User talk:Andy Dingley

Andy... again?! after all this time? Riventree (talk) 23:49, 8 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Bridge rail is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bridge rail until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article.

Hi Andy

You may remember some years ago (2015?) we had a conversation about the correct title for Rolls-Royce C type diesels - "Range" or "Series". I did mange to find a photo on the www of an RR engine makes plate. This shows that they are "C Range". You can find the photo on the following page: https://www.trms.org.au/rm_engine_frame.htm

Regards Bruce

A tag has been placed on Internally riffled boiler tubes requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section R3 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a recently created redirect from an implausible typo or misnomer, or other unlikely search term.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines.

Hello Andy Dingley,

Much has happened since the last newsletter over two months ago. The open letter finished with 444 signatures. The letter was sent to several dozen people at the WMF, and we have heard that it is being discussed but there has been no official reply. A related article appears in the current issue of The Signpost. If you haven't seen it, you should, including the readers' comment section.

Awards: Barnstars were given for the past several years (thanks to MPGuy2824), and we are now all caught up. The 2021 cup went to John B123 for leading with 26,525 article reviews during 2021. To encourage moderate activity, a new "Iron" level barnstar is awarded annually for reviewing 360 articles ("one-a-day"), and 100 reviews earns the "Standard" NPP barnstar. About 90 reviewers received barnstars for each of the years 2018 to 2021 (including the new awards that were given retroactively). All awards issued for every year are listed on the Awards page. Check out the new Hall of Fame also.

Software news: Novem Linguae and MPGuy2824 have connected with WMF developers who can review and approve patches, so they have been able to fix some bugs, and make other improvements to the Page Curation software. You can see everything that has been fixed recently here. The reviewer report has also been improved.

Suggestions:

• There is much enthusiasm over the low backlog, but remember that the "quality and depth of patrolling are more important than speed".
• Reminder: an article should not be tagged for any kind of deletion for a minimum of 15 minutes after creation and it is often appropriate to wait an hour or more. (from the NPP tutorial)
• Reviewers should focus their effort where it can do the most good, reviewing articles. Other clean-up tasks that don't require advanced permissions can be left to other editors that routinely improve articles in these ways (creating Talk Pages, specifying projects and ratings, adding categories, etc.) Let's rely on others when it makes the most sense. On the other hand, if you enjoy doing these tasks while reviewing and it keeps you engaged with NPP (or are guiding a newcomer), then by all means continue.
• This user script puts a link to the feed in your top toolbar.

Backlog:

Saving the best for last: From a July low of 8,500, the backlog climbed back to 11,000 in August and then reversed in September dropping to below 6,000 and continued falling with the October backlog drive to under 1,000, a level not seen in over four years. Keep in mind that there are 2,000 new articles every week, so the number of reviews is far higher than the backlog reduction. To keep the backlog under a thousand, we have to keep reviewing at about half the recent rate!

Hello Andy Dingley,

Backlog

The October drive reduced the backlog from 9,700 to an amazing 0! Congratulations to WaddlesJP13 who led with 2084 points. See this page for further details. The queue is steadily rising again and is approaching 2,000. It would be great if <2,000 were the “new normal”. Please continue to help out even if it's only for a few or even one patrol a day.

2022 Awards

Onel5969 won the 2022 cup for 28,302 article reviews last year - that's an average of nearly 80/day. There was one Gold Award (5000+ reviews), 11 Silver (2000+), 28 Iron (360+) and 39 more for the 100+ barnstar. Rosguill led again for the 4th year by clearing 49,294 redirects. For the full details see the Awards page and the Hall of Fame. Congratulations everyone!

Minimum deletion time: The previous WP:NPP guideline was to wait 15 minutes before tagging for deletion (including draftification and WP:BLAR). Due to complaints, a consensus decided to raise the time to 1 hour. To illustrate this, very new pages in the feed are now highlighted in red. (As always, this is not applicable to attack pages, copyvios, vandalism, etc.)

New draftify script: In response to feedback from AFC, the The Move to Draft script now provides a choice of set messages that also link the creator to a new, friendly explanation page. The script also warns reviewers if the creator is probably still developing the article. The former script is no longer maintained. Please edit your edit your common.js or vector.js file from User:Evad37/MoveToDraft.js to User:MPGuy2824/MoveToDraft.js

Redirects: Some of our redirect reviewers have reduced their activity and the backlog is up to 9,000+ (two months deep). If you are interested in this distinctly different task and need any help, see this guide, this checklist, and spend some time at WP:RFD.

