User talk:AndyTheGrump

Jaati/tribe/ethnic origin of Living people

Hi, I am trying to edit an article List_of_Ezhavas and user Sitush quoted a conversation Wikipedia_talk:Noticeboard_for_India-related_topics/Archive_49#List_of_members_of_X_caste to back up his claim that Wikipedia:Categorization/Ethnicity,_gender,_religion_and_sexuality prohibits the mention of a living person's jati (tribe or ethnic origin) unless one is specifically able to reproduce proof that that person has said that he identifies with that ethnic or tribal group (jati). And indeed, you made such a comment. "Further to this, per WP:BLPCAT, we shouldn't be putting living persons into such a list without explicitly citing a source that demonstrates that they have self-identified as being of that caste. AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:44, 10 February 2012 (UTC)" I read WP:BLPCAT which hands over the topic to Wikipedia:Categorization/Ethnicity,_gender,_religion_and_sexuality. However, I am not able to find the section that mandates such a self-identification. There is such a requirement for religion, as I can see. But I see no requirement in the section about identifying the tribal or ethnic origin. "Ethnic groups are commonly used when categorizing people; however, race is not. Ethnic groups may be used as categorizations, even if race is a stereotypical characteristic of the ethnic group, e.g. with African-Americans or Anglo-Indians. See Lists of ethnic groups for groups that are typically considered ethnic groups rather than races. For example, we do have Category:Jewish musicians, but we should not have Category:Semitic musicians." That is what it says. So I would like to know from you the basis of your averment that to mention somebody's tribal/ethnic origin or community, one has to produce proof that he or she self-identified with that group. For example, in the BLP of Larry_Page, he is described as Jewish, without giving any reference to prove that he self-identified with that ethnic group. Thank You, and sorry to bother, since your comment in that particular conversation has held up the addition of living people to the list of Ezhavas.Sreejiraj (talk) 20:24, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

I Meant 95% of American Musicians are Jewish!!!

Not all Musicians eg. England, Australia, Canada. And not just that but behind the scenes as well such as the 4 producers of Woodstock Artie Kornfeld (I contibuted that by the way and yet that somehow manages to stay that he was Jewish!) Michale Lang! John Roberts and Joel Rosenman! Many web-sites claim they are/were why can't you accept it and keep it!?! Thank-you! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 120.149.118.116 (talk) 13:20, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

Caution

I've blocked Iamthemuffinman for 24 hours for the personal attacks and leaving a note here to ask you to turn it down a bit. You can accomplish goals easier if there aren't insults being hurled around. Please leave the insults off even when others attack you, okay? I think you will find that you are more effective that way. Cheers,
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 13:23, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

A whole 24 hours! Wow. Talk about cruel and unusual punishments... ;) AndyTheGrump (talk) 13:25, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

Blocked

And I've now blocked you for two weeks. Your recent actions were utterly over the line - your block would be shorter were this not a consistent habit rather than a one-off. Ironholds (talk) 13:26, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

Can I ask for the block to be extended? Clearly I'd be better off not visiting this lunatic asylum where the 'punishment' handed out is in inverse proportion to the gravity of the 'crimes'. A longer block would at least make clear that mine was a minor offence. AndyTheGrump (talk) 13:30, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

I don't consider requests for self-blocks. And for reference, you're both acting inappropriately - the difference is that this is his first such time doing so, while you have a long and sterling history of flying off the handle. If I see him engage in such behaviour again, his next block isn't going to be the sort you come back from. Ironholds (talk) 13:32, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

"this is his first such time doing so". Yeah right. I think you mean 'his first such time with his current account'. A 'new' user, really: [1] AndyTheGrump (talk) 13:42, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

Then I'll call in a checkuser :). Ironholds (talk) 13:43, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

this is outrages. the other user ("iamthemuffinman") who made sexist and homophobic remarks was blocked for a mere 24 hours [2], [3]. i request to unblock andy, or at least reduce the block to 12 hours.-- altetendekrabbe  13:34, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

So we give people get-out-of-jail cards as long as the other participant was being a dick first? I think not. Now, personally, I'd love to extend Iamthemuffinman's block - but as someone who declined his unblock request it's probably inappropriate at this stage. Ironholds (talk) 13:38, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

From what I gather, Andy started it with this userpage vandalism. Unless there is something else that I am missing here, I have to support this block. --MuZemike 13:39, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

Try gathering further... AndyTheGrump (talk) 13:42, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

That userpage vandalism was preceded by a duplicated personal attack [4] [5] by "iamthemuffinman" several hours earlier. benzband (talk) 13:50, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

And while we are at it, how about someone pointing out on iamthemuffinman's talk page that he is lying through his teeth: "I was started on and became the victim of a calculated and viscious series of attacks by a user with a grudge against me" - nope. See here: [6]. And how could I have 'a grudge' against someone who's (allegedly) only had an account since July the 22nd? AndyTheGrump (talk) 13:51, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

Hm, that use of the misspelled "viscious" to describe "attacks", and also the "grudge" allegation, are redolent of a user you ran across at a noticeboard fairly recently. I can't remember who, exactly; but you might. (Not that there's necessarily any connection.) I remember you hazarded a guess that "viscious" might be a neologism, lol. Writegeist (talk) 18:28, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

'Viscious' at AN/I was User:R-41[7] I've had run-ins with him before, but I doubt that it is him - more likely one of User:AnkhMorpork's gang of Islamophopic meatpuppets, I think. There are a fair number of them, along with a smattering of IPs. To be honest though, I've no idea who muffin-brains is, but it seems self evident that someone who gets into an edit war over Talk:Main Page within 7 hours or so of creating an account knows their way around well, and knows how to game the system. Still, if you want to find out for sure, you could ask muffin-head himself: he said that I have a grudge against him - so presumably he can tell us where I made this apparent, and what account he was editing under at the time. AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:58, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

I've done a sort of timeline on my talk page. If you have a look at this talk page's history Iamthemuffinman left a post about 5 hours before AndytheGrump posted the first on User talk:Iamthemuffinman. Callanecc (talk • contribs) talkback (etc) template appreciated. 13:58, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

So, because AndyTG has now been blocked, his suggestion of suspected sockpuppetry/ meatpuppetry just gets disregarded? From what I have seen, it's very likely to be a case of "Iamthemuffinsock". Martinevans123 (talk) 14:19, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

Not in the slightest. I've spoken to a CheckUser, but as I understand it things have been accelerated somewhat further up the food chain. Ironholds (talk) 14:45, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

Andy, do you have an idea who this might be?
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 14:26, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

Ironholds, I started this two weeks ago when I stumbled across it. I'm tempted to just fix it myself if they won't, as my patience isn't infinite and I'm tired of babysitting this. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 15:02, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

One thing I've learned over time is that arguing with a sock doesn't usually do much good. They rarely own up to it, and often just try to push the limits and get somebody else blocked. So the solution is: Don't get mad; get even. Take the suspected sock to your most trusted admin and ask, "What about this?" You don't have to swat the mosquitoes and run the risk of malaria. Let the admins do that. That's what they're paid for, so to speak. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:40, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

Even though Andy was kind of dismissive of me for pointing it out, I think a huge part of the problem we're seeing with this little war of Andy's is his lack of Civility. Iamthemuffinman doesn't have that many edits as a registered account and so its pretty easy to see a pattern develop. Iamthemuffinman makes some 'normal' edits, endorses a block against an editor at AN/I and not too long after that, Andy decides to start calling the guy a sockpuppet, other people join in, and this newly registered editor attempts to use Wikiquette to resolve the problem, but has a hard time getting any traction there because people are still failing to assume good faith and being incivil.

Iamthemuffinman states he has been editing as an IP for a very long time (link here), and our rules say that is fine. As I said at Wikiquette, the proper way to debate and to handle a sock is not to use it as an ad hominem attack in a debate, but as BaseballBugs says above, take the concern to a trusted admin and work on resolving it. One of our basic pillars is Civility, and editors routinely ignore that in favor of just throwing mud and dirt. I would hope that the accusations about socks can be handled professionally in the future, and that Andy would understand that a lot of very good content makes its way into Wikipedia without a need for him or anyone else to belittle their fellow editors. At this point it might be necessary for an interaction ban to be implemented between Andy and Iamthemuffinman in order to prevent more problems down the road, but simply acting in a professional manner would probably do just as well. -- Avanu (talk) 15:15, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

can people please note that (amongst other things) it was Incivility-Finder General Avanu's endless repetitious whining about 'civility' all over the place that led me to post the comment at the top of this page. Avanu, just to make things perfectly clear, I don't want to see your comments on my talk page - your clueless hounding achieves nothing beyond inflaming the situation further. You aren't being 'civil' you are being obnoxious. Go do it somewhere else. AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:03, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

Iamthemuffinman appears to have edited as User:2.99.69.69 before registering his account.[8][9][10] However the IP account has a limited history, only editing on Talk:Main Page and his own talk page that day. It might be useful to run a checkuser on that IP. It seems that Iamthemuffinman may be familiar with altetendekrabbe and possibly Andy. Does either editor recognize him? TFD (talk) 18:07, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

As said, a CU has investigated and thrown it up the food chain. Ironholds (talk) 19:33, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

Since it has been 'handled', there's no need for continued focus on Iamthemuffinman by the two editors below. Don't you think it is a good time to finally drop the stick here and actually focus on something other than this one editor? It is sort of a self-fulfilling prophecy that this guy is getting all your attention, and simply moving on wouldn't hurt. -- Avanu (talk) 03:27, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

Avanu, can you please explain why you continue to post on my talk page after my explicit request that you cease doing so? - or preferably, don't explain, just stop posting on my talk page. Frankly, this is looking more like hounding by the minute. Haven't you got someone else to piss off with your relentless bullshit? This isn't about you. You aren't an admin. You aren't involved. I have already pointed out that your self-important 'civility trolling' is one of the things I've found most objectionable in the last few days - your pompous waffle about 'civility' may seem important to you, but when it repeatedly derails ANI discussions etc regarding serious issues concerning article content, as it did here [11], it becomes a net liability to the project. Yes, we know 'civility' is a Pillar - but that doesn't give you a license to engage in endless spamming of discussions just because you don't like the tone of the debate. Either report people for breaches of policy, or troll elsewhere... AndyTheGrump (talk) 04:30, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

"iamthemuffinman" came out of nowhere and tried to get me banned on the an/i where i had reported ankhmorpork... if i remember correctly, he had a total of 20 edits or so at that time. there exists a pack of editors who are whitewashing extremists' views and personalities here on wikipedia. in addition, they are trying very hard to smear islam as well. their favorite weapons include misrepresentation of sources, the use of fringe sources, and edit warring. please have a look at this page. the page promotes bigotry via gross misrepresentation of sources.-- altetendekrabbe  22:10, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

One other point. In his first appeal against his block, Iamthemuffinman writes that "I was started on and became the victim of a calculated and viscious series of attacks by a user with a grudge against me". Can I ask that Iamthemuffinman provides the evidence for these "calculated and [vicious] attacks", and explains how I could possibly have 'a grudge' against a new account. Or failing this, can I ask that his block be extended further for making unfounded accusations. AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:27, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

I did read it

I apologize moist sincerely for making a mistake. I saw your paged had been blanked and I did not think that was right. I restored it. Then I went to the page history I saw my mistake and fixed it. Speaking as someone who has defended you in the past and who approves of the fact that you defend numerous articles from nonsense and time wasters I would suggest that you not lash out at every single editor you come across. I have no problem with you being Grumpy but being vindictive is a different thing. That is a path on which you will wind up with no one to defend you. I'll take your page off my watchlist so that I won;t make an error here again. I will miss some of the banter that goes on here but I certainly don't want to offend yu. Again my apologies.MarnetteD | Talk 15:14, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

Yeah - sorry for flying off the handle at you - if I'd been in a calmer state I'd have realised why you'd done it. Maybe what Wikipedia needs is a built-in delay after 'save page' is clicked to enable everyone to think about what they are doing, and change their minds... AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:25, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

Personal attack and hounding by User:Avanu

Avanu, who evidently sees himself as some sort of self-appointed Wikipedia civility-monitor-in-chief, has now posted a personal attack on me on his talk page, in response to a request that he cease edit-warring on this page (reinsertion of a post of his I deleted after asking him not to post here). In this, he repeats the assertion that I have been 'hounding' Iamthemuffinman: "While it is *possible* that Iamthemuffinman is a sockpuppet, heck anything is *posible*, he is completely correct at this point in asserting that Andy is hounding him, and continues to focus on him even during his block". [12] The simple facts of the matter are self-evident. I have not been 'hounding' anyone. Iamthemuffinman chose to hound me by repeatedly posting abuse here, without provocation. How the hell can I 'hound' someone without interacting with them? Yes, I responded inappropriately to a personal attack, but that doesn't constitute 'hounding'. And yes, I've continued to discuss Iamthemuffinman's behaviour here, and whether he is a possible sock/meatpuppet or not - but so have multiple other contributors. Have they also been 'hounding' him? Is the contributor who initiated the checkuser procedure regarding Iamthemuffinman 'hounding' him? It is worth noting that in the ANI thread where I first came across Iamthemuffinman, there were multiple contributors suggesting that he wasn't the 'new' user he appeared to be - including at least one (Darkness Shines) on the other 'side' of the debate [13]. Has Avanu accused others of 'hounding' Iamthemuffinman? Not as far as I'm aware. In fact Avanu's recent contribution history seems to suggest that he has been tracking my edits, and is going out of his way to stir things up. He recently unilaterally collapsed a section I was posting in on Jimbo Wales' talk page - twice [14][15]. Of course he is entitled as anyone else to raise issues of incivility - but when he restricts this to my incivility alone, while ignoring entirely the fact that the supposed victim of my 'hounding' chose to call me a "tosser" [16][17] and "a pathetic litle cunt" [18], and to vandalise my user page with a bizarre homophobic rant [19] [20], it seems entirely reasonable to suppose that Avanu isn't interested in combating 'civility' per se, but is instead engaged on some sort of bizarre crusade - or alternatively, simply hounding me. Yes, I've been uncivil, and yes, I know it is inappropriate, and no, I'm not going to try to justify my behaviour by going into personal details, or by offering excuses. I believe that editors should be judged on their net contribution to the project, and on nothing else. Some people (quite possibly including me) simply aren't cut out to contribute here for long - the petty bureaucracy, endless POV-pushing and the rest eventually drives many people to react inappropriately, and lash out in frustration. In my case, one of the reasons I felt this way was made entirely clear at the top of this page [21] - It is bad enough having to deal with the nonsense, without being tracked by self-appointed 'guardians of morals' who happily accuse others of 'hounding' people by um, er, well, not actually doing anything until the person involved posts abuse about them, but seem incapable of recognising that their own behaviour constitutes hounding. Anyway, I clearly shouldn't have responded to the foul-mouthed halfwit responsible for this latest ludicrous dramafest, and should have walked away earlier, with what little dignity I had intact. So now I'm off, so so long, thanks for the fish, and congratulations Avenu for your success in adding to the strife that drove me away. I hope you are happy, now that I'm going and won't bother you any more - though no doubt you'll find another victim for your infantile crusade. (Personal attack removed)AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:03, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

Even though I don't necessarily agree with Avanu's interpretation; don't add personal attacks. Whatever point you are trying to make just gets clouded by it. IRWolfie- (talk) 19:41, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

Do you really think at this point I give a fuck? AndyTheGrump (talk)

Postscript.

For the record (should anyone be interested in such things), I think it should be noted that Iamthemuffinman has now been globally "locked due to cross-Wiki vandalism" [22][23]. Surprised, anyone? I'm certainly not... AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:17, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

About an <- pre-redacted: begins with 'A' ->

see on another talk page [24] that Avanu is trying engage in a bit of 'analysis' about the whole thing with me, the Muffin Man, AnkMorpork, altetendekrabbe, all the other contributors at the ANI thread [25], and at Wikiquette assistance[26], and with attempts to tag an entire ethnic community as paedophiles [27]. Curiously though, Avanu's 'analysis' seems to omit one of the key participants: Avanu himself. Since he is engaging in Martix-style speculation about alternative universes, perhaps he should instead engage in a little self-analysis, and ask whether had he not disrupted the ANI thread with his pompous self-important 'lectures' about civility, and had he not then gone out of his way to hound me over my lack of civility (which I'm not denying, needless to say), while not only ignoring that of others, but actually encouraging muffin-between-the-ears to engage in further troublemaking, and, incidentally, grossly misrepresenting what went on (unless Avanu believes that I have a time machine, or have hacked Wikipedia's past records to alter the apparent sequence of events, his assertion that I was 'hounding' muffin can only be seen, at minimum, as a terminological inexactitude), things might have gone differently? Or has he now transmogrified from a mere Incivility-Finder General to His Holy Infallible Omniscience himself? Is He above reproach? Is He beyond the analytic powers of mere mortals? Or is He just another self-obsessed <- pre-redacted: begins 'P' ->, all too keen to criticise others, but incapable of seeing His own faults? Should I prove to be so deranged as to wish to engage in making further contributions to this 'project' it will no doubt be advisable to ask for an interaction ban between His Imperial Omniscience and myself, but I'm inclined to think that it might also be advisable for the project to deny His Pompous Infallibilitude access to any topic involving 'civility', and from making any comments on the 'civility' of others, unless and until He accepts that for the purposes of this encyclopaedia he will be seen as a mere fallible mortal, regardless of the Truth of His pronouncements. What think you? Can we risk taking on the Gods? Will the Roof fall in if we do so, as we take on the very Defender of the Pillar that holds it up? Or will we instead find ourselves actually better equipped to produce an encyclopaedia, free from the distractions of this <- pre-redacted convoluted sentence, epithets begin with most letters of the alphabet ->? I'd say that it might be worth a try... AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:08, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

Some semi-retired support! Try this - ALOTBSOL, well, it was that or "No one expects the Spanish Incivility Inquisition!". Keep on Grumping ;-) CaptainScreebo ^Parley! 19:30, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

I'm blocked, so I can't fix this myself...

 Done by Baseball Bugs - Youreallycan 03:19, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

Nothing to do with my block - I'm probably better off staying out of this funny-farm, but I noticed a rather blatant BLP violation on a talk page (allegations reported as fact, and an ethnic slur), Needs deleting at minimum: [28] AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:59, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, Bugs and YRC. AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:21, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

Enjoy your break Andy and come back a happier Grump - regards - lovely weather here - enjoy - Youreallycan 03:25, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

Too hot... ;) I expect I'll be back though - can't seem to escape. Meanwhile, I'm thinking about writing an essay: You don't have to be mad to edit Wikipedia, but it helps (and it annoys Tarc too, which is a bonus) - see here [29] for why Tarc deserves a special mention. His suggestion (I assume Tarc is a 'he'), if implemented, would require a special block template: "You have been blocked from editing Wikipedia on the grounds of suspected mental illness. To appeal against this ban please provide references from a qualified medical practitioner stating that you are no more nuts than the rest of us...". :D AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:39, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

Oh, Andy, nothing you have done here annoys me in the slightest. Kinda wordy for an essay title though; brevity is the soul of wit and the essence of lingerie, as Dorothy Parker put it. Maybe WP:UMADBRO? would work, or WP:ANIMALHOUSE. Tarc (talk) 19:49, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

Meanwhile, back at the deranged cultist's page...

