User talk:Andrew124C41

Welcome!

Hello, Andrew124C41, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions, especially your edits to Radar. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few links to pages you might find helpful:

You may also want to take the Wikipedia Adventure, an interactive tour that will help you learn the basics of editing Wikipedia. You can visit The Teahouse to ask questions or seek help.

Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask for help on your talk page, and a volunteer should respond shortly. Again, welcome! Drmies (talk) 00:47, 17 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

August 2017

Hello, I'm Drmies. An edit that you recently made to Radar seemed to be a test and has been removed. If you want more practice editing, please use the sandbox. If you think a mistake was made, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks! Drmies (talk) 00:53, 17 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to vandalize Wikipedia, as you did at Radar, you may be blocked from editing. Drmies (talk) 01:08, 17 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Can you please stop adding this useless, unverified, irrelevant information to the article? Thank you. Drmies (talk) 01:11, 17 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

August 2017

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing because your account is only being used for vandalism. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may request an unblock by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 01:15, 17 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This blocked user is asking that their block be reviewed on the Unblock Ticket Request System:

Andrew124C41 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • autoblocks • contribs • deleted contribs • abuse filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

UTRS appeal #19010 was submitted on Aug 17, 2017 02:03:25. This review is now closed.

--UTRSBot (talk) 02:03, 17 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Unblock discussion

Moving the discussion from UTRS to here with the user's approval.

I have looked at "Ralph 124C 41+", the source in which you have provided. The problem is that it is a primary source, and making claims off such source is an example of original research, which is not permitted (see this page). The claim is also rather trivial to be included in the Radar article (see this page), but this can be discussed. The proper process is to request other opinions at the article talk page (I can help you with it once this discussion is finished). And you are right about it is better to use the sandbox first for drafts.
— Alex Shih ^Talk, from UTRS.

Your block can be conditionally lifted if you 1) refrain from personal attacks (in which you have agreed) and 2) agree to work with other editors first before publishing your edit. Wikipedia:Teahouse is a great place to solicit friendly opinions on how to familiarise yourself with the editing process of Wikipedia. Regards, Alex Shih ^Talk 16:17, 17 August 2017 (UTC) [reply]

This blocked user is asking that their block be reviewed on the Unblock Ticket Request System:

Andrew124C41 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • autoblocks • contribs • deleted contribs • abuse filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

UTRS appeal #19017 was submitted on Aug 17, 2017 16:27:48. This review is now closed.

--UTRSBot (talk) 16:27, 17 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks I don't understand what you mean by saying that Ralph124C41+ is not a primary source. The book was initially serialized in my grandfather's magazine, Modern Electrics. It was later published as a book. There have been many reprints. I cited one of them that contains the description of both the Actinoscope and has a diagram. What is interesting about this is that if you search online you will find references to my grandfather's predictions, not just RADAR, but many other things as well such as Skype...Videophones....in Ralph, they are called a Telepot. FYI, there are things missing from the entry about my grandfather such as the fact that he was the second person to broadcast television signals. (I am not interested in dealing with that at the moment....just the RADAR issue. AndrewAndrew124C41 (talk) 16:35, 17 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please look at these references....go to 1911: Microwave Journal Live Sciences Steam Man At end of page: New Groups

PS: Am I going to be unblocked? Andrew124C41 (talk) 16:59, 17 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Again, this reflects the Wikipedia:No original research policy. Please also take a look at Wikipedia:Verifiability#Self-published sources. The book is simply not appropriate to be used in this context. If you cannot find other proper reliable sources to support a claim, it probably shouldn't be included (see Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not#Wikipedia is not a publisher of original thought). Alex Shih ^Talk 17:07, 17 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

To be unblocked, you would have to agree with the policies that I have linked for you, and also agree to not re-insert the claim arbitrarily, rather to suggest the edit by using the {{request edit}} template. If you have specific questions about these policies, please do so afterwards so you can discuss them with the community, but now is not the time. Alex Shih ^Talk 17:10, 17 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Alex, what you have requested is fine. However, aren't the links I gave you to other sources for the claim. For instance, The book on Remote Sensing, it was published by a reputable publisher. He makes reference to it beginning at the end of page 14 and continuing on page 15.

