User talk:AndyTheGrump

Ed miliband year of birth

I noticed you keep undoing my correction of his year of birth. Not sure why but if you would like proof:

Birth Record Lookup

Thank you :) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Haza2169 (talk • contribs) 17:38, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

I reverted it because you cited no source, and because every source I have seen states December 1969. As for genesreunited.co.uk, not only would it appear not to meet the Wikipedia reliability requirements as a source, but it fails to support your claim - it gives no date, only the year - and the quarter. Given that it says 1st quarter 1970, and that you agree that he was born in December, it seems likely that the date given is the date of registry rather than of birth. Not that it matters, since we can't cite a source for a date of birth if it doesn't give one. Anyway, I asked you to discuss this on the article talk page and not here (other people may wish to participate in the discussion), and ask that if you can actually provide any of the other "multiple sources" for the date you are suggesting, you post them there - if you persist in making the edit without citing a proper source (compliant with WP:RS) I shall have to consider requesting that you be blocked from, editing for violating WP:BLP policy. AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:54, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

removing aircrash investigation additions and calling them spam en third class publications

Someone (AndyTheGrump)is accusing me of putting information about aircraft investigations as third class spam mail on wikipedia. This is outrageous and completely ridiculous. I am a aviation specialist, I was general manager of large airports (among others Schiphol International Airport Amsterdam), a professor in economics (graduated Erasmus University, Rotterdam, Netherlands in 1973) and a consultant for many governments world wide (a.o. Netherlands, Indonesia, Chad, Philippines) on issues regarding aviation. I can proof that on every account. The problem with aviation accidents is that every country makes it own report of the accident, many are not in English, not everybody uses the metric system, there are problems in terminology, etc. Many reports are not easy to obtain, some governments simply refuse to make reports available for international students and/or mechanics in aviation. This is very frustrating for people working in this field. Not everybody is American, there are also Asians, Africans, Russians, etc. who are entitled to the same knowledge as you and me. For this reason we publish these reports all in the same style and the same format and all in English. This makes comparison easy. Because we (a number of retired pilots) are talking over small series and the information has to be available for many years we found the solution in publishing them as print in demand by lulu.com. I do not see what is wrong with this. Publishing via a normal publisher means that the series are too large and after a certain time the publication is no more available, they also become too expensive for people in countries that are not so "blessed" as Americans. You should appreciate what we do instead of insulting us, we are simply acting on requests of the industry. You are apparently some kind of Johnny the Selfkicker.

Dr. Dirk J. Barreveld, Netherlands. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Orientaldecorations (talk • contribs) 13:40, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

Please see Wikipedia:Conflict of interest - it is entirely contrary to Wikipedia guidelines for you to be adding books you are responsible for to articles. As for your claims to be an 'aviation specialist', I don't give two hoots - the information in the books you publish is freely available to anyone, and I see no reason whatsoever why Wikipedia should assist you in scamming readers. AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:58, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

Johnny the Selfkicker, incidentally, would be this chap.. Britmax (talk) 21:11, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

Good faith

This topic is closed
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Please assume it. I re-added the names after extensive research, and finding new references. There is no violation of BLP here. I would appreciate if you recanted your accusations, thank you. Zambelo; talk 03:05, 4 October 2014 (UTC) The 'new source' is nothing more than the same material previously cited, under a slightly different name. My statement stands - add the names again without consensus and I will call for you to be topic banned. AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:09, 4 October 2014 (UTC) Look closer, please. I added 5-6 new references. Please discuss this over at the talk page, instead of demanding a topic ban - I have complied with every request from other editors so far. Zambelo; talk 03:13, 4 October 2014 (UTC) That is an outright lie. You have been repeatedly told to stop adding the names, and yet you continued to do so. AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:16, 4 October 2014 (UTC) No, the names were already present in the article. Other editors has issues with the referenced inclusions, which I disagreed with - after discussion, I researched new sources, added them to the entries, and re-added the names. You aren't considering this objectively. Zambelo; talk 03:19, 4 October 2014 (UTC) I'm not the slightest bit interested in your bullshit. You self-evidently tried to deceive people by citing the same publication twice - and your refusal to acknowledge your error only compounds the issue. Anyway, I'm not going to argue further here. My warning stands. AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:25, 4 October 2014 (UTC) Please avoid personal attacks. I've requested outside comment for this, so some objectivity can be brought to the table. Zambelo; talk 03:28, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

Poisoning the well

Please read Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment#Statement_should_be_neutral_and_brief - if you feel that your comment belongs in the filing after that, then so be it. Zambelo; talk 03:52, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

My post was a response to the RfC, not part of the filing. And stay off my talk page - any further posts from you (except for obligatory notifications) will be deleted without further response. AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:58, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

ANI

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Zambelo; talk 04:46, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

List of deprogrammers

Hello! Please note that I have restructured the layout of the RfC at List of deprogrammers. Please review and make certain your comments are in the intended section(s). Thank you, Tgeairn (talk) 21:00, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

• On that note, please have a look at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Sfacets. It will be decided on behavioral evidence alone; perhaps you can strengthen the case. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 19:51, 9 October 2014 (UTC)
• Did you see List of Ebola patients? Seemed incredible to me, and on a whim I typed in List of AIDS patients--well, you know about that one. Drmies (talk) 20:02, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

Arbitration

Thanks for reminding me of the rules. I notified everyone I named, but you were very fast in writing a reply to the Arb (thanks for staying involved, it is an important issue in either case, I assure you I have been harsh/candid with Carrie as well.) If you want I can put this as a link in the arb article, but it seems pretty obvious to me that you already knew what I had done.

I really am sorry if it looked like I was having a dispute against you. I think you have been fine in the process, like everyone on Wikipedia you do use rhetorical diversion, but I genuinely get that you thought Carrie was a troll, and I thought carrie was over fixated on one paid editor. I am fixated on paid editing too, but only because I thought insurance companies were screwing up medical articles. I am not sure that anything can be done about it, and I wish there was a more sympathetic example of righteous indignation than Carrie, but in my dealings with her - and her faults - I do think that the issue is exactly as I am presenting it. I have no problem with her being blocked indef. But I am trying to do a small part in raising an important issue, and I thought it was important for someone like you to argue the other side, which you are doing well. I have to call you out (and you me) on debate points for it to be a legitimate debate, but I assure you that I am asserting exactly what I believe, and am going to quietly go away soon because I have done as much as I can to raise an important question that probably does not have a good answer.

My respect to you. Keep up the good argument. And thanks for you efforts on behalf of the project. Bob the goodwin (talk) 04:28, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

The Ecologist

Needs to be merged with Resurgence & Ecologist - take a look at the edit at that article I just reverted - couldn't have been more promotional. I wonder if he has a COI. Dougweller (talk) 20:39, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

Not sure - but he certainly seems to have an agenda. AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:41, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

Nomination of Cathisophobia for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Cathisophobia 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/Cathisophobia until a consensus is reached, and anyone 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. Srleffler (talk) 21:11, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

Arbcom evidence

A warning to both Andy and Zambelo; while almost by definition, we do not get to an Arbcom case without some issues between editors, the evidence page is for the documentation of evidence, it isn't a forum for back and forth sniping.

Some of what has been posted is not in the spirit desired, whether it rises to the level that it requires removal is something I need to look into, but future additions by both should be evidence—factual assertions about behavior backed up by diffs, not pot shots or unsubstantiated inferences about motives. For the arbitration committee --S Philbrick(Talk) 21:30, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

I posted evidence regarding Zambelo's behaviour, complete with links. AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:36, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

Lia Olguța Vasilescu

The article on this person is curiously resilient. Please see this at WP:AN (yes, the section is still present within the article, or was a couple of minutes ago). -- Hoary (talk) 01:40, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

Sorry for the minor complication, but as it seemed an "incident" I moved the matter here in WP:AN/I. -- Hoary (talk) 03:48, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

William Shurtleff

I write scholarly books about soybeans and soyfoods then publish them on the Web free of charge. I have absolutely NO interest in promoting my name or my free digital books. However when I believe that one of those books would be of interest to Wikipedia readers I post a link to the book. It seems to be that I am enriching Wikipedia by doing this and quite a few people have thanked me for these helpful and well documented books. I am not selling anything and am not promoting anything. I can under your point of view - as a machine ~~BillShurts — Preceding unsigned comment added by BillShurts (talk • contribs) 16:35, 22 October 2014‎

The Wikipedia guideline concerning conflict of interest is entirely clear and unambiguous on this point - you have a conflict of interest, and should not be posting links to your own books in articles. AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:17, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected

Hi Andy. Sorry to trouble you. I took the liberty of semi-protecting your user talk page. Let me know if you want it unprotected or if there is anything else I can do for you. --John (talk) 20:26, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

Probably a good idea for now - Jim-Siduri seems to have returned. AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:42, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

RM notification

Since you have participated in at least one Requested Move or Move Review discussion, either as participant or closer, regarding the title of the article currently at Sarah Jane Brown, you are being notified that there is another discussion about that going on now, at Talk:Sarah Jane Brown#Requested move #10. We hope we can finally achieve consensus among all participating about which title best meets policy and guidelines, and is not too objectionable. --В²C ☎ 16:46, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

MMS

Rest assured you're not the only person watching the article... Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 00:53, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

leave this to you

Hi, This edit https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reference_desk/Humanities#Hop_on_-_Hop_off_cruising makes a very long editorial statement about how cruise lines should run their business with no question asked. I'd hat it myself, but if I do it will immediately be unhatted just because of my name, so I and dropping this baby on your doorstep. μηδείς (talk) 02:17, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

Hatted per WP:NOTFORUM. AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:24, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

Yet another flaming bag of

For your doorstep: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reference_desk/Miscellaneous#Necklaces

User's a known troll, I suspect he's posted multiple problematic posts recently under different names. This one asks us to help him with his mental health worker's assignement, if I read it right. History is such I'd ask Nil to block him. μηδείς (talk) 05:42, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

we don't need 4 almost identical images

Because no images at all are better then four images depicting the basic training of drawing a firearm and shooting for self-defense. Obviously, right? Cimmerian praetor (talk) 21:40, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

Please discuss on the article talk page. AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:45, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

Hispanics ?

The real problem with that comment at the WP:Help Desk that Columbus thought Hispanics were Chinese is that he is imposing a twentieth-century category on the fifteenth century. There was no concept of "Hispanics" at the time. Anyway, he didn't think that he had actually reached China, or we would have a different confusing name for native Americans. He thought that he had reached the (East) Indies, which is why they are called (American) Indians. Anyway, I don't know what that editor wants. (The Scott to whom that editor refers is a fringe archeologist.) Robert McClenon (talk) 22:56, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

What Columbus argued with King Ferdinand's wise men about was not the shape of the Earth. Scholars and sailors agreed that it was round. (Peasants may have thought it was flat.) They argued about the size of the Earth. The wise men said its circumference was approximately 24000 miles, based on Greek astronomy. They cautioned that Columbus would either run out of food and water or run into unknown land. Columbus said its circumference was approximately 15000 miles. The Earth's circumference is approximately 24800 miles, so that the wise men were right as to the size, and were right in that he ran into unknown land. The question is why Columbus had such an extreme (small) estimate for the size of the Earth. My own guess (and I can't say this in Wikipedia because it is original research) is that he knew something that the wise men probably didn't know, and misinterpreted it. He knew the width of the Atlantic, because he knew that the Vikings had crossed it. However, he evidently then adjusted the size of the Earth because he concluded that the Vikings had reached Siberia, rather than Canada. Robert McClenon (talk) 22:56, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

Poor Sources

Since when torrentfreak and other news articles are poor sources? --Robin WH (talk) 23:07, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

Any source which doesn't say what it is being cited for is a poor source. And Wikipedia is not a platform for semi-literate unsourced opinions. This is an encyclopaedia, not your personal blog. AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:14, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

Well show me how YOU can do it better, smartass, instead of just deleting it. --Robin WH (talk) 23:20, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

Show me some sources that actually support what you are saying, halfwit - and the next time you add this crap, you will be reported for edit warring and being a complete jerk. AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:23, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

Shows only you haven´t read those referenced pages at all. Torrentfreak is regular source for many article on wikipedia and for SOPA you can also find article on BBC pages about his attack on google during SOPA campaign. Robin WH (talk) 23:30, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

Evidently you haven't even read the Wikipedia article - it already discusses Murdoch's support for SOPA. As for the techdirt piece, it says nothing about Murdoch, News Corp, or the 'internet community' (whatever that is supposed to mean). We don't cite sources for things we'd like them to have said but didn't. And please at least try to write in coherent grammatical English... AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:39, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

Evidently, one sentence that he also supports SOPA is not enough since he has targeted online piracy and IT companies quite often in last few years. As for english, I don´t see what I have written wrong, but I am not native english speaker, so please tell me what is not coherent. A too long sentence?Robin WH (talk) 23:46, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

If you are incapable of writing in coherent English, I suggest you find a more appropriate version of Wikipedia to contribute to. And if you insist on contributing to this one, please familiarise yourself with policy before wasting any more of other people's time. AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:50, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

Well I could write some coherent obscenities on your adress, but I would never even dream to descend to YOUR level. I think from their use it is certain you haven´t seen that policy. Calling someone a smartass maybe not polite, but certainly is not as pejorative like names you are calling me. So I will refrain from editing on article, for now. Though I plan to return. Good night.Robin WH (talk) 00:05, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

If you are under the misapprehension that calling someone a 'smartass' isn't pejorative, I can only suggest that once more it indicates the inappropriateness of your contributing to an English-language encyclopaedia - complaining when someone responds in kind does little to enhance your credibility. And before you return, find some sources that actually support the material you propose to contribute. You will generally find it makes editing a much more satisfactory process. AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:20, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

See this

I guess every editor who is even remotely involved is inputting HERE. That would include you too.VictoriaGrayson^Talk 01:07, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

Regarding our new mutual acquaintance at Talk:Illuminati

See Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Conspiracy_theorist_at_Talk:Illuminati. Ian.thomson (talk) 04:44, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

Gravitation Relativity Cosmology

What is happening with the topic ?

