User talk:Andy Dingley

2007 2008 October, 2009 April, October, November, December, 2010 January, February, March, April, May, June, July, August, September, October, November, December, 2011 2011 January, 2011 February, 2011 March, 2011 May, 2011 June 2011 * 2012 * 2013 * 2014 * 2015 * 2016 * 2017 * 2018 * 2019 * 2020 * 2021

Template:ANEFO photographer location

Template:ANEFO photographer location has been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether it should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry. If you created this template, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for deletion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with it. Please remember to respond to and – if appropriate – contradict the arguments supporting deletion. Arguments which focus on the nominator will not affect the result of the nomination. Thank you!

ErickAgain 19:24, 24 September 2021 (UTC)

My nationalistic POV pushing

Considering you exposed my true face here, I can't do anything but reveal you my nasty nationalistic POV pushing modus operandi:

• Case 1: realistic? No. A concept of some political movement? No. Result: went to fantasy [1].
• Case 2: realistic? No. A concept of some historic political movement? Yes. Result: went to 1946, Egypt & nationalism categories [2].
• Case 3: realistic? No. A concept of some political movement? Yes. Result: group added [3].
• Case 4: realistic? No. A concept of some political movement? Not even that. Result: went to fiction [4].
• Case 5: realistic? No. A symbol of some marginal political movement? Yes. Result: group added [5].
• Case 6: realistic? No. A concept of some political movement? Not even that. Result: went to fantasy maps [6].
• Case 7: realistic? No. A concept of some political movement? Not even that. Result: went to fiction [7].

Now you have all black on white, a pure anti-Kurdish, anti-Armenian, anti-Azerbaijani, anti-Talish, anti-Arab, anti-Lurish and anti-Iranian nationalistic POV pushing. I admit every edit, and I would do the same one more time. There's probably more similar edits related to the Balkans, so you can add anti-Albanian, anti-Bosnian, anti-Croatian, anti-Serbian and anti-Turkish nationalistic POV pushing. In the matter of fact, I do have POV. I consider all those groups and every individual nationalism as laughable, as well as all those fictitious material (which can not illustrate even marginal political groups) as utter rubbish which should be deleted, considering it can not illustrate any encyclopedic article and do not have any educational value. Now you can freely fill a report for, as you said, a substantial block. Go ahead, make my day. --Orijentolog (talk) 20:26, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

Your comment on files nominated for deletion

Thank you again, really. Your comment was a relief and made me smile. I wish there were more sensible and practical people like you on Commons and Wikipedia.Acqueamare (talk) 15:43, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

Your vote

Hey Andy, I'd just like to follow up with you with regards to your vote in the Commons Photographers User Group board election. To clarify: I didn't “silently” withdraw a candidate. After asking the group's members for someone to step in and oversee the election, no one volunteered. But people had a strong opinion that someone who was running shouldn't currently be blocked. Then, on the day the election started, and while still no one was willing to lead the election process, I summarized the result of the discussion to that point, pointing out that User:Contributors2020 wasn't eligible. Then I started the election according to what was agreed upon on the talk page. I had even mentioned in one of my previous posts that I was uncomfortable with playing an active role in handling the election, as I was running as a candidate myself. Now, as always, I'm assuming good faith and I think you might not have been aware of the above. That's why I'm reaching out to you. Thanks, --Frank Schulenburg (talk) 18:12, 3 December 2021 (UTC)

• I was only watching this page so that I can oppose that candidate if necessary, because I think they epitomise the "hat collecting" aspect of such.

But that said, we should be careful about vetoing such applications. At the very least they deserve an explanation at the time and in accord with all of our previous practice, we strike through such things rather than removing and hiding them as if they'd never been there. To just 'vanish' it like this? That's exactly the sort of judgement I don't want any more of round here, and certainly not in organisers or secretaries of groups. Andy Dingley (talk) 19:44, 3 December 2021 (UTC)

I get your point. Thanks for your reply. I think I could have done better by notifying Contributors2020 of the removal and I just apologized to him. --Frank Schulenburg (talk) 19:52, 3 December 2021 (UTC)

Commons:Categories for discussion/2021/12/Category:Reentry modules

You added this to an archived discussion:

Reverse undiscussed rename and leave it at "Reentry vehicles".

What were you referring to? Brianjd (talk) 11:18, 4 December 2021 (UTC)

A discussion that's opened, makes the change anyway, then is closed only minutes later is hardly a discussion, is it? Andy Dingley (talk) 12:00, 4 December 2021 (UTC)

It doesn't change the fact that the discussion is closed. If the closure was improper, reopen it. Otherwise, don't change it. Brianjd (talk) 12:09, 4 December 2021 (UTC)