User talk:Andy Dingley: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively

← Previous edit Next edit →

Content deleted Content added

VisualWikitext

Inline

Revision as of 09:11, 6 May 2013

Discussion at ANI about Alan Liefting

I have opened a discussion at ANI about the situation on Alan's talk page. Kumioko (talk) 14:48, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

ARRL external link at Amateur radio

There is no conceivable NPOV reason to exempt only the ARRL from the provision to use DMOZ for all external links on that article. If the ARRL is allowed to be listed outside of DMOZ then all national amateur radio societies are also entitled to be listed in the same way. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 20:47, 24 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Half a second of navigation within the DMOZ listing yields a comprehensive list of amateur radio societies: [1]. Keeps the EL section of the article from becoming a dumping ground for everybody's favorite ham org. or link. - LuckyLouie (talk) 20:53, 24 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The difference is that the ARRL (and also the RSGB) are not only a national membership organisation, but they've also taken a leading technical role in developing amateur radio itself.

DMOZ is just a dead project and best ignored. Andy Dingley (talk) 21:15, 24 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for April 27

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Toothed belt, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Dragster (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:03, 27 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

3O would be appreciated at Help:Searching

I'm trying to improve Help:Searching, but another user who has added an excess of disorganized geek detail (written in not-so-good English) seems to think that he owns the page. I told him that he can "own" the geek detail, but I want to fix the overview summary (intro.) at the top of the page. I'd appreciate 3rd opinions. LittleBen (talk) 18:06, 27 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Plain Old Semantic HTML

We appear to be having a minor edit war. There used to be an article titled "Plain Old Semantic HTML" (POSH). This described how POSH was the use of HTML for content, and not for presentation. POSH includes avoiding <b>, <i>, <br>, tables for presentation, etc. In 2010, the article was converted to a #REDIRECT to a section in the article Microformat. In 2011, this section was deleted. Since then, as far as I can tell, the only place POSH is defined is on the disambiguation page, POSH#Computing. A reader searching for "Plain Old Semantic HTML" will want to read a description of what it is. Pointing readers to a disambiguation page seems strange but, I would suggest, this is the best way to help readers. A better way would be to mention POSH on the page Semantic HTML. The problem with this, however, is that POSH is not notable, only ever having been used by the microformats community. Let me know what you think. (Please respond here.) HairyWombat 18:33, 28 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Later. Don't respond here. See you at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion. HairyWombat 18:47, 28 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hovercraft "Dragonfly"

Hi Andy - you tagged this article over two years ago but there has been little improvement. I have raised it as non-notable WP:Notability/Noticeboard#Hovercraft_.22Dragonfly.22 and I think it should be deleted, but your input would be welcome. Wikiwayman (talk) 13:33, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Normandy landings

Hello Andy, I have just added my support for your comments on Admin Notice Board. It does seem that this unregistered editor will not listen to consensus and had made some nasty comments on the contribution of the Free French and others. I really fail to see why he cannot abide by Wikipedia rules and conduct. Regards, David, David J Johnson (talk) 22:39, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for May 4

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Humphrey Pump, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Del Rio (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 15:00, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Self-promotion and spam

If I recall correctly, I deleted this material as spam because it appeared to have been added by the publisher as part of a campaign to add links and "references" to his own self-published material in many different articles. ElKevbo (talk) 15:54, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

But did you read it?

If we are to see publishers as "the enemy", then the risk is that we create yet another group that's antagonistic to WP. We do quite enough of this already.

There is no Breidbart Index on WP. If a publisher posts a relevant link that meets WP:EL (and this one does, there's a substantial portion of a relevant, copyrighted, book made available to us), then it shouldn't make any difference to us how many links they post – indeed, the more they have to offer, the more gracious and grateful we ought to be. If any of these are "spam", then we have to judge that per link, based on the value of the material they add. Andy Dingley (talk) 16:38, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think the burden is on those who believe that resources added en mass by an editor with a COI are indeed useful resources for readers. This is particularly true when the editor who added the resource has made no other significant edits aside from adding such materials, actions that are indistinguishable from someone interested more in self-promotion than in contributing to encyclopedia articles. This, of course, sets aside any discussion of whether such a resource is better used to actually add material to the article instead of being (often lazily, IMHO) added to an ever-growing list of "Further reading" resources that have no clear criteria for inclusion.

In any case, I have no objection if you believe this particular book is added to the article but I am assuming that your edit is an endorsement of the material and that you yourself have evaluated it as a useful addition to the article. ElKevbo (talk) 17:39, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

WP is far to quick to see an "interest" and assume that is implicitly a "conflict of interest". There is content that we can benefit from and we should welcome it: sometimes as article content, but it's also valid to add useful ELs (and yes, I'm familiar with EL). We shouldn't be too quick to attack content suppliers who add too much, simply for adding too much of it. Andy Dingley (talk) 18:00, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback

Hello, Andy Dingley. You have new messages at Talk:Autism_Speaks.
Message added 00:47, 6 May 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

I responded to your revert on the talk page. LFaraone 00:47, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Re: big.LITTLE

WP:MOS/TM says "Follow standard English text formatting and capitalization rules, even if the trademark owner considers nonstandard formatting 'official'", per this, it has to be big.Little. I don't see how the other form is correct in relation. ViperSnake151 Talk 01:55, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm aware of trademarks, although I'm not even sure this is registered as one. We're describing it as a technology article, not specifically as an ARM trademark and a commercial issue. Also MOS TM is widely ignored when it suits the massed fanboys: iPad etc. being the most obvious.

