User talk:Andy Dingley/Archive 2020

• 4
• Archive 5
• 6
• 7
• 8

Revert on fan (machine)

Hi Andy, Happy New Decade! Why did you revert this edit from 1989Wiki? 1989Wiki explained well why they did the change. For the purpose of the article, I think 1989Wiki was right. You gave no explanation for the revert in the edit comment, please explain such reverts. --RainerBlome (talk) 10:57, 1 January 2020 (UTC)

"solar power cannot drive a fan" is nonsense. Solar-powered fans are widespread, as small self-contained ventilators. Now, if this is contrasted to "electric motors", (i.e. "solar power" is now taken to exclude the arrangement of a solar panel and a motor), then that could be said to make an obscure sort of sense, but not one which can fit neatly into the lead of fan (machine). We are just not (in that article) interesting in arguing definitions of whether "solar power" can operate through electricity or not. Andy Dingley (talk) 11:55, 1 January 2020 (UTC)

RE: Northern Ireland pre 1921

Hi Andy,

yes it is a bit of a sensitive topic but at the end of the day with history and as you have mentioned - 1921 is the year that NI can into existence therefore it should be just referred to as "Belfast, Ireland".

When you have one section of the info-box having just "Belfast" then further down "Belfast, Northern Ireland" - post 1921 it does tend to look half finished.

It's a bit like the constant issue of Derry / Londonderry where some won't accept the official name and vice versa.

I'm quite happy in this case because of discussion on the topic to go with your suggestion.

Regards

Juanpumpchump (talk) 13:40, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

If you've not seen it, there's another talk: thread on the Titanic page. Andy Dingley (talk) 13:43, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

Over-capitalization

Don't you think you lose all credibility when you insist on capitalizing generic descriptors for no reason other than that they have an acronym, as you insist on doing for lobe on receive only (LORO)? Dicklyon (talk) 16:48, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

It's called sourcing. Please try it. Andy Dingley (talk) 16:49, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

Like in books? Dicklyon (talk) 17:47, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

edit war

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Kh-47M2_Kinzhal&type=revision&diff=935241941&oldid=935241671 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 185.126.129.55 (talk) 12:17, 11 January 2020 (UTC)

Third opinion

Howdy hello Andy! I see you recently made a third opinion request. I am declining it however, as I see no discussion of the issue. 3O is only for moderating things that have been thoroughly discussed and have come to a stand-still. Since the IP has refused to discuss in this case, (edit sums do NOT count for discussion) I see that they have already been blocked for edit warring, the proper way to deal with this. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 18:55, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

Thanks, seems like a reasonable result. Andy Dingley (talk) 19:24, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

High Speed Launch

High Speed Launch was tagged as {{R from incorrect capitalization}} by Dicklyon. If this is a valid alternative capitalisation, please change the tag to {{R from other capitalisation}}, or move high-speed launch to High Speed Launch. – wbm1058 (talk) 23:32, 19 January 2020 (UTC)

Please follow the voluminous discussion about this on the ships project. HSL is correct, high-speed launch is an incorrect invention by DickLyon. Andy Dingley (talk) 23:34, 19 January 2020 (UTC)

I see, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Ships#High Speed Launch. I'm hoping that you and Dick can sort this out. If there is no consensus, then the default is {{R from other capitalisation}}. {{R from incorrect capitalisation}} should be reserved for capitalisations which are definitely, and uncontroversially, incorrect. Thanks, wbm1058 (talk) 23:44, 19 January 2020 (UTC)

Now that I've reverted here, there are no links from article space to the capped redirect. If we use such a link in a context where we agree it is correct, then we can change the tag. Dicklyon (talk) 01:21, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

All that MTB/MGB capitalisation stuff

Despite my instincts to capitalise more than any Wikipedia MOS might allow, in the current debate, I am finding sources that suggest authoritative writers do not use caps when talking about Royal Navy motor torpedo boats and motor gunboats. Hence in your comments[1] I suggest that investigation of #3 would show that, on a "majority vote" basis, sources do not support caps. I have just been looking at Dog Boats at War, a History of the Operations of the Royal Navy D Class Fairmile Motor Torpedo Boats and Motor Gunboats 1939-1945 by Leonard C Reynolds and Allied Coastal Forces of World War II vol 1: Fairmile Designs and US Sub Chasers, by John Lambert and Al Ross. Both use lower case except in lists. That goes on top of Peter Scott's the Battle of the Narrow Seas, where there is a mix, but not capitalising motor torpedo boat and motor gunboat is more common. The same applies to Peter Dickens' Night Action. All of these are writers who have lived and breathed these coastal forces craft, either as people delving into the detailed history of them, or as officers who served both with distinction and senior operational rank in them. Unlike some editors, I always try and make a judgement of the quality of sources - these ones, and others (London Gazette medal citations come to mind) seem to be in the front rank of quality and support the view that non-caps is more common.

Hence my reluctant decision not to put up any further fight on this matter - I don't think the sources support my (or your) position. Whilst I admire and respect your persistence on the matter, I felt it right to state my conclusion.ThoughtIdRetired (talk) 15:13, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

Do you want Wikipedia to be wrong?

