User talk:Andy Dingley/Archive 4

White Triplex
Hi, a, I had just took an interest, read that article and have now nominated it for a DYK. Willirennen (talk) 14:45, 1 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks for that - I wasn't aware of DYK. Did you see my Thunderbolt & Eyston articles too? Andy Dingley (talk) 16:02, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Sorry that it took a while to reply, but I have. Willirennen (talk) 17:56, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Miss England (Speedboat) and naming conventions
Hello. Sorry to bother you, but your in-progress article on Miss England (Speedboat) was raised up at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Ships. We thought that you should be informed that by the conventions of WP:SHIPS (this article falling under the mandate of the project), individual craft should have individual articles, instead of having several similarly named craft covered in a single article. So when you further expand the article, you might want to consider splitting it into Miss England I, Miss England II and Miss England III and converting Miss England (Speedboat) into a disambiguation page. Not that I'd be trying to dictate what you should do, but following established conventions obviously makes this place easier to use for everyone. Again, sorry for bothering you, and keep up the good work! -- Kjet (talk · contribs) 10:29, 10 April 2008 (UTC)


 * I think I'll leave that for someone else to worry about. I've only got just about enough material for one reasonable page on the series of them, not for competent pages on each (I've almost nothing on III). If someone wants to come along later and split it, that's fine by me, but as an interim stage I'd intended to just complete one decent article first. Andy Dingley (talk) 11:03, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedians who understand ParserFunctions
Hi Andy. I found your name at Category:Wikipedians who understand ParserFunctions. In WikiProject California template, if imageneeded=yes and in=Los Angeles county, California, then the page will be categorized in Category:Wikipedia requested photographs in Los Angeles county, California. However, if imageneeded=yes and in=, in2=, and in3= are not specified, then the page should be categorized in Category:Wikipedia requested photographs in California. How do I revise the following code from Template:WikiProject California to make this happen?:



-- GregManninLB (talk) 16:53, 23 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Sorry, haven't got time to look at that right now. As a guess (without testing), you're looking for the  operation. Easiest way to get that is to use the way that   evaluates the expression - basically as either an empty or non-empty string. So try some variant of this:

Hope that helps. If I've misunderstood your needs, or if it doesn't, then please comment. Andy Dingley (talk) 19:01, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Works like a charm. Thanks for the code. Is there a page I can read up on how to write such code myself? GregManninLB (talk) 14:16, 24 April 2008 (UTC)


 * I wish there was some good documentation on this! I use my own list of several scabby little links to MediaWiki etc. Even then I'm always jumping between tabs to try and remember just which page something was on. Much of the problem is in remembering whether something is a "magic word", or a parser function, or just a template - what's one little  or a   between friends?. Then there's the problem of extensions and whether your particular wiki has that extension installed.


 * http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Help:Magic_words
 * http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Parser_functions
 * http://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Extension:ParserFunctions
 * http://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Extension_Matrix
 * http://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Extension:DynamicPageList


 * I don't really use (as an editor) Wikipedia much, mostly I do work on an intranet-hosted MediaWiki (2,500 article, 8,000 total page) with LOTS of dynamic stuff based on complex categorization and automatic creation of overview or reporting pages. I couldn't do it without DPL, but that's one right evil pig of a thing to wrangle. As it happens, I'm writing a book on this stuff - deploying wikis inside businesses. Andy Dingley (talk) 18:38, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the info. I'm looking at WikiProject Council/Guide/Technical notes right now, trying to understand the code. I got to "{| class="messagebox" and my first question is why the "{" and then why is "|" needed. If you can point me to documentation on the "class=" item, that would be most appreciated. There should be an understanding banner code for dummmies page. I'll take a look through the links you provided. Thanks again. GregManninLB (talk) 14:24, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

{| class="messagebox is a combination of two things, neither of them specifically Parser Functions.

is wikitable markup for the beginning of a table.

is HTML markup, passed straight through the wiki and onto the webpage. It's used to attach a CSS rule, by means of a selector in the skinning.css that will have   in the selector (any CSS ref. should explain this). Note the leading "."

Couple of other things to note:

is wikitable markup, but it can't be used in combination with Parser Functions, as the PF parser sees the " " character as being related to the PFs and will swallow it up before it gets to generate a table. If you want to generate table from within PFs (not obvious, so ask for advice - a good article on this would be worth writing) then you need to replace " " with " ". This is a simple template call, to a template called !. Most wikis will have this installed, a template that simply returns a " ". Equally !! that returns " ". These templates are also useful for passing table markup into template parameters. See my new for an example.

is a simple example, with one class name in the class attribute. HTML / CSS also allows multiple classes to be specified together, with  This HTML element will have the CSS rules for any of the classes "messagebox", "woof", "bark" 'or'' "donkey" applied to it.

Andy Dingley (talk) 22:42, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I've got lots to learn. It appears that  calls the .messagebox in template:MediaWiki:Common.css to give specific/common characteristics to Messagebox templates. There is a table of classes here. I do remember reading about the pipe "|" and the need to use an exclaimation point "!" for the pipe in some cases. I need to start with the basics of HTML markup and wikitable markup and work my way up from there. Thanks. : ) GregManninLB (talk) 02:51, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Cohors II Gallorum
Hi. I'm delighted to see you support keeping this article I have just created. It is intended as the first of individual entries on all 400+ known Roman auxiliary regiments to link to the main article, List of Roman auxiliary regiments. To be honest, as someone unfamiliar with the editing norms of Wiki, I cannot understand why this can even remotely be regarded as unsuitable for inclusion. The unit in question is discussed in a number of reputable academic publications, so why is it "non-notable"? Perhaps you can explain this term more clearly for me? Regards EraNavigator (talk) 21:51, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

No, I'm afraid I cannot explain this term any more clearly...

