User talk:Andy Dingley/Archive 2011 November

your revert in cold fusion
Hi Andy Dingley,

I am taking this to your talk page, because I do not at all dispute your revert. I merely wanted to give you some background about what I was trying to accomplish with that edit.

First a disclosure as to what I think about the topic, the device and the WP-article: I think LENR effects are real and are scientifically proven, but not scientifically accepted. It is claimed that the device uses those LENR effects and the device actually produces heat by it, but this is not scientifically proven. The WP-article is a very difficult situation, multiple layers of misunderstanding about the science, the device and the WP-policy.

Editing the article is very difficult because some editors have made their mind up: LENR effects are bullshit, and thus this device is a scam. Those editor are convinced that wikipedia should not have an article on a scam, because they think wikipedia will work as endorsement and advertisement of the scam. They will take any opportunity to delete whole sections of content.

In the Afd discussion many other editors stated that the article is a mess and should be cleaned up. Because I think the measurement data in the demonstration section will not have an encyclopedic impact in the long run, I though it would be good to start cleaning up a bit. My deletion was not based on any policy, it was just common sense editing work. And your revert is also perfectly acceptable, just that the article is not getting cleaned up. --POVbrigand (talk) 21:16, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

Death by chainsaw
Greetings, Andy!

A co-worker of mine -- an electrionics hardware engineer -- managed to slice open his leg with a chainsaw some 3 weeks ago, stupidly not wearing the proper PPE and cutting a tree laying on a hillside on his knees when he knew damn well he was donig something stupid. :)

As you mentioned in August on your Chainsaw Talk Page comment, showing and using proper PPE is a good idea. It would be an interesting project to determine what different countries and difference providences and States within those countrys consider are the minimum legal safe PPE requirements for civil as well as governmental work.

My co-worker has many avocado trees and fortunatly was working with a guy who spoke a little English, enough to call 911. :) Yikes! Damotclese (talk) 22:39, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

Steampunky fan letter
Andy, you made a great leap toward improving and purifying Steampunk. I have been observing. You may have also 'saved my last wee bit of bacon' with that final, days-old edit I made. It was reverted but you seconded then restored it. You are a good person, keep on that article and it will be a prime resource for interested researchers.75.21.156.42 (talk) 16:09, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

screw drives
--MarmotteiNoZ 23:21, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

ACESS II
Hallo Andy, could you do favor for me, to share about ACESS II maintanance? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Eko falcon (talk • contribs) 06:21, 9 November 2011‎


 * Sorry, but I've no idea what you're talking about. ACESS II ?    Andy Dingley (talk) 07:51, 9 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Are we talking ejection seats? ACES II ? Andy Dingley (talk) 22:38, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

Deletion of page "Gopal kundu Controversy from article Scientific values of plagiarism"
Hello,

The page "Gopal Kundu Controvesy" of article "Scientific plagiarism in India" contains invalid information about him and the controversy, He is a former scientist who has registered patents and works at National Centre for Cell Science (NCCS), Pune, India. The page also refers to unofficial invalid sources. I request you to check official website of NCCS,Pune,India which is a Indian government body. the URL is www.nccs.res.in/gck.html. Please consider this request because it affects his reputation.

Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shrikantbhalerao101 (talk • contribs) 11:39, 10 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Shrikantbhalerao101] has posted this to 13 different users' talk pages. In order to avoid unnecessary duplication of effort, before considering replying, you may like to see my responses here and here. JamesBWatson (talk) 12:27, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

Knowle West

 * Thanks for your helpful comments in the FAC. Much appreciated. Jezhotwells (talk) 18:28, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

Gopal Kundu whitewash campaign
You may be interested in the following edits:, ,. I did consider an immediate block on the IP address, but decided to give a warning for now, and be prepared to block the moment it acts again, if it does. I do understand your concerns, but where negative statements about a living person are concerned I think we need to be careful. I removed the disputed content for a little under 5 hours, but even if it had been a couple of days that would not have been a disaster, and worth it, I think for the sake of making sure we get it right. JamesBWatson (talk) 20:53, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

V18 photo
Thanks for adding that photo to the V18 article! That's the first "in the wild" photo I've ever seen of an ALCO 18-251. Very nice. Kudos! –BMRR (talk) 00:08, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