The reason for keeping it on big.LITTLE is simply clarity. The term just isn't recognisable between the term and the article otherwise. Nor was your chosen target of big.Little even in compliance with strict MOS/TM either. Andy Dingley (talk) 08:57, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

May 2013

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. You appear to be engaged in an edit war with one or more editors according to your reverts at HTML element. Although repeatedly reverting or undoing another editor's contributions may seem necessary to protect your preferred version of a page, on Wikipedia this is usually seen as obstructing the normal editing process, and often creates animosity between editors. Instead of edit warring, please try to reach a consensus on the talk page.

If editors continue to revert to their preferred version they are likely to be blocked from editing. This isn't done to punish an editor, but to prevent the disruption caused by edit warring. In particular, editors should be aware of the three-revert rule, which says that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. While edit warring on Wikipedia is not acceptable in any amount, breaking the three-revert rule is very likely to lead to a block. Thank you.

You’re simply wrong here. According to our hard return and soft return articles, a <br> is not a hard return. ¦ Reisio (talk) 02:16, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Did you just email me? To save some fuckwit admin blocking me at WP:ANEW I've just reverted myself. However I do not appreciate abusive emails. If this was from you, I will be seeking a block for harassment. Andy Dingley (talk) 02:21, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Probably Wikipedia’s automated talk page modification emails; just a guess. ¦ Reisio (talk) 02:26, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No, this wasn't automated. Far from it.

Now as to your confusion between hard and soft returns – is this because you're using WP articles as a source?! You know that (by every good reason possible) they aren't usable as sources, right? Especially not when they're crappy, unreferenced sub-stubs as hard return and soft return are. Please find a real source to explain to you what the difference is. Andy Dingley (talk) 08:53, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That assertion might well matter, except for this: I can say the exact same thing to you—you haven’t a source, either. So far everything you’ve said to me I could (and basically have) said right back to you. Think about it, and maybe come up with something I can’t justify to you in the exact same manner as you have justified to me. ¦ Reisio (talk) 09:11, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 107: / Line 107: @@
 : I'm aware of trademarks, although I'm not even sure this is registered as one. We're describing it as a technology article, not specifically as an ARM trademark and a commercial issue.  Also MOS TM is widely ignored when it suits the massed fanboys: [[iPad]] etc. being the most obvious.
 : The reason for keeping it on [[big.LITTLE]] is simply clarity. The term just isn't recognisable between the term and the article otherwise. Nor was your chosen target of [[big.Little]] even in compliance with strict MOS/TM either. [[User:Andy Dingley|Andy Dingley]] ([[User talk:Andy Dingley#top|talk]]) 08:57, 6 May 2013 (UTC)
+== May 2013 ==
+[[File:Information.svg|25px|alt=Information icon]] Hello, and [[Wikipedia:Introduction|welcome to Wikipedia]]. You appear to be engaged in an [[Wikipedia:Edit warring|edit war]] with one or more editors&#32; according to your reverts at [[:HTML element]]. Although repeatedly [[Help:Reverting|reverting or undoing]] another editor's contributions may seem necessary to protect your preferred version of a page, on Wikipedia this is usually seen as obstructing the [[Wikipedia:Editing policy|normal editing process]], and often creates animosity between editors.  Instead of edit warring, please try to reach a  [[Wikipedia:Consensus|consensus]] on the [[Help:Talk pages|talk page]].
+If editors continue to revert to their preferred version they are likely to be [[Wikipedia:Blocking policy|blocked from editing]]. This isn't done to punish an editor, but to prevent the disruption caused by edit warring. In particular, editors should be aware of the [[WP:3RR|three-revert rule]], which says that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. While edit warring on Wikipedia is not acceptable in any amount, breaking the three-revert rule is very likely to lead to a  [[Wikipedia:Blocking policy|block]]. Thank you.<!-- Template:uw-ewsoft --> ''
+You’re simply wrong here. According to our [[hard return]] and [[soft return]] articles, a <code>&lt;br></code> is not a hard return. ¦ [[User:Reisio|Reisio]] ([[User talk:Reisio|talk]]) 02:16, 6 May 2013 (UTC)
+: Did you just email me?   To save some fuckwit admin blocking me at WP:ANEW I've just reverted myself. However I do not appreciate abusive emails. If this was from you, I will be seeking a block for harassment. [[User:Andy Dingley|Andy Dingley]] ([[User talk:Andy Dingley|talk]]) 02:21, 6 May 2013 (UTC)
+Probably Wikipedia’s automated talk page modification emails; just a guess. ¦ [[User:Reisio|Reisio]] ([[User talk:Reisio|talk]]) 02:26, 6 May 2013 (UTC)
+: No, this wasn't automated. Far from it.
+: Now as to your confusion between hard and soft returns – is this because you're using WP articles as a source?!  You know that (by every good reason possible) they aren't usable as [[WP:RS|sources]], right?  Especially not when they're crappy, unreferenced sub-stubs as [[hard return]] and [[soft return]] are. Please find a ''real'' source to explain to you what the difference is. [[User:Andy Dingley|Andy Dingley]] ([[User talk:Andy Dingley|talk]]) 08:53, 6 May 2013 (UTC)
+That assertion might well matter, except for this: I can say the exact same thing to you—you haven’t a source, either. So far everything you’ve said to me I could (and basically have) said right back to you. Think about it, and maybe come up with something I can’t justify to you in the exact same manner as you have justified to me. ¦ [[User:Reisio|Reisio]] ([[User talk:Reisio|talk]]) 09:11, 6 May 2013 (UTC)