Oooer, a personal attack - send for His Imperial Majesty The Great Civility Enforcer ;) Per this ridiculous edit [30], as soon as my block is lifted I'll be proposing that User:IjonTichyIjonTichy be topic-banned from any articles relating to TZM etc, on the grounds of complete and utter cluelessness. Adding a link to Wright brothers, Nicola Tesla, Imagine (song) etc to the 'See also' section? This can only be seen as evidence that Ijon is either utterly incapable of understanding how Wikipedia works, and what is for, even after all this time, or (more likely) he knows full well, and is simply engaging in a relentless campaign of trolling to piss so many people off that he'll have the article all to himself. Not that a topic ban will achieve anything much, given the number of 'new' editors that turn up, all promoting the infantile cult, and all incapable of communicating in English. On this basis, I'm also inclined, per WP:IAR to propose deletion of the article on the grounds that while TZM may be marginally notable by Wikipedia standards, they are also exceptionally annoying, and if they can't keep their POV-trolls under control, we can do without the article anyway - at least until they take over the world, and their robotic database-enforcers tell us to do otherwise.

Here endeth the grump of the day... AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:17, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

Imagine there's no Zeitgeist movement, it's easy if you try. I'm a bit surprised that this isn't at ArbCom. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 23:21, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

Bah, I see that Avanu has reverted the nonsense 'see also' links, and just as I was thinking about engaging in a little creative editing vandalism/sockpuppetry by logging out and adding Enghelab Metro Station, Count Dracula, Raipur International Cricket Stadium, List of Brachyscome species, Cristoforo Foppa, History of Aston Villa F.C. (1874–1961), Noctis Labyrinthus and Albéric Collin to the list. Some people have no sense of fun. ;)

Seriously though, Avanu, if you saw this here, thanks - though I doubt that it will do much to solve the long-term problem. We've tried civility, we've tried rudeness (or at least, I have), we've tried blocks, we've tried page protection - whatever we do, the same old problems occur. Ultimately I can see it ending in one of two ways only (unless and until TZM's dictatorship of the database comes about ;) ) - either it gets deleted per WP:TOOBLOODYANNOYINGTOBEWORTHTHEBOTHER, or it gets put into permanent full page protection. Not that the latter would shut the cultists up, judging by their previous behaviour.

BTW, for the benefit of anyone unfamiliar with TZMs bizarre use of language, I see that the justification given on the talk page for describing TZM as 'non-violent' (which they probably are, though it isn't really something one should source from the organisation itself) is a quote from their 'Mission Statement' which reads "The range of The Movement's Activism & Awareness Campaigns extend from short to long term, with the model based explicitly on Non-Violent methods of communication" [31]. I'd hate to think what a 'violent method of communication' would involve. Any guesses?... AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:45, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

And to answer my own question (I might as well, since nobody else has), we have an article on non-non-violent communication: Propaganda of the deed - though this is of course an anarchist concept (or at least, it was - they seem on the whole to be a little less deranged these days), and TZM's philosophy is about as closely related to anarchism as I am to a brachyscome. AndyTheGrump (talk) 06:03, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

I've just blatently disregarded my block:

See [[32]] - the IP is me, no SPI needed. I don't particularly care at this point if this results in me getting blocked for another fortnight, or indeed until the sun goes pop and vaporises this deranged-primate-infested planet. User:IjonTichyIjonTichy needs to be banned from editing Wikipedia, reading Wikipedia, and even having the ability to recall that Wikipedia ever existed. Along with the rest of his moronic cult of infantile loons... AndyTheGrump (talk) 07:38, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

Andy, you do more good for this project than you do bad. But you're cutting off your nose to spite your face, and only harming your cause. This might be one of the things you want to sit down and think out before you do it. But you already knew that. Magog the Ogre (talk•edits) 07:53, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

I'm 99% sure you're trying to get yourself blocked. The edits you reverted were entirely vanilla, and the edit summary was over the line. I can only think that you're trying to prove a point (WP:POINT of course) and go down in a flash of martyr's glory for a while. Or maybe you see that Wikipedia is bringing out the worst in you? I can't read your mind but I think your behavior is utterly baffling. Magog the Ogre (talk•edits) 08:04, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

I see why AtG did the revert - the material is not "entirely vanilla," it smells of "non-profit commercial promotion" from here. See [33] for another editor who also finds it spammish. And the amount of interest the promoter has in the topic "Zeitgeist movement", and at [34] insertion of Carl Sagan therein. That article's talk page also notes that editor's belief that Carl Sagan was a believer in the ZG movement apparently. There is, in fact, substantial conflict between Tichy and the other editors on that topic per that talk page. And so while AtG violated a rule, he did so in apparent attempt to enforce another rule. Cheers. Collect (talk) 14:09, 12 August 2012 (UTC) See allso <g> [35] and [36] as evidence of the non-vanillaness of the edits. Collect (talk) 14:13, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

Yup, thanks Collect. The edit I reverted (only one) was of a blatant link-spam for an organisation that SPA IjonTichyIjonTichy has been repeatedly promoting with complete disregard for Wikipedia policy for months. Magog, can I suggest that before using 'mind reading' to try to understand what is going on, you do a little research - starting at Talk:The Zeitgeist Movement, and its long and tedious archives, filled with ludicrous WP:OR arguments for why entirely unrelated topics need to be included in 'see also' (e.g. the latest effort, which included links to the Wright brothers, Nicola Tesla, Imagine (song) and much else besides [37]), explanations of why people who have as far as can be determined never even heard of TZM should be portrayed as supporters, and all sorts of other facile repetitive drivel, almost certainly written in an attempt to drive non-TZM contributors away so the 'movement' can revert it back to the illiterate and unsourced promotional page they'd like. And then ask yourself whether you'd still call anything that Tichy (or any of the other pro-TZM accounts and IPs - the place is an obvious sock-and-meatpuppet farm, and Tichy's is actually about the most rational of the accounts) has engaged in "entirely vanilla"? It isn't, unless Wikipedia has changed its policies in the last few days, and has decided to be a web-hosting site for bizarre fringe 'non-political' political cults. AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:09, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

And needless to say, Tichy is now edit-warring to retain his moronic 'see also' links: [38]. Can someone please raise this at ANI, and get the deranged loon blocked... AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:42, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

• Andy that article/group are clearly attempting to use the project for promotion - Its been going on for a couple of years now, I had a spell there and it was one of the worst conflicted articles I have ever seen - I respect your willingness to accept blocks to highlight that - I have done the same myself - you will not change the built in problems with the En Wikipedia project that allow them to do that though - Users that really care about neutrality and respect for living people that unidentified editors use En Wikipeda to publish to the WWW like yourself, and I include myself can do good work elsewhere - to other projects - I will meet you there - LOL - have a nice day Andy - Youreallycan 15:44, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

@Andy: What forms of dispute resolution have you tried? Did you try notifying WP:FRINGE/N or WP:NPOV/N? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 15:54, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

I think that TZM-related issues have been raised at the entire alphabet soup of noticeboards etc at one point or another, and going through the same processes again isn't going to achieve anything concrete. Essentially, what needs to happen is that TZM gets the message that the article isn't theirs, and they have two choices at this point: a properly sourced and neutral article written by uninvolved contributors, or no article at all. I'm inclined to think that the latter would be the best procedure for the encyclopaedia as a whole. Endless arguments over an article concerning a marginally-notable (at best) political cult divert resources from more useful things. AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:04, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

And TichyBrains carries on with the edit warring: [39]. Se also his facile comments on the talk page, where he seems to be claiming that our article on the Wright Brothers is 'peripherally related' to the TZM one... AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:32, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

This is getting weirder by the minute. Tichy has now gone to the dispute resolution noticeboard to get the issue resolved. [40]. He evidently thinks that drawing more attention to his deranged arguments is going to help... AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:29, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

He has YRC in his sights as well. Collect (talk) 18:13, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

It might be worth pointing out at DRN that Tichy's opening statement is either malformed, or intentionally misleading: the dispute isn't between him and YRC, but between him and YRC, Avanu, Bbb23 and yourself. (and me as well, I suppose, though maybe I'd best keep shtum about that...). AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:22, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

What is weird is you are blocked for personal attacks, not only have you evaded your block you continue to make personal attacks, try not calling the other guy "TichyBrains" Darkness Shines (talk) 18:09, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

Please do not comment further on my talk page - your relentless POV-pushing [41] makes you an entirely unfit person to comment on the behaviour of others. AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:11, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

Hello. There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Darkness Shines (talk) 18:18, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

Would an uninvolved third party please post my response at AN/I:

Please note that I consider that Darkness Shines has not posted this in good faith - I ask that he explains why he has become involved. As for the substantive issues regarding 'block evasion' (How does telling everyone exactly what you are doing while you do it qualify as evasion? One for the philosophers, I suspect), and 'personal attacks', I recommend a little further investigation of the background, and suggest that the SPA User:IjonTichyIjonTichy's relentless POV-pushing should be taken into account. This is clearly the root of the problem, as multiple contributors have made clear: see Talk:The Zeitgeist Movement and its long and tedious archives for the details.AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:36, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

Done. Darkness Shines (talk) 18:39, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

Do you consider yourself an 'uninvolved third party', DS? Still, thanks, and stay off my talk page... AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:41, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

Andy, anyone can edit here Darkness shine is one of the anybodys - his imperfections and imperfect interpretation of policy and guidelines is something you will never be rid of - so you have a pre determined outcome. Look for the light, a place you can be beneficial.Youreallycan 18:52, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

I think that it is a well-established guideline that a contributor may ask another contributor to stay off his/her talk page. AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:04, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

Yes it is - I have thousands I have requested to stay of mine - lol - but there are millions of them - Youreallycan 19:08, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

Meanwhile, back at the funny farm, Tichy is now suggesting that the fact that Peter Joseph (TZM's L. Ron Hubbard-alike) and Ben McLeish have mentioned the Wright Brothers and Nikola Tesla in lectures is sufficient reason to include them in the 'see also' list. Regarding PJ, one can at least understand Tichy's thinking, even if it is nonsense, but who the fuck is Ben McLeish? No mention of the character in the article. Google seems to indicate that he is a high-up in the TZM London Chapter (though he could actually be the London chapter, as far as evidence from external sources is concerned...), but why does Tichy think that lectures by someone we've never heard of are going to be relevant to the discussion? Then again, Tichy's grasp of reality (if he ever had one) seems to have drifted further from his reach by the minute - he seems to think that Darkness Shines got involved in the discussion due to "erroneous and misguided motivations to come to the aid of his friends YRC and ATG". Friends? Beyond mere bizarreness... AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:07, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

Hey Andy

Breath deeply. Take some time off. Come back under a new user name. You're a solid Wikipedian and generally on the mark but it's time to reset and restart. My opinion. Carrite (talk) 22:15, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

I can see the merits of that - but can't really see a new name achieving much - people would figure out who I was soon enough. As for the time off, see my user page. This place is clearly addictive, and I'd probably need some sort of therapy to get out of the habit. Probably involving methadone to reduce the cravings ;)

Actually, what I probably need most right now is a few night's decent sleep. Insomnia does little to improve my thought precesses, and no doubt adds extra grump, too. If only... AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:26, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

I've now skimmed through your Talk page, Andy, and I must say for a blocked editor, you sure don't feel blocked. Each day you post your instructions, and when that doesn't work you just do whatever you feel like as an IP. It's like the Mafia inmate who still organizes his crime while in prison - not that I'm saying you're an evil criminal - it's the concept. Good luck on sleeping; I know only too well what that's like.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:28, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

"when that doesn't work you just do whatever you feel like as an IP". Would you care to back that up with some evidence? I've made one edit since the block - where I identified myself clearly, both in the edit summary and on this page. Yes, I shouldn't have done it - but implying that it is some sort of habit is stretching it a little. And as for your capo di tutti capi comparisons, if I've got the clout to 'issue instructions' to anyone, I'm unaware of it. Still, thanks for the comments about sleeping, and I wish the same to you. And if you wake up tomorrow with a horse's head in the bed beside you, it is nothing to do with me ;) AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:40, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

Actually, I was just poking fun, and to say you did it on a systematic basis fit much better with the metaphor. I slept reasonably well last night (hope you did as well), and I thought the horse's head was a nice touch, particularly your kind note pinned to one of his ears. :-) --Bbb23 (talk) 15:33, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

No problem - I'd probably have seen that if I'd been more with it. Anyway, I'm glad one of us got a decent night's sleep - I got four hours. :(

As for the horse's head, if you've done with it, can you send it back? I've just thought of someone else who might appreciate it. ;) AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:44, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

Could someone please raise this at WP:BLP/N?

With nothing better to do, I've been rooting around, and discovered a recently-added claim in our Rutger Hauer biography that he is "a supporter of The Zeitgeist Movement", 'sourced' to this [42]. Given that (a) the source cited doesn't actually call him 'a supporter' (it tells us that he attended The Zeitgeist Media Festival 2012, and that "[t]he great Dutch actor Rutger Hauer who is passionate about the sea premiered his animation about whales and then spoke to the audience and answered questions about his film"...), and (b) the source itself, an article on a Hollywood today website (which seems otherwise to be full of promotional puffery) looks to be of at least questionable reliability, I can't help wondering whether this is entirely in accord with policy? AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:28, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

It was reverted by Collect, do you still want it posted to the BLP board? Darkness Shines (talk) 21:08, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

No: at least, as long as it stays reverted - thanks. AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:11, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

P.S. While we are at it the rock group Enter Shikari are also claimed to be TZM supporters - though no source is given whatsoever. This should probably go, too. AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:11, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

Joy of joys

Who'd have guessed it? Tichy is at it again, filling the TZM article with more vacuous puffery... [43]. AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:28, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

Maybe he thinks that adding in all those famous people will rub off on TZM and make them famous also I reverted it as a BLP issue BTW, that source was a joke. Darkness Shines (talk) 17:38, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

The term is sympathetic magic - though essentially TZM's philosophy seems to consist of little else. There website has some interesting documents relating to this: see for instance their TZM Chapters Guide [44]:

A Member

It is important to clarify what is meant by the term “member.” A local chapter member will be someone who has“signed up” to their local community chapter, meaning they have signed up to your chapter website and/or electronic mailing list. If a chapter has 50 or 100 or 250 “members,” these are simply people who have signed up in this way. It is an extremely simple process in which there are no hoops to jump through, and members do not need to pay any “membership fee”. These people are not required to attend meetings, or be available for every chapter call, or even participate in any way if they don't want to. If your goal is maximal involvement then the reality will quickly become very discouraging as many, if not most, “members” will never participate at such a level. However, you can rest assured that this silent majority of the membership does, in fact, advocate for the Movement regardless of how visible their contribution may be. Many do so in their own sphere and interactions, in their conversations, even just in their own minds; and that is an important starting point for the required consciousness-shift.

So essentially, merely thinking about TZM is enough to become an active participant in their 'movement'. Doh...

Then again, I'm not sure that they approve of thinking either. See their Activist Orientation Guide [45]:

Who makes the decisions in a Resource-Based Economy? No one does. Decisions are arrived at by the use of The Scientific Method, utilizing computers that gain real-time feedback from the environment, along with a Central Historical Database of all known technical information, and maintained by evolving Interdisciplinary Teams. This combination could be called the Cybernated Industrial System. This reduces erroneous opinions and subjectivity. We don’t want people in control of government. We want to utilize Scientific Methods for arriving at more appropriate decisions.In the end, the only real issues for society in the natural world are (1) the production of goods and services that are equally available to all, (2) research projects and educational systems to expand our knowledge, understandings and applications, and (3) the constant monitoring of the earth’s resources and atmosphere for feedback and possible environmental problems, enabling us to restore and maintain a pristine environment. Without the wasted energy and resources from going to war and other aspects of the monetary system, we could address true threats to humanity, such as unforeseen variables like tsunamis, earthquakes, illness and disease. The only real problems in life are the problems that are common to all humans.

So come the glorious day when the 'Central Historical Database of all known technical information' (Wikipedia on steroids?) takes over, 'erroneous opinions' will be eliminated. This is seriously scary stuff. Or at least it would be if it wasn't so ridiculous... AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:00, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

And now Tichy-but-tenacious-beyond-belief is back at the edit-warring, I see: [46]. It this point, I think we should simply replace WP:OWN with a page saying "See here" and a link to Tichy's contributions page. For someone who claims to support the abolition of property, he seems remarkably reluctant to let go of any... AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:15, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

(ec)So now I read that and felt my brain implode, by the time I got to the "wiki on steroids"(great name BTW) my eyes were bleeding, these people are nuts. I mean really, do people actually believe this tripe? Whatever happened to commonsense? Darkness Shines (talk) 18:16, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

You have my sympathies. I need to remember that most people aren't as familiar as me with fringe politics, deranged cults, and general social wackiness, and that it can be a shock when first discovered. It is almost possible to live ones life without actually noticing these things at all - though I'd recommend it as an eye-opener. The next best thing to spending six months living among a newly-contacted tribe in the Papua New Guinea highlands if you want to understand just how bizarre belief systems can seem to those that don't hold them. Though of course, our friends in PNG actually have ideas that work (bar the odd over-enthusiastic spear-and-club-fight, and occasional strange disease). People are strange, but not everything that is strange is sensible... AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:32, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

Oh, I wish I wasn't blocked..