Andy, Are you a lubrication professional? If not, restore my changes. If you are, let's discuss it. Petr10 (talk) 10:05, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

Referring to the "weight" of oil might indeed be (as you have claimed) slang fortunately spread only in the USA by half-educated people. It needs to be eliminated, not promoted by Wikipedia. New text: These numbers are in the United States sometimes wrongly referred to as the "weight" of a motor oil, and single-grade motor oils are then called "straight-weight" oils. This is a terrible slang. However there are two points to that:

1. Outside the US, "weight" is widely used for the viscosity of motor oil. Maybe not as much as it was in the 1950s, but it's still in use. I have no idea what its use inside the US is, but this is an international project anyway.
2. We are a general audience encyclopedia. Half of our potential audience will be (as a median at least) only half-educated. They still matter. We still have to communicate to them.

Am I a "lubrication professional"? (you mean I have a minimum wage job at Jiffy Lube?) That doesn't matter. Firstly because everything here ought to be sourced, not based on personal knowledge. So it doesn't matter if I know zero about lubrication, so long as I can transcribe competently. Secondly, whenever WP does get into "I know more about this than you do", it just degenerates into a pissing contest, one which we have regularly. And that's not a useful thing. If you really care, go find a paper in some SAE journal around 1991, published by Cummins Engines, and I'm one of the authors credited on that. It's on a study of oil viscosity (yes, viscosity) in large truck engines, and the effects of viscosity on particulate production over time (Does a low viscosity oil give lower frictional losses, but in turn cause problems owing to the increased blowby giving increased particulate emissions). I didn't write the paper, but I did work on the smoke meter instrumentation, in my highly regarded yet woefully underpaid role as the instrumentation engineer who designed the dyno test cell controller.

If you think viscosity is better than weight, then use it. But leave weight behind too, in a trace, so that people who think it's called weight can still follow the article. Don't insert editorial into the article saying, " wrongly referred to" (unless they're wrong, not just outdated or obscure) or "This is a terrible slang.". And never describe our readers disparagingly as "half-educated people". Andy Dingley (talk) 12:29, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

If "it doesn't matter if I know zero about lubrication, so long as I can transcribe competently", why do you makes comments like "But really, you have to know this stuff"? Dicklyon (talk) 05:11, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

Because you don't transcribe honestly or correctly, you're always slanting things to push your agenda. The Moon isn't a proper noun, because there aren't enough sources for that? Andy Dingley (talk) 11:06, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

I don't know the particular dispute here, and really don't want to, but if I may give my two cents I think there's a happy medium there somewhere. Technically we shouldn't be transcribing sources because that would lead to copyvios. Instead, what we really need to do is read and understand the sources, and then rewrite the info in our own words, and, while it doesn't require expertise, it certainly requires competence. And even with competence, one person's understanding may differ from another's, depending on many factors such as prior knowledge or expertise in certain subject matters.

I'll give an example. Far from being a slang term, "weight" is used in the US predominantly to describe the viscosity of an oil. Manufacturers even use this term on the labels. People often tend to take the language far too literally, such as "alloy wheel" or "alloy steel" ("steel's an alloy too") when it rarely is. When thinking in literal terms, it seems logical that viscosity has nothing to do with mass, so "weight" must be an incorrect term, but language is rarely logical. The term "weight" comes from the unit of viscosity called the "poise", which means --you guessed it-- weight. The terms "weight" and "poise" originally referred to motion, and in viscosity it still retains that meaning, as does "poise" in terms of graceful movements. It was only later that "weight" came to refer to the motion of lifting (still used in the nautical sense "weigh anchor"), and then to units of mass. Once you know that it makes sense, but without that prior knowledge of etymology, it seems like it should be incorrect. I hope that helps. Zaereth (talk) 22:36, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

Oh, by the way, "Moon" may be a proper noun in certain contexts. It is after all the name of the famer's son. According to legend, the old farmer made a deal with Fenrir, the wolf, that he would give his children as payment for a debt. But when the time came, he sent his children to the heavens to escape the wolf, so the Fenrir sent his two sons, Hati and Skoll, to chase after Moon and his sister, Sun, which is why they race across the sky so fast. According to Viking mythology, the wolves will someday catch them, and the universe will drown in water and be reborn in fire. But that's only in certain contexts. The Latin, "Luna" and "Sol", are often used as proper names. I also hope that helps. Zaereth (talk) 09:58, 23 January 2020 (UTC).

Lots of planets have moons, but the moon of earth is "the Moon" to differentiate it from all the other moons in the universe, which generally have names of their own: Titan, Gannymede, etc., etc. - so I suppose that our moon has a name also: "the Moon". ThoughtIdRetired (talk) 15:32, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

• But Dick doesn't think it should be capitalised. Andy Dingley (talk) 15:41, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

Table 3

"Infectious, Inflammatory, Metabolic and Endocrinologic Causes of Rhabdomyolysis

Infectious causes

Viruses: influenza virus B, parainfluenza virus, adenovirus, coxsackievirus, echovirus, herpes simplex virus, cytomegalovirus, Epstein-Barr virus, human immunodeficiency virus

Bacteria: Streptococcus, Salmonella, Legionella, Staphyloccus and Listeria species"

https://www.aafp.org/afp/2002/0301/p907.html

Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 00:48, 1 February 2020 (UTC)

That's an outdated 2002 paper. It lists (in a horribly vague way) influenza B as a vague aside. Now, take a look at published research over the last decade. Influenza A moves from this being an obscure and slightly disreputable theory to being recognised as a cause for rhabdomyolysis.

