Jump to content

User talk:Andy Dingley/Archive 2012 May

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Montreal Forest Development[edit]

Hello: I've performed some research regading the Montreal Forest Development article, and since you have contributed to the AfD discussion, I am requesting that you revisit the discussion to read my comments. Only people that have contributed to the AfD discussion for the article are receiving this notice (no canvassing). Thank you for your consideration. Northamerica1000(talk) 02:52, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

AutoEd[edit]

Edits made thru AutoEd are not inappropriate in any way. The purpose is do a minor, quick cleanup of pages including syntax here and there and links as well. I suggest you read the documentation once. WP:AutoEd --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 05:18, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

AutoEd clearly isn't smart enough to recognise embedded HTML (etc.) on articles about HTML. It broke this markup and converted it to wikitext. Andy Dingley (talk) 08:50, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Weaponsmith[edit]

Dear Andy, you recently proposed Weaponsmith for proposed deletion, claiming that it is a "made-up portmanteau". The OED lists "weapon-smith", which is marked by the dictionary as Hist, with the following citations:

weapon-smith n. Hist. a forger or maker of weapons.

  • 1849 J. M. Kemble Saxons in Eng. II. ii. vii. 306 The heroical weapon-smith on the one hand, and on the other the poor professors of such rude arts as the homestead cannot do without.
  • 1908 Expositor Sept. 265 The settled weapon-smiths of ancient Egypt‥were quite a different class from the nomad clans of tinsmiths and coppersmiths.

Kind regards, Oldak Quill 11:06, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that's the citation that I added to the discussion. I'm the sort of guy who has an OED (all four foot of it) on the shelf next to me.
The first problem is that the article was weaponsmith, not weapon-smith (hyphenated). If we're arguing etymology to the level that I'm pulling big blue down off the shelf, then this distinction matters. Now this might be different at Wiktionary, but I don't consider a simple hyphenated conjugate to be adequate for an encyclopedia article, especially not an encyclopedia article on a different word.
The second problem is that historical weapon making wasn't conducted by "weapon-smiths". There was a distinction between arms and armour, and their makers. For any technically sophisticated context where it becomes interesting to use the term, swords and armour were made by different techniques, from different materials, by different people. Let alone bringing gunsmith into the melting pot.
Thirdly, did you read the article? Once again I'm surprised by WP's rush to delete good content because someone has found an excuse to do so, but to preserve the very worst of content because quality is some terrible elitism. This article (all two lines of it) is the worst of all encyclopedic articles, it's misleading. It furthers this false notion that all "weaponry" aspects were produced by single multi-talented workers. This article is justified as a redirect, or as an etymological footnote (compare the size of the OED entries for weaponsmith and swordsmith or even sword-sliper, a specialised sharpener of them). However there is no justification for this as a whole new article apart from swordsmith or armourer. The only sourcing for this term is based on historical inaccuracy from Victorian fantasy historians. I love Burges as an architect or interior designer, but I don't trust him for historical veracity! Andy Dingley (talk) 11:40, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Wtshymanski[edit]

Hi Andy, We have a problem. It seems that as an unregistered editor, I cannot create an RfC. I can only edit an existing one. Any suggestions (short of creating an account)? I have no desire to create an account where I don't have to, because managing the 15 passwords of my work accounts and over 30 odd internet username/password combinations is a absolute nightmare.. 109.145.22.224 (talk) 12:18, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm reluctant to do this personally (he'll just whine that he's being persecuted), and I certainly haven't got time to do it for three weeks. Maybe Guy. Maybe W. would have time to do it himself? He loves to edit, for any reason, and there's a historical inevitability to it. Andy Dingley (talk) 12:20, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
If a blank RfC could be created, I can then fill in the details. 109.145.22.224 (talk) 12:23, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents[edit]

You'll be wanting this

Hi Andy, our problems may be solved. See the item I have just put on this board. regards, Eddaido (talk) 00:03, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Holy Dingley![edit]

