User talk:AndyTheGrump: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 17:46, 21 June 2012

ANI British Pakistanis closed with no action

To prevent any action, the ANI incident was closed by User:Bwilkins at 13:44, 19 May 2012 (dif-2473). Meanwhile, I was posting my !votes to that thread (dif-5650), and those 2nd carefully considered comments were reverted (and thrown away), rather than re-closing the ANI thread 20 minutes later. Sorry for all the wasted effort (and it was also a huge waste of time on my part). I suspect that many ANI threads are closed-no-action to reduce the size of the ANI page. Bwilkins suggested to perhaps post to WP:RFC/U, which might be the better way to get results, without the pressure to close a detailed thread to make the ANI page smaller. -Wikid77 (talk) 14:36, 19 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps not surprising this was closed with no action, as quite a few editors were beginning to find it frustrating (were they just getting bored that there wasn't more gory "action" to entertain the assembled blood-thirsty crowd?) But not sure if this was a satisfactory outcome. There is (of course) no mention in the closing summary that one party felt they had to retire as a result. One suspects that the other party must have been over the moon with this "result". But neither is there any indication of the balance of votes. By my reckoning the "informal outcome" was as follows:

Topic Ban AnkhMopork: Oppose = 7, Support = 3.

Topic Ban AndyTheGrump: Oppose 12, Support = 1 (the ip proposer did not actually vote).

But I think perhaps some of the comments were more enlightening than the votes, particluarly those from OhioStandard. I do hope that Andy will re-consider his self-imposed retirement in due course. Martinevans123 (talk) 15:36, 19 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Five pillars of Wikipedia = 0, Commonsense = 0.

Trolls in charge of the project = Jackpot. Penyulap ☏ 16:22, 19 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

JC Fremont Misidentification Resolved

A Bancroft Library photo archivist replied, "I had not seen this portrait before. I agree it is unlikely to be JC Fremont. It has been in the Bancroft Portrait File for decades, and the identification was noted as 'questionable' many years ago on the sleeve containing the photo. It is unfortunate it was scanned and put online."

Farther down in his post, the archivist wrote that the Bancroft contributor, Leo Stashin, appears to have made an 8 X 10 gelatin silver print in the mid-1900s of a quarter-plate daguerreotype original shot in San Francisco in 1855. My speculation is there were exposures of Fremont family members elsewhere on the plate, and that identification was mistakenly transferred to the Mystery Man, whose true identity is probably lost to history. RalphWiley (talk) 18:49, 19 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Bah

Bah... this is what will be the downfall of this well intentioned project.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 00:57, 20 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Andy

Have a couple beers, take a two week vacation, be back soon. NPOV always wins in the long run, just have a little faith. Carrite (talk) 04:07, 20 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Prejudice

Combating prejudice can be a thankless job. Your efforts at Jimbo's talk are extremely commendable. In time I will comment but I just wanted to thank you for your persistence and your clear and unperterbed manner. The editor in question may not "get it'. But others do. ```Buster Seven Talk 16:08, 25 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Buster. This place can't afford to lose good people like you. Gandydancer (talk) 17:25, 25 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hear, hear! (And I do hope you don't find anything I've written on Jimbo's page at all patronising – it certainly wasn't meant that way!) —MistyMorn (talk) 21:56, 25 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Mentioned you...

...here. Writegeist (talk) 21:37, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia Help Survey

Hi there, my name's Peter Coombe and I'm a Wikimedia Community Fellow working on a project to improve Wikipedia's help system. At the moment I'm trying to learn more about how people use and find the current help pages. If you could help by filling out this brief survey about your experiences, I'd be very grateful. It should take less than 10 minutes, and your responses will not be tied to your username in any way.

Thank you for your time,
the wub (talk) 18:06, 14 June 2012 (UTC) (Delivered using Global message delivery)[reply]

A belated welcome!

Here's wishing you a belated welcome to Wikipedia, AndyTheGrump. I see that you've already been around a while and wanted to thank you for your contributions. Though you seem to have been successful in finding your way around, you may benefit from following some of the links below, which help editors get the most out of Wikipedia:

Also, when you post on talk pages you should sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); that should automatically produce your username and the date after your post.

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! If you have any questions, feel free to leave me a message on my talk page, consult Wikipedia:Questions, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there.

