User talk:AndyTheGrump

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 JamesB17 (talk • contribs) 01:49, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

Retired.

That's disappointing

That's disappointing. I was hoping to talk over with you an idea or two I have for reforming the ethos here. Well, I hope you reconsider. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 09:46, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

What Anthonyhcole said. Come back soon, please. Message from this disgustingly saccharine sweet nice guy on Wikipedia, Peter aka --Shirt58 (talk) 12:27, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, c'mon back, how else are we going to stem the tide of Bloomex puppets? --CliffC (talk) 00:52, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

I've noticed that Wikipedia has fallen into disrepair over the last couple of years, but that doesn't mean that it can't be fixed. All we really need is a better notification system so that users will be notified whenever any of their edits are modified or reverted. Jarble (talk) 17:11, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

How is WP:WATCHLIST not good enough? As for Andy, via email, he knows how I feel about his departure. Flyer22 (talk) 17:51, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

Nice to see you back, Andy. Flyer22 (talk) 07:49, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

Thanks - but I'm only intending to get involved the Boston bombings article, and maybe other 'breaking news' stories in future, if I get the urge. They need all the help they can get to avoid collapsing in a mire of trivia and moonbattery if they aren't watched, and I can walk away as they settle down, without having to worry about the long-term (where the moonbats will no doubt creep back in, but are of less consequence). Basically, such articles make a mockery of WP:NOTNEWS, and any attempt to edit without falling foul of WP:3RR (amongst other policies) is doomed to failure. The way I see it, they are best edited by people who aren't over-concerned by the day-to-day trivia of Wikipedia, and are more concerned about actually presenting decent articles even if it involves breaking a rule or two, and telling the less clued-up 'contributors' to go boil their heads. This will of course put me at risk of getting blocked, but I think the results are worth the risks - and at some point, Wikipedia is going to have to acknowledge formally that we can't handle breaking news within existing policy, and either stop creating such articles (fat chance) or find a way to constrain content to something approaching journalism - which will probably involve abandoning the 'anyone can edit' mantra, and accepting that many people shouldn't... AndyTheGrump (talk) 08:11, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Grump, please do come back full time. You and Tarc are my favorite bullshit busters. (And in other news, it appears I've been given the sysop buttons. Shome mishtake, shurely? Ed.)--Shirt58 (talk) 10:39, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

Bullshit busters? LOL, that's a great way to put it. You are back for a good cause, Andy, and what you stated about that makes perfect sense. And I'm right there with you on the "many people shouldn't" edit Wikipedia aspect, which is something WP:Disruptive editing and WP:COMPETENCE touch on. As we know, even some people who don't fall into those categories have proven detrimental to Wikipedia. Flyer22 (talk) 11:24, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

what's the problem exactly?

hi. you reverted a good-faith and valid edit of mine for basically an inaccurate and befuddling reason. You said "there's no such thing as a 'pressure cooker explosive'". Huh? Yes there is, it's a "bomb". It's called "explosive" in the other article... So how can you say that there's "no such thing"? A "bomb" IS an "explosive". What exactly is the problem? I reworded that way, because "pressure cooker bombs" in the very very first sentence just doesn't sound right, right off the bat. But "pressure cooker" should be in the lede right after to simply elaborate it. But the point is it's called an "explosive" in the other article. So your revert was invalid, to be blunt, and the wording is arguably better this way now, in the lede. Regards. Gabby Merger (talk) 07:19, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

No. A Pressure cooker bomb is a bomb made by placing explosives in a pressure cooker. It is the content that explodes, not the container. As for what the other article says, we don't cite ourselves as a source. AndyTheGrump (talk) 07:25, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

Welcome back. Collect (talk) 11:31, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

WTF, the same as Collect's having, hope you're still grumpy! CaptainScreebo ^Parley! 23:07, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

IT IS CALLED

-

? AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:14, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

Vandalism, and maybe finally now semi-protecting the Kermit Gosnell article

Andy,

I know you not, but I agree with at least the first couple of things you posted on the Kermit Gosnell article's "Talk" page; and so I'm now asking you to please go read the two sections I just created on it (items 20 and 21, I believe) and see if you agree; and then to post, accordingly there, in response.

I'm not fan of semi-protecting articles; but this one has gone from such obscurity that some were calling for its deletion to, since FOX called attention to the story, an article that has become sufficiently hot that it's getting too many drive-by vandalisms, in my opinion.

Or am I wrong? I am, seriously, one grump to another, interested in your opinion. Thanks!

Gregg L. DesElms (Username: Deselms) (talk) 21:53, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

If you are referring to this edit [1], it doesn't actually fall under the Wikipedia definition of vandalism, as I see it. It is certainly inappropriate, and has been reverted - though you could have done this yourself. I'm not active much on Wikipedia now (see above), and suggest that if you are worried about the article you raise it at WP:BLPN, and ask for a few more eyes on it. I doubt that you'd get far asking for it to be semi-protected though, on the basis of a single edit. AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:50, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

Dispute resolution

Hi.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard#Juggalos_.28gang.29 — Preceding unsigned comment added by AnnerTown (talk • contribs) 09:07, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

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

This message is being sent to you 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 do not need to participate however, you are invited to help find a resolution. The thread is "Juggalos (gang)". Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you! EarwigBot ^{operator / talk} 03:03, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

Rick Nicholls

Andy -- I was hoping you could look into the current (as of this post at least) version of the Rick Nicholls article. I stumbled on his page and thought the last contribution is a BLP issue. You have more experience in that area than myself and I would be much more comfortable if you weighed in. Thanks! Lettik (talk) 14:38, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

New section for misguided attempt at intimidation

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

To avoid being blocked, instead of reverting please consider using the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. See BRD for how this is done. You can post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.
You have ignored the talk page repeatedly, ignoring the need for consensus and discussion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Damonthesis (talk • contribs) 21:27, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

Nope - it doesn't work like that. When you revert multiple editors, it is you that is edit-warring... AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:33, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

May 2013

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on British Pakistanis. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Please be particularly aware, Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states:

1. Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made; that is to say, editors are not automatically "entitled" to three reverts.
2. Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. Stop removing cited text for spurious reasons, it is not difficult to find sources for that content Darkness Shines (talk) 08:25, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Franco Reviglio may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "{}"s. If you have, don't worry, just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 21:04, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

Sorry!

Ah sorry abut the comment at ANI that comment wasn't aimed at you. I was referring to the IP's talk page they claim they weren't threatening legal action but proceed to use the words legal action and libel right after that...Cameron11598 (Converse) 20:05, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

Susan J. Elliott

By the way, Orange Mike has blocked her IP address for legal threats. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:11, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

Yes, I am aware of that - and as I've made clear at ANI, I consider it entirely inappropriate that he did, given his involvement. AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:14, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

And while I disagree, I respect your reasoning and your desire to respect our processes. No hard feelings at all on my end, Andy. --Orange Mike | Talk 20:15, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

Nomination of 2013 Mother's Day Parade shooting for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article 2013 Mother's Day Parade shooting 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/2013 Mother's Day Parade shooting 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. Thryduulf (talk) 13:36, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

Thanks!

That fix on the Mongolian People's Republic article is what I was trying to do. I don't know why it didn't go through the first time... Odin of Trondheim (talk) 19:41, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

No problem. Between us we got it right in the end. AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:55, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

Ahmadiyya

Hi Andy, I had added a few lines to the Ahmadiyya on Israel. The lines are fully within the Ahmadiyya faith. I am myself an Ahmadi and had done so with a correct intention.. Please read the Ahmadiyya Commentary as cited in the Ref. Thanks. Be well. --ڈاکٹر محمد علی (talk) 19:39, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

The correct place to discuss this is at Talk:Ahmadiyya. Regarding your edits, you will have to find published sources that explicitly state that Ahmadis believe such things. Citing verses from Bible or Quran is entirely beside the point. If you aren't already familiar with it, I suggest you read the Wikipedia policy on original research - your own knowledge or opinion regarding the subject matter isn't acceptable as a substitute for verifiable material. AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:51, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

OK. Thanks I will. --ڈاکٹر محمد علی (talk) 21:16, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

Sergey Brin

at "Sergey Brin" article :

false statement that :" at Moscow State University, Jews were required to take their entrance exams in different rooms than non-Jewish applicants, which were nicknamed "gas chambers", and they were marked on a harsher scale."

So, despite I explained that the following statement is false -" According to Brin, at Moscow State University, Jews were required to take their entrance exams in different rooms than non-Jewish applicants, which were nicknamed "gas chambers", and they were marked on a harsher scale." - it is restored by moderator. Ofcource you may claim that it is opinion of mr. Brin (Seregy's father), but the fact is that facts reported in this quote are not true - Yes, I can understand mr. Brin's (the senior) resentment about some aspects of Soviet past and bitter feelings about Moscow University, but wikipedia is not a novel and to cite here obviously false statements would hardly be right...I am not very good in English language(sorry) and so I am not going to involve myself in discussions, but want to remind you some other articles from this same wikipedia about some Nobel Prize winners of Jewish origin who graduated from Moscow State University - look at this :

"Vitaly Lazarevich Ginzburg, ForMemRS[1] (Russian: Вита́лий Ла́заревич Ги́нзбург; October 4, 1916 – November 8, 2009) was a Soviet theoretical physicist, astrophysicist, Nobel laureate, a member of the Soviet and Russian Academies of Sciences and one of the fathers of Soviet hydrogen bomb.[2][3] He was the successor to Igor Tamm as head of the Department of Theoretical Physics of the Academy's physics institute (FIAN), and an outspoken atheist.[4]

Biography

He was born to a Jewish family in Moscow in 1916, the son of an engineer Lazar Efimovich Ginzburg and a doctor Augusta Felgenauer, and graduated from the Physics Faculty of Moscow State University in 1938. He defended his candidate's (Ph.D.) dissertation in 1940, and his doctor's dissertation in 1942."

There are numerous other examples of less known professors of Jewish origin in USSR....You may explore it yourself using this wikipedia. It is just to prove you that not only my own expirience contradict to this ridiculous statement that "at Moscow State University, Jews were required to take their entrance exams in different rooms than non-Jewish applicants, which were nicknamed "gas chambers", and they were marked on a harsher scale.", but also information from this same wikipedia also contradict to this statement. I think that it is your responsibility not to misinform readers - I understand that you report opinion of mr.Brin (father of Sergey Brin), but from reading the text a reader can't understand that this opinion may be not exactly true. I still recommend you to deleat this quotation - it is false and not nesessary even if you want to prove that Jews indeed had some difficulties in USSR (other facts pretty much prove that - no need to use false information to prove that) - so why to oppose obvious fact that this quotation is misleading? Please deleat it yourself - it is a matter of truth vs. false, not a matter of my attempt to prove my point no matter what.I'll come back to read your responce, but will not involve myself in further discussions, - I think that I provided enough proves. (or you may leave a quotation but to change the paragraph so that readers understand that there are alternative opinions about words of mr.Brin regarding practicies of Moscow Univeresity in Soviet times regarding Jews) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.252.74.147 (talk) 21:34, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

The correct place to discuss this is at Sergey Brin. I edited the article to make it clear that this was Michael Brin's assertion. The article did not then state that Jews were discriminated against at Moscow State University. It stated that Michael Brin claimed that they were - and we cite a source which verifies that he made the claim. I suggest you familiarise yourself with Wikipedia policy regarding what is considered a reliable source for article content, and refrain from editing further - if you continue to do so, you are liable to be blocked for violating our policy on edit warring. If you wish to continue this discussion, please do so on the article talk page. AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:04, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

Dear friend.I got the following responce from you - "The correct place to discuss this is at Sergey Brin. I edited the article to make it clear that this was Michael Brin's assertion. The article did not then state that Jews were discriminated against at Moscow State University. It stated that Michael Brin claimed that they were - and we cite a source which verifies that he made the claim. I suggest you familiarise yourself with Wikipedia policy regarding what is considered a reliable source for article content, and refrain from editing further - if you continue to do so, you are liable to be blocked for violating our policy on edit warring. If you wish to continue this discussion, please do so on the article talk page"

I have explained that despite it is cited as Michael Brin's quote (I see that), but it is actually a quote that may constitute a legal matter as far as defamation of Moscow Univercity is concerned (defamation is the communication of a factual statement that harms the reputation of an individual, business etc.) - so you communicated the factual statement of mr.Brin - I see that - but this statement is false and there are numerous proves for that (including other articles from Wikipedia that state that people of Jewish origin were not prohibited to enter faculty of phisics of Moscow University (*I cited for you one of those articles from wiki) as well as those facts about "gas chambers" and separate rooms for Jews in Moscow Univercity are not true - I have explained that my English is not good enough and that explains that I can't maybe express myself in friendly way (that I want to do), but for you English in not foreign language and so I don't understand your cold (to say it mildly) warning not to edit further...I again ask you to kindly reconsider your choice of quotation in the article (I think you can not realise that it is the case of defamation in its pure form)...In case you disagree with my opinion, please, provide me with information where I can file complain because I think that this case is too serious to leave it as it is. I still hope to find understanding with Wikipedia (which I respect a lot) - otherwise I'll have to bring this case for Univercity of Moscow to take this kind of things more officially and according to legal practice and international laws178.252.74.147 (talk) 22:42, 16 May 2013 (UTC).