...Yep, my own fault. And I can't complain (well, I can, but I shouldn't). I've just seen this thread, [47]querying whether the Ludwig von Mises Institute wiki is infringing on Wikipedia copyrights by reuse without attribution. Naturally, I had to check to see what the institute's own article had to say on the subject: [48]. A nicely-written and concise article - indeed, as nicely-written and concise (in the lede at least) as the Encyclopædia Britannica article which it cites, but fails entirely to indicate that it is quoting directly. Isn't libertarian political theory wonderful? Anyway, I'll have to leave it to someone else to point out the irony here. ;) AndyTheGrump (talk) 04:30, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

I see that User:Pestergaines has now responded, has indicated that attribution to Wikipedia was generally provided and suggested that the particular example linked this "appears to have been forgotten". Interestingly enough, a user of the same name appears to have been a significant 'contributor' the VMI article on copyright. (And yes, I've taken the liberty of contacting the author of the EB 'copyright' article, to ask his opinion as to whether such textual similarities might have an innocent explanation - though that is of course none of Wikipedia's concern). AndyTheGrump (talk) 06:01, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

yes, your fault :P seriously, we need your insights, intelligence, and determination.-- altetendekrabbe  07:12, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

A beer for you!

welcome back mate!  altetendekrabbe  22:48, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

Thanks - though the beer will have to wait. I've just come down with the flu or something, and would probably regret even attempting to hold it down. :( Still, if ever Wikipedia changes it's policy regarding WP:OR, I have gathered some useful data on projectile vomiting. Have to look on the bright side... AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:54, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

at least you vomit rapidly it seems ("projectile vomiting"). when i vomit the shit just oozes out :P get well soon!-- altetendekrabbe  15:39, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

"Human genetic diversity: Lewontin's fallacy" (scientific paper)

Hi, John CD let me know about your comment to him about the move of this article. When I added the db-move, I did not intend to go against the consensus on the talk page, but rather conform to WP:TITLE. If you see at WP:TITLEFORMAT, it says Do not enclose titles in quotes. The quotation marks here signify that it is a published article, and our conventions are clearly not to include the quotation marks. (This was the reasoning for the move last year at [49]). Because the disambiguation is unnecessary, an article at Human genetic diversity: Lewontin's fallacy is clear and unambiguous. However if you think the parenthetical is necessary, the article should be titled at Human genetic diversity: Lewontin's fallacy (scientific paper). Thanks!— Preceding unsigned comment added by Reywas92 (talk • contribs) 00:05, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

Regardless of what WP:TITLEFORMAT says, it was clearly inappropriate to move the article to a name that suggested in Wikipedia's voice that a scientific argument was a fallacy. This has been discussed at length on the article's talk page. Can I suggest you read the discussion, and then make any proposals regarding a move there? For what it's worth, I'd say that WP:NPOV trumps WP:TITLEFORMAT every time. AndyTheGrump (talk) 13:34, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you.

I'm dropping the notice here so you can participate in that discussion as well if you like. Cheers! --Tgeairn (talk) 01:39, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

How about reading WP:NOT3RR before implying that I'm also edit-warring. Ridiculous. AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:41, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

Apologies for being unclear... I left the message here so you would be aware of the thread at ANEW, not to imply that you are edit-warring. I may not agree with your read on this being a BLP violation, but I don't think you are out of line either. I will clarify at ANEW as well. --Tgeairn (talk) 01:46, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

Re your edit of the Elvis Presley article.

Thanks for the help. And yes, I do know that the subject is controversial, hence the reason for the attempt to make the section neutral and unbiased as per Wikipedia rules. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SUNY Boy (talk • contribs) 13:21, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

It is advisable not to accuse others of 'bias' - I suggest you discuss this on the article talk page, as is conventional for disputed content. AndyTheGrump (talk) 13:26, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

?!? Didn't accuse anyone of being biased. Just stated what we already know and keeping things in-line with Wikipedia rules, which states, "...maintain a neutral, unbiased point of view." In any case, I'm still having issues with getting the citations into the article. You seem to be having better luck than I. If I give you the links, would you mind putting them in for me? — Preceding unsigned comment added by SUNY Boy (talk • contribs) 13:31, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

The article didn't write itself - if you are saying it is biased, you are saying that someone has made it so, I'd have thought. As for the references, you should be able to add them now, but I still think that this would be better discussed on the talk page. There is no hurry and it is generally better to arrive at a consensus over such contentious issues before adding material. At minimum I think your edit needs rewording, as it seems to be citing a Wall Street Journal article without giving the proper reference, and you don't actually tell us what Schlussel and Chandler have to say on the issue. AndyTheGrump (talk) 13:44, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

Notice of Dispute resolution discussion

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute in which you may have been involved. Content disputes can hold up article development, therefore we request your participation in the discussion to help find a resolution. The thread is "Monavie article and talk page". Thank you! — Mr. Stradivarius ^{(have a chat)} 12:26, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

Mind your own business

Thought you were a crawling bot but after browsing this talk page I realize you're just a troll. You have no business policing talk pages, and the comparison I made between the accusations against Assange and another Swedish rape/sexual assault case, judged under the same laws a few years ago, has all the relevance it needs.Strausszek (talk) 02:41, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

Your posts violated both WP:BLP and WP:NOTFORUM. If you add it again I will revert it again - and report you for the BLP violation. AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:53, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

@Strausszek, based on your Talk page, you appear to have a history of making personal attacks. Calling someone a "troll" is a personal attack, and if you believe in complying with Wikipedia policy, you should retract it. In addition, I've looked at your post that Andy removed, and both of his bases are correct, but the more important one of the two is WP:BLP. BLP policy applies everywhere on Wikipedia, including on Talk pages. I suggest you be more careful in the future when expressing yourself.--Bbb23 (talk) 03:50, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

Your comparison was a BLP violation and original research with no hope of contributing to the article in question. It was particularly inadvisable considering the big notice on the top of that particular article talk page. The removal of the comment is consistent with wikipedia policies and guidelines. IRWolfie- (talk) 16:52, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

heads up

i just removed this huge coatrack from the heywood, greater manchester-page. the original rochdale gang-page now contains even more misrepresented sources.-- altetendekrabbe  19:43, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, but I seem to be completely incapable of engaging in discussions with the bunch of POV-pushing %$^&*%s that dominate that article without blowing my top - I'll have to stay out of this one. Try raising it again with a neutrally-worded request for input at WP:BLP/N. You could start by mentioning the entirely unnecessary and gratuitous level of detail it goes into concerning specific incidents involving minors. AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:09, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

i know what you mean. thanks for the advice. i'll come back to it when i'm not totally swamped in work. in the meanwhile, the "heywood, greater manchester"-page needs more eyes on it. bringing up the subject there is a blatant violation of wp:coatrack.-- altetendekrabbe  20:18, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

I've watchlisted it. AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:19, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

Star Wars Revisited

The first cited source,[http://meridianstar.com/backstagepass/x681140941/Star-Wars-revisited ] the Meridian Star, appears to be a legitimate newspaper. Here's their About page. Even the second cited source doesn't appear to have the movies available for download on their site. Or if it does, I don't see it. I didn't revert you since I don't see how a fan's edit has anything to do with an article about Lucas's changes. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 20:34, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

Have I boobed? I Thought the links led to a site with bootleg downloads - I'll check into it ASAP. AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:01, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

Humm, I don't know what I did there. Obviously not what I thought I had done. Anyway I've self reverted. If you look hard enough on the second linked site, you can find a link to links to downloads, though whether that is a problem, I'd rather not try to have to figure out. As you say, fan edits don't really belong in the article, but since it is mostly OR/fancruft neither does much of the remainder of the content. If I had the stamina, I'd move it for deletion, or at least stubbify it, but I suspect that taking on Star Wars fans might be more troublesome than it would be worth. AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:22, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

The Zeitgeist Movement

Andy (Personal attack removed) information is provided (e.g. tens of hours of TZM documentary films, tens of hours of TZM-produced lectures, numerous reliable secondary sources [newspaper articles, TV interviews, ...], and comments on the TZM talk page, ...), (Personal attack removed) refusal to learn about TZM, are not motivated by bad faith - he is obviously only motivated by good faith and a desire to help Wikipedia, but he is too emotionally involved, and spends too much effort being clever and witty in seeking the approval and admiration of other editors, instead of taking the considerable time and effort needed to ameliorate his deep ignorance by listening carefully and patiently in order to facilitate deep comprehension and understanding of the subject matter. IjonTichyIjonTichy (talk) 15:32, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

Per Talk:The_Zeitgeist_Movement#.27See_Also.27_section, I expect that jonTichyIjonTichy's behaviour will be raised at WP:ANI shortly - volunteer needed. Meanwhile, bask in the glorious (presumably unintentional) irony - apparently I am "too emotionally involved". AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:00, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

Hello. There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. IRWolfie- (talk) 16:53, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

Thank you, IRWolfie. AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:57, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

Section headings

Andy, Talk page guidelines explicitly say no one owns headings, and encourages new topics to be given new headings even including the words "split off from". Oops, I said spinoff instead. Are you arguing recreationally or do you want to work with an editor who is genuinely trying to think through all the shouting? You should see the appellate briefs I've written.... many different arguments, all seeking the same result. No court can work through all the claims mishmashed together. If you want to see a change happen, its only going to occur because we find consensus, and that won't happen talking about everythingmishmashedtogether. Ronz' argument in this section was not about BLP, so in accord with the talk page guidelines, I gave your new subject a subheading. I inserted mine before yours because (A) we were in edit conflict, and (B) you started talking about an entirely separate subject. It's your choice if you want to help or obstruct mutual efforts for clear thinking. Only one of those choices has a chance of actually resulting in change. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 17:42, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

Firstly, Wikipedia is not a court of law. And secondly, you don't get to decide what is a spinoff. The article is very much within the remit of WP:BLP policy - and labelling people as "opposing the mainstream scientific assessment of global warming" based on our own made-up criteria is a BLP violation. This is actually what the debate over the arbitrary criteria is about. We have no business trying to inventing criteria decide who does and who doesn't 'oppose' something as controversial as this in the first place. The only part of the article beyond the consideration of BLP policy is the 'dead scientists' section - and of course WP:OR covers that too. And cut out the crap about 'clear thinking' - you don't hold a monopoly on that either. AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:00, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

Never said your BLP lacked merit. Just that it was a different argument. I notice in a prior thread you mentioned the idea of writing an essay called "You don't have to be mad to edit Wikipedia, but it helps". Various people have tried that approach on "List of Scientists opposing...." but it didn't change much. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 19:18, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

an/i or rfc-u?

i suggest to start a thread on rfc-u instead. that would be more appropriate. at least, that was the advice given by administrator bwilkins a few months ago regarding the ankh-issue.-- altetendekrabbe  20:13, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

I'm going to raise it at AN/I for now. Shrike is currently attempting to edit a contentious article, and the matter needs prompt attention in my opinion. AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:21, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

armstrong

I understand why you don't like the large quote.

Do you know how to put a box quote? Not for this article but for future use.

Auchansa (talk) 01:56, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

My edit summary read 'ridiculous'. This referred to the content, not its size. AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:59, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

In the spirit of cooperation, can you tell me how to make a box with a quotation. I promise not to use it in the Armstrong article. Auchansa (talk) 02:00, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

I'm not sure - try Template:Quotation. On the whole, long quotations are best avoided though - see WP:LONGQUOTE. AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:06, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for being nice and not a grump. I caution you that some may take it the wrong way with the word "ridiculous" and could start edit warring. However, I assume good faith since you were not a grump after that.

Here is one way to have a quote. The key is { { cquote| .....this is a test

“ Joe A. Editor was awarded the Wikipedia Medal yesterday. In the award ceremony, he said: Wikipedia is great. If you are vain, you can type then see it in print. Don't go overboard, though. ”

Auchansa (talk) 02:09, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

Kudos

'Covert anti mass murderer conspiracy' is the best thing I have seen written here in ages, well done... Dbrodbeck (talk) 16:47, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

Funny

Meowy isn't going to ANI. I wonder why... I mean, he's such a good editor. Anyway, seeing how he's threatening other editors, I'm waiting for him to drop just a bit more rope before calling in more attention. I'll let you know so you can strike through your wonderful instructions to him (because you obviously didn't mean to lose your cool) before doing so, though. Ian.thomson (talk) 20:28, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

Hmmm. Rope, eh? ...Klickety klick... (sound of self-revert) 20:36, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

WP:ANI discussion

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue you are involved with. Thank you. Meowy 20:56, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

• Sorry about my comment. You're right - you're just speaking common sense. I've struck part of my comment at the discussion; at least you care enough to try and counter the madness here. Basalisk ^{inspect damage}⁄_berate 22:32, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

Offer to help

Andy,

To the best of my recollection, we've not interacted. I have thought well of your contributions from afar, however.

Before the current ANI discussion comes to a bad end, would you be interested in /Wikipedia:MENTOR#Voluntary_mentorship? It is just a thought, but I'd be happy to help, if you're interested. I do think Ellen has a good point - it is possible to "tell someone to f off" without using those words.

Wishing you all the best, JoeSperrazza (talk) 23:20, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the offer, but I can't see it helping. I've probably been around too long (2 years, almost to the day), and I think I'm just about burned out anyway. I've said my piece, and I should probably find something less stressful to occupy myself with, like lion-taming or cocaine-smuggling. Wikipedia can go on its merry way without me: its not as if I ever got around to writing an article or anything... AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:03, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

Well, things are likely to chill out soon, so don't be hasty. BTW, you really made me laugh with your comments about finding a less-stressful way to spend time. I recall, earlier in my career of IT outsourcing, I used to say I needed to find a less stressful job, like Bomb disposal. Thanks for making me laugh, and best wishes. JoeSperrazza (talk)

Disappointing

As much as I agree with your sentiments here[50] you ruined in with "puke brains" i mean, what the hell is that? Shit for brains would have been far more suitable. Going to ANI to oppose the talk of you being indeffed. Facts, not fiction (talk) 00:06, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

I don't want to see you indef'ed either but holy hell Andy, surely you possess a thesaurus and can find more creative ways of expressing yourself, or at least know that just before you press "Save page" after typing in "fuck off of an die", well, maybe the better option would be to ping an admin. It isn't that you do wrong things, it is that you do things in the most controversial ways, which means we all get to waste OUR time discussing it at ANI, and it is a waste of talent to see you sitting on the side lines, not able to edit, simply because you won't hold your temper and use a little judgment. Meowy is indeffed, but he would have been had you just brought it to someone's attention and saved all the drama. You're smarter than this, but you have to work on your communication skills and anger threshold or the community will indef you, whether you and I want it or not. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 01:10, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

I can empathise with what tripped Andy into the "fuck off and die" response, but it really, really, was inappropriate. And I say that as an editor not shy about calling another editor a fucking cunt. Malleus Fatuorum 04:16, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

Agree. IRWolfie- (talk) 13:25, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

Andy, as I said on a ANI thread I do think you are a good contributor and that you have a lot to contribute to the project. However I think that your temper and that you resort to language of the sort the thread is about is what is stopping you from being a great contributor. My suggestion on the ANI thread, was just a way of trying to find a way to get you to think twice about what you write before you click the save button. I hope you understand that, and we can get back to working together (relatively) like we were with the talk on Talk:Phallus. Also, about pinging an online admin, you can check who the most recent online admin is (that is, who last blocked, deleted and protected) on the block log, deletion log and protection log Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 14:44, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

I really had hoped for more dialog, but perhaps Andy is busy in the real world. This isn't a problem that is going to just go away and I'm hoping for a non-drastic solution. Are you really that burned out Andy, or was that just an off the cuff remark? Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 22:31, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

I think it's a combination of burnout and personal issues - as to which is the larger problem, I can't really tell right now. I'll try to post some sort of apology on AN/I when I can get my act together - right now I'm not really up to writing anything sensible, but obviously I didn't intend to cause all this drama. And thanks to everyone who has offered support - including the ones who've told me not to be such an %$*&@#. AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:45, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

The ANI is closed, but my biggest concern is helping you avoid issues later on. Whether you need a self imposed break, or whatever, I don't know. You do great work here, I don't want to see it end badly due to "hoof in mouth" disease. I'm not in a hurry, but I want to inject myself here a bit and help find a real long term solution, or support one in any way I can. Ping me. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 23:10, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

Hi andy, sorry about your depression. I hope you get better soon. Pass a Method talk 14:32, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

I think I'm over the worst of it for now at least, thanks. AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:59, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

If thats the case you could get a name change. Pass a Method talk 12:52, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

I know this was a month ago, but it ends up on someone's talk page, and there is no possible way to defend. I won't labor it, you know the score. This is why I keep asking, what do we need to do to "fix" this problem? You are smart enough to know that otherwise, it won't end well. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 13:12, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

"No possible way to defend"? How about a defence of "about as factual as the illiterate utopian technobabble that TZM supporters attempt to fill the article with"? Yes, I shouldn't have done it, but this has all come up before, and if I'm going to be repeatedly 'tried' and 'punished' for the same 'crime' there is no point in trying to defend myself anyway. If you want Wikipedia content determined by POV-pushing sockpuppets who go out of their way to stir things up, fine. Have it your way. Just don't kid yourself that you are improving Wikipedia. The simple facts of the matter regarding the TZM article are that supporters of the movement have used every trick in the book to spin the article their way. You'll note for instance that the latest 'new' supporter for instance, who claims to have only been editing Wikipedia for a couple of months, manages to wilfully misrepresent two sources - neither WP:RS - as eight [51]. And then there was User:IjonTichyIjonTichy, who's usual technique was to drive everyone insane with walls of text, while alternating between claims of a plot by us against TZM and assertions that we were all acting in good faith, and only needed to watch ten hours or so of TZM videos to understand everything. And these are among the more polite and rational of TZM supporters. Within days of getting involved with the article I was being accused of being part of some conspiracy against them. This is how they operate - and it isn't as if I'm the only person who pointed out that the latest TZM-pusher's contributions were against policy either. As for why this came up on "someone's talk page", I think the answer is obvious. I noticed that 'new' user Zgoutreach was apparently using his/her user space for material which didn't seem appropriate, but given the past history between us, thought it better to get a third party to take a look. I'd not thought of the copyvio aspect, and wasn't expecting Elen of the Roads to delete it immediately. My intention was that Elen look at it, and if she thought it was inappropriate, advise Zgoutreach so in time to copy it elsewhere off-Wikipedia. Evidently though, I am to be blamed for Elen's actions, and my attempt to handle the matter tactfully is instead to be portrayed as 'a bias' against someone who I'd (supposedly) never encountered prior to our discussion over the recent TZM issue. Frankly though, this passive-agressive swinging from over-friendly chumminess (see User talk:Zgoutreach#RE. The Zeitgeist Movement) to accusations of conspiracy at the drop of a hat seems all too familiar, and I'm beginning to wonder whether Zgoutreach is in fact a sock of a rather more familiar and verbose 'contributor' - or maybe TZM supporters all get lessons in passive-aggressive paranoia along with 'how to speak technobabble' and 'how to fill Wikipedia up with walls of text that don't belong there'? Either way, Zgoutreach seems to have raised my past misdemeanours on Elen's page in order to divert attention from actually discussing the immediate issue - material that Elen saw as a copyvio, and which even if it wasn't didn't look remotely appropriate as an article. I suggested that Elen looked into it to avoid any suggestion of 'bias', and a fat lot of good that did. AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:03, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

Like I said, I'm not laboring it as I'm sure other already have. I'm just using it as an example. When it comes to the facts of a situation "should this be included or not", "is this neutral or not", I have found your judgement to be right on the money. That isn't the issue, how you deal with the disagreements over the facts is. This is why I'm here, because you have lots and lots of clue on the content side, but you just fly off the handle and it actually hurts your case. I want you to be here, to help, to contribute, to provide your judgement. I'm worried that you won't be because of your reactions to stress here. I'm not ragging you, and hope you understand this. I have tremendous respect for your work or I wouldn't bother explaining. I'm here because I'm trying to figure out if there is some way I can help you not fly off the handle, so you can stay here, spend less time defending your (over)reactions, and more time doing the stuff you are really good at. I'm sure you are as tired of being dragged to ANI as much as everyone is tired of seeing you there. What can we do to fix this? What can I do to help you? Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 20:27, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Original Barnstar
	For your disarming sincerity, Andy [52]. Respect! MistyMorn (talk) 22:51, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

Thank you

Thanks very much for your helpful edit at the article page Donkey puncher, most appreciated! Cheers, — Cirt (talk) 02:10, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

Yeah - it seemed sensible, at least at the time. I'm supposedly not editing at the moment, but happened to notice it, and it looked a bit off. Looking into it further though, I'm not sure I'm right: dictionary.com (not the best source admittedly) defines a 'gyppo (or gypo') logger' as "a logger who operates on a small budget and typically gleans the timberlands already cut by larger companies". [53], and a Google search seems to throw up other links that confirm this. In particular the Society of American Foresters defines 'gypo/gyppo' as amongst other things "an independent logger who runs a small-scale logging operation" [54]. It looks as if the connection to Gypsies/Romani may be tenuous at best (probably just slang for 'itinerant'), and the Wikilink misleading. As for what to do about it (short of creating an article on Gypo loggers, which might prove difficult), I'm not sure. Maybe change the caption to 'A donkey puncher at a small-scale logging operation (1941)'? AndyTheGrump (talk)

I agree with your suggested change. — Cirt (talk) 14:35, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

Actually, I've since edited the article, and gone for simpler phrasing "A donkey puncher at work (1941)". As for what is going on at AN/I in (indirect and stupid) relation to this article, I'd best not comment, beyond saying that I don't give a 'darn' (watching my language here) who is who - we've got an article on men who punched donkeys and why, and Wikipedia is better for it, if only very marginally. AndyTheGrump (talk) 14:45, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

I've redone the photo and tweaked the caption again, for what it's worth. best, —Tim //// Carrite (talk) 18:36, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

Nice work. At this rate, it'll be a featured article by next week ;-) AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:38, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

A barnstar just for you!

