User talk:Andy Dingley: Difference between revisions

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

Revision as of 21:21, 10 August 2011 editAndy Dingley (talk \| contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers160,392 edits →"Unconstructive?"← Previous edit		Revision as of 21:36, 10 August 2011 edit undoIan.thomson (talk \| contribs)58,562 editsNo edit summaryNext edit →
Line 114:		Line 114:
	::: Simply, No. I suggest you try reading ], not just citing it to further your point.		::: Simply, No. I suggest you try reading ], not just citing it to further your point.
	::: You are carrying out a large sequence of 'bot-like edits whose ''only'' basis is a pattern-match on a URL. That is hardly the highest achievement of editing. You might even note that I've reverted two of your changes removing this book cite, where it's in relation to contemporary neo-Victorianism, but ''didn't'' re-add it to two others where it was solely (and IMHO weakly) related to historical Victorian costume. The book is a worthwhile resource for contemporary costume, but not (again IMHO) for historical detail. This is the distinction between ''editing'' in the true editorial sense, rather than mindless rote work, which could just as well (if it were worth doing) be done by a script. ] (]) 21:21, 10 August 2011 (UTC)		::: You are carrying out a large sequence of 'bot-like edits whose ''only'' basis is a pattern-match on a URL. That is hardly the highest achievement of editing. You might even note that I've reverted two of your changes removing this book cite, where it's in relation to contemporary neo-Victorianism, but ''didn't'' re-add it to two others where it was solely (and IMHO weakly) related to historical Victorian costume. The book is a worthwhile resource for contemporary costume, but not (again IMHO) for historical detail. This is the distinction between ''editing'' in the true editorial sense, rather than mindless rote work, which could just as well (if it were worth doing) be done by a script. ] (]) 21:21, 10 August 2011 (UTC)
			::::Except that the two articles you've reverted me on, it's not actually being cited for anything, it's just an advertisement for the book. Also, did the section "Reliable" disappear from the "Considerations for inclusion of entries"? It was there last I checked. Waisted Curves does not by any means qualify under any of the following: "historically important publications; creative works or primary sources discussed extensively in the article; and seminal, but now outdated, scientific papers." Those are the additions considered aside from reliable sources. And again, it was out of line to call me an SPA. Would a bot have ? This was a recent project I've undertaken, and every little bit of work to keep this site encyclopedic (instead of, say, turning it into an advertising platform) helps Misplaced Pages. ] (]) 21:36, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

Revision as of 21:36, 10 August 2011

Hyper engine

I have edited out many, if not all, of the material commented upon on the article's talk page. It would now be quite easy to transfer the remaining sections into the existing Hyper engine article. I was quite concerned about the major rework necessary to revise the existing article with what material I thought was needed to revive it, but I am now confident, with the consensus of all concerned, that I can manage that task. Would you please, when you find a moment, take a look at my edits and leave your comments? Regards, Buster40004 Talk 16:23, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

Preselector gearbox

Half a loaf is better than no bread. We are not all beautiful to look at. Can't you find a better image of a diagram of the inside of an epicyclic gearbox and by the way Cotal gearbox redirects there — just another piece of gross over-simplification.

You have another tangle in Commons that needs fixing Eddaido (talk) 23:41, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Cotal gearbox - if you fancy writing some text to go with it, then by all means re-add the image. At the moment though, it's a random image dropped in without any real connection to what's on the page. It's not any of the devices described there, so how can it not be more confusing than helpful? There's more content on the talk: page than there is on the article page.

As to the Jowett Bradford, then the categorisation that's there should sort itself out. "Bradford" was never a maker, just one of Jowett's models. Andy Dingley (talk) 00:21, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

Cotal gearbox is diverted to the article!!! try it. Cotal

If you are to show yourself honest you should provide here a citation linking to any reference in print made before 1950 to a product named Jowett Bradford, not just Bradford and meaning that brand of very light truck or van. I originally had no wish to argue just to point out the mistakes. Eddaido (talk) 05:10, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

Message for you here: Talk:Preselector_gearbox#Recent_changes. Eddaido (talk) 10:47, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

Physics

How much power does it take to raise an object at a rate of 1 metre/second? How much at 2? 10? Neglect air resistance, if you like. Power is the subject of force and velocity. --Wtshymanski (talk) 14:16, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Sausages

Hi Andy; re this revert - I was about to do the same but you beat me to it. My edit summary would have been

this is highly tenuous - the exact quote from the book (p.42) is '"Duck called me a 'galloping sausage'," spluttered Gordon.' - and is this website a reliable source?

--Redrose64 (talk) 18:38, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

The problem is that it's too circular. Lots about Duck and Gordon, nothing about 10,000. Besides which, what would Duck know about LNER locos? Andy Dingley (talk) 19:26, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Indeed: there's absolutely no mention of no. 10000 or the W1 class in the story concerned. But it's not me that needs convincing - it's Thomasfan402 (talk · contribs). --Redrose64 (talk) 20:41, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Bugatti

I noticed that you had wondered my Bugatti revert in May 1, the reason was that you had put wrong name to Bugatti, the current company is Automobiles SAS, Im not sure the original company was with same name. -->Typ932 04:32, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

Three months ago and no diff? Is that the edit where you claimed that Bugatti was founded in Magdeburg? Andy Dingley (talk) 09:11, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

No I just mean that you had reverted wrongly http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Bugatti&action=historysubmit&diff=426914373&oldid=426913609 , I have never claimed Bugatti is Magdeburg, so when you fixed one thing you messed another one -->Typ932 19:03, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