...at least not in a way that isn't going to get me thrown into the editorial sin-bin along with User:Sarah777 and a bunch of other editors who value adding new content over measuring reaction times to nit-pick about topics they have no other interest in or connection with. But take a look at Notching. Andy Dingley (talk) 22:11, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Notching
I've restored the article, removed the commercial link and the speedy template. The commercial link was not at all useful in describing notching. It offered commercial services related to notching. Beyond a glossary, there didn't seem any reason to link to it.

Perhaps I made a mistake in agreeing with the Speedy tag (although I decline to say mea culpa.) However, if the text isn't clarified and better focused, I expect it may be nominated again, either for SD or AfD. I did read the article before deleting it and found it almost incomprehensible from a layman's perspective. It uses jargon and words defined specifically from the perspective of metal/materials processing. In other words, what seem to be perfectly clear words are only understandable if one is familiar with the fabrication and metalworking usage of the terms. I suspect this is what the SD nom meant by "lacking context".

I'm putting the article on my watchlist and I'll try to keep an eye on it. Cheers, Pigman ☿ 23:41, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Ignoring NPA issues, Andy, I will instead attempt to explain that this seemed to me to be an example of WP:NOT material. It's more of a how-to than encyclopedic content, as Pigman clarifies far more eloquently than I did. -- Orange Mike  &#x007C;   Talk  12:46, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

NOT GUIDE is fair enough as a comment, but that's still reason for improvement, not for deletion. Certainly not speedy.

For NPA, then I'm sorry and I must assume that you act in Good Faith, but I don't have to believe that you exercise good judgement. There are two editors involved in attacking this article (and its newbie creator, who we're all equally required to assume acted in equal good faith) - both of you have a talk page filled with queries and complaints noting pages where you appear to have acted over-hastily to delete pages. We're supposed to be building things here, not seeing who's fastest to demolish them. Andy Dingley (talk) 12:52, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Your points are good, and I'm more than willing to AGF on your part as well. I don't believe I'm "attacking" anybody or anything; I prefer to think of it as quality control. I am convinced the article will still end up deleted under an AfD. -- Orange Mike  &#x007C;   Talk  13:52, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
 * That's a prejudicial assumption of future AfD, in a subject area that I don't believe you're familiar with. Have you read it today? I'm not familiar enough with the subject myself to write more than a terse intro, unprepared, unreferenced and at dead of night (Just what is the urgency here anyway?) but   I hope that it's starting to give at least the hint of context.


 * I should have spent last night Having A Life. If I'm to spend it on WikiLife instead, I had a couple of far more useful articles that I could have been working on. This business of chasing administrivia in circles as if it's time-critical is wasteful to everyone. Andy Dingley (talk) 14:16, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

.303 British
Hello, I undid an edit that you made in good faith to Handley Page H.P.54 Harrow removing 7.7mm as the metric conversion of the 0.303 in British round as it is my understanding (and it would seem accepted wisdom on Wikipedia) that this is the correct metric reporting calibre of that particular round. Regards. Emoscopes Talk 09:22, 26 April 2008 (UTC)


 * It's not a question of good faith, it's a question being right. .303 isn't a dimension, it's a calibre - these things are never really convertable between dimensions like this, no matter how many wikibots try to do it automatically,. Besides which, I don't know of any reference (Wikipedia or citeable) that describes .303 British as 7.7mm, or as equivalent to Japanese 7.7mm, and even the Wikipedia claim that Japanese Naval 7.7mm is derived from .303 British is stretching things a bit. For that matter, most of the WW2 RAF aircraft pages claim that they were fitted with M1919 Brownings, which is way off the beam. Andy Dingley (talk) 22:30, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

More code advise
Hi again Andy. If an article class is assigned FA, GA, B, Start, Stub, or no assessment, I want the WikiProject California template sending the article to Category:WikiProject California articles. If an article class is Category, template, or some other non-article, then I do not want WikiProject California template sending the article to Category:WikiProject California articles. Will the following code do this:

GregManninLB (talk) 21:53, 28 April 2008 (UTC)


 * No. Use the  form that's in the template at the moment.


 * Wiki syntax is difficult. In particular because the "|" character is re-used for different purposes. Unless your example is doing something subtle I've no experience of, it's just not valid syntax, or anything close to it. The  construct inside a switch (fall-through of matches) doesn't have any real connection to the "default value for parameters" structure you seem to be confusing it with here. Andy Dingley (talk) 23:37, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I changed the syntax to

. This was based on the above comment. Will this work? Thanks. GregManninLB (talk) 02:27, 30 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Use the    You need to test values of a single parameter here, not multiple parameters.


 * I'd also lose the duplicated multi-case stuff. It's easier to force the input to a known case with, then just test once. Try this:

syntax is over here http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/ParserFunctions#.23switch: Andy Dingley (talk) 15:47, 30 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks again Andy. I'm trying to create a California WikiProject template. If you have the time, would you please look over the template and make it more efficent. My test page for the template is here. Thanks so much! GregManninLB (talk) 19:56, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Should we add a new section to WP:NOT?
I was actually thinking about this over lunch instead of reading my new Patricia McKillip novel. Should there be an explicit section of WP:NOT called something like, "Wikipedia is not a scratch pad or word processor."? We could start with your phrasing, "editors really should not treat wikipedia as an editing scratchpad, and shouldn't make stuff even remotely visible until it's near-finished." I would add something like, "As an editor of Wikipedia, a contributor is expected to create a new article, however brief in something resembling a finished state. It should not resemble a series of random jottings, a skeletal outline with empty section headings, an essay, or a "data dump" from a resume or similar document. Naturally, many new articles will be stubs; there is nothing wrong with a properly-formatted stub. But at a minimum, an article should, for example, have an opening sentence that makes it clear what the subject is: a place, a thing, a person, a concept, or whatever; and at least enough additional context to place it within the universe of discourse. There should be wikilinks to relevant aspects of the subject, and ideally perhaps a category and/or a stub tag or two." Am I making sense here? -- Orange Mike  &#x007C;   Talk  19:04, 2 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Mike, I understand the point you are making, but to be honest as an editor with less than a year's experience of wikipedia, I am still learning about all the various policies etc that need to be applied to articles to ensure they fit within the category of acceptability. Newly signed-up editors are deluged with links to policies and guidelines that they need to read, I doubt that many read half, let alone all of it.  This doesn't automatically mean however that they will create bad articles. Personally I don't think there is anything wrong with using Wikipedia as a "scratchpad" as far as creating new articles are concerned.  Indeed the very nature of Wikipedia means that all articles are in effect scratchpads, its just that some are far more advanced than others.  I doubt we will ever say that an article is "complete" for example.


 * Given that I disagree with the assumption that all new editors read all of the "terms and conditions" before they make a keystroke in terms of editing, it would be more pragmatic to make comments on article discussion or user talk pages to explain how an article can be improved, and the potential consequences of leaving the article to stagnate. After all we all signed up to Wikipedia to be part of an editing community, not to read noticeboards. ColourSarge (talk) 19:55, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

vandal accusation
Glad to have a second voice. Been banging my head on a brick wall. Very frustrating.--Cube lurker (talk) 23:40, 3 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Logs are just hard to read. The number of times I've been caught myself, when I've reacted to a single last change and not read the whole story from over a few changes back. We just all need to be very careful before throwing accusations around, to see that they're really deserved. Andy Dingley (talk) 10:31, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

BTW
BTW I never thanked you for your intervention(s) recently; (and just now! ). I was having a bad week! So thank you, twice! Xyl 54 (talk) 14:20, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Vulcan shed
That's classy...but not a lost cause. You only need about 5 million other spare parts off eBay and voila, your own Cold War bomber.

Dunno if you'll fit it in your back garden though ;)

Compromise on last / only / current - how about "single" ? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.66.54.83 (talk) 14:23, 13 May 2008 (UTC)


 * 4 million, nine-hundred and ninety-nine thousand and a few hundred 8-) Andy Dingley (talk) 16:05, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Napier-Railton
Hi Andy, Thanks... I made sure I was there for the testing of the Napier-Railton. Every time I've visited the museum before it's been tucked away in the Campbell shed. I had to use the opportunity to get some pics! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dave Rogers 100 (talk • contribs) 21:18, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Re: Mary White (ceramicist and calligrapher)
Hi, I've restored Mary White (ceramicist and calligrapher). I stumbed across the article as the editor who created it had created a bunch of articles on different people called Mary White, few of which seemed notable from the articles content per the part of CSD #7 which states that articles can be speedied if they're "An article about a real person, organization (band, club, company, etc.), or web content that does not indicate why its subject is important or significant." and wasn't responding to the tag - the article as it stands doesn't really make any case for why Ms White belongs in an Encyclopedia. I don't see how this person is at all notable, but you are right about there being a very vauge claim to some notability so I've undone my deletion - do you intend to work on it? Nick Dowling (talk) 10:14, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
 * If you read the speedy criteria carefully you'll see that it requires "important or significant" and specifically states that this is a lower standard than notability. Notability is important, but we should discuss that on the timescale of AfD, not Speedy. We don't have to speedy delete "worthless" content, and for the purposes of consensus we shouldn't do so. Speedy is there for the content that's actively harmful or patently useless with no prospect of becoming useful.


 * There's still a value judgement to be made here, whether this particular artist's work is "notable" within its field. Those are difficult though and need time for consideration. Speedy is inappropriate for that consideration and consensus.


 * Personally I'm convinced (they're a known name amongst Welsh ceramicists) and the Aber bio is a good independent source to support this. Andy Dingley (talk) 11:50, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

All About Antique Silver with International Hallmarks
Dear Mr. Dingley:

I am new to editing Wikipedia and I thought I put the correct edit for the above book, I realize that I forgot the ISBN 0-9785168-0-X so I would appreciate you undoing your undos as this book has valid and reliable information about the topics it was listed for. If my form was improper in the edit I would appreciate your suggestions.

Sincerely,

scinamonScinamon (talk) 21:23, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Vandalism
No problem. Yes, he sure was busy. A three day block is enough though. The majority of ip's are not static, and we don't want to block non-vandalism ip edits. If he starts again on the same ip he will get longer blocks. Garion96 (talk) 19:24, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Supermarine S.6B
There is no need to introduce templates for citations and references when the sources are properly cited. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 20:30, 7 June 2008 (UTC).
 * That's because your understanding of the benefits of templates is clearly lacking. Andy Dingley (talk) 20:48, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
 * From Cite_your_sources "The use of citation templates is neither encouraged nor discouraged. Templates may be used or removed at the discretion of individual editors, subject to agreement with other editors on the article. Because templates can be contentious, editors should not change an article with a distinctive citation format to another without gaining consensus." Both the original citation style and the cite|book template are permissable ways of citing references. Please take this to the talk page and try to establish consensus before edit warring - and please stay Civil.Nigel Ish (talk) 21:19, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
 * As an editor he is of course free to edit pages however he sees fit. Posting patronising messages to other's talk pages, claiming that the use of templates was a recent edit (any change there was over a month ago - the only "recent" edit was to fix a broken cat name), or alleging that the templates had been used incorrectly is quite another thing. Andy Dingley (talk) 09:39, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