	The AndyTheGrump Barnstar
	In recognition of your work defending Wikipedia from POV-pushers, here's your very own Anagram Barnstar. Hope you like it. Bishonen | talk 22:47, 30 August 2012 (UTC).

LOL! :D AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:20, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

And also "Guard Nymphet", "Grand yet hump", "My Purdah Gent", "And Purge Myth"... --Shirt58 (talk) 04:47, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

"Guard Nymphet"? I've not been called that for a long time ;-) AndyTheGrump (talk) 05:04, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

<recursive literary allusion> When I read Nabokov's "Speak, Memory", I was reminded of a passage in Erica Jong's Fear of Flying where one character says "Is this an invitation to a beheading?" and the other replies, "You can stuff your literary allusions up your ass!", which itself has a passing mention in Nabokov's "Speak, Memory". </recursive literary allusion> --Shirt58 (talk) 16:17, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

Resource exchange

Hello.Your request was fulfilled.You can find a link to the article/s you requested in the relevant section at WP:RX.Please indicate when you've downloaded successfully and add a resolved tag to your request.Thank you.--Shrike (talk)/WP:RX 17:12, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

Done. Thanks very much, Shrike. AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:14, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

The Olive Branch: A Dispute Resolution Newsletter (Issue #1)

Welcome to the first edition of The Olive Branch. This will be a place to semi-regularly update editors active in dispute resolution (DR) about some of the most important issues, advances, and challenges in the area. You were delivered this update because you are active in DR, but if you would prefer not to receive any future mailing, just add your name to this page.

Steven Zhang's Fellowship Slideshow

In this issue:

• Background: A brief overview of the DR ecosystem.
• Research: The most recent DR data
• Survey results: Highlights from Steven Zhang's April 2012 survey
• Activity analysis: Where DR happened, broken down by the top DR forums
• DR Noticeboard comparison: How the newest DR forum has progressed between May and August
• Discussion update: Checking up on the Wikiquette Assistance close debate
• Proposal: It's time to close the Geopolitical, ethnic, and religious conflicts noticeboard. Agree or disagree?

Read the entire first edition of The Olive Branch -->

--The Olive Branch 18:47, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

• Dispute Resolution!*!?? Why don't you fuck off and die? A watcher in the wings who says "don't get yourself indeffed, where will I buy my snake oil from?" ;-) CaptainScreebo ^Parley! 17:32, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

G'day

Can I point this out to you? If it interests you, I'd value any thoughts you may have about the project. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 17:43, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

I had the same thought a while back, but felt you had enough going on at the time. —MistyMorn (talk) 19:41, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

I'm not remotely qualified (this will need people with a lot of background knowledge, I think), and I think I'd be rather out of my depth, frankly. Thanks for the suggestion though. AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:18, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

I asked you because of your intelligence, morality and vision. I wasn't looking for any particular expertise. I'd feel more comfortable about that project if I knew you were watching. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 06:55, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

I'm not sure about 'intelligence, morality and vision' - opinions on this seem to be divided. ;) Seriously though, I'm in rather a state of flux at the moment (though the large unfriendly dog [55] that was following me around seems to have backed off a bit for now), and I can't really commit to anything. Maybe I'll look into it later. AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:50, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. And good luck with the dog. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 15:56, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

Yes. Support! —MistyMorn (talk) 17:55, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, AndyTheGrump. You have new messages at WP:AN/I.
Message added 05:17, 8 September 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Calm As Midnight 05:17, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

AN/I

You're at an/i. you're welcome.

User talk:Dennis Brown#Oxycut sockpuppet

You were right on-target about this user.[56] Thanks again for your help. Flyer22 (talk) 22:33, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

I DID PROVIDE EVIDENCE

I included a link in the article but User:IronGargoyle has decided to delete this article even though the discussion was already in progress. I therefore have opened a case on User:IronGargoyle for what I believe to be a breach of Wikipedia rules. --Kijoorete-Bahnhof (talk) 00:44, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

A link to an article isn't in itself evidence that a person meets Wikipedia notability guidelines. You are wasting your time posting such nonsense. AndyTheGrump (talk)

Camelbinky fails to read what I wrote...

You seriously said that a policy "spells out" something stated in the 5P? Are you really in the understanding that policy some how fleshes out the 5P? The 5P is non-binding and does not require policies to spell out anything. The 5P is nothing more than an essay that summarizes what policies already state. Many policies, and all core ones, being long established before the creation of the 5P as a welcome page for newbies.Camelbinky (talk) 00:45, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

And that makes a difference how? The point is that Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not is sufficiently 'core policy' to be summarised in the first of the five pillars - as I said "it is a setting-out in greater detail the principles explained in the first pillar of Wikipedia:Five pillars". Which came first is utterly irrelevant - and I didn't say the pillars came first anyway. AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:00, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

Trout

Whack! You've been whacked with a wet trout. Don't take this too seriously. Someone just wants to let you know you did something silly.

Your just asking for drama.--intelati/talk 00:56, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

Fish for supper again eh? I see Camelbinky hasn't exactly appreciated the one you posted on his/her talkpage. Some people have no sense of humour... [57] AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:03, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

Ugh. Please don't.--intelati/talk 01:07, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

Seems like I hit a nerve[58]--intelati/talk 01:21, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

Additional questions for you

I have asked some additional questions that need short, simple answers at WP:ANI. Thanks. --Jayron32 01:19, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

ANI

Don't get bent out of shape, particularly when most everyone already agrees your actions were in the best of faith. As for who should have brought it to whose talk page, you can hash that out, but getting upset won't help you, but it will hurt you. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 01:47, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

Just to clarify, I also believe you acted out of good faith in everything you did here. My only objection is being dragged to court over an issue like this, without you ever coming to me directly. We could have talked person to person about this, as grownups do, and not have involved the dramaboard for no reason. If we work out our disagreements like adult people do, then we don't have to get our parents to solve our problems for us. Next time, before going to ANI, come to me, and we'll chat it out and come to an agreement between the two of us. ANI's only purpose is to take a disagreement that could have been easily worked out between two people, and turn it into an unresolvable shitstorm. In conclusion: my talk page: we work it out. ANI: worthless shithole where nothing ever gets solved. Next time, just come see me and we'll actually solve the problem. Is that OK? --Jayron32 01:56, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

You are replying to me, but I'm assuming this was meant for Andy. He was asking about HIS actions, he really didn't seem to be calling you out. At least I didn't see it that way. Again, looking back, he probably should have talked with you first, but I personally don't see bad faith in what is going on, even if you think there was some bad judgement. I tend to be on the slightly trigger happy side when it comes to personal harm issues on enwp myself, so perhaps I empathize with acting quickly, even if sloppily. But I just don't see any bad faith by anyone, like I said there, just poor communications. Maybe we can all just admit the communications side of this issue was sloppy, and work on that in the future. But I would rather see us mad at each other now, than have a potentially harm situation get ignored, so this is still the lesser of the two evils. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 02:03, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, I was trying to say that to Andy, not you particularly. I just don't like to be dragged out into public to make an account for my actions, especially when no one ever came to deal with the problem in private. --Jayron32 02:20, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

I've closed the ANI by the way, and about to head off to bed for a few hours, but happy to continue the discussion with you two here, or step out of the way if you prefer. I just don't want to see hard feelings over what I think was an innocent misunderstanding in an unusual situation. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 02:08, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

Thanks Dennis. I believe that Andy and I could work this out here if he's ammenable to do so. I certainly have said all that I need to at ANI, and if there is no action an administrator needs to do in relation to this event, I'm sure you did the right thing. --Jayron32 02:20, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

Jayron32, I hope it is evident that I took it to the 'dramaboard' as much to have my own actions looked at as those of anyone else - and under such circumstances, it isn't appropriate to 'come to an agreement between the two of us'. More to the point, I wonder if there are lessons to be learned here, and that isn't going to happen with private discussions. Like it or not, if you contribute to Wikipedia, you have to work within the system at least to some extent. With hindsight, maybe wasn't the best place to bring it up - though when I did, the discussion on the consequences of drinking formaldahyde etc was still ongoing on Wikipedia talk:Reference desk - which to my mind made it an 'incident' of sorts, still needing urgent admin attention. AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:11, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

Except your actions don't need to be looked at. You acted in good faith, as did I. I understand why you did what you did, but since you went straight to ANI, it seems clear that you didn't understand why I did what I did. Here's my interpretation of the full set of events. Correct me if I have misrepresented anything:

1. Someone posts a wildly inappropriate question on RDS.
2. It gets removed. At this point, everyone is in agreement that it was the correct thing to do.
3. The user goes to WT:RD to ask for an explanation as to why their question was deleted. In asking for that explanation, they quote their original question.
4. You deleted that question, because you saw the part where they quoted their original question.
5. I restored the question because I believe that you missed the part where they asked for an explanation, and explanation they were due.
6. Some people don't provide that explanation and instead proceed to answer the wildly inappropriate question with wildly inappropriate answers
7. You go to ANI and invoke my name, and leave the "you've been taken to ANI to account for your actions" subpoena on my talk page. This is the first I have heard from you about this incident
8. I go to ANI and explain why I restored the request at the time I did (when it hadn't yet received any of the irresponsible answers from other ref desk denizens, check the timing).
9. And here we are.

Did I miss anything? What do you wish to do now? I think we need to hat all of the inappropriate responses, and leave a blanket response of "We're not going to answer questions that we believe will lead you to harm yourself" or perhaps some better wording, because the person who asked still has the right to know why we've deleted their question and refuse to answer it. What think you? --Jayron32 02:20, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

The ANI notice isn't a 'subpoena'. It is what it says it is. A notification that "there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved". As for the rest, my response is simple. Wikipedia isn't a court of law, or a city-state with its own government (elected or otherwise). Nobody has any 'rights' which can either be conferred by Wikipedia, or withdrawn by Wikipedia. I took the decision that the most appropriate action I could take at the time, given what evidence I had at the time, was not to provide a platform for a question that to me (and evidently to others since) seemed to indicate that the questioner might be intending self harm. I didn't know for sure, obviously. I erred on the side of caution, as both Wikipedia:Responding to threats of harm and common sense suggested I should. As for what happened afterwards at Wikipedia talk:Reference desk, that clearly isn't my responsibility. And as I suspected, it soon turned into a debate on the very question that raised concerns in the first place.

Anyway, it seems unlikely that any action is going to be taken against anyone, which suits me fine - my objective in raising the matter (beyond trying to get the ongoing discussion at talk:Reference desk stopped) was to ensure that individuals concerned thought things through a little. I suspect we got off at cross-purposes here from the start in that neither of us understood the motivations for the others actions. As I said at ANI, it was always open to you to ask me why I had deleted the original reference desk question - and had you done this, much of the 'drama' need never have happened. I'm not claiming I did everything right - but given the choice between the minor 'wrong' of acting in a pre-emptive manner which might ruffle a few feathers, and allowing some poor sod to talk himself into glugging formaldehyde, I know where my choices lie. AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:56, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

Glad to see we've worked this out then. I intend to come to you directly as well. Oh, and calling things innocuous names doesn't change their nature. ANI is a kangaroo court and almost everything that goes on there bears that out. It really doesn't work well as a place to hold general discussions of this nature. ANI does work in one, and only one, type of instance: If you want someone blocked or banned or something protected, but need some space to explain exactly why, ANI does a pretty good job of that. Otherwise, it is ill suited for a general "how do we handle these sorts of problems" discussions. Maybe WP:VPM or something like that may be better for a discussion of this nature. Back to the original issue: I should have come to you, you should have come to me, we each meant well, and can't be faulted for that. Next time, I'll be sure to come to you first, please offer me the same courtesy. Thanks for taking the time to work this out here, I found this discussion much more enlightening than anything ANI could have produced. I will work better to not let it get to where it did. --Jayron32 03:03, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

Yeah - with hindsight we probably both got unnecessarily uptight about it all. Sorry if it looked as if I was holding you personally responsible - that wasn't my intention, and I should have realised that naming you in the way I did at ANI wasn't appropriate. As for ANI itself, it clearly needs reform (or revolution), but meanwhile, I'll continue to use it as I think appropriate, it I think things are urgent and important enough to merit it. It isn't perfect, even remotely, but it is what it is, and it has the advantage that it is being watched - for all the feedback I'd got after the initial reply to my e-mail to the foundation (which told me that "we'll take a look"), I'd had nothing to indicate that anyone was paying the slightest bit of attention. AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:18, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

It's all good. --Jayron32 03:20, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

Like Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 13:37, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

Andy, I can't find any proposals to codify your stance, with which I agree, more recent than this one, but there are several over the years in WT:RD archives. However, WT:RD is not the place to change guidelines. Do you want to use this example to try something at WP:VPP? Perhaps with an RFC and WP:CENT? —Cupco 05:34, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

If I may be so bold as to comment on that: such a discussion should not just consider what potentially dangerous information can be provided by RD, but rather by wikipedia as a whole. There's a big difference between potential harm that may arise from being given incorrect information, which is a valid concern with RD, and the risk that correct information can be used to do harm. Ssscienccce (talk) 10:13, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

Phallic architecture

Fella, just take things easy and allow other editors to edit. "Problems" can be sorted later, it is most-offputting to contributors when you keep reverting.♦ Dr. Blofeld 17:52, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

Pardon? Can you cite a policy that states that? Since when do we construct articles by filling them with irrelevances and dubious sources, and then 'sort them out later'? AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:58, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

Just take it easy. We're all volunteers here and most of us would prefer a stress free environment without unnecessary pressure. We're all here for the same reason, remember that. If there are outstanding issues they are likely to be identified in due course before it goes through DYK. Thanks for pointing out the flaws, you are welcome to help improve it. ♦ Dr. Blofeld 21:26, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

"before it goes through DYK"? Why do you presume that it is a candidate for DYK? And regarding 'improving it', as far as I'm aware at least, removing unsuitable material from an article constitutes 'improvement'. AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:29, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

Because I know the articles I've working on which I intend working on with others and nominating for DYK and those which I'll stub and not develop. Good spirited collaboration, you should try it sometime.09:41, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

Please DON'T start an edit war. As I told you the article will get my attention when I am ready to edit it. Any reverts you make will be reverted when I come to edit so quit wasting everybody's time.♦ Dr. Blofeld 15:41, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

If you edit war to include false, misleading and policy-violating material, it is evidently you that are doing the time-wasting. AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:43, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

I normally try to remain calm and civil on here but you are starting to test my patience.♦ Dr. Blofeld 15:39, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

So what? You said you'd "lost interest and motivation", and the article needs fixing. I have explained the problems on the talk page. I see you have removed the template again. I shall replace it, and if it is removed again I shall report the matter - if you think it isn't justified, then explain why the article doesn't need attention on the talk page. AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:43, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

How many people are experts in phallic architecture? Its absurd to even consider adding an expert tag, similar to how it would be on an article on Ice cream making in Easter Island. I'm a member of the architecture project myself and a lot of my GAs are architectural subjects. But placing expert tags pointlessly on articles is not going to bring about an improvement.♦ Dr. Blofeld 15:47, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

Removing them pointlessly certainly isn't going to improve it. The subject clearly isn't just 'architecture' anyway - it is as much about sociology and anthropology for a start. AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:58, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

And since you've reverted again, please see Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:Dr. Blofeld reported by User:AndyTheGrump (Result: ). AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:04, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

Everybody please chill out.

