Talk:Edgar de Normanville

This article's factual accuracy is disputed

My very dear Quirkle, which bit do you question or is it every bit of it? Please explain, the clear view screen item does not. Thanks, Eddaido (talk) 02:17, 18 June 2021 (UTC)

All the contemporaneous cites -and strong ones, patent cites- ascribe this to Samuel Augustin(e), not Edgar Joseph. Against that we have…? Qwirkle (talk) 05:08, 18 June 2021 (UTC)

Ascribe What ? Eddaido (talk) 08:02, 18 June 2021 (UTC)

The devopment of spinning optical screens. Qwirkle (talk) 12:34, 18 June 2021 (UTC)

No they don't. Eddaido (talk) 12:52, 18 June 2021 (UTC)

This would appear to be what our Equine Brethren call The Thing Which Is Not. Every patent document I’ve seen gives S. A. d N as co-inventor with Kent; none show Edgar. Qwirkle (talk) 13:06, 18 June 2021 (UTC)

Show us these documents please. Eddaido (talk) 13:12, 18 June 2021 (UTC)

Take a moment [here]. Early patents, all with a different de Normanville, all well after Edgar left school. Qwirkle (talk) 13:26, 18 June 2021 (UTC)

Thank you. Why were you so shy, beginning to realise the gaping holes in your ideas? I now have other things to do for a while. Eddaido (talk) 13:29, 18 June 2021 (UTC)

I expected that any competent wikiteur researching in good faith would see the word “patent” and rapidly check themselves. Qwirkle (talk) 13:39, 18 June 2021 (UTC)

See below. Eddaido (talk) 13:42, 18 June 2021 (UTC)

PS: Obvious Tag Teaming is Obvious. Qwirkle (talk) 12:51, 18 June 2021 (UTC)

Recent amendment

According to the cited source he had the idea when a schoolboy, he developed it as an adult. So this amendment needs to be fixed. Eddaido (talk) 12:57, 18 June 2021 (UTC)

Not according to patent documents, no. Qwirkle (talk) 13:18, 18 June 2021 (UTC)

Show us these documents please ! Eddaido (talk) 13:21, 18 June 2021 (UTC)

ANOTHER edit war?

I'm not even going to bother with links yet.

Qwirkle, trying to provoke another edit war less than a month since you (both) were blocked for the last one.? You show up to an article you have never edited before immediately after Eddaido. Then you wave a red flag in front of a bull? You know perfectly damn well that you revert and go to talk.

Eddaido, just keep your cool, huh?

I put you two back to a clean start (twice). Qwirkle, of the three of us, who has the most fun at drama boards? Who has the least to lose? Are you sure this is the hot setup for you?

For anybody else who cares, here's the last one. Sammy D III (talk)

I suspect the next trip through Adminland will pick up on your bevavioural issues. Being someones “Friend” is not a justification for adding misinformation to articles, as you have now done on several occasions.

Reverting to a disputed version, unmarked as such, isn’t a “clean start”, it is tag-teaming vandalism.Qwirkle (talk) 13:17, 18 June 2021 (UTC)

Lying isn't going to get you anywhere. You know I don't play that game. I reverted to the edit BEFORE the dispute. Sammy D III (talk) 14:18, 18 June 2021 (UTC)

I will leave as an exercise for the reader whether User:Sammy D III is being dishonest here, and using a little projection to deflect attention, or whether he is actually incapable of seeing that the timing of his tag-team revert is irrelevant. The old version article is disputed once someone makes a substantive edit. Qwirkle (talk) 16:06, 18 June 2021 (UTC)

I am an honest person. I take full responsibility for every word I have ever posted. Anywhere. Anyone can ask about anything in good faith and I will answer honestly (within outside anonymity) .

@Qwirkle: continues to imply that I am deceitful. An example is below, where I say "anyone who cares can ask..."and he posts "Or they can merely search the Drahmah Boards and talk pages for", clearly implying that I can not be trusted to be honest. Maybe I'll link a couple more places where he questions my honesty for the audience.

Eddaido and I know each other, I clearly posted as the first line of this section. There has never been any deceit. We have worked together once as friends. In some sandbox he gave me general opinions. He did not post or contribute content in whatever that was.

Working as friends is clearly wrong, that's why we don't do it. Every time Qwirkle accuses us without backing himself up it is implying that we are both acting in bad faith. He has made these accusations before but never followed up with any example. If there is one, let him link it so I can discuss it with any GF editor (who even cares).

Qwirkle accuses us as "tag teaming", when both times I reverted to the last stable version, before the dispute. Qwirkle tried twice to revert to a disputed version, which Eddaido reverted to the last stable version. Our "tag-teaming" was to keep a stable version up. (Note" Eddaido was not the editor of the last stable version.) Feel free to check the edit history.

I may add Wikipedia talk page links as references. I will note them on the edit summaries. I may dress it up and use it elsewhere the next time Qwirkle implies in bad faith that I am a liar. I'm not trying to deceive or mislead anybody. Sammy D III (talk) 16:27, 19 June 2021 (UTC)

For the Adminland, you will have to find something and link it. Good luck.

The "Friend" does look bad, anyone who cares can ask about the dynamics there. Sammy D III (talk) 14:18, 18 June 2021 (UTC)

Or they can merely search the Drahmah Boards and talk pages for “Sammy D III”, “Eddaido”, and “my friend”. Qwirkle (talk) 16:06, 18 June 2021 (UTC)

Uncle Augie (or Uncle Sam) Comment

Sounds quite American but he was actually Edgar's father's younger brother and an accountant.

Quirkle would you please take on board that your expressed concern is about patents.

Where in the article about Edgar written by me (forget the interim amendments) is there anything that conflicts with your so anxious claims? I do keep asking for you to be more specific. Eddaido (talk) 13:50, 18 June 2021 (UTC)

Here, of course, is the first problem: ownership. The “interim amendments” could be bulk of its history for some articles.

Articles are continuous threads, which often shed imitations and copies which in turn lead back here. Were this a real, authoritative encyclopedia, we wouldn’t have that problem, of course, but it ain’t, and we do. Any error in the whole chain can come back in, based on cites which ultimately tie back to wikipedia. Misapprehensions can’t just be removed, they need a stake driven through them and burial at a crossroads, or they seep right back in.

How is “your” version wrong? It is incomplete. This idea wasn’t develped by Edgar de Normanville, it was develped by Samuel de Normanville and Leslie Harcourt Kent. While the fact that Edgar may have toyed around with using centrifugal force to shed water as a schoolkid may be a part of British gearhead folklore, this was hardly a unique idea. I’m sure Mesopotamian scullery maids were swinging crockery dry 5,000 years ago. Were we to have a separate articles about SAdN and Kent, it would be possible, using the level of sourcing in the article now, to give all of them sole credit. Qwirkle (talk) 15:32, 18 June 2021 (UTC)

Ownership

Yes, I wrote it because I thought it was needed.

Quirkle, my very dear shadow, the only reason you are here is because I wrote it. Eddaido (talk) 07:47, 19 June 2021 (UTC)

Reliably Sourced

I have removed the tag. Why did the editor believe it was not reliably sourced? Eddaido (talk) 09:42, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

The reader will note that this is a straw man. Qwirkle (talk) 12:52, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

It has a properly cited source. Eddaido (talk) 13:22, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

Which, of course, does not mean the article is accurate, it merely means it has a properly cited source. Qwirkle (talk) 13:25, 1 July 2021 (UTC)