Please read Wikipedia:No legal threats. Contributors making such threats are liable to be blocked from editing. If you chose to withdraw the threat (which will be necessary for this discussion to continue), please make any further postings at Talk:Sergey Brin as I have asked. This is not the appropriate place to discuss article content, and I will accordingly not respond to any more postings here. AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:49, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

Ref desk

Regarding this,[2] note that I deleted it as soon as it was asked, and someone put it right back. I then figured someone else might come to their senses and zap it. Thanks for being the one. :) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:03, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

Thanks - frankly I'm disappointed that it stayed up as long as it did. Some people have no sense. AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:06, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

Yes. Ironically enough, there's easily one or more ways to ask the question without coming off like a racist rant. For example: "What is the source for some of today's popular African-American given names?" When I was a kid, it seemed like at least half of the black ballplayers were named "Willie". Names like Denzel and Keisha certainly seem like an interesting improvement. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:04, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

baseball Bugs, saying "interesting improvement" is just as bad of you. You saying "names like Denzel and Keisha certainly seem like an interesting improvement" is JUST AS R A C I S T . 'Interesting improvement'? So the names needed to be improved? Should they name their children pilot inspektor? moxie crimefighter? kal-el? wolf? Or are you quoting User:OsmanRF34? 71.191.244.33 (talk) 11:08, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

I suggest you have a cup of tea there ... that you see "racism" in what most would see as a reasonable comment is not going to get you far here. Andy and Bugs are certainly colorful on Wikipedia, but racist they are not. Collect (talk) 13:00, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

Collect, I suggest you MYOB. I asked baseball bugs to clarify.
And just so you know, saying " interesting improvement" is not a compliment. 71.191.244.33 (talk) 00:19, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

And I suggest that you find somewhere else to argue. Or even better, find something more useful to do. AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:24, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

Dear Mr. Thegrump

I just received your message regarding citing personal interviews. The policy you cite makes perfect sense. Considering wikipedia's 5th pillar regarding "Wikipedia does not have firm rules," and considering that I don't want to teach my young charges to lie, can you help me find a way to bridge the gap between what the students did and what wikipedia allows? Is there some way to cite an oral history? Someway to acknowledge a local expert?

I understand this is not the only thing for you to concern yourself with, I just want to be forthright with the students when I speak to them. I also want to reinforce citing sources. Please, any help would be appreciated.

Mcadorette (talk) 17:41, 19 May 2013 (UTC)mcadorette

About the only way around this I can think of is to get the material published somewhere else first. At a pinch, you might get away with placing the material on your school website (if you have one), and citing that - but this might be seen as questionable per Wikipedia:Verifiability policy as a 'self-published' source, and certainly shouldn't be done with anything that looks contentious or overly-promotional. AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:56, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for the quick response. I appreciate your candor.

Mcadorette (talk) 18:01, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

Pubmed indexed journals in Ayurveda

Dear AndyTheGrump, Good evening! I find it extremely important to bring to attention that PubMed indexed journals are really important for the progress of Ayurved in scientific direction. My motive is to put the names of the journals is to percolate the information. If this information will be put, the reader will get the better idea about the topic of 'Science and Ayurveda'. I really appreciate your concern to remove the material as it may not be suitable at that particular place. But can you suggest me a better place for that information? Maybe an article with title - Pubmed indexed journals in Ayurved? There one can write the history, importance, limitations and current journals in Ayurved which are PubMed indexed. Thanks. --Abhijeet Safai (talk) 12:43, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

I very much doubt that an article entitled 'Pubmed indexed journals in Ayurveda' would be acceptable. Wikipedia is not a directory. If individual journals can be shown to be of significance, there may be grounds for discussing them in the Ayurveda article - but this would need evidence from third-party reliable sources. This isn't really the best place to discuss this though - I suggest you discuss article content on Talk:Ayurveda. AndyTheGrump (talk) 12:48, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

Ok. I will copy this discussion there. Thanks. --Abhijeet Safai (talk) 18:16, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

A., RAJA

you dont even have the common sense to explain to me why u have undid my edit, (I have added one appropriate section, I want to know why u think it is in appropriate) think before u write something, dont just revert my edit BLINDLY, JUST BECAUSE UR FRIEND SAID IT ) who ru to report and what would u report??? I WANT TO KNOW WHAT IS WRONG IN THE CATEGORY I ADDED, I WANT TO KNOW, U HEAR ME DO U DO U DO U Murrallli (talk) 14:18, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

TO ME WHAT IS GROSS VIOLATION, EXPLAIN TO ME, EXPLAIN EXPLAIN EXPLAIN EXPLAIN Murrallli (talk) 14:23, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

Raja has been convicted of nothing. I suggest you withdraw your threat immediately - otherwise I will report the matter to WP:ANI. AndyTheGrump (talk) 14:28, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

A. Raja

1. he was in jail for 15 months, and even if he is not convicted, he has half part in the scandal.

2. I did not intend any threat to u, I take it back, but you learn to put proper edit summaries, u addressing me with the word gross violation is not acceptable.

3. You just blindly accused me of gross violation, what should I do for that report??? Time waste Murrallli (talk) 14:37, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

I don't care what you do - since you have violated policy, I am reporting the matter at WP:ANI - I see that this is not an isolated case [3] [4]. AndyTheGrump (talk) 14:44, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

That whether i take back my word or not,

an action was conspired to take on me by you and ur friend, few days earlier itself??? tell me who ru, i think u know me personally and hold grudge on me Murrallli (talk) 14:59, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

you have set the policy ???

your point of view on how to address u is ur policy, not wiki policy, u report me to take action on me for no apparent reason NON SENSEMurrallli (talk) 15:00, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

I suggest you familiarise yourself with Wikipedia policy, then respond at WP:ANI. I shall not respond further here. AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:03, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

Yes, stop spamming Andy's talk page. You don't need to create a new section for each reply/comment you make. Seriously. Flyer22 (talk) 15:06, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

Nadi pariksha

Dear AndyTheGrump, An article, Nadi pariksha has been created. You might be interested to have a look at it. Thanks. --Abhijeet Safai (talk) 11:13, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

See my comments on the article talk page. AndyTheGrump (talk) 14:27, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

Many secondary sources are added and the tag has been removed. Thanks. --Abhijeet Safai (talk) 17:16, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

It is totally fine if the unsourced material is removed. I will try to find the reliable source and will put the materail again with proper sources. About new articles created by me - I am not creating many articles. I am in fact linking the articles related to Ayurveda at the article of Ayurveda. Is it not advisable? Kindly expalin if it is so. Thanks. --Abhijeet Safai (talk) 17:24, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

Dear AndyTheGrump, There are many secondary sources like this one as per this guideline. Thanks. --Abhijeet Safai (talk) 17:32, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

Once again, I will remind you that WP:MEDRS policy applies in this topic area - the sources you have recently cited are not secondary as defined by the guideline, and without such secondary sources, articles are unlikely to meet our notability policies. Whether the article was started by you (as with 'Nadi pariksha') or by another person is immaterial. Wikipedia is not a platform for the promotion of practices not recognised by the medical mainstream, whether 'traditional' or otherwise. AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:33, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for bringing WP:MEDRS to my attention. I was not aware of it. I will go thorough it. I dont think that I am promoting the materil. I am trying to build encyclopedia. There are many many secondary sources which fulfills the criteria. I will try to search them and then we can discuss about specific issue. --Abhijeet Safai (talk) 17:40, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

It is fine for me if the article gets deleted. If it does not meet the notability criteria, it should be deleted. Thanks. --Abhijeet Safai (talk) 17:49, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

Missing trio reversion was bitey

I felt like this edit was a little WP:BITEy since that was the user's first ever edit and you could have easily noticed that nobody had even welcomed them yet since their talk page was a red link. Just thought I'd leave this here and maybe you can be a bit more magnanimous next time. AgnosticAphid talk 15:57, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

I strongly suspect that that wasn't the user's first edit, and that they were the same person who has been adding similar material as User:Hamitdown (see the article history). Note that the link in question was to a BBC story entitled 'Dispute over Amanda Berry rescue story' - User:Hamitdown repeatedly added similar links, without explanation, to various places within the article. And note further that User:Hamitdown has failed to take this to the talk page, or to attempt any meaningful communication whatsoever. AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:06, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

PubMed indexed journals in Ayurveda.

Journal of Ayurveda and Integrative Medicine is one of the indivisual journals. As per your these edits, should we discuss it in the article of Ayurveda? I have posted this on the talk page of Ayurveda. Thanks. --Abhijeet Safai (talk) 18:08, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

I have already made my position clear. I see no legitimate reason for a list of journals. As to whether any of the journals can be cited for article content, that will clearly depend on the particular circumstances. This is all set out in policy, and I see nothing to discuss unless you are making a concrete proposal. AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:19, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

Thanks a lot for answering. I really appriciate the time and energy you are putting to expalin the point patiently. I would request to ignore if some of my actions seems intimidating. They are not. My concern is - how to show appriciation of some of scientific works going on in Ayurveda. I think that PubMed indexed jounals is really a great thing which is happening in Ayurveda. And surely I dont intend to promote Ayurveda here. What I want to convey is - due weitage shold be given to this point in the article as it is am important aspect. Now you are saying about 'concrete proposal'. I really liked the concept. I would take some time and then would come with some concrete proposal. Till that time I would request you to guide me as time permits about it. Thanks. --Abhijeet Safai (talk) 19:28, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

Religious views of Adolf Hitler

You recently undid an edit I made on the Wiki, citing that you my sources "said nothing of the kind". I'm sorry if you were confused and unable to find the relevant information on the websites I provided.

Here is the edit you removed:

However, the Nazis actually banned paganism, while tolerating Christianity. Here are the links since they don't seem to work on your lovely page here. http://www.bbc.co.uk/schools/gcsebitesize/history/tch_wjec/germany19291947/2racialreligiouspolicy2.shtml http://www.timeshighereducation.co.uk/181472.article

The first link explicitly says that pagans were banned. Click the link and push "CTRL F" on the keyboard, and search for the word "pagan". It will lead you directly to "the kind".

The second link, if you click on it and read the article states

"The paganists found themselves locked in an ultimately futile battle for influence over the "positive Christians" who dominated the higher echelons of the party. While Christians were tolerated, the paganist organisation, the "German faith movement", was banned by the Nazis in 1935."

Again, it might be easier for you rather than having to actually put too much effort in reading, push "CTRL F" on the keyboard and search for the word "pagan". Once you confirm, please get back to me or undo your revert.Greengrounds (talk) 05:18, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

The BBC source does not state that pagans were banned - the word 'Pagan' isn't in the bulleted list of banned groups - it is a sentence following the list (though why you are using GCSE crib notes as a source, I've no idea - I very much doubt they'd be accepted as WP:RS for such matters while we have scholarly articles on the subject.) As for your second source, it states that the pro-Nazi German Faith Movement was ultimately banned. It does not state that paganism was. AndyTheGrump (talk) 05:31, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

So the German Faith Movement, a pagan group was banned. Does that deserve a place in the article?Greengrounds (talk) 07:51, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

If you have a source that makes a direct link between Adolf Hitler's religious views and the banning, it might possibly - though obviously this would depend on the source, and on what it actually said. To make any assumptions about Hitler's reasons for banning the organisation would constitute original research. AndyTheGrump (talk) 12:29, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

In that case, can you please peruse the article? There is a whole section called "Nazi persecution of the church", without links that it had to do with Hitler's religious beliefs. I will remove that section right away, just waiting for you to get back to me. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Greengrounds (talk • contribs) 21:12, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

You seem to be under the misapprehension that I am involved in your long-running debate over the content of this article. I'm not. I have it watchlisted mainly because it has attracted vandalism in the past. I commented on your edit because it clearly wasn't properly sourced. Nothing I have said can have any bearing one way or another on other parts of the article. AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:25, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

March Against Monsanto

In this case, ranting at the Help Desk about the removal of the poorly formatted list of cities had an unintended consequence (to those who wanted it all in the article). I am not convinced that the article is fixable, and I nominated it for deletion. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:03, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

I can certainly see the case for deletion, though there may just about be a case for retention - there seems to have been some media coverage at least: [5]. AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:08, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

3RR

You should be willing to discuss a rationale for removing as you are in danger of violating of the 3-revert rule. 71.2.172.65 (talk) 23:02, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

We do not answer medical questions. AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:04, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

Oldest trick in the book....