It's like Loki has planted that blue thing here. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 17:23, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

Andy, I'm pretty sure Dr. Blofeld didn't start the article as a joke. Granted, being guys, we all snicker a little inside but the concept is 100% valid, and the concern should be on sources. I completely understand the desire to insure it doesn't degrade into some unsourced and juvenile article on any building remotely penis shaped, but my experience with Dr. Blofeld is that he takes his work pretty serious, even if he has a sense of humor while he does it. Maybe giving him a week to clean up and continue building it might be in order. The doctor doesn't own the article and he likely knows that, but he is the one doing the research and adding most of the content, so I say give him a little rope and see what happens. You have to know that he will put sincere effort into it, and has, to make it pass criteria here, and any concerns can be expressed on the talk page. I don't say this to diminish your concerns, but as a way to hopefully help you channel them in a more constructive way. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 18:12, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

The article topic yes is an amusing one, bizarre probably more so than laughable. But you only have to read the prose of the origins and symbolism sections to see that it is actually a legitimate topic and indeed one which is worthy of an article, but previous editors lacked the bollocks to start it. "All dick and no balls" I once heard Steven Seagal say I think LOL... If such an article is done well, much like Gropecunt Lane or similar articles they make wikipedia a far more interesting and valuable resource. If it was intended purely as a joke, I most certainly wouldn't be looking for scholarly sources in google books would I? I think it becomes more bizarre the more research that goes into it to show that yeah, actually this is a really encyclopedic topic for both architecture and anthropology/sociology in history. As for WP:OWN, I invite other editors to collaborate on this and assist me in my research and writing. ♦ Dr. Blofeld 20:03, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

Hey guys, I know Wikipedia isn't Facebook, but I'm impertinent enough to number both of you among my friends here. Fwiw, I took a quick shufty with GoogleScholar, expecting to see more hits than I did [59]. —MistyMorn (talk) 20:21, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

Yeah - Maunus made the same point on the article talk page earlier - there doesn't seem to be much written directly on the topic. I suspect that this hs much to do with the fact that it may not really be 'a topic' at all, in a scholarly sense. As Maunus suggests, there is a school of psychology which (after Freud) sees phallic symbolism everywhere - but that is a topic in psychology, not architecture. If one is going to write about 'phallic symbology in architecture' one has to decide who's symbols one is writing about - and if one is writing about the symbology of the architects/constructors, one darned well needs to show that it is there, and not merely assume it is, or else make it clear that this is a way of analysing architecture, it isn't 'the truth' . Having said that, there are certainly overt examples of phallic symbolism in e.g. Buddhist or Hindu architecture - but these need to be seen in the wider cultural context, where the symbols have more 'meaning' than mere reproductive organs, or even symbols of potency and power. Indeed, they may not mean that at all. To take an example from the West, the Washington Monument has occasionally been described as 'phallic', but is it? If it self-evidently represents anything, it represents (or rather models almost exactly) an Egyptian obelisk - and modern Egyptologists seem fairly sure that those obelisks were representations of the Sun-god's rays. I'm sure there are good historical explanations (as well as bad conspiracy theories regarding Freemasons) as to why the US chose the obelisk design - but there seems no obvious reason to assume that there was anything intentionally phallic about the choice. This is WP:OR of course - but so is including the Monument in the article in the first place. And so indeed, is assuming that an article about 'phallic architecture' can be written without sources that discuss it in depth as a topic. AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:11, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

There is more than one article to be written regarding the penis and art, architecture, culture and philosophy, that is for sure. Sometimes you have to just start the article and see what you find and what branches off over time, and yes, it needs to be done seriously and accurately, but I have faith it will. And Dr., your wording is more accurate than mine, as usual. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 18:30, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

Actually I found a source supporting both the sun and phallus worship so not OR. Its just about ready for DYK. I've requested a few journal entries which might be of further use. I don't think its far off GA quality now and with a bit of further work should be achievable.♦ Dr. Blofeld 13:22, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

Sir—I was intrigued to learn in your illustrious organ that that the well-endowed Priapus, Greco-Roman god of fertility is "also known as Biggus Diccus [sic]".[60] —MistyMorn (talk) 14:32, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

Indeed, twas where Monty Python got the name from LOL!! I was waiting to see who'd notice! ♦ Dr. Blofeld 16:59, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

Are you saying Python fallically plucked the name from the skyscraper? —MistyMorn (talk) 18:18, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

New contributors Help desk

I was told it exists and I have a couple of questions to ask. Could you please link me to such desk? Thank you. Timothyhere (talk) 20:41, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

You probably want Wikipedia:Teahouse - and welcome to Wikipedia. AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:47, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

Thank you!!! Timothyhere (talk) 20:52, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

Your article request for fair use

https://docs.google.com/open?id=0B86iegI5pG5TTjdYT0ItMlhzWVE

Please let me know when you are done. Churn and change (talk) 16:47, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

Thanks - much appreciated. AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:05, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

Orgastic potency article

Hi, AndyTheGrump. Since you seem to know what counts as fringe and/or undue regarding sexual topics,[61] do you feel that you can help out with the orgastic potency issues I addressed at WP:MED -- Orgastic potency article and its WP:FRINGE health/medical/sexual claims? 199.229.232.42 (talk) 18:49, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

I'd not lay claim to any particular expertise in the topic. I suggest you raise this at the Wikipedia:Fringe theories/Noticeboard - from a brief look at the article, it does seem to be going into excessive detail about an outdated theory that seemingly never had that much acceptance at the time, and adding a 'disclaimer' in the lede doesn't really justify constructing the rest of the article almost exclusively around citations from Wilhelm Reich himself. AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:08, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

Okay. Thanks. I didn't mean to imply that you are an expet on sexual topics. But you do appear to know what counts as fringe and/or undue. I'll take it to the Wikipedia:Fringe theories/Noticeboard. I did suggest at WP:MED that the article be retitled Orgastic potency theory. 199.229.232.42 (talk) 19:18, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

You vandalised the Soledad O'Brien article.

I expected as much from you. Do it again and I will escalate this matter. I used reliable sources, which you predictably derided as "conservative blogs". Bobinisrael (talk) 04:10, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

Escalate as much as you like. The more people that see what you are up to the better. AndyTheGrump (talk) 04:58, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

And for the benefit of any talk-page-watchers, see Soledad O'Brien, Talk:Soledad O'Brien, Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard#Soledad O'Brien, the previous ANI thread [62], User talk:Bobinisrael (where multiple attempts have been made to try to persuade Bob to drop the combative attitude), and of course Bob's whole edit history [63], which documents this one man crusade against a 'leftist bias' which Bob is seemingly so obsessed with that he can hardly string two sentences together without referring to it. I've no doubt that at some time soon, Bob is going to be back at WP:ANI, where he will be blocked per WP:COMPETENCEISREQUIRED, WP:NOTHERE, or just WP:ARIGHTROYALPAININTHENETHERREGIONS. If I wasn't (a) too involved, and (b) about to go to bed, I'd start it myself... AndyTheGrump (talk) 05:14, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

And now the repulsive little turd is accusing me of sockpuppetry [64]. Clearly deranged, given that the sockpuppet in question's second edit [65] was to delete my talk page contributions... AndyTheGrump (talk) 05:25, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

I've reopened the ANI thread (Donfarberman > This ain't over yet). Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 05:35, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

So I see -thanks. AndyTheGrump (talk) 05:39, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

Stay grumpy, my friend. But be of good cheer. 76.248.149.47 (talk) 17:07, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

I don't know what your complaint is about no original research. I have attempt to provide references for everything I'm writing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.59.135.180 (talk) 15:56, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

namesake

User:AndyTheGrunp has been hardblocked today. Just FYI. Secretlondon (talk) 23:59, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

Oh dear - the troll seems upset ;-) The stupid thing is that if he'd tried to argue logically about 'bias', rather than ranting, he might have got some support. There is a fair degree of undue political spin in a lot of articles - and while the 'spinning' goes in both directions, which tends to 'balance' things, we end up with some peculiarly-structured articles, with point and counter-point piled one on top of the other. Hardly the best way to write coherently, as the Soledad O'Brien article that the 'bias-troll' was trying to spin illustrates. A section on the awards she's won, followed by one on the howlers she's made - evidently written by different people entirely, and rather laid on with a shovel in both cases. It would have been hard to argue against trimming some of the praise-trivia while at the same time dismissing the 'oh dear she didn't understand the finer points of (allegedly) Marxist sociological theory' trivia. AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:43, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

Random information

I see now it is not supposed to be hidden in the talk, but... it would be deleted if it was showing up anyway, right? But that kind of comment is not something I would transfer to a talk with someone I barely know. Kind of weird attitude, especially if the arguments of one are directed at the opposite direction of those of yours. Talk is a personal space here, I would find myself ridiculous if I started to make arguments and answers in it in a first contact. Lguipontes (talk) 22:56, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

If you want to have a private conversation, find somewhere else to have it. Article talk pages are for discussing improvements to articles - and a hidden comment clearly can't do that. AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:09, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

This policy sometimes justifies exclusion of minority views, which I agree that shouldn't be present in articles without sources and consensus, but I believe discussion of them should be free. Lguipontes (talk) 23:21, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

What you believe is beside the point. See WP:NOTFORUM. AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:25, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

Are you playing hard to get? Contrary to popular belief, I don't use Wikipedia as a forum. Did you see my userboxes? I have way more controversial/minority views than what I actually sport in my edits and discussions here. Lguipontes (talk) 23:35, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

Elvis' Greatest Shit

You said you wanted a reference. I gave you one. So what's your issue? 7&6=thirteen (☎) 20:46, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

We don't need a reference for 'shit' being an anagram of 'hits'. We need a reference that says that Elvis Greatest Shit was named that way because it is an anagram of Elvis Greatest Hits. If you can't find one, it is original research to suggest that the album was named as it was because of the anagram. AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:51, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

wp:civil Happy editing. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 00:22, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

Oh I do love it when editors trot out wp:civil as though it was some kind of trump card - especially when they've been merrily ignoring WP:MOREIMPORTANTSTUFF (wp:or, wp:rs, wp:synth, wp:npov ...) pablo 13:23, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

If 6+7 thinks that is an example of me not being civil, he clearly isn't familiar with my postings. ;-) AndyTheGrump (talk) 14:40, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

hey there

Hi Andy-

I just wanted to stop by and award you with

		The Special Barnstar
		for having an especially hilarious talk page right now.

24.177.121.137 (talk) 02:29, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. It is probably only my sense of humour that keeps me sane (if indeed I am...), and I do seem to find myself in the absurdest of discussions. I should probably archive most of it though, as it is getting a little over-long - and I might be better of hiding some of the stuff near the top. ;-) AndyTheGrump (talk)

Really? Sorry I missed that one, there was me thinking you were a grump only. Hmm. Phallic architecture will become TFA one day, but not before Mr. Gustafsson of the Department of Phallicology of the University of Reykjavik contributes his expertise to the article..., naturally.... I'd hate to think that the article had missed a big wooly mammoth cock.♦ Dr. Blofeld 12:14, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

Care to explain?

Why this is more of a "canvassing" than the rest of the notes in that list? Tijfo098 (talk) 13:05, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

"Even though it has plenty of sources, some editors said this article is WP:SYNT, and I don't know how to fix that. Please help!" You have pointed out that there is a dispute as to whether the article violates policy, and made clear that you are asking for support for the position that it doesn't. Clearly not a neutral request for help in improving an article, but a direct violation of WP:CANVASS. AndyTheGrump (talk) 13:10, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

Advice? Help?

Hi Andy, you were very helpful in avoiding coatracking on the Golden Domes article and was wondering if you could advise me on an even more egregious example of coatracking by the same editor/creator, on an article called Maharishi Group. I give a succinct, highlighted summary and illustration of the problem on the talk page here. When you have a minute could you glance at it and advise me on h ow I might proceed? Many thanks.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 21:55, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

I'll take a look... AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:12, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. I've posted the entire Toronto Star article on the talk page.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 17:22, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

Um, I don't think you should have done that - it may be a copyright violation to paste the entire article - I suggest you self-revert. Given that the only reference to any "Maharishi Group" involvement is the single sentence "Turner's source hooked her up to the Maharishi Group Venture, a non-profit benevolent society based in India that aids students. Together, Centennial and the society formed a partnership and started marketing a 3-D program designed by Centennial staff", I think it is safe to say that the source cannot possibly be used for any assertion that the entire conglomeration is 'non-profit' - and it can't even be used for the article at all without verification that the "Maharishi Group" it refers to is actually even connected with any other 'Maharishi' organisation - it makes no such assertion. AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:47, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

Galloway edit

Hello, Andy. I'm sorry that I didn't discuss my edit to George Galloway first. I've added a comment on my proposed edit at the end here. Epa101 (talk) 20:51, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

Thanks - I'll respond there. AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:01, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

Just so we are clear

Your behavior wasn't a whole lot better, and I was, and continue to strongly consider blocking you. "Are you actually trying to look stupid, or does it come naturally?" is not something you are justified in saying, nor is it what Wikipedia is here for. Make petty insults on your own server time.--Tznkai (talk) 01:42, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

typo?

I think you meant "Directory" and not "dictionary"? [66] ? -- The Red Pen of Doom 19:48, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

Oops - brain apparently not engaged again. Thanks. AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:31, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

stop policing !! material added is highly relevant

i am really surprised to see this, several years ago we used to motivate one another and celebrate addition of new material here. but maybe the times have changed. Do you not have a brain of your own to see whether the essay to which the link leads, is relevant or not. i can understand if you went there, had a look, and then decided that it was irrelevant. but you did not even do that, simply because the essay is written by someone who is not as famous as Peter Joseph or Madonna or Obama, you decided that it is irrelevant. There was a time when jimmy wales was equally unknown or not so famous :) - in short, you are no more behaving with common sense or employing any degree of judgement, other than that which is ordained by WP policies that are used to regulate problematic content or behaviour. But what i want you to understand is that there is no problem here in the first place; it is you who is simply creating the problem in the first place, rejecting a source, an essay, without even having a look on it, simply because the name of the author is unknown to you. here is the link for others to see whether this is relevant or not:

• Omar, Maysara. The Twilight of Capitalism: On the Future of Revolutionary Socialism and the Zeitgeist Movement, October 2012. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Meeso (talk • contribs) 14:37, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

Since you clearly think that Wikipedia policy is of no relevance to your own attempts at self-promotion, I shall now raise the matter at WP:ANI. AndyTheGrump (talk) 14:40, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

• stop threatening me, do whatever you want and take it to whatever level you want to take! bring all your fellow policemen to crack down on expression as usual .. i don't care. Maysara (talk) 14:48, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

SeeWikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#User:Meeso. AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:01, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

ArbCom appeal

I've appealed the restrictions on that article. Tijfo098 (talk) 19:47, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

Don't call me names, you yeasty tardy-gaited moldwarp!

Please redact your obscenities here, you artless beetle-headed bugbear! —MistyMorn (talk) 09:08, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

LOL! Maybe I should change my name to Andy the surly tardy-gaited scut! AndyTheGrump (talk) 12:38, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

You uncivil bardy-mouthed twit! —MistyMorn (talk) 15:02, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

Reference desk/Science Question

Hi Andy,

I've a message from you on my talk page regarding this edit [67]

I cannot understand what I did wrong. I saw a question which I thought was clearly inappropriate, but which did not break any of the rules at the top of the page - so I asked for advice here [68]; in the meantime gave an answer which I hoped would deter the questioner.

I do not see what in my actions deserves your rather nippy message on my talk page.

Many thanks,

David — Preceding unsigned comment added by Davidprior (talk • contribs) 13:12, 5 October 2012

Hi. I'd not seen the thread on the talk page - but Wikipedia:Responding to threats of harm is fairly clear over this - we don't 'give answers to deter the questioner', we aren't qualified to do so. I've raised the original posting with an admin - see User talk:Moonriddengirl#Ref desk question that needs attention. As for me being 'nippy', I'm sorry if you took it that way, but after a previous incident (see here [69]] section 'Did I do the right thing?']), I think that it is important that those responding on the ref desks understand policy - and it is self-evident that some didn't that time, resulting in a grossly-inappropriate discussion on the effects of self-administered poisons. I'd rather have rudeness on my conscience than responsibility for someone's suicide, and I'm not prepared to take chances. An open thread on a reference desk is an invitation for others to respond, and experience suggests that those that do often don't think about what they are doing... AndyTheGrump (talk) 13:33, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

Hi Andy, thanks for getting back to me.

I felt uncomfortable with the original question, which is why I asked for help on the talk-page - but also felt uncomfortable (until someone who knew more about the agreed way of dealing with such things got back to me) leaving the Q unanswered or deleting it, as I felt that could have bad effects too.

I was over-sensitive as to your tone, wrongly assuming that this was your response to my request for help on the talk-page. Sorry about this.

Finally, should there be something in the RD guidelines re this - similar to what is there regarding medical advice? This would mean it was clear on the RD page itself without having to hunt through every one of our many policies, guidelines, etc.

Cheers, davidprior ^t/_c 13:51, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

Ah thanks - evidently a breakdown in communication. As for putting something in the RD guidelines, I'm not sure that it would be advisable - it would probably give the trolls ideas, and in any case, Wikipedia:Responding to threats of harm applies everywhere, not just on the ref desks. What is probably needed is a more general awareness of the appropriate response to such situations, though what can be done to bring this about, I'm not sure. AndyTheGrump (talk) 14:02, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

Silly question

Are you named AndyTheGrump because you're grumpy or because you were having difficulty coming up with a name and thought, "that'll do." ;) --Jonty Monty (talk) 20:13, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

Good question. From what I recall, I was thinking of calling myself something cocky, like 'AndyWhoKnowsStuff', but decided to be more honest as my character would surely become evident soon enough anyway. It has the advantage of deflecting insults too (sometimes), as 'stop being so grumpy' becomes the default response. I'm wondering about maybe changing it to a loose Spanish translation I was offered once after engaging in a bit of Argentine-bothering: Andrés el cascarrabia Inglés [70] ;-) AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:30, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

lol. Can't say I've ever tried Argentine-bothering. AndyWhoKnowsAlmostEverthing could have been an option though that may have put you under a little too much pressure. :) Hey, you have a catchy name anyway so no need to change it. --Jonty Monty (talk) 20:46, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

Brontolone! Rompicoglione inglese, che non sei altro! Inglesaccio di merda! Actually, I could provide you with quite a chocolate box selection in Italian too, as a few of the more affectionate ones have somehow stuck in my ears. —MistyMorn (talk) 20:54, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

Incivility

Re your use of "piss off" at [71], I find this offensive, and would like you apologise. I would also like you to stop reverting my edits on Urolagnia because of WP:IDONTLIKEIT. The Oxford English Dictionary is a reliable source. Thanks!87.194.46.83 (talk) 02:09, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

Firstly, if you don't like rude edit summaries, don't give misleading ones. [72] Secondly, I never said that the OED wasn't a reliable source. And thirdly, the article is on a paraphilia, and it is going to say so clearly. If you want to promote it, go somewhere else. This is an encyclopaedia, not a watersports forum. AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:23, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

when you butt in

like you just did on the lang ref desk [73], the accepted practice is at least to double indent. Maybe you did'nt do so this time inadvertently? Thanks. μηδείς (talk) 02:54, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

Maybe I didn't, surely? ;-) But you are correct - it was inadvertent. Apologies. AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:10, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Hey, you "Sarf facking London" type, you. Learn the facking International Phonetic Alphabet before you butt in again at Wikipedia:Reference desk/Language. We facking language ... Ahem. Probably best if I just stick to adding "binomial authorities" to articles about pretty butterflies at this time.--Shirt58 (talk) 11:47, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

Yeah - I should probably learn IPA, though at the moment anything complicated tends not to remain in the noggin for long unless used regularly. And nice use of 'buskins' at the ref desk - I never knew that the ancient Greeks had tragic boots... AndyTheGrump (talk) 12:07, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

When I saw The Lord of the Rings: The Return of the King, the scene where Frodo et al came back to the Shire seemed somehow very familiar to me, but I just couldn't work out why. Then I realised. Returning from adventures in the big wide world to a place populated by conservative, somewhat naive, but fundamentally good-hearted people with bad haircuts: it was just like going back to Tasmania. --Shirt58 (talk) 13:49, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

Are there many pipe smoking small people with overly large feet in Tasmania? Jonty Monty (talk) 13:57, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

Fackitty facking fack, Jonty Monty, the last time I went "home" to Hobart, all the pipe smoking small people with overly large feet in Tasmania had re-located to New Zealand as cast and crew of The Hobart. The whole island is pretty much deserted now.--Shirt58 (talk) 14:30, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

This thread is so far off-topic it has moved to the antipodes :D AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:10, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

It snows in Hobart about once every five years. Last time when I lived there and it snowed, I was in the facking University Library writing a facking essay about facking Shakespeare's "The Taming of the Shrew". Being able to see the Aurora australis is much less frequent. When I was about ten years old, on a freezing cold midwinter night my whole family sat on out on the roof watching the green lights over Antarctica dip and change. --Shirt58 (talk) 15:41, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

"Shakespeare's" "The Taming of the Shrew"? Lies, vile and contemptible lies... [74] ;-) AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:39, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

Grumpers: this is strictly between you and me, but sometimes when I'm trying to make myself look clever and erudite and stuff like that by quoting Shakespeare, I secretly use the search at this website, hosted by The Other Place. Shhh, don't tell anyone else I told you about this.--Shirt58 (talk) 10:41, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

Hej!

