User talk:Andy Dingley/Archive 2012 June

Assembly language spammer
Is it time to ask for an IP range block? Jeh (talk) 12:27, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

Categories
Please stop undoing my edits. Have a read of WP:CAT and make yourself familiar with convention. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 08:59, 4 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Please stop making some really bloody dumb decategorizations. In particular, stripping cats altogether. Cat Inventions might not be the best ever on Wonderbag, but how about trying to improve content, rather than just following your regular mindless actions of blindly removing things, no matter if the end result becomes worse than when you started. You dispute that Wonderbag is an invention but you edit-war to keep the category on a non-production motorbike, just because it's from New Zealand and you've a POV problem.
 * Also, once again, you've entirely de-populated categories like Category:Charles F. Kettering so that you can later tag them for deletion as empty. If you think that such a cat shouldn't exist (for whatever petty little reason you can cook up by reading policy pages and no content about the subject), then at least have the balls to nominate the category for deletion and encourage discussion of the topic, don't just sneak the content out first and hope no-one notices. Andy Dingley (talk) 09:03, 4 June 2012 (UTC)


 * "really bloody dumb decategorizations" is your opinion and removing a category leaving an article uncategorised can be {in my opition) an "improvement. ...etc... -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 09:11, 4 June 2012 (UTC)


 * It appears that you are making assumptions about my WP work. The way I read it Wikipedia talk:Categorization seems like a pointed question about emptying categories. I this is the case PLEASE do not make rash assumptions about my editing. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 01:08, 10 June 2012 (UTC)


 * My opinion of your competence for anything involving categorization has only been reinforced by your recent attempts to delete Category:Ships by designer. Andy Dingley (talk) 01:20, 10 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Is it competence or merely a difference of opinion? WP:EQ prevents me from further comment... -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 02:00, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

Dams and lakes
Why do you class a dam as a lake? -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 21:42, 15 June 2012 (UTC)


 * I didn't, Category:Lakes_of_Guatemala did.
 * This category is for articles pertaining to lakes and reservoirs in Guatemala.
 * To save your next argument,
 * A reservoir (etymology: from French réservoir a "storehouse" [1]), artificial lake or impoundment from a dam[2] is used to store water. 
 * Are you going to restore them, or should I just add them to the request for a topic ban on you and categorization? Andy Dingley (talk) 22:07, 15 June 2012 (UTC)


 * But a reservoir is not a dam. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 22:44, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

Why the redirect
Why did you redirect your Cylinder liner article to Cylinder (engine)? -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 22:59, 15 June 2012 (UTC)


 * I've just restored it how it was. Andy Dingley (talk) 23:00, 15 June 2012 (UTC)


 * But it seems to be a perfectly acceptable Wikipedia article? -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 23:05, 15 June 2012 (UTC)


 * I think your speedy deletion tag was incorrect. I recall that another editor created the page as a redirect. I may be wrong but I cannot check now that it is deleted. For someone who berates me about improving WP you have an odd way of carrying out improvements yourself. Deletion of comprehensive articles is not improvement. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 23:44, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

Re: Your view that notability is not required
Please address the concerns left on the Fictional Badger talk page here. We need to discuss your position that notability is not required in the article. As it stands you know that there is strong opposition to this new change. Please help me reach a consensus by starting a new subsection to discuss your changes. I know you may not have loads of free time, but I'd like to resolve this as soon as possible. Thank you. -Thibbs (talk) 11:57, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Again, when you get the chance please carry on with our discussion at the Badgers talk page. I am anxious to resolve this issue. If we can't get this issue cleared away by the 20th then I think it would be in both of our best interests to restore the version that was there prior to your edit and to request a Third opinion. And we can proceed up the dispute resolution chain after that as necessary. -Thibbs (talk) 13:46, 15 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Also, If you aren't going to participate in the discussion any further then please let me know before the 20th so that I can work toward a resolution on my own more quickly. I'm not interested in holding my breath for a week if you already know you aren't going to work collaboratively with me. If you intend to carry on discussing the matter then no need to respond here, but if you are personally finished with it then please let me know promptly. Thanks. -Thibbs (talk) 23:02, 15 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't appreciate your threats of "Work to my timescale or I will simply revert to my favoured form" Andy Dingley (talk) 23:03, 15 June 2012 (UTC)
 * My favored form is the form it has been in for over a year now. It is the previous consensus form. Before starting 3O we should leave it in this form rather than adopting your changes. I am happy to give you a little time to respond, but I don't want to drag this out any more than it has to be dragged. Your silence was starting to concern me. No worries if you are still engaged though. The last note was just to ask you to inform me if you decide to cut off communication. Obviously I'll do the same for you. -Thibbs (talk) 23:06, 15 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Your 'favored form', i.e. after you'd just deleted half the article, never represented any sort of consensus, other than your own opinion. The talk page makes that pretty clear. Andy Dingley (talk) 23:20, 15 June 2012 (UTC)
 * You are the only one who was opposed to that and you were unable to explain why the list should include un-sourced non-notable members then. There have been no complaints about it since then until you attempted to force your view a few days ago. I look forward to your explanation of why non-notable members belong this time. -Thibbs (talk) 00:09, 16 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Also let's not discuss this on your talk page. The Fictional Badger talk page is a more appropriate place to continue the conversation. If you want to have the last word on this your talk page then feel free, but I'm not interested in continuing to bicker with you here. You know that I want you to carry on with the discussion in a prompt manner and you know that I would like to be informed if you are dropping out of the conversation so I have nothing more to tell you on your talk. I'll look for your response at the article talk page. -Thibbs (talk) 00:11, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