Off the top of my head and unreferenced:
Verb Noun
GB License Licence
US License License
So the UK & GB both agree for verbs, but disagree on the noun form.
No sources for this, no time to pull them up before replying.
I also don't have a good source for whether "licence built" or "license built" is correct in en-GB. Is it considered to be a noun or a verb? (Actually I have loads of sources, but they disagree - I've been meaning to check this thoroughly for ages.) Andy Dingley (talk) 12:05, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Template[edit]

Can you please explain how an aircraft that did not achieve sustained flight can possibly be classified as a weapon? If not, then please stop replacing the template. Parsecboy (talk) 22:39, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

First of all, it doesn't have to be. This is a navigation box, not a definition. It's there so that authors with "Late 19th century French military science" in mind can find other pages to look at. This is one of the likely contexts for someone browsing this page. Similarly navboxes for "early powered flight" with Cayley, Lillienthal and the Wrights or a navbox for "early lightweight steam power" Hiram Maxim, Stanley steam cars etc. could both be relevant, if we had them.
Secondly, du Temple's work fits firmly into this "Late 19th century French military science" context. He was a French military officer, funded by the French military to make steam-powered weapons. Mostly he's known for his gunboat boiler, but he also worked on extra-light flash boilers and steam engines - the engine and boiler that he used for his aircraft.
Finally, do I really have to spell out the military importance of aviation? Particularly aviation that your army has when the Prussians don't.
As a further subscript, I'd restore the aircraft to the navbox. It wasn't a successful weapon, but it was funded and developed as a potential weapon. Andy Dingley (talk) 10:17, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
And yet, none of that amounts to this failed aircraft being a weapon. If you intend the template to serve a wider purpose than simply grouping together French weapons of the period, then rename it to "Late 19th century French military science". As for your third comment, there's no reason to be snide. Parsecboy (talk) 16:04, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Surely I'm not the only one[edit]

I hope you've also been appreciating the irony of a band of amateurs on a website that anyone can edit grandiloquently pronouncing on the unreliability of amateurs with their own websites. I certainly have. Choess (talk) 12:31, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank You[edit]

Thank you for your support for Category:Juggalos. I still believe it fits into Wikipedia standards, but you can't fight public opinion, and I can tell that the category is extremely disregarded as encyclopedic. =) Juggalo1010 (talk) 00:52, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

After I found there was Category:Juggalo Championship Wrestling I saw it as rather less necessary anyway. Those who we can adequately source for membership in either are probably going to be the wrestlers anyway. Andy Dingley (talk) 16:10, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Vandal[edit]

Are you calling me a vandal with regards to Andy Cherry deletion discussion? Just curious.HotHat (talk) 00:13, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No, I'm refering to the original article creator. Andy Dingley (talk) 00:16, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Go look at my presentation of his media play in the deletion discussion, if you want to!HotHat (talk) 00:31, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Result of the complaint about your edits at WP:AN3[edit]

Please see WP:AN3#User:Andy Dingley reported by User:R'n'B (Result: Protected). You may add your own comment there if you wish. EdJohnston (talk) 15:37, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Nadim Kobeissi[edit]

Hi, I'm Nadim Kobeissi – I saw that my article is AfD and that my confirmation that I have no trouble with the article was requested. I personally do not mind the article so long as it remains factually accurate. How can I confirm this to you? Thank you for your time. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kaepora (talk • contribs) 16:15, 13 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Easiest thing is just to comment at the AfD and to say that. If it's not a contentious statement, then a simple claim that you are who you claim would generally believed. If you want to make a more contentious statement, like "Please delete this, I just don't want it there" then that would be harder - it would rely on some sort of zero-knowledge proof. Maybe we should then demand that you write a plugin for demonstrating such under MediaWiki in PHP? 8-) That's usually done by an email to WP:OTRS, or it can also be done by posting a statement in some web space that's agreed to be under the subject's control.
As the AfD is running at present, there's little call for deletion, no policy-based reason to do so, and the nominator is a single-purpose account (WP:SPA), the sort of call for deletion that usually carries very little weight. Andy Dingley (talk) 16:23, 13 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Revert of Atomic demolition munition, et al, merge[edit]