I am not naive with respect to writing articles. I have published articles in journals before. If I understand you correctly, the problem with Ralph itself is that it is a primary reference. I get that. However, if the Actinoscope is mentioned in a book that has been published, not by the author, but by a reputable company, I should think that would suffice.

The salient concept here is simply that Gernsback envisioned RADAR before it came into being. That is true. That is factual. I have given you a reference.

In addition, I now have a reference for the claim that the US patent office initially denied Sir Watson-Watt's patent application. First Reference Reference 48: The Rocket: The History and Development of Rocket and Missile Technology Baker, David Crown Publishing. Andrew124C41 (talk) 18:36, 17 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Andrew124C41: Thank you for your response, Andrew. You don't have to prove your point to me, what I am offering is merely the general practices of this community. Can I take your response as a confirmation that you won't make any contested edits until it has been fully discussed, so that we can proceed here?

Just a final comment to wrap up my thoughts on the subject. Based on what I have read from the sources you have provided, it appears to me that Gernsback envisioned/predicted a concept of radar, not the actual radar itself. And readers may point out this can hardly be considered as an "established" claim (see Wikipedia:Fringe theories). Lastly, you have to be careful with the term "truth", as it is not a popular term to be used here (see Wikipedia:Verifiability, not truth). Of course you may disagree with this opinion, but I would respectfully ask you to discuss this subject later at another venue (like the Wikipedia:Teahouse that was suggested earlier). Alex Shih ^Talk 19:03, 17 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Alex...I do agree with you of course. I never though of my grandfather as having "invented" RADAR. He invented quite a few things, some of them rather strange...but not RADAR. I look at it the same way you do, that he envisioned the concept rather than the nuts and bolts of the actual device. The question that I have to ask you, is simply this. How significant is this? Do those who eventually create things benefit from those who previously had an idea but just did not know how to make the idea work. At the moment I do not have any reference to suggest that Sir Watson-Watts had ever read my grandfather's description. (Parenthetically, I have heard that he had but do not know for certain.) Ultimately, is this information something of historical import that should be shared with the public...or is it trivial. I suspect that is a matter of opinion.

As for "truth" ah, Alex, you are certainly on the mark about that. What we think is true today may not be true tomorrow. Those who of late suggest that the earth is flat have some interesting arguments. This subject has particular import today with respect to our foreign policy with Russia. (I am a US citizen.) Sometimes I think that I must have fallen asleep at which time the US became at war with Russia. Our astronauts are circling the Earth in the ISS depending upon the Soyuz to bring them home while meanwhile the government has twice imposed harmful sanctions upon the country for no valid reason. So, what is the truth. Are Russia and the US allies, partners, or enemies.

Pardon my digression...just to let you know I understand the issue.

And, yes, I will not give editors a hard time. I hope you will unblock me now. Andrew124C41 (talk)

(Courtesy notifying @Oshwah: of this discussion and the decision)

@Andrew124C41: Thanks Andrew! I have conditionally lifted the block on your account based on our discussion, thank you for your patience. Alex Shih ^Talk 01:40, 18 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Alex. Thanks. So the teahouse is the best place to run by my edit? Andrew124C41 (talk) 01:48, 18 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Andrew124C41: After some thoughts, Wikipedia:Reference desk/Science might be better for this discussion. I have posted already: Wikipedia:Reference desk/Science#Hugo Gernsback and the radar. Let's see what other editors think. Alex Shih ^Talk 01:55, 18 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Alex, that was very kind of you. It is appreciated. I do have to tell you that it is and has been an interesting journey finding out about my grandfather. Here is something that for instance I don't think you will find here. A number of people tried but only my grandfather was successful in getting Tesla to write his autobiography, My Inventions, in his publication, the Electrical Experimenter. Had he not done so, we would know little of Tesla's early life. The public would not have seen Frank R. Paul's art work depicting Wardenclyffe Tower. Two years ago I contributed material for an exhibit at the Tesla Museum in Belgrade about the correspondance between my grandfather and Tesla during that publication. They had some difficulties. I have that correspondance and pictures of the exhibit. BTW, it is my contention that my grandfather was the only person who really understood Tesla from a scientific perspective. I have written about it but not for publication. My grandfather was literally "spellbound" by Tesla. That is the exact word he used.Andrew124C41 (talk) 04:02, 18 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]