Re: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of bullycides - some editors, when they have lost the debate, will try to provoke intemperate responses from their opponents in order to refocus on the discussion on civility issues. Your opinion is prevailing so stop bloody falling for it. It really is the oldest trick in the book. CIreland (talk) 23:33, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

Yeah - you're right of course. I'll try to stay shtum... AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:43, 27 May 2013 (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. Ramaksoud2000 ^{(Talk to me)} 05:07, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, AndyTheGrump. You have new messages at Vianello's talk page.
Message added 04:13, 30 May 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

- Vianello (Talk) 04:13, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

favor to ask

Dear Sir,

Can you please delete the page Lego the lone ranger that I created. I did a terrible job! ThanksTheMouthofSauron (talk) 16:37, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

I've tagged it for speedy deletion, which should do the job. AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:46, 30 May 2013 (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.

Hey Andy, don't mean to butt in but regarding this, if I were you I'd consider self-reverting and stating you'll take it to the Talk page at the 3RR report. I took a look at the disputed edit, and although it clearly is indeed garbage, it doesn't (in my opinion) quite rise to a BLP violation clearly enough to avoid being counted as a revert per 3RR. The patrolling admin might agree with you but might not. I'd hate to see you blocked for something as silly as that. Just my opinion, worth every penny you paid for it... Zad68 18:46, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but I'm not going to self-revert a POV-pushing WP:BLP violation back into an article. AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:48, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

As you wish, I hope I'm totally wrong about it! Zad68 18:49, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

...and you were 100% right, something for me to learn from about WP:BLP. Zad68 18:56, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

It is always a bit risky arguing the 'WP:BLP is exempt from WP:3RR' line, and I don't recommend it as a general course of action. You do need a strong case, and had Attleboro even made a token effort to tone it down, it might have gone differently. Hopefully we can now sort this out properly once and for all. AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:03, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

NPOV page move

Since when is it considered controversial to move a page to a neutral title? What is controversial? Wikipedia's NPOV policy? --Uncle Ed (talk) 15:09, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

Re: OTRS ticket

The significance is that other OTRS agents can see the communications relevant to the article, and the ticket was provided per request by IRWolfie-. Further discussion can be seen on the article talk page. LFaraone 23:58, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

unnesessory desrtuctive edits going on in Ayurveda article.

respected AndyTheGrump, i would like you to look at the recent removals by Littleolive oil (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Littleolive_oil ) in Ayurveda Article. thanking you. dr nachiket . — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nachiket Vijay Potdar (talk • contribs) 15:42, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

There is nothing 'destructive' in removing copyright violations from articles. Please ensure in future that you do not copy-paste material (except properly marked and attributed quotations) into articles. Wikipedia takes breaches of copyright very seriously. AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:48, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

Respected Sir, Lancet is most respected journel in medicine,as its a quoted in lancet and i being new to wikipedia ,i did the changes unknowingly.But still i want my changes to be resumed and shouldnt be removed for mere langiustic issues.As per your instructions i have made paraphresial changes and even after doing so the content is removed. Being a doctor i feel humiliated even after giving 'The Lancet's ' referense. Please consider. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nachiket Vijay Potdar (talk • contribs) 16:12, 1 June 2013 (UTC)‎

Looking into this further, I have to agree with the person who reverted you - the sentence you added is simply misplaced. The first and second paragraphs of the article lede give the historical context of Ayurveda, and adding a modern response in the middle makes no sense at all. Note also that the third paragraph of the lede already discusses safety concerns and similar issues. As to whether the article needs to discuss further the Lancet material, it is difficult for me to judge without access to the full article - from what I can see, this may well be an opinion piece, and as such should probably be attributed to the author, rather than cited as an assertion of fact - and I see that the Lancet indicates that this is a qoutation. Have you read the entire article, and if so, can you clarify who is being quoted? (P.S. please sign your posts thus ~~~~). AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:58, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

Courtesy note regarding removal of comments

I removed some comments of yours that degraded the climate of discussion at RSN. It can never be helpful or productive to make personal attacks, and the ensuing escalation was predictable. Regards, -- Ohc ^¡digame!_{¿que pasa?} 23:26, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, I know. Unfortunately, CamelBinky seems utterly convinced I'm leading some sort of 'anti-primary-source-cabal' on Wikipedia, and has been engaging telepathic powers to provide the evidence... AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:36, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

ANI

Thanks, I am not sure how I did that. I was leaving a one line comment on the page. Oh, wait, I followed a link in to the discussion from a talk page. I bet I followed a link to a old point in time in the discussion and not the most current discussion. Anyway sorry and thanks for the fix. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 14:25, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

Oops! Easily done - I've done similar things myself. Anyway, it was simple enough to fix, so no harm done. AndyTheGrump (talk) 14:28, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

Diagnosis in Ayurveda.

If a PubMed indexed Ayurvedic journal says that there is difference of opinions in ayurvedic doctors about diagnostic methods, why the sentence is being removed? It is a fact that many diseases needs to be reclassified! I really did not like that the sentences were removed under the section of diagnosis.--Abhijeet Safai (talk) 05:36, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

The correct place to discuss article content is on the relevant article talk page: I suggest you ask the question there, where others will also see it. AndyTheGrump (talk) 05:44, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

Ok thanks. --Abhijeet Safai (talk) 05:47, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

E-Cat

In answer to what I wrote, I think you advised me to read the piece on fringe science. I have. Would you be good enough to read what I wrote on the E-CAT topic talk page and tell me where it is not factual? (copied below) I tried editing the actual article but it was immediately deleted. Possibly go to Resolution?

This discussion page rambles to the point it is difficult to follow. There are two main points that are clearly wrong.

1, The statement that no independent test has been carried out. You can't prove a negative and so can't possibly know that. In fact an independent test has been carried out. The paper is available for viewing or downloading at arXiv:1305,3903 It was paid for and commented about by Elforsk on their official site. Elforsk is a large, well known R&D organization, equivalent to EPRI. It can't get much more official than that.

It doesn't matter that it has not been peer reviewed yet, or that some don't like the experimental procedure. An independent test HAS been run. There are various secondary sources of confirmation mentioned, such as Gibbs in Forbes magazine. I expect that several other tests have been run by large organizations doing their due diligence.

2. The comment on an independent test is followed by a very negative commentary taken from a blog site run by Ugo Bardi. The comments to his post were uniformly negative. Mine was censored. What is the justification for this? I can point to several other blogs run by scientists, including a Nobel Prize winner and a Chief Scientist at NASA, that come to the opposite conclusion.

One can only conclude that there are several editors on this topic that are so convinced that LENR is impossible that they favor anything negative about it. For example, the selective quote from Elforsk given. The full quote is shown below. (Google translation)

Swedish researchers have tested Rossi energy catalyst - E-cat

"Researchers from Uppsala University and KTH Stockholm has conducted measurements of the produced heat energy from a device called the E-cat. It is known as an energy catalyst invented by the Italian scientist Andrea Rossi.

The measurements show that the catalyst gives substantially more energy than can be explained by ordinary chemical reactions. The results are very remarkable. What lies behind the extraordinary heat production can not be explained today. There has been speculation over whether there can be any form of nuclear transformation. However, this is highly questionable. To learn more about what is going on you have to learn what is happening with the fuel and the waste it produces. The measurements have been funded by such Elforsk."

For those the prefer peer reviewed papers, there are several hundred listed that confirm LENR here. lenr-canr.org

Rossi forecast at the beginning that nothing would convince the skeptics until working E-CATs were out in the market and he was right. I wonder what you will say when Defkalion demonstrate their Hyperion at the National Instruments Week in August.

LENR has now been proven beyond all reasonable doubt. This negatively biased wiki entry on the E-CAT is doing a great disservice to thousands of viewers. Parallel (talk) 20:48, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

I'm not this slightest bit interested in debating this with you here, since you clearly don't have a clue what you are talking about. AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:54, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

I have opened a dispute notice and you are invited to respond. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard#Energy_Catalyzer Parallel (talk) 00:53, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

Reply to your comment

You write you are not interested in debating this, but as you believe LENR is fringe science and accuse me of being clueless, you might get a better understanding if you read this short post by Jed Rothwell.

…The author asked: "Jed, thanks for this. I see the experiment is clearly defined on pages 8 and 9. The paper was written in 1996. Do you know of any place the number of successful vs. unsuccessful times this specific experiment has been done?"

My response: Storms himself did this when he was writing the paper. He began with 98 cathodes. It took him about a year to test them following the methods in this paper. At the end of that time he found 4 that passed all tests. These 4 worked repeatedly at high s/n ratios. So, looking at those 4 the success rate was 100%. Looking at the entire batch of cathodes the rate was 4%.

Take your pick. It depends on how you look at it.

Miles tested 94 cathodes and found 28 worked. That’s a 29% success rate. However, when he used cathodes recommended by Fleischmann and Johnson Matthey, 4 out of 4 worked,producing about 10 times more heat than any other type. So that’s 100%. Again, take your pick. The McKubre figures in this report show a similar pattern:http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/McKubreMCHcoldfusionb.pdf

If you get a good source of material such as Johnson Matthey or the ENEA, and you are good at electrochemistry, and you test the cathodes beforehand by the methods recommended by Storms, Cravens, Fleischmann and others, and you measure control parameters so you can tell how close you are and what to do next, then it will work nearly 100% of the time. If you do not do these things it may work 30% of the time, or 3%, or never. There is no telling. It is like shooting in the dark. Or, as Storms puts it, it is like picking up pieces of gravel, testing them, and hoping to find a semiconductor.

Let me add that practically the only person who made a serious effort to replicate Flieschmann exactly, following all advice and protocols, was the late Georges Lonchampt. He was an engineer. He was the chief designer of the French fission power reactors and a commissioner on the French Atomic Energy commission. Such people are technically skilled and they are used to following instructions, unlike academic scientists. He reported that it worked every time, exactly as Fleischmann said it would. The head of BARC and later chairman of the Indian Atomic Energy commission also replicated successfully, again because he was the kind of person who is used to following instructions.

He and his colleagues also successfully replicated the U.S. thermonuclear bomb. That is an extremely hazardous undertaking, so he knew a thing or two about following instructions.

If you want something replicated properly you should turn to people like this. The last people on earth you should turn to are academic physicists, especially plasma fusion scientists. In 1989 and 1990 they found more ways to do this experiment wrong than you can imagine, including mixing up the anode and the cathode. - Jed Parallel (talk) 12:36, 8 June 2013 (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 find a resolution. Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you!

Your work here

Hello Andy,

I no longer remember the context, but a couple of years ago, I disagreed with you about something, and commented that you should try to be less grumpy. Now, I believe that you should be a grumpy as you wish, and are able to be, within reasonable limits, and in opposition to the hoardes of POV pushers and cranks who swarm to Wikipedia. Something motivated me to take a look at your recent work on several controversial topics. Your firmness and insistence on high standards, especially on topics related to science, medicine and most especially BLPs, is really needed here. I do not have the personality traits to consistently do the type of work that you do. I work mostly on welcoming and mentoring new users, as well as non controversial content creation. But as I have learned more about the "dark underbelly" of this wonderful project, I have developed a deeper appreciation of the importance of your work. So, thank you. I hope that you contribute for many years to come. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 02:04, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

Well, I could probably achieve the same results with a little less grump, and the same amount of firmness - but that's the way I am. One of the nice things about working on Wikipedia is that it allows you to find your own niche, and I seem to have sort of gravitated into this one. Anyway, thanks for your comments, it is good to know that I'm seen as doing useful work. AndyTheGrump (talk) 12:40, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

Reply

Dear Andy, Thank you for your message on my Talk Page. I have responded in full there. Horatio Snickers (talk) 11:40, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

Wikilinking words in quotes

I didn't know that, thanks 74.101.128.155 (talk) 18:15, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

I'd take a look at WP:OVERLINK too - it is rarely necessary to link the same word more than once. AndyTheGrump (talk)

Talkback

Hello, AndyTheGrump. You have new messages at Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard.
Message added 19:45, 6 June 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

WhiteWriter^speaks 19:45, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

troll?

