User talk:Andy Dingley: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively ← Previous edit Next edit →Content deleted Content addedVisual WikitextInline

Revision as of 22:15, 16 February 2016 editHengistmate (talk \| contribs)Extended confirmed users3,335 edits →Plasticine ← Previous edit		Revision as of 22:38, 16 February 2016 edit undoAndy Dingley (talk \| contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers160,530 edits →Plasticine Next edit →
Line 100:		Line 100:
	: It's just the usual wiki stupidity: admins without language skills making decisions about subtle language issues. For Ymblanter to let themself be trolled so obviously is unusually careless, but when do we ever expect any better? ] (]) 18:56, 16 February 2016 (UTC)		: It's just the usual wiki stupidity: admins without language skills making decisions about subtle language issues. For Ymblanter to let themself be trolled so obviously is unusually careless, but when do we ever expect any better? ] (]) 18:56, 16 February 2016 (UTC)
	::The spelling isn't wrong, of course, but I'm surprised that "editors" are being described as trolls merely for making an edit and supporting it with reliable references. Making accusations and being abusive isn't an appropriate reaction to simply having made a mistake. But anyway, these linguistic subtleties can, indeed, be sorted out, provided the necessary language skills are present: ] ] (]) 22:15, 16 February 2016 (UTC)		::The spelling isn't wrong, of course, but I'm surprised that "editors" are being described as trolls merely for making an edit and supporting it with reliable references. Making accusations and being abusive isn't an appropriate reaction to simply having made a mistake. But anyway, these linguistic subtleties can, indeed, be sorted out, provided the necessary language skills are present: ] ] (]) 22:15, 16 February 2016 (UTC)
			::: You are nothing more than a troll. ] (]) 22:37, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

Revision as of 22:38, 16 February 2016

Bern zinc tablet

Dear Andy, The Slavic etymology proposed by an anonymous editor contradicts the accepted academic knowledge of the language. No Slavic languages have been ever recorded in the area, whereas the words "Gobannos", "nanto", "dobnos"/"domnos" are well-known in Celtic. "Interpreting" various ancient inscriptions as Slavic is quite common among nationalistic pseudo-scientists here in Russia.

"Slavic" doesn't appear in the article, or in the section you deleted. Gaulish does, and that has a much closer relationship to Celtic. So I don't really see how your point (which may be valid - I'm no linguist) relates to this edit? If you're objecting to particular words, then why not remove them, not the whole section?

Mostly though, unexplained deletions like this resemble simple vandalism. If there is a reason to delete it, then please use an edit summary to explain why. If it's complicated, or likely to be restored, then maybe make a comment on the Talk: page. Andy Dingley (talk) 19:31, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

Yes, it does not appear in the article, but "govno"="shit" and "davno"="long ago", which are proposed by the author, are Russian words. I understand you and I will add my comments to the original article. Thank you!

Superheater

Hi Andy, Please stop undoing the edits on Superheater and take the time to read the text. Unsaturated steam and wet steam are the same thing. When I first read the article, it was confusing, which is why I took the time to edit it. The revised text should be clearer to everyone. Jonathan 123987 talk 00:34, 26 January 2014

Plastination

I removed the sentence referencing TTT sheet plastination because it didn't appear to add anything to the article, it merely referenced a specific type of plastination and mentioned that it was used in teaching, which the rest of the section already appeared to discuss. The sentence was almost like an advertisement for TTT plastination and gave no further information on the technique or any other uses for this form of plastination. It also lacked a citation.CV99 (talk) 00:44, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

You went through the article changing refs for "New York" to "Mega York". So don't tell me that's a constructive change. Andy Dingley (talk) 01:06, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

Also Andy Dingley (talk) 01:07, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

Now maybe, stretching WP:AGF to the limit, you've got some sort of accidental JavaScript running in your browser, or some sort of trojan. In which case, it's your responsibility to fix it and stop doing that before editing further. Andy Dingley (talk) 01:09, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

Sorry, I thought it was an issue with the edit I made instead of what appeared to be a blatant case of vandalism. The change was done by a browser extension of mine, XKCD substitutions. I had it set to replace new with mega. I had an issue with it before, though it was a one time thing; I do note that the burden of insuring that this browser extension does not make changes in the editing window lies with me. I typically turn if off when editing, and I usually do catch the times that I do make mistakes (though in this case I should have as it would have created red links). I have now set to turned off on the english wikipedia. I hope that this resolves the issue. CV99 (talk) 01:28, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

We've had far too many problems with XKCD before. I know he has some sort of issue with Misplaced Pages, but if you choose to run such an extension configured to auto-vandalise wikipedia, you're the one responsible for it. Andy Dingley (talk) 01:43, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

Sand casting

I have been consistent in giving a reason for each edit. If you mean that no reason was recorded, this must be due to some technical factor, as I gave the same reason for each of these edits: "no link," meaning that a term such as "Ford," "coal" or "air pressure" is assumed to need no further explanation via a linked Wiki article. I thought this excess linking was considered a detriment to Misplaced Pages, and went out of my way to amend it.--71.214.81.136 (talk) 02:48, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

Blanking all the links from an article and "explaining" this as "no link" is not a constructive edit.

If you think these links don't belong here, then go to Talk:Sand casting and explain why, per WP:BRD. Repeatedly removing them over and over instead will not be seen as constructive. Andy Dingley (talk) 11:26, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

What do you mean by "all"? I left the links to articles on more obscure topics, which was a distinct minority of the links. I have been using the reason "no link" for several years, with no complaints. Is "unlinked excess Wikilinks" an acceptable wording for my reason?--71.214.81.136 (talk) 20:46, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

You removed mold as a link (amongst others), from an article on casting. If you think that's a good change, take it to the article talk: page and see if you can get any support. I rather think not. Andy Dingley (talk) 21:11, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

Andy, have you seen the article at Bellfounding? It uses a sand casting process, though not always with sand. You might consider either a link or a else short precis with a hat note. Martin of Sheffield (talk) 09:29, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

Yes, not a bad article that. Could use more on Chinese bells though - they're significantly different and cast differently (try old Sci Am articles for a good one). Certainly it deserves trailing from the main casting article.Andy Dingley (talk) 00:41, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

Test (Unix)

I saw your comments on the AfD for this. Now it's getting blanked anyway . Any thoughts?

I like the idea of expanding why test and conditional branches changed the nature of scripting. Do you have anything to expand that with? Viam Ferream (talk) 10:25, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

I would support trimming it, but yes, that was too far.

This is an encyclopedia. It's supposed to be self-contained, but not isolated. We need enough manual to make the article stand up, but there's no need to replace the manuals. Anyone who wants a manual still has access to them - we might even link them.

So the command should be covered, and the syntax of how to use it, but there's no need for the parameter switches. I think anything here that explains itself in prose is probably useful, anything that's a list of sub-word flags doesn't belong.

Beware anyone quoting ALLCAPS. That's never a good sign. There's an old joke about drunks hanging onto lampposts for support more than illumination - WP policy is all too often used like that. Nor am I happy with Intgr quoting me right out of context on the Schilly AfD 8-( Andy Dingley (talk) 18:40, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

February 2016

Hello, I'm Stesmo. I wanted to let you know that I removed one or more external links you added to the main body of Graph database. Generally, any relevant external links should be listed in an "External links" section at the end of the article and meet the external links guidelines. Links within the body of an article should be internal Wikilinks. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. Stesmo (talk) 17:01, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

Plasticine

The page has now been protected, but with the incorrect spelling of "fuse". Would you mind starting an RfC or something along those lines? I'm unfamiliar with the process and the trolls are winning.142.105.159.60 (talk) 18:42, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

It's just the usual wiki stupidity: admins without language skills making decisions about subtle language issues. For Ymblanter to let themself be trolled so obviously is unusually careless, but when do we ever expect any better? Andy Dingley (talk) 18:56, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

The spelling isn't wrong, of course, but I'm surprised that "editors" are being described as trolls merely for making an edit and supporting it with reliable references. Making accusations and being abusive isn't an appropriate reaction to simply having made a mistake. But anyway, these linguistic subtleties can, indeed, be sorted out, provided the necessary language skills are present: https://en.wikipedia.org/Talk:Renault_FT#Nomenclature Hengistmate (talk) 22:15, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

You are nothing more than a troll. Andy Dingley (talk) 22:37, 16 February 2016 (UTC)