Discussions with the WMF The PageTriage open letter signed by 444 users is bearing fruit. The Growth Team has assigned some software engineers to work on PageTriage, the software that powers the NewPagesFeed and the Page Curation toolbar. WMF has submitted dozens of patches in the last few weeks to modernize PageTriage's code, which will make it easier to write patches in the future. This work is helpful but is not very visible to the end user. For patches visible to the end user, volunteers such as Novem Linguae and MPGuy2824 have been writing patches for bug reports and feature requests. The Growth Team also had a video conference with the NPP coordinators to discuss revamping the landing pages that new users see.

Reminders

• Newsletter feedback - please take this short poll about the newsletter.
• There is live chat with patrollers on the New Page Patrol Discord.
• Please add the project discussion page to your watchlist.
• If you no longer wish to be a reviewer, please ask any admin to remove you from the group. If you want the tools back again, just ask at PERM.
• To opt out of future mailings, please remove yourself here.

Hello Andy Dingley,

Backlog

Redirect drive: In response to an unusually high redirect backlog, we held a redirect backlog drive in May. The drive completed with 23851 reviews done in total, bringing the redirect backlog to 0 (momentarily). Congratulations to Hey man im josh who led with a staggering 4316 points, followed by Meena and Greyzxq with 2868 and 2546 points respectively. See this page for more details. The redirect queue is steadily rising again and is steadily approaching 4,000. Please continue to help out, even if it's only for a few or even one review a day.

Redirect autopatrol: All administrators without autopatrol have now been added to the redirect autopatrol list. If you see any users who consistently create significant amounts of good quality redirects, consider requesting redirect autopatrol for them here.

WMF work on PageTriage: The WMF Moderator Tools team, consisting of Sam, Jason and Susana, and also some patches from Jon, has been hard at work updating PageTriage. They are focusing their efforts on modernising the extension's code rather than on bug fixes or new features, though some user-facing work will be prioritised. This will help make sure that this extension is not deprecated, and is easier to work on in the future. In the next month or so, we will have an opt-in beta test where new page patrollers can help test the rewrite of Special:NewPagesFeed, to help find bugs. We will post more details at WT:NPPR when we are ready for beta testers.

Articles for Creation (AFC): All new page reviewers are now automatically approved for Articles for Creation draft reviewing (you do not need to apply at WT:AFCP like was required previously). To install the AFC helper script, visit Special:Preferences, visit the Gadgets tab, tick "Yet Another AFC Helper Script", then click "Save". To find drafts to review, visit Special:NewPagesFeed, and at the top left, tick "Articles for Creation". To review a draft, visit a submitted draft, click on the "More" menu, then click "Review (AFCH)". You can also comment on and submit drafts that are unsubmitted using the script.

You can review the AFC workflow at WP:AFCR. It is up to you if you also want to mark your AFC accepts as NPP reviewed (this is allowed but optional, depends if you would like a second set of eyes on your accept). Don't forget that draftspace is optional, so moves of drafts to mainspace (even if they are not ready) should not be reverted, except possibly if there is conflict of interest.

Pro tip: Did you know that visual artists such as painters have their own SNG? The most common part of this "creative professionals" criteria that applies to artists is WP:ARTIST 4b (solo exhibition, not group exhibition, at a major museum) or 4d (being represented within the permanent collections of two museums).

Reminders

• Newsletter feedback - please take this short poll about the newsletter.
• There is live chat with patrollers on the New Page Patrol Discord and #wikimedia-npp ^connect on IRC.
• Please add the project discussion page to your watchlist.
• To opt out of future mailings, please remove yourself here.

Maersk Hangzhou has an RfC for possible consensus. A discussion is taking place. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments on the discussion page. Thank you.

Do you want to post diffs for bad moves at ANI? Sammy D III (talk) 17:45, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see a big point. Certainly it ought to be reverted via WP:RM/TR. Maybe if I do that I'll just get posted to ANI again as 'disruptive'. (Oh sorry, didn't really mean that, it just slipped out. Oops.)