Is your spidey sense tingling too? — The Potato Hose 15:25, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

Indeed it is... AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:32, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

Excuse me? --Ivilbderoneday (talk) 15:34, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

IP blocks

I've blocked the IP you warned and their brother. If other siblings continue to edit war, I suppose there's nothing for it but semi the article. Bishonen | talk 15:45, 7 June 2013 (UTC).

ANI

Hello. There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. --Ivilbderoneday (talk) 15:51, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

Eugene Plotkin RfC

It has been over 30 days since the RfC on the Eugene Plotkin talk page was opened and I believe consensus regarding a page move was reached a good 10 days ago. However, I am concerned if I move the page, it will set off another edit war with user Smallbones. Can you please close the RfC and move the page as you see fit? Factchecker25 (talk) 00:23, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

I think it might be better to ask an uninvolved contributor to close it. You could ask for this at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Requests for closure. AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:34, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the suggestion. I added the request to the noticeboard. Factchecker25 (talk) 04:07, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

Now that the page has been moved to Reebok insider trading case and the SPI has been closed, meaning there is no question regarding my neutrality, I have tried to re-frame the article to focus on the crime and follow NPOV. If you could review, I would be grateful for the additional perspective. Factchecker25 (talk) 17:28, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

Islamophobia

I accidentially reverted you via edit conflict, but I would have done so anyway. Perhaps you would like to use the talkpage and explain how it is "a gross violation of WP:NPOV" to try and introduce neutral and unemotional wording to an article which has been tagged as broken for ages? I know that prejudice exists, but using an article titled about an inflammatory slur to discuss them is not a very clever idea. "Islamophobia" is like "pro life" and "pro choice", the term itself stifles all discussion because it is a wholesale attack on an opposing view. If you want to discuss Islam-related controversies or the like, please do it under a neutral title. I am sure we can agree that "abortion controversy" is a more wikilike title than "baby-killing", right? Then why make the same mistake here. --dab (𒁳) 15:46, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

See WP:BRD - I have reverted your edits again. As for your comments on the word 'Islamophobia', it is a term widely used in academia, and your attempts to suggest otherwise are frankly ridiculous. AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:59, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

You are right about BRD, I suppose, but since I already failed that, let me go out on a limb and ignore AGF as well: I can accept that you may have different tastes or opinions. But to suggest that "'Islamophobia', it is a term widely used in academia" is clearly a joke, unless your idea of "academia" is "politically correct propaganda", but I would let that pass as misguided good faith. To suggest that people who beg to differ are "ridiculous" for me does not register as within the reach of AGF. I do not have time for this though, so you are welcome to keep your broken article. --dab (𒁳) 05:36, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

It is a fact that the term 'Islamophobia' is widely used in academia: [6] AndyTheGrump (talk) 13:24, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

Question

Hi Andy. Was just wondering; in this edit you remove the statement about McEnroe doping from the lead and imply it is unsourced, but the paragraph in the body contains a reliable source. Did you realise this? Or am I missing something? Basalisk ^{inspect damage}⁄_berate 17:53, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

Scratch that, just seen the talk page. But in light of the fact that the statement in the body is sourced, what do you think of the doping category? Basalisk ^{inspect damage}⁄_berate 17:55, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, sorry about that. I thought I'd looked for a source before I edited, but must have missed it. Regarding the categories, I can't see how this is a 'doping case' - it only came to light after McEnroe's career ended, and I'm not even sure that the use of the steroids used was banned at the time. Describing it as a 'doping case' seems to imply more than the sources state. AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:08, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

"nutters" and the "utterly insane"

You chastised another contributor for using the term "nutters" to refer to those who fake cancer. Your justification for this admonishment is that the term seemed to show disrespect for those with mental health issues. But you referred to my contributions as "utterly insane".

That is inconsistent.

If you and I were friends I would offer you the heads-up that this kind of inconsistency is likely to erode your credibility. If you and I were friends I would warn you that using inflammatory language, like calling other contributor's work "utterly insane" is damaging to the project in general -- where we are all supposed to do our best to maintain an environment of civility and collegiality. Geo Swan (talk) 19:43, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

I'm not interested in debating this - including someone who had cancer in a 'list of cancer victim hoaxes' was a gross violation of WP:BLP policy. AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:47, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

There is an aphorism most of us learned in nursery school -- "two wrongs don't make a right". Could you please consider whether this lesson should apply to your comments in discussions here?

If you agreed the lesson did apply here, you would refrain from making inflammatory comments, without regard to how "gross" you think some other contributor's lapse was. I suggest you should be able to find a way to make your points -- without insulting other people.

Interestingly, I just revisited WP:Articles for deletion/List of bullycides -- another discussion where you used inflammatory language specifically "Are you out of your f*cking minds!". Again, if you and I were friends I would warn you that your use of inflammatory language was not only damaging to the project in general -- if we were friends, I'd be concerned for you that this kind of disregard of our standards could have negative consequences for you, personally. Geo Swan (talk) 21:15, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

We are not friends. Please do not post on my talk page again, unless necessary for notification purposes. AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:18, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

Notification of reply

This is to notify you that I have replied to your comment attempting to ban me. I gather there is an automated way of advising you but I don't know how to use it Parallel (talk) 20:47, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

There is no need to notify me - I am watching the discussion. AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:51, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

You really miss the point - again

You wrote: Harassing other editors and threatening to reveal their identities

This is your only warning for harassing other editors and threatening to reveal their personal information. Because of an editing dispute, you posted at Talk:Energy Catalyzer "How would yo like to be made out to be a criminal, by name, on WIkipedia?" This constitutes harassment, a violation of the policy WP:HARASSMENT and revealing the name of another editor who wishes to be anonymous would violate the policy WP:OUTING. Any repetition of such behavior will result in your being blocked from editing. Such comments are not a reasonable part of improving the article, which is the only purpose of the talk page. If you intended to complain that another editor had called you a criminal, there are other venues for that, such as first asking the editor on his talk page to remove the offending text or second, complaining at WP:ANI. In any event, it would be well to remove or strike through the text in question. Edison (talk) 14:35, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

Hard to believe that you are so biased you didn't recognize that was a rhetorical question to "unsigned" (how the hell would I identify him anyway) who accused Rossi of being a criminal. I therefore asked him how he would like it. Parallel (talk) 21:50, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for demonstrating your incompetence - I didn't write that, User:Edison did. Please do not post on my talk page again except for the purposes of formal notification. AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:59, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

notification

I have posted a piece mentioning your name on MastCell's talk page Parallel (talk) 03:24, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

fyi

Your name came up. Geo Swan (talk) 09:36, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

I have posted an appeal here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard Parallel (talk) 19:45, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

I wonder

[7]+[8]+[9]=? — The Potato Hose 23:35, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

[10]. AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:43, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

Perhaps someone should put some stick about. (I actually just finished rererererewatching the original yesterday.) — The Potato Hose 23:51, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

Chef/gym teacher

I believe you are correct. Thanks! Capitalismojo (talk) 17:45, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

Ani heads-up

After initiating this thread both policy and common courtesy obliged me to leave you a timely heads-up. I got called away, and hadn't done that yet. I see you saw it. Nevertheless I apologize for not getting the heads-up to you prior to you seeing it on your own. Geo Swan (talk) 14:31, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

No problem. AndyTheGrump (talk) 14:32, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

" "Boing"? What the hell is that supposed to mean?" Short for Boing! said Zebedee, the user to which Geo Swan was responding.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 15:37, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

Doh! I'd missed that... AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:40, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Editor's Barnstar
	Thanks4Help! TY of Walk 16:51, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, AndyTheGrump. You have new messages at Dusti's talk page.
Message added 18:11, 16 June 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Dusti^*poke* 18:11, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

RSN comment

Hi. I noticed your name at the noticeboard and was wondering if you could comment at this post. I've been getting feedback only from editors who've used the source in question in the articles they add to, so I don't think I'm getting a very impartial response. Dan56 (talk) 18:16, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, AndyTheGrump. You have new messages at Dusti's talk page.
Message added 18:21, 16 June 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Dusti^*poke* 18:21, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, AndyTheGrump. You have new messages at Dusti's talk page.
Message added 18:30, 16 June 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Dusti^*poke* 18:30, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, AndyTheGrump. You have new messages at Dusti's talk page.
Message added 18:52, 16 June 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Dusti^*poke* 18:52, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, AndyTheGrump. You have new messages at Dusti's talk page.
Message added 19:07, 16 June 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Dusti^*poke* 19:07, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, AndyTheGrump. You have new messages at Talk:Gun Control.
Message added 17:58, 20 June 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Gaijin42 (talk) 17:58, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

Cool it, please

Cool it, my friend Angry Thumped. Jimbo blocked me for saying that. Supposing he's on the prowl? Bishonen | talk 19:13, 20 June 2013 (UTC).

Careful - you'll be accused of being in my pay if you go around calling me your friend ;-) But yeah, I shouldn't let such things get under my skin... AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:16, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

I was actually about to say something vaguely similar (accusations of collusion be damned). No sense in getting worked up about it; just ignore it. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 19:18, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

I could stand being in your pay, make me an offer. The wiki pension scheme is lousy. Bishonen | talk 05:41, 21 June 2013 (UTC).

Template

You were right. You gave your reasons, but I overlooked it so sorry for my angry comment (crossed it out). I gave my reasons on TP now. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 14:36, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

FYI

I've put a comment on "broadly construed" on Kumioko's page.[11] Bishonen | talk 18:04, 23 June 2013 (UTC).

re Michael Pliuskaitis

I see we're already three helpers working on Michael Pliuskaitis ;) I removed the tag form the article before I noticed your reply and I'll add proper citation templates or at least link the URLs to the titles as soon as edit conflicts can be avoided (if that hasn't already been taken care of by then). jonkerz ♠talk 18:04, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

Thanks - I've started a thread on WP:BLPN regarding this article, as it may raise concerns. AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:05, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

Post from United Arab Emirates

I think I know the answer, but I will ask anyway. You had an edit summary of: "rvv - nonsense in Arabic script)". Did you use that summary because you knew that the Arabic original was nonsense, or did you refer to the Arabic post as nonsense because Arabic is nonsense to most English-literate editors? (Having recently tested Unicode, it was a test of the ability of the Wikimedia servers to handle Unicode, but such a test should be done either in a sandbox or with the native Arabic names of persons and places.) Robert McClenon (talk) 23:56, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

It was simple enough to determine that it was nonsense, using Google translate: [12]

Even without Google translate, it seems self-evident that this is nonsense: no language will have so many repeating letters - and the word length is implausible too. AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:08, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

Then it was just random gibberish, in which case it was a disruptive edit. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:06, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

Newbie

Darling is (basically) a newbie with a low edit count. Please don't WP:BITE! I urge you to retract the comment about disruptiveness. – S. Rich (talk) 20:56, 26 June 2013 (UTC)20:58, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

I'd already made the same point, in more mild terms, in a previous post. It didn't seem to sink in. I see no reason to retract it, since the behaviour is clearly becoming disruptive - anyone coming to the discussion from outside is going to be confronted with a whole series of repeated posts, complete with broken links and assertions not borne out by the sources. This is no way to reach a consensus, and I think we'd do newbies a disservice if we were to give the impression that this was the expected standard of behaviour. AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:11, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

Well, as this is an editor behavior issue, I suggest moving the comment to his talkpage. From what I've seen, he's open to mentoring. (And doing so will de-clutter the BM talkpage a bit.) – S. Rich (talk) 21:39, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

Copyright Violations For Corina(Singer)

I am writing to inquire why you have tagged me for copyright violation. I am the Artist Corina and I have spent all day updating this page. I am new to Wikipedia, how can I edit my page without these isues? I have copyrights to every detail and image on the page as it is me who the page represents.

Corina — Preceding unsigned comment added by Yes Behind The No (talk • contribs) 00:56, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

AndyTheGrump,

Thank you for asking that the vandalism be erased from the warning. I am indeed the Artist for which this article exists. This is my first day on Wikipedia and I was entirely unaware that there might be a problem editing a page about me. I have had even the hardest time just finding out how to message you about this matter.

Is there a way for me to edit my page without someone calling it cpyright infringement? I have copyrights to my work.