What is happenning is that I have closed it, because you have been removing other peoples comments from the thread. If you act like this in future I will call for you to be blocked from editing. AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:32, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

OK Sorrrrry I didn't know it. But let it close. They deleted the whole topic on French wiki.

What is a valid 3rd party source for Creativity Testing...

I am at a loss. Here is a good piece of research a team has conducted. There is a company behind the work, SparcIt. The work has been blessed by NSF - the grant is cited. Participants are leaders in the industry and academia - they are in Wikipedia. The company is on the radar of Bolis Forum, a 3rd party. Andy, I do not want to squabble, I deem this useful information worthy of sharing.

What is your definition of 3rd party? Bolis Forum LLC of California provides consulting and training services in strategic product and business planning. It also covers up and coming companies with cutting edge research. Would you have had more respect for Bolis Forum if it were called Bolis Inc? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aleksgollu (talk • contribs) 01:50, 22 November 2014‎

You need to find an independent source that discusses the research in detail and/or provide evidence that the research has been widely cited in relevant journals etc. As it stands, the only sources saying anything meaningful about the research are those involved in it - and they clearly aren't independent. Articles are intended to provide an overview of subject matter, rather than describing every single detail, and inclusion of this material requires evidence that qualified outsiders consider it significant. AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:58, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the prompt answer. The work is young, as such a broad list of citations are not available. Would the involvement of NSF not lend credibility? I was not involved until recently. I have looked at the work in some detail and as a 3rd party I chose to talk about them. You can google me if you want, my username is quite a singularity. Would my opinion not count? By definition, anyone who talks about the topic is "involved" and is no longer independent... I purposefully limited my comments to the feasibility of a computer being able to mimic a human in this domain, since that was the most unexpected achievement. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aleksgollu (talk • contribs) 02:13, 22 November 2014‎

If 'the work is young' and as yet uncommented on, it doesn't belong in Wikipedia. We aren't experts, and rely on published evidence that something is significant before including it in an article. This is an encyclopaedia, not a news service, and we can afford to let others provide evidence of lasting significance. As for your expertise in the subject, I have no reason to doubt it - but as I say we rely on published sources, and they need to be unconnected (in this case) with those conducting the research in order for us to assess its significance. If you are involved in any way with this, you need to read the Wikipedia:Conflict of interest guidelines - which state that persons with a conflict of interest should not (with certain exceptions) edit articles directly at all. AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:31, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

Understood. I will rewrite the section and include references to published articles that explore the potential of humans mimicking computers in creativity assessment - I had focused on the most recent concrete results. As computers beating humans in chess has become a lasting reality, this might (will?) too. P.S. I presume you meant "we can NOT afford to let others provide evidence."

Based on your feedback I have provided a broader background. Constructive feedback is more than welcomed to make this a valuable contribution! --Aleksgollu (talk) 00:06, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

Calling an IP editor "a moron"

I understand your frustration but lease don't call IP editors morons, although feel free to revert the advertising that the IP is sprawling all over his/her talk page. It just seems blatantly rude, so please, don't do it. I have reverted the IP, and I recommend you report him. Thank you! --George.Edward.C – Talk – Contributions 09:15, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

I have reported the IP - three times (this is the third IP he's used). As for the 'moron' statement, I'll gladly defend it anywhere, as objective fact, though my intent was to try to persuade the IP to actually look at the page he was spamming, and the note I'd left about how it wasn't going to show up in searches, so he realised the pointlessness of the exercise. This isn't the first time we've had this individual spamming this nonsense in inappropriate places either - you'll find past instances in the Talk:Main page history, if I remember correctly, and probably elsewhere too. Clearly blocking the IP isn't going to stop him, but maybe if we can get him to realise he is wasting his own time he'll stop. AndyTheGrump (talk) 09:21, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

I understand your intent. I have reported the IP again for good measure. Maybe a temporary range block would be in order for this instance? George.Edward.C – Talk – Contributions 09:25, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

Yeah - a range block might work, for a time at least. I thought I'd asked for one, but it seems that I didn't (in fact I seem not to have reported the last IP at all - I probably forgot to hit 'save' after posting at WP:AIV). AndyTheGrump (talk) 09:27, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

IP seems to have stopped now, will continue monitoring the page just in case. --George.Edward.C – Talk – Contributions 09:36, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

Penguins, etc.

I doubt there are many who would disagree that Pablo's silliness about Chuck E. Cheese should be reverted on-sight, and if he persists, a block for disruption could be requested. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:25, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

Will be requested. AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:29, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

Thy will hath been done. Meanwhile, someday when someone has nothing to do, it would be interesting to find out how many editors with words like "truth" in their ID's have lasted longer than a few days here. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:26, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

neutral RfC notification

Template_talk:Succession_box#RfC has a discussion on succession box usage. You had previously noted or opined at Template_talk:Infobox_officeholder/Archive_18#RfC_on_successor.2Fpredecessor_where_a_district_is_not_reasonably_viewed_as_the_same_after_redistricting thanks. Collect (talk) 21:30, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

So..

...you're keeping up with this nonsense? Stop being a dumbass and discuss this shit on the talk page. --Diego Grez (talk) 18:28, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

Next stop ANI. [1] AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:11, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

Notice

I wonder whether you can have any insight re Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Penny Seven. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 07:55, 5 December 2014 (UTC) (recently also August Figure)

Hello regarding your revert of my recent change

Please assume good faith faith my friend! I look forward to building this encyclopedia together!
-- 107.15.41.141 (talk) 22:41, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

Yeah - apologies for that, I misunderstood what you'd done. AndyTheGrump (talk)

No problem at all, thank you and take care! -- 107.15.41.141 (talk) 22:47, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

Max Gerson

Why did you revert my change? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mbenham2 (talk • contribs) 01:40, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia is based on published reliable sources, and not on the opinions of contributors - and if you wish to discuss this further, do so on the article talk page. AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:46, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

Sangram Singh

Since you have violated WP:3RR, I have had to report the breach. 94.197.46.68 (talk) 18:55, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

Violations of copyright are exempt from WP:3RR. AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:01, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

Sangram Singh continued

Yes Sir. I just attached the links for you all the know the genuinity of the update. Rest it is update on his career. I dont know much in wikipedia so if you could update the information with the links I provided would appreciate it..Sangram Singh (talk) 18:46 7 December 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shivraj1978 (talk • contribs)

You must not copy-paste material from copyright sources - instead, content must be written in your own words. And why are you trying to sign your name as Sangram Singh? Your account is registered to Shivraj1978. AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:04, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

RE: User:Scalhotrod

Did I file a complaint in the wrong place? Should I file a complaint at the Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard instead?--RAF910 (talk) 17:42, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

No, you shouldn't 'file a complaint' anywhere. You should discuss the matter on the talk page, and if it can't be resolved there, ask for assistance in resolving the dispute either at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard if this is a dispute over the reliability of a source, or if it is a more general content dispute, try one of the methods suggested at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution. 'Filing a complaint' because a contributor disagrees with article content isn't at all appropriate. AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:47, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

I have tried to resolve it on the talk page and provided evidence the site in question is used as a reference in numerous books, but Scalhotrod rejected the evidence outright and demands additional evidence. I simply do not know how to proceed.--RAF910 (talk) 18:02, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

If the dispute is over the reliability of a source, take it to the reliable sources noticeboard. AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:42, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

Talk:Jimbo Wales

Thanks for your reverts on Jimbos talk. Does :en have no admins to block the IP and protect the talkpage? --Túrelio (talk) 09:20, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

I've just been trying via IRC - no luck. I'll have to use WP:ANI, though this isn't ideal as it draws more attention. AndyTheGrump (talk) 09:22, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

Sanjay Singh - help, please

I'm struggling a bit at Sanjay_Singh#Family and wonder if you might be able to help me craft something that is BLP-acceptable and not too tortuous to read? I've rephrased quite a bit of what was there due to close paraphrasing etc but something is still niggling me and I can't put my finger on it. No worries if you're too busy or just plain not interested. - Sitush (talk) 18:36, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

Yikes! Is this for real, or a plot for a soap opera? I'll take a look, but I'm not sure I can help much - it probably needs someone more familiar with the case and/or the Indian legal system, as well as the ability to look through non-English sources. AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:58, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

The best Indian news sources are in fact usually those printed in English. And, yes, it does look like a plot for a soap! - Sitush (talk) 19:35, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for the troika picture. My father only uses megafauna for his wallpaper and he likes this one especially. μηδείς (talk) 06:48, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

The 'Reliable Sources' give no information.

Dear AndyTheGrump, I have read the references that you say are 'reliable sources'(not the ones that user 220.245.49.25 said). These sources say nothing about whether or not he is vegetarian. For example, reference number 188 (The Enigma of Hitler) said nothing about if he is vegetarian (it just says he enjoys vegetable soup). Therefore, this means that the sources mentioned by user 220.245.49.25 are reliable sources, and that Hitler, at least, should be put into the disputed list. — Preceding unsigned comment added by LeoLi1234 (talk • contribs) 03:39, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

Your comment...

I wanted to discuss this with you. The notification in question appeared on his talk page prior to it being raised in this thread which was archived before being closed but resulted in a 24-hour block for harassment (which included that notification). He was blocked and it was removed by the blocking admin but promptly restored almost right away. My point is that he had already been told (several times) that it was inappropriate and restored it anyway. Gamaliel's comment upon removing it (the second time) was almost exactly the same as yours - his ANI post served no purpose beyond childish trolling. Nothing about his recent conduct suggests he is here to build an encyclopaedia and he has only reinforced that with more rubbish on my own talk page. St★lwart¹¹¹ 05:56, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

I think the best course of action regarding this 'contributor' is to wait and see - it looks a certainty that he'll make another bid for martyrdom soon enough, and I'm sure the community will oblige with an indefinite block. There's little point in raising his past behaviour again at this point - it will be better bringing it up the next time he acts the clueless bigot he clearly is. AndyTheGrump (talk) 06:03, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

Don't disagree and thanks for looking into it. Cheers, St★lwart¹¹¹ 22:48, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

Notice of Neutral point of view noticeboard discussion

Hello, AndyTheGrump. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is RfC at Bitcoin, re: mentioning its use in online black markets. Thank you. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 17:57, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

Platforms

"...platform for the propagation of proselyting puffery..." W.C. Fields would be proud. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 07:44, 25 December 2014 (UTC)

Yeah! I came here to say just the same thing! (about this place) but you've said it much better. :-) --Thnidu (talk) 07:59, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

Notify ppl, mkay?

troll-be-gone
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
P.S. When you start a discussion about an editor, you must notify them on their user talk page. You may use {{subst:ANI-notice}} to do so. Is it not clear enough? Does it need to be bigger? Igor the facetious xmas bunny (talk) 03:32, 28 December 2014 (UTC) AndyTheGrump didn't start the discussion. I doubt you care about the specifics though. Go troll elsewhere. --Onorem (talk) 03:34, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

Non-standard cosmologies and tired light

I have explained Wikipedia policy. I am not interested in facile debate. AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:51, 28 December 2014 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
AndyTheGrump are you uneducated? You delete the dichotomous cosmology which is a tired light theory from the non-standard cosmology page claiming that this is non notable theory. Anybody who is educated will recognize that tired light is a notable theory. Do you have an advance degree in a related scientific field to judge this? I bet you don't! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.120.130.244 (talk) 17:45, 28 December 2014 (UTC) No, I am not uneducated. Amongst other things, my education teaches me to distinguish between the general and the specific. Tired-light theories in general may possibly be notable, but there is precisely zero evidence presented in the disputed section that Yuri Heymann's 'Dichotomous Cosmology' has attracted even the slightest comment from anyone. Wikipedia articles are not a dumping-ground for anything and everything, and inclusion of content needs to be justified through third-party sources. AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:54, 28 December 2014 (UTC) There is no secondary sources ok, but still the primary sources have been peer reviewed by the journal, and there are comments and reaction from the readers if you look at the right places on the Web. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.120.130.244 (talk) 17:58, 28 December 2014 (UTC) The journal has zero credibility, and is not a third-party source. AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:03, 28 December 2014 (UTC) First, this is not a scientific argument (I bet you don't have a PhD in physics). Second, this is subjective, and is a preconceived judgment. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.120.130.244 (talk) 18:13, 28 December 2014 (UTC) Read Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dichotomous cosmology, and then go and educate yourself on Wikipedia policy. I am not interested in facile debates. AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:16, 28 December 2014 (UTC) Yes, I can read. This is ridiculous! Then, you should delete all cosmologies from the Non Standard cosmology page because they are not mainstream. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.120.130.244 (talk) 18:40, 28 December 2014 (UTC) Frankly, I don't think we'd lose much useful encyclopaedic content if we did. AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:42, 28 December 2014 (UTC) This is cherry picking! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.120.130.244 (talk) 18:46, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

Would you have any suggestions?