Thanks for noticing my edits. Actually I didn't notice that you had reverted them, I thought I hadn't saved it properly and I'm not eager to start an edit war. I know immigration and ethnicity is a sensitive issue. However, I think it should be included in the article but hopefully in a much better form than the present one. Feel free to discuss it on the article's talk page. Cheers! Aaker (talk) 15:51, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

Ah - sorry for the misunderstanding. I'll strike my remarks on the talk page. AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:59, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

Good one

... this. Cheers - DVdm (talk) 16:03, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

Good book, too... AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:07, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I have it right in front of me. I have read it, too long a time ago and I didnt recall that part. Going to do a re-read one of these days, so it's sitting on top of the stack :-) - DVdm (talk) 16:19, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Barnstar of Diplomacy
	Hello, thanks for answering in your white people article. I didn't saw Spain on the list and I tought you were the typical american that thinks Spain is a South American country and that their people are brown or mestizo. I'm sorry! Achone (talk) 21:53, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. I'll maybe take a look and see if I can make it clearer that the list only includes some countries. It is perhaps a bit misleading as it stands. AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:10, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

Mediation

Could you please comment on this on the MKuCR talk page.
Thank you in advance. --Paul Siebert (talk) 20:11, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

Oh joy - mediation on the most contentious article on Wikipedia. Do I want to join in the fun? Or would I rather wrestle alligators blindfold? A difficult choice. I'll think on it... AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:20, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) There are only two currently extant species of alligators, Alligator mississippiensis and Alligator sinensis. Hope this helps. Hope this isn't more than useless.--Shirt58 (talk) 12:59, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

Hmmm. Difficult choice seeing as one is fully armoured and the other much larger. Why don't you try wrestling a Felis silvestris catus instead Andy. I did once and although it was really tough and at times horrendous once I had it in an armlock it soon gave up its tremendous struggle. Jonty Monty (talk) 14:45, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

October 2012

Your recent editing history at Neil Armstrong shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.

To avoid being blocked, instead of reverting please consider using the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. See BRD for how this is done. You can post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection. --Aditya Saxena (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 15:07, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

Do you really think your ridiculous heap of coatracking shite is going to stay in the article? And cut out the bollocks about discussing on the talk page - I asked for this from the start. Incidentally, I see that your editing pattern closely matches that of User:Gregorykarn. Are you by any chance related? AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:14, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

Thanks but I hope that your call was answered. It was not a "Coatracking Shite" as has been accepted by many other editors. Kindly refrain from personal attacks. --Gregorykarn (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 22:23, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

It was when you wrote it. By the way, I take it you've seen Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Adityasaxena.corp? AndyTheGrump (talk)

And for the benefit of those watching - both accounts blocked for sock/meatpuppetry and edit-warring. Too obvious... AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:13, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

Mass killings under Communist regimes

I'm not criticising or supporting any content that's currently in the article; I'm simply objecting to the confusing wording. If you be correct in saying "It isn't supposed to make sense. It is supposed to tell you how to think", it does a bad job of telling me how to think, since I can't understand what it's trying to say about Mao. Nyttend (talk) 04:35, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

I'm of the opinion that the confusing wording is intentional - or at least a consequence of the intent of some contributors to discourage people actually thinking about what the article is claiming. There is nothing in the structure of that article that can't be understood by reading the works of George Orwell... AndyTheGrump (talk) 04:45, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

The sources provided are by polemical writers who want to draw a connection between Stalin and Mao. Since the connection is not clear, the sources are not either. See Correlation does not imply causation. We have yet to see a peer reviewed article or a book originally published by an academic source that draws that conclusion. TFD (talk) 05:19, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

Personally, I'm of the opinion that the connection between Stalin and Mao is clear enough - but that is beside the point. The article is presenting a fringe view as mainstream. To all intents and purposes, it is propaganda. AndyTheGrump (talk) 13:56, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

I should have said that the connection between mass killings in Stalin's Soviet Union and Mao's China is not clear in the sources. As Golsan and others explained, the objective of these writers is to prove that the Communists killed 100 million people. TFD (talk) 18:01, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

ARS RFC

I am (slowly) preparing an RfC on the ARS here: User:IRWolfie-/ARS_RFC_Prep. I notice that you seem to share a number of the concerns that several editors have about the ARS being used for canvassing etc. If you have any evidence you'd like me to work on, you can dump diffs on the page, and I'll go through them. IRWolfie- (talk) 13:23, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

Well, we can start with the current nonsense about ARS helping to 'rescue' a template by um, er, debugging the source code (because Warden thinks that as it is 'just Wiki markup', anyone can do it...). And then there is the attempt to extend the remit to deletion reviews, as discussed at Wikipedia talk:Article Rescue Squadron#Linking Deletion reviews on the Rescue list. I'll take a look at your page, and see what I can do. AndyTheGrump (talk) 13:33, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

Personally I think just reading ARS responses at Wikipedia_talk:Article_Rescue_Squadron is a damning indictment. IRWolfie- (talk) 13:48, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

Yup. Usually on the lines of "I don't have a clue about this, so it must be important" - hence the overwhelming consensus that there are so many important articles being discussed there. ;-) AndyTheGrump (talk) 13:53, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

RE: Tom Hatton no redirect

Hi Andy Thanks for your reply to my question. I realize that you have no control over google. The issue is that because the page is redirecting to 'Thomas Hatton', google is not picking up the Tom Hatton that people are looking for. Can we separate the Tom Hatton's from the Thomas Hatton's so that when the page redirects, it redirects to the Tom Hatton's? Thanks for your time with this? Will Hattock79 (talk) 16:30, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

There are two 'Tom Hatton' articles on Wikipedia - the link to a disambiguation page is necessary. Frankly though, looking at the Tom Hatton (actor) article, I'm unconvinced that he meets the Wikipedia:Notability (people) guidelines (specifically WP:NACTOR), and as such the article is liable to be deleted anyway. Incidentally, I see that you created the article, and you give the impression that you are somehow representing Hatton - are you familiar with the Wikipedia:Conflict of interest policy? AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:38, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

ANI

Hello. There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.

Thanks...Nothing Personal and Nothing permanent. (talk) 18:27, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

Civility

It is never easy to argue with someone that appears to know absolutely nothing about what they are talking about - "I have no interest in discussing ethics with an (blanked)." Which appeared recently in a discussion. Everyone here is contrary to what it appears, doing the best we can with the limited faculty we have - some have an IQ of 50, some an IQ of 150 - and all are welcome - see User:Apteva/sandbox. So when things get heated, the rule in consensus building is always to address the topic, not the person, and especially to treat each person with the utmost dignity. The UK house of commons (or Lords) is so constructed such that the benches are too far apart to stick someone with a sword who was arguing against something. In the US house, there was a serious fight, perhaps even worse, and they decided to back off and call each other "the distinguished" even though what they meant was the most vile epitaph they could think of. So dealing with incivility is not a new issue, but an important one. Apteva (talk) 18:52, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

Sky AfD

For your information, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of channels on Sky has been modified to include an expanded list of directly related articles. I'm just letting you know that this has happened so you may add or amend your comments in response. Many thanks, doktorb _words^deeds 03:40, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

Heteroflexibility article

Hey, Andy. I know that you specialize in WP:BLP. I'm bringing this topic to you because it appears that the section in this article about people is a huge WP:BLP violation. I know that per WP:BLPCAT, people shouldn't be listed under a sexual orientation/sexual identity unless they identify as that sexual orientation/sexual identity. So I'm certain that the same applies in this case. Flyer22 (talk) 17:26, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

Channel lineups AFD

Hello, Andy. I am contacting you because you recently left a comment at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of channels on Sky. I have just created another AfD, which also looks at articles with lists of channels. If you are interested, you can leave a comment at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/3rd bundle of channel lineups. Thanks. -- Wikipedical (talk) 03:10, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

Question moved, not deleted

I moved a question to the science RD, deleting it from the H/RD. There was a good reason for it. Now we have two similar questions. OsmanRF34 (talk) 22:01, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

If you move something without leaving a link, how is the person who asked the question supposed to know where to find the answer? AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:08, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

Ayurveda and doṣa

hi, i made the same mistake but the term is defined on the Approach paragraph (without citation "indeed") — MIRROR (talk) 23:17, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

John Peel

Restored Paul Gambaccini quote with reference. removed extra reference. Decora (talk) 00:32, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

im not linking him with Savile, im quoting Gambaccini, who worked right nextdoor to Peel for several, several years. i will repaste with paraphrase to prevent copyvio Decora (talk) 00:40, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

The link to YouTube is inappropriate, as whoever posted is almost certainly violating the BBC's copyright. It isn't a question of 'paraphrasing' anything - we can't link to it, full stop. As for the link to the BBC website, can you clarify exactly which excerpt we are supposed to be citing, and what Gambaccini specifically says about Peel? The link seems to be to 180 minutes of broadcast... AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:50, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

essay emended

I emended the essay to remove any cavil that it is "personal". I would point out the history of some editors at MfD regarding my essays in the past <g> and hope you will emend your !vote. Cheers. Collect (talk) 19:53, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

Request for retraction

Andy, I'm coming here in friendship to ask you to retract a false allegation that you made at WP:BLPN and to ask you to be more supportive of me in my campaign to strengthen our standards for BLPs. Current policy and normal practice fully supports protection in a case like the one under consideration. I explicitly did NOT ask for special treatment and indeed went out of my way to avoid any possible implication of special treatment. The best thing for us to do is to indefinitely semi-protect this biography and ALL OTHERS of a similar case. Rather than falsely attacking me, you seem like the kind of person who should be helping me get the message out on this.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 17:44, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

I'm sorry if you read it that way - I should probably have phrased it differently, and I'll look into making it clearer that I wasn't trying to imply that you were doing anything improper. I stand by my point however that this case isn't particularly unusual, and that neither policy nor current practice would seem to justify making an exception - hence my suggestion that we need to look at changing policy and/or practice, and that you are better placed than most to start such a discussion. AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:14, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

Re. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Element 115 in popular culture

Could I ask you to rephrase your comments regarding the relisting of this article? You write that this was done "to give the opportunity to develop a consensus on what the merge target should be" - yet I have already argued that since the material in the article as it stands merely replicates that in the Bob Lazar article, there is nothing to merge. I may be wrong about this - but it shouldn't be asserted as fact that there must be a merge target for the material, unless and until such a decision is arrived at. AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:10, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

A closer will close a discussion based upon the consensus of the discussion, not because the relister noted something which did not have consensus in the discussion at the time of the relisting. So no worries, I should think. - jc37 23:43, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

Bullocks with and without bollocks

A total load of bullocks, Walcha, New South Wales

Had to smile at the edit summary you left when editing the bollocks complaint at ANI. It all depends where you live. Moriori (talk) 05:38, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

Yup - one of the curiosities of the English Language. It gets stranger though. In Brit Eng, to say that something is "bollocks" is generally negative - but to say that something is "the dog's bollocks" is a compliment (if not one you'd necessarily use in the presence of your mother...) [75]. AndyTheGrump (talk) 06:35, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) See also: "Bullocky" --Shirt58 (talk) 09:09, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

Wikileaks Credibility Questioned section

Hi, I would like to know why the Wikileaks Credibility Questioned section has been removed, being all the footnotes with the articles been reported in the section. The editor (eddy the grump) wrote "Highly dubious sources". Could you please explain why the sources are dubious if there are published articles (by Atlantic Free Press (Nederland), Diario El Peso(Argentina) American Chronicle (USA) which to be credible just have to report "the question of the credibility"? In addition the articles I cited in the Wikileaks Credibility Questioned have been adopted by the last International Communication AssociationConference that was held in Phoenix last May 24. The Conference material is available On-line on the ICA website and on www.academia.edu. Here's the paper presented at the ICA, the article by Gianluca D'Agostino is cited at page 8 and it's the starting point for the paper thesis about Wikileaks credibility: http://www.academia.edu/1477222/A_Theoretical_Model_for_the_Wikileaks_Phenomenon. http://www.icavirtual.com/2012/04/22/conference-paper-a-theoretical-model-for-the-wikileaks-phenomenon/ Besides all the articles are by Gianluca D'Agostino who used to be a CNN and Associated Press journalist, so the sources cannot be dubious under any circumstance. Please restore the section or put it under Media Response. Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Behindthewall (talk • contribs) 17:20, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

Please discuss this on the article talk page, as I requested. AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:52, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

let's be cryptic

My talkpage is not a cafeteria and your time is too valuable to be serving food. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 05:27, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

Yup - you're probably right. Sometimes a little bait makes identification a little easier, but it runs the risk of attracting them... AndyTheGrump (talk) 05:33, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

Palestinian incitement

I rolled back your edit. Not liking an article is not grounds for simply clearing it out. §FreeRangeFrog 20:26, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

Firstly, read WP:VANDAL - your edit summary is entirely misleading, if not a personal attack. Secondly, removal of gross violations of WP:NPOV policy is not only valid grounds for removal, but your restoration of the material is itself a further violation. This is an encyclopaedia, not a shithouse wall, and bigoted propaganda has no place here. AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:31, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

The only situation where a complete blank of an established article with multiple revisions by multiple authors is warranted is a BLP, or an attack page (in which case you could just do a CSD#G10) or a gross copyvio. In this case, you failed to abide by WP:SUBSTANTIATE. I would also recommend reading Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/FAQ#Balancing different views. As for the WP:VANDAL, you failed to follow established procedure and you blanked a page in bad faith, unilaterally and without following guidelines because you don't like it. Any editor can tell you that was wrong, and that instead of doing that you could have done this and avoided disruption and possibly risk a block or a ban. Or heck, taken it directly to WP:DRN. I suggest you actually familiarize yourself with the policies before quoting them. As for the article itself, yes, I foresee that's going to be a biggie, and I didn't think too highly of it either (I actually found it a few days ago during NPP), but that's not an excuse for stepping on other people's toes. §FreeRangeFrog 21:11, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

If you read it a few days ago and failed to deal with it, you are in no position to deliver lectures. Shit like that doesn't belong in Wikipedia. AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:59, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

I've raised the issue of this article at WP:AN. That said, Andy, FreeRangeFrog is right. You had no business blanking the article, no matter how bad you think it is. Also, I might add that you and other editors are blithely ignoring the WP:1RR restriction on the article. I'm not taking any action at this point, but any admin, including me, may do so, and without warning.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:17, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

I agree blanking the whole article is not acceptable like was pointed before you also probably broke 1RR hence I am notifying you or the sanctions in the area.

File:Yes

The Arbitration Committee has permitted administrators to impose discretionary sanctions (information on which is at Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions) on any editor who is active on pages broadly related to the Arab-Israeli conflict. Discretionary sanctions can be used against an editor who repeatedly or seriously fails to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, satisfy any standard of behavior, or follow any normal editorial process. If you continue to misconduct yourself on pages relating to this topic, you may be placed under sanctions, which can include blocks, a revert limitation, or an article ban. The Committee's full decision can be read at the "Final decision" section of the decision page.

Please familiarise yourself with the information page at Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions, with the appropriate sections of Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Procedures, and with the case decision page before making any further edits to the pages in question. This notice will be logged on the case decision, pursuant to the conditions of the Arbitration Committee's discretionary sanctions system.

--Shrike (talk)/WP:RX 09:13, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

The revert incorrectly marked it as vandalism, and no actual reason was given for the revert beyond "Don't do that". The content is clearly problematic. An easier solution would have been to change the blanking to a redirect. Editors bare responsibility for the content they choose to restore to articles (WP:BURDEN]). IRWolfie- (talk) 13:01, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

re: cargo cult edit

Perhaps I should have been more specific in my addition of a "Popular culture" section.

In Episode 2.11 of the Jeremiah TV series, the main character is drugged and awakes in a house where everything appears as it was before the Big Death. A woman imprisoned with Jeremiah in the house explains the origins of a "cargo cult," which is what is behind the circumstances Jeremiah finds himself in.

This and other episodes are available for free viewing at The Internet Movie Database. This addition is no more trivial than any other "Popular culture" entry and I linked it to the source (the TV series). — Preceding unsigned comment added by RtLi1975 (talk • contribs) 15:00, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

The correct place to discuss this is the article talk page - but see Wikipedia:"In popular culture" content: "passing mentions in books, television or film dialogue, or song lyrics should be included only when that mention's significance is itself demonstrated with secondary sources". The TV program itself isn't a secondary source. AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:27, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

His name isn't Jovi

You replied to a help desk question and called Jon Bon Jovi "Jovi". That's not his last name.— Vchimpanzee · talk · contributions · 19:53, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

True. Not particularly significant in the great scheme of things, but true... AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:33, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

Israeli Declaration of Independence

You were part of the discussion on Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard: Greater Israel: New South Wales Jewish Board of Deputies. You might like to comment on Talk:Israeli Declaration of Independence: Context and content.

