User talk:AndyTheGrump

Regarding retiring...

...I was about to ask what happened, and then I looked at your contributions and saw this. I hope you return, since Wikipedia is better with you here. But we both know how stressful and unrewarding this site can be. Either way, I wish you well. Flyer22 (talk) 08:00, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

C'mon Andy there's no way you're really retiring. Also the template has become a joke, owing to its common deployment by editors who return soon afterwards. I assume you're above that, so how about replacing it with the Wikibreak template, which is surely nearer the truth? Anyhoo, I look forward to seeing you back again. Writegeist (talk) 18:06, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

Well if he's blaming me, fine. I had nothing to do with the situation. He asked a question and I answered it. Being pissed off isn't a good enough reason to retire. Being discussed in general is not a good enough reason to retire. Being frustrated with the outcome of a DRN is no reason to retire. I gave the exact procedure as it was spelled out to lodge a formal complaint about the editor he had an issue with but if Andy is going to simply accuse others of complicity whenever someone replies, he might need time to cool off. I do suggest re-filing the DRN if he is not happy with the outcome of the last filing as clearly there is reason spelled out in the instructions. Guy had previously had a connection to the article by having made a handful of edits he had forgotten about. That is enough to ask for any determination to be set aside for new mediation. And yes...Wikipedia is better with Andy here, not retired.--Mark Miller (talk) 23:44, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

For the record, had AndyTheGrump simply asked me to withdraw from the case and turn it over to another DRN volunteer (either on my talk page or the DRN talk page) I most likely would have recused myself -- the workload is light this week and there are multiple volunteers who can do just as good a job as I can or better. Instead he asked for specific restrictions on what I or anyone replacing me could do while mediating a DRN case. I see no reason for [redacted] to single out Mark Miller out of the nine people who opposed AndyTheGrump's request (zero supporters so far). Instead he should have named the person AndyTheGrump named two minutes before posting the retirement template --Guy Macon (talk) 01:21, 21 September 2015‎ (UTC)

Guy Macon, I just saw your response and I'm returning to state that I was singling out no one. When I stated that I was about to ask what happened and then I saw this matter, I was speaking of the situation, including the edit summary. You know, the edit summary that was very clear that he'd be leaving? It was the last edit summary he made before slapping the retired tag on his talk page and user page. It was the edit summary that made it clear to me, when looking at his contributions to see why he'd left, that it was the edit that held the answer. And clicking on that edit gave me insight into why he'd left. I was not implying that anyone was at fault by pointing to that edit summary/diff link. Flyer22 (talk) 21:50, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

That's how I interpreted this post as well. I didn't perceive your comment as anything other than pointing out what Andy said for the convenience of those reading this page.

As for what Andy said about the DRN case I was mediating (and which he complained about to the other DRN volunteers and was told that I wasn't doing anything wrong), what he missed in his desire to start a war with me was that a DRN volunteer mediator often seems sympathetic to someone who really isn't following policy, for the very simple reason that a successful resolution of the case often happens when that person realizes for himself that [A] he is violating Wikipedia policy, and [B] the policy in question is a good policy that was put there for a good reason. This can take some time, and often involves asking some gentle questions, but if it works we can turn a difficult editor into a productive editor. Andy clearly wanted me to give an ANI style warning, but that isn't what DRN is about. ANI is staffed by administrators with the power to block and thus any warning they give you have teeth. DRN volunteer mediators purposely have zero power or authority. We either persuade the editors who are disputing to agree or the case fails. It is sad that Andy decided to leave Wikipedia because DRN isn't being run the way he wants it to be run instead of simply withdrawing from the case and unwatching the page. --Guy Macon (talk) 04:13, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

And he spoke of you in that edit anyway; so I don't see why you'd think I was singling out Mark Miller. Flyer22 (talk) 21:54, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