A few months ago during the eventually unsuccessful Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Piotrus_3 you voted "oppose". I wonder if you'd like to discuss any concerns of yours, or if you would have any suggestions in the event I'd decide to run again (which I am not planning to do anytime soon, but might consider in the future). For a better sense of my work and activities around the project, I invite you to consider reviewing my userpage, my talk page archives (which are not redacted), to watchlist my talk page, or use edit analysis tools like Wikichecker, content.paragr, dewkin, xtools-pages or xtools-ec (which in theory should work as of late 2014...). I would be more than happy to talk about your concerns over canvassing, I have given the policy much thought over the past year, and I would like to think I have a better understanding of it now. Thank you for your time, (PS. If you reply here, I'd appreciate a WP:ECHO or {{talkback}} ping). --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:26, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

Venustar84

On the one hand, you were correct that her question was so vague as to be hard to answer. On the other hand, as to Wikipedia in particular, it is indeed right there on her talk page. She was banned from creating new articles and new categories, and was given a warning about sockpuppetry. It turns out that she wasn't asking about Wikipedia, but about something else, but her topic-ban in Wikipedia is right there on her talkpage. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:43, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

Neutral notification

You previously voted, opined, commented, or otherwise took part, at Template talk:Infobox officeholder/Archive 18#RfC on successor/predecessor where a district is not reasonably viewed as the same after redistricting. Please see a related discussion at Template talk:Infobox officeholder#RfC Congressmen's tenures in infobox. Kraxler (talk) 15:28, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

You shouldn't have reverted my edit

There is a discussion at Steven Emerson Talk regarding the comment, but now an editor wants to wikilink to the No-Go site during PP. Since the No-go site has now gained attention for whatever reason - perhaps to prove that there is no such thing per Emerson's claims, I don't know - but my edit does reference a no-go site in France, and I cited a RS. You may not agree with the guy's politics, but he is notable and the fact that he made his statement right after Emerson's gaff makes it worthy of inclusion at that stub article. Please undo your revert. I don't want to edit war with you, Andy. Please? Atsme☯^Consult 00:51, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

If you don't want an edit war, don't post misleading material into the article. Emerson has retracted his il-informed comments regarding Birmingham, meaning that we have no source whatsoever describing it as a no-go area. And what the heck was it doing in a section entitled 'France' Anyway? As for France itself, I see no reason whatsoever why Farage's sound-bite deserves mention - if the article is to discuss alleged no-go areas in France, it needs to do so based on reliable informed sources, with due balance. AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:02, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

How was it misleading? I cited a RS that wrote the article about the statement Farage made - it's notable. The claim was about no-go zones in France which is why it was under a section titled France. Farage made the statement right after Emerson made his, did you not read the article? You reverted everything before I had a chance to do anything else, for Pete's sake. You are preaching to the choir about Emerson's apology. The problem isn't me, the problem is at Emerson's BLP where there are editors citing tabloids and other questionable sources in an attempt to further discredit Emerson. Atsme☯^Consult 01:31, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

Emerson discredited himself. It isn't Wikipedia's job to hide his ignorance - and the fact that you are having problems in one article is no reason to spread them to another. Particularly by cobbling together a section supposedly on another subject just so you could dump misleading content into it. The No-go article does not need to say anything on Birmingham because nobody is describing it as a no-go area. Just how difficult is that to understand? And if you want a section on France, at least do a little research - partisan soundbites from foreign politicians are poor material to base content on. AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:38, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

Routine notification

Please read this notification carefully:
A community discussion has authorised the use of general sanctions for pages related to the Gamergate controversy.
The details of these sanctions are described here.

General sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimise disruption in controversial topic areas. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to these topics that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behaviour, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. An editor can only be sanctioned after he or she has been made aware that general sanctions are in effect. This notification is meant to inform you that sanctions are authorised in these topic areas, which you have been editing. It is only effective if it is logged here. Before continuing to edit pages in these topic areas, please familiarise yourself with the general sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions.

This message is informational only and does not imply misconduct regarding your contributions to date.

Gamaliel (talk) 04:27, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

You've got mail

From me.MOMENTO (talk) 03:12, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

Tendentious Editing at No-go area

Contradicting your own reasons for deletion and removing the template is tendentious editing. It makes you appear to have only one purpose for the article - to be disruptive by supporting both keep and delete. I consult you to choose one side or the other, and stop being disruptive. If you choose to keep, I will pursue the addition of the RS terminology. Atsme☯^Consult 14:19, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

You provided no RS whatsoever. AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:30, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

Martin McGuinness

Wikfik (talk) 18:39, 17 January 2015 (UTC) You deleted my changes to the page on Martin McGuinness. You stated that the BBC article that I linked does not imply that Martin McGuinness' views are heretical, however it plainly does: he says that abortion in compatible with the Catholic Faith. If you don't know anything about Roman Catholic Church doctrine you could look at the Catechism of the Catholic Church. You could also look up the meaning of heresy there. The source couldn't be any more reliable as it is the transcript of a recorded interview. It seems that your own views on these matters mean that the facts that I stated leave a bitter taste in your mouth. The fact that you again deleted my edit after the 'heresy' part was removed gives further support to this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikfik (talk • contribs) 18:39, 17 January 2015‎

I have expressed no views whatsoever on this matter - I have instead pointed out Wikipedia policy. Which makes it entirely clear that we do not base article content on contributors opinions on what is or isn't compatible with the doctrine of a religion. The BBC article states that Archbishop Martin said one thing, and that McGuinness responded by saying something else - Wikipedia will not make any assertion or implication that one or other is right or wrong. We report facts, as previously published in reliable sources. We do not express our own opinion on such matters. If you want to do that, find a forum somewhere. AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:58, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

The doctrine, on this point, is entirely clear. It is written down for all to see. There can be no ambiguity here. It is not dependent on my opinion. I did not say who was right or wrong, I simply pointed out that what he said was not compatible with the doctrine. I think a BBC video interview, which is also publicly available, is a very reliable source for me to use. I guess I will have to find another venue. Wikfik (talk) 00:19, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

You will. Wikipedia doesn't engage in analysis to determine what is or isn't compatible with religious doctrine. We leave that to the sources we cite. AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:26, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

Reported UnifiedBalance, mentioned you

Mentioned you in the ANI thread. I don't think he's going to be any use to the site, and suspect that we sooner we're rid of him, the better. If that can be done by some admins getting across "you don't do that here," fine. If it's a block, fine. Ian.thomson (talk) 23:16, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

(talk page stalker). Yeah, it's funny how I don't seem to have the same patience for reasoning with blatant trolls these days. It gets old. Bishonen | talk 23:41, 18 January 2015 (UTC).

Yup. Sadly my initial attempt to deflect the rage with a little humour didn't work. [2] Though it did give me a few ideas for ammunition if I'm ever having a case of anti-evil-admin-itis. Accusations of nepotism are common enough, but when were you last accused of simony, usury, pluralism, or the the sale of indulgences? AndyTheGrump (talk)

A barnstar for you!

	The Surreal Barnstar
	For your valiant and quixotic attempts to educate the apparently ineducable about the history of National Socialism, I hereby award you this barnstar. Wear it with pride. MastCell Talk 18:44, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

Baconlr2002

You seem like a responsible guy. Baconlr2002 (talk · contribs) keeps adding biased stuff from an opinion piece to a BLP, Carolyn McCarthy. I warned him not to restore it again but I bet he'll do it anyway. I've gotta sign off and won't be back for a while. Can you follow through? Don't sweat it. 162.119.231.132 (talk) 18:48, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

Baconlr2002 has added the material once this year - hardly a major edit war. And while I agree that the source could be better, I'm not sure that reporting the facts behind this (assuming they are correct) would be a WP:BLP violation. I'll keep an eye on the article though. AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:12, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

Thanks! I reedited it with a better source. You may not like what it says, which is why you took offence, but it is the truth. Have a great day! Baconlr2002 (talk · contribs)

I'm not sure who the 'you' is you are referring to - as far as I'm concerned, compliance with Wikipedia policies and guidelines is what matters. I see you have replaced the citation with one to the New York Post. Not exactly the most credible source, given its partisan coverage. I'll look into this further, and then comment on the article talk page if necessary - my talk page isn't the appropriate place for such discussions. AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:33, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for your help. 162.119.231.132 (talk) 15:22, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

Steven Emerson

Thank you for participating in the BLP noticeboard discussion concerning Steven Emerson. If you have the chance, could you take a look at the Steven Emerson page, there seems to be some continuing dispute regarding BLP interpretations. Cheers! Coffeepusher (talk) 03:25, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

Hello! There is a DR/N request you may have interest in.

This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult for editors. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help this dispute come to a resolution. Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you! — Preceding unsigned comment added by MoorNextDoor (talk • contribs) 13:26, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

Note

Didn't another IP or redlink user post nearly this[3] same rant, a year or so ago? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 04:12, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

Yup. [4] This was the IP that finally got blocked after trolling for months. AndyTheGrump (talk) 04:49, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

Robert Kagan

Robert Kagan's talk page contains BLP violations, including statements about his relation to "The Israel Lobby" and "double loyalties". Would you or another administrator remove such BLP violations, please?

Less obvious but related problems in the article if you compare my revisions of the article with what has been pushed into the article (but now has been removed). is a 14:23, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

Problems with articles are best discussed on the relevant talk page - I'll take a look though. As for what is said on the talk page, I am not an administrator, and cannot redact content. AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:42, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

Thanks again for your help and insights. I used "review" in the sense of "re-view" rather than "use administrative powers". is a 19:43, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

User:Clinicallytested

Hi. While I have great sympathy for your position on preventing Clinicallytested (talk · contribs) from forcing their edits on the Electronic harassment page without consensus, could you please tone down your communications with them, per WP:CIVIL and WP:AGF?

I suggest you take it to the talk page, and if that fails, to Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard. Clinicallytested is in any case getting very close to being blocked under the 3RR. -- The Anome (talk) 22:13, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

Regarding WP:AGF, Clinicallytested is a SPA who has repeatedly ignored consensus, recreated deleted articles, and violated multiple Wikipedia policies in order to promote a fringe conspiracy theory. I see no evidence of good faith whatsoever. AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:17, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

Well, I've just blocked them for edit warring and semi-protected the article, so it's moot for the moment. As I say, I sympathise entirely with your position on this, and I can see you're editing in good faith and in accordance with policy, but I have to try to enforce the WP:CIVIL policy evenhandedly to the best of my abilities. -- The Anome (talk) 22:22, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

Bitcoin

The original paragraph states that Bitcoin appeals to criminals without citation. I have provided citations explaining Bitcoin's features that discourage illegal behavior, and a citation showing how Bitcoin's public ledger was used by law enforcement to prove that coins were the product of drug trade. It is not appropriate for you to revert these changes. Gandrewstone (talk) 20:19, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

The article cites multiple sources linking bitcoin with criminal activity, and your blatant attempt to spin the article to suggest otherwise is entirely unjustified - and btctheory.com is clearly anything but an impartial source. I am going to revert your edit once more, and I suggest that if you want to discuss this further, you do so after finding better sources, and in the proper place - on the article talk page. AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:56, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

Hello! There is a DR/N request you may have interest in.

This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult for editors. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help this dispute come to a resolution. The discussion is about the topic Gordon B. Hinckley. Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you! — TransporterMan (TALK) 14:37, 5 February 2015 (UTC) (DRN volunteer)

There is new discussion on the Talk:Gordon B. Hinckley talk page. Your input is welcome. Mormography (talk) 23:44, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

This discussion may be of interest

I doubt you will remember a dispute about Demi Moore's birth name from some years ago, but I happened to reference it here. Nola Carveth (talk) 04:20, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

A little late, but...

Andy, I just noticed this this page I feel you should know that Sledge did not delete your comment. I did. Your post was not appropriate anywhere on Wikipedia, even addressed to a "troll" or "idiot". Oiyarbepsy (talk) 20:37, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

Factually incorrect, but whatever... AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:23, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

creation–evolution

An article you recently edited List of participants in the creation–evolution controversy has been nominated for deletion. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/List_of_participants_in_the_creation%E2%80%93evolution_controversy FYI — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kaptinavenger (talk • contribs) 07:11, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

Note

Mind 3RR at E-Cat. Damage control can wait till he's done. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 04:10, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

Incident report on AN/I.

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Insertcleverphrasehere (talk) 04:21, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

I'm not a sock

Hi, im a women evangelical pastor from Cartago, Costa Rica. I'm not the user ElReydeEspana, i dont know respect this, God bless you and first, you need to look a source your answer before to say a not util case--Pastora Helen Guerra (talk) 22:44, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

Bullshit. AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:50, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

how can we convince people what BLP "must entail "if it is not to be used as a game for making misleading and incomplete claims about living persons?

I believe you well recall an editor's position re: WP:BLP - [5] (I said that believing that someone has to be protected from being called a Jew is to hold the view that being a Jew is somehow a problem and "verges on anti-Semitism". If one is not allowed to make that kind of observation on Wikipedia then this place has real problems.) and [6] ( To expect someone to say "My religion is Judaism" is to impose an expectation regarding Jews that you wouldn't impose regarding members of other religions) and my position on that view of BLP and my firm insistence on strong sourcing without eliding the part of the source the editor does not like. Alas, I fear some admins do not share out firm regard for that policy, alas. Cheers. Collect (talk) 23:07, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

The ANI thread pre-dates may presence on Wikipedia - but I think I've made my position clear enough regarding this question. Being 'Jewish' is of course a complex idea. And not one with exact definitions by any means. Broadly speaking though, as an ethnoreligious self-categorisation it breaks down into to interrelated concepts - one relating to ethnicity, and one relating to faith. It is both possible and relatively common to self-identify as Jewish by ethnicity (not usually stated in such terms, rather as 'by descent' - and sometimes 'by descent according to Halachic law') while not being of the Judaic faith. Accordingly, a person stating that they 'are Jewish' doesn't tell you anything about their religious beliefs as such. Accordingly, self-categorisation as 'Jewish' cannot in of itself be used as a statement about a persons religious beliefs per WP:BLP policy, because it quite simply lacks the specificity required. BLP policy requires that we don't describe people as being of a particular religion unless they say they are, in sufficiently unambiguous terms. So we don't unless they do. End of story. Whether the religion concerned (or lack of it) is Judaism or any other religion is irrelevant. We don't assign people to a faith without evidence. Any suggestion that we should treat people who identify as Jewish differently because they identify as Jewish and because the term is ambiguous would not only violate WP policies in general, but amount to a morally-dubious double standard which no responsible encyclopaedia should contemplate. So no, there is no double standard whatsoever in applying the same need for proper sourcing to Jews as to everyone else. AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:06, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

The second quote was in a thread in which you did opine ... my point is that I try to be absolutely scrupulous about BLP requirements -- and I believe you agree with that. I am just a tad annoyed with a person who finds the opinions of the person who demurred with us about BLP to be as valid as ours is :(. Sorry for the vent. I just want BLP to reign higher in admin's thoughts than "what did the loudest person say" <g>. Collect (talk) 00:33, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

Since you haven't told me what and/or who you are referring to, I'm not in much of a position to comment. AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:36, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

OK - try Sam Harris (author) and Breda O'Brien for starters. If you can stay awake <g>. Collect (talk) 01:22, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

I think I'm sufficiently awake to see that none of what I've written above is relevant to O'Brien. AndyTheGrump (talk) 04:45, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

LOL -- in a sense. But ascribing views to a member of a church which are precisely the views held by the church (marriage as a Sacrament) seems to fall into the same general area as ascribing "Jewish tribal beliefs" to an atheist who had a Jewish parent, I would think. Collect (talk) 07:24, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

If you want my opinion on an article, ask me for it. Don't ask about one thing and then make out that I am supporting your opinion on something else entirely. I have no opinion on the O'Brien article - I haven't read the sources and know nothing about it. AndyTheGrump (talk) 12:18, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

I would never assert your support on any issue - I was just asking for your opinion, and I thought it useful to note some parallels in the examples. I am trying to be as absolutely straight down the middle, following the policies on BLPs, as I can be - and I trust you know that. Cheers! Collect (talk) 14:26, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

No evidence this company is of any significance, and the claim regarding age is unsupported

Hi,

I am confused why you have deleted some of the new information I have recently added to Kieran Goodwin

You say 'No evidence this company is of any significance, and the claim regarding age is unsupported'. If you revists the references I had posted they stated official information that of the company's existence and also the information regarding Kieran Goodwin as being one of the youngest company directors in the UK.

http://companycheck.co.uk/company/09288004/THE-WORLD-YOUTH-ORGANIZATION-LTD This states the official data that the company has been formed, making it significant and reliable. Kieran Goodwin opened the company. It is significant because of the age of him opening it.

http://companycheck.co.uk/director/919222420/MR-KIERAN-GOODWIN Second reference includes his details which backs up his age and being one of the youngest company directors in the UK.

Sorry if this may seem rude, but I am just interested in what I have done which is wrong.

And please do not delete the article. :(

Regards — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dragonfly009 (talk • contribs) 21:25, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

The fact that a company has been registered is of no significance. And as for the age, you provide no source whatsoever which states that Goodwin is one of the youngest company directors in the UK. Though 'one of' is a hopelessly vague statement to make anyway. One of how many? Two? Ten?, Ten thousand? Anyway, since Wikipedia is not a platform for self-promotion (and the article has clearly been created either by Goodwin, or on his behalf, since it contains unpublished personal details), I have nominated it for deletion. AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:32, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

Carol W. Greider

Just to clarify, I had tagged that article as a COI because it was edited by that person, Carol.w.greider, and wanted someone else more knowledgeable than I to review it- which you did. 331dot (talk) 11:05, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

The template in question states that "A major contributor to this article appears to have a close connection with its subject". I can see no evidence whatsoever that Greider was a 'major contributor'. A couple of edits made by the article subject (one of which incidentally removed a citation to a primary-source document which shouldn't have been linked in the first place per WP:BLPPRIMARY) does not make them a 'major contributor', and tagging an article with the template isn't at all appropriate under such circumstances. If you think a BLP issue needs further attention, raise it at WP:BLP. Don't slap a badge of shame on it. AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:42, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

You are certainly entitled to your opinion; I didn't mean anything as a "badge of shame" nor was any shaming intended; I had just felt it should be reviewed(it did say "appears" and was not a final judgement). I didn't realize that someone editing an article about themselves was not a conflict of interest, nor am I yet familiar with every policy on Wikipedia, at least enough to know what requests go where. Thanks for the information. 331dot (talk) 18:58, 5 March 2015 (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. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mormography (talk • contribs) 08:11, 7 March 2015‎

Boomerang time! AndyTheGrump (talk) 08:41, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

Re. Tesla patent

It is widely accepted that Tesla discovered that materials when supercooled have substantially lower resistance and he should therefore be mentioned in "Superconductivity" . Many patents since have referenced his 1900 research and patents.

Stop wasting my time - you need to cite sources which directly state this, meeting our criteria for reliability. AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:58, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

Fox News

Wikipedia is a non biased site that hold no political direction. The author writes that he is concerned about the effects of the network on his father, and that has nothing to do with "left wing" or politics. It is genuine and authentic. User talk:WPPilot|talk→]] WPPilot  18:28, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

It is an opinion piece - and one singularly lacking in self-awareness, since it criticises Fox for 'inducing hysteria', while resorting to hyperbole that does exactly that. And regardless of the merits of the argument, you have provided no evidence that Lyngar's comments have even been noticed elsewhere. Anyway, this isn't the place to debate this - take it to the article talk page if you insist. AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:43, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

• http://eml.berkeley.edu/~sdellavi/wp/FoxVoteQJEAug07.pdf
• http://smartremarks.lancasteronline.com/2014/04/23/the-fox-news-effect-and-why-propaganda-works/
• http://www.frumforum.com/fox-geezer-syndrome/
• http://www.dailykos.com/story/2014/02/28/1281040/-I-also-lost-my-father-to-Fox-News#
• http://www.thenation.com/article/173748/gop-fox-circus-act#
• http://www.dailykos.com/story/2013/10/06/1244584/-The-Brainwashing-Of-My-Dad-By-Limbaugh-Fox-GOP-Media

This is more then enough to provide foundation for a section on this matter..... talk→ WPPilot  20:12, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

"nutritional remedies"

it would be nice to correspond with the people (like Andythegrump) that modify our corrections. I do not know who is the final arbiter in some decisions. it is unfortunate that this site is so biased against nutritional remedies for so called terminal illnesses. instead, they quote a 'reputable' entity such as the American cancer society, who of course, has a vested interest in a multi billion dollar drug industry. if only they had the guts to look at the truth. GoodKingJohn (talk) 00:18, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

You seem to misunderstand the purpose of Wikipedia. This is an encyclopaedia, intended to provide information based on the best available sources - which is to say academia, and the scientific establishment, as far as medically-related material is concerned. Per long-standing consensus, as laid down in our policies and guidelines, we do not promote the unproven and/or dangerous 'remedies' of the multi-million-dollar quack medicine industry. AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:26, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

you give yourself away with your defense. I really don't want to waste time talking to you but I have known many people (because I inquire) cured by nutritional means, and it is ALWAYS pawned off as either, they were never really sick, or they were never really cured, or it was a miracle, etc. and please.. the drug industry is significantly more of an industry than an 'industry' that by and large does not make much money, and is harassed, and threatened. they do this because of their love of the fellow man. go ahead and keep kidding yourself and others by quoting 'reputable' sources, who are clearly biased and who never give the other side its just due. GoodKingJohn (talk) 19:39, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

(talk page stalker)Please see WP:FRINGE. I'm not a fan of pharmaceutical companies, but while you are free to have your own opinions, please do not try and insert them into Wikipedia if you have nothing to back them up. We rely on verifiable information found in reliable sources. Wikipedia doesn't dispense medical advice, but people do come here looking for answers on their own, so it's best not to put in potentially dangerous information as Andy points out. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie | ^{Say Shalom!} 21 Adar 5775 19:52, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

Yup. Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia - a tertiary source which summarises knowledge from recognised sources. It is not a platform for advocacy. If you wish to promote fringe medicine, or campaign against the medical establishment, you will have to do so elsewhere. And you might do well to note that others who have taken a similar position to yours have attempted to 'rectify' this supposed bias by creating their own online encyclopaedia, which failed to attract a significant readership. Evidently Wikipedia readers - for whom we are writing - expect us to reflect mainstream knowledge, rather than promote the fringe. AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:17, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

no, the problem is not so much me trying to promote something. I just want a fair evaluation. how can you possibly, in all fairness, state things such as "his therapy is both ineffective and dangerous" in all serious, wouldn't it be more fair to say that the jury is still out on the effectiveness? and come on, dangerous? more dangerous than the poison that is chemotherapy? the fact is the 'other side' has ZERO chance of getting a 'fair trial'. so, I just want a fair shake, and it is clear that the mainstream is biased. you are are kidding yourself if you think otherwise, and so while they might be the standard, the fact is they are not impartial. maybe you should research some people for which it was effective. like Joanne Fontenot. Jason Winters, and many others, of which I am sure you will refute just about all of them. sad... I am done talking. thanks for listening. GoodKingJohn (talk) 02:03, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

Baseball thugs

You reverted a rant by this user. I reported the troll for impersonating another regular editor at the Reference Desk. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:55, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

Yup - I would have done the same, but decided to see if they made more posts first. I see they've been blocked now. AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:00, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

Merger discussion for Yugoslav reunification

An article that you have been involved in editing, Yugoslav reunification, has been proposed for merging with another article. If you are interested, please participate in the merger discussion. Thank you. IJA (talk) 18:17, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom case

The one against me is vexatious indeed - I shall not contend against those who taste blood. The main complaint even includes my essays - so I wrote one which I hope you will appreciate WP:Wikipedia and shipwrights. It would be fun to see how others react, indeed. Warm regards, Collect (talk) 04:18, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

Goddammit Andy...

...you're not doing yourself any good with comments line this. We don't want to lose you, so please redact and tone it down. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 14:39, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

Okay I just saw the attempted outing, WP:BLP violation and egregious personal attack all in one sentence diff you mentioned. I understand your unwillingness to AGF now. But don't just stand there, contact Oversight, yeah? 70.24.4.51 (talk) 15:11, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

I'm not sure that is necessary, given the arbitrary ridiculousness of the supposed 'outing', but feel free to report it yourself if you disagree. AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:36, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

For the record: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/PennySeven. AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:02, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

Arbitration Case Opened

You were recently listed as a party to 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/Collect and others. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Collect and others/Evidence. Please add your evidence by April 7, 2015, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Collect and others/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, Robert McClenon (talk) 20:40, 24 March 2015 (UTC) Robert McClenon (talk) 20:40, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

American politics 2 arbitration case opened

Pursuant to section 3a of an arbitration motion, you were recently listed as a party to a request for arbitration. Please note: being listed as a party does not imply any wrongdoing nor mean that there will necessarily be findings of fact or remedies regarding that party. The Arbitration Committee has accepted that request for arbitration and an arbitration case has been opened at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/American politics 2. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/American politics 2/Evidence. Please add your evidence by April 14, 2015, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/American politics 2/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, --L235 (t / c / ping in reply) by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:57, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

Biofrequency Chip

Hello! As you predicted on the talk page of this article, I did not think it qualified for G11 and removed the speedy deletion tag. And it obviously doesn't qualify for PROD. I think AfD is the appropriate route for this subject and I encourage you to nominate it. --MelanieN (talk) 01:23, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

Please don't revert my edits

That's really bad. Land Tawney isn't notable. Antiv31 ^discuss 23:35, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

If you vandalise Wikipedia again, I will call for you to be blocked. AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:36, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

You probably mean an ophthalmologist

You advised an IP who made impossible claims at WP:BLPN to see an optician. You probably meant an ophthalmologist. An optician would only provide new glasses based on a prescription by an optometrist or an ophthalmologist. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:16, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

I meant what I wrote. [7] Though given the question, a psychiatrist might possibly be more relevant. AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:26, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

American Politics 2 arbitration evidence phase closing soon

As a listed party to this case, this is a notification that the evidence phase of this case is closing soon on 14 April. If you have additional evidence that you wish to introduce for consideration, it must be entered before this date. On behalf of the committee, Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 01:58, 12 April 2015 (UTC).

Sorry

I'm sorry if I may have inflamed you. It was certainly wrong for me to accuse you of propaganda (this is still absolutely not the place for propaganda), but after all, the page is a controversial issue as per WP:CONT - it becomes tiring to write the same thing over and over again. --92slim (talk) 21:53, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

I am well aware that the issue is controversial. Which is what I wrote: "Clearly there is a debate as to whether the events described in the article meet specific definitions of 'genocide'" - only for you to make an entirely misplaced accusation of me 'writing propaganda' for merely pointing this out. Now, are you going to strike your misplaced personal attack, or am I going to have to respond on the article talk page? AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:01, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

What do you mean by strike? I have modified it already. --92slim (talk) 22:32, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

What I meant was this - but don't worry about it, you've deleted the comment, which will be fine. AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:07, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

Evidence closed

The evidence phase is now closed on the American Politics 2 arbitration case, which you are a named party to. You are welcome to add proposals at the workshop. For the Committee, --L235 (t / c / ping in reply) using MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:16, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

Rosa

Thanks. And I see the response to your edit was an IP from where Rosa works adding a cn template. Dougweller (talk) 12:57, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

Hn, I wonder if it's worth asking for longer term semi-protection. Dougweller (talk) 16:53, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

Sandbox public?

Thanks, Andy. Logical.Wayne Roberson, Austin, Texas (talk) 04:11, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

American politics 2 workshop phrase

Hello AndyTheGrump, the workshop phase on the American politics 2 arbitration case, which you are listed as a party to, has been extended to 24 April 2015. This is the best opportunity to express your analysis of the evidence presented in this arbitration case. For the Committee, --L235 (t / c / ping in reply) via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:07, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

My nasty UFO reply

Andy, Your friend reminded me of how "over the top" and personal my reply was to you about the UFO photo issue. When I get hot, I say things I regret later. I apologize for the personal attack on you. I should have just left the page. I left you a very long friendly post about offering to give you the original photo for your analysis. Your short reply: "I am not the slightest bit interested in seeing the original. I have seen images of stars and aircraft before", put me in orbit, and I lost it. Sorry. I love debate, conversation, differing opinions, and real investigations to find the truth in an issue. When this place gets "Cut and Dry", it loses its essence. Nevertheless, I hope we can work together in the future and put this whole mess behind us. Happy editing-Pocketthis (talk) 02:20, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

Boomerang

Hello Andy,

Was wondering if the issues I raised at ANI could be taken into consideration? I know the report was closed as non-actionable against me, but I was wondering if you can take a look at the issues against the filer which may be concerning. Étienne Dolet (talk) 05:55, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

I'm not an admin, so I'm not in a position to do anything. You would probably do better to leave it for a week or two, and see if the problems continue, since reopening an ANI thread after it closes tends to look confrontational. And maybe C1cada will be a bit less confrontational himself, having failed to get his way at ANI (or carry out his threat to stop editing - though I wouldn't count on that). I'm not sure that there is really enough to justify any sort of sanctions anyway - the comments about your language skills aren't exactly civil, but blocks for incivility are rare (which is just as well for me, considering my tendency to resort to invective on occasion). Generally, what is seen as more important are factors directly affecting article content - and from what I can see, there isn't anything that really stands out as much more than a content dispute over a subject that is bound to be problematic. You may do better to try to ignore the sniping comments, and concentrate on content - and if it comes down to an argument over specifics, use one of the dispute resolution options available. AndyTheGrump (talk) 08:01, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

And he does it yet again [8]. What can I say? This is going too far. I guess I'll have to wait a week or so and not say anything till then...like the Three wise monkeys. I'm caught up with all these centennial stuff for the moment anyways. Thanks for your valuable advice. Étienne Dolet (talk) 19:16, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

In case you're interested, I reported him here: Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#A_user.27s_constant_insults_and_now_curses_towards_me. Étienne Dolet (talk) 09:24, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

Religion RfC

I'm not sure whether you saw my comments containing the ping, but, if so, I hope you understand that I wasn't asking you to get involved in the RfC per se, but just to give an educated opinion as to whether all that theological debate is the kind of thing editors should properly engage in in a discussion like this, and I think this is the longest sentence I've written in my time as a Wikipedia editor. I hope you'll weigh in in section 006. ―Mandruss ☎ 17:16, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

There has been no theological debate. I only pointed out that theological debates will always exist when you try to pigeonhole a person's religious beliefs into one word. Which is one of the reasons we shouldn't try. Objective3000 (talk) 18:54, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

I think I've made my position on infoboxes in biographies clear: [9] If you want to argue amongst yourselves, do it somewhere else. AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:03, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

What to do with libel on Talk:Robert Lewandowski

Greetings, it is my understanding that you have an expertise in BLP, as I have found you on topics as wide as a rapper who makes claims about himself, and a footballer who was allegedly gestured at by a juvenile.

As somebody who works mostly in sports articles, I can confirm that to put it nicely, the user you warned is firm in his opinions. Usually I've discussed with him on technicalities and terminology, but I've never seen anything approaching libel, which is what it is when you say somebody has committed a crime which there is no proof of. His beef didn't seem to be on notability (who could say that audience with the Pope is not notable?), but an opposition to the Catholic Church.

I've seen BLP breaches be deleted from history by admins. Is this as far as this should go, or do you feel this is serious enough to merit further action.

Yours accordingly, '''tAD''' (talk) 19:29, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

I'm not sure there is much point in taking it further unless it is repeated. I doubt that there would be much support for sanctions regarding a single remark that looks to be little more than trolling. As for whether an audience with the Pope merits inclusion in the article, the issue isn't 'is the Pope notable', but whether reliable sources see the audience as as significant. Given the BBC Sport report, and given Lewandowski's statements on his faith, I would suggest that inclusion is probably justified - sadly most Wikipedia sports biographies tell us little about the person beyond their sporting life, and a little expansion on the broader individual is usually welcome. Certainly the Catholic church's problems with inappropriate sexual behaviour amongst its clergy aren't a legitimate reason to exclude such content. AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:50, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello. You have a new message at Swarm's talk page.

Olive branch

I wanted to say to you outside of the article's talkspace that I really don't want to have an acrimonious relationship with you or anyone else. I'm not the smartest person in the world, nor the best writer, nor the best researcher. Nor the best Wikipedian for that matter. I'm going to make mistakes. I really do want to improve the article, though. If you are willing to work with me, I would really welcome your help. At the very least, I hope we can be civil towards one another. --Illuminato (talk) 20:39, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

American politics 2 workshop phase closed

The workshop phase of the American politics 2 arbitration case, which you are listed as a party to, is now closed. For the Arbitration Committee, --L235 (t / c / ping in reply) via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 19:27, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

Liquid crystal water

Hi Andy, I was wondering if you could help me establish the veracity of the liquid crystal water page; I'm having trouble finding more than two good literature reviews, and since you appear to be an authority on the matter of mainstream acceptance, I thought you could help.HailTheWarpCore (talk) 00:04, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

'Veracity' is an irrelevance - what is needed (and what appears not to exist) is evidence that the subject meets Wikipedia notability guidelines - which is to say evidence that the subject matter has been discussed in depth in multiple appropriate independent sources. If such coverage exists, the article will be kept (though it will almost certainly require considerable further editing to indicate the speculative nature of current research) - and if it doesn't, the article will be deleted. And no, I'm not going to spend my time searching for material you clearly should have located before even starting the article - if you want Wikipedia to have an article on the subject, you will have to provide the necessary evidence. I see on the article talk page that you say you were originally writing the article as part of a course - perhaps you should pass on to the person(s) running it a few words of advice: that familiarisation with the basics of Wikipedia policy before writing an article tends to avoid a great deal of wasted time and effort. AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:42, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

As an extreme example, why not take up a petition to delete pages like Hamaker_theory and Swift–Hohenberg_equation? Both of these have one or two sources, and no review literature cited on the page. They are obviously not controversial theories, one of which being cited 700+ times, but citation count has never risen as a badge of merit in our conversations on Wikipedia notability guidelines. What I mean to point out is that I don't see why you want the LCW page removed in it's entirety instead of changed to a more WP:NPOV or something that is at least addressing the existence of the phenomenon and acknowledging the attempts at characterizing it. HailTheWarpCore (talk) 03:03, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

See WP:OTHERSTUFF - such arguments prove little beyond the fact that existing content could be improved, and that standards have been patchily applied in the past - that is no reason to do so now. As for NPOV, given the complete lack of sources from anyone but proponents of this theory, a properly-sourced neutral discussion of the subject would be impossible to write. Anyway, you are wasting your time arguing with me, because if I don't nominated the article for deletion, I'm sure someone else will, given the discussion on the fringe theories noticeboard. Wikipedia is not a platform for the promotion of subject matter not discussed in depth in third-party sources - this is basic Wikipedia policy, and has been for many years. It isn't going to change because you don't like it. AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:28, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

Wow

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:NPOV_Ninja I was wondering if this ban would considered unfair.... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.141.201.195 (talk) 00:20, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

Fine Andy, keep this if you want, but you are dead wrong about my motivations. I removed it because this user was evading a block. A block I placed not because I disagree with their editorial position on the article, but because they were making a ridiculous spectacle of themselves, edit warring, personally attacking other users, being generally disruptive, and apparently incompetent as they were not able to understand that you can't restore a PROD and that AFD is not the same thing as deletion review.

And I really, really wish you would email oversight with the details of this alleged libel. We want to remove it if it does exist, but you need to tell us where it is. I promise, I will leave any request you send for another member of the team to deal with and will not interfere with them or try to influence their decision. Getting rid of potentially libelous statements in BLPs is probably our most important function and the entire team takes it very seriously, but it's not going to happen if you don't proffer the evidence. Beeblebrox (talk) 00:51, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

Given that you have apparently either already decided that the article contained nothing libellous, or that it didn't matter because dealing with a contributor you didn't like was more important, [10] I can see no reason to email anyone. As I have made entirely clear, I am not going to do anything to enable this NPOV-violating coatrack article even minus the statement concerned - and if that includes not pointing out something that those responsible for the article should be able to see for themselves, so be it. I may of course be wrong about libel. I am not a lawyer. But (as far as I'm aware) neither are you. My approach when it comes to WP:BLP issues is to err on the side of caution. Would you care to explain why your approach appears to differ? And why you seem to think that statements about what you think a persons lawyer might or might not like [11] are relevant when you don't even know what the issue is? You seem remarkably keen to block someone (a new contributor) for not being familiar with the workings of Wikipedia, but somewhat blind to the fact that your own actions - restoring the article and then asking what the problem was - run entirely contrary to not only policy, but just plain common sense. Then again, common sense seems to be entirely lacking when even the title of the article in question blatantly violates WP:NPOV policy. A fact so self-evident that I seriously have to ask myself why I even bother contributing to this alleged encyclopaedia. Am I really the only sane person here? AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:23, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

Incidentally, for anyone who cares to look, the article also violated WP:OR and WP:BLPPRIMARY, though that is a mere matter of Wikipedia policy, rather than a legal concern... AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:36, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

I agree that when it comes to BLP issues we should err on the side of caution. That would mean taking any improperly sourced prejudicial material straight out of an article instead of just tagging it with or whatever. It would not mean blanking an entire article, most of which appears to be properly verified by well respected reliable sources. As for the lawyer, I only mentioned it because you seemed so certain you knew what they would want, to the point where you were going to contact them to let them know about this article. I'm no mind reader but once I saw that that same lawyer had been talking to Newsweek, who ran the young man's name right in the banner headline of the article, it seemed clear to me that they were not making an effort to keep his name out of the press.

Now, I haven't gone over every single bit of this article word-for-word. I am not by any means saying it is perfect and free from problems. What I am saying is that if you want admins, oversighters, or even the Foundation to actually do anything about it you need to be more specific. This is why we have off-wiki channels of communication for such things, so that you can explicitly explain what the perceived problem is without drawing undue attention to it. We normally don't go out looking for stuff, we rely on editors such as yourself to report it to us when they see it. Preferably specific diffs that introduced the problematic material. There are only so many active oversighters and as you are no doubt aware Wikipedia is an extremely large body of work.

And no, I'm not a lawyer. But I have been on the oversight team for about five years, and I have removed hundreds of potentially libelous statements from Wikipedia. We take every request we get seriously, and are not hesitant to zap things out of existence if they meet the standards for suppression. If it does every single revision where one could see the problematic material can be thoroughly removed. The only trace that will remain is greyed-out revisions in the history. Even the edit sumarries can be suppressed if needed. We just need to know where to look. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:26, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

Sorry, but my response is still no - I am not in any shape or form going to do anything which assists Wikipedia in violating its core principles by publishing as clear a violation of its purported 'neutral point of view' policies as this coatrack article clearly does: an article concerning about allegations of rape, constructed in a manner which entirely improperly presents the perspective one side of the dispute by accepting as fact a characterisation ('performance art') which the other side sees as harassment. Jimbo has just written on his talk page (in regard to another topic) that "Wikipedia is a moral statement about the kind of world we would like to live in" - and if the 'morals' include potentially participating in the harassment of individuals in the name of 'art' (an issue which Jimbo is of course himself personally familiar with) I want to have nothing to do with them. At this point, given the clear indications I have seen that many regular contributors who I would have expected to know better are actively encouraging this abuse of the encyclopaedia, I am seriously considering withdrawing my participation entirely. I have seen a number of stupid decisions made on Wikipedia, but few have been so self-evidently contrary to core policies as this - and if this example is to remain, I can only suggest that the appropriate course of action is to abolish WP:BLP policy entirely and replace it with a statement that anything can be said about anyone, as long as you can cobble together a few sources and pretend you are discussing something else... AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:18, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

@Beeblebrox: I've seen about five seconds of this drama, and it is obvious what Andy is talking about, so it is hard to understand your above statements. Are you aware that a private act between two adults occurred, and one of them has described it as rape, which the other denies? One of them has conducted a campaign via an art project—a campaign with no greater intellectual standing than a lynch mob. Perhaps the person being hanged is guilty, but Wikipedia should not be used to amplify the accusations because there is no reliable source with any more than gossip–no legal procedure has ruled on what happened. An article stating "Alice says Bob raped her" (where there is no legal conclusion to support the assertion) should not name Bob. Media outlets follow their own procedures, but readers of an encyclopedic article do not learn anything substantive by knowing the actual name of the person who is said to be a rapist. In general, articles do not name those who are "suspected" of being guilty. Johnuniq (talk) 02:44, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

As far as I'm concerned, naming the individuals involved is something of a side issue: the key point is that not only has Wikipedia got an article on subject matter (allegations of rape not leading to conviction, or even a trial) that would normally be excluded on notability grounds as well as per WP:BLP policy requirements regarding privacy, but that the supposed argument for its notability - that it concerns 'performance art' - is based entirely on the premise that the description provided by one side of the dispute is valid. To base 'notability' on a partisan description of events is a clear and unequivocal violation of WP:NPOV policy. Actual neutrality would require that the other side of the debate be taken into consideration - the suggestion that the 'art' constitutes harassment of an individual convicted of no crime. And if it is harassment, the article by repeating the 'art' claim itself constitutes a further part of such harassment. It isn't for us to judge which side of the dispute is 'right' - but it is however a requirement of WP:BLP policy that we cover subjects "responsibly, cautiously, and in a dispassionate tone". I see no evidence of 'caution' - instead I see an abandonment of core Wikipedia policies, apparently without the slightest hesitation, being condoned by contributors I have generally assumed would know better. AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:51, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

A kitten for you!

keep up the good work AtG!

Metalibertarian (talk) 05:57, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

Deletion of Article

Andy,Thank you.This article here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arvind_Iyer was the one I was referring to in the Help Page.Could you consider nominating this for Deletion?Velvet16 (talk) 04:41, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

On what grounds? AndyTheGrump (talk) 04:50, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

Hi Andy,I don't think it meets notability guidelines.What do you feel?Velvet16 (talk) 05:34, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

The article has existed since 2009. It has been edited by multiple contributors - including some very experienced Wikipedians. It cites multiple credible sources. It was previously unsuccessfully nominated for deletion - [12] Accordingly, I doubt that another nomination would succeed. AndyTheGrump (talk) 06:18, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

Agree.We let the article stay.Thanks for your time.

Can you help me get upload this image http://www.indussource.com/images/authors/Balachandran.jpg onto this page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vappala_Balachandran I am unaware of how the licensing terms are uploaded onto Wiki.Thanks Velvet16 (talk) 07:23, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

No, I can't. One does not 'upload' licensing terms, one complies with them - which requires clear written evidence that the image has been released under free license terms compatible with Wikipedia requirements: see Wikipedia:Image use policy and Wikipedia:File copyright tags/Free licenses. Obviously I can't do that based on an image from an unknown source on website which claims to own the copyright to content. AndyTheGrump (talk) 14:03, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

Talk:Aquatic_ape_hypothesis#This_article_makes_me_so_sad

Hi. Did you miss out the word not before the phrase “understanding the 'theory' well enough”?--Aspro (talk) 23:06, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

Not in the slightest. I understand the 'hypothesis' - which is why I agree with the position of mainstream palaeoanthropology on the question. As a scientific proposal it is (or at least was) too vague to be falsifiable. The proponents were very fond of arguing that this or that feature of Homo sapiens could be explained by an aquatic ancestor, but rarely got around to explaining exactly where in our evolutionary history this supposed ancestor fitted in - though it always conveniently fitted in where there weren't any fossils. Lately of course they have somewhat modified the 'hypothesis', since the fossil record makes the claims for any truly 'aquatic' ancestor untenable, as originally presented. Instead, we have a 'semi-aquatic' ancestor proposed, supposedly living on shorelines etc. Which is less obviously implausible, though still lacking actual verifiable evidence. Science is built on evidence, and not on just-so stories conveniently built around the lack of it. AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:13, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

Just to let you know

On Scots Wikipedia Diego Grez has protected the article about his own private website. [13] Doesn't that constitute abuse of sysop tools? Ferrotomb (talk) 00:31, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

I have no idea what the rules are on the Scots Wikipedia - though I'm surprised to learn that DG is fluent in the Scots leid. AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:53, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

Speedy Deletion Help Request

Hi, Andy:

Last week, a page I was working on, Vapir Enterprises, Inc., was deleted by Jimfbleak. He mentioned that you are an experienced editor and that you might be able to help me edit or restore my page. Please let me know if this is possible. I have two image files that verify the transfer of the 153 patent from Marro and Kessler to Vapir Enterprises, Inc.

I left the following message on Jim's page:

"Hi, Jim:

I'm the author of the Vapir Enterprises, Inc. page. Reading the article again, I noticed that I had added several references that pointed toward e-commerce sites, like Overstock, which was probably one of your major sources of concern. I did not do that for sales purposes; rather, these products are no longer available elsewhere, nor are they even for sale on those sites, so I listed them purely as evidence of their existence. However, in light of the recent deletion, I've opted to remove the product section entirely from the page.

Regarding notability: I've added a small blurb at the top of the page that describes Shaahin Cheyene's involvement in Vapir Enterprises, Inc. Cheyene, as the article now states, invented the digital vaporizer (and founded Vapir Enterprises, Inc.) and held the patent for said invention. Vapir Enterprises, Inc. still maintains ownership of that patent.

Please let me know if this corrects the potential issues with the page. If so, I will remake it. Thank you and sorry about any inconvenience this may cause.RebeccaAshter (talk) 06:24, 15 May 2015 (UTC)"

Thank you in advance! RebeccaAshter (talk) 02:16, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

As I pointed out on Jimfbleak's talk page, the patent in question makes no mention of Shaahin Cheyene. And nothing cited so far on Wikipedia appears to link Cheyene with vaporizers other than an article written by Cheyene himself. This is not acceptable as a source for such claims - we need evidence from third-party published reliable sources not just to verify the claim, but to indicate that it is considered significant. Patents (even ones naming individuals involved!) do nothing to establish encyclopaedic significance - all they indicate is that someone has paid out money, and had the patent accepted. They are no indicator of any commercial value, or even that that the device patented actually works. Likewise your 'image files', even if they were acceptable as a source (which they would appear not to be - we need published sources), would do nothing to establish significance. As for broader issues with the 'Vapir Enterprises' article, I suggest you read the Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies) guideline - none of the sources cited in the article did anything to indicate that the subject met our notability guidelines - we need significant coverage in third-party sources to establish notability, and neither patents/patent applications nor advertisements for products are remotely acceptable.

Incidentally, given that the subject of the article is a commercial concern, I should probably draw your attention to the Wikipedia:Conflict of interest guideline - if you have any financial or personal relationship with Vapir or Cheyene, you are strongly advised not to create or edit articles on the subject directly yourself. AndyTheGrump (talk) 04:37, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

Hi, Andy:

Thank you for your response. Regarding Cheyenne: whether or not he is involved in the article does not matter; his involvement is incidental and was only mentioned as a part of the company's history. As for third party sources, the following links might help clear things up:

Yahoo News (May 12, 2015) - http://finance.yahoo.com/news/vapir-announces-prima-portable-vaporizer-120000312.html

420Magazine Review - http://www.420magazine.com/2013/10/vapir-rise-vaporizer-review/

High Times - http://www.hightimes.com/read/high-buys-vapir-rise

Gizmodo Review - http://gizmodo.com/5582614/vapir-no2-vaporizer-review-cut-the-cords-and-get-portable

Please let me know if these meet the criteria for reliable and independent third-party sources. If you require more, I can provide others as well. Thank you again!RebeccaAshter (talk) 15:50, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

The Yahoo piece is a press release - not third party. The remaining links are product reviews and do nothing to establish that the company meets our notability guidelines (and neither do they establish notability of the product - such sources publish reviews on products as a matter of course, and we don't cover every product that gets reviewed). AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:57, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

Hello, Andy:

I've found an article by a third-party source that--I think, at least--meets Wikipedia's notability requirements. As I'm new to Wikipedia editing, I'm still just trying to figure out how to correctly source material and create a meaningful, noteworthy article. Hopefully this time I got it right! (Fingers crossed.) Thank you once again, and I am sorry for taking up your time.

Here is a link to the article:

https://www.leafly.com/news/lifestyle/what-does-the-future-hold-for-cannabis-vaporizers

(Note, in particular: "Vapir brought further innovation by incorporating conduction technology that uses less power, making it easier to adapt to a compact design. Almost every company in the space followed suit, making iterative tweaks to the existing conduction technology and modernizing the style with sleek, user-friendly designs like the Pax and Pax 2.")RebeccaAshter (talk) 20:23, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

Nope. A mention in passing, in an article "sponsored by Firefly, a San Francisco-based technology company" - an advertisement, in other words. Frankly, I think at this point you are going to have to accept that Wikipedia isn't going to have an article on the company - none of your sources come even close to establishing notability, and having also looked myself, I have to suggest that such sources simply don't exist. All that is out there is press releases, routine product reviews, and other run-of-the-mill fluff. AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:40, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

Invitation to comment on VP proposal: Establish WT:MoS as the official site for style Q&A on Wikipedia

You are being contacted because of your participation in the proposal to create a style noticeboard. An alternate solution, the full or partial endorsement of the style Q&A currently performed at WT:MoS, is now under discussion at the Village Pump. Darkfrog24 (talk) 21:26, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

Your deletion of my edit on Morgellons Disease

You reverted my edit for the reason "rv - see WP:MEDRS and talk page - we DO NOT cite single primary sources to contradict multiple review articles" obviously to discredit the unpopular opinion without further thought. My citation was not a contradiction. As the article already mentions, delusional parasitosis doesn't contradict actual parasitic infestations with mites, viruses, further bacteria or fungi. The citation of primary sources itself as additional information is not part of WP:MEDRS . Undo please. C0NPAQ (talk) 18:55, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

No - I am not going to undo anything. You are citing a single primary study for an unequivocal assertion that Morgellons is "true somatic illness", in contradiction to multiple review articles etc. If you wish to discuss this further, please do so in the appropriate place - at Talk:Morgellons, where other contributors will see it. AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:31, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

Ref Desk

Medeis is up to her usual "going out of her way to wind people up" schtick, and it seems you are joining in. I notice that neither of you have bothered to go to the IP talk page to try to explain what you are doing. To then use an edit notice to threaten seeking a block is just low. Get a grip. DuncanHill (talk) 22:35, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

ANI

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.28.140.226 (talk) 23:03, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

Resnick, J. The Zeitgeist Movement. Psychotherapy in Australia, Vol. 15, No. 2, 2009 Feb: 25.

Hi AndyTheGrump, I understand in September 2012, via Wikipedia:WikiProject_Resource_Exchange, you acquired a copy of

Resnick, J. The Zeitgeist Movement. Psychotherapy in Australia, Vol. 15, No. 2, 2009 Feb: 25.

However, I noticed it wasn't listed as a source on the wiki article. Any chance you still have this text available? Thanks :-) OnlyInYourMindT 21:02, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

I'll see if I can find it, though from memory it wasn't much use - I don't think it was a peer-reviewed paper or anything, just a personal commentary on TZM. AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:50, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

I've had a good look, and can't find it. I suspect that it may have been saved on my netbook, and lost when I reformatted it. AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:24, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for checking. Have a good one. OnlyInYourMindT 07:16, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

Genetically modified food

I wonder if you could look at Talk:Genetically modified food. We are discussing whether there is a consensus that GMO is safe. A review study (Domingo 2011) says there is not, but some editors say that is a minority view. I had thought that review studies were the best sources for determining this, and would like to know what you think. Thanks. TFD (talk) 22:14, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

American politics 2 arbitration proposed decision posted

Hello. The proposed decision for the American politics 2 arbitration case, which you are listed to as a party, has been posted. Thank you, --L235 (t / c / ping in reply) via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 03:32, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

Trinity Baptist Church?

why do you keep putting inaccurate information about Trinity Baptist Church? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pastorbfuller (talk • contribs) 23:57, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

I have added nothing - instead I have restored the article to the state it was in before an anonymous IP along with yourself edited it. The IP's edit made no sense, and violated our manual of style in the process, while your own edit appeared to be an unsourced statement supposedly on behalf of the church. Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia, not a platform for public announcements, and content must be verifiable in published reliable sources. If you have issues with the article content, discuss them on the article talk page, citing sources for any proposed new content. AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:04, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

Personal attacks

Are not allowed on Wikipedia. No excuse for doing it especially in a R.F.C. which is supposed to be a free flowing discussion [14]. Calling another editor crazy and the other things you said about this simple content dispute is way over the top. I don't think you are really here to cooperate in building an encyclopedia. Flaming my user page is also a sign of lack of good faith editing [15]. I assume what you have done is some really intense baiting tactic, but sorry that is not going to work. But, I post here to let you know that I am not happy about your intense hostility which shows itself in some very nasty personal attack of cursing me. Thats all. Earl King Jr. (talk) 14:40, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

Attack on User:Earl King Jr.

The subjects of Zeitgeist (film series) and The Zeitgeist Movement stir intense feelings, both for and against the film series and the movement, and the polarization sometimes becomes out of control. Please don't make it worse. On the one hand, it is absolutely true that Earl King is not neutral, and his statement that he is neutral is mistaken. (As you imply, his hostility is not skepticism, but antagonism.) On the other hand, at the same time, calling his views "bat-shit crazy" is a severe personal attack, and you could get blocked for it. I don't know whether your mention of ArbCom was an idle threat or you are planning to file. Please don't make idle threats to go to ArbCom. They look on the past record like idle threats. If you really do go to ArbCom, please first read the boomerang essay. You did engage in personal attacks, and, if ArbCom accepts the case, you will at least be strongly warned, and maybe topic-banned. ArbCom is likely to decline and to say to go back to WP:ANI, or may decline on the grounds that most of the content is already subject to discretionary sanctions. September 11 conspiracy theories are already subject to discretionary sanctions, and American politics will go under discretionary sanctions in a few days. If you do go to ArbCom, it would be a good idea to strike your most recent insult first. Robert McClenon (talk) 14:55, 3 June 2015 (UTC) This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:52, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

My statement that I intend to take EKJ to ArbCom is not an idle threat. And my referring to his views on the movement (which include descriptions of supporters as having been "brainwashed" by Peter Joseph [16], as well as assertions of "neuro linguistic programming and meme control" [17]) as batshit crazy is in accord with the evidence I shall present. He has systematically misused Wikipedia as a platform to promote entirely unsourced conspiracy theories about TZM, and in particular, about Peter Joseph, who he has repeatedly directly accused of concocting the movement for personal profit - in clear and unequivocal violation of WP:BLP policy. The inability of WP:ANI to deal with this (it has been raised on numerous occasions, only to be ignored, or drowned out by people using ANI as a forum to express their own views of the movement) clearly me leaves no other choice. Neither the questionable notability of the movement, nor the endemic attempts of some of its supporters to use Wikipedia as a platform for promotion justify EKJ's relentless vitriol and personal attacks on anyone not sharing his views (as evident on the DRN noticeboard, where he has entirely failed to take note of repeated requests to discuss content, not contributors) and his attempts to use the article on Joseph's films as a platform for his own views on the movement. And as for boomerangs and topic bans, I am seriously considering retiring from Wikipedia, and at this point don't really care that much - it has become more and more clear to me that the structural faults which permit POV-pushers like EKJ to thrive are incapable of being systematically corrected. I clearly cannot deal with the larger problem, but if I can at least draw attention to one small example of the issue, where a single individual clearly and self-evidently violating the very requirements for neutrality he so frequently claims to be promoting, I might at least do a little good in going. While TZM supporters may well be annoying, naive and (in my personal opinion) doomed to obscurity as a serious political force, they do not deserve to be subject to the relentless irrational, antagonistic and contradictory rants of a Wikipedia contributor who has taken advantage of the general dislike of the movement in order to use Wikipedia as a soapbox for personal attacks on its founder, and for the repeated promotion of a frankly ridiculous conspiracy theory that were it not about someone so clearly disliked by much of the Wikipedia community (or at least, by those that have heard of him) would have led to a topic ban long ago. EKJ is a liability to Wikipedia, plain and simple - and if it fails to deal with him appropriately (which seems entirely possible) I can see little reason to participate further in this charade. AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:18, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

You did it again above Andy. Since you will not stop I will become active at the Ani in discussing your behavior. Saying another editor is persistently irrational is like your other insults. I don't think you care about cooperative editing. I don't think you will find much agreement to your diagnosis of other editors mental states. Also quoting material from months ago in the current dispute has little bearing in the here and now. If you get blocked now for insulting behavior it does not exactly serve your projected ArbCom case well. With your extensive bock record maybe you should step back from all this and apologize instead of upping the ante. Earl King Jr. (talk) 00:36, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

If you wish to draw attention to your promotion of unsourced and contradictory conspiracy theories at ANI, feel free to do so... AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:46, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

Zeitgeist page

Do you want to file an ANI on this (Zeitgeist) group? Do you think it appropriate? I am seriously considering. Grammar'sLittleHelper (talk) 00:53, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

Ugh, I read the section above just now. EKJ thrives because he is tolerated. How else? Grammar'sLittleHelper (talk) 00:56, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

ANI? Nope. ANI seems incapable of dealing with the issue - EKJ's behaviour in particular has been raised repeatedly before. There is a suggestion that this article will fall within the proposed discretionary sanctions at the close of the ArbCom 'American politics' case (which I'm not particularly happy with, given that this isn't an exclusively 'American' issue) and I think it might be better to hold off until then, to see if it makes any difference.

And just so there is no misunderstanding, you should be aware that I am in no shape or form a supporter of TZM, and that I am only getting involved with the issue once again (after pulling away from it as the monumental time-waster it always threatens to become) because of the blatant POV-pushing and abuse of Wikipedia space for personal soapboxing etc that I have seen. If I see TZM supporters engaging in some of the behaviour previously seen from them (rampant sockpuppetry, along with some of the most tendentious behaviour I've ever witnessed on Wikipedia being some of the more obvious issues) I won't hesitate to ask that they be sanctioned too. As far as I'm concerned, my personal opinion is that TZM is of almost zero significance as a political force, and of questionable notability by Wikipedia standards - that doesn't however justify the conspiritorial nonsense propagated by EKJ, and neither does it justify the more general attempts to denigrate the movement that have been apparent in recent discussions. Wikipedia policy on neutrality - which is based on due reflection of published sources, rather than our own personal opinions - isn't negated just because we don't like the subject of an article, and nor is it dependent on our standards for notability. If the movement deserves discussion at all (which is as I say open to debate), it deserves proper encyclopaedic coverage, like any other topic. That is all. AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:16, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

Thank you. If it needs to be said, I am no supporter of TZM either. I could not make it through the first reel of the movies. I just hate to see this thing clutter with all this weasel text and clotted opinion verbiage. Of course the movement people pull all those stunts. Every special interest does. Every one. Grammar'sLittleHelper (talk) 06:18, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

Still malformed RFC?

This topic is closed. AndyTheGrump (talk) 12:02, 7 June 2015 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Hey Andy, I thank you for grumpily pointing out at least some of the errors of my ways in my recent clumsy attempt to place an RFC. I have since changed the Medical page RFC to merely a notice of the E-meter page RFC, and I have also attempted to follow your suggestions about shortening and wording more neutrally at the E-meter talk page RFC. Might you still find my (probably still clumsy) RFC to be malformed? If you think I should withdraw it, I will accept your advice. Thanks, Scott P. (talk) 10:23, 7 June 2015 (UTC) The E-meter talk page RfC statement is still not neutral - and it doesn't actually explain in simple terms what the issue is. You appear to be asking contributors to chose between two entirely different existing versions of the article, as if these were the only options available. They aren't, and any sensible discussion of the problem is going to involve more than picking one or the other. An RfC simply isn't appropriate in this situation, as your binary choice precludes actively editing the article to solve perceived problems with it. It comes across as a call to enforce your personal preferred version, rather than a request for the community to address the underlying issues. And that isn't what RfCs are for. AndyTheGrump (talk) 10:44, 7 June 2015 (UTC) You are most probably correct. I will probably come off as some sort of a "Puritan" in all of this, but that is OK with me. The problem, as I see it, is that WP Policy, in its current iteration, is incapable of preventing articles like the e-meter article from continually "drifting" in the directions that groups like the Scientologists would have them drift. That article has been drifting in that direction now for the last 8 years, and before I overhauled it, it was 90% pro-Scientology. I believe that such articles would require major overhauls, if they are to be fixed at all. Not another 8 years of trying to get the article to "drift" back in the opposite direction via a thousand more petty skirmishes with the Scientologists. Get my drift? Scott P. (talk) 11:02, 7 June 2015 (UTC) However, as I offered above, if you ask me to withdraw it now, I will still do so. Thanks, Scott P. (talk) 11:39, 7 June 2015 (UTC) I have explained why I think it is mistaken. That is all I intend to do and I have no intention of getting dragged into this further. You need to read the relevant policies and guidelines, and figure out for yourself what to do - or ask someone else for assistance if you can find anyone willing to do so. AndyTheGrump (talk) 11:50, 7 June 2015 (UTC) I hate to say this, and I have no doubt that this is much to your dismay, but I still offer you that I will remove the RFC if you really think I am "out of my mind", on what is going on here. Just say the word, and I'm gone. Otherwise, I will have to assume that you at least must remain "on the fence". Scott P. (talk) 12:00, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

E-Commerce Payment System

Hi Andy, I just worked out this is how I can notify you of my changes. I've added sources for the inclusion of BitPay. Please let me know when you respond or make the edit. Cheers! Leotheleo (talk) 06:02, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

Your apparent belief that I am a "paranoid"

Andy, I would like to remind you that I offered you the opportunity, I believe it was yesterday (time sometimes seem to blurr you know) to simply tell me you thought I was "out of my mind" and I would have then simply "gone away for good". I don't know if I understand why you seem to now be so certain that I am "out of my mind", when I offered this to you then and you chose not to take me up on that. I apologize if this whole thing seems to bother you. I don't particularly like it either. Please bear in mind:

1. I do truly respect you and your obviously good work here.
2. I have no intention of harming anyone, least of all WP.
3. I was asked by others to take some kind of action to help resolove what still seems to me to be a very real problem at WP.
4. Regarding such easy access by "anyone" to such sensitive articles, I still believe that is a recipee to eventual disaster, and WP should at least have some very minimal further restrictions placed on any likely "controversial" articles.
5. As I said earlier, I have no intention of "dragging you" anywhere further than I already may have, and I do truly apologize that I may have seemed to have dragged you the other day a bit, into a position that I can now see clearly, was a position that you in no way enjoyed.
6. If there is anything I could now do (besides wishing that I not call WMF tomorow), please let me know, and Ii will do my best to do it.

Thanks for the heads-up on my talk page about the relocation of my "incident report".

Scott P. (talk) 05:47, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

Editing Wikipedia on the behalf of other people is seldom advisable. As for the rest, Wikipedia policies have been arrived at by the community, after considerable debate, and are unlikely to change significantly in the immediate future. And if they do, it will be on better grounds than those put forward by you. You have entirely failed to convince anyone that there is any particular issue with the articles you have discussed, and instead apparently convinced every uninvolved person that your claims are based on nothing but a willingness (contrary to your claimed views on your user page) to assume the worst of others - and to read malice into any and everything occurring on Wikipedia. Whether that makes you 'a paranoid' (which is not what I said) is open to debate, but in my opinion 'paranoia' seems a fair enough description for a world-view based around the apparent belief that incidents which others readily explain as the result of crappy software, the unreliability of the internet, and the general fallibility of technology, are instead evidence that the CoS is somehow (for entirely unexplained reasons) manipulating your posts. And no, I didn't tell you that you were "out of your mind" earlier, because regardless of my opinion of the matter it would have been rude to do so (at least without further evidence...), and because it isn't my place to make other people's decisions for them. You are responsible for what happens to you on Wikipedia - not anyone else, you. It may well suit your mindset to be able to blame other people for your failure to achieve your aims, but the simple facts are that Wikipedia contributors are judged on the basis of their own actions, and trying to fob the blame off on someone else isn't going to work. AndyTheGrump (talk) 06:14, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

Ok, I will call WMF tomorrow, and I have no idea when the next time I will be posting on WP is. I also have no idea what their position will be on all of this. If their interest in the problems of that article are zero, than you have my word it will be at least a year before I come back. I sincerely hope that answer satisfies you.

Scott P. (talk) 06:42, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

I would be very surprised if the WMF had anything to say on the content of the articles: they leave such issues to the Wikipedia community to sort out. AndyTheGrump (talk) 11:56, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

Andy, due to circumstances, I apologize but I have not yet gotten word from WMF about what their "interest level" in that article is. As such, I may still post in non-article space from time to time until I get word from WMF on that question. All of my postings elsewhere in Wiki-space will be entirely innocuous from any reasonable and honest perspective. That having been said, I will now leave you alone on this talk page until or unless you contact me first. If we might happen to "bump into one another" in talk-space anywhere else, I will leave it to you to either initiate a conversation with me (or about me) first. Thanks, Scott P. (talk) 11:01, 11 June 2015 (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. The thread is Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:AndyTheGrump reported by User:Habatchii (Result: ). Thank you. Habatchii (talk) 23:14, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

Hey Andy, you've only edited 9,077 articles. That means you've edit warred on 4,800,000+ articles. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 23:38, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

I was unaware that WP:3RR has been updated to WP:-1RR - I've never been warned for not actually editing an article before... AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:02, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

@AndyTheGrump: Maybe they were thinking you were thinking of edit warring. Like a preemptive strike: you never did edit it, so it worked. Grammar'sLittleHelper (talk) 04:29, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

Electronic harassment

Hi Andy. This is one of several articles that from time to time draw interest from people who believe they are being persecuted. It is very unproductive to poke and prod such people. It's best to ignore comments unless you feel that ignoring them gives implicit permission to edit the article in unacceptable ways, and even then, best to respond in the most minimal possible way. Best regards, Looie496 (talk) 12:14, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not therapy. And no, I don't think that ignoring the posts in question would achieve anything other than ensuring that the contributor attracted further attention and probably sanctions later - s/he is advocating a 'massive rewrite' based around entirely unrelated topics, and from all available evidence appears not to have even the most elementary understanding of the way Wikipedia works. And could you clarify how exactly you expect me (or anyone else) to determine in advance whether a contributor thinks they are being persecuted? Not only am I not medically qualified to make such a diagnosis, but I lack telepathic powers, along with precognition... AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:10, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

My experience is that most of the time when editors make grand proposals at talk pages, they don't actually follow through. Looie496 (talk) 14:53, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

Homeopathy preparation

When the reference I gave states "What does the “K” listed after the active ingredient stand for? The K refers to a method of manufacturing known as the Korsakovian method. The Korsakovian method dilutes the homeopathic preparation of the substance at the rate of 1 part of the previous dilution with 99 parts of solvent." that that supports the addition I made also the section below that titled "What does the “CK” listed after the active ingredient stand for?" supports it as well. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Unconventional2 (talk • contribs) 23:37, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

Looking at this again, I think that the real problem is that your source doesn't really agree with what the article already said - unless it can be shown that the "fluid adhering to the walls of the vessel" is actually 1% of the content when full. And I'm not sure that boironusa.com would meet our requirements for sourcing - it is clearly a commercial website. The best place for discussing article content is the article talk page, not here, and I suggest that if you want to discuss this further, you do so on Talk:Homeopathy. AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:00, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

My addition says nothing either way about the original paragraph. My addition wasn’t about the Korsakovian method per se but about how it is denoted on labeling. All I was attempting to do was add a sentence detailing the use of the letter K that Boiron USA uses on its packaging, and using there sight detailing what they mean when they use the letter K as the citation. I can't think who but the company creating the product and its labeling would be a more authoritative source. I will be putting it back with a second and third citation backing up the first one.

I will also copy this discussion to the Talk:Homeopathy page as you suggest. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Unconventional2 (talk • contribs) 00:50, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

Request for mediation rejected

The request for formal mediation concerning Eurofighter Typhoon 2, to which you were listed as a party, has been declined. To read an explanation by the Mediation Committee for the rejection of this request, see the mediation request page, which will be deleted by an administrator after a reasonable time. Please direct questions relating to this request to the Chairman of the Committee, or to the mailing list. For more information on forms of dispute resolution, other than formal mediation, that are available, see Wikipedia:Dispute resolution.

For the Mediation Committee, TransporterMan (TALK) 15:23, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

Request for mediation rejected

The request for formal mediation concerning Eurofighter Typhoon 2, to which you were listed as a party, has been declined. To read an explanation by the Mediation Committee for the rejection of this request, see the mediation request page, which will be deleted by an administrator after a reasonable time. Please direct questions relating to this request to the Chairman of the Committee, or to the mailing list. For more information on forms of dispute resolution, other than formal mediation, that are available, see Wikipedia:Dispute resolution.

For the Mediation Committee, TransporterMan (TALK) 15:12, 18 June 2015 (UTC)
(Delivered by MediationBot, on behalf of the Mediation Committee.)

Vandalism by Z07x10

I'm not sure if you saw this vandalism by Z07x10: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Enumclaw_horse_sex_case&type=revision&diff=667607533&oldid=666540696 he has been blocked for 72 hours for this, but I think an indefinite block is more appropriate Mztourist (talk) 13:21, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

Yeah, I saw it. Infantile. As for the block, the way I see it is that either he finally drops the stick when he comes back, or his failure to get the message along with evidence that he has actively disrupted the project will make an indefinite block harder to argue against. AndyTheGrump (talk) 13:49, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

Evidently not got the message: [18] - I think that is probably sufficient evidence for an indefinite block to stick. AndyTheGrump (talk) 14:19, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

You guys have all the fun. Feeling so left out. Martinevans123 (talk) 14:52, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

See: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#User:Z07x10 indef block or topic ban request Mztourist (talk) 15:14, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

Thanks - I think I'll wait to see what response there is before commenting myself. AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:17, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

Think I'll take a rain check on that one too, thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 15:22, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

Your username

I've got to say, it always make me smile. --Dweller (talk) 13:22, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

Thanks. I think that was the original intent. AndyTheGrump (talk) 14:08, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/American politics 2 closed

This arbitration case has been closed and the final decision is available at the link above. The following remedies have been enacted:

1. Remedy 1 of the American Politics case is rescinded. In its place, the following is adopted: standard discretionary sanctions are authorized for all edits about, and all pages related to post-1932 politics of the United States and closely related people.
2. Ubikwit (talk · contribs) is banned from any page relating to or making any edit about post-1932 politics of the United States, and closely related people, in any namespace. This ban may be appealed no earlier than 18 months after its adoption.
3. MONGO (talk · contribs) is admonished for adding to the hostility in the topic area.