Again, welcome! S. Rich (talk) 02:12, 19 June 2012 (UTC)--S. Rich (talk) 02:12, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A beer for you!

i'm glad you're back. we all need excellent people like you. altetendekrabbe 10:23, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi

Can I just say I admire the level of discourse in this discussion. I appreciate your contribution very much. Would you mind trying to persuade me to your view on images of Muhammad? The reason and eloquence you display in that thread compels me to ask. I won't be a bit offended if you'd prefer not to. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 10:49, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think I've made my position clear on several occasions: There are no 'images of Muhammed' in the sense that he was never portrayed in his lifetime (or at least, no such portrayal appears to exist), and in Islamic tradition, portraits of the Prophet are rare, and often seen as offensive. It adds nothing whatsoever to an article on Muhammed to add such illustrations - at least, not without making it clear that such portrayals are widely condemned - and it would be more encyclopaedic to omit them (in the main article - there is no reason why we should not have a 'portrayals of the prophet Muhammad' article, with illustrations), and instead explain to readers why such portrayals are rare. Sadly, the issue has been hijacked by 'free speech' campaigners who seem to think that this is some kind of 'creeping censorship', rather than a discussion on the merits of illustrations in a particular article, and by Islamophobes, overt and covert, who wish to engage in shit-stirring for the usual suspect reasons. AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:37, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It is the equal of having photographs of the garden of eden showing adam and eve having sex with the animals put into the article about the catholic church in the name of free speech. Penyulap ☏ 16:52, 19 Jun 2012 (UTC)

_{then asking the local schoolkids to vote on which animal they like best Penyulap ☏ 16:59, 19 Jun 2012 (UTC)}

So...Cain and Abel used their I-Phones to take pics of Mom and Dad having sex with __________________????? (fill in the animal of choice). Interesting. ```Buster Seven Talk 17:05, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The perfect analogue for 'which images of Mohammed should we include in the article', if there is a better one than yours I can't think of it. Penyulap ☏ 23:05, 20 Jun 2012 (UTC)

I couldn't remember what your position was. I agree with every word of that. Thanks. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 20:19, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Manning

This topic is closed. I will not allow Sceptre to violate Wikipedoa WP:BLP policy on my talk page in pursuit of his deranged and obnoxious campaign to 're-gender' Bradley Manning against his own express wishes. Sceptre, fuck of off and troll elsewhere, you repulsive little lying bigot. AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:48, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't mean to nit-pick here, and feel free to let fly with abuse in my direction, but you forgot one f in off. It's f off rather than f of. Penyulap ☏ 17:15, 21 Jun 2012 (UTC)

Ooops! Well spotted. Thanks... AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:28, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, spot on now. you're welcome. Penyulap ☏ 17:36, 21 Jun 2012 (UTC)

If

If you're going to keep editing, then you really ought to revise the top of your page. We don't need a layer of silly accusations about your integrity or truthfulness driven by the disconnect between your words and your actions. WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:42, 20 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Good point, though I've not really decided what my intentions Wikipedia-wise are. For the moment, I'm just checking in occasionally, and dealing with subjects on my existing watchlist, and don't intend to spend much time here - in any case, my personal life is in a state of flux at the moment, and I can't really make any long-term plans. I'll remove the 'Retired' section though, as it is plainly not true. This place still seems to have a hold on me... AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:50, 20 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

a little light reading

As the only recipient of the Grumpy editor award, I thought you may enjoy a little light reading Penyulap ☏ 23:01, 20 Jun 2012 (UTC)

@@ Line 79: / Line 79: @@
 :::Yep, spot on now. you're welcome. <span style="text-shadow:#c5C3e3 0.2em 0.2em 0.2em;">[[User:Penyulap|'''Penyulap''']]</span>[[User talk:Penyulap|<span style="color:transparent;text-shadow:green 0em 0.2em 0.02em;">  ☏</span>]] 17:36, 21 Jun 2012 (UTC)
-:Could you please retract that statement about me, thanks? Disagreeing on me on a content issue doesn't give you carte blanche to engage in severe personal attacks. '''[[User:Sceptre|Sceptre]]''' <sup>([[User talk:Sceptre|talk]])</sup> 17:44, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
 == If ==