User talk:Andy Dingley/Archive 2010 April

Cat Mandu
I redirected the page as the section on Howling Laud Hope is almost word for word the same and I didn't think it would be contested. I have put it up for WP:AFD instead if you wish to comment. --Wintonian (talk) 01:22, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I redirected those other articles as I didn’t expect anyone to object and I have seen this done by other established helpful, editors, whilst I am still learning. --Wintonian (talk) 13:20, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Sure, no problem. I'm inclined to agree with you on lots of the candidate spams. However I'd be wary of deleting too many Tories as we might just have to put them back again in a few weeks. 8-)  Andy Dingley (talk) 13:23, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
 * WP:POLITICIAN states that candidates should be redirected to the constancy page, the beauty of this is we can just undo the redirect and update the page when they do get elected.. --Wintonian (talk) 13:28, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Then we should do that, rather than delete them. The point is, we should do it with prior discussion somewhere (and I'd see AfD as appropriate). Consensus can't happen without openness and visibility. Andy Dingley (talk) 13:33, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks Andy
For your recent contributions on the TSR2 page about truth versus verifiabilty. Brave of you, and someone needed to say it. Prioritizing published secondary sources for "verifiability" purposes is fraught with danger, esp when the topic is military weapon systems, and then are overlaid with an almost impenetrable layer of party politics and government obfuscation as was the case with TSR2. Then add on the Wikipedia editors who slavishly follow Wikipedia dogma, rather than using their own brains. And then there are the editors who use WP:V as bludgeon to subdue other editors who are perceived to be offering a different or updated view, or who have the temerity to actually look at official declassified sources.

I research in archives frequently for a leading academic specialising in weapons systems at a world-class university department of international politics. Only a couple of weeks ago I got a mild bollocking from him for quoting weapon performance data from a published secondary source. His view (and mine) is that in the re-telling, reputable published authors frequently get it wrong, have mis-typings, just misunderstand the original data, or most commonly, in the absence of real hard evidence, resort to speculation. That speculation soon takes on an aura of truthfullness impossible to disprove without official data from official sources. Which in most instances is just not available.

That's why Wikipedia's verifiability policy is so damaging. Some pages seem to attract more of these editors than others. Pages on nuclear weapons history are especially vulnerable to those who have a particular political axe to grind. That's why I just gave up some years ago. No longer bother to bash my head against an immovable object. Life's too short. Some immovable objects are just too entrenched in their prejudices. Thanks again Andy. 81.147.66.89 (talk) 13:59, 11 April 2010 (UTC)


 * I have the bravery of the typical Disney lemming. 8-) Thanks for your comments though, it's nice to hear from someone who doesn't want to tar and feather me for a change.
 * I don't have a problem with WP:V - given the usual level of dross, it does tend to raise the overall standard. However it's never a substitute for truth, and it's quite horrifying to read someone writing as if it were, without obviously realising what they've just said. Andy Dingley (talk) 19:49, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Droop speed control
Have a look at the edits by User:wdl1961 and could you possibly explain to me what his objectives might be? They don't appear to include improving the article. --Wtshymanski (talk) 16:42, 13 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Let's assume that his objectives are genuinely to improve the article... However he has a long track record of "idiosyncratic" edits, and "creative" use of references. Saying anything more would be likely to involve an unparliamentary expression. Fortunately he seems to respond quite reasonably to undo when necessary and doesn't over-react or escalate. Let's all keep calm, undo anything that's broken, and and try to carry on as best we can. I can't claim to understand it either. Andy Dingley (talk) 16:48, 13 April 2010 (UTC)


 * I need to catch a train, will take a look at the detailed edit later. Maybe we can use the added paragraphs, but I think the lead was clearer the way you had it. I'm not going to revert it right now because it warrants closer study (and it's too big an edit to grasp in one go). If I were you, I'd leave it for the moment (we don't need a ping-pong match) and not worry about rushing at it (this isn't BLP). If you do want to revert it right now, feel free to state that you're doing it on my behalf (I do literally have a train to run for) as I'm too busy, just in case the 3RR vultures start circling.


 * I just wish he'd make smaller edits, and that I knew more about power networks. I can keep up with him on diesel engines, but not so easily for electricity transmission. Andy Dingley (talk) 16:55, 13 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I've no desire to 3RR, I've been rounded up by the Wikistasi before. Happy train riding and perhaps we can work someone out with this partcular editor that's more fact-based; any time I've seen him in "dialog" with other editors it's been impossible to figure him out. If the article was any good you wouldn't be worrying about your knowledge of power networks! It's not rocket science... --Wtshymanski (talk) 18:52, 13 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the heads-up on ANI. I'm giving this issue a rest because an impartial third party observer is not going to be able to distinguish my behavior from that of an obsessive nut job, (unless said ITPO spends some time to dig into all the history). There's grammar to fix and facts to reference! --Wtshymanski (talk) 14:25, 21 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Have you written that article on Afraid of Mice, Liverpool 1979 yet? I vaguely remember seeing them live. I certainly would have played them on the radio, except that it was one of those non-notable Liverpool pirates that has been expunged from wikihistory, so it can't possibly have happened. Andy Dingley (talk) 14:47, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm sure there's at least a dozen more bands in the "Rough Guide" that don't show up on the Wikipedia yet. They must be notable if a Wiki editor has at least *seen* them. Of course, posting anything on a band will immediately attract "single source", "notability", and for all I know the dreaded "WP:BLP" hammer. --Wtshymanski (talk) 17:57, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Are ABB in China? Industrial_robot
Hi Andy, I understand how you feel. I can't be bothered either to tell the truth. Someone changed it to China in Nov 09 and I changed it back to Switzerland. He then got aeriated and changed it back to China explaining why. It's true you can even see it on the ABB page. But only the robotics. HQ and production were moved to Shanghai. So I'm just trying to stick to the agreement. But it's just a bl**dy flag. Frankly no-one cares. It looks like I care but not really. It's more serious dabbling that gets my goat! So when it changes to Switzerland next time I may ignore it! Robotics1 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 08:53, 14 April 2010 (UTC).

HP Labs
Hi, the HP Labs about page does state "We put a strong emphasis on open innovation, collaborating with universities, customers and partners, and governments to gain insights and to amplify the work of our 600 researchers." Do you have a reference that this number isn't up to date? JACO PLANE  &bull; 2010-04-25 11:31


 * I'm sure that number is accurate for one instant in time, but when was that? Bristol is something like a tenth of what it used to be, let alone there previously being a factory there as well. Andy Dingley (talk) 23:57, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

Rolls Royce RZ2 Mk3
If I knew how to get talkback I'd do it! Help isn't all that helpful really.

Anyway a reply to your long past question.

"I'm afraid the style of the typing indicates entirely that it was done from my memory. :-) and from 50 years ago, I'm pretty proud of that :-)))) I am more than happy to write to Rolls Royce if you wish and seek a release? Would that help? In my view that was some engine, the RZ2 Mk3 and since I am the only man to have stood 200 yards away from one while it was running without protection you may understand that I say that with some feeling (and very little common sense). My bona fides are that I was the engineer on the engine control panel for the static firing trials of Blue Streak at Spadeadam and later the Data acquisition supervisor. Do you know that was so long ago that I also became one of the first programmers to attempt to analyse trials data on a computer? Ye Gods! Drg40 (talk) 19:25, 2 April 2010 (UTC)"