Gauges/ Guages at W & J Galloway
Hi, there is a sic about the typo - it is spelled as "Guages" in the original document and was in fact quite commonly spelled in that manner at that time. It still is, for that matter, but usually nowadays by the ignorant and those with literacy impediments :) - Sitush (talk) 20:32, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
 * OK, I've reverted and stuck a comment on it, to stop anyone else falling down the same trap. Thanks for pointing it out. Andy Dingley (talk) 20:36, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
 * It is a tricky area. I think that somewhere in WP:MOSQUOTE there is a provision that permits correction of obvious typos in the source. I vaguely recall looking at the issue at the time, and coming to the conclusion that in this case it was not a typo but as per my message above. No big deal. - Sitush (talk) 20:37, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

The Tank's Country of Origin.
Dear Mr. Dingley,

In order to avoid an edit war, I would respectfully suggest that you read the Discussion page on the Tank article and consult the sources I have mentioned there. I do not understand the reference to Little Willie. But the point is this; if I invent a light bulb and you simultaneously invent a very similar light bulb, and I then inform you that I have invented a light bulb, does that mean that you have not? Many English language accounts neglect the French development. But a wider study reveals that it was contemporaneous with the British. I hope that, after a period of reflection, you will acknowledge that.

I enclose some relevant quotations. If you have any that refute them, I should, of course, be happy to study them.

"France began developing primitive tanks about the same time as the British." (S. Zaloga; French Tanks of World War I)

" 'British in conception, design, and manufacture . . .' These words, written by Lloyd George . . . contained truths and half truths. The Tank as used in the First World War was not an entirely British invention, for the French had also developed their own version . . ." (AFVs of the World, Volume I. Cannon Books, 1998)

"Quite independently of the British, the French Army set about devising tanks of their own." (Macksey & Batchelor, Tank: A History of the Armoured Fighting Vehicle, 1970)

French accounts are inclined to be even-handed. Jeudy says, " . . les chars en tant qu'engins mécaniques, blindés, et armées sont créés par les les Français et les Anglais au cours du premier conflit mondial." (Chars de France, 1997)

"A qui attribuer le primeur du concept de la construction d'un char d'assaut, aux Anglais ou aux Français? On s'accorde au Musée des Blindés de Saumur pour dire que cela fut simultané. La belle brochure qui a été editée, consacré aux chars français affirme "qu'il est impossible aujourd'hui d'en désigner l'inventeur." (Le général J.B.E. Estienne, l'Harmattan, 2010)

These three statements would also seem to support the multifocality of the Tank:

"Parallel to the British development, France designed its own tanks."

"The Allied French and British developments of the tank were largely parallel and coincided in time."

"France started studying caterpillar continuous tracks from January 1915, and actual tests started in May 1915, two months earlier than the Little Willie experiments. At the Souain experiment, France tested an armoured tracked tank prototype, the same month Little Willie was completed."

They are from Wikipedia.

Regards,

Hengistmate (talk) 19:21, 31 October 2011 (UTC)


 * If you don't understand the relevance of Little Willie, then I would question whether you ought to be arguing so vehemently over history.
 * The French had conceptual tank ideas around 1903. So did everyone. No-one built anything credible.
 * The British built The Lincoln Machine (which had at least a dummy of a central turret, pre-dating the Renault FT), Little Willie, Mother and then the Mark Is. They fielded tanks before anyone else did. The French were early developers of tanks too, with the Schneider. Yet the French lagged the British here. The Schneider, with its Holt tractor chassis and Holt track plates, was roughly comparable as a vehicle when it was finally fielded in 1917 to the Lincoln Machine two years earlier. French has primacy for neither invention, for effective development, nor for first use. There is some claim for innovation with the Renault FT, but by this time the Germans were building tanks too. Andy Dingley (talk) 19:45, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
 * As Andy says, the U.K. actually did something (with Little Willie, etc.), and put it into action, while others were dithering around and waited to see somebody else put it into practice. I'm no Anglophile, but in this one, the U.K. was clearly the innovator. -- Orange Mike &#x007C;  Talk  20:07, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

