User talk:Andy Dingley: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 13:13, 3 April 2011

tb

Hello, Andy Dingley. You have new messages at Raywil's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Henri Coanda defamation

You are involved in a recently-filed request for arbitration. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests#Henri Coanda defamation and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. Additionally, the following resources may be of use—

Thanks,

Arbitration advocacy

Dear mr. Dingley, do you need any help in defending yourself in the arbitration case? If you contact me by mail, I will be able to take a look at your case. Sincerly, PaoloNapolitano. PaoloNapolitano (talk) 14:04, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thankyou for your offer, but I'm sure ArbCom can cope. Andy Dingley (talk) 02:18, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Digital Blasphemy

I have removed the prod tag you placed on the subject article because it has been to AfD 3 times and per policy is permanently ineligible for prod. Compliance with policy is the only reason I did this; I have no comment one way or the other on the merits of deletion and no prejudice against opening another AfD. —KuyaBriBri^Talk 15:25, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Spud Gun External Links Section

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spud_gun Half the sites in the External Links section sell products and advertise. The site (spudgundepot.com) I would like to add does not sell anything but gives valuable information, animations, and diagrams. Please revise this, Thank you. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:External_links#Advertising_and_conflicts_of_interest Wikimembr (talk) 20:15, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have some sympathy for your comment here, but there are two WP policies that are relevant. Please take a look.

First of all WP:OSE. Other bad links are a reason to perhaps remove them, but it's never an excuse to add more links that don't meet policy. It often happens that new links are looked at more closely and thus get removed, whilst old bad links are ignored and stay. However the fix for that is to review the old links, not become lax on new links.
Secondly, WP:EL (which no-one ever reads) makes it quite clear what the purpose of links is. They're not there to make a directory of links, or to link onwards from WP articles. Instead they're there to "fill in the cracks" of something that can't be placed inside a WP article. The better the article, the less need there is for external linking. Rather than adding a link, it's better to add content to the article.

Finally, and why I won't personally re-add these links (although I won't remove them again if you do re-add them) is that I consider the site to be offering dangerous advice. PVC tube is brittle and can explode under pressure, with hazardous shrapnel. It should not be used for making spud guns. Other non-brittle plastics, such as polypropylene, are just as easily available. Andy Dingley (talk) 21:17, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

RFAR Henri Coanda

An Arbitration case involving you has been opened, and is located here. Please add any evidence you may wish the Arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Henri Coanda/Evidence. Please submit your evidence within one week, if possible. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Henri Coanda/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Alexandr Dmitri (talk) 08:34, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

2N3055 AfD

There's no reason to make this personal, as you have on the Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2N3055 and at User talk:Wtshymanski. Let's see if we can focus on whether the article clears the bar for notability, not your opinions of the other editors in the discussion. Msnicki (talk) 23:03, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You type faster than I can raise you at WQA, but it doesn't mean you're right. Your last sarcastic comment (not even to a post of mine) was really unhelpful. Andy Dingley (talk) 23:07, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

March 2011

Please do not attack other editors, as you did at User talk:Msnicki. Comment on content, not on contributors. Personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you. We do not decide notability based on what other contributions another editor has made. I've asked you to stop making this personal. You've ignored my request with your last edit to my talk page. This is unnecessary. Please stop. Msnicki (talk) 23:48, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Under a thousand edits and you're already at WP:AN3 and WP:ANI? Andy Dingley (talk) 23:55, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not attack other editors. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Enough is enough, Andy. I've asked you to stop. Msnicki (talk) 00:04, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Congratulations, you've found where the templates are kept.

Agreed

I agree that this edit [1] is correct. It belongs in Category:Academic journal covers. The other categorization was probably an oversight. ---- Steve Quinn (talk) 02:48, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry about that. I meant to add the diff with the first edit. ---- Steve Quinn (talk) 02:55, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Scrum Article

Full disclosure:

1) I am new to adding articles to Wiki.

2) Words on a page and/or screen can be misinterpreted.

My intent with my article is honest, forthright, and within the "Taste Test," of the 5 Pillars. I apologize if you impression of the article was that of nonsense.

Thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dannydohrmann (talk • contribs) 01:52, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Fritzing

Sorry; indeed, I was too quick to judge. Lorem Ip (talk) 00:28, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

User Alan Liefting

It appears this editor is engaged in wholesale removal of certain categories not based on guidelines but on some flimsy rationale. I notified this editor of his contradictory behavior. Please read what I added to this section [2] on his talk page. In particular there is this set of edits [3] pertaining to Category:Ecotourism that I most concerned about. Also, checking for accuracy, and then changing them back will take awhile. As far as I am concerned this is just another form of disrupting editing WP:DE ,i. e., an attempt to edit Wikipedia to personal preference. If rhia behavior continues I am open to the option of taking this to ANI. What is your opinion on this matter? ---- Steve Quinn (talk) 04:07, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I encountered this at Wood & Firewood (or their cats).

Policy says this should be raised at WQA, which is poorly named for this purpose and usually creates an extra conflict because it's seen as an attack on the editor's civility (which may be fine), rather than a discussion of the edits. Next step if RFC/U, which is awfully heavy-handed as process. So most things (that end up being usefully addressed) are done out of process, by non-admins, although happening at AN/I. I'd see that as a reasonable place to bring it up, especially if there's a 'bot being used.

I would myself probably remove individual national parks from Ecotourism though, just to control cat size. They belong under "ecotourism sites" "ecotourism destinations" or (better) "ecotourism by country".

Andy Dingley (talk) 09:22, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Andy, thanks for your feedback. I agree that RFC/U would be heavy handed. I certainly do not see that as needed in this case.

Also, I may be misunderstanding this situation, because I don't see how WQA works as a resolution process for this particular issue. Perhaps you could elaborate a little more about this. I don't see this person's responses as particularly nasty or uncivil. He just seems to be relying on faulty rationales for category adjustments to articles including categories other than Category:Ecotourism. ---- Steve Quinn (talk) 13:11, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see it either. However policy (see notes at RFC/U) says that it's the appropriate first step before RFC. I tried it recently about user:Bzuk (again, nothing to do with civility) and it was a failure. Andy Dingley (talk) 13:13, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Revision as of 13:11, 3 April 2011 edit Steve Quinn (talk \| contribs) Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, New page reviewers, Pending changes reviewers 39,390 edits →User Alan Liefting: Reply ← Previous edit		Revision as of 13:13, 3 April 2011 edit undo Andy Dingley (talk \| contribs) Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers 159,945 edits →User Alan Liefting Next edit →
Line 125:		Line 125:

	::Also, I may be misunderstanding this situation, because I don't see how WQA works as a resolution process for this particular issue. Perhaps you could elaborate a little more about this. I don't see this person's responses as particularly nasty or uncivil. He just seems to be relying on faulty rationales for category adjustments to articles including categories other than [[:Category:Ecotourism]]. ---- [[User:Steve Quinn\|Steve Quinn]] ([[User talk:Steve Quinn\|talk]]) 13:11, 3 April 2011 (UTC)		::Also, I may be misunderstanding this situation, because I don't see how WQA works as a resolution process for this particular issue. Perhaps you could elaborate a little more about this. I don't see this person's responses as particularly nasty or uncivil. He just seems to be relying on faulty rationales for category adjustments to articles including categories other than [[:Category:Ecotourism]]. ---- [[User:Steve Quinn\|Steve Quinn]] ([[User talk:Steve Quinn\|talk]]) 13:11, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
			::: I don't see it either. However policy (see notes at RFC/U) says that it's the appropriate first step before RFC. I tried it recently about [[user:Bzuk]] (again, nothing to do with civility) and it was a failure. [[User:Andy Dingley\|Andy Dingley]] ([[User talk:Andy Dingley#top\|talk]]) 13:13, 3 April 2011 (UTC)