User talk:Andy Dingley/Archive 2010 December

Cat Mandu
Hi again Andy,

Finally managed to add vid evidence to the Cat Mandu article for the actual spelling, ie Catmando - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zDt-n0pNCQA As the popular spelling is perceived as Cat Mandu it is probably left as such for search purposes, with the added clarification. I have not managed to group both refs to one link in the reflist... don't know how to do that... can you help? I know that it is not usual to add a vid as part of the reflist, but as part of external links, so if you wish to tweak that possible anomaly please do.

Best wishes Acabashi (talk) 02:40, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Damn you're good :P
Amazing at finding sources, no? I was Googling for a good while and couldn't find any sources other than that one already there. I see you've also commented on the spamming. Not sure if you've seen it, so I'll just provide you the information. conflict of interest noticeboard post, spam notice, spammer IP, and spammer. I /think/ the spamming has been taken care of, but I'll do one last search. Oh wait. It was you that posted the spam notice. -.- Cya! Netalarm talk 02:31, 2 December 2010 (UTC)


 * You missed one: User_talk:Jongleur100
 * I'd really like to keep this article, and to increase its linkage from pages to which it is relevant, such as East End folk music, or approximations. I think the spam and COI issues are dealt with, so I didn't raise them on the AfD as that encourages WP's usually prejudicial pile-ons.
 * It does of course still need to be notable. I think the idea is a great project, but we still have to show that the results have worked out successfully. Andy Dingley (talk) 10:42, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Talkback
WVRMad • Talk • Guestbook 17:33, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Talkback
WVRMad • Talk • Guestbook 18:21, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Mosquito
Andy, you revert without offering any counter source other than your opinion. It is sourced, it is proven. Please take it the talk page. I have answered it there. It was the fastest in June 1941 and remained the fastest for some time. Dapi89 (talk) 14:11, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

Carol Ann Kelly
Is a re-direct in the case of this article, not simply a delete by a different name? Based on this discussion I would have thought that a merge, or no consensus on the re-direct just yet? -- Domer48 'fenian'  20:12, 5 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't think anything in that decision stops you from merging appropriate content from Carol Ann Kelly to the new article. Obviously WP:DUE would be an issue if it was all merged without additional context, but there is surely scope for some of the material. Rockpock  e  t  23:04, 5 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Deletion is different from renames, rewrites and merges in that it would lose the article history, whilst the others preserve it. So the action here is that we will no longer have a separate article at that name, but we do accept the name as valid for a redirect to an overall article, and we do acept the re-use of its content elsewhere (potentially all of that content, if otherwise appropriate).
 * I wasn't aware that we had an article at Carol Ann Kelly, let alone that there was an AfD for it (TBH, I'd really have expected an afd-notice for this and would certainly have issued one myself if I'd been the nom, as someone who might be expected to have an opinion. Nominator with an Ulster flag on their userpage and they don't notify someone who's recently been supportive to some Republican aspects?...)
 * In this case, I'd anyway have supported a redirect and merge, with a trout to Uncle G for suggesting that such an action could be carried out on a Troubled article without going through the whole AfD process.
 * WP doesn't like WP:BLP1E articles (in a big way), so this one was on tenuous grounds from the first. Watch Emma Groves go to AfD pretty soon too. However when it's a question of kids as murder victims, I'd agree with it. No-one comes to WP looking for a schoolgirl's biography, they're looking for the plastic bullet campaign issue. So a redir to that article is the best content for us to offer to those readers.
 * The only way I'd expect to see this article survive as a separate article would be if it was called Shooting of Carol Ann Kelly and it demonstrated some notable content about the shoooting as being somehow distinctive. Sadly though, these plastic bullet injuries had become anything but exceptional by their sheer frequency, so that's an uphill case to argue. Andy Dingley (talk) 23:41, 5 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks for you comments Andy, I will take them on board. -- Domer48 'fenian'  10:58, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

re: File:Donald_Campbell.jpg
Hello - thanks for the message. As a courtesy, I've restored the image as you've requested.

I've reset the deletion warning to expire December 13, to give adequate time to construct a valid fair use rationale. The existing few lines are not adequate, and it's not the deleting admin's job to fix it, especially when there's no information about replaceability of the file or its importance to the article. Also, WP:BEFORE is about nominating articles and files for deletion, not for admins doing the actual file work. Having said all that, I declined a CSD#F7 last night from the same nominator because I felt the rationale was thorough enough.

