User talk:Andy Dingley: Difference between revisions

Hi Andy,

Not sure how exactly to add the games properly. Sundance and War of the Worlds have been there for over a year without any issues. I changed the names to Sundance 2011 and War of the Worlds 2011 because these are the full titles, also true with Warrior 2012, as I thought the issue was the fact that they were being linked to Wikipedia pages about the original arcade games. Much like other newer games on the system (Omega Chase, for example), these are new versions of classic arcade games. I have several other games listed (like Zantis, for example), and there seems to be no problem there. At this point, you have removed the titles, so the list is incomplete. War of the Worlds, Sundance, and Warrior are all very popular homebrew games for the Vectrex system. They can be Googled easily for verification. I am the author of these new Vectrex games. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.146.29.115 (talk) 08:58, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Saw your comment "Uncited, unlinked, dubious - Is anyone really doing Vectrex ports this late on?"

Yes, well, strange as I am for programming new games for Vectrex ;) I find it equally strange that someone takes the time to correct the game list ;)

As it stands, there's no mention of Vectrex in the game articles. We need to have this much at least:

• Some explanation added to the game articles to mention the Vectrex port
• A link to the Vectrex port
• A link to independent WP:RS that refer to the port.

Policy demands all three. Most editors would want at least the first two (it's then sourced, but it would still only be a "primary source"). It must have the first one at least, just so that it's adding any useful content for the reader. Andy Dingley (talk) 10:33, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I appreciate the response. I had removed any links by changing the names (ex. Sundance to Sundance 2011). My concern is that almost the entire list would need to be redone, and many of those games were added several years ago without any corrections or complaints in all this time. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.146.29.115 (talk) 18:03, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I suggested deleting the whole article a while back, for much the same reason. Certainly each entry ought to be (at least) either linked or referenced. As it is, the information content is negligible and what is there is highly dubious. Andy Dingley (talk) 18:10, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Andy,

I am not sure if I come to the right place. I have a question not concerning wiki but it is connected with electronic circuit.

I am studying electronic circuit recently and was looking for a proof of the torque speed curve of Synchronous motor, I did quite a bit search on google and the model calculations I found based on equivalent circuit of a transformer are not good enough to me.

http://www.uotechnology.edu.iq/dep-eee/lectures/3rd/Electrical/Machines%202/IV_I.Machines.pdf

http://www.scribd.com/doc/18815834/188/Equivalent-Circuit-of-3-Phase-Induction-Motor-at-Any-Slip

http://www.scribd.com/doc/27304673/Torque-Slip-Characteristics

http://www.ece.ualberta.ca/~knight/electrical_machines/induction/basics/trq_speed.html

http://what-when-how.com/induction-motor/developed-torque-induction-motor/

I am a physicist but not at all familiar with electronic circuit (except from those from college physics textbook), so I actually tried to write down a proof by myself (a model of course, which reproduces the main feature of the observed torque-speed curve) and it turned out to be very different from what I got from google. If possible, would you please point to me some source where I may find a well-established and well-recognized explanation, thank you for you time in advance.

Edit: I put some discussions into the talk page, if it makes any sense to you. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Induction_motor#Torque-speed_curve.2C_discussion_of_its_derivation

Gamebm (talk) 14:26, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Andy, you recently nuked the page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Nic-o-boli I fear you made a huge mistake. This food item is extremely notable and arguably one of the most famous food items on the eastern seaboard of the United States. It's even considered a must-eat item in guide books from Washington DC to Philadelphia PA and Nicola Pizza (the home of this food item) is literally hundreds of miles away. As I posted on the talk page, please check out some of these links. I'm sorry you didn't find these when you searched. At least contact me and let's have a two-sided conversation about this before the uprising mounts to bring the page back :)

• DailyMotion (news video): http://www.dailymotion.com/video/xflocy_nicola-pizza-famous-for-nic-o-boli_travel
• Yelp (read the comments): http://www.yelp.com/biz/nicola-pizza-rehoboth-beach
• TripAdvisor ("World Famous"): http://www.tripadvisor.com/ShowUserReviews-g34048-d396003-r118653677-Nicola_Pizza-Rehoboth_Beach_Delaware.html
• 3,800+ videos on YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=nic-o-boli&oq=nic-o-boli
• Books on Amazon, including guide books for Washington DC and Philadelphia PA: http://www.amazon.com/s/ref=nb_sb_noss?url=search-alias%3Daps&field-keywords=nic-o-boli — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kaplansa (talk • contribs) 03:39, 9 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Andy Dingley. Perhaps you'd be interested in giving a statement in this discussion, especially since you also objected to removal of medical information from the section in question and I mentioned that in the discussion? 134.255.247.88 (talk) 19:10, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Steampunk music was nominated for deletion at WP:CFD October 4, and the discusison was closed by me as "delete".