I saw this addition this afternoon and thought about sourcing it properly, but then didn't bother because of the WP:OWN issues around WP:MEDRS articles (I expected you'd simply revert). But your actual reversion here, to link it with very weak sourcing to a different strain - that's actually worse. Andy Dingley (talk) 01:13, 1 February 2020 (UTC)

Without

Correct or not, on one hand usage of "without" to mean "outside" is archaic, as in it is not in current usage. On other hand, since "outside" is what is meant, it is fine. QED --71.217.207.124 (talk) 01:23, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

It's still in use on Wikipedia (QED). It's also perhaps more of an ENGVAR than simple archaicism. However when it's used, like here as 'within and without' I think it's worth keeping, because the comparison is more obvious that way. We might use "within and without", we might even change to "inside and outside", but "within and outside" is contrived and awkward. Andy Dingley (talk) 11:24, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

Revert of Ulster Defence Association edit

Hi there Andy,

You reverted my edit https://en.m.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ulster_Defence_Association&direction=prev&oldid=940013874 of Ulster Defence Association with the reasoning "I can see no plausible reason for that to be here."

I figured I would provide the reason here, then revert your revert to avoid any bad feelings, namely that C Company on Wikipedia is a redirect to the Ulster Defence Association, while folks may be looking for the Bollywood movie I added as an alternative.

- Easwarno1 Easwarno1 (talk) 02:17, 10 February 2020 (UTC)

Then it needs to be clearer. There is a form of hatnote which is for this specifically, pointing out that "C Company redirects here". Thanks for explaning it. Andy Dingley (talk) 02:19, 10 February 2020 (UTC)

Not familiar with that template, as you may see from my contribution history, I'm an occasional contributor. I would be grateful if you make the fix with the right template. Easwarno1 (talk) 02:24, 10 February 2020 (UTC)

Sure, I'll dig it out. I'm not familiar myself, as there are loads of them and this is obscure stuff. Andy Dingley (talk) 02:24, 10 February 2020 (UTC)

Thank you! I reverted the revert before I saw your response on the talk page, and added the reasoning as the comment. Easwarno1 (talk) 02:27, 10 February 2020 (UTC)

Wootton Basset SPAD / source layout / #104

Thank you much for the ed-sum on your recent reformatting of 2015 Wootton Bassett SPAD incident source. I've been trying quite hard for a better way of laying out citations in source, so they can be accurately and crisply worked on. I've been aware of some resistance, from fellow editors, but until your mention of #104 it seemed purely like IDLI / OWN trouble. Can you point me to where I can learn about this #104 thing??

Refs are hugely important, yet existing practice, coding citations strictly in-line with body copy, strikes me as muddle and obviously absurd, producing the sort of 'write-only code' that used to get people thrown off software projects. I sometimes find myself looking at source where I'm sure this in-line style has contributed to unfortunate spacing etc around refs, especially when appearing mid-sentence and near punctuation; I suspect tht less visibly - more seriously - it also sometimes results in text getting moved away from supporting refs, when editors are resequencing copy. Presumably it sometimes means editors just don't bother to make such changes, even when clearly desirable, cos itz just so much effort. I'm quite keen to move this forward if possible; I need to know more, especially re #104 evidently, and I'll be very grateful for your help.

Meanwhile I'm sorry I left you with a rather tedious reformatting task, too; and thank you (also) for not simply reverting what I had done.

- SquisherDa (talk) 21:41, 10 February 2020 (UTC)

• I just happened to be looking at Wikipedia:CHECKWIKI/WPC 104 dump w.r. to another article and noticed the SPAD article, which I'd edited in the past. I know little more about it than that.

As to ref formatting, then I agree absolutely with your point about software coding practice. For a project like this, I'm always surprised that there's so little awareness of basic software good practice, even from the very minor like this sort of layout. I'm certainly not averse to using whitespace like this - look at the format I habitually use. However the lint tools don't always understand the syntax issues, so they can complain abut stuff like this (like the 104 list), even when it's unimportant (wikitext isn't XML). For new work, I mostly place the refs into the {{Reflist}} itself and just inline citations - mostly using {{sfnp}}.

Be aware of WP:CITEVAR though, as some editors are hostile to any change, even clear improvements (such as linking cites to refs). Andy Dingley (talk) 22:34, 10 February 2020 (UTC)

Hospitality service, Homestay, Lounge service

The category Category:Hospitality_services is linked to Homestay and that means you also might sleep there. Ziferblat is a lounge service and no accommodation — I will create such a category. D'accord? --Geysirhead (talk) 04:49, 8 February 2020 (UTC)

• But that's to impose a definition of 'overnight stay' onto hospitality. That might work for homestay, but it's not implicit in hospitality generally (and that's where ziferblat fits).

The mere fact that homestay is being used as a main article for Hospitality services doesn't define hospitality, such that it's only hospitality when overnight. Andy Dingley (talk) 11:45, 8 February 2020 (UTC)

1) I added the category of Coworking space providers into Ziferblat.

2) current Hospitality services is to be moved to Homestay services.

3) Hospitality industry rather fits Ziferblat --Geysirhead (talk) 20:31, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

Submarines

"Submarines having their waterlines some distance above them, are thus not ships." Lol -- PBS (talk) 14:55, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

Out of curiosity

How did you come across the Jojo Rabbit article and make these two edits? I was assuming you had seen the film when it was released wherever you live and so were editing the article for that reason, but your only two edits appear to be to revert me and some other user, several weeks after the film was released in the UK.

Moreover, when you made the first edit, you were apparently aware that I had blanked some UNDUE content the previous day, as you explicitly referred to my edit with your second edit summary; but then why did you not only not revert my edit when you first noticed it, but let it stand for a full two weeks? Given some behaviour from last summer that I'd rather not get into, it appears somewhat likely that you followed me to the article rather than noticing it naturally...

Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 06:00, 10 February 2020 (UTC)

Andy argues against hounding, so surely he wouldn't engage in it. I would assume, for example, that his only comment at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion in a week had nothing to do with the fact that it was about an article I had commented on. Dicklyon (talk) 07:30, 10 February 2020 (UTC)

@Dicklyon: In my experience, something like 90% of editors who talk about hounding are projecting; I first learned the word from User:JoshuSasori, and we all know how that turned out. I've also been accused of hounding by about a dozen editors since then, most of whom have themselves been either blocked or otherwise sanctioned for hounding me, and the others ... well, I'm working on it, but I actually have a life outside Wikipedia that sometimes distracts me. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 07:36, 10 February 2020 (UTC)

• "Andy argues against hounding", and yet Dick, here you are... Andy Dingley (talk) 10:42, 10 February 2020 (UTC)

• "How did I HOUND you to the impossibly obscure Jojo Rabbit article, when I'd only been editing that article for weeks already."

Hijiri, not everything is about you.

This is a substantial film. Oscars all over the place. Amazingly, I also have a social life and I went to see it weeks ago, as have a myriad others. It thus ended up on my watch list, although (you may find this a crushing blow to your ego) I didn't first check its entire edit history for your involvement.

Yesterday there was a brief flurry of edits where an IP restored some relevant content (you immediately reverted them). My curiosity was piqued by this change: a 'revert of you' where I couldn't see any edits by you in the history? Also a removal of content I'd not seen before, but immediately saw as relevant to the article? How strange. Reading back in the history, before I'd been paying attention, I see that you'd already removed it once before. And now I see that mere moments after I restored it, you removed it again. 3RR to you. At least 2RR within 24 hours. No discussion of this seemingly vital removal through the article talk:, as there ought to be.

Nor have you explained why this needs to be removed: your summaries are "Revert unexplained." and " Manual revert of unhelpful blackwashing. User:Yallayallaletsgo's disruptive POV edits were at least intact for months before I read this article, but until what's already here is balanced out I think more negative content is probably unwelcome." Yet this is content from an IP editor in Auckland, NZ. I don't know who Yallayallaletsgo is, but I can't see edits by them since October (the Grauniad review was in December). You seem to be accusing them of both disruptive editing (on what basis?) and socking as well. Yet (and you know this) this is no forum for making such allegations, and you ought to at least notify them rather than merely mud-slinging.

You still have not raised this 3RR deletion on the article talk: page, prefering to harangue me here.

I am not going to waste further typing here on why this review should stay in the article. But I'd already read that review, and blogged about it, because I saw it as bizarrely negative. Not quite as bad as the NYT one (to misunderstand Klenzendorf so badly, I wonder if he left the film halfway?), but still - an odd outlier. However the Guradian still carries weight in the UK for its film reviews and also (importantly for this article) it's the only place where The Tin Drum gets a mention. So yes, this review belongs. Andy Dingley (talk) 11:17, 10 February 2020 (UTC)

"hound" is your word, not mine. And I never said or implied that it was an obscure film. (Frankly I suspect a lot of the Academy voters who chose Parasite over Jojo had probably seen the latter but not the former, and as a translator it really irks me that two Koreans got an award for their "screenplay" while the translator who actually wrote the words of the subtitles that actually won received no recognition, but I digress...)

I don't know or much care where, when, or even whether you saw the film, but you reverted a perfectly valid edit, and there is no good-faith reason I can think of for you doing so. Maybe you weren't following and reverting me based on your past interactions with me (and FWIW, you were lucky not to be blocked for that stuff you pulled last July), but maybe you just don't like the film and think our article should paint it in the worst light possible? The latter seems, frankly, worse than the former, but since you are vehemently denying the former...

Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 12:33, 10 February 2020 (UTC)

Also Yet this is content from an IP editor in Auckland, NZ. I don't know who Yallayallaletsgo is, but I can't see edits by them since October (the Grauniad review was in December). You seem to be accusing them of both disruptive editing (on what basis?) and socking as well. Yet (and you know this) this is no forum for making such allegations, and you ought to at least notify them rather than merely mud-slinging. is complete gibberish. Please consider rewriting it more carefully in light of the fact that I was clearly saying that Yallayallaletsgo, a POV-pusher who clearly doesn't like the film, had blackwashed the article months ago, and while their edits have become the WP:STATUSQUO any new blackwashing (like that of 150.206.104.40/114.23.137.240) should require talk page consensus per WP:BRD. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 01:41, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

• Hijiri, once again you appear to have appointed yourself as some sort of gatekeeper over other editors, and which edits they're permitted to make. You have no such role. You are not an admin, and admins have no such role either (we all have to comply with policy, but our opinions otherwise are our own).

This is a content dispute. It belongs on the article talk: page, which you have so far ignored. I have raised it there already and I am happy to follow any consensus which develops there as to which reviews should be included: if that differs from your clear opinion, I'll be restoring them anyway, because that's how we work.

You are also continuing to make allegations against another editor Yallayallaletsgo, but doing so on an unrelated user talk: page and without giving them either the notification or right to reply which they deserve.

Any more of this and it returns to ANI. Which is not a place I think you've found conducive in the past. Andy Dingley (talk) 10:59, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

You are the one who keeps bringing up Yallayallaletsgo; I specifically didn't undo his edits, as they were too old for me to do so based solely on BRD. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 10:38, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

New Page Reviewer newsletter February 2020

Hello Andy Dingley,

Source Guide Discussion

The first NPP source guide discussion is now underway. It covers a wide range of sources in Ghana with the goal of providing more guidance to reviewers about sources they might see when reviewing pages. Hopefully, new page reviewers will join others interested in reliable sources and those with expertise in these sources to make the discussion a success.

Redirects

New to NPP? Looking to try something a little different? Consider patrolling some redirects. Redirects are relatively easy to review, can be found easily through the New Pages Feed. You can find more information about how to patrol redirects at WP:RPATROL.

Discussions and Resources

• There is an ongoing discussion around changing notifications for new editors who attempt to write articles.
• A recent discussion of whether Michelin starred restraunts are notable was archived without closure.
• A resource page with links pertinent for reviewers was created this month.
• A proposal to increase the scope of G5 was withdrawn.

Refresher

Geographic regions, areas and places generally do not need general notability guideline type sourcing. When evaluating whether an article meets this notability guideline please also consider whether it might actually be a form of WP:SPAM for a development project (e.g. PR for a large luxury residential development) and not actually covered by the guideline.

Six Month Queue Data: Today – 7095 Low – 4991 High – 7095

To opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself here

16:08, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

"Automated manual transmission" new page/article proposal.

• Andy Dingley I was thinking possibly a separate (new) article just focused on Automated manual transmission, but still keep the original Semi-automatic transmission article, but possibly just transfer the existing information to a new article? It would be probably be overall less confusing if we did it that way... Sounds like a plan to me. What do you think Andy? Davism0703 (talk) 22:19, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

• Andy Dingley Do you think you could help formulate a separate new article? I'm down to help out if you need it. ;) Davism0703 (talk) 22:23, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

Audi quattro

I agree that if there are any cars deserving of superlatives, the Quattro is one of them. It truly moved the needle. But that long chunk of prose isn't all that good a read and most of it doesn't really help the encyclopaedia imho. Could we perhaps agree to have a handful of quotes rather than all that verbosity from one single article? Like two period quotes (one UK, one US?), one later quote (hindsight perspective), and one from germany or france or somesuch (global impact)? Best,  Mr.choppers | ✎  02:49, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

Sure, but we ought to keep something of the reception of the period. It was novel in having AWD, it was better than anyone else's AWD systems had been (and stayed that way for some time) and the UK car press went crazy for it. Do you know the much-later British TV cop / fantasy show Ashes to Ashes? (2006 show set in 1981) where a Quattro (and its utter superiority to all other forms of road transport) is a big piece of the scene-setting. If anything, rather than pruning the quotes I'd prefer to see them with more context, such as "The UK press went completely overboard for this car". Andy Dingley (talk) 10:16, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

MTB

Uh, oh. I fell down the rabbit hole, too.

Oh, no! It's Rule 43! Wikiuser100 (talk) 15:38, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

Severn Bridge

Hi Andy, I don't revert edits, as my user page says "...if your edit has been reverted, just forget it" and I have, although I could provide extra references if needed, and an actual image from the bridge itself is an excellent reference too...have a look at File:Sri Chinmoy Peace Bridge plaque, Aust - geograph-4234747.jpg,. Best wishes, SethWhales ^talk 13:03, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

• As noted, I'm sure that someone, somewhere calls it the Severn-Wye Bridge. But does that get anywhere near COMMONNAME to the point that it belongs in the lead? I've never heard it called that. It's rare enough to hear the Wye section mentioned. Many people still think that it goes from England to Wales and the Welsh landing is in Beachley. I'd see "Old Bridge" or "M48 Bridge" as having more currency to get into the lead than Severn-Wye bridge.

A sourced mention within the article on naming? I couldn't oppose that. But not in the lead. Andy Dingley (talk) 14:13, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

There are plenty of sources, both reliable and unreliable, that do call it the "Severn-Wye Bridge" or "Severn/Wye Bridge" (including Hansard, if you go back to the 50s), though it's obviously not the most common term. In order to mention it but without giving it undue weight, how about a sourced, but bolded mention at the end of the first paragraph, rather than in the opening sentence? Ghmyrtle (talk) 16:11, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

There's a discussion on the talk page of Scaled agile framework

However, you decided to insert yourself into the discussion and made a personal attack. You're welcome to do the former, but not the latter. Walter Görlitz (talk) 22:30, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

Just what is your problem that you always have to know better than the entire industry? We're tired of this. These articles are out of date, and it's always you who stops any sort of updating. Andy Dingley (talk) 22:40, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

Do you even READ my comments anymore, or do you just click "revert" out of habit?

Your camping of my edits borders on harrassment. Cut it out.

I am well aware of (and take the time to check compliance with WP:ENGVAR.

Linking to a redirect is more "bad" than having two spellings of grey. Leave it alone.

Riventree (talk) 10:34, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

Linking to a redirect is WP:NOTBROKEN. Andy Dingley (talk) 10:34, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

Meh. Perhaps there should be a WP:LESSLAME. Fair enough. As you were.

Riventree (talk) 10:37, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

And yet a bit more: I was out of line. I reacted disproportionately while at the same time accusing you of the same. I apologize, withdraw my objection, and support your correction of my work. Cheers.

Riventree (talk) 10:45, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

• You have something of a habit of that. Please try to stop. Andy Dingley (talk) 10:47, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

Yes, I read that. No, I will not be baited. Riventree (talk) 10:54, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

Quick firing gun

Hi, I admit it, I messed up. I just saw quick-firing in both the title of the article I edited and the other website I linked to and thought they would be connected. I didn't take the time to fully read the article and see that there is, assuming I'm not mistaken, a specific criteria for what a quick-firing gun is. However, I have now taken an interest in the topic and have found an example of a gun from 1854 that seems to me to fit the criteria outlined in the 'characteristics' section, which I have linked to below. The only thing it seems to lack, in my opinion, is the smokeless powder, but then the Baranovsky gun doesn't use smokeless powder either, right, seeing as it was invented a few decades before poudre B? I'm unsure of that last point as I don't speak or read Russian and running the referenced website for the 1872 Baranovsky gun through Google translate gives garbled results. LINK: https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=Gn_9q1P-o2sC&pg=RA1-PA7&dq=Buffer+Recoil+Breech&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjs1OTCu6LoAhWyqHEKHWroAWAQ6AEIMDAB#v=onepage&q=Buffer%20Recoil%20Breech&f=falseSQMeaner (talk) 21:44, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

• This is a poor article. It is confused and poorly sourced, and it gives neither a clear definition of what a QF gun is, nor sourcing to back that up. But the key part of it is the use of a breech-loading piece, loaded with single-part cased ammunition, with the cartridge case and projectile loaded in a single unit, and where obturation is performed by the cartridge case. This allows loading to be performed quickly: there is no need for ramming (as a muzzle loader requires), or for a screw breech or similar, such as de Bange obturation.

Other aspects, such as recoil buffers, or the use of smokeless powder, are secondary to this. It's hard to see how a QF piece would work without them, but we'd need a robust source saying so to claim that these were necessary to class a piece as QF.

The piece you link is describing a muzzle loader. So it's not QF. It needs a rammer. Whatever the recoil mechanism is, and (of course) there were many muzzle loaders with recoil buffers because returning to battery on the same lay is useful to both, that's not alone enough to make a gun QF.

Also this belongs on the article talk: page, not here. Andy Dingley (talk) 22:21, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

March 2020

Your addition to TV detector van has been removed in whole or in part, as it appears to have added copyrighted material to Wikipedia without evidence of permission from the copyright holder. If you are the copyright holder, please read Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials for more information on uploading your material to Wikipedia. For legal reasons, Wikipedia cannot accept copyrighted material, including text or images from print publications or from other websites, without an appropriate and verifiable license. All such contributions will be deleted. You may use external websites or publications as a source of information, but not as a source of content, such as sentences or images—you must write using your own words. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously, and persistent violators of our copyright policy will be blocked from editing. See Wikipedia:Copying text from other sources for more information.

-RFenergy (talk) 13:23, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

Seriously? You've been here a week and you're already lecturing people. No, I didn't add this, it has been there for months. More to the point, if you have a problem with it, then you're in just as good a position to copy-edit it as anyone. So why didn't you?

And finally, just what's the copyvio here? The abstract? Really? You're claiming that reproduction of the abstract is such a serious breach of copyright, that it's sufficient to start playing mall cop? Andy Dingley (talk) 13:53, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

Yes, my apologies. I just discovered that it was added some little while ago and quite a bit of editing has taken place since. However, the section is amply long enough that it is a clear copyright violation by any standard, so it was probably not a good idea to revert it back in. I know that Wikipedia takes copyright violation very seriously, and being the author of many technical papers and publications, so do I.

I asked at WP:AN about the existence of the copyvio in the article history (as I had no idea how that works - but I do now). It has been confirmed as an abstract that is too long, but cannot be removed from the article history as there is too much of it in in that history. Best wishes and good luck. -RFenergy (talk) 14:10, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

Category:English monarchs

Regarding this edit, Category:English monarchs already is a container category. Marcocapelle (talk) 12:58, 29 March 2020 (UTC)

Raised at Category talk:Monarchs of the United Kingdom#Depopulate? Andy Dingley (talk) 13:04, 29 March 2020 (UTC)

April 2020

You have been blocked for 72 hours from editing for persistently making disruptive edits. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.

I warned you to avoid disruptive behavior regarding Hijiri88 and you went ahead anyway. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 15:31, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

You appear to be making formal warnings against me by making comments on another editor's talk page: User talk:Hijiri88#ANI warning [2]. Seriously? You're going to pull the "You were already warned" trick, but not even tell me about it? Andy Dingley (talk) 15:35, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Andy Dingley (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

Recently I've had trouble with Hijiri88 (talk · contribs), who has taken to policing my edits and telling me what I may and may not edit. I have no idea why, I've had no engagement with Hijiri88 before this.

• "RESTRICT"
• Out of curiosity
• "borderline ban-violations on your part."

Things came to a head at a recent AfD, where Hijiri had been repeatedly blanking the article beforehand anyway. I raised this at AfD WP:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1033#Hijiri88 and PAs at AfD and was ignored. QEDK replied with a smiley and closed it as "no action".

Today I noticed that Hijiri was subject to another ANI thread WP:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Repeated bogus OR accusations, with a somewhat similar basis. However this was leading to an unwarranted attempt to page ban them from something in Japanese culture, which I know to be Hijiri88's core interest. I saw this as unwarranted and said so. Hijiri seems to prefer more dramah to support, so ran to complain of "an unprovoked attack" to QEDK and Cullen and asked for me to be blocked. Cullen has obliged. How helpful our admins are, when on-request blocks are so easy to obtain!

Problems with this as a block:

• "I warned you to avoid disruptive behavior regarding Hijiri88 " (above).

By "warned", Cullen seems to mean this: User talk:Hijiri88#ANI warning, a warning on another editor's talk page. Nothing on mine. Seriously? They consider that to be a valid warning. Of course I hadn't read it, WTF would I? I wasn't aware of it until Slatersteven linked it on the ANI followup.

• Disruptive? By opposing banning them from the page? I know this page is clearly important to them.
• Cullen is deeply INVOLVED in all this and has been gunning for me for years. When it gets to the point that Wikipediocracy (!!!) is running a bingo card describing both them and Hijiri88 as "wanting to shoot the messenger wiki-style.", then that's getting pretty damned obvious.
• No action, or even warning to Hijiri88. Some time back, Cullen did warn me "This project does not need you to be <permabanned>'s police officer.". But they're OK for Hijiri to appoint themselves as mine? Andy Dingley (talk) 16:08, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

Decline reason:

This appeal makes allegations of misconduct against others and can therefore not be considered; see WP:NOTTHEM. It also makes personal attacks against others ("seems to prefer more dramah to support"), which validates the block. Continuing to make personal attacks in unblock requests can result in a longer block and removal of talk page access. Sandstein 08:54, 2 April 2020 (UTC)

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Andy Dingley, some years ago I found myself getting into conflicts with Hijiri88. My perception at the time was very negative about him/her. If I wrote what I thought (at the time), I would risk getting a block. So I tried to avoid editing pages that Hijiri88 edits. I have not had difficulties with him/her since. I cannot be bothered to look back and see whether I was in the right or wrong. Sometimes I take a break from Wikipedia for a few months because dealing with well-meaning but difficult people gets too frustrating, and I have other things in life that I need to focus on.

In my experience, Andy Dingley, you have always been a good editor. You do good work. When you got blocked, I was surprised because I thought that you were an admin. Toddy1 (talk) 09:29, 2 April 2020 (UTC)

Thanks. Read the links at the top. I've no connection to Hijiri, but they've taken to policing my edits. I raised this at ANI last week and was rebuffed by a few admins who clearly don't think that I ever have a right to complain of anything. I saw Hijiri's other ANI thread, which seemed unfair, and I opposed the sanctions on them. Hijiri, unfortunately, reacted badly. Andy Dingley (talk) 09:50, 2 April 2020 (UTC)

But then, "filthy, repulsive degenerates" is fine as a comment on other editors. Andy Dingley (talk) 09:53, 2 April 2020 (UTC)

• @Cullen328, I'm inclined to lift this block as procedurally flawed; the rationale for it is Disruptive attack on Hijiri88 following specific warning but I can't see any sign of this warning either in the history of this talkpage or in the ANI thread. Yes, you warned Andy Dingley here, but there's no reason to assume he saw that (The notification of the ANI thread and the comment preceding it are the only times in Wikipedia's history that Andy Dingley has ever commented on Hijiri88's talkpage for any reason so it's reasonable to assume he's not watching the page). Sanctioning an editor for falure to observe a sanction you haven't even told them exists seems fundamentally unfair to me. ‑ Iridescent 09:46, 2 April 2020 (UTC)

• I'm puzzled by what's said in the "decline" statement, tht the appeal "makes allegations of misconduct against others and can therefore not be considered" (and referring to WP:NOTTHEM). As I read the appeal, it makes no such allegation. It makes four points (and bullets them for clarity). It says there was no warning. That's a procedural point, not an allegation of misconduct. It says his action, complained of as disruptive, was not disruptive. That's a point on interpretation of evidence - again, not a misconduct allegation. It says the contributor imposing the ban is involved. That's again a procedural point. It could also be made the basis of a misconduct allegation: but the appeal does not do that. (I'd suggest the admin who imposed the ban might usefully think about that action as possible misconduct, if he/she thinks Andy is right to claim involvement - but that's my thought, not anything Andy's appeal has said.) Finally, it argues tht inconsistent judgement has contributed to the decision to ban - again, without going on to allege tht the inconsistency results from bad faith or misconduct. In summary, the "decline" statement seems to me founded on a misreading, an error of fact. It says Andy's appeal makes a type of allegation which it does not make. -- SquisherDa (talk) 10:26, 2 April 2020 (UTC)

Unblocked

I did attempt to raise this with Cullen328 and gave him half-an-hour to respond, but it's the middle of the night where he lives so he's unlikely to be active for some hours. I'm going to lift this block, as I agree both on the procedural aspect of the block being based on a warning that was never given to Andy Dingley and that there's no reason to think he had read, and on the substantive aspect that having looked at the complaint which led to this block, it appears that this was the supposed "disruptive edit" and I don't believe any reasonable observer could genuinely construe it as such.

While this is explicitly not a formal warning, I do strongly recommend to Andy Dingley to avoid in future any thread that mentions Hijiri88, unless responding to a direct claim about or question to himself. ‑ Iridescent 10:43, 2 April 2020 (UTC)

AFD

So the AFD that I started was finished and I didn't see it. I promised though that if I was off base I'd come back with an apology. It appears consensus, although weak IMO, did agree with your publishing. My apologies and thanks for letting the process play out, as frustrating as I'm sure it was. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 15:28, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

Articles for Creation: List of reviewers by subject notice

Hi Andy Dingley, you are receiving this notice because you are listed as an active Articles for Creation reviewer.

Recently a list of reviewers by area of expertise was created. This notice is being sent out to alert you to the existence of that list, and to encourage you to add your name to it. If you or other reviewers come across articles in the queue where an acceptance/decline hinges on specialist knowledge, this list should serve to facilitate contact with a fellow reviewer.

To end on a positive note, the backlog has dropped below 1,500, so thanks for all of the hard work some of you have been putting into the AfC process!

Sent to all Articles for Creation reviewers as a one-time notice. To opt-out of all massmessage mailings, you may add Category:Wikipedians who opt out of message delivery to your user talk page. Regards, Sam-2727 (talk)

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:35, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

"Rtd studies of plug flow reactor" listed at Redirects for discussion

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Rtd studies of plug flow reactor. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 June 3#Rtd studies of plug flow reactor until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. Slashme (talk) 21:01, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

Jet engines

I have just stumbled on three articles that look ripe for deletion: Corrected flow, Corrected fuel flow and Corrected speed.

What do you think? Deletion or merge with some existing major article? Dolphin (t) 02:01, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

New Page Reviewer newsletter June 2020

Hello Andy Dingley,

Your help can make a difference

NPP Sorting can be a great way to find pages needing new page patrolling that match your strengths and interests. Using ORES, it divides articles into topics such as Literature or Chemistry and on Geography. Take a look and see if you can find time to patrol a couple pages a day. With over 10,000 pages in the queue, the highest it's been since ACPERM, your help could really make a difference.

Google Adds New Languages to Google Translate

In late February, Google added 5 new languages to Google Translate: Kinyarwanda, Odia (Oriya), Tatar, Turkmen and Uyghur. This expands our ability to find and evaluate sources in those languages.

Discussions and Resources

• A discussion on handling new article creation by paid editors is ongoing at the Village Pump.
• Also at the Village Pump is a discussion about limiting participation at Articles for Deletion discussion.
• A proposed new speedy deletion criteria for certain kinds of redirects ended with no consensus.
• Also ending with no change was a proposal to change how we handle certain kinds of vector images.

Six Month Queue Data: Today – 10271 Low – 4991 High – 10271

To opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself here

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:52, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

Category:Bristol buses has been nominated for renaming

Category:Bristol buses has been nominated for renaming. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies with the categorization guidelines. 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. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 07:16, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

You have been pruned from a list

Hi Andy Dingley! You're receiving this notification because you were previously listed on the AFC's participants list, but you haven't made any edits to the English Wikipedia in over 6 months. Because of your inactivity, you have been removed from the list. If you would like to regain access to the AFCH script, you can do so at any time by visiting WT:AFCP. Thank you for your work at AFC, and if you start editing Wikipedia again we hope you will rejoin us. Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 18:01, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

ArbCom 2020 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2020 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:39, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

New Page Patrol December Newsletter

Hello Andy Dingley,

Year in review

It has been a productive year for New Page Patrol as we've roughly cut the size of the New Page Patrol queue in half this year. We have been fortunate to have a lot of great work done by Rosguill who was the reviewer of the most pages and redirects this past year. Thanks and credit go to JTtheOG and Onel5969 who join Rosguill in repeating in the top 10 from last year. Thanks to John B123, Hughesdarren, and Mccapra who all got the NPR permission this year and joined the top 10. Also new to the top ten is DannyS712 bot III, programmed by DannyS712 which has helped to dramatically reduce the number of redirects that have needed human patrolling by patrolling certain types of redirects (e.g. for differences in accents) and by also patrolling editors who are on on the redirect whitelist.

Rank	Username	Num reviews	Log
1	DannyS712 bot III (talk)	67,552	Patrol Page Curation
2	Rosguill (talk)	63,821	Patrol Page Curation
3	John B123 (talk)	21,697	Patrol Page Curation
4	Onel5969 (talk)	19,879	Patrol Page Curation
5	JTtheOG (talk)	12,901	Patrol Page Curation
6	Mcampany (talk)	9,103	Patrol Page Curation
7	DragonflySixtyseven (talk)	6,401	Patrol Page Curation
8	Mccapra (talk)	4,918	Patrol Page Curation
9	Hughesdarren (talk)	4,520	Patrol Page Curation
10	Utopes (talk)	3,958	Patrol Page Curation

Reviewer of the Year

John B123 has been named reviewer of the year for 2020. John has held the permission for just over 6 months and in that time has helped cut into the queue by reviewing more than 18,000 articles. His talk page shows his efforts to communicate with users, upholding NPP's goal of nurturing new users and quality over quantity.

NPP Technical Achievement Award

As a special recognition and thank you DannyS712 has been awarded the first NPP Technical Achievement Award. His work programming the bot has helped us patrol redirects tremendously - more than 60,000 redirects this past year. This has been a large contribution to New Page Patrol and definitely is worthy of recognition.

Six Month Queue Data: Today – 2262 Low – 2232 High – 10271

To opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself here

18:17, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

Precious anniversary

Precious

Three years!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:49, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

Merry Christmas!!!

Hi Andy. Long time, no see. I sure do hope everything is ok. I've always valued your contributions here, and you knowledge in many of the same areas that interest me. I sure hope you're in good health, and that someday you return. Until then, I wish you and yours a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year! Zaereth (talk) 00:11, 24 December 2020 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Likewise, I noticed a long time ago that this tp was not cropping up on my watchlist.--Rocknrollmancer (talk) 01:38, 24 December 2020 (UTC)

Hello Andy, indeed, it has been a while since you've last edited – I hope that you are okay and decide to return one day; you are a knowledgable editor whose contributions I've always highly valued, and I won't forget how you've helped me with returning to this project. There are still so many engine(ering)-related articles which need improving, and I bet that at one point I will do need your help with these. Merry Christmas, --Johannes (Talk) (Contribs) (Articles) 14:25, 24 December 2020 (UTC)