In the future, I suggest you watchlist the actual files in which you're interested, not just the articles in which they're used. People, including this people, make mistakes and forget to tag things. And remember, nothing (well, virtually nothing) is ever really gone, and I can always restore it. All you gotta do is ask. :-) Thanks again for the message and for your work at Wikipedia. :-) - Krakatoa  Katie  20:33, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks for that, I'll see about getting a FUR on it.m Andy Dingley (talk) 21:03, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Categories for discussion nomination of Category:Military recovery vehicles
Category:Military recovery vehicles, which you created, has been nominated for deletion, merging, or renaming. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. Marcus Qwertyus   23:17, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Fine Woodworking issue 1.jpg
 Thanks for uploading File:Fine Woodworking issue 1.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of "file" pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Fut.Perf. ☼ 12:14, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Plastic bullet
Yes it is. Marcus Qwertyus   23:45, 14 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Here's a clue: look who took the photo, think about why I might have had examples to photograph.
 * It's a baton round, but it's not a plastic bullet and it's certainly not the issue plastic bullet that's in the article. It's an L21, not an L5 from the casing behind it. Andy Dingley (talk) 23:53, 14 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I never said it was an L5 and baton round redirects to plastic bullet. Marcus Qwertyus   00:03, 15 December 2010 (UTC)
 * You think that this means all baton rounds are plastic bullets? Andy Dingley (talk) 00:04, 15 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Then what is the L21? Marcus Qwertyus   00:24, 15 December 2010 (UTC)
 * As is pretty obvious from the photo, aluminium with plastic nose and gas seals. More importantly though, it matters less whether it is "a plastic bullet" or not, as it isn't the plastic bullet that was used so controversially in Northern Ireland.
 * I took this photo just to clear up rubber bullet. If I had a suitable plastic bullet handy, don't you think I'd have photographed it and included it here right then? Andy Dingley (talk) 01:31, 15 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Why does it have to be from Northern Ireland? It illustrates the subject. The UK isn't the only consumer of plastic bullets anyway. Marcus Qwertyus   01:42, 15 December 2010 (UTC)
 * OK, who else uses plastic bullets? They're rarer than you think.
 * This is, incidentally, why I called to merge the two articles and rename to baton round. Andy Dingley (talk) 02:03, 15 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Andy, why don't you start a userpage for a baton round draft? I have a general source (Hoggs's on ammunition) which gives a generalist treatment on baton rounds as well as the use of plastic in rounds. GraemeLeggett (talk) 10:25, 16 December 2010 (UTC)
 * That would be good: Tony William @ Quarry and Hogg would be all you really need, although Hogg's probably a bit behind the 2001 and later changes for the L21 and L60. However I see that Markus Tankus here has already created a disambig page, to highlight how they're not the same thing at all. Andy Dingley (talk) 11:17, 16 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, once there is a fully-formed and referenced text it can replace the disambiguation page. Once you've started your draft, let me know and I'll see if there's anything I can add.GraemeLeggett (talk) 12:40, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

comments on Mark I Tank talk page
I have left a message on User:Marcus_Qwertyus talk page about their editing of your (heated?) comments which they regard as a personal attack. Hope you two can resolve the matter. GraemeLeggett (talk) 16:28, 15 December 2010 (UTC)


 * It could be seen as an attack, and it was certainly directed at Marcus Qwertyus. I've no problem with him removing it, templating me, or even dragging me off to ANI. I've seen three edits from him lately, all clueless and although not inherently stupid, showing an ignorance and failure to bother with the slightest research on a topic: claiming that Military recovery vehicles were all armoured, and thus dragging it off to CfD (he then relented and re-categorized them as tow trucks), the comment just above on this page where he refuses to accept that aluminium and plastic aren't the same thing, and then this "Mark tank" business. It's admittedly hard to know just what to call them ("Heavy" is a bit vague), but grabbing at just pulling the suffix off would be almost funny, if it wasn't so likely to end up with some vast screw-up to have to reverse afterwards. Now I see that he's deleted Patton tank as well.
 * And just don't get me started on the Belgian who can't even work a login dialog, so he dumps his fantasies all over anon IP space!
 * I'm tired of this rubbish. I don't get to write anything myself anymore, my time just gets sucked into fire-fighting against trolls and the resolutely knowledge-impervious. It's never been fun to put up with this, but there was a time when you could think that the project was worth it and so it was worth carrying on. Lately though the inanity seems to be rising faster than bailing can empty it. Even Commons has gone to hell now. Andy Dingley (talk) 16:49, 15 December 2010 (UTC)
 * You wouldn't be the first editor to feel worn down by other editors. perhaps you need to take a break for a bit. I know you'll be plagued by the feeling that in your absence things will go-to-hell-in-a-handbasket but the break might revitalise you, or at least give you space to reevaluate. If you are like me you may well have a watchlist the length of your arm and spend time checking every edit out - I found by trimming my watchlist I had less stress. There is also invoking help from other in projects - nothing wrong with leaving a message along the lines of "I'm unfortunately too busy to give article the attention it deserves but I have my concerns and could other editors help out" on a project page. Thanks for reading this far, hope you understand my intention even if my ideas are useless. Just remember that your health and happiness are worth more than wikipedia. GraemeLeggett (talk) 20:43, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