RE: .sport
Thanks SGGH speak! 06:33, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Bluebird K7
I'd just like to thank you for answering a long-burning question of mine as to why it was called "K7" (where's K5 and 6? I used to think) and what the "infinity" symbol on the badge stands for. Keep up the good work! Emoscopes Talk 13:11, 29 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks, that was pretty much my reaction when I came across the relevant page in "The Bluebird Years". Andy Dingley (talk) 18:46, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Hafod
Thanks for the help with Hafod Estate. Have you been there? &#8734;&#9788;Geaugagrrl (T) / (C) 05:11, 1 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Holiday last week, including a delightful walk through the estate. I'll probably upload some photos soon. Do you know the story of when the house itself was demolished? I'm assuming that it was one of those houses blown up to avoid post-1948 death duties, but I'm just guessing here. Andy Dingley (talk) 10:17, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
 * To such a (previously) grand place you went. I hope to make a visit soon in search of family history.  I added Llanfihangel y Creuddyn which contains a great deal of information about area and estate. Several of my family were baptised at St. Michael (Hafod), Eglwys Newydd located on the estate.   The FAQ Web page for the estate lists the following:


 * By the 1940s the house was in a poor state of repair. It was owned by a succession of timber merchants before coming into the hands of an asset-striping company. At an auction in 1949 all fixtures and fittings were sold off, including windows, stairs, and floors. Not surprisingly, when the Forestry Commission took over in 1950, they could not find a use or a buyer for the surviving wreck. Piecemeal demolition of the Victorian wing began, and eventually the remainder was dynamited in 1958. The 1882 stables were retained.


 * Do you have any pictures of St. Michael church? I have been searching for such an image.  Thanks for uploading the image to the page, and hope to see more! &#8734;&#9788;Geaugagrrl (T) / (C) 05:32, 2 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Sadly I didn't photograph the church. It's alongside the road into the estate and it appeared to be a well-preserved, albeit locally unremarkable, church with a large and well-maintained churchyard around it.
 * You might also like to look at
 * http://quercus.livejournal.com/215955.html
 * http://codesmiths.com/dingbat/lj/200806_Wales/
 * I've some other photos too, but they're on two other cameras and my card reader is playing up. These so far are just off my backup phone.
 * If you're going to visit, then it sounds like a great excuse to stay in Hawthorn Cottage, or else the Hafod Hotel at Devil's Bridge (built as a hunting lodge for the estate) Andy Dingley (talk) 08:55, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Hopefully you will upload more, or a great many of your wonderful photos of Hafod to the Commons. Would make a great addition to the article. I especially like the picture of the trees-great composition. I love the image of the pub.  Looks so much like Barra an Teampaill. Thanks for the information about the church and current condition.  Bye for now. &#8734;&#9788;Geaugagrrl (T) / (C) 04:09, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Image_talk:2nd_Police_warning_4_God%27s_Emissary.jpg
I appreciate the comment you posted concerning the subject in the article http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ray_Joseph_Cormier. I looked at your beautiful images and I can understand your POV is that of a photographer/artist. I thought The Citizen photographer had a good eye in capturing the moment. The two images were originally posted by an Administrator with the not free/fair use tag I met on a job over two years ago as I was driving three volunteers for an NDP candidate in my van for hire as they planted election signs in Canada's last general election. There are not many occasions when people are interested in hearing about my 3 runs for elective office as an Independent Candidate with no money or volunteers, but these guys were. One of them took it upon himself to research my talk and confirmed it by creating the article. You might imagine how happy and surprised I was discovering it April 19. Seeing it is about me, I have recused myself from editing it, hoping others would take over. Would you enlighten me on what FUR means, please? Perhaps you might improve on the way the article uses it as you suggest. If you read the history, what is in the article now is only about 5% of the original. The editor who wants both images deleted unilaterally removed them instantaneously on seeing them. After about a week's discussion, they were restored to the article, but he has had a change of heart. I don't understand why an editor/admin. would spent so much time obsessed about these images other than not wanting them in the historic image category. DoDaCanaDa (talk) 02:27, 4 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Sometimes I am slow in understanding. Disregard my FUR question. Thanks. Andy, this image is also up for deletion by the same user. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:2nd_Police_Warning_4_God%27s_Emissary_1.jpg. It was more interesting before it was re-sized. You could see the lines in the faces. Do you have an opinion on this? While the images do show the individual in the article, it's not about him. It's an event about us. DoDaCanaDa (talk) 14:04, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Italian Mare Nostrum
LoL ;) wanted to see what would happen. I just merged it... -- DIREKTOR  ( TALK ) 10:11, 29 May 2008 (UTC)


 * And this is a good thing? 8-( Andy Dingley (talk) 13:32, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm kidding. The merge was proposed without anyone participating in the discussion, the reason was explained to involved Users at the deletion discussion. At any rate, perhaps now the merge will be discussed. -- DIREKTOR  ( TALK ) 14:36, 29 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Andy


 * I don’t know where to start with this!


 * I’m gobsmacked!