@Orange Mike: With respect, sir, that's not really the picture. I am a little nervous about contradicting you in case you fly into a rage, but I shall hope for the best. The French tried to produce tanks as fast as they could, although the delivery dates turned out to be highly optimistic. They didn't dither around and wait to see somebody else put them to use; Estienne on the one side and Swinton, Hankey, Churchill, Stern, etc on the other wanted to wait until both Britain and France had stockpiled enough tanks to stage a large and possibly decisive offensive, probably in 1917. When Haig insisted that they be used in September 1916 (he originally asked if any could be made available by June) the British tank men were as appalled as the French. Hengistmate (talk) 17:22, 3 November 2011 (UTC)


 * I'm still waiting for your reply at talk:Tank. Nor can you, like your recent changes to Renault FT, redefine language to suit a personal agenda. Andy Dingley (talk) 17:25, 3 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Now raised at Administrators'_noticeboard/Edit_warring Andy Dingley (talk) 18:17, 3 November 2011 (UTC)


 * The above report has been archived at Administrators%27_noticeboard/3RRArchive171. --Guy Macon (talk) 23:59, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

"I'm still waiting for your reply at talk:Tank." It's there. Hengistmate (talk) 23:07, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

°C formatting
If you look carefully at WP:MOSNUM, it specifies no space before ° for angles, but a space is needed for temperatures: "Non-alphabetic symbols for degrees, minutes and seconds for angles and coordinates and the percent sign are unspaced (for example, 5° 24′ 21.12″ N for coordinates, 90° for an angle, 47% for a percentage, but 18 °C for a temperature)." Cheers! Chris the speller  yack  21:56, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

"Patronising Tosser"
Calling another editor a "Patronising tosser", as you recently did on Talk:Tank, is not helpful. Yes, the comment you replied to was an insult (and I have warned the user for that), but we all need to rise above such bad behavior instead of giving in to the temptation to lower ourselves by replying in kind. --Guy Macon (talk) 16:58, 18 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Frankly Guy, I no longer give a damn. "Tosser" might be seen as a non-parliamentary expression, but I would still stand by "Patronising editor". Another one who thinks persistence and verbosity are an excuse for basic inaccuracy and cheerfully edit wars to defend it. Andy Dingley (talk) 18:30, 18 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Are you comparing me with Scarlett O'Hara?


 * I would have no problem with "Patronising editor" -- he is patronizing and verbose -- but would prefer no personal comments at all. Here is the situation I find myself in; sometimes I want to lay some groundwork by letting a user know exactly what behavior is and isn't allowed. If he gets the message, problem solved. If not, I am in a better position to drop a hammer on him without someone saying I never warned him. To do that I need to avoid any appearance of bias, so if I warn such a user I really need to also warn someone like you, a respected and valuable contributor who at times lapses into incivility. Nothing personal, it's just something I have too do. Feel free to ignore or delete such warnings. Or, of course, you could not call people tossers .  See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Hengistmate#Etiquette to see my comments directed at the other end of this particular dust-up.  Cheers! --Guy Macon (talk) 19:10, 18 November 2011 (UTC)
 * This was already addressed in the article talk page almost 3 weeks ago. Is bringing it up here again really going to help anything?  Sure - if it continues, WP:CIVIL comes into play... but so far - since then it really hasn't been an issue.  Srobak (talk) 20:36, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

Moog patch cords
Andy, my whole point about lack of relevance here is based on the fact that elaborating the history of the patch cord has nothing to do with the history of the Moog other than the fact that the Moog used patch cords that no one else did; that is perhaps what is relevant (and is already stated), not the history of the patch cord in phone switchboards. MSJapan (talk) 22:46, 18 November 2011 (UTC)


 * The patch cord has major significance to early synths: Moog & others, console instruments and piles of random Radiophonic boxes. Yet the patch cord was not a new invention, it had half a century or more of history behind it, through its use for telephony. The very &frac14;" jack has its origins in switchboards. Andy Dingley (talk) 23:51, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

Sunbeam side-valve aircraft engines
Can you discuss your recent reversion to this article at Talk:Sunbeam side-valve aircraft enginesPetebutt (talk) 16:43, 20 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Per the edit summary, these are a series of developments of the same engine, not independent developments. Although we should have the individual engine articles you've been working on, there's still scope for an overall one - especially as we already have it. Andy Dingley (talk) 17:31, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