Following further discussion with interested editors, I have re-listed the discussion at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2012 November 14#Category:Steampunk_music, where your comments will be welcome.

This notice is being sent to all the editors who participated in the original discussion, and also to those who posted on my talk page aboutr the closure. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:14, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What was that about? There's no need to duplicate information like that in such a short article. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 11:33, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It's called editing and clarity in writing. Having the pro/con section as a short bulleted list is readable and easily comprehensible. There may indeed be overlap between the two sections: that is not a bad thing. We're not short on bytes, we are short on reader comprehension effort. Make it easy for them, don't force them to suffer for the sake of your dogma. Andy Dingley (talk) 12:51, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The place for summaries is the lead section: bulleted points of what's just been covered belong in textbooks, not articles. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 13:50, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for this [1] edit. I went through and added categories on Commons to all of the images on the page/their upper category today and completely forgot about adding the link. I do appreciate it :) -- ТимофейЛееСуда. 22:05, 17 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm just sub-cating the international section too. Andy Dingley (talk) 22:10, 17 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Dang. Maybe I should've reached out to you before doing all of the work I did. Would've saved you time. When I started today, there were only 7 cats and 7 images in that Commons category. I totally should've done my due diligence and realized it would've been smarter to separate them at the time. Sorry I've created more work (as opposed to helping). This was my first time categorizing so many things, but it was fun. If you need help with projects like this, let me know! My next project is moving images to Commons from that list page that aren't already there. -- ТимофейЛееСуда. 22:16, 17 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Re SS Badger:

We don't remove valid contributions from editors who contributed before they were blocked, but this is a sock of an established blocked (IP) editor operating out of western Michigan. See User:Arthur Rubin/IP list for some of the IPs used by what is obviously the same person. Furthermore, his references are often irrelevant to the topic. In this case, it seems relevant, so, if you want to take credit/blame for the addition, go ahead. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 01:58, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Did you even watch the added ref? It's credible (WSJ), it's topical (possibly the end of the Badger) and it's recent. Andy Dingley (talk) 09:53, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It's usually not worth checking his refs. They are usually completely irrelevant. He's not a vandal per se; his goals are orthogonal to improving Wikipedia, so that (perhaps by accident) some of his edits are reasonable and constructive. However, he is a sock of a blocked editor, so that his edits can be summarily reverted, and should only be restored if the reviewing editor wants to take credit/blame for the edit. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 07:06, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Responding to your message - Responsive Web Design

This is in response to the block and with due respect we need to ascertain that the link placed was for an important aspect related to the topic which is missed on the wiki. Responsive testing tool is important for any web designer or any webmaster to check the responsiveness of their website without using the real devices. It is a free tool and don't monetize it in any way. But if you are worried about anything in the said website link, we are sure to change it. If we give any responsive testing tool url in the external link, it can be seen as spam, because there will always a personal mention about them in the website. We request you to kindly re-cetgorize it as non spam and revert the edit. For that matter the blog link to socialdriver website given as the external link should first be categorized as spam. Thank you for your time. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 115.184.122.152 (talk) 03:33, 22 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You've added the same link, I think, four times now.

• It has nothing to do with responsive web design
• It has nothing to do with testing.

It's a link to a commercial service for crude HTML coding, based on sliced-up PSDs. An old and obsolete technique that was a bad approach even a decade ago. Very little of what you've written here is anything close to truth - but then, spammers lie.

There are also the issues of edit warring and sockpuppettry. Andy Dingley (talk) 09:13, 22 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am removing the Requested move template from User talk:Andy Dingley/My created pages/Paxman Ventura for User:Andy Dingley/My created pages/Paxman Ventura → Paxman Ventura as this appears to be a straight forward move that you should be able to make yourself. If this is not the case, it can be added to the technical requests section of WP:RM. If anyone contests it, then the Requested move template can be used. Apteva (talk) 04:08, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Of course it's not possible, that's why I asked - there's a redirect in the way. So I've done it instead by copy-pasting. 8-( Andy Dingley (talk) 08:45, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

...and I see that you're not even an Admin, although you're happy to act like one trawling across unrelated pages de-tagging incorrectly as if you were. 8-( 8-( Andy Dingley (talk) 08:54, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]