Thank you Corina — Preceding unsigned comment added by Yes Behind The No (talk • contribs) 01:31, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

I think it would be best if you respond at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#User:Yes Behind The No, as others are now involved in this discussion. There are several matters of concern regarding the article, and it is best to keep discussions centralised. AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:38, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

Reply on Talk Page

Hello, AndyTheGrump. You have new messages at Amaury's talk page.
Message added 01:46, 27 June 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

I've replied. I meant to only revert and then issue the appropriate warning with Twinkle. Apologies. Amaury (talk) 01:46, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

Aquatic ape hypothesis

Hey, Andy. Could use more eyes at Aquatic ape hypothesis. Check out the last two sections of the talk page. Thanks. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 00:00, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

Yup - I have it watchlisted. AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:04, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

Your edit summary

Here, you seem to think the members of the EDL can spell? Darkness Shines (talk) 12:39, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

Good point: [13]. AndyTheGrump (talk) 12:55, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

I just sprayed coffee through my nose, that is so funny, I need to track down the photographer and buy whoever it was a pint. Darkness Shines (talk) 13:01, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

non, je ne regrette rien! Martinevans123 (talk) 13:11, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

There is also a photo of a poster saying "DOWN WITH ASLAN" about - but I'm not entirely convinced it is genuine. AndyTheGrump (talk) 13:14, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

Your answer at the help desk

Thank you for your help desk answer. --Khmer Prun Them (talk) 18:11, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

BoomPopMedia

Look dude, I won't add it to anymore articles because quite frankly I'm tired of fighting with everyone about it - but please read my user page before making blanket judgements. My goal on Wikipedia is to take news/opinion sources an integrate them into articles that are not up to par. If you look at the James Gandolfini article, it's embarrassing how little information it contains for a figure as important as he is. These were good faith additions. If you have better citations, feel free to add them in its place, but I would rather have good content with a questionable citation than no content at all. AtlasBurden (talk) 22:50, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

BoomPopMedia isn't a reliable source, according to Wikipedia definitions, and that is all that matters here - find somewhere else to promote it. AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:53, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

The edits on the James Gandolfini page quite clearly fall under this category: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:RS#Self-published_and_questionable_sources_as_sources_on_themselves AtlasBurden (talk) 22:59, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

Material from boompopmedia.com and listogames.com clearly falls under the category 'Wikipedia doesn't give a toss what your contributors think'. AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:03, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

I won't fight you on this case because quite frankly I don't care enough to do so. If you want to REMOVE content from an article that is already far too short, then I guess I can't stop you from doing so. I respect the fact that you are trying to help ensure high quality standards on Wikipedia, but you could be nicer about it. AtlasBurden (talk) 23:09, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

Khmer Prun Them

Hi, I see you have reverted several edits by Khmer Prun Them (talk · contribs), some of which pertain to a meetup in Horsham, UK. However, the edits made by this user at Meta are still up. Should they be reverted too? If not, there will be a discrepancy between the meetups described at Meta and those listed on en.wp --Redrose64 (talk) 08:13, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

Absolutely - Khmer Prun Them was sockpuppet/troll. AndyTheGrump (talk) 13:44, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

Vandalism at Bhaag Milkha Bhaag article?

User Wraithful is continuesly removing the material from the article even after requesting him to get conses before on the talk page. I have written 2 messages on his talk page. I dont know how to handle this kind of activity. Please guide and kindly give your opinion. Thanks. --Abhijeet Safai (talk) 16:57, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

I'm not sure why you are asking me about this - but I'd start by reading WP:VANDAL. This is a content dispute, and making accusations of vandalism is entirely inappropriate. Looking at the material removed, I'm inclined to agree with Wraithful that it is inappropriate trivia for an unreleased film, and I'm not even sure that an article on the film can be justified at all under Wikipedia:Notability (films) guidelines. I suggest that rather than arguing over minor details, you look for evidence from third-party reliable sources that the film is of any significance. AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:23, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

Ok thanks. I was asking you this question because I found you very sensible, helpful, balanced, friendly yet firm. There is a great learning by reading your edits. I got to know about you at Ayurveda article and I found you very logical there. Thanks. I shall follow as discussed. Thanks. --Abhijeet Safai (talk) 05:37, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

One more reason I posted on your talk page because I found you unbiased or very little biased. Your guidance was of great help to me in the past. It is my genuine feeling. Thanks. --Abhijeet Safai (talk) 11:16, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

Please comment on

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Human Genetic History#Guidelines desperately needed. Thanks. Dougweller (talk) 13:24, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

Alger Hiss

You are involved in a recently filed request for arbitration. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests#Alger Hiss and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. Additionally, the following resources may be of use—

• Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests#Requests for arbitration;
• Wikipedia:Arbitration guide.

Thanks,

CJK (talk) 13:31, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

Linkspam?

While you acted in good faith, describing the link I posted regarding the airliner involved in the SFO crash as "linkspam" was not. The link was germane to the article, and a non-commercial site. Not sure why you removed it, but I'm assuming good faith. Next time use only the language that is appropriate, especially when the editor who made the addition in the first place is well established and has a very low revert rate. And, frankly give a better reason for something of that nature. Thanks. Juneau Mike (talk) 23:14, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

Sorry if I was a bit abrupt, but it is difficult to keep up when multiple editors are trying to add 'fatalities' etc to an article based on poor sources. I should probably have cited WP:ELNO instead - I can't see that the site you linked really provided any relevant information that we didn't already have. AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:19, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

Gotcha, agf as I said. BTW, just heard in the press conference that roughly 60 are unaccounted for. There is going to be some minor to moderate edit warring over this. (I stay out of such things...) Juneau Mike (talk) 23:22, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

See also

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/QVD (software) Delicious carbuncle (talk) 01:35, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

Here's a suggestion

How about you no try to WikiHound me, and read the WP:Deletion policy? Inappropriate re-nominations or nominations that are frivolous are subject to a Speedy Close. Just because you may want the article kept, deleted, etc. does not mean you attack the closer. Further, I didn't close the previous discussion - I relisted. Two entirely different things. Your empty threat of an AN/I discussion mean nothing to me. Don't make threats that are meaningless, please. It further degrades my already ill view of you. Dusti^*poke* 01:37, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

And I do highly highly suggest that you learn the difference between a relisting and a closure before you try to respond here. Dusti^*poke* 01:39, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

Whatever: here's a suggestion. How about you stop making decisions regarding AfDs you aren't qualified to do? As Mark Austin wrote in the closure for the previous (no consensus) AfD "This close does not mean that the article has to remain, however, the community can begin a new discussion at any time about whether to merge and redirect this". You don't get to override an admin - and see WP:NACD. AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:46, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

LOL! I knew you wouldn't look! Look at the current discussion and the closers remark about how the current discussion is inappropriate. Again, stop making yourself look this way Andy. I personally have nothing against you - I just dislike your abrasiveness on small things - such as a relist. You come at me accusing me of another bad closure. Your bias here is that you threw a temper tantrum because you thought I did something to delay the deletion of your nomination, whereas (and it is now clear) I didn't. I was hoping you'd come to apologize, but alas you didn't. I get you - you don't like being wrong, and that's okay. Read the consensus on the discussion before you make any further moves. I'm now un-watching your talk page to stop this conversation before it goes somewhere we don't want it to go. Take care Andy. Dusti^*poke* 01:51, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

I'm not interested in arguing with you. I have made my position clear. Call it Wiki-hounding if you like - I'll call it ensuring that proper standards are applied. AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:55, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

Request for Arbitration case declined

This is a courtesy notice to inform you that a request for arbitration, which named you as a party, has been declined. Please see the Arbitrators' opinions for potential suggestions on moving forward.

For the Arbitration Committee, — ΛΧΣ²¹ 20:41, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

Smart

Hmmm. I have a problem. One the one hand, I understand and agree with your edit. On the other hand, that page actually includes some useful and accurate information that doesn't seem to be otherwise easily accessible. I guess I'm somewhat conflicted. Do you have an opinion on the topic? Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 16:36, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

P.S. I like your username - I wish I'd put more thought into my choice of username ... Pdfpdf (talk) 16:36, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

I've just deleted a whole lot of links to obitree.com, as obvious linkspam. The linked pages certainly seemed to contain 'useful information' - copy-pasted from Wikipedia, without attribution! Evidently the Smart page wasn't from us, but I wouldn't be surprised if it was coplied from somewhere else instead. I can see no reason to link to what is self-evidently a site using our articles as a means of promotion, anyway. AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:44, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

You silver-tongued-devil! (I'm convinced.) Pdfpdf (talk) 17:19, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

Meaningless?

I'd like to know why you think mourning by Chinese netizens is, as you put it, "meaningless"? This was reported by a reliable source and documents a widespread reaction to a major news event. Just because it didn't happen in the United States does not lessen the fact's importance. CaseyPenk (talk) 02:32, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

What the heck do you think a 'netizen' is? Just because CNN concoct stories by trawling the web and then plastering vacuous headlines over them, we don't have to follow suit. It is self-evident that people in China will be mourning victims - and they deserve better coverage than that which reduces them to cheap headlines. AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:36, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

I appreciate the explanation. I wish you would have explained it like this (and at this length) in your edit summary, as you just did. The mourning can be given serious attention with different articles. CaseyPenk (talk) 02:40, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

Yeah - you are right, I should have given a longer summary, apologies. AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:43, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, Andy. CaseyPenk (talk) 02:57, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

777 Safety record

Andy,

I don't want to edit war over this edit. There's a discussion on the article's talk page. Please add your thoughts and lets get consensus. At least 3 editors (myself and the original editor, plus the one who tweaked the verbiage) think it is a proper addition to the article. As I said in my Edit Summary, don't forget the "D" in WP:BRD. Thanks and best regards, JoeSperrazza (talk) 18:27, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

List of teenage parents

Hey, Andy. Considering that you deal with WP:BLP violation issues a lot more than most of us at this site, perhaps you'd be willing to tackle the List of teenage parents article before it gets even further out of hand? I've commented on the matter already; see its talk page. Flyer22 (talk) 21:23, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

Yuk. A ridiculous article. Teenage pregnancy simply isn't notable - it was almost the norm in many societies until recently, and may still be so in parts of sub-Saharan Africa for instance. AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:36, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

I have add links for some usefulness, but I wholly agree. How did this get past speedy delete? Martinevans123 (talk) 21:40, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

I see Darkness Shines has blanked it - which given its lack of sources, is entirely according to policy. AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:43, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

(ec)Now at AFD, I also removed all the unsourced stuff, which left all of two lines. Darkness Shines (talk) 21:44, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

With regard to notability, the topic is notable for the reasons shown in the Teenage pregnancy article. But that list is... Well, I agree with all three of you about that list. Flyer22 (talk) 21:46, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

Just watch out for.. List of celebrities at least one of whose parents was a teenager, probably. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:48, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

...and now at AfD. As for the Teenage pregnancy article itself, that needs considerable work, I think. AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:50, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

There have also been BLP-violation issues, and other issues, with List of youngest birth mothers, and I took the matter of what to do with that list to WP:MED in March of this year. They didn't seem to believe that the list should be deleted. And the list is usually under control. But I'm not sure what I would rate it on the encyclopedic scale. Sure, the youngest cases are unusual. But the only person with a Wikipedia article on that list is Lina Medina, for obvious reasons (though being able to give birth at age 6 is just as rare).

At the opposite end, I now see (and I've probably seen it before), from looking at the See also section of the List of youngest birth mothers article, that there is a "List of oldest birth mothers" in the Pregnancy over age 50 article; someone, in 2012, tagged that section's factual accuracy as disputed. Flyer22 (talk) 05:28, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

IQ champ?

Hi Andy, if you happen to get a spare moment from your main quality control work would you perhaps care to take a look at this? Cheers, 86.161.251.139 (talk) 13:36, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

Given the contradictory sources, I've removed this from the article - see the talk page. AndyTheGrump (talk) 13:58, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

Thanks! I'm glad that's fixed. What seems to have happened is that she made the sort of PR mistake any youngster who doesn't happen to be media savvy is liable to make, by telling the story (or a cheeky take on it [14] ). The press obviously relish that... And then, when she's making big headlines again, Wikipedia perhaps plays a role in its media resuscitation, including further takes [15]. Oh well, better late than never, I suppose...86.161.251.139 (talk) 14:35, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

Traffic control

Yo, AtG, just FYI, I think your first comment in the Retrolord ANI thread got edit-conflicted out in the shuffle, which is presumably why Retrolord hasn't answered it. Frankly, I've given up trying to post in it. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 15:09, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

You are probably right - I've restored it. I've also made a proposal... AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:18, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

I have slain the foul beast

[GOT HIM!]