What's your source?
What's your source for what you wrote about ? How do you know that? Jonathan de Boyne Pollard (talk) 11:49, 17 December 2010 (UTC)


 * I worked on ECUs myself in the late '80s, '90s. Andy Dingley (talk) 12:38, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

Harangued
I have replied at the Afd, but wanted to reiterate here. I was not haranguing you, but simply trying to draw you attention to the way the template is used (per the documentation) since your edit summary led me to believe that you thought that it was not to be applied in the manner in which I had used it. Regards, wjemather bigissue 14:03, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

Thank you (2010-12-18)
Thanks for defending the various articles on casting ("casting", "sand casting", et al) from the recent siege of somewhat-well-meaning-but-completely-ignorant-and-fairly-obnoxious editing. Just wanted to let you know that your contributions on the front line of WP quality-degradation-prevention are appreciated. Regards, — ¾-10 16:37, 18 December 2010 (UTC)


 * By the way, after writing the above, I saw this. I'd like to encourage you to hang in there however it takes (maybe allow yourself some editing-of-choice here and there even though you have to interrupt the stupidity-fighting a bit to do so). I've also done some small bit toward helping (instead of merely cheering you on) by proposing one possible solution that could substantially mitigate the idiocy and keep people like you and me from giving up. Let's hope there are some other people out there smart enough to give the topic some thought and help spur its execution. — ¾-10 20:05, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

Comparison of Subversion clients
Hi, may I ask why you reverted my recent cleanup of this article? I didn't remove the section due to conflicts of interest, but due to WP:NOT (that we do not host linkfarms or directories). None of the examples listed linked to any wikipedia article. I would appreciate if you would re-remove this section; we shouldn't get in the practice of having entire article sections devoted to expanding on external links. Thanks,  Them From  Space  16:14, 21 December 2010 (UTC)


 * What the hell are you on about? You deleted a whole series of paragraphs, each of which on the subject of an SVN client (the purpose of the article). These weren;'t just ELs. Even ELs in such a case would be justified anyway. It is very far from being a linkfarm. Andy Dingley (talk) 16:23, 21 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Sorry to disagree with you, but this is a classic linkfarm scenario. Each of those paragraphs was just a promotional description of a particular EL, none of which are notable for their own articles. My cleanup was entirely beneficial to the article, but I'll leave it in its current state if you object to it.  Them From  Space  16:41, 21 December 2010 (UTC)
 * The writing style of those paragraphs is poor, but each paragraph is justified. In particular, there's so much variation between them (some are GUIs, some code APIs, some central web servers) that a table approach doesn't work well.
 * As to the inline EL vs. ref issue, then I dislike inlined ELs and hyperlinked section headers as much as anyone. However pulling the URLs out to a reflist in the footer would just be pointless arbitrarianism. When it's a list of 3rd party items, there is justification for having a navigable EL right there on the para. I might even split the header into a header and keep the EL as a readable URL on the line below. 17:03, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Why was my Thrust1 edit reverted?
I removed Category:Thrust project as it didn't exist, and moved the article from Category:Jet land speed record cars to Category:Jet cars, as Thrust1 was not itself a land speed record car (despite being constructed as part of the Thrust project to break the land speed record). Instead it was a low-speed test vehicle built to allow the team to gain experience in driving a jet-propelled vehicle. --GCarty (talk) 09:38, 24 December 2010 (UTC)
 * It was built by an LSR team, for the purposes (admittedly not immediate) of attempting the LSR. It wasn't successful, it wasn't even credible, but it was a "reduced scale" version of an LSR car, for the purposes of an LSR attempt. It would even have been credible (as much as any other first attempt is credible) for the British LSR, and we list Vampire as an LSR car on no more basis than that. It wasn't a jet dragster. Would you remove North American Eagle Project on the same grounds? Andy Dingley (talk) 09:53, 24 December 2010 (UTC)



Mill images and Maurice
I see from above that you suffer from the FU Deletionista. If you are passing through any of my LCC mills pages and find a new image has been added to them, can you check there is a caption pointing out that the difference between the mill now and when it was is cotton in 1951- otherwise the mafia will speedy delete .. etc etc.

On another tack I see you have got involved with our new user!!

Have a mince pie on me. --ClemRutter (talk) 22:13, 28 December 2010 (UTC)