 * It’s probably the outcome I would have sought, but I don’t like the way it’s been done. It needs to be done decently and in order. Any suggestions? Xyl 54 (talk) 16:57, 30 May 2008 (UTC)


 * (Addendum) I've posted here and here about it; who knows? Xyl 54 (talk) 17:12, 30 May 2008 (UTC)


 * I'm thinking of creating a template tag and a  of "Articles beyond hope of redemption, don't waste your life on them". Articles like this that have been savaged by a self-appointed cabal, or those like Duck typing that are simply too inept, or anything involving Ireland, ever. Then I can just remember to walk away and not let it ruin my day, while I get on with something else. Then I'll go and sit with Sarah777 on the Naughty Chair. This isn't how it was supposed to be, but I admit it's beyond me how to solve it. 8-( Andy Dingley (talk) 18:09, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Hmm, that cabal probably includes me, on this occasion. But I see Direktor has, civilly, done as I requested; so if there is anything to discuss, it can be. Xyl 54 (talk) 11:23, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
 * PS. And yes, walking away would be good advice, if I could learn to heed it. Xyl 54 (talk) 11:24, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Revisited in July 2008
Hi Andy. Re: this edit, with all due respect, I did not blank the page. I restored the redirect to Mare Nostrum that had been deleted by an IP address with an agenda. Your change has been undone by another editor. Many thanks for your attention. Best, AlasdairGreen27 (talk) 10:38, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
 * By "agenda" I presume you mean "Being able to distinguish gross abuse of process from consensus". That whole "deletion by merge" process stank. Attrition by a persistent cabal isn't the same as reaching consensus. 8-( Andy Dingley (talk) 11:23, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

[] - [] - [] - [] - [] - [] - [] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.28.126.85 (talk) 15:05, 7 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Sorry, but I'm not getting involved. I don't like what happened here, or to see a potentially good article deleted (because that's what was done, no matter how they paint it), but I'm not quite so stupid as to waste time on a fool's errand in a field I know little of. There's enough partisan deletionism going on around articles where I have something useful to add. Andy Dingley (talk) 15:31, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
 * No Andy, I do not mean "Being able to distinguish gross abuse of process from consensus". I mean an IP address with an agenda, precisely as I said. The IP address (65.3.224.112) is my old friend User:Brunodam. What you describe casually as a "potentially good article" is a piece of Italian irridentist aggrandisement, seeking to portray something that in reality never existed as a historical fact. Even to the most casual observer the claims made in this article are obvious bunkum, and it is a blatant example of Wikipedia being used as a vehicle to spread propaganda. That's all. AlasdairGreen27 (talk) 15:57, 7 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Never existed as a historical fact?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.28.126.85 (talk) 16:32, 7 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I have a lot of sympathy for the "never existed as a historical fact" argument, but see this as no reason to delete the article. Nor do I believe that this article ever seriously intended to put forward that precise point! Is there a Mussolinist Revisionist Cabal that I wasn't aware of? It was a historical term, however overblown that claim might have been. It was even a historical British joke in-period (I have a copy of the newspaper cartoon) to ridicule past Italian claims once they'd been clearly and absolutely swept away.


 * We've all got an agenda. Some of us have an agenda to try and improve the average level of wikiquality, some to fight one tiny point to the death. I hope to spend more of my own limited time on the former, which still shouldn't be taken as support for positions in the second that I don't choose to spend too long arguing over. Andy Dingley (talk) 17:01, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Wise words indeed. The redirect to Mare Nostrum is not a deletion, it's a redirect, which is quite different. I'd also recommend a quick read of Content forking. No, there's no Mussolinist Revisionist Cabal, but a wearying plethora of sockpuppets, three of whom voted 'keep' on the AfD. Lastly, you are very sensible to avoid spending your limited time arguing over Wikipedia articles such as this that hardly anybody reads. See you around. AlasdairGreen27 (talk) 17:30, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Just to weigh in here, there is no "deletion" involved here. The Italian usage of the term Mare Nostrum is mentioned at Mare Nostrum. The problem with the Italian Mare Nostrum page was that it is a very poor article mostly filled with irrelevance. How is a photo of a "Macchi C.205 Veltro of Regia Aeronautica" relevant to this political concept? How is it relevant that there was an "attack on the British base at Suda Bay, Crete by destroyers Crispi and Sella, both transporting explosive motor boats: HMS York beached and abandoned and one oil tanker sunk"? Do we need to know that "The Italian fleet also took advantage of the situation and moved onto the offensive, blocking or decimating at least three large Allied convoys bound for Malta" in order to understand what the term means? Or that "The Italian Regia Aeronautica entered the war with 3296 airplanes (1332 Bombers and 1160 "Caccia", as were called the Fighters in Italian)"?

What has happened is that the relevant portions of Italian Mare Nostrum (which frankly, there was not much of) have been moved to Mare Nostrum. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick t 14:29, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Going nowhere
This was posted to J Milburn talk toady with one subsequent post.

Good Day J! I've been accused at times of wearing my emotions on my sleeve and yesterday I showed that by changing this section header as a tangible display. I went to bed happy, pleased that after such a long discussion started by the images being removed, we, personally, had passed a threshold as it were. I still believe that, so you can imagine my surprise and disappointment to wake up and find the images deleted, not by you. When I went to bed the dispute over the image "Second police warning for God's emissary" was ended with a Keep consensus and a different tag noting this. That is gone as well which I don't understand. I had assured you the FUR tag was only a temporary measure. This dispute within Wikipedia required my immediate focus. If the article was in the top 100 list, I am confident there would have been a consensus to keep both images. This was more difficult with such a smaller number of users involved in the discussion. My optimism was restored when Kingturtle listed the article in the RFCbio list. Nothing! I have been pleading for someone to restore the information about the 1981 trip to Whitehorse, Yukon with the verification newspaper references removed from the article. Nothing! I am seriously considering abandoning Wikipedia to the neutral netherworld as not being worth my time and effort. DoDaCanaDa (talk) 03:41, 11 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Re your comment to the editor who edited your talk. You are a courageous man indeed, not just talk. You know what is yours and how to defend it, as I am doing. I commend you with blessings. Peace DoDaCanaDa (talk) 13:07, 11 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Good day Andy. I find it curious Daniel who edited your talk, even removed your comment on his talk page. If you can find the time and interest, this page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Ray_Joseph_Cormier has been on the RFCbio list for quite a while with no editors making any contributions. Is it possible you might take a look and see what can be taken from the history and restored to the article? Seeing it is about me, it's proper I recuse myself from editing it. Thanks. Peace DoDaCanaDa (talk) 23:56, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Elven Jedi
I wrote an article about such a person, but it got deleted long ago. Totnesmartin (talk) 14:44, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
 * An out-of-band communication will shortly cite a public statement by an official Wikimedia Foundation PR person on such things. 8-) Andy Dingley (talk) 14:56, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
 * :D Totnesmartin (talk) 15:04, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Wicca Rock