Request for Time: India Education Program Learnings
Hi. I'm writing to request a favor. The India Education Program pilot is concluding in Pune, India. It has been extraordinarily challenging and a series of learnings have emerged from the pilot that we intend to take on board to inform the way forward. I had promised an honest, open and comprehensive review. There are multiple ways that we are trying to collate and distill these learnings. One of these is that the Foundation has commissioned a study to do in depth interviews with a wide variety of folks who were directly or indirectly involved in the pilot. The include discussions with students, Ambassadors, faculty as well as members of the global community such as yourself. I thought it would be really particularly useful if we could get your views. You have been involved in the project (albeit not as part of the formal project structure.) I thank you for your involvement. You have made some interesting and insightful comments in the discussions you have participated in. Would you be willing and available for the person working on this study so that she can get your feedback and suggestions and comments? If so, would you let me know on my talk page? Do also let me know how I can have her reach out to you. Many thanks in advance. Hisham (talk) 10:02, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

Sunbeam Matabele
Hello, As you might have gathered i have been tidying up the Sunbeam engine articles. I thought I best explain the reasons for re-directing the Sunbeam Matabele article as you have twice reverted my re-direct. The essence (I believe improved) of the article was incorporated in the Sunbeam Cossack article. I don't believe that the Matabele warrants a separate article as it wiil probably fail notability guidelines and its content would certainly enrich an article on the Cossack, which after all was the origin of the Matabele. I put it to you to read both articles and make your own decisions. Remember that once you press save you relinquish any rights over an article and it is free to be editted by anybody, this applies to me as well.Petebutt (talk) 04:08, 23 November 2011 (UTC)


 * While you two sort this out, please fix the Sunbeam Matabele article so it has a talk page instead of redirecting to the Sunbeam Cossack talk page. Thanks! --Guy Macon (talk) 08:49, 23 November 2011 (UTC)


 * You've been asked to discuss this twice now at Talk:Sunbeam side-valve aircraft engines and Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Aircraft/Engines. If you really think Sunbeam Matabele is non-notable, then you know where AfD is. Andy Dingley (talk) 20:22, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

Removing stuff
Before you remove added stuff, you should use citation needed tag and if you read thru the article its already stated there -- >Typ932 T&middot;C 19:35, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
 * It's "already stated" in an article that's tagged overall as unref. The problem is not that it's uncited, but that's it's an incredible proposition to believe it. This is one of those extraordinary claims that requires an extraordinary source to support it. I removed the two instances that you added (we should not propagate dubious and unsourced statements, as WP is rightly not RS), I tagged the original one, although my inclination is to remove that too.
 * Its not very hard to believe, many Peugeot and Citroens use same platforms, just use google. So its more close to to be very sure than highly doubtful -- >Typ932 T&middot;C 19:45, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Not Citroens of that age, of that size. The XM was the last of the xenophobic Citroens that did things le patron's way, to the exclusion of any rational or commercial sense. I can't claim to rule this out (my experience of underneath a 605 is limited), but if it was so well-known, there would already be cites. Andy Dingley (talk) 19:48, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
 * And you've removed the tag I added anyway...

Return key
Please tell me, what does a return key look like? Whenever I create a list it gets jumbled up like this. ==List of Dandy artists==                                                                         *Andy Fanton                                                                                       *Jamie Smart                                                                                       You'll know what I mean now. I've never really had much reason to use it so I dont know. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.148.147.87 (talk) 19:47, 28 November 2011 (UTC)


 * It's also called (only slightly wrongly) the "Enter" key. It's the big one at the right hand end of your keyboard.
 * You will also find that MediaWiki formatting often needs a blank line between things, not just one linebreak. Some things, like headings, only work if they're at the very start of a new line. Andy Dingley (talk) 19:50, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

Now, if only I had done that when I was creating the Comic Idol page!!!!!! 86.148.147.87 (talk) 19:53, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

Steampunk
Good catch and reversion Andy. Notice that's beginning to spread like a virus round Wikipedia, the deletions without comment by IP addresses? Nice to see you on top of it, correcting well. Djathink imacowboy  06:59, 29 November 2011 (UTC)