You are most welcome, ★★RetroLord★★ 16:25, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

He blocked too. ★★RetroLord★★ 16:28, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

It's a (Spanish) miracle

May be of interest: [16] Note "Testimonial One". Regards. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:37, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

"The teaspoon I use to mix it with is rusted after 12 weeks"! Er yes. Bleach does that. Cleans drains, and rots brains, apparently. AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:57, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

Disruption on Talk:Edward Snowden

Hi Andy, regarding this discussion, I want to let you know that I support administrative action here. Although Bugs has occasionally contributed to the talk page (notice never the article, however), his legitimate contributions are far outnumbered by his WP:NOTFORUM violations. Even after your exchange there was this discussion in which he dug in and insisted on his right to soapbox, even when consensus was against him. And today he has liberally sprinkled his views once again. This is well past the point of being disruptive. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 17:29, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

Rape in Norway

Hi,

just in support of your deleting stuff on "immigrant non-Western males" re rape in Norway. Your reading of the police report is entirely correct. Summing up all categories of rape, Norwegians themselves (or, ourselves) are the leaders in that particular rat race. Note also that the referenced numbers were from 2006 - 2008, iirc, while the report deals with 2010 (and there is now a 2011 report out).

Just a precaution: The NO Penal Code § 192 has three sections specifying aspects of this particular crime; the "five categories" are merely "typical scenarios" given by the analysts in the report; they match neither the sections in para 192 nor do they in any legal sense constitute specific crimes with specific sentencing. The categories would correspond to (US) - "date rape" ("party rape", festvoldtekt), - "spousal rape" (relationship rape, forholdsvoldtekt), - "inadvertent rape" (lack of consent, but no mens rea (?); prev. AKA sexual misdemeanor), - abuse of authority (/control/power: vulnerability rape), - assault rape, - and "other" covers all the non-typical, non-scenariofiable cases. Different traits of different scenarios (like degree of degradation, violence, STD etc.) are covered under the various provisions in the sections of para 192. The report itself has some intersting perspectives, a fair piece of analyst craft, besides being an authoritative source for numbers. Just so that one is careful how one uses it, is all.

MVH,

T 88.89.144.119 (talk) 05:13, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

Baseball Bugs

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

Here's a direct link for your convenience. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 07:43, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

Striked vote on AN

It appears you may have misread who wrote the support with this strike. It appears to be ToAT that wrote that support. Yobol (talk) 15:07, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

Ooops! Thanks - I've reverted AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:10, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

AN

I have made a post regarding this intended action for administrators to review. Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard#Conflict_around_Gun_controlGaijin42 (talk) 15:13, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

2 Oppose

Sorry about that! I'm new at this game and I think I am being hung out to dry by a lot of sock puppets. --Damorbel (talk) 15:51, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

I see no evidence whatsoever of sockpuppetry from those commenting in the thread, Instead, I see clear evidence of an emerging consensus that your current behaviour is unacceptable. AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:55, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

typo

You made a typo in your last comment. For the sake of clarity in the thread, Ill wait for you to fix it before replying. Gaijin42 (talk) 18:15, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

No typo - you are claiming that something is a subtopic of itself. AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:16, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

Clever

I just happened to notice this. Clever of you! Bishonen | talk 19:38, 23 July 2013 (UTC).

Thanks - though it was easy enough to find. [17]. AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:44, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

Confusion on Date of Birth

Great minds think alike i see. Have a nice day ツ Jenova20 ^(email) 14:36, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

Yeah :) You too. AndyTheGrump (talk)

"11 year old article"

Ive noticed yet another !vote has mentioned that "Andy wants to eliminate an 11 year old article" despite you having mentioned twice (or thrice?) already that this is not accurate representation. At this point I believe those saying "11 year old article" are doing so intentionally to mislead future !voters and sway the discussion. Is there a place, perhaps AN/I where it can be requested that such existing comments be refactored to state the situation accurately or striked through; and that future editors who !vote with that reason have their !votes labeled that "closing admin not take it into consideration due to" (spamming... intentional misinformation, intentional dumbassery, whatever) with potential warnings and blocks if necessary if they are by editors with a history of being in this dispute and have caused disruption or misinformation in the past.Camelbinky (talk) 15:48, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

I doubt that you'd get agreement to strike it out. The best thing to do is simply post a comment after, pointing out that, as the article history shows, [18] the article hasn't been in existence for 11 continuous years. It was created in 2002, deleted as a POV fork (with some edit warring) in 2008, and then recreated in 2011. The 'recreation' was initially based on existing content, minus material evidently removed as 'anti-gun-ownership'. [19]. It got worse from there - not even a pretence at neutrality: [20] AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:32, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

Blocked

The edit war in which you have been engaged disrupts the reasonable operation of Wikipedia's reference desk, and you've chosen to engage in pointless and disruptive edit warring rather than worthwhile and moderate discussion. It's really difficult to understand why you felt the trivial matter in question was so important that you felt warring over it was more urgent that discussing it. Consequently I have blocked the accounts of both parties to this pointless dispute.-- Finlay McWalterჷTalk 23:25, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

A "reasonable operation of Wikipedia's reference desk" clearly does not include contributors posting off-topic and offensive suggestions that sufferers of Alzheimer's disease should be euthanased. There is far too much soapboxing and general crap posted on the reference desks as it is, and when this is done in a way that is clearly hurtful to another contributor (Medeis, who had just stated that his grandfather died of Alzheimer's), common sense and common decency suggests that such material should be hatted, or deleted. Still, if you are more concerned with slapping blocks on people for offending petty rules (only visible in the background) than for maintaining standards of civil behaviour on one of the most visible pages of the encyclopaedia, I suppose you can see the block as justified. I don't, but then maybe I'm in the minority in actually caring about the public face of the encyclopaedia than in the facile backroom bickering and point-scoring that goes on here. AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:40, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

You make a pertinent and well-thought out point about the dispute in hand. Had you made this point rather than edit-warring, or even during the course of it, it's unlikely that I would have elected to block your account. I'm not blind to the fact, much as it may seem, that both parties were acting in what they felt was good faith. But both of you chosen, rather than to discuss the matter, to revert one another over and over. You're not blocked because I think you're wrong, but because you chose war-war over jaw-jaw. We all have disagreements over what should be in Wikipedia, but if we can't talk about them, we're screwed. It saddened be to block you, and I did worry that doing so would discourange you from the great preponderance of good things that you do. That you both do. But we have to be good to one another, or at least not to be bad to one another, and that's what you were both doing. I'm going to leave the rest of this to an admin who reviews unblock requests - I really don't want you to be blocked. But I really do want you to talk about problems first, second, and third. -- Finlay McWalterჷTalk 23:53, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

Am I supposed to take your comments seriously when you post exactly the same thing in two different places? [21] AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:04, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

You're supposed to understand that I hold you both in high regard, equally so. That I'm not picking sides. That I don't actually care about the dispute. This isn't a battle anyone can win. Andy, you've been here a while. I've been here a looong time. I've seen so many great Wikipedians like you get burned up in disputes, so often disputes like this over trivia. It pains me, really it does. I could fill this page with the great people who've built Wikipedia but burned out on conflict and nonsense and personal disputes. We only have WP:3RR because of user:Wik and user:lir, titans of intellect and productivity who built the bedrock we all work on - but who came to burn with hatred with one another, over crap like diacritical marks and long hyphens and who'd said what to whom. Not over real content, real disputes like abortion or Palestine or politics, just rubbish. I couldn't stop them, I'm a fool to think I can stop you, but Wikipedia dies a little when those who care the most about it fight over it. -- Finlay McWalterჷTalk 00:13, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia dies a little every time good constructive editors are blocked. Do you really not see that your blocks are "fighting" actions too, which raise the temperature, not lower it? Per my argument on your page, Finlay, I'm going to unblock Andy now. If you're serious about not picking sides, I suppose the logic is you'll have to unblock Count Iblis. Bishonen | talk 00:22, 29 July 2013 (UTC).

Would you please unblock both editors now? The war is over. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 00:15, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

3RR is a brightline and the result is a block, with you so far. However, 10 days is overkill. 12-48 hours is enough to remove someone from a situation so that discussion can take place amongst other editors and a consensus reached. Granted, there are some cases where a longer block is necessary, but I'm sure this matter will be resolved by tomorrow if not already. Thus, I recommend shortening to 12 hours if not time served. N^oformation ^Talk 00:18, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

Actually, the blocks were unnecessary. A quiet word from Finlay would have stopped it. You admins need to learn to talk before you shoot. Just ban them both from the page for a day or so. These absurd cowboy 3rr/ew blocks cause far too much disruption. You guys are meant to be better than this. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 00:31, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

• Andy has been unblocked. Bishonen | talk 00:26, 29 July 2013 (UTC).

P.S. Feel free to execrate me in any forum up to and including RFAR, but I really have to go to bed now. It's way past my bedtime. It's not from nonchalance that I won't respond until tomorrow. Bishonen | talk 00:29, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

Execrate. Cool. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 00:35, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

Please see my comment on User talk:Finlay McWalter. Newyorkbrad (talk) 00:33, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

I've clarified there that it wasn't me that initially hatted the material. AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:41, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

Your comments are requested at the talk page of article of Ayurveda

Dear Andy, I would request your comments here. Thanks in advance. --Abhijeet Safai (talk) 06:15, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

gun control DR

As the AN has closed, this has been reopened. Gaijin42 (talk) 15:33, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#User:Arctic_Kangaroo_.28yet_again.29

I doubt you didn't understand the matter of discussion properly, on Jimbo's page. It is only about his early contributions in Commons; nothing about his current or future ones. JKadavoor Jee 19:22, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

I understood it perfectly well. We have a young contributor who uploaded material, then later regretted doing so, and who has wasted a great deal of a large number of people's time asking them to do something which cannot be done, and accusing them of being 'immoral' for not doing so. He has been told time and time again that the CC license is irrevocable, but it simply doesn't sink in. If he can't understand the CC license, he shouldn't be permitted to contribute material that requires acceptance of the license. AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:54, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply. But I assume his recent comments are only a quick reaction triggered from his disappointment; which can be neglected. JKadavoor Jee 03:03, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

On what grounds do you base your assumption? Why do you assume that after all this time anything will change? AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:10, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

Some "quick reaction", Jkadavoor. Arctic Kangaroo has gone on and on and on about this for several days, never showing the slightest sign that he understands and accepts free licensing in any way. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 03:25, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

Please believe me. I was the person who nominated his file at COM:FPC. So I know and involved in all discussions happened there and later here related to his pictures (not related to any text contributions here). He probably thought his media contributions are just like in Flickr; he has full control over his files. Now he seems to understand the truth; but desperately asking to forgive his past mistakes. I can’t see anything wrong in his desperate wish; considering the quality of that work. So if I ware; I will leave him with his files. There is no meaning in asking too much questions to him now and catch him on his own words. Personally I don’t like it. Leave him, wait and see whether he is doing same mistakes. I agree with you on banning him from any further media uploads; here and in Commons. JKadavoor Jee 05:42, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

The problem isn't with what AK 'probably thought' when he uploaded material to Commons. The problem is that he shows every sign of still thinking the same thing. This isn't about 'mistakes' - it is about his demonstrable lack of understanding of what a CC license entails. AndyTheGrump (talk) 13:13, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

His files have deleted as Túrelio stated below. Hope it makes him feel comfortable. Let us see what he tell now, and do later here; in Wikipedia. I don’t think it is good to close our doors and ears against him. JKadavoor Jee 14:18, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

Just FYI: the "disputed" image and AK's other uploads have been deleted from Commons. His earlier indef block has been left in place, though he may come back after providing evidence to WMF-legal or OTRS of his legal competence. --Túrelio (talk) 13:25, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Reference desk/Humanities

Best to leave it to someone else now, having hit three reversions in quick succession. Just for you own good. No comment at all about the edits. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:16, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

ANI

Please don't get this worked up. It's counterproductive, and I'm sure you know what it could lead to. Bishonen | talk 16:45, 2 August 2013 (UTC).

Yeah, I know. AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:03, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I found Andy's comment funny.Camelbinky (talk) 02:03, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

The comment is funny? Insulam Simia (talk) 18:41, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

Acupuncture

Could use some eyes on Acupuncture. Some editors are trying to elevate some unsupported or poorly supported explanations to the level of "theories". A lot of the material in the section on "Proposed mechanisms of action" is not supported by sources complying with WP:MEDRS, and the most widespread explanation, the placebo effect, is played down, probably violating WP:NPOV.Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 18:56, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

Peter Capaldi

I added a comment that it was ironic that Peter Capaldi, having played a WHO Doctor in World War Z, is cast in the role of Doctor Who. You revert that - why? It is quite ironic and interesting. Why revert it?

