User talk:Andy Dingley - Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Srobak (talk | contribs) at 20:36, 18 November 2011 (→"Patronising Tosser": a bit late, no?). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Revision as of 20:36, 18 November 2011 by Srobak (talk | contribs) (→"Patronising Tosser": a bit late, no?)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)

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)

V18

Hello, Andy Dingley. You have new messages at Talk:V18 engine.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

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 Misplaced Pages.

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 | 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 Misplaced Pages:Administrators'_noticeboard/Edit_warring#User:Hengistmate_reported_by_User:Andy_Dingley_.28Result:_.29 Andy Dingley (talk) 18:17, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

The above report has been archived at Misplaced Pages:Administrators'_noticeboard/3RRArchive171#User:Hengistmate_reported_by_User:Andy_Dingley_.28Result:_Protected.29. --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)

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

Hello, Andy Dingley. You have new messages at Talk:List_of_screw_drives.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

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

Knowle West

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

W.

He is at it again.

http://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Edit_warring#User:Wtshymanski_reported_by_User:Guy_Macon_.28Result:_.29

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)

A cookie for you!

Hello Andy Dingley, I hope you enjoy this cookie as an amicable greeting from a fellow Wikipedian, SwisterTwister talk 19:36, 16 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)

°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 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? <grin>

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 <smile>. See https://en.wikipedia.org/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)

Archives