For the Arbitration Committee, L235 (t / c / ping in reply) via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 19:41, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

Discuss this at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard#Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/American politics 2 closed

Presidential candidate comments on Charleston church shooting

Since you commented in the discussion at Talk:Charleston church shooting, I invite you to comment at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2016 Presidential candidates reactions to the Charleston church shooting. Thanks, Reywas92^Talk 00:05, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

More to grump about

Hello, AndyTheGrump, and thank you for reverting the inappropriate humour here.
You may also be interested in reverting the inappropriate humour here.
Please do continue to be awesomely grumpy.
Peter in Australia aka --Shirt58 (talk) 09:47, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

Please delete inappropriate edits

I was asked to post on what another editor appeared to think are appropriate places.[19] I do not know what "forum shopping" means, or what Wikipedia rules for it are. If I made any inappropriate edits at the wrong talk pages, you have my approval to delete any of my edits. FloraWilde (talk) 16:34, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

Talk:Reason is not an appropriate place for discussions regarding acupuncture. AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:36, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

I do not understand your objection. The US government's pre-eminent medical science institution (NIH) appears to use the word "reason" in a manner inconsistent with the reason article. Since NIH is MEDRS, comments and contributions from editors who are familiar with both subjects would improve Wikipedia. If my posting is not appropriate as being "forum shopping", an expression I have not heard before, please delete whatever posts were not appropriate, and you can put that I authorized the deletion in the edit summary. FloraWilde (talk) 16:41, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

If you don't understand my objection, I suggest you read the Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines - "Talk pages are for discussing the article, not for general conversation about the article's subject (much less other subjects)". The article isn't about acupuncture, and discussions of acupuncture don't belong there. And no, I'm not going to delete your posts. AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:46, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

Thanks. What I failed to do was provide the link to discussion of modifying the talk page discussion of modifying the acupuncture article lead, especially in light of using the word "reason" in a way inconsistent with the Wiki article. What I am not understanding is use of the word "reason", in that each of the "systematic reviews" showing some mysterious new "energy" source or proposed "biomechanism" for the "effects" (which TCM practitioners just happened to have come across by application of incorrect traditional Chinese anatomy, Chinese Astrology, and numerology, to start sticking needles in people to fight disease), notes that there was not a single truly double blinded study included in the systematic review, yet they went ahead and published the review as if there were such studies, and got the "efficacy" conclusion published in the abstract, without mention that the review included zero double blind studies, as if there were real double blinded studies being reviewed. I should have posted the link to the discussion of the word "reason" by NIH, and will avoid posting at more than one talk page at all if it is a cause for concern to you. FloraWilde (talk) 17:13, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

I am aware of what you are trying to do - and I have no objection to it being discussed in appropriate places. AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:56, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

You have been hounding me with PAs, and reverting my edits dating back for quite some time now. Because of your disruptive behavior, I have collected the necessary diffs and will first present them at ANI with a request for an iBan, so consider this a warning to stay away from me. There has not been even 1 collaborative effort by you where I am concerned - all of your edits and reverts have demonstrated ill-will and represent your POV pushing. I have grown weary of it. Atsme^📞📧 18:34, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

Your revert and edit summary was a PA against me

You reverted a GF edit at WP:AVDUCK and the edit summary you used was a PA against me. If you do it again, you may be blocked. Atsme^📞📧 18:14, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

Your transparent attack on Wikiproject:Medicine contributors was entirely inappropriate - and accordingly, I reverted it. Add it again, and I will revert it again. And if you want to see who gets blocked, feel free to raise the matter at WP:ANI. AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:20, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

You are casting aspersions and making unwarranted PAs against me. Your revert and PA against me was inappropriate. You are have been hounding me with PAs, and reverting my edits dating back for quite some time now. Because of your disruptive behavior, I have collected the necessary diffs and will first present them at ANI with a request for an iBan, so consider this a warning to stay away from me. There has not been even 1 collaborative effort by you where I am concerned - all of your edits and reverts have demonstrated ill-will and represent your POV pushing. I have grown weary of it. Atsme^📞📧 18:37, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

Glad to hear it - I think it is high time your battleground behaviour, double standards, and refusal to accept any consensus that doesn't agree with your own personal biases was brought to the attention of the wider community. AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:42, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

BLP noticeboard

Regardless of whether you or I are right about 'aptness' on the BLP noticeboard. I hope you realise that my intention was not to silence you, but to prevent the BLP becoming the same as most Zg 'discussions', ie clogged with acres of spurious crap from both camps.Pincrete (talk) 18:14, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

Fair enough - though there is nothing 'spurious' about indicating that broader POV issues were also relevant to the noticeboard. And for the record, I am a member of no 'camp'. I have made my personal scepticism (to put it mildly) about TZM clear enough on numerous occasions, but my opinion of the movement (or the movies) isn't what motivates me - it is instead the way articles have been intentionally skewed in a manner contrary to Wikipedia policies and guidelines. NPOV should apply to things we don't like, as well as things we do. AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:56, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

Yes I was already coming here because I realised my first post might have been tactless. Is it enough to say that I wouldn't have bothered to contact you if I didn't fundamentally respect your editing, even if we don't always agree on specifics.Pincrete (talk) 19:34, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

2015 Indonesia Lockheed C-130 crash

Please see the reference no 1.in the article for death toll. - Varma 18:54, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

I have seen it - it reads "At least 116 people are feared dead". 'Feared'. Not confirmed. Frankly though, it seems unwise at this point to be trying to provide definitive numbers at all, given the circumstances. AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:59, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

I would agree, and besides, it's not our place to provide up-to-the-minute news on something that has just happened. Let the dust settle first. Mangoe (talk) 20:45, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

Earl King Jr.

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

Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Earl_King_Jr.

Since you have been involved in the past with some of this dispute, perhaps you would like to include your opinion. Grammar'sLittleHelper (talk) 18:02, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

I'd already seen it, and was just preparing to post. AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:11, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

Unless your position is irrevocable, I would strongly urge you NOT to disengage with Zeitgeist, whilst I would readily understand having got 'fed up' with it, the presence of an experienced editor is very beneficial (even one who can be a bit abrasive!). Pincrete (talk) 12:59, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom Request

You are involved in a recently filed request for arbitration. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case#Zeitgeist (film series) and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. As threaded discussion is not permitted in most arbitration pages please ensure that you make all comments in your own section only. Additionally, the guide to arbitration and the Arbitration Committee's procedures may be of use.

Thanks, Robert McClenon (talk) 21:09, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

Lewandowski/FIFA 15

The FIFA games are a multi-million pound industry and it is notable who they use to advertise such a product, but I appreciate your sticking to the rules that we need third-party sources.

As this specific product is only available in Poland, finding an English source usually only throws up obscure references. There is this in Polish, but I have no idea what kind of reliable source "Polygamia" is. '''tAD''' (talk) 20:58, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

Perhaps we should look at other players selected, to see what sources have to say about this. Is this something that is discussed in articles on the player, or just when discussing the game? Coverage in game websites doesn't really establish that it is of any real significance to the player's career, I'd have thought. AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:16, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

Rv on Bitcoin

Hey Andy, I see you reverted my edit on the Bitcoin page. I disagree that it "amounts to spam" as all the examples I provided are widely used wallets found on Bitcoin.org. There's already examples of online wallets and hardware wallets and it is clearly necessary to list some examples of software wallets as well. Looking forward to your response. -download 06:16, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

It amounts to spam because you are citing the companies' own websites. If they are significant, third-party sourcing should be available to say so. As for what is already in the article, much the same can probably be said - which isn't an argument for making it worse. The whole article is far too promotional in my opinion - promoting not just Bitcoin itself, but all sorts of commercial concerns of marginal notability. Our articles on conventional currencies manage to discus the topic well enough without listing every ATM provider, bureau de change, and piggy-bank manufacturer that can be shoehorned in, and I don't see why Bitcoin should be an exception. AndyTheGrump (talk) 06:30, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

Hey Andy, thanks for the response. In my edit I included a main reference from Bitcoin.org to encompass all examples I gave. A search of the wallets also yields hundreds of third party sources primarily covering each wallet. My intent is not to promote bitcoin or any related applications (since I believe it'll chart its own course), but I think bitcoin is a completely different animal from conventional currencies and that citing some credible examples is essential for explaining how wallets work and their relationship with the base bitcoin technology. Let me know if you'd like me to make a post on the talk page to hear some other thoughts. -download 06:41, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

I'll have to think about this some more - I should probably address the broader issue on the talk page myself. AndyTheGrump (talk) 07:07, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Library needs you!

We hope The Wikipedia Library has been a useful resource for your work. TWL is expanding rapidly and we need your help!

With only a couple hours per week, you can make a big difference for sharing knowledge. Please sign up and help us in one of these ways:

• Account coordinators: help distribute free research access
• Partner coordinators: seek new donations from partners
• Communications coordinators: share updates in blogs, social media, newsletters and notices
• Technical coordinators: advise on building tools to support the library's work
• Outreach coordinators: connect to university libraries, archives, and other GLAMs
• Research coordinators: run reference services

Sign up now

Send on behalf of The Wikipedia Library using MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 04:31, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

Wikibreak

hello i'm sorry for revert happened I return from October 2015 it was I am bad from me Andrea Brillantes but I did unexplained from gross violation, still isn't happened from my account I just ignore it from oripaypaykim still blocked 49.148.218.205 (talk) 11:32, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

I don't understand what you are trying to say. Are you Oripaypaykim? If so, you haven't been blocked - and probably won't be, provided you aren't using multiple accounts. AndyTheGrump (talk) 11:36, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

@AndyTheGrump yes I am, but I still was mistake from post from SPI I should realize had a multiple account, I never been had taken their new account is unnecessary happened 49.148.218.205 (talk) 11:39, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

Are you saying you have more than one account? What is the user name for the other one? AndyTheGrump (talk) 11:42, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

@AndyTheGrump that one is oripaypaykim I created username in January 18 2015, one of username account came in started December 2014 IP editors its been 7 months ago what happened it since had realized in network from Philippines. 49.148.218.205 (talk) 11:49, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

It would be better if you logged in to post - that way I can confirm who you are. AndyTheGrump (talk) 11:54, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

Oops...

Unintentional - sorry! Ghmyrtle (talk) 17:35, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

No problem, I've done the same thing myself a few times. AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:44, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

Arbitration case request declined

Hi AndyTheGrump, the Zeitgeist (film series) arbitration case request, which you were listed as a party to, has been declined. For the Arbitration Committee, L235 (t / c / ping in reply) 06:06, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

Bit confused

I am a bit confused that we seem not to be in agreement over Zeitgeist. We mostly seem to agree on where the line is drawn between batshit craziness and fact, and actually one reason I am now in favour of splitting TZM from the films is that TZM is not so batshit crazy, whereas the films (at least the first, on which I wasted a couple of hours of my life I will never get back) are well out on the lunatic fringe. I don't think that a Truther, as in, someone who genuinely believes the government did 9/11, is competent to edit Wikipedia. I wasn't aware that was even remotely controversial as a view, but apparently I'm wrong. Guy (Help!) 10:28, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

You don't think that a suggestion that the ability to edit Wikipedia should be restricted on the basis of beliefs is controversial? AndyTheGrump (talk) 12:27, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

That's not what I said, though. We allow all kinds of people to come along, but if someone genuinely believes that 9/11 was an inside job then their system for telling truth from falsehood is so badly broken that long experiences indicates they will spend a brief and turbulent period trying to re-cast our content to fit their world view, followed by a period of drama whose length is largely dependent on who wants to spin the agony out and for how long, and finally a ban - either topic or site. The issue is not one of thoughtcrime, but one of WP:COMPETENCE. Editing Wikipedia requires, as a bare minimum, the ability to accept that you might be wrong, and conspiracy cultists almost never have this ability. Guy (Help!) 13:48, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Do you have specific, currently or recently active editors in mind? I don't think I've noticed any that have actually expressed those beliefs (on TZM pages). — Jeraphine Gryphon ^(talk) 14:13, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

Blocking people on competence grounds is perfectly legitimate. Blocking people because you have decided in advance that their beliefs prevent them from editing competently isn't. AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:11, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

I'm not talking about blocking them. I'm simply saying that anybody who sincerely believes that 9/11 was an inside job, is not competent to edit our articles in that area. Guy (Help!) 14:18, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

Warning

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you make personal attacks on other people. Comment on content, not on fellow editors. Atsme^📞📧 03:32, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

'Comment on content, not on fellow editors'? That's rich coming from someone who repeatedly accuses Wikiproject members of multiple policy violations, but then refuses to back it up with the slightest evidence. Anyway, I have made no personal attack, and I am entirely unimpressed by your attempts at intimidation. They don't fool me. AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:40, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

liberland

liberland is not a disputed territory it not claimed by either Serbia nor Croatia. The governments of both countries said this. BTW I was not saying that anyone lived on the Croatian occupied liberland I was saying a little over 100 people are citizens you do not have to live in a country to be a citizen. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Splashyelephant2003 (talk • contribs) 06:40, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

I told you to discuss this on the article talk page before adding it again. Just how difficult is that to understand? AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:13, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

you lied

you clearly stated that you had more important things to do than talk about liberland. Then you reported me to the Wikipedia administraters with a warning. since you said you did not care anymore I put the members ,which is not referring a permanent population, and you reported me with out a warning.