Why did you revert the merge of Atomic demolition munition, Special Atomic Demolition Munition, and Medium Atomic Demolition Munition to Atomic demolition munitions? It seems perfectly reasonable. Rwessel (talk) 21:32, 14 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please see Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Wtshymanski#Mergeitis
Also Talk:Atomic_demolition_munitions#Wtshymanski.27s_merge_of_everything
Mostly because the MADM & SADM are specific weapons, and they have clear histories as such. We might as well merge B28 to Atom bomb. The poor state of their articles at present is no support for this merge - the topics are robust and capable of expansion.
Incidentally I haven't touched Atomic demolition munition, nor did I see that the discussion of this merge, such as it was, was hidden on the talk page of a redirect. Andy Dingley (talk) 21:54, 14 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Andy Cherry relook[edit]

You may want to take a look at some more recent evidence that I provided on the article with the subject of radio play, which is by K-LOVE and Air 1.HotHat (talk) 23:01, 17 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Infobox WSR[edit]

i'm not sure if you consider template:Infobox WSR to be the same situation as KWVR Infobox, which has now been deleted. the slight difference is that this one is used twice (rather than only once), although it's not clear we need both pages to have the infobox. Frietjes (talk) 18:06, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but too busy to do much at moment. Andy Dingley (talk) 01:49, 19 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

User talk:67.164.6.99[edit]

Has a history of vandalism he keeps on deleting off his talk page.--Dana60Cummins (talk) 19:52, 19 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • They're allowed to.
  • It was six years ago.
Andy Dingley (talk) 01:02, 20 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

CfD[edit]

My apologies that it was open so long, but I closed the discussion (to try to deal with the extensive backlog at CfD). As the discussion was more about the members of the cat rather than the cat itself (plus the transwiki suggestions), I think you may be better served to nominate this at MfD rather than CfD. Obviously feel free to link to the cfD discussion in any potential future nom. - jc37 23:54, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Theremin[edit]

Thank you for picking up where I left off on removing the Big Bang Theory reference from that article...it seems editors recently have become quite committed to including it despite the apparent lack of third-party references to the occurrence. I don't suppose there's anything we can do to more strongly deter people from adding it in...I'd request protection, but it's not just IPs and I don't think the request would be supported under the circumstances. Doniago (talk) 18:05, 25 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It's hard to think of popular theremin use that would meet any sort of significance. Led Zeppelin is perhaps the only one I can think of that's really significant and remarkable for standing out amongst the bands without theremins. Sci fi mostly seem to consist of explaining just how many didn't use one, but had something else that sounded similar. Andy Dingley (talk) 19:22, 25 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Wet engine[edit]

Regarding your new Vincent lifeboat engine article: Nice work! Binksternet (talk) 18:17, 25 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I've not seen it running, but Kim Siddorn is an engine-collecting mate and much of this is based on his write-ups of his own engine.
It could use a better addition to the airborne lifeboat article, if anyone knows the boat history for the hull inbetween the Uffa Fox and the S-R Mk 3. Andy Dingley (talk) 19:20, 25 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I have not seen any writings about that hull. Oh, well... Binksternet (talk) 19:40, 25 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Templates[edit]

Template X is deprecated and has a notice telling you to use Template Y instead. I see that Template X has four transclusions and replace them with Template Y transclusions. Seems like a logical train of thought to me. Before I replaced them, the four pages that had Template X transclusions had big orange notices saying "THIS TEMPLATE IS DEPRECATED, DO NOT USE IT". Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 19:04, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Fine, then replace them by all means - it does need doing at some time. But check afterwards that you haven't trashed the page. Andy Dingley (talk) 19:57, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you[edit]

Thank you for the notification, and I figure you have already seen that I opened a small section there for the few editors that may wish to give the two of you a bit of a rest from each other. I have no opinion on that part of it, it's just a dynamic I can see developing. Penyulap ☏ 21:18, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Andy_Dingley/Archive_2012_May&oldid=1143541159"