Because you have not been able to find time to continue with the discussion and have instead taken the initiative to file for a Third Opinion on your own, I have now partially reverted your edit of 13 June that removed the notability criterion which had been part of the article for more than a year. This is in line with the BRD-cycle that is used at Wikipedia to reach consensus effectively. I have left your character re-additions in place for now but I have added tags to them requesting that sources be added to verify that they indeed meet the inclusion criteria. I have also modified your 3O request because it was obviously non-neutral. -Thibbs (talk) 19:46, 16 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I also shifted the sprawling discussion to its own subsection as I'd earlier suggested. I think this will make it easier for the 3O volunteer. I also started a subsection below so that we can present our individual preferences for inclusion criteria without the banter. I think it will be helpful to reach consensus if we can clearly spell out exactly what are our preferred inclusion criteria and how they differ from the other person's. You can write your view here if you'd like. Thanks. -Thibbs (talk) 21:25, 16 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Cancel that. The 3O volunteer agrees with your view that notability is not important in such a small article. You can still present your view in the space provided if you wish but 3O is complete as far as I can see. I must say that I am disappointed with this outcome and I was disheartened by some of your actions throughout our time editing together at the article, but I am a firm believer in community decisions and although I disagree on the policy side of the issue, I will abide by the decision coming from the 3O. I'm sorry to have wasted both of out time at the article in question. Good luck in future editing. -Thibbs (talk) 03:37, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

Batman's utility belt...
...in case you are still interested in giving certain people a taste of their own medicine, is up for AfD: Articles for deletion/Batman's utility belt. Richard75 (talk) 21:36, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

Wtshymanski
Thank you for your support in the Wtshymanski affair. It looks as though one way or another, we have had a result. This was more than I expected when you persuaded me to raise the RfC in the first place. Unfortunately, I am now off to Spitzbergen for approx two weeks, so will not be able to watch progess. Once again thank you. I am (currently): 86.181.48.171 (talk) 17:17, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

The time has come.
I almost just redirected it, given that it's at the very least a valid alternative title and currently largely a duplicate article. But after I checked "what links here" and found the merger discussion I thought that I'd instead let you know that your opportunity to shine, and to demonstrate what you envisaged last year, has come. &#9786; Uncle G (talk) 14:17, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Talk:LALR parser
 * Talk:LALR parser


 * This is not an alternative name. No question about it. The two concepts are quite different: one is a tool, the another is a different tool, used to make examples of the first (it's easier to do it this way). There is no justification to merge because they're "the same thing" or "alternate names". That's simply incorrect.
 * There is an argument (which I don't support, but I do recgonise it) that these are very closely related. One indeed cannot exist without the other. If we also recognise that the current article state (NB, current article state, not topic or potential state) explains little difference, then there is an argument on that narrow basis alone for merging. The resultant article would have to have two enormous sections within it that are quite separate. You might argue (with some justification) that this is the most readable article structure -- however these are still two different topics, on two different tools, and need to be treated as such.
 * The literature on these is vast, and there is no issue of sourcing.
 * I would suggest moving this discussion to the relevant article page though. Andy Dingley (talk) 15:25, 29 June 2012 (UTC)