Nextraterly (talk) 19:11, 4 August 2013 (UTC) nextraterly

Because Wikipedia articles are based on published sources, not on the personal opinions of contributors regarding whether something is 'ironic'. Not that there was any irony anyway. AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:14, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

Fame!

Greetings! I've been working on a little project and noticed that you have previously criticized the Daily Mail. So I'm guessing you won't be interested in this?? -- Hillbillyholiday ^talk 03:19, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

MMM-2011

Hi, why are you deleting my changing in MMM-2011 article? It's empty now and redirecting to another article, I'm trying to fill it with text — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alagherii (talk • contribs) 13:54, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

I am deleting your text because Wikipedia isn't a platform for the promotion of Ponzi schemes. The article on MMM-2011 was deleted after discussion, and nothing has occurred since which suggests that an article should be restored. If an article were ever to be restored, it would have to be properly sourced, and accurately reflect the fact that the promoter of this scheme is a convicted fraudster. AndyTheGrump (talk) 14:02, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

why are you thinking that it is Ponzi scheme? Can you prove it with references? It seems to me that you are not neutral to the MMM members — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alagherii (talk • contribs) 14:04, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

I have replied on your talk page, and I'm not going to debate this any more. Wikipedia doesn't hand out free webhosting services to convicted fraudsters. AndyTheGrump (talk) 14:11, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

SandraJacoby15 and copyright violations

Thanks for your help with reverting the copyright violations of this editor. Just thought I'd mention that there were more that I reverted: [22]. I suspect the editor is an operative who is out to insert favorable material in articles of politicians approved by the Ripon Society. Notice that the editor alternates adding press releases to American politician articles with minor edits to Russian billionaire articles. It makes one suspect that the editor is trying to disguise their modus operandi. 71.139.152.154 (talk) 16:26, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

Possibly, though I'd have thought that anyone smart enough to want to hide partisan editing would be a little more aware of copyright issues etc. I can't really see any reason not AGF here, at least for now. AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:09, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

You're next

I mentioned you on AN.[23] And yeah, I wouldn't be surprised if you're next. :-( What a place. Bishonen | talk 12:35, 6 August 2013 (UTC).

ANI

Hello. There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Horatio Snickers (talk) 16:42, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

Incident discussion

Hello. There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. 46.71.203.2 (talk) 22:59, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

Reverting of primary source material

I guess you did not watched the video. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Essiac&diff=568103780&oldid=568103720 Prokaryotes (talk) 18:34, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

The video is not 'primary source' for anything except bullshit. It is however a violation of Wikipedia:Video links, and Wikipedia policy on copyright, in that it appears not to have been uploaded by the creator (see the 'fair use' disclaimer made by the uploader), and on that basis, it cannot be linked. AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:41, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

The video is an hour and a half long. Who would watch it? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 19:15, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

August 2013

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. You appear to be engaged in an edit war with one or more editors according to your reverts at Workers' Youth League (Norway). Although repeatedly reverting or undoing another editor's contributions may seem necessary to protect your preferred version of a page, on Wikipedia this is usually seen as obstructing the normal editing process, and often creates animosity between editors. Instead of edit warring, please try to reach a consensus on the talk page.

If editors continue to revert to their preferred version they are likely to be blocked from editing. This isn't done to punish an editor, but to prevent the disruption caused by edit warring. In particular, editors should be aware of the three-revert rule, which says that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. While edit warring on Wikipedia is not acceptable in any amount, breaking the three-revert rule is very likely to lead to a block. Thank you. Mentoz86 (talk) 15:11, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

[24] I have opened a thread concerning you. Miacek and his crime-fighting dog (woof!) 16:47, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

Are you really?

A grump? LudicrousTripe (talk) 07:32, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

‎Chemophobia dispute

I think it would be best to refactor your characterization of the other editor that you made here, don't you? --Ronz (talk) 21:30, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

Nope. The 'editor' blew in from nowhere, accusing all and sundry of being chemical industry shills, on no grounds whatsoever. I hadn't even edited the article prior to this incident. I see no reason to retract what is self-evident. As it happens, I think the article in question has POV problems, and probably overdoes the 'this is all irrational' line - but spouting tinfoil-hattery at all and sundry isn't the way to deal with it, and I called it the way it is. AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:40, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

Dear Andrew,

Please reconsider your disgracefully uncivil tone, since you only sound grumpy. Engaging in a civil fashion with those with whom you disagree costs nothing, and is the sign of a lack of grumpiness. Please pause before replying to people who are lacking in sanity in future.

Best wishes, LudicrousTripe (talk) 17:12, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

Thank you

Thank you for your swift revert on the Chelsea Manning talk page. I personally appreciate that. Sumana Harihareswara 17:25, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

Thanks - though I'm sure it would have been rapidly reverted by someone else if I'd not seen it first. AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:34, 22 August 2013 (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:Me and (Result: ). Thank you. —me_and 18:02, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

knightmare on wall street (deletion)

Hi Andy, Thanks for your help. I've been improving the page, it's ok now or still considered for deletion? Kind regards Martin Campos Martin raul campos (talk) 19:08, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

Thank you, and seeking to bury the hatchet

Despite you opposing the topic ban, I'd like to actually thank you for correcting your mistakes in gendering me; I do hope that the actual disclosure of my own trans status (which I had not disclosed on Wikipedia at the time) makes my actions more understandable; indeed, reading the talk page at the moment it does get hard not to take all the blatant transphobia (from admins, even) personally.

As I said, I don't particularly want to bring up the argument again, but I feel like I must correct the misconceptions there. I still firmly believe that I made my edits with regard to BLP, RS/V, and the understanding of the issue as a trans person myself, and, really, as one of the few openly trans editors on the project, I desperately want to help with trans issues on Wikipedia (especially the abuse of COMMONNAME that comes up every time someone comes out), that I fear my topic ban would prevent me from doing. Sceptre ^(talk) 01:39, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

There was no misconception. You violated Manning's right to decide for him/herself, and were topic banned accordingly. AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:07, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

knightmare on wall street (deletion)/help

Hi, I'm trying to improve this article and save it from deletion. What do I need to do? I think I already fix the problems that you mentioned. Thanks in advance. Martin Campos Martin raul campos (talk) 17:51, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

As I've already told you, the discussion is going on at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/"Knightmare On Wall Street" (book). You'll need to comment there. AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:54, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

Tornado pilots

Re your userpage — what does the story about the Tornado pilot have to do with reliable sources? I get your point about the quality control place whose authors have writing skils. Nyttend (talk) 23:59, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

Um, simple physics. The Tornado was supposedly flying at 500mph, 250ft above the ground. No aircraft is capable of the manoeuvre illustrated - an outside half loop in that space, at that speed. If you do the maths, it would need at minimum a -134 G turn, which would kill the pilot in the unlikely circumstances that the jet held together. Not that the jet could generate that much negative lift anyway. What the pilot actually did was to push forward on his stick, and fly under the glider. AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:23, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for August 26

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited 20,000 Leagues Under the Sea: Submarine Voyage, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Sea bass (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:18, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

link/conflict of interest

Hi Andy, thanks for your help and explanation. I'm not gonna put the youtube links anymore. Regarding the conflict of interest, I'm going to read everything and I'll let you know my opinion. Thanks Martin CamposMartin raul campos (talk) 19:21, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

Islamophobia racism talk

I used to believe that Islamophobia wasn't racism at all but then I reached out on the talk page because I thought I could be wrong. It turns out I was. Islamophobia can be racism because it can target ethnic groups people think are Muslim. I also believe that is an instant where ALL people would agree that Islamophobia is racism. I was trying to reconcile the two sides and used the sources to do so.-Rainbowofpeace (talk) 20:19, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

The correct place for this discussion is the article talk page. AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:21, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

bloomex

Hi there Andy, What was the problem with the addition I made to the Bloomex page? Asking in good faith as I don't understand the issue. The Ottawa Business Journal is a reputable, fact-checked publication. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JSWS2013 (talk • contribs) 18:14, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

The reliability or otherwise of the Ottawa Business Journal isn't really relevant - it states that "The company receives about 20 online complaints out of the 200,000 sales it does every year, he [Bloomex owner Dimitri Lokhonia] said". It is reporting what was said by Lokhonia. It is not asserting that it is correct. If the article is to state that Bloomex does 200,000 sales a year, it will need to come from a third-party source that asserts it as a fact. AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:21, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

The article asserts it as a fact. The "he said" is referring to the number of online complaints that Lokhonia states the company receives. As it is a BUSINESS JOURNAL, it's a reasonable assumption that they would not print the number of sales without fact-checking first, no? Honestly trying to understand your reasoning. What would suffice for this tiny piece of data's inclusion on the page? Scanned sales reports? An audit from an outside company? Another article from a different publication saying that the number quoted in this story is correct? Seriously trying to comprehend. Thank you. JSWS2013 (talk) 18:56, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

The article asserts that Lokhonia said it. That is all it asserts. So it isn't 'data' as far as Wikipedia is concerned. If Bloomex want to make claims regarding sales, fine, we can't stop them - but we are under no obligation to report such claims. AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:01, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

First, I believe your interpretation of the sentence in question is incorrect. The "he said" in the sentence refers to the amount of online complaints that Lokhonia claims. Second, I would say that as an encyclopedic entry on the company, there IS an obligation to report such figures under the heading of "business model," particularly when such irrelevant information like the fact that the company uses VoIP is allowed to stay. And since it is a privately held company with no obligation to publicly report financial numbers, I would think that having a reputable business publication report on sales would qualify as data. Third, you didn't answer my question, Andy. As an admitted newbie to the Wikipedia underworld, I'm asking what would qualify as "proof" of the sales figures. As you are clearly very deep into this world, please provide some guidance in the spirit of collaboration. JSWS2013 (talk) 19:32, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

I'm not interested in 'collaborating' with yet another Bloomex shill trying to spin the article. AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:35, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

Cool, man. Thanks for your help. Awesome accountability and response to my valid questions. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JSWS2013 (talk • contribs) 19:38, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

Check article

Can you check my article? Article's name is Veron (Software). Is this article satisfy Wikipedia's notability guidelines ? Faisal6545 (talk) 22:58, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

Why are you asking me this? AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:09, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

Regarding removal of study

Your feedback is required to improve the content you called, quote =" badly-written, and an entirely undue generalisation of the source" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Vaccine_controversies#Removal_of_legitimate_study Prokaryotes (talk) 20:24, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

I have responded on the talk page. AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:34, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

Regarding your recent edits

Hello. There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. User AndyTheGrump notoriously makes false accusations https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#A_group_of_users_framing_me_as_a_potential_fringe_and_making_allegations Prokaryotes (talk) 01:03, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

This should be fun... AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:05, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

David Frost

I see you have reverted an admittedly unexplained (no edit summary) change to this article, referring to Frost's death. I was going to make the same change away from "he died during the speech" earlier in the day. I intended to do this as although my reading of the source told me he was on the ship to make a speech, at no point does it definitely say that he was delivering the speech when he died. Read the source and see whether you think my reading of it is right. Britmax (talk)

I assume you mean this revert [25]? I reverted because the edit removed the date of Frost's death, and because it was repetitive: "...on board... on board...". You may be right about the source though - I'll look at it again, and edit the article if necessary. AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:27, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

Jimmy Savile

Andy - I added in the Newsnight stuff because the whole scandal doesn't make sense without it. It is where the revelations about his abuse originated. I also think that the HMIC report is in a sense the nearest we have to a final report on casualties although I can see a point in removing some of the earlier provisional reports instead. Dan904 (talk) 06:14, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

Legal Case

Hello, someone made a Wikipedia edit for Juvederm on September 26th 2012 with a deliberately erroneous statement to support a legal case which they have filed against a practitioner. Is there any way that the lawyers of the practitioner can request the IP address for the edit to help prove that the entry was malicious and deliberate? Thank you.Cosmeticspecialist (talk) 00:29, 7 September 2013 (UTC)cosmeticspecialist

Posted and answered elsewhere. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 00:35, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

Edit????

