User talk:Andy Dingley/Archive 2010 August

File:HMS Tiger, shell damage to Q turret roof after Jutland (Warships To-day, 1936).jpg
Hi. I just happened to be visiting simon harleys page and saw your posting about the above. The picture was previosuly published in 'The Fighting at Jutland (The Personal experiences of forty five Officers and men of the British Fleet)', by Harold William Fawcett and Geoffrey William Winsmore Hooper. Published 1921. Available online at http://www.archive.org/details/fightingatjutlan00fawcuoftfr

I have made further revisions to the image you posted on commons and added a tag for a second title change. If you agree it would probably be a good idea to remove the title tag you posted. If not, then by all means get back to me and we may come up with some third alternative. I tried editing the page to add the source info about Fawcett but had a hard time understanding the page, so majorly revised it. Dont know quite how you got the copyright tagging before, or the picture of the book it came from.

As I understand it, this picture is of the turret front plate, which was struck near the top, pushing the metal up towards the seam with the top plate. The top plate seems to have blown off, but I think the front plate must have stayed in place. The front plate was much thicker than the top.

Incidentally, this book is an abridged version. If i remember rightly they first published it privately, then an actual publisher produced another version, and along the way it kept getting shortened. I think it was seventy something men to begin with. Sandpiper (talk) 21:36, 2 August 2010 (UTC)


 * further to the above, I see you have been editing the file while I was also. I have copied the changes and proposed new title to your new title, File:HMS Lion, shell damage to Q turret roof after Jutland (Warships To-day, 1936).jpg Sandpiper (talk) 22:01, 2 August 2010 (UTC)


 * OK, just delete the damned thing if you feel so strongly about it. This is a scan of one particular book, it should be listed as such. If you're so keen on crediting as something else, you get to do all the scanning. Assume I've just said the sort of thing that we're not allowed to say on Wikipedia. 8-(
 * Myself, I found trying to re-title pictures on commons an incredibly frustrating and confusing experience. It looked as though you were using a special tag for that particular book? I dont know to what extent commons collects images according to source, but if it does then I presume the most important thing is to find the original source, since this is what matters for copyright purposes. In this particular case I imagine the pictures must have been taken by crew who contributed them to the original book. Or they may possibly be official photographs. The listed author should be the person who originally took the picture, not the person who scanned it. Sandpiper (talk) 07:57, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Aircraft design process
I just wanted to let you know I've removed the PROD on Aircraft design process, as I think it needs further dicussions on other options before being deleted. The article was also move via cut/paste to antoher title, and this may have been the user's way of contesting the PROD. - BilCat (talk) 00:37, 5 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks, I'd noticed that but hadn't had a chance to get round to it yet. Do you have any thoughts on the article? Would you have supported prod/AfD on it, as I described? Andy Dingley (talk) 09:05, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Hey stalker
Haven't heard from you in awhile, Andy. Glad to see you're still stalking my edits. Good job with Cranbourne Lodge, btw. Snotty Wong  talk 15:46, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:John Cobb (small).jpg
 Thanks for uploading File:John Cobb (small).jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

PLEASE NOTE:


 * I am a bot, and will therefore not be able to answer your questions.
 * I will remove the request for deletion if the file is used in an article once again.
 * If you receive this notice after the image is deleted, and you want to restore the image, click here to file an un-delete request.
 * To opt out of these bot messages, add  to your talk page.
 * If you believe the bot has made an error, please turn it off here and leave a message on my owner's talk page.

Thank you. DASHBot (talk) 05:16, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Robotics
You just proved my point for hiding it with your edit summary - you perfectly described a Robot - Robotics is NOT robots.

The reason that was hidden was because it is to do with Robots and not Robotics. Your reverting of my edit shows that you did not really understand the difference.

"Robotics is the engineering science and technology of robots, and their design, manufacture, application, and structural disposition. Robotics is related to electronics, mechanics], and software."

You can see that I did not remove it from the article Robot.

I would appreciate it if you undid your reversion.

Chaosdruid (talk) 22:30, 11 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Robotics is NOT robots. Hmmm...
 * So you're happy to include RUR under robotics, but not The Golem? That would make more sense if you were excluding RUR!
 * "Robotics is related to electronics, mechanics], and software."  is good as far as it goes, but your interpretation of "mechanics" is far too narrow. Clay is mankind's first plastic material. Andy Dingley (talk) 22:57, 11 August 2010 (UTC)


 * RUR is mentioned as the birth of the name. My definition ? It is not my definition. The Golem is not really anything to do with robotics - it is ok on the Robots page but that is not the issue - there is nothing in the Golem that has to do with robotics, and if you want to be pedantic then where are the mutliple parts that it is made up from ? At least the robot in RUR was made from various different parts and so does fit in the description to a great extent. Golem does not - other wise we would have to include "The Mummy" and "Zombies".
 * Chaosdruid (talk) 18:32, 12 August 2010 (UTC)


 * So it's only "robotics" if it's composed from multiple parts? Ridiculous. As to the other, then The Golem was constructed, unlike zombies. Andy Dingley (talk) 21:28, 12 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Lol - I think you maybe went a little too far with that one...Name me one robot that is comprised of only one part. Chaosdruid (talk) 22:40, 12 August 2010 (UTC)


 * If I had the power, I would already have indef blocked you merely you using "LOL" on my talk page.
 * Let us assume that the good Rabbi Loew didn't merely scrape up mud from the Vltava and leave it as a homogeneous blob, instead he shaped it (and certainly inscribed "truth" upon the forehead). So the Golem is a single part, but not a simple or undifferentiated part.
 * Now go and educate yourself upon micromachining. What's the difference? Andy Dingley (talk) 23:09, 12 August 2010 (UTC)


 * An indef block for lol? You really shouldn't be given the bit then.
 * Go and educate myself? you need to learn some people skills before conversing. Micromachines are not robots - nor do they have any relevence to the topic at hand. Golem is definately bigger than 1 cm.
 * I am obviously wasting my time talking to you as you really seem to be unable to accept that you might have been wrong.
 * Chaosdruid (talk) 03:32, 13 August 2010 (UTC)


 * May I put my head over the parapet without being shot? It seems to me that certain items of fiction such as Golem and RUR inspired the concept of the robot. Since then a number of technologies and protocols have been developed which are the science that has evolved from the thing. Maybe Asimov's 3 laws first inspired the concept of robotICS. In most fields the science came first then the thing (e.g. lasers?). So my own personal opinion is that Golem belongs on the robot page and probably the same is true of RUR. There are quite a lot of issues which might be misplaced over the set of articles and I recommend a panel of editors to really get down and define what belongs in what article and create a set of rules. Or maybe there is one already? Then it will be possible to undo or revert someone's edit knowing that the other editors will back you up. Just my two cents... Robotics1 (talk) 11:12, 13 August 2010 (UTC)


 * I know Andy is involved with editing robotics and robot articles and would really like him to join the robotics project. I appreciate that editors have different opinions and that discussions can get heated over impereceptions of intent. I am the sort of person that tries to make light of a disagreement and I try to resolve those disagreements. In the spirit of continued debate I have stricken my conclusion from the previous post.
 * It is true that there is a great deal of work needed and as far as I know the Robotics project is the only one that deals specifically with these matters. The project has a wide scope, covering things from Manga robots to AI and I am sure that with more people involved it would be easier to manage the scope and problems that have arisen.
 * As for the current discussion I am not sure where to take it. I tried to make light of Andy's comments in an attempt to avert conflict but it may be that he took offence at my first post. I do not know but, without resolving this matter and at least talking to each other about how this has happened, I am a little concerned that Andy would not wish to join due to our discussion. In a direct action I am asking Andy to please reconsider the original set of circumstances that brought us here. That said; I did nothing that could have caused offence as far as I can see. Perhaps Andy can shed light on the reasons for his tone and how we can progress from here. After all Rabbi Loew did not really make a Golem did he ? it is a work of fiction as is RUR and I, Robot
 * Chaosdruid (talk) 15:02, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Funnel
Thanks a lot for the help MiKE100malloy (talk) 01:38, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Temple_Allen_Industries
Temple_Allen_Industries Created on 2nd August. Is this allowed? Can anyone come along and add a page for their company? Started by some guy in 2002. Is that all it takes? What do you think? I found it because they have also added a link in the industrial robot page. Robotics1 (talk) 22:55, 12 August 2010 (UTC)


 * I still owe you some proofing and copyefiting don't I, 8-( sorrry about that.
 * As to Temple_Allen_Industries, then they've as much chance as anyone else. Is it WP:N by WP:V of multiple independent WP:RS? if it is, it can stay. If it isn't, AfD is thataway. Andy Dingley (talk) 23:11, 12 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Sorry I missed this one. Don't worry about the proofing just yet. Chaosdruid is helping and yes I can see you guys had a run-in and I'm sure that will blow over. I would be grateful for your opinion on what's in the sandbox. As to Temple_Allen_Industries yes, point taken, it does fit those criteria. Robotics1 (talk) 11:20, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Cat Mandu/Mando
Hi Andy,

I must say that I had hardly heard of Alan's cat (or Alan) before I video-biogged him in Fleet on Thursday (26 Aug) - the info-box pic is from the interview. Alan told me of one or two fairly uncontentious factual discrepances in the article. But one of these was the name of his cat; he mentioned that many commentators got it wrong - they probably noting it down phonetically with a logical reference to Katmandu. Although quite sanguine about it, Alan said that his pet's name was spelt Cat Mando. Although a bit non-NPOV, I think we can accept that the horses mouth tells the truth. If there is a name change for the Cat Mandu article, perhaps we had better mention Hope's observation in the Cat Mandu/o talk page. I shall do this for the Hope article.

As you might be interested, I'll send a link when the bio vids are on the web. Best wishes,

Acabashi (talk) 12:40, 28 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks. Seems like a page move and leaving the redirect behind, with in-text renames to tidy it up. I'd certainly cite this (Otherwise There Will Be Ructions), but it's reasonable to cite that as a reference to a dated interview with his Howlingship. Andy Dingley (talk) 12:59, 28 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Whatever you think is best Andy. As the World seems to be under the understandable impression that moggie's name is spelt Cat Mandu, and there is no web-ref to say differently, there might be a case for leaving the name as is, and noting the reality in the article's first line. Screaming Lord Sutch is the spiritual leader of the OMRLP, and Alan tells me that Cat Mando is the spiritual leader of the Party's pet membership... my dog Squaddie is going to join - here is a quick out-take prior to interview uploads: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j2TC1FiXYgw Acabashi (talk) 19:50, 28 August 2010 (UTC)