resource for them too, so I'll try and get stuff into there ASAP. Bit busy this week though, so no promises. Andy Dingley (talk) 08:56, 16 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Looks better all ready with some photos and extra links (and fix my habit of over capitalising titles). I built the wiki from wikipedia articles to start with (why duplicate stuff as its GDFL) and then expanded them with details of all models made and preserved examples which is none preferred content on WP. I've then started filling in missing firms building construction plant, steam engines, engines and tractors etc. & adding them back to Wikipedia to fill in the gaps but trying to get them a bit bigger than a bare stub first. I've also got a huge list of Sheffield related old companies to create articles for on wikipedia as well. but first off Im trying to find what there actually is & link them up better.


 * I've been thinking there should be a WikiProject group to cover the old British Engineering companies as a lot fall outside other niche interest groups (UK firms related to Trains, Trams, Buses, Auto mobiles, Military are covered but loads of other UK engineering firms are not), with alot of the surviving firms articles being just the latest incarnation of the firm and in some cases appearing to lose early history. Do you think any mileage in the idea as you appear to have an interest in that are?. - BulldozerD11 (talk) 14:17, 16 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Sounds interesting. I'd phrase it as "British industrial heritage" or somesuch and try to keep it broad. Personally I've no interest in companies (as business enterprises) I'm interested in the technologies behind them (seems to be '30s motor racing these days, despite my total lack of interest in motor racing!). Although my own interest is "engineering", I think "industry" might work better as a title - seems to encompass engineering well enough in most cases, but it also allows inclusion of the business and social history side for anyone so inclined. In the end though, projects don't do the donkeywork, editors do the donkeywork. Andy Dingley (talk) 15:45, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Level luffing crane
A tag has been placed on Level luffing crane, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a very short article providing no content to the reader. Please note that external links, "See also" section, book reference, category tag, template tag, interwiki link, rephrasing of the title, or an attempt to contact the subject of the article don't count as content. Please see Wikipedia:Stub for our minimum information standards for short articles. Also please note that articles must be on notable subjects and should provide references to reliable sources that verify their content.

Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself. If you plan to expand the article, you can request that administrators wait a while for you to add contextual material. To do this, affix the template   to the page and state your intention on the article's talk page. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this. Guest9999 (talk) 18:13, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Good job adding the content. Guest9999 (talk) 18:22, 16 October 2008 (UTC)


 * 2 minutes-old article that I'd only saved because the phone rang? RIDICULOUS BAD JOB ON YOUR PART! Andy Dingley (talk) 18:24, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
 * PS Thanks for the patronising comment too. Haven't you got newbies to be WP:BITEING?
 * Sorry if the comment was interpreted as patronising, it wasn't meant to be. Simply put, it is a very small minority of speedy delete candidates that are improved to a standard where they they no longer meet the criteria and when it does happen it seems like something worth noting. As you say, you only saved the article because your phone rang, to me that indicates that you realised at the time that it was not suitable for inclusion as it was. How is any user supposed to know the circumstances in which an article was saved, we can only go with what is presented and as it was the article was an A3 candidate. Guest9999 (talk) 19:24, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I find that waiting a few minutes after an article was first created to be a great help here. There are few articles so vile they need to be deleted quite so quickly. Just what is the hurry? Andy Dingley (talk) 19:26, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Generally there is no hurry, I see a big difference between tagging a page as meeting one of the speedy delete criteria and actually deleting the page. I think most administrators realise this and will give creators the time to develop articles (tagged with maybe A3 or A7 notices) if they think there is a chance that they can be fixed. The creating user also has the  tag to ensure that their point of view can be heard. There is a strong consensus (or at least there should be) that the article types listed under WP:CSD do not meet Wikipedia's minimum standards for inclusion and I think it is important that those standards are upheld and articles that meet the criteria with no signs of improvement are deleted. I would also note that editors have the option of creating and working on content in user subpages so there isn't a particular need to develop articles from below the minimum standard in mainspace. As a side note I'd generally take issue with your second statement; when new page patrolling I sometimes find that the amount of content added which is malicious attacks, pure vandalism or blatant copyright violation to be sometimes quite astounding. Guest9999 (talk) 19:50, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Sorry I just realised that the first sentence of my last post could be read in a way that implies I'm an administrator, which I'm not. Guest9999 (talk) 19:52, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

The section you made at my editor review,
Please read WP:V. First, I am not trying to take it apart piece by piece, I was removing a section that was purely original research, as I am allowed to per WP:V. I was challenging it, as there were no sources provided, not taking apart the article piece by piece as you so wrongly accused me of.—  Dæ dαlusContribs /Improve 04:19, 20 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Firstly, drop the arrogant attitude that you're the only one who has ever read any of Wikipedia's policies.
 * Secondly, rememebr that _you_ can do the research legwork just as well as anyone else. This is a trivial article of general interest, not some arcane speciality. How about getting off your mop and writing some content for once? Yes, I could do the necessary refs for that section, but to be honest I see little point in doing so when some teenage admin is likely to come along and spike the lot out of pure pique.
 * There is, somewhere buried beneath the posturing, grandstanding, barrack-room lawyering and general "I'm an admin, therefore I'm more equal than you are" attitudes rife on wikipedia, a principle that we're supposed to be building an encyclopedia. Remember that. Andy Dingley (talk) 11:30, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

helio product deletion
Andy,

Shell framed the discussion inappropriately. Here's the wikipedia product notability policy i suggested it be deleted under.

"Information on products and services should generally be included in the article on the company itself, unless the company article is so large that this would make the article unwieldy. In that case, the discussion of the company's products and services should be broken out from the company article in summary style"

There is already a paragraph on the company page detailing everything in this article. based on that plus wikipedia policy it should be removed.76.213.229.6 (talk) 04:36, 23 October 2008 (UTC)


 * It would indeed be unwieldy to do that.


 * Also I'd like to know who deleted the series of comments to the AfD. That's a particularly unacceptable form of vandalism. Andy Dingley (talk) 10:58, 23 October 2008 (UTC)