But overall, this is all a bit of a lost cause. It's a fashion parade, not anything about sourcing. At least it's not quite as bad as the original mess at Motor Torpedo Boat where it actually changed the scope of the article. Andy Dingley (talk) 17:58, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, your world, your call. I'm sure not popular. I reverted something at Land Rover whatever using the word "bad faith", maybe someone will notice one way or the other. I've got nothing to lose, every time I come back I have to shake my head longer. Sigh. Have a nice one. Sammy D III (talk)

Is there a reason a notification hasn't been posted to MILHIST? Sammy D III (talk) 01:43, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There's no reason that it needs to be (as policy, like notifying ANI'ed users), but equally it certainly could.

However WP is losing so many editors these days that most projects are moribund. Andy Dingley (talk) 09:53, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Rematch is almost ready. Here a hint: 5-22. No reply needed. Sammy D III (talk) 14:50, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Layout. Regarding the links to German coal mines in de.wiki, I am asking for clarification. ☆ Bri (talk) 15:42, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The article is tagged as being in US English, and was in a mixture of both spellings. I've raised it at talk; I really don't mind which spelling is used, but it annoys me seeing the same words spelled two different ways in one article. John (talk) 22:49, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Isn't this getting rather ridiculous? The paragraph you have restored bears little relevance to the topic. It is an opinion piece well pre-dating the events, and is of more relevance to a page on Bill Smith or on the Ruskin Museum rather than a page on Bluebird. That comment could also be applied to most of what has recently been added. The page is clearly becoming a battle-ground between warring factions. I suggest the page could usefully be split so that the original undisputed information up to and including the accident which claimed Donald Campbell's life is retained with a small final paragraph stating the wreck was recovered, restored and is displayed at Ruskin, and the rest is removed for possible inclusion in a page on Bill Smith if such is considered suitable. Sooty655 (talk) 09:08, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:80.3.122.252 reported by User:Andy Dingley (Result: Blocked one month)

Whatever the 'ridiculous' aspect of the content, that is 6RR edit warring.

Now maybe the paragraph does indeed have little relevance to the topic. But that's something to sort out by discussion at the article talk:, not by edit-warring and then following editors to their own user talk pages to browbeat them individually. Maybe I could have been convinced by such an argument (certainly it's not the most important aspect of K7's history). But as a tactic to switch to only after a month's block on the simple edit warring account, when that approach failed? No. Not a convincing argument.

"a small final paragraph stating the wreck was recovered, restored and is displayed at Ruskin"

You mean this edit ? Was that you?

possible inclusion in a page on Bill Smith

You mean the page that's, once again, up for deletion and that you yourself are busy removing the links to? It would indeed be convenient to wrap all the non-Ruskin content into one bundle, pop it into a Bill Smith page and then delete that page! Problem solved and Ruskin / CFHT get all the credit.

I don't understand the antipathy to Bill Smith on Wikipedia (OK, of course I do, I've been here long enough). But I don't understand antipathy to him from someone involved in a Vulcan preservation project? Whether he's a 'sonar search expert' or not, he achieved amazing results with the K7 rebuild. The Bill Smith article is justified just from that aspect. Will WP go after Owen Wyn Owen next? IMHO, the restoration part of K7 is every bit as interesting as its record-breaking history (and the article could still use more on the pre-'67 runs). Andy Dingley (talk) 10:02, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Wanamaker, Kempton and Southern 65, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Powerhouse.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 19:52, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Your edit at Special:Diff/1254199753 would indicate that you are following me. Is that the case? TarnishedPath^talk 23:19, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Don't flatter yourself. I was following Insomniac187 (talk · contribs)'s page creations, to see if any more of them had been unjustifiably blanked outside process. Imagine my complete surprise to find that you'd done this one too. Andy Dingley (talk) 23:37, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Re-directing aritcles which don't have multiple reliable sources which have significant coverage is "outside process" now? TarnishedPath^talk 23:43, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Seriously? I can't believe you just did this. You won't even discuss this with an independent editor, you'd already moved it to draft: space (where articles go to die) rather than talk about it?

Yes, your whole attitude is wrong. Absolutely and utterly wrong. Andy Dingley (talk) 00:09, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The article is inappropriately sourced and I'm not certain that signficant coverage exists in multiple reliable sources. I certainly couldn't find any. Draftification or redirect are suitable as WP:ATD. If you think my attitdue is wrong I invite you to take me to WP:ANI TarnishedPath^talk 00:43, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]