I quote in the latter a comment of NMMNG made in the former. Trahelliven (talk) 22:13, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

I've replied, though I'd already made my views clear at WP:RSN. AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:31, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

Vacuous blather

I protest against your telling me that my contribution to the talk on Edward de Vere was 'vacuous blather'. This is no polite way how to speak to another person. I demand your apology. --Zbrnajsem (talk) 09:49, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

'Demand' what you like - article talk pages aren't a forum for vacuous blather. AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:45, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

My contributions were about serious questions and justified points. Your contributions to this talk were only counterproductive. You only tried to get rid of me, to deprive me of my right to pose questions and to contribute for a better quality of the article. --Zbrnajsem (talk) 18:37, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

Please don't repeat your vacuous blather here. AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:42, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

Information

I noticed your username commenting at an Arbcom discussion regarding civility. An effort is underway that would likely benifit if your views were included. I hope you will append regards at: Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Civility enforcement/Questionnaire Thank you for considering this request. My76Strat (talk) 11:45, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

I have already made my opinion of the questionnaire clear - it is badly conceived, and will serve no useful purpose. AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:48, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

I understand. I apologize for missing your comment, and messaging you on a matter that you had already decided. I appreciate the kind manner you chose to express your disdain. I feel your input will be missed, but I respect your decision. Sincerely, My76Strat (talk) 17:03, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

Reply

Marokwitz's constructive suggestion is the best chance to address the NPOV issue, imho, so let's see if it sticks. Thank you for suggesting both top and bottom notifications, this makes sense. Stay well, Andy. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 21:57, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, but no - you don't get to decide for yourself what is the 'best chance', and this unilateral 'move' to another subject can only disrupt the AfD. Again, I ask you to revert to the name under which the article was being discussed, and establish consensus. See also my comments in the AfD discussion. AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:08, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

Notification

Hello. There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. I have replied there. --Zbrnajsem (talk) 18:20, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

There is no need whatsoever to notify me of an ANI discussion which I initiated. AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:24, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

Maybe they think you forgot, or maybe they're thinking about some other discussion; after all, you're a popular guy. :-) --Bbb23 (talk) 19:54, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

LOL! I'm not sure that 'popular' is necessarily the consensus view... AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:59, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

Category:Descendants of Rabbi Meir Katzenellenbogen

Please revert the deletions you made to the articles categorized as descendants of Rabbi Meir Katzenellenbogen. I trust you agree the NYT feature image tells the story pretty instantly. Thank you. MerlinsMagic (talk) 07:16, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

Another review from New York Magazine: Dan Rottenberg, “Finding our Fathers,” New York Magazine, May 2, 1977.

Andy, before saying things like I'm "citing no source whatsoever," please see cited sources. Here's a list including the book, NYTimes, New York Magazine, and a respected genealogist. Is there something else you're looking for? It's hard for me to understand why you make such harsh statements without knowing what you're talking about in this case. I so much appreciate everyone who works hard to contribute to Wikipedia. I don't think it's good to chase away new contributors by putting statements out there that are inaccurate. Unless that's the goal. MerlinsMagic (talk) 07:40, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

• Neil Rosenstein The Unbroken Chain: Biographical Sketches and Genealogy of Illustrious Jewish Families from the 15th-20th Century Volume 1 & 2:C.I.S. Publishers, The Computer Center for Jewish Genealogy, Elizabeth, NJ, 1990. ISBN 0-9610578-4-X.
• Israel Shenker, "Now, Jewish Roots," The New York Times Magazine. [76]
• Bill Gladstone, "Unbroken Chain Links Diverse Rabbis, Celebrities," Best of Bill Gladstone, October 25, 2011. Retrieved December 1, 2012.[77]
• Dan Rottenberg, “Finding our Fathers,” New York Magazine, May 2, 1977.

Andy, based on your helpful guidance, I've reviewed the WP discussions, guidelines and further researched the primary source material (Rosenstein's "The Unbroken Chain." I've included the key information at Talk:List_of_Notable_Descendants_of_Meir_Katzenellenbogen. I'd appreciate you having a look at it and letting me know if you have further guidance or helpful suggestions. Thank you. MerlinsMagic (talk) 19:58, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

Thanks - I'll take a look later when I get the chance. AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:36, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

East Germany

Article 1 of the 1978 East German constitution states "Sie ist die politische Organisation der Werktätigen in Stadt und Land unter der Führung der Arbeiterklasse und ihrer marxistisch-leninistischen Partei." The state was governed by the marxist-leninist party.. Before attacking me, read, and stop acting like a jackass. --TIAYN (talk) 18:26, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

I'm not interested in your bullshit - the DDR was never formally a one-party state, regardless of how one interprets the realpolitik. Infoboxes are for uncontroversial statements of fact, and must not be used otherwise. If you persist in adding demonstrably-invalid material to the infobox, I will raise the matter elsewhere. AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:37, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

The constitution of the DDR says it was a one-party state, you can't oppose the constitution.. Its a legally-binding document.. I'm not the one bullshitting, you are. --TIAYN (talk) 18:59, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

See you at WP:ANI - you are adding unsourced material to an infobox, based on your own synthesis, and in flat contradiction to the article content. This violates policy. AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:03, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

It would seem to be a de facto rather than de jure single-party state. It is confusing to described the GDR as a aingle-party state, without explanation, when it had 5 parties, four of which were not Marxist-Leninist. The constitution merely states that the SED would be the leading party, not the only one. TFD (talk) 19:06, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

I'm not sure that the 'facto' was quite that clear - especially given the obvious suggestion that some of the power at least may have lain further east, in another place entirely. This is really the point though - it certainly can't be stated as an unequivocal fact that the DDR was a single-party state. Anyway, since Trust Is All You Need seems to think that policy can be overridden by opinion, I've taken this to ANI (though they may be getting sick of the sight of me there - maybe I should try to find something non-controversial to involve myself in instead...) AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:27, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

Notification of user conduct discussion

You may wish to comment on a user conduct discussion regarding Paul Bedson, which can be found here. If you comment there you may wish to review the rules for user conduct comments first. You are receiving this notification because you commented at one of the articles or AfDs that are cited in the discussion. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 23:04, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Article Rescue Squadron/Rescue list (2nd nomination)

You are getting this alert because you participated in Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Article Rescue Squadron/Rescue list

Wikipedia:Miscellany_for_deletion/Wikipedia:Article_Rescue_Squadron/Rescue_list_(2nd_nomination) is now up for deletion.

Per Wikipedia:Canvassing:

An editor who may wish to draw a wider range of informed, but uninvolved, editors to a discussion might place a message at one of the following:

...On the talk pages of concerned editors. Examples include editors who have participated in previous discussions on the same topic (or closely related topics...The audience must not be selected on the basis of their opinions—for example, if notices are sent to editors who previously supported deleting an article, then identical notices should be sent to those who supported keeping it. (emphasis my own).

Thank you. Spoildead (talk) 20:00, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

Broadcasted

I don't think I've ever edited the article on Grand Duchess Anastasia Nikolaevna of Russia and I'm not sure why it's on my watchlist, but your edit summary ending "...and why would anyone think that 'broadcasted' was a word - get a dictionary, please" caught my eye.

The Oxford English Dictionary gives the past participle of the verb "to broadcast" as "broadcast, occasionally broadcasted", though admitting that the latter is "now rare": both examples of usage are from the 1920s and the Glasgow Herald. Online link here if you've access.

My (revised 3rd edition, 2004) copy of Fowler's Modern English Usage has this to say, at pages 117-118:

broadcast (verb). For a short time in the 1920s it was not clear whether the past forms of the verb broadcast (in its airwaves sense) were to be broadcasted or broadcast. Learned arguments were displayed in a tract for the Society of Pure English (1924) and elsewhere, bearing on the apprehension of broadcast as a compound of cast, and comparing and contrasting the past forms of e.g. forecast and roughcast. In the event the shorter form broadcast has prevailed almost everywhere, though broadcasted, which is encountered occasionally, cannot be said to be incorrect.

Opera hat (talk) 00:46, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

Fair enough - it is a (rare) word, I was incorrect. I cannot however see why anyone would ever replace the common term with the rare one, which is what had been done. AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:50, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

That's all I wanted you to say. And I can't see why, either. Opera hat (talk) 01:08, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

Suggestion

Andy, please don't say stuff like this. While "idiotic talk page comment of the day" is quite arguably an accurate characterization, it is unwise. There are too many scammers, bullshit merchants, and self-righteous jerks around here who are just dying to get people blocked on whatever pretext. Deny them the pleasure. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 04:35, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

It was a comment on the edit, not the editor ;-) If they start blocking people for stating the obvious when being faced with self-evident BS from bleach-glugging-promotors, I'd rather leave anyway. AndyTheGrump (talk) 04:39, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

Speaking as someone who has basically left, for much the same reasoning, I understand completely. As a side note I've long thought that the paragraph on ClO₂ weakens the article by shifting the focus away from MMS itself. But I'm too apathetic to try and argue the point. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 05:01, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

You may have a point re the paragraph - it is arguably off-topic, and we don't need to cite sources to back up the clear statements from regulatory bodies in a case like this. I'll perhaps suggest it is removed, once the current apparent Humble-stooge has left. AndyTheGrump (talk) 05:31, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

Water world

Hi, Andy! We edit-conflicted here a few hours ago, and you beat me to the revert by mere seconds. I don't know if it's illogic of the original edit (were they thinking of Atlantis?) or fact that your edit summary was atypically much milder than mine (I think I said something about humans' lack of gills), but I'm laughing helplessly. Most likely I'm simply losing my grip at long last. Rivertorch (talk) 19:31, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

Yup, a strange edit, from a contributor who appears to be normally quite sensible. Oddly enough I was looking at the Battle of Dover Straight (1916) article largely from this contributor the other day. I think we should AGF here, and get back to work fighting off the full-time injectors of weirdness... ;-) AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:13, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

Total Immersion

FYI: It looks as though we have similar thoughts on the Total Immersion article. I posted something at User talk:Dger earlier, but maybe I should just take it to the TI talk page. Location (talk) 19:38, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

Yup - I've tagged it for notability and promotion, and started a talk page thread already. AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:42, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

Just saw your posts at RSN and TI. Cheers! Location (talk) 19:44, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

Good job. If you want to see a worse article try ChiRunning. The technique may reduce injuries but the physics behind it is hogwash. Dger (talk) 01:10, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

That looks like an AfD candidate in its present state. No real evidence of notability. AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:22, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

ChiRunning would likely survive an AfD; there are many more mentions of it than Total Immersion in secondary sources. In my opinion, information in either article that is not cited to reliable sources should be removed. Location (talk) 01:32, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

Andy, are you kidding me? I just finished eliminating all the uncited promotional stuff with cited material. Location (talk) 04:31, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

Um no. Naming one individual out of "one of the hundreds of ChiRunning instructors" as "offer[ing] workshops on the technique" is promoting the individual concerned, regardless of the source. Not that the source cited looks particularly qualified to discuss the subject. AndyTheGrump (talk) 04:39, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

Just to be clear, I wasn't attempting to promote the subject. I don't buy it myself. I thought the info regarding the number of instructors was valid and I was attempting to cite the bit referring to McK as an instructor. I can understand how the combination of the two phrases may appear that way. Cheers! Location (talk) 04:42, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

Yes - I was just about to go back and do what you've now done - remove the 'Prominent ChiRunners' section again - I probably should have looked more closely at what you'd done before reverting. I was probably too quick, and not paying enough attention - sorry. AndyTheGrump (talk) 04:45, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

Twas my fault for putting together a terribly constructed sentence. Setting my sights on TI now. Location (talk) 05:33, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

Hello, AndyTheGrump. You have new messages at Wikipedia:Fringe_theories/Noticeboard#Christian_Science.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Talkback

Hello, AndyTheGrump. You have new messages at NickCT's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

NickCT (talk) 19:22, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

AN/I

Hello. There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. --76.189.123.142 (talk) 09:09, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

Oh fer fuxake, Andy

ATG, please stop cussin' other users. Your cussin' puts sand in Santa's surfboard wax, and reduces the glow of Rudolph the Red-Nosed Kangaroo's nose. But seriously: do you really want yet another block, this time for Christmas?--Shirt58 (talk) 12:44, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

dare of the hog?

Enthusiastic and dedicated editors sometimes get carried away on their own personal crusades to save wikipedia. Or so I'm told. Some even end up having to retire. But at least you always seem to have the courage to be honest and, in some cases, when appropriate, to use the s word. Here's something, (probably wholly inappropriate), as a little Christmas toast: [78]. I do hope you will be able to enjoy a more peaceful festive period. Regards. Martinevans123 (talk) 16:59, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

Er, thanks... Actually, that sounds quite good. Troll Porter Ale. Probably not available this side of the pond - but there are always plenty of alternatives. Fuller's London Pride? Young's Special? Theakston's Old Peculiar - actually, maybe not that one - a little too effective at making the old feel peculiar... AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:08, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

Yes, of course, seems it's brewed in deepest, darkest Washington, Tyne and Wear!? [79]. Martinevans123 (talk) 19:52, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

Season's tidings!

To you and yours, Have a Merry ______ (fill in the blank) and Happy New Year! FWiW Bzuk (talk) 18:44, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

Much appreciated - and the same to you, and to all who watch this page.

BTW, I'll celebrate whatever's going, though as a Ranter in spirit at least, and a natural opponent of Cromwellian Puritanical Miserableness (see this exceedingly reliable source [80]) I'll lay down my usual Grumpiness and shout "Hey ho for Christmas" - bring on the "lascivious Mirth and levitie…" AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:20, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

Nadolig hapus!!

Martinevans123^{Santas Grotto} wishes you and yours

"Nadolig Llawen a Blwyddyn Newydd Dda"

---

May the true spirit of Christmas bless you with warmth and peace ....

And Season's Greetings to you, and to all those in the hills and valleys. I must visit Wales sometime soon - preferably in a boat, so I can admire the view from here once more, and maybe figure out how to pronounce its name:

Aretha Franklin

Thank you for removing Aretha Franklin post, heard it from what I thought was a reliable source. Should have been more careful. --Cgersten 10:55, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

..

Seasons greetings to you and yours
Dougweller (talk) 14:25, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

And to you and yours, Doug. AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:53, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

RfA

Andy,

You've edited on Julian Assange with User:Ocaasi, who looks good according to my quick evaluation. Ocaasi's RfA is passing easily, but your input would be valuable nonetheless.

(Some people may be supporting because of liking the vocals in "Who's Gonna Drive You Home?".)

Happy New Year! Kiefer.Wolfowitz 19:54, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

And a Happy New Year to you too.

While I agree that Occaasi would make a good admin, I'm not sure I should vote now I've been, um, 'canvassed' - and it seems rather unnecessary, given the input into the RfA so far. BTW, what were you on about with your comment there about me 'telling people how to vote'? AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:13, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

Canvass, schmanvass. Your vote won't matter, but I valued your input.

My comment suggested that I would defer to your experience with the nominee, if you suggested there was a serious problem---recognizing that my evaluation was brief (based on one article and a review of the summary on the talk page of the RfA). At RfAs, I try to explain the basis of my evaluation and suggest caveats when my review has been brief. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 20:36, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

Ah - sorry, I misunderstood. I'll take another look at the RfA, and see if there is anything I can add. AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:38, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

Have

A good new year you grumpy fucker, and don't change for anyone. Darkness Shines (talk) 20:01, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

Um, er, when I'm doing that, I'm not usually grumpy... ;-) Seriously though, have a good year yourself. AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:40, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

What do you mean by pointy?

I don't get it. Please clarify.

By the way....http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:British_JewsEvildoer187 (talk) 10:35, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

Response on British Jews talk page.Evildoer187 (talk) 21:35, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

Shaking the drawer

Hi, I'm pretty useless at tracing socks unless they're of the real life variety, used and stuck up my left nostril or covering my right foot. There is also the issue with caste articles that off-wiki campaigns kick off from time to time, intent on causing change at one or other article. Ezhava is one that has been prone to the latter. That said, can you see any signs in the present stuff going on at WT:INB, Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2012_December_19#Category:Ezhava_People and Talk:List of Ezhavas? My antennae are twitching like buggery but I can't see any connections. - Sitush (talk) 02:01, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

That was my thought too - though given the number of different individuals we've had engaged in socking with such disputes, I think it might be tricky to work out, and I'm by no means certain that there is any socking as such. Off-Wiki canvassing is usually fairly easy to spot, and easy enough to deal with in most cases. I think it might be best to AGF for now, and see how things go. As I've made clear on the noticeboard for India-related topics thread, this seems to be governed by core BLP policy anyway, so nothing 'decided' there could change anything - it may well be that clarification (or a change of policy) is needed at WP:BLPCAT. If so, it would obviously involve more contributors, and socks (if there are any) are likely to become more obvious. AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:11, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

Indeed. I am wondering whether the entire issue should not have been escalated to WP:BLPN or similar already. We have, after all, been through it more than once at WT:INB in recent months, and I've been through it often several times a week on individual articles. In any event, I hope that when the partying effect wears off then we will see input from more than just the small group of people who are currently participating: we're going round in circles right now. Thanks for the reply. - Sitush (talk) 02:22, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

Hello

Despite our disagreement earlier, you seem like a rational user who is good at resolving disputes. Therefore, I ask that you contribute to the discussion here. I am trying to get editors with more experience and less emotional attachment involved in settling this argument. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Colonialism#Israel

Evildoer187 (talk) 14:23, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, but I'm not going to get involved in that discussion. It is based on an entirely false premiss: that there are only two possibilities: either (a) Israel is a classic example of Western colonialism, or (b) Israel is nothing more than the recreation of an earlier nation-state by descendants of the inhabitants of the earlier one. Neither statement is remotely true - and the POV-pushers attempting to use Wikipedia to argue one position or another should be shown the door. Since the POV-pushers are still here (and on the Pro-Israel side at least, in sufficiently large numbers to make any attempt at encyclopaedic neutrality in such topics impossible to achieve - though I suspect that the reason the opposition aren't as well organised is as much due to language issues than anything else), I'm not going to waste my time in endless facile arguments arguing over misuse of sources, sockpuppetry, and outright cluelessness. There are some topics arguably best left to the propagandists if they can't be countered effectively - that way, our readers can recognise them for what they are, and dismiss them... AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:46, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

That's a brilliant comment. I have sometimes wondered if the best thing might be to let the POV pushers have free reign on articles which the community can't/won't fix—the result would keep them for bogging down noticeboards, and would be identified as over-the-top by any alert reader. The entire premise of discussion, AGF, and NPOV breaks down in some areas. Johnuniq (talk) 08:33, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