You changed my edit to something incorrect! Why? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Benobikenobi (talk • contribs) 17:31, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

This has been explained on your talk page. I am not interested in a debate. AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:19, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

Your opinion on this

I was wondering if you were interested in looking into this, given your stance on the topic of the rampage killers list. Ed Gein is listed on the article-list of List of American serial killers, however given the opening sentence definition in Serial killers he wouldn't meet the criteria. He was only convicted of one murder, admitted to only one more (I believe, I could be wrong) and they never bothered trying him on it after the other conviction, and the rest of the bodies couldn't be tied to him as far as a murder was concerned, he admitted, and it was to the best of the medical examiner's inquiry confirmed that the other bodies were dug up from the local cemetery after they had been buried. If we go based on convictions only, a person convicted of only one murder couldn't be a serial killer. I was wondering your opinion and if it was worth a discussion to remove him. It could get controversial given how infamous he is as the "protype" inspiration of Psycho, Texas Chainsaw Massacre, and Silence of the Lambs (Buffalo Bill).Camelbinky (talk) 18:26, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

My main objections to the 'rampage killers' lists have been BLP related, and that clearly isn't an issue here. As to whether Gein should be included on the 'serial killer' list, I'd have to suggests that there don't actually seem to be clear inclusion criteria, if inclusion is based on meeting the definition in the 'serial killer' article. Firstly, the lede points out that there are varying definitions ("three or more..." vs the FBI's two), and secondly, there are subjective provisos, e.g. "usually based on psychological gratification". This, combined with doubts where there has never been a conviction make any attempt to compile a definitive list questionable. The real problem is that we are trying to 'classify' abnormal human behaviour, and it rarely fits into neat little labelled categories even if one has all the facts to hand - which is often not the case anyway. I think the best we can do, if we are to have such lists at all, is to make clear to our readers that criteria for inclusion are to some extent subjective, and that inclusion on the list does not necessarily indicate that all criteria are met. AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:29, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

Gein confessed to killing two women, as the lead of his Wikipedia article states, and as the Reavill 2007 source (page 228) currently used in the lead of the Serial killer article states: "With only two confirmed kills, Ed Gein did not technically qualify as a serial killer (the traditional minimum requirement was three), but that did not deny him immediate entry into the pantheon of folk." Flyer22 (talk) 21:53, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

Anyway, my point is...given that two murders, with certain psychological components, now qualify as labeling someone a serial killer, it's not necessarily inaccurate to call Gein a serial killer. There's also no telling if he killed more people. Flyer22 (talk) 21:58, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

Comment?

You may want to comment here. You might not have felt a complaint was necessary but still smarting from a topic ban as I am I'm not going to let a blatant edit war like this go ahead. Another compliant will follow shortly and you can guess whose name will be on it. SonofSetanta (talk) 16:36, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

Unless I'm missing something, you are currently topic-banned from the subject. Do you really think it is wise to get involved? AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:51, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

Being topic banned from the subject doesn't affect my ability to report on edit warring or vandalism. SonofSetanta (talk) 17:15, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

Possibly, though I'd not count on it, if it was me. Anyway, I'm not sure why you are expecting me to get involved. All I've done is revert Benobikenobi once in each article, and then reported the issue at WP:ANI. AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:26, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

You were involved and you may wish to comment. Protocol demands you be informed. I need to remind you too that every editor, topic banned or not, has a duty to report or revert vandalism and/or edit warring. SonofSetanta (talk) 11:42, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) You're mistaken about that, SoS, see warning on your page. Please don't make up policy out of whole cloth. Bishonen | talk 12:10, 12 September 2013 (UTC).

SonofSetanta, my only comment on this issue has already been made. I'm not interested in getting involved further. AndyTheGrump (talk) 14:20, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

It appears you don't need to old chap. It also appears you were right in your contention that I should have stayed out of it. Lesson learned. SonofSetanta (talk) 14:40, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

Scope of article British Jews.

I'm curious as to which recognized authorities you would argue define a British Jew as being necessarily someone who participates in organized Jewish community life.

As you know, adherents of Halachic law do not impose any such requirement, even recognizing converts to other faith as Jews. The Board of Deputies does not envisage any narrow definition either. Their 2010 report on Jewish community statistics pointed out that their figures, although ' indicative of actual demographic trends, only represent those Jews who have chosen, or whose families have chosen, to associate themselves with the Jewish community through a formal Jewish act, ie circumcision, marriage in a synagogue, dissolution of marriage by a beth din, or Jewish burial or cremation. Consequently, Jews who have not chosen to identify in these ways do not appear in this report.' The import is that there are no specific narrow criteria of community involvement for those who would self-identify as Jews.

Your own opinion is one thing, but if you're going to narrow the scope of a Wikipedia article on an historically enduring community, I feel you ought to cite relevant authorities representative of the views of the community in question. VEBott (talk) 23:03, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

This discussion should really be taking place on the article talk page. I would however point out that as with any other ethno-religious group, the perspective both in the social sciences, and in Wikipedia, is to see self-identification as the determining factor - which is what I understood the existing article to have implied (i.e. "cultural and historical affiliation"), though the wording could probably have been improved. As I said in my edit summary, Halachic law does not define the scope of Wikipedia articles - and nor can it, given that there is no universal agreement amongst Jewish communities as to its applicability. Furthermore, 'of Jewish descent' is far from unambiguously defining anyway, and need not mean 'Jewish descent according to Halachic law'. Perhaps we need to look at the wording further, and see if we can come up with better wording - I'll have a think about this, and then start a thread on the article talk page. AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:25, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

Never mind - I see you have started a thread already. AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:52, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

Miracle Mineral Supplement

Thanks for pointing out it was mid-quote - I see your point. The article has a long history of dynamic IPs attempting to purge any mention of Rhys Morgan from the article - in my revert I should have looked at where the ref was located that was being removed. In the article history, it looks like the ref was at one-time used for the mention of "which is equivalent to industrial-strength bleach" in the lead paragraph, but was later moved to mid-quote for some reason. It could still fit at the end of the quote, as it contains the quoted material as well; but the existing two refs already adequately cover it, no need to over-reference the quote. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 17:11, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

Yeah - I'd almost not noticed that it was in the middle of the quote myself, when I'd edited the article earlier. And thanks for watching the article - it needs plenty of eyes on it. AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:16, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

Juvenile offenders' names

Do you think it's time to ask the Foundation for legal advice on this point? Not that our editorial discretion should only be guided by the legal position, but it seems clear that (a) there is a lot of bush lawyer bull shit being spouted and (b) there may be a serious legal issue here. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 12:45, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

Yes, you are probably right. It can't do any harm to ask, anyway. AndyTheGrump (talk) 12:46, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

Would you mind doing it? The only time Philippe ever addressed me was to insult me and then apologise with another insult. I'd rather not have anything to do with the person. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 16:56, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

If you think it needs doing, do it. I'm not going to involve myself in this mess any more. AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:29, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

OK. If the names go back in I'll ask. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 19:40, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

Czixhc

Back at WP:RSN. Dougweller (talk) 12:53, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

Atkinson

I only used the source which Doug Weller put in the talk page, but I appreciate that a more reliable source is needed.

The thing is that this bizarre hoax is spreading over Islamist sites, blogs and social networking but on no source even remotely viable, as with the Muslim rage over false comments attributed to Nicki Minaj and David Villa over Islam.

If this ever gets a reaction from Atkinson or his management, and that reported on a viable site, then would a short sentence on the matter be notable enough on the 'Personal life' section? Indiasummer95 (talk) 20:34, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

Internet hoaxes and rumours are two a penny, and I doubt that this one will have any long-term significance. If there is anything substantive reported in a reliable source, raise it on the talk page and see what others think. Personally, I'm not sure that a simple statement that it is untrue is even worth including - the article is about Atkinson, not about nonsense on the internet. AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:52, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

Memory

Hi Andy,

I while back I was involved in a dispute between you and other user, but I can't remember their username (I think it had "Goat" in it somewhere), you wouldn't happy to remember it would you? Reason I ask is this post on my talk page struck me as suspicious since it's really the only connection between us, so once I have the username I'm going to do a bit of digging. Thanks, Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 01:29, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

I can't recall anything off hand - I'll do a bit of searching though. As for Czixhc, I'll stand by what I said - he/she has been going on about the same subject for months - and has a habit of stating that the subject is over, before starting up again. AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:35, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

I think it's Iamthemuffinman (talk · contribs) I'm thinking of, the Goat one was with Eaglestorm I think. Well I'm hoping that reaching out on my tp is them trying to fix what they've done so we'll see what they say to my questions. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 01:43, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

From a quick look at Czixhc's first posts, he/she doesn't strike me as a new contributor. It is possible that I've encountered a previous incarnation at one of the Latin-American ethnicity-related articles we've both edited, but I can't say that the style seems familiar. AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:06, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

WP:BLPTALK

What the fuck is your problem with the wording change? You cant discuss on the talk page like a civil person FIRST? The wording change was perfectly fine and reflected consensus at the WP:VPP, and I had even put a section header announcing that discussion was ongoing on WT:Jimbo to get more people. I'm sorry if you had no time or inclination to comment while we all agreed the change needed to happen. But "I wasn't involved" is not a legit reason for the "revert" part of BRD.Camelbinky (talk) 19:36, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

What the fuck is your problem with WP:BRD policy? Can't you discuss policy changes on the policy talk pages first? And no, there was no consensus whatsoever for your wording in the VP discussion - and "I wrote it" is not a legitimate reason to prevent others from objecting to your confused blather. AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:43, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

Butthurt much?

If you dinna like where I moved it too, just move it back. As you are the alpha and the omega innit Indiasummer95 (talk) 21:58, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

Lede deletion of most significant leak od Wikileaks leader

Andy the Grump Your deletion of this in the lede ignores the importance of the Manning disclosures. These leaks led to Manning's conviction under the Espionage Act of the United States despite Whistleblower laws. Please put the important facts in the lede and do not bury them in the verbose body.Patroit22 (talk) 01:08, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

I suggest you read the third paragraph of the lede. Manning is discussed in detail. AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:09, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

I read that and it talks about aiding the enemy and does not say Manning was convicted of Espionage Act violations and leaves open the issue of if she is a whistleblower or espionage operative.Patroit22 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 01:20, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

The two aren't necessarily incompatible. Anyway, the place to discuss this is the article talk page, not here. AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:38, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

wp: NPOV MonaVie

Greetings Andy! Saw you reverted my last edit on MonaVie. I apologize for not explaining my edits more fully, I'm trying to rework the article for wp:NPOV, I feel like the frequent use of quotations slants it in a way that doesn't meet these guidelines. I know your speedy reversion is my fault for not being as descriptive in the edit summary as I ought to have been, but I wonder if there's a way for us to come to a sort of compromise, for sake of making the article more readable and more neutral? Looking forward to your response. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Blueskymorning (talk • contribs) 19:29, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

I think this might be better discussed on the article talk page. Note that there has been considerable discussion regarding the article, and accordingly I'd recommend reading the talk page archives. AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:35, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for your recent edits on the article of Panchakarma

I am very happy and amazed at your ability of your eye to find artefacts. I do not remember if the information was added by me or someone else. But surely your action is right. Thanks for your untiring patrolling at the page. It gives a great feeling to see activities at the page created by oneself. --Abhijeet Safai (talk) 12:12, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

ANI in re: Indiasummer95

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 20:34, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

First they came for the communists,

and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a communist.

Then they came for the socialists,

and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a socialist.

Then they came for the trade unionists,

and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a trade unionist.

Then they came for me,

and there was no one left to speak for me.

Hugs

I'm really sorry for the harassment you've endured. I get that kind of stuff all the time. I tried to remove as much of it as I could as quickly as I could. I want you to know that despite our disagreements. I respect you as an editor. Have a kitten.

Rainbowofpeace has given you a kitten! Kittens promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Your kitten must be fed three times a day and will be your faithful companion forever! Spread the WikiLove by giving someone else a kitten, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend.

Spread the goodness of kittens by adding {{subst:Kitten}} to someone's talk page with a friendly message, or kittynap their kitten with {{subst:Kittynap}}

Thanks. AndyTheGrump (talk) 05:55, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

Please tell me what to do

The term 'western hemisphere' is ambiguous. I am not interested in debating the issue further. AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:12, 19 October 2013 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
User:Kitchen Knife, despite being told by User:Gaijin42 that his logic is faulty, and despite the compromise you and I worked out regarding the actual book by Stefan Bielinski, has continued to be obstinate about the whole Western Hemisphere issue and has removed the mention of Western Hemisphere from Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court as well. I tried to get admin help at AN/I but apparently his "don't hear you" attititude and battleground language of winning and losing is not enough to get help and more people to look at it. I'm just making things worse with my anger, I was hoping you'd be able to help get more eