User talk:Andy Dingley/Archive 2011 July

Careful
I don't care how much hate him. Comments like this are childish and disruptive. Don't do it again. - F ASTILY  (TALK) 23:15, 29 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Then take it to ANI, I'm sure you know the way.
 * My comment was posted as a response to User:TreasuryTag's far from flattering description of another editor here, accusing them of breaching any number of WP policies. Strangely this had only been made very shortly after they had been somewhat critical of TT at his Editor review.
 * This was a post to their own talk page. It was not to a communal board, to the editor concerned, or on the public talk of any affected article. As such, what could its point be? An aide memoire, to track TT's many grudges? Or simply as a self-important attack on another editor, hidden as always beneath TT's lawyer's wig.
 * What was the response to my post? Summary removal by TT. This does of course mean that it was politely removed as an indicator that he'd read it, as is well established behaviour for user talk pages. That'll be why he hid this behind an edit summary of "fix" - wouldn't want anyone else to think there was someone other than TT commenting there, would he. How nice not to waste other reader's valuable time by helping them like this.
 * The funny thing is, which I'd never have noticed if you hadn't highlighted it, is that SarekOfVulcan had already commented to TT's same post. This time TT reverted it as vandalism. Oh dear. Who'd have thought user:SarekOfVulcan would ever stoop so low.
 * Andy Dingley (talk) 23:33, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

سلام‎; I've just left a short note on Fastily's talk regarding how he's choosing to communicate. The one I leave here will be shorter: Please don't be so snarky. No matter how correct you are (and I'm not taking a side on that right at this second) there are plenty of people who'll never look past the tone. Cheers, Aaron Brenneman (talk) 01:42, 30 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Fair comment, thankyou. Andy Dingley (talk) 01:45, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Some problems with tone in your comment at the current RfA as well. It may be your opinion that another editor is "a lost cause", it may in fact be a widely held opinion, but that's not a constructive or helpful way to refer to another editor anywhere on-wiki, and especially not at RfA where there are enough problems already. Someone's a lost cause when they're indefinitely banned from Wikipedia; declaring it before that time is rather too much like a self-fulfilling prophecy. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 13:06, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
 * A day that's long overdue. Andy Dingley (talk) 13:26, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

You bore the hell out of me...
I only recently began editing again after a long break since mid-February, and I have not touched any of the steampunk-related articles. So, your old and tired accusations are utterly without merit. Please cease leaving me messages. You bore the hell out of me. ---  RepublicanJacobite  TheFortyFive 17:48, 1 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Have you read your contributions history? You 'retire', then you return, and one of the first acts of editing is to remove any categorisation as "steampunk" from over 40 film and media articles. Please, do not take me for such a fool with your, "I have not touched any of the steampunk-related articles".
 * I guess I should just be grateful that at least you're a little more polite than last time. Andy Dingley (talk) 21:09, 1 July 2011 (UTC)


 * User warned. --Guy Macon (talk)

Categories_for_discussion/Log/2011_July_1
I completed your nomination with which I agree. You may wish to comment at the above thread. Jezhotwells (talk) 20:28, 1 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Thanks Jez, Andy Dingley (talk)

Hyper engine
I have edited out many, if not all, of the material commented upon on the article's talk page. It would now be quite easy to transfer the remaining sections into the existing Hyper engine article. I was quite concerned about the major rework necessary to revise the existing article with what material I thought was needed to revive it, but I am now confident, with the consensus of all concerned, that I can manage that task. Would you please, when you find a moment, take a look at my edits and leave your comments? Regards,  Buster40004  Talk 16:23, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

Preselector gearbox
Half a loaf is better than no bread. We are not all beautiful to look at. Can't you find a better image of a diagram of the inside of an epicyclic gearbox and by the way Cotal gearbox redirects there — just another piece of gross over-simplification.

You have another tangle in Commons that needs fixing Eddaido (talk) 23:41, 29 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Cotal gearbox - if you fancy writing some text to go with it, then by all means re-add the image. At the moment though, it's a random image dropped in without any real connection to what's on the page. It's not any of the devices described there, so how can it not be more confusing than helpful? There's more content on the talk: page than there is on the article page.


 * As to the Jowett Bradford, then the categorisation that's there should sort itself out. "Bradford" was never a maker, just one of Jowett's models. Andy Dingley (talk) 00:21, 30 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Cotal gearbox is diverted to the article!!! try it. Cotal


 * If you are to show yourself honest you should provide here a citation linking to any reference in print made before 1950 to a product named Jowett Bradford, not just Bradford and meaning that brand of very light truck or van. I originally had no wish to argue just to point out the mistakes. Eddaido (talk) 05:10, 30 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Message for you here: Talk:Preselector_gearbox. Eddaido (talk) 10:47, 31 July 2011 (UTC)