We should probably add a disclaimer at the top of such articles: "This article may have been written by paid agents of Mossad, Hamas, the Knights Templar, Sendero Luminoso, the 'Ndrangheta, Nikola Tesla, L. Ron Hubbard and other involved parties - it does not conform to normal Wikipedia standards of neutrality (or sanity)." AndyTheGrump (talk) 08:47, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

Lovely! Think about the edit wars we could have over a tag-that-tells-it-like-it-is. Johnuniq (talk) 09:56, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

The Guardian

Yep....you are correct. I was confusing a discussion on the Gaudian Data Blog that was brought up on another discussion at the OWS article. Since we are on the topic, what is your opinion on what appears to be community restriction on the Huffington Post (using it with attribution)? I don't have time to add links but would like hear you opinion if you have one (thisone can be searched through the Wikipedia search function).--Amadscientist (talk) 11:25, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

I've not really looked into the Huff Post, but I can certainly see that attribution makes sense for anything controversial. Then again, if something is controversial, and we only have a single source, maybe we shouldn't be including it in the first place. Ultimately, it comes down to editorial judgement - and it isn't possible to lay down hard and fast rules to cover every possibility - or sensible to try to. AndyTheGrump (talk) 11:44, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

Move of Anilingus article to Boners(Erectionmasters)

Like I just stated at User talk:Boing! said Zebedee, I saw this, and I can't make out what is going on with this user. I at first thought that this must be a vandalism account, but that's not the impression I've gotten from briefly looking over this user's edit history. Compromised account? Flyer22 (talk) 04:17, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

I'm wondering if I should try to talk with this person instead of going right to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents about it. Flyer22 (talk) 04:24, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

Nope - straight to ANI, I'd say. I'd guess a compromised account - so you'll not know who you are talking to. It may need an admin to sort out the move anyway. AndyTheGrump (talk) 04:26, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

I've undone the move, and am considering a block per compromised. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 04:28, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

Yep - at least we'd have to assume that, without evidence to the contrary. AndyTheGrump (talk) 04:31, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

Yes, I saw that, Writ Keeper. Thanks. I also fixed this. Flyer22 (talk) 04:30, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

Good call, forgot to check redirects. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 04:32, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

Taken to Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.[81] Flyer22 (talk) 04:56, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

South West Asia

How is calling the Middle East 'South West Asia' part of an agenda? I was just trying to limit the scope to the Asian part of the Middle East. I'd like an explanation for this.Evildoer187 (talk) 23:17, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

In response to your message, I would first like to thank you for pointing out my mistake. I read the paragraph wrong and thought it referred to minorities in general. You can blame that on the fact that I just woke up. Second, it would help if you simply told me what was wrong with my edit instead of responding to me in a rude way. Lashing out at someone for simply disagreeing with you is not acceptable behavior.Evildoer187 (talk) 23:29, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

So you added 'Jewish' because you thought they ought to be on the Canadian list? Thank you for confirming that you aren't adhering to Wikipedia policy - not that I needed confirmation. As for your change of 'Middle East', that is the preferred term, as you are well aware. Your edit is promoting an agenda - one that is likely to result in you being blocked. AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:34, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

I thought it was a general list of minorities, and Jews are indeed a minority in Canada. I'm sure you don't need a source for that. Either way, it was a mistake, and I corrected it.

I wasn't aware that Middle East is the preferred term, and frankly I did not see the harm in limiting the scope. If you think that is agenda pushing, then I'm not sure what to say except that I really think you are overreacting. I have not broken any rules, but you on the other hand just violated WP:Civility guidelines. I will let it go for now, but I will not tolerate it in the future.Evildoer187 (talk) 23:41, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

Section re Ethnic groups in Europe - see also [82]

It would appear that a lot of the statistics on that chart are unsourced. Time for an overhaul.Evildoer187 (talk) 00:25, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

I am fixing the page and adding relevant sources. However, one more outburst like that on my page and I will report you. Do not test me.Evildoer187 (talk) 00:58, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

As long as you continue to disregard fundamental Wikipedia policy by misrepresenting material cited to a source which it clearly wasn't from, I shall respond as I see fit. Feel free to report me - I think more eyes on your editing would be a good thing. AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:05, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

Are you going through my editing history?Evildoer187 (talk) 16:20, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

Yes, and given your edit to the Donna Feldman article, and your comments here [83] "that was another instance of me making an edit that I felt was self-evident" it is just as well. Wikipedia articles aren't based on what contributors think is 'self-evident'. There was a source cited - it clearly couldn't be cited for Russian and Polish descent, yet your edit implied that you were citing it for 'Ashkenazi'. This is entirely unacceptable. AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:28, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

I don't know how reliable these sources are, but here you go. It's not something I have a particularly strong opinion on either. I just came across it while browsing, and thought adding Ashkenazi Jewish was a relatively innocuous edit.Evildoer187 (talk) 16:44, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for demonstrating once again your failure to understand elementary principles of Wikipedia sourcing policy. The ovguide.com source explicitly states that it is sourced from Wikipedia, and the mandatory.com source is either copied from our article or vice versa (I'll have to look into this, as if our article is copied from there, it is a copyvio). In any case, it says nothing whatsoever about 'Askenazi' descent. AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:54, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

Phew!

Phew!. I've just spotted Doncram seeking to get me hauled into an ArbCom case and then saw you threatening to take me to ANI. I'm glad that at least one of them was in error! I do realise, btw, that some of my comments at VPP might seem a little off-beam but that is because people are misunderstanding caste (notably, Apteva) and if we are to arrive at a sound outcome then it is important that misconceptions are highlighted/people are as well informed as is practical. - Sitush (talk) 13:07, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, sorry about that. File:Blush.png As for the Doncram case, it looks like being an almighty custard-pie fight, and I suggest you try to stick to the raw facts as much as possible - which in relation to his caste-based edits seem clear enough, that he's been diving head first into a topic he knows nothing about, and has refused to take note of the issues that have been raised by those who do. AndyTheGrump (talk) 13:13, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

Yeah. I'd rather say nothing at all because I'm likely to screw it up. However, it looks like it might be a "needs must" job. Dammit. - Sitush (talk) 13:22, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

Arrogance

Don't just change peoples contributions to wiki without thought, OK? who do you think you are? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.46.200.39 (talk) 13:32, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

I'm someone who understands Wikipedia policy - who are you? AndyTheGrump (talk) 13:35, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

Nailing jello to the wall

Andy,

May I respectively suggest that this is you trying to nail jello to the wall. Perhaps a different approach is called for? NickCT (talk) 15:31, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

I'm beginning to think gelignite might be more effective, certainly ;-) Or do you have a better suggestion? AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:35, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

The simplest approach is to point out that consensus is based on arguments that are policy compliant? No amount of shouting and blustering will make a !vote count if it does not fulfil that basic requirement. Taking that approach, which at least in theory applies at AfD etc, would seem to suggest that at present there is 100% agreement that caste should not be included in BLPs as a matter of course but rather only when that caste relationship has some reliably-sourced relevance to the notability of the subject. - Sitush (talk) 15:38, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

re "arguments that are policy compliant?" - Problem is, I feel policy has sorta failed to clearly enunciate what the undesirable behavior is here. The ideas we're trying to get across are spread between multiple policies and are sometimes slightly vague. I can't see any end to these inane conversations beyond a policy change here. We should toy around with some policy ideas. NickCT (talk) 16:12, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

Um, I though I was suggesting that existing policy needed either clarification, or amendment. I'm beginning to wonder whether in light of the WMF resolution on BLPs,[84] it may be worth contacting them, and asking them to comment, given the apparent refusal of significant numbers of contributors to take heed of the privacy and NPOV concerns the 'caste' issue raises. AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:24, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

Regarding "clarification, or amendment" - I'm just not sure we can really encapsulate all the ideas we're trying to get through in a paragraph (if you think we can, I'd like to see some text). Even if we could, it might not end up being very clear.

Go ahead and give WMF a shout. I'd try to formulate a clear and concise question for them though. NickCT (talk) 20:44, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, AndyTheGrump. You have new messages at Francophonie&Androphilie's talk page.
Message added 22:55, 10 January 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Rhys Morgan Article

Hello, thanks for your advice regarding articles to read. I did not intend for it to be nonsense. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zoara2010 (talk • contribs) 19:09, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

Sometimes

Sometimes I genuinely find myself looking for a "Like" button on WP. Thanks! --Tgeairn (talk) 00:20, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

BLPCAT conversation

Hey Andy,

I think this conversation relates quite closely to what we were discussing at the village pump earlier. NickCT (talk) 13:55, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

Guitar Hero on the Roof

Hi Andy. A quick note to let you know that I've been in touch with Guitar Hero on the Roof by email and he is NOT a fascist and NOT a troll, but rather an editor who got run off over a content dispute. It's a civility matter at one level and a content dispute at another. We'll see if he can be turned into a repentant ex-sockpuppeteer who can keep his nose clean and stay away from the ethnicity issue. I do encourage you to think about him with an open mind. To someone like him (and me) who accept the traditional conception of ethnicity (natsional'nost in Russian) it is an absurdity to have Albert Einstein in a montage as a representative of German ethnicity (as opposed to citizenship in the German nation-state, which is not what the article is about). Obviously, scholars today differ on the matter. Unfortunately, this guy pretty much got the bum's rush given to Stormfront fucks when he simply had a content disagreement that got loud and crazy for no really good reason. Anyhow, all the best and I still think it's swell to have "enforcers" like you coming off the bench for the Wikipedia hockey team. I just wanted to let you know that you broke the wrong guy's nose this time and that I'm going to try to get him back into good graces in six months and would appreciate your support when that happens. Best, —Tim ///// Carrite (talk) 19:08, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

Guitar Hero on the Roof is a sockpuppet account set up by a previously-blocked user, and was blocked accordingly. As for him being a fascist, I never even remotely suggested he was. He is however clearly unable to accept that his unsourced definitions of ethnicity aren't going to control article content, and likewise incapable of understanding that obnoxious comments regarding rape in the context of Jewish descent, and his intimations that German contributors are Nazis, are unlikely to win him friends. And as for your ludicrous comments re nose-breaking, I 'enforced' nothing - I didn't even !vote in the ANI discussion. I did however suggest that anyone using the term 'self-hating Jews' in the way he did was unfit to edit articles relating to Jews, and I stand by it, though given the sockpuppetry, this was a moot point anyway. Can I suggest that if you are actually concerned to recruit new editors, you try to find some that are actually capable of understanding how Wikipedia works, rather than clueless bigots incapable of rational discourse. AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:26, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

Request

Hi Andy. While I do appreciate the tensions around the area, or in fact because I appreciate these tensions, could I beseech you not to stoop to personal invective as you seem to have here? --John (talk) 21:56, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

Eugene Tsui's Page

Hello I am an intern for Eugene Tsui,

He asked me to fix his Wikipedia page, He feels his page was shortened and says that the information that was put up there was falsified. I feel like some of his text is a bit lengthy, but I don't think his Bio should be completely removed and redirected to his Ultima Tower page. I am wondering if you can give me any advice that I can relay to Dr. Tsui?

He asked me to relay a few questions which are included below. Thank you in advance for anything you can answer.

I hope you have a great Day,

1) The site presented information that was true and information that people have asked about, in lectures, television interviews, publications and classrooms throughout the world, for 30 years. Testamonials given prove this fact.

2) The information has been globally published or televised for decades and was referenced, on the site, in numerous publications and televised interviews. What's their issue?

3) What is it about the site that they have qualms with? Everything is factual and can be corroborated by numerous persons and publications.

4) The site is supposed to be about me, Eugene Tssui, and not about my work, necessarily. They seem to always refer to certain work examples that are far afield from me, as a person, which is what the site is about.

5) What are their issues? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ktrmrider9785 (talk • contribs) 22:28, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

What are the issues? It is hard to know where to begin. Firstly though, it isn't Eugene Tsui's Page - it is Wikipedia's page about him. Secondly, if you are an intern for Tsui, you need to read Wikipedia:Conflict of interest - it is almost always inappropriate for a person connected with the article subject to be editing the article. Thirdly though, this is an online encyclopaedia, not a platform for promotional hype as provided in the 'Profile' section of this recent version of the article [85] is entirely unwarranted. As for the rest of the article, it continues in much the same vein, full of hyperbole about the seemingly endless achievements of Tsui, few of which seem to be properly referenced - though the complete lack of formatting makes such details hard to see. The whole thing reads more like a combination of a hagiography and a résumé than anything appropriate for an encyclopaedia. None of it is formatted in accordance with Wikipedia guidelines. None of it is written in the appropriate style. And at the end of it, one is left wondering what it is exactly that Tsui is notable for - or perhaps, what he isn't notable for, given the material relating to architecture, athletics, composition, design, scientific research and who knows what else... Frankly, to be blunt, I have great difficulty believing it. Surely nobody could be as successful a polymath as Tsui is claimed to be without attracting more media attention than he appears to have done? Google searches are an unreliable guide to notability, but when a Google News search [86] only finds Wikipedia's entry on Tsui, and nothing else, it rather suggests that he isn't quite as notable as is claimed. A broader Google search finds more of course, but much of that seems to be self-publicity (one of Tsui's other evident talents - though apparently unmentioned in the article). So why was the longwinded article on Tsui deleted? Quite simply, because it failed to demonstrate, in a readable way, that Tsui is notable - according to Wikipedia's standards - for anything other than the Ultima Tower proposal - though to be honest, I'm not sure that a hypothetical tower would meet our notability guidelines either. It is perhaps possible that Tsui is notable enough to merit a biographical article - but to demonstrate that, properly-referenced material from published reliable sources needs to be provided. Someone of his talents must have at least attracted the interests of the mainstream media. Has a profile of any significance been written about him anywhere? Has his work been reviewed in mainstream sources? Indeed, have the media actually commented on him at all, as opposed to commenting on say his hypothetical tower? If you can provide a few clear links to mainstream reliable sources here, which at least indicate that Tsui stands a chance of meeting Wikipedia notability guidelines, we can look into the matter further, and see if we can put together a properly sourced biography, written in appropriate encyclopaedic tone, relating only the facts as reported in published third-party sources, and eliminating the hyperbole that a man of the claimed talents of Tsui can surely do without. AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:12, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Derby sex gang page - or is that ATROCITY

I've been looking very closely at the page content - a number of unused and conspicuously ignored sources such as the Crown Prosecution Service and there is a rather significant point that over rides all other issues. CPS report 8 people convicted in total and not 9 as keeps being reported by media.

That either indicates Very Shoddy and Woozled journalist negligence with a false number just being repeated as a Factoid or there is a ninth convict who's identity is being withheld to protect a child/children under Court Reporting restrictions.

The CPS PRESS RELEASE is very detailed 24/11/2010. It can't be reconciled with multiple claims/reports by others in the media of a number 9.

Who is getting the basics wrong - 8 vs 9?

Who is getting the legal reporting restrictions wrong - if the 9 is valid?

Until it is possible to reconcile the number the page and all sources have to be seen as Contaminated and unreliable. I'm forced to conclude that 100% of the pages content drown from only three media sources is WRONG and breaching WP:BLP and needs immediate action. I fear that there is passion overriding reason coupled with agendas.

You do seem to be able to grasp reality and detail which others have such an issue with! What do you suggest?

I also am now obliged to take the view that having the page headed "Derby sex gang" is wrong as it implies to readers that all victims were subjected to gang rape. There is no indication that any such inference should be drawn - and it must not be allowed. If there is a 9th convict being hidden for what would have to be child victim protection - the page title is abusive and misleading. It can also cause victimisation.

As a victim advocate I say the page title is 100% false and the page needs an urgent rename to a more neutral idea such as "Derby Sexual Predation Case" - the police and CPS deliberately avoid the use of the word "gang" - it's a media invention.

As such the name should follow Authorities such a the CPS - or even the judge who used the term predator ... and he also made it very clear He did not see the cases as RACIALLY motivated. Giving a Link to the Daily Maul ... I how low do I have to go to find accurate reporting on a quick and dirty google search?

It's not hard to find sources that show the page content is beyond abusive and wrong - and as such It could do with AFD and a full restart with quality editing!

I'm fear that some people's idea of consensus is to get their way and maintain wrong content - so Maier " Reaching consensus in a group often is confused with finding the right answer." is clearly in play. I believe Boldness is going to be required. --TTFN-- Media-Hound 'D 3rd P^) (talk) 11:59, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

Please read WP:RS. The use of primary sources (e.g. the CPS) in regard to legal issues is very strongly discouraged, if not forbidden outright. Wikipedia contributors are not qualified to interpret such materials - we leave that to secondary sources. As for the rest, I have made my position clear - that I consider the article sensationalist, misleading, quite likely in violation of WP:BLP policy in several ways, and clearly slanted to draw attention to the ethnoreligious backgrounds of most of those convicted. I am glad to see that you see things the same way. Have you seen my posting on the WP:BLP noticeboard? AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:38, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

Don't worry I have been looking very carefully at WP:RS and also a number of other advisories .... But This STINKS TO HIGH HEAVENS! I'm actually beyond disturbed as I have discovered that one of the people named in the table at row 6 4 Trial is not known from any source - is not know to the CPS - the Courts .... in fact anyone!

I'm still wondering if I can trust my own eyes and I'm back tracking sources and diffs ... but I think there may be a bigger issues here than people have grasped!

There is a striking correlation of surnames with known accused and acquitted, so I am concerned that someone is using the page to make accusation or inference against others ... or to spoof systems so an actual guilty party is kept out of search engines! I Think I will have to pull the plug and remove that table! If you do a search using that "name"+Derby+rape the only place it exists is Cyber space is that wiki page STINKS STINKS STINKS ... and it's been embedded from the very start! Is there a history of content prior to 17 Jan 2013 that needs checking? --TTFN-- Media-Hound 'D 3rd P^) (talk) 18:10, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

You appear to be right regarding one of the names - I have asked, as a matter of urgency, that the name be redacted from the article history, and would suggest that you do not repeat it, to avoid making the situation worse than it clearly is already. AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:48, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

AndyTheGrump - I've been beyond skeptical about using the name (I'm neither legally green or related to Brassicas) - I am concerned because the name is legitimate - It's for a reporter in Pakistan/India who covers rape cases (Stink factor - Google mask - and how many people have ended up at Wikiville and taken away some very bad info? ) which is why only when I pulled a few search tricks did horror arise! - is it that two national media chains have been lazy with google... they stopped very quick ... or, as the linkage would have been around and would have been evident prior to the Derby page being created is there a deeper issue? The claim as to "Sauce" does not ring true ... and I'm thinking Orange Sauce... and three lined up on the wall alla Hilder Ogden and her Murial! This all Stinks! --TTFN-- Media-Hound 'D 3rd P^) (talk) 19:16, 23 January 2013 (UTC)