 * Hi Andy I re-wrote the article using everyone's suggestions pretty much. I dont think there's any point in nitpicking the original article because even I think it sucks ATM and I wrote it. :s So the new piece is a new start. And I don't exactly know how to do what you suggested insofaras category syntax goes. Please help if you will. Could I also beg a para from you on Cope in context? Much thanks :o) Nymphetamine labyrinth (talk) 14:35, 20 July 2008 (UTC) Cheers

Sarah Powell
i note your comments concerning the lack of references, and i agree that it needs some. there are a number of references in books concerning Sartre and Beauvoir, i will try and dig these out, might take some time! also, i will try and find the NY Times obituary for Powell, which was surprisingly lengthy and quite flattering. also, are we permitted to include actual quotes from her works, or this a copyright infringement?

thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.71.136.78 (talk) 13:52, 21 July 2008 (UTC)


 * "quotes" from works are permitted (and for a writer's bio are very likely to be useful), where they fall under "fair-use" conditions, i.e. WP:FAIR. Any quote needs to be referenced, and in some cases that ref might be sufficient, or all that's permissible. Sentences or even short paras are generally permissible, but the problem is whether they're still enough context in isolation. Andy Dingley (talk) 14:15, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

I've created the new page User:Famousfieldy/Portishead Town Band
I even cleaned it up a bit for him first. I do feel, still, that winning the Weston-Super-Mare Brass Band competition doesn't qualify them under WP:MUSIC; but not biting the noobs is important, even if you're sometimes a bit harsh in your reproofs towards me. We really are working towards the same goal, you know. Yours in good will, -- Orange Mike  &#x007C;   Talk  15:38, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Cowsay - Damage?
How did I damage the reference? Did I break the link or something? Please let me know what I did wrong so I can try not to repeat the error in future. Jasynnash2 (talk) 08:50, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
 * If you edit a ref, to remove the use of a template (why?!), please check that the link still works after you've edited and "fixed" it. The strategy of "break all the ref links in an article, then tag it for deletion as unreferenced" is getting a bit old and tired as a way to game the system.  8-(  Andy Dingley (talk) 09:13, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
 * "The strategy of ""break all the ref links in an article, then tag it for deletion as unreferenced" is getting a bit old and tired as a way to game the system.""
 * Please tell me that isn't directed at me but, is a general statement about something you've seen from others. As far as I was aware the link was still there and still functioned. To intentionally break a link would be a case of vandalism and my edit history alone should show that I'm not a vandal and have never engaged in activity to intentionally disrupt the project in anyway. Jasynnash2 (talk) 10:34, 24 July 2008 (UTC)


 * You're looking to delete the article, you edit it, and then the link doesn't work. What am I supposed to think? Andy Dingley (talk) 10:55, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I've NEVER tried to get the article deleted. I know for a fact that I'm not the one that sent it to AfD (the history page will verify that). In fact the only thing I ever asked to have deleted was the inappropriate talkpage which didn't have any content on it which pertained to improving the article. Please double check your facts before making accusations. Thank you. Jasynnash2 (talk) 11:08, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Apologies
Please accept my apologies for the mistake I made in trying to improve the article in question. I will do my best to pay more attention to detail in the future. Jasynnash2 (talk) 11:39, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Re: Kelli Martin DRV
So are you saying that all reality show contestants are non-notable per se? It seems to me that a person's fitting the WP:BIO requirements ought not be negated by the fact that they also happen to be on a reality show. Would you advocate the deletion of a previously authored BLP article if the article subject suddenly became a contestant on a reality show? That is the logical implication of your reasoning. I am not contending that Martin is notable because of PR. I am contending that she is notable because she is the subject of multiple, independent, verifiable, reliable sources. This is a case of Orangemike and others basing deletion decisions on the fact that some people don't like the subject matter. "Arguments that the nature of the subject is unencyclopedic (for example individual songs or episodes of a TV show) should also be avoided in the absence of clear policies or guidelines against articles on such subjects." DickClarkMises (talk) 18:53, 25 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Hi, thanks for the comments - although I think something is getting a little mixed up here. If you're upset about this article being deleted, then that's understandable, but I don't think I'm the person to blame for it, or someone for you to be offended by.


 * I have no idea who Kelli Martin is. I tried looking on Wikipedia, but there isn't an article. One of the problems with this sort of deletion issue is that it destroys its own background evidence. Maybe they're independently notable according to WP:BIO, but I wouldn't know.


 * This article wasn't "deleted" (by AfD). It wasn't even "super-deleted" (by speedy). It was actually (AFAIK), "super-super-deleted" by an admin who decided that it was not only so intolerable as to not be allowed to exist, but even if the author appealed against this with a hangon, they should be over-ruled and this unbearable article made to disappear immediately. Amins have this power. It's described under hangon and I quoted it, "Note that this request is not binding, and the page may still be deleted if the page unquestionably meets the speedy deletion criteria, or if the given explanation is unacceptable." Now if that's true, then the article was rightly deleted. Either because "the page unquestionably meets the speedy deletion criteria" or because "the given explanation (which I can't read, because it's gone now) is unacceptable." If neither of those are applicable, then it's a bad deletion.


 * You appear to have misunderstood my point in quoting these. As I can't now read the article, the hangon reason, nor do I know who Kelli Martin otherwise, then I don't have an opinion on whether the article ought to be deleted eventually. But I'm going to be very surprised if there was sufficient reason for it to be deleted in this way, against an author's request to hangon. Andy Dingley (talk) 21:20, 25 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I agree with your assessment of what happened at Kelli Martin. Please accept my apology for misunderstanding what you were saying. My position is simply that when an admin gets it in his head that "X kind of article must be eradicated," that admin may no longer keep his eye on the ball when deleting the work of other Wikipedians. Orangemike seems to have come to this point with regards to reality show contestants--even those who may be otherwise notable under WP:N. I think that this is problematic for the project. Cheers, DickClarkMises (talk) 21:36, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

QF30
There is no reliable source (e.g. accident report) stating that this flight suffered explosive decompression. Rapid decompression is different.  Socrates2008 ( Talk )   22:00, 25 July 2008 (UTC)


 * "a 2.5 x 3m hole in the hull blown out by probable explosive decompression, combined with internal floor and ceiling collapse" Can't think where I read that  8-)


 * Yes, I agree with you. It was rapid, but not rapid enough. However I'd hate to see it excluded on the grounds "but the plane didn't explode". I'd rather see it linked as _strongly_relevant_, on the grounds that this is the "exception that proves the rule". Andy Dingley (talk) 22:20, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Justification of panavista link
Just wondering if you had any justification for re-adding the link to panavista as it isn't really covered by WP:ELYES. At least not in a way that overrides WP:NOT in the way I mentioned. discussion now being held on article's talk page ChimpanzeeUK  - User | Talk | Contribs 19:19, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Pontypool japan
I have just found this article, and must congratulate you on it. The chronology of the introduction of tinplate has not been clear, but it first appears in the Gloucester port books in 1725. This is after the introduction of "Pontypool jappanned ware" (which would be a better title). I therefore suspect that japanning was introduced as a measn of preventing black plate from rusting. Peterkingiron (talk) 22:58, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Thankyou. It needs some photos though. The title is because it's a copy-and-paste from a previous website, which was about varnishes, rather than about the finished products. Also the "japan" was a Pontypool invention, but the bulk of the manufacture soon shifted down the valley. Andy Dingley (talk) 00:29, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Miller Electric
I'm sorry if you didn't notice, but Plasma Facts, who is much more knowledgable in that industry than I am, hung a db-inc tag on that article. I didn't agree with the speedy (definitely some assertion of notability there), so I compromised with a prod notice. You've got to stop painting me as the villain here. -- Orange Mike  &#x007C;   Talk  13:03, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Footnote format (re: Kelli Martin)
You know that not everyone likes the CITE template, right? There is no one Wikipedia style as to footnotes. See WP:CITE. I think the template makes it harder to quickly insert a reference into aricles and the resulting footnote is less readable. It is more difficult to read underlined text, especially large blocks of it as in a notes section. The external link icon also breaks up the text formatting. DickClarkMises (talk) 01:20, 8 August 2008 (UTC)


 * An online reference is more visible to the reader if the link text is more than one digit long. Andy Dingley (talk) 10:04, 8 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Well, the link is always more than one character long, thanks to the ext. link icon that accompanies every such link. The purpose of a footnote is to attribute an assertion to a reliable source. Easier parsing of the notes that cite the sources will facilitate this. The footnote format issue is fairly trivial, but please note that WP:CITE states that You should follow the style already established in an article, if it has one. Where there is disagreement, the style used by the first editor to use one should be respected. With regards to the notability template, without any arguments (which are listed here) it isn't helping the article. We have disagreed about the interpretation of the notability guideline and you've stopped participating in the discussion. I don't see how your reinsertion of the template is improving the encyclopedia. What do you hope to achieve by adding this? DickClarkMises (talk) 17:17, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Please, spare me the overbearing arrogance. I have not "stopped participating in the discussion", I have been busy having a life (Happy 82nd birthday, Dad, as it happens). If you want the 30-second guaranteed response service, you're welcome to sign up for my Gold Star plan with its range of easy monthly payment schemes. Andy Dingley (talk) 23:08, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Andy, if you had time to add the template, you had time to continue the ongoing discussion. I am sorry to see that you won't be honoring your word re: an AfD. (See this diff). DickClarkMises (talk) 23:16, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I didn't AfD it because I'm desperate to see it deleted (I hope it survives and someone points out to me just how vital it is), but you really need to work on your attitude and the huge WP:OWN issue you have with this article. I went against my original comment with deep regrets, but I do feel it needs a wider audience. Andy Dingley (talk) 23:23, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Andy, I'm sorry if my edits or comments offended you. My intent is to engage in constructive collaboration with other editors. I have to confess that I felt your edits were on occasion a bit overbearing as well. After two out-of-process speedy deletes and an absence of constructive edits by other parties, I felt I was in the position of trying to preserve useful content from folks who didn't like it. DickClarkMises (talk) 23:27, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
 * You also mistakenly went after me in a way that stretched WP:CIVIL when I first argued to save it. You're far too closely involved with this. Get some distance and perspective. My reason for the AfD was because I have no time (or inclination) to engage in any "debate" with someone who accuses me of "stopping participating" if I put the keyboard down for a few hours. That's not collaboration, that's domineering arrogance - you have to wait until you graduate before you get to argue the interns around like that. Andy Dingley (talk) 23:32, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Andy, I wasn't accusing you of ceasing collaboration because you stepped away, and I believe you know that. You added the template after my last remark on the talk page on the question of the template's applicability. We were discussing the issue and you stopped discussion but continued to engage in edits that you knew were controversial, and after I suggested that we get a third opinion. I believe I've already admitted my hasty mistake regarding the original discussion where I grossly misinterpreted your comment on my talk page. I don't deny my failure to carefully read what you had to say there, and I regret that it made our further interactions more strained than necessary. DickClarkMises (talk) 23:55, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Another Vulcan for the collection
XL392 was at RAF Valley for a good while, but has now been scrapped apparently. -- Bobyllib (talk) 12:15, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I really must finish that page off and attach it as List of Avro Vulcan survivors or somesuch. For that matter, I need to do some bricklaying on my own project too! Andy Dingley (talk) 18:43, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Association of Nene River Clubs
Hi Andy, thanks for your support for this article. What is DRV? If you were willing to make another stand, how can I support you? Regards, Renata (talk) 18:36, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
 * WP:DRV is a review of deletions which can overturn them, usually because there's some process issue. There wasn't any clear consensus here, so _if_ there's some additional sourcing, then it would be possible to either restore the article, or else to move it to user:Renata/Association of Nene River Clubs where it can be worked on to improve it and address these issues before putting it back into the main articlespace. I would have good hopes of achieving this, at least the latter option.


 * I've mentioned this at the project page. Although I'm happy to plough through the wikiprocess, I really don't know the subject well enough to offer much help in content editing it. Andy Dingley (talk) 18:42, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Good work on the 12 inch Mk IX naval gun
Good work on sorting out the text flow around the submarine gun photo - these are the kinds of improvements that we need more of to bring Wiki up to scratch appearance-wise. regards, Rod Rcbutcher (talk) 14:41, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
 * You're welcome - makes a nice change from just arguing that articles shouldn't be deleted!

Hmm
Hi Andy, it appears you have several misconceptions regarding notability and how it is established and judged on Wikipedia. Having seen your "rationale" on the Leo Blair AfD, and noticed some other issues you have been involved with, I wonder if you might review WP:BIO and WP:CORP? When commenting on deletion-related issues, it is always better to be able to quote policies and guidelines to back up your assertions, rather than follow the "Well, I think..." line that you appear to favour. Deiz talk 06:31, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I suggest that you go and read WP:CIVIL. Andy Dingley (talk) 10:34, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Nirvanix AfD
I'm in agreement with you across the board. There's a major problem with sock-puppetry and s.p.a. involvement on this one, and I think this is his/their way of shutting it up. -- Orange Mike  &#x007C;   Talk  19:26, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Swarfega / Deb
Dont think really notable enough for 2 articles, put the question up as it had a business tag attached. I was adding Info boxes to the company articles in the Derbyshire need info box category. - BulldozerD11 (talk) 14:17, 20 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Deb is certainly notable to WP:N, but it's not personally interesting to make me want to write it. 8-) Andy Dingley (talk) 14:24, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Wiki Templates
Note from your user boxes that you say your a Wiki coder, I'v got a problem with Wiki Templates I was copying to Tractor Wikia and a the UK Roads one, I cannot get Convert to work, and others like Navbox dont display the box just loads of bits. Convert for example gives "(2,120 mm ({{rnd/cExpression error: Unrecognised punctuation character "{"decExpression error: Unrecognised punctuation character "{"|{{{2}}}|{{{2}}}}} in" when called. Its from page Unimog here, with the Navbox template one Here which also displaying code from the transcluded doc page message box with the logo (icon) outside the msg box (so not forming the box border I think). (not copied the full set of 2000 sub functions of convert as loads of obscure units not needed). If you cannot help can you point me to the right place for help. Think i must have missed something fundamental off that works with the templates. (the more associated doc pages the more templates called & more red links) Cheers  - BulldozerD11 (talk) 14:17, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Leonard Slatter
I have responded to your comments at Talk:Leonard Slatter. Please feel free to jump in and improve the article on Leonard Slatter as you see fit. Greenshed (talk) 22:39, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Ocean is Theory sandbox
come back and check it out. User:Redviking09/Ocean. (Redviking09 (talk) 13:20, 30 August 2008 (UTC))

Oxford Wikimania 2010 and Wikimedia UK v2.0 Notice
Hi,

As a regularly contributing UK Wikipedian, we were wondering if you wanted to contribute to the Oxford bid to host the 2010 Wikimania conference. Please see here for details of how to get involved, we need all the help we can get if we are to put in a compelling bid.

We are also in the process of forming a new UK Wikimedia chapter to replace the soon to be folded old one. If you are interested in helping shape our plans, showing your support or becoming a future member or board member, please head over to the Wikimedia UK v2.0 page and let us know. We plan on holding an election in the next month to find the initial board, who will oversee the process of founding the company and accepting membership applications. They will then call an AGM to formally elect a new board who after obtaining charitable status will start the fund raising, promotion and active support for the UK Wikimedian community for which the chapter is being founded.

You may also wish to attend the next London meet-up at which both of these issues will be discussed. If you can't attend this meetup, you may want to watch Meetup, for updates on future meets.

We look forward to hearing from you soon, and we send our apologies for this automated intrusion onto your talk page!

Addbot (talk) 19:59, 30 August 2008 (UTC)