(Goes back and looks at the previous comment) Oh dear. I named the wrong person entirely. I have struck my comment and redacted the name I mentioned. I am sorry and I apologize. Please forgive me for making such an error. --Guy Macon (talk) 04:13, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

Maybe just give him some space.(Littleolive oil (talk) 02:41, 21 September 2015 (UTC))

For the record, the Grump made some excellent points at the RfC and if it wasn't snow-closed already I'd have registered support. Writegeist (talk) 21:26, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

Might I suggest that you go to the DRN talk page and make a proposal detailing how you think we should do things differently? The DRN volunteers are pretty open to trying new things and rethinking how to resolve disputes. --Guy Macon (talk) 04:13, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

I like a lot of the edits but the tone is often curt and dismissive and not as helpful to the collaborative spirit. I did like the recent rejection of a historical revisionism attempt at Armenian genocide and considered barnstarring ATG but the truth is that the abrasiveness cancels the intellectual chops. I hope to see the emphasis on accuracy for which ATG is known but please please not so bitey. Please don't bite anybody newbie or not. But yeah, stay around and make suggestions with the understanding that obstinacy is not the same thing as conviction to principle and be mindful of the effect your curt posts have on other human beings. AccountInCompliance (talk) 20:24, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

Fuck!

Fuck. Bishonen | talk 19:40, 20 September 2015 (UTC).

I'll second that. One of the bluntest, most abrassive and most uncompromsing editors I have ever seen. But always for the good of the encyclopedia. I do hope you will reconsider. Martinevans123 (talk) 09:28, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

I don't know what to say. Perhaps after six monthe R+R Andy will return, who knows. I do hope so though. -Roxy the dog™ (Resonate) 10:55, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

Yes, indeed. I hear that Finland can be very nice at this time of year. Martinevans123 (talk) 12:08, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

• I had the exact same reaction. I hope what you need is a well deserved break and not a total break, but these are personal decisions. I have always considered your contributions worthwhile and important. I just hope they aren't over. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 15:21, 23 September 2015 (UTC)
• I second the sentiments of my esteemed colleague Dennis Brown. I hope you will be back in a few weeks or a few months, having re-focused, rested, re-evaluated the place of Wikipedia in one's life, and then decided to go back in ant take another look. Until then, the place won't be the same without you. --John (talk) 22:17, 5 October 2015 (UTC)
• If you have gone for good, can I have the name? 8-)

Please don't go. The tsunami of woo-woo needs anyone and everyone who can wield a baler. Your efforts in that were much appreciated. Andy Dingley (talk) 09:40, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

• 'One of the bluntest, most abrasive and most uncompromsing editors I have ever seen. But always for the good of the encyclopedia. I wish you well whatever you decide. A pleasure to have known you, albeit briefly ! Pincrete (talk) 21:08, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

Sorry to see you go

Hi AndyTheGrump.  I am sorry to see you leave Wikipedia. Thank you for your five years of contributions while a Wikipedian. I wish you all the best.
Richard27182 (talk) 08:52, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

I second that. Reminds me never to go to DRN... Ssscienccce (talk) 02:09, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

Genetically modified organisms arbitration case opened

You may opt-out of future notification regarding this case at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Genetically modified organisms/Notification list. You recently offered a statement in a request for arbitration. The Arbitration Committee has accepted that request for arbitration and an arbitration case has been opened at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Genetically modified organisms. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Genetically modified organisms/Evidence. Please add your evidence by October 12, 2015, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Genetically modified organisms/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 20:56, 28 September 2015 (UTC) on behalf of L235 (t / c / ping in reply) 20:56, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

Andy the Grump doing great work holding the line at Armenian genocide who will take up the slack????

		The Barnstar of Diligence
		For policing the article on the Armenian genocide and resistance to historical revisionism on that topic. AccountInCompliance (talk) 20:33, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

Arbitration temporary injunction for the Genetically modified organisms arbitration case

You are receiving this message because you are on the notification list for this case. You may opt-out at any time The Arbitration Committee has enacted the following temporary injunction, to expire at the closure of the Genetically modified organisms arbitration case:

1. Standard discretionary sanctions are authorised for all pages relating to to genetically modified organisms and agricultural biotechnology, including glyphosate, broadly interpreted, for as long as this arbitration case remains open. Any uninvolved administrator may levy restrictions as an arbitration enforcement action on users editing in this topic area, after an initial warning.
2. Editors are prohibited from making more than one revert per page per day within the topic area found in part 1 of this injunction, subject to the usual exemptions.

For the Arbitration Committee, L235 (t / c / ping in reply) (via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 10:59, 6 October 2015 (UTC))

Discuss this at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard#Arbitration temporary injunction for the Genetically modified organisms arbitration case

Continued Anti-Semitic concern trolling by User:Mrandrewnohome at the Reference Desks

I haven't mentioned you directly, but you appear on the user's talk page regarding this matter' see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Continued_Anti-Semitic_concern_trolling_by_User:Mrandrewnohome_at_the_Reference_Desks. μηδείς (talk) 02:08, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

Genetically modified organisms arbitration proposed decision posted

Hi AndyTheGrump. A proposed decision has been posted for the Genetically modified organisms arbitration case, for which you are on the notification list. Comments about the proposed decision are welcome at the proposed decision talk page. Thank you. For the Arbitration Committee, L235 (t / c / ping in reply) via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:05, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 14:27, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Happy Christmas!

		Happy Christmas!
		Have a happy holiday season. May the year ahead be productive and happy. John (talk) 17:44, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

Fuck²

I was just about to cite you as an example of "ways to survive Wikipedia" and I see you've been ground down. Fuuuuuuuuck. Please come back: it probably won't be fun, but believe me: you've done some good; and you can do some more. Alexbrn (talk) 21:17, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

Happy New Year, AndyTheGrump!

Happy New Year!

AndyTheGrump,
Have a prosperous, productive and enjoyable New Year, and thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:44, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

Send New Year cheer by adding {{subst:Happy New Year fireworks}} to user talk pages.

A kitten for you!

Come back soon. This kitten will protect your talkpage.

The Quixotic Potato (talk) 12:25, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

Neat

You had a cool userpage before you switched it all to "retired". NoToleranceForIntolerance (talk) 21:12, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

Callum James Greens AfD

Hi Andy. I am notifying all the participants in the previous AfD for this article that it has recently been re-created and has been nominated for deletion again. The new discussion is at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Callum James Greens (2nd nomination). Voceditenore (talk) 06:04, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

Miss ya dude

Miss ya, grumpiness and all,

Scott P. (talk) 23:43, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

Keith Larson

Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Keith_Larson Only in death does duty end (talk) 15:45, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

Some baklava for you!

Just a general thanks. Ebyabe (talk) 00:52, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

Cold one

An incisive analysis. Cheers, ——SerialNumber54129 16:31, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

Well, look at you!

Hey! Great to see you after all this time! Bishonen | talk 17:30, 2 July 2019 (UTC).

+1! Will we see you in mainspace too? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 12:15, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

Unlikely, given that the current custard-pie-fights are symptomatic of the very issues that led to me leaving in the first place. The simple fact is that 'anyone can edit' is incompatible with anything aspiring to be an encyclopaedia, and that this incompatibility is at the very root of most of Wikipedia's problems (well, that and the fact that it is being written by human beings, not rainbow-coloured equines, and accordingly reflects all the usual stuff that us relatively-unhairy apes bring as baggage). The WMF seems to want a social media platform, quite possibly because it will get more shiny stuff that way. Some of the contributors though (including me when I was one) take the 'encyclopaedia' thing seriously, as an aspiration if not necessarily always a reality, and understand that to achieve that, one has on occasion to be not-so-nice. It isn't pleasant to be told you lack the necessary attributes to usefully contribute to something that claims that 'anyone' can participate in. Or to be told that your contributions, regardless of your personal opinion concerning their benefits to the human race, aren't compatible with an encyclopaedia intended to summarise existing knowledge, rather than fix the worlds problems through whatever magic potion, deity or perpetual-motion-machine you are promoting. And it isn't nice to be told that you are batshit crazy, that nobody can even understand whatever the heck it is you are trying to say, and that Wikipedia is not a platform to explain to the world that the Earth is a seven-dimensional torus, that the number fourteen doesn't exist, and that the CIA is run by a cabal of Gerbils from Theta Muscae. It isn't even very nice to be told that while you are clearly capable of contributing to an online encyclopaedia, it needs to be one written in a language you can write in comprehensibly. And to be an encyclopaedia, or attempt to be, Wikipedia has to say all those not-nice things. Or rather, those creating and maintaining it do. The 'good faith' that the WMF seems to think is sufficient grounds to permit participation isn't enough. Competence is required. And so is at least a basic understanding of the objective of the encyclopaedia, and an understanding that this objective applies regardless of your enthusiasm for boosting your favourite football team, your granfalloon, or your employer's new brand of anti-ageing cream. An while I wouldn't necessarily always hold myself up as an ideal model for how to do it, aspiring contributors often need to be told this. Sometimes repeatedly. And in the end rudely. Accompanied by a block that tells them that as far as Wikipedia is concerned they are outlaws, and will be metaphorically shot on sight if they are seen in town again. You can have an encyclopaedia (or an attempt at one), or you can aspire to universal niceness. You can't do both. And as long as the pretence that fluffy-bunny-pedia is ever going to work is kept up, you are going to have the same problems. The only solution, in my opinion, is for Wikipedia contributors to tell the WMF that they aren't interesting in running Facebook-for-nerds-and-anime-fans, that slogans asserting what 'anyone' can do aren't compatible with summarising useful knowledge, and that from now on the contributors are going to make it clear from the start that participation in the project is conditional on agreeing to work within the stated objectives of the project, and conditional on being able to demonstrate the capabilities required to do so. Get that straight, drop the 'anyone' pretence that only leads to inevitable 'except you's, and maybe Wikipedia will make some progress. Or failing that, at least have more time to sort out the important things like the proper use of em-dashes and the correct word to use to entitle an article on an expensive hydrocarbon fluid used in personal transportation. AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:00, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

Your eloquence is missed. Johnuniq (talk) 01:52, 4 July 2019 (UTC)

Good to see you. I was just thinking about you the other day; it was after I posted my "21:13, 1 July 2019 (UTC)" commentary in a talk page discussion. It's because you were involved in the archived discussion I pointed to. After that post, I looked at your contributions and came to your talk page. And now you are here not too long afterward. Take care. Would be great to have you back. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 14:28, 4 July 2019 (UTC)

I am sorry you feel the Wikipedia Community has not been so nice to you. Sometimes things can feel unpleasant, but everyone is trying to help you. You may feel like the community is calling you batshit crazy, but we are just trying to help you make your contributions compatible with an encyclopedia. Increasing reader clarity and comprehension of what you write is not intended as a personal attack. Yes we have to say these things, but consider taking them constructively and feel free to return.--108.56.202.118 (talk) 15:19, 29 September 2019 (UTC)

What the..? Few people write as clearly as AndyTheGrump. Might this wildly irrelevant comment have been copied from something somebody told you, IP? What account were you using at the time? Bishonen | talk 16:09, 29 September 2019 (UTC).

Just noticed that you posted some comments a week or so ago, Andy, and thought I'd say "Hi". I hope you think about more frequent editing. I was away for a year when I had cancer and when I returned, I was surprised to see some familiar faces had left (or resigned or been blocked), there were many new editors who were active who I didn't know and there were definitely some changes here in the atmosphere. I think you don't notice how the environment changes over time when you edit every day. You might find a different climate here than in 2015 when you left. Any way, welcome back! Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:25, 8 February 2020 (UTC)

I'm Sorry

I'm Sorry I got mad at you over Alger Hiss.

CJK (talk) 22:17, 10 September 2019 (UTC)

A survey to improve the community consultation outreach process

Hello!

The Wikimedia Foundation is seeking to improve the community consultation outreach process for Foundation policies, and we are interested in why you didn't participate in a recent consultation that followed a community discussion you’ve been part of.

Please fill out this short survey to help us improve our community consultation process for the future. It should only take about three minutes.

The privacy policy for this survey is here. This survey is a one-off request from us related to this unique topic.

Thank you for your participation, Kbrown (WMF) 10:44, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

Nomination of List of Spanish flu cases for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article List of Spanish flu cases is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Spanish flu cases until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:03, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

Hello!

Lovely to see you on Wikipedia, Andy. Bishonen | tålk 17:44, 21 March 2020 (UTC).

Just passing through, so to speak. No intention of becoming a regular again. AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:38, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

I can't really blame you. Best of luck. Bishonen | tålk 20:44, 3 April 2020 (UTC).

ArbCom 2020 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2020 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:30, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

Thanks

I understand that you may only be here for a limited time, but I want to thank you for your recent comments about the Tenebrae fiasco. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 23:44, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

Nice to be appreciated. Seems to happen more when I'm only here occasionally.

Seriously though, I've been following this for some time (as a Wikipediocracy regular, though one not involved in the initial blog and the related Daily Dot piece), and had only held off from commenting earlier as I wanted to see how ArbCom were going to handle it. To my mind, it highlights much broader concerns over the disconnect between CoI editing, biographical content, and Wikipedia 'outing' policies, which I have a vague hope might possibly be looked into as a result of the 'fiasco' - though I'm not going to get my hopes up too much over this. Frankly, I think that such matters might be better taken on here by those now contributing more regularly, and my criticisms directed instead from outside, where a little more openness, and dare I say it less concern for 'civility' (never my strong point) will probably make my efforts more worthwhile. For several reasons, my tolerance for hypocrisy and general BS is even lower at the moment than it usually is, and I suspect that were I to tarry too long, I'd outstay my welcome. AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:06, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

That may all be true, but still, you are doing excellent work here now, and I for one appreciate it. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 18:18, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

		The Barnstar of Diligence
		you know why. thanks. Beeblebrox (talk) 07:24, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

um

first of all,

i don't know where you get the idea 'deranged'. it's the truth.

throughout this website, it seems the writers have shown their clear favouritism for a methodology that isn't even real mathematics.

for example, and this is what i said in my RfC before you removed it without basis: throughout this site the writers have referred to SR/GR using 'inertial reference frames'.

this is simply not the case. if the laws of physics are unchanged in any frame of reference, then it shouldn't matter whether it is global or local.

indeed, and this is what i said in my post, the Riemann surface clearly accounts for this phenomenon. it says something may look different locally than it does globally, but in no way does that mean the algebraic relationship at the local level *changes* at the global level.

yet, in SR/GR, this is precisely what is happening. a global perspective results in a completely different algebraic (and topological, if we want to believe it's adherent to geometrical axioms) representation.

and you have some nerve, to revert my RfC. are you even an admin? stay retired.

thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.53.108.48 (talk) 17:36, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

I should probably explain that my level of mathematics goes about as far as trigonometry. Preferably done on a piece of paper, with a compass and ruler just so I can check I've not misremembered the cosine law. Or more likely misread it when I looked it up, since I can't remember it anyway.

I reverted the post not because of anything you said about Riemann surfaces (whatever they are) but because, having seen a new 'request for comment added to the list at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Maths, science, and technology with missing text to explain what the subject was, I looked at your post, and saw something that started with 'its obvious..' and went downhill from there, to the point of apparently threatening to beat up (pseudo-)mathematicians who disagreed with you. As I said on your talk page, that isn't how an RfC is supposed to be conducted, and thus isn't likely to achieve anything useful. At least not unless the 'something useful' was you letting off steam.

As for your question no, I'm not an admin. And as for the advice, I should probably take it, since this project tends to bring about similar frustrations in me too. I do generally try to be a little more subtle in my rants. Skilled ranting can often be disguised as civil discourse, and only appreciated for what it is long after the event, when it is too late for the ranted-against to complain. I'd put more work into the subtlety, if I were you... AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:09, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

physicists lost any right to 'subtlety', 'manners', 'decency' and 'courtesy' a while ago if you ask me. i feel bad for my peers in mathematics because they act in the exact way you're recommending i should.

they're too timid and nice. when the physicist comes and cherry picks whatever s/he wants from the field, the mathematician says "oh don't worry, it's not proper math so it won't go that far"

in many ways they're right. physics is not using the math properly otherwise we'd call it mathematics and not physics. it's not the truth.

you should see when a physicist tries to do Group theory. it's hilarious. or when they excuse the lack of a proper integral theory for the alleged differential geometry they employ in their field.

it's time to fight. if we don't stand up for our discipline, we're going to get run over. the physicists are already highjacking the field of differential geometry, and it's going to get worse.

i appreciate your kindness, but do not worry about me. thank you 198.53.108.48 (talk) 18:23, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

If it's come to a fight, you should probably read this. [1] Mathematicians may be at an advantage: "Before doing battle, one calculates in the temple and will win, because many calculations were made; before doing battle, one calculates in the temple but will lose, because few calculations were made." Them evil physicists don't stand a chance... AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:48, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

Thanks

Greetings,

Thanks for your positive response. May be that fellow user did not have good sleep recently, in spite of all the politeness from my side the fellow kept personalizing and insinuating constantly with unrelated subjects to a level of vicious harassment, but new users can't say any thing to established old guys.

First insinuated I am against women's rights, when told my record on women's rights is impeccable searched my most edited article and blamed me I write about feminism for one specific country (My most drafts are crosschecked by some experienced users or co authored and still fellow was unnecessarily insinuating) . (Actually I had included criticism of Modi in my own suggested statement on talk page, usually I do take note of all sides but fellow was not and is not ready to acknowledge my neutrality) The fellow did it to a level I got fed up. At one point the fellow apologized while apologizing too insinuated!

what I edited elsewhere had nothing to here in this case still kept bringing up to borderline of doxing that was the reason I did not make any detail mention.

In a big project small small things keep happening. Usually I try to ignore, forget and forgive and focus on expansion of the various articles.

Thanks and warm regards

Bookku, 'Encyclopedias are for expanding information and knowledge' (talk) 15:54, 5 August 2021 (UTC)

I did not expect...

...the Layla Love dispute to turn into the Spanish Inquisition. Fingers crossed that the editor in question finds a non-Wikipedia forum. David notMD (talk) 13:27, 6 August 2021 (UTC)

Yup, utterly ridiculous. I only got involved through responding to a post by Sennagod at WP:BLPN. I've still not figured out what their agenda was, though whatever the motivation it was a spectacular series of own goals if the intent was to get the Love article deleted. Sadly, this sort of thing is the consequence of telling people that 'anyone can edit'. It's technically true (anyone with internet access can click on an edit button), but being able to contribute usefully requires several attributes that not everyone has. Like basic competence, the ability to read instructions, and the ability to understand that not everyone who disagrees with you is part of some humongous conspiracy to promote New York photographers. Not the strangest conspiracy I've been accused of being involved in, but certainly one of the silliest... AndyTheGrump (talk) 13:55, 6 August 2021 (UTC)

Hmmm

Yeah, I know that. I'm still gathering the facts for all those figures. Moreover, what concerns figures with the fact that you erased the part that said that the Igbos are related to Afro-Americans,etc? Nyero12 (talk) 01:27, 8 August 2021 (UTC)

Nyero12, please wait until you've gathered the necessary facts before making an edit, that way you can cite a source at the same time, making things easier for your fellow editors. See WP:BURDEN, "The burden to demonstrate verifiability lies with the editor who adds or restores material, and it is satisfied by providing an inline citation to a reliable source that directly supports the contribution." Meticulo (talk) 01:35, 8 August 2021 (UTC)

Yeah, thanks for that: we find sourced data first, and then add it to articles. As for including African-Americans etc in 'related groups', Nyero12, I think you've misunderstood the purpose of that section. Certainly many African-Americans will have some Igbo-related ancestry, but that doesn't make them a 'related ethnic group'. The 'related groups' previously listed are peoples sharing a similar cultural and linguistic heritage. One cannot include all African-Americans there because some of them share ancestors with modern Igbo people. AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:45, 8 August 2021 (UTC)

Re: The NeoTheist Experience

I have distributed "lovely parting gifts", as they say on game shows, to that user. Let me know if you want me to squash their last comment with {{rpa}} or remove it entirely. —C.Fred (talk) 18:13, 20 August 2021 (UTC)

Not worth worrying about, it just makes the purveyor of 'Truth' look silly in my opinion: let it stand. Thanks for asking though. AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:11, 20 August 2021 (UTC)

Racism

Hi, Grump. This was mainly an experiment to see how quickly some obvious edits, intended to improve the neutrality of this extraordinarily biased article, would be reverted. You have exceeded my expectations --- less than 15 minutes in both cases! Good job! I have started a discussion on the talk page on this question, where I invite you to say more about where you're coming from. See you there. Cheers, Eleuther (talk) 20:31, 18 September 2021 (UTC)

There is nothing 'extraordinarily biased' about stating simple facts about well-established scientific consensus in the lede of an article. AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:34, 18 September 2021 (UTC)

I would still like to know more about the science you're talking about here. To me, science means neutrally-expressed ideas that can be tested by experiment. You seem to be using the term in a different sense, as an authoritative cloak that you can don in order to appear important. Eleuther (talk) 20:50, 18 September 2021 (UTC)

I am a contributor to Wikipedia. Not a provider of personal tuition. The article cites sources. Read them. AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:58, 18 September 2021 (UTC)

Hi, Grump. You seem to have acquiesced to the idea that my removal of the term "scientifically invalid" from the lead sentence was not a bad edit. Never mind that you reverted it thoughtlessly within a few minutes, when I first made it, and you also seem to have reported me to the authorities for it. I think you owe me an apology, and here would be a good place for you to provide one. Eleuther (talk) 17:25, 22 September 2021 (UTC)

I haven't 'acquiesced' to your edit. Instead, after discussions on the article talk page, I've made a revision which is intended to address the concerns raised, while still noting that 'scientific racism' is discredited. This edit, and the article in general, is of course still open to further discussion, per normal Wikipedia procedures. As for the discretionary sanctions notice placed on your talk page, I had nothing to do with it. I thought about doing so, but felt it wasn't necessary at the time. As the notice says, it's purpose is to inform contributors that the topic is covered by a specific policy, rather than to imply that an editor has necessarily done anything wrong. Anyone making substantive edits to such articles may expect to receive such notifications as a matter of course, and I assume that EvergreenFir did so as a result of seeing your edit on their watchlist. I owe you no apology for anything, since nothing I did was in any shape or form unusual when dealing with a controversial subject in a collaborative environment. If you don't like being reverted, I suggest you avoid engaging in 'experiments' in the future. AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:06, 22 September 2021 (UTC)

Phew. Does self-righteousnous have a smell to you? It does to me. Eleuther (talk) 18:30, 23 September 2021 (UTC)