Magdeburg

Thank you re: content strategy

Hi Andy,

Thank you for defending the addition of my edit to the Content Strategy page to OhNoIt'sJamie's cut. I would like to include my addition to the content strategy page as I know a lot of people in our practice are interested in this topic and would need the reference. Yes, it should be cross-referenced in digital curation, but it is more relevant to the audience of Content Strategy. That's why I'd like the edit to stay there. I'd appreciate if my original edit could be approved. I'm relatively new, so I appreciate your helpful tips on how to post effectively. Thanks again - Erin

You're welcome. Unfortunately despite your best efforts here, it's already raised at the COI noticeboard: WP:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard#COI_additions_restored_by_another_user You're lucky, first day here, and already you get to see why the project is driving useful editors away like crazy. My apologies. Andy Dingley (talk) 22:27, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

Courtesy notification

I've posted an item regarding our dispute re: Content Strategy here. OhNoitsJamie 21:53, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

"Unconstructive?"

Please review WP:RS, especially WP:SELFPUB, and WP:Further reading. Further reading sections are for stuff that otherwise qualifies as a reliable source. Weebly sites, being self published, generally do not qualify. Misplaced Pages does not advertise books, especially those that have to be sold on blogs. Ian.thomson (talk) 18:47, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

This is not a blog, it's a book. It is a perfectly reasonable book to include under a Further reading section (and I would note that you won't have claimed this as a reason to remove it until what will then be your third reversion.)

In addition to the book, there is also a web site that gives some indication as to its content. We would accept the book as a citation without the URL to the site, so it seems most strange to remove all of it, paper copy too, because you object to the URL format. The book is certainly obscure and few will have easy access to it - although within steampunk circles it's fairly well-known by name, especially amongst the seamstresses and the more neo-Victorian end of steampunk. I would note that your contributions history shows no knowledge of or interest in such matters.

The book could be said to be self-published. However this is not the same thing as WP:SELFPUB (you have actiually read the scope of this, I take it?). In particular, WP makes no criticism of the value of a book under the identity of its publisher.

Your sole reason for removing this book cite is the technical platform that the publisher chose to use for their web hosting. Such a criterion (and you have only the one) is pathetically simplistic. It exists because "blog content" is generally a poor idea as source material for an encyclopedia, not because Weebly affects the bytes as they're transmitted. Nor is this even a blog, by the way in which its content is used. I will assume GF and thus that you haven't actually looked at the site in question. After all, from your contributions history (which is almost exclusively the removal of links, based on pattern matching for their hosting platform) you'd have to have been very busy to have been doing so.

As the entire level of editorial subtlety in your editing seems to be a blanket removal based on web site implementations, I can't help thinking that you'd be most easily be replaced with a 'bot or script. No doubt a very small Perl script would do it. Andy Dingley (talk) 20:24, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

It was completely out of line to call me an SPA. I've been here since 2006, working on a variety of articles, this is just a recent project and I would not recommend a bot because I've already seen one article where a Weebly page did qualify as a reliable source under the guidelines. Try actually looking at my contributions. Also, not everyone does scripting.

Under WP:Further reading, one of the considerations for including a book in a further reading section is reliablility, as defined by the reliable source guidelines. The book is self-published, and under WP:SELFPUB self published sources are only included for claims by the subject about the subject. Under WP:RS, self published sources are unacceptable unless they meet WP:SELFPUB. The "Publisher" is nothing more than the sole author's webpage. There is no real publisher. You did look at the site, right? Particularly the "about me" section. Why, even the first page linked said that all the books are handbound by the (singlular) author.

By the way, I've taken this up on the most relevant noticeboard I could find - Misplaced Pages:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#"Publisher" on a Weebly site. Ian.thomson (talk) 21:04, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

And regarding your post on User talk:Vbsouthern: funny that you only decide to interact with this fellow only to contradict me after we come to a disagreement. What's that called? Oh, right, WP:HOUNDING. Ian.thomson (talk) 21:07, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

Actually that was a trail from the ANI Rapture thread, but I did happen to notice that it was your name. Either way, your interpretation of copyvios as theft is still wrong. Andy Dingley (talk) 21:15, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

'WP:Further reading, one of the considerations for including a book in a further reading section is reliablility, as defined by the reliable source guidelines.'

Simply, No. I suggest you try reading WP:Further reading, not just citing it to further your point.

You are carrying out a large sequence of 'bot-like edits whose only basis is a pattern-match on a URL. That is hardly the highest achievement of editing. You might even note that I've reverted two of your changes removing this book cite, where it's in relation to contemporary neo-Victorianism, but didn't re-add it to two others where it was solely (and IMHO weakly) related to historical Victorian costume. The book is a worthwhile resource for contemporary costume, but not (again IMHO) for historical detail. This is the distinction between editing in the true editorial sense, rather than mindless rote work, which could just as well (if it were worth doing) be done by a script. Andy Dingley (talk) 21:21, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

Except that the two articles you've reverted me on, it's not actually being cited for anything, it's just an advertisement for the book. Also, did the section "Reliable" disappear from the "Considerations for inclusion of entries"? It was there last I checked. Waisted Curves does not by any means qualify under any of the following: "historically important publications; creative works or primary sources discussed extensively in the article; and seminal, but now outdated, scientific papers." Those are the additions considered aside from reliable sources. And again, it was out of line to call me an SPA. Would a bot have done the investigation necessary to find out that this other Weebly page was indeed the official fan site for this singer, and provided evidence thereof? This was a recent project I've undertaken, and every little bit of work to keep this site encyclopedic (instead of, say, turning it into an advertising platform) helps Misplaced Pages. Ian.thomson (talk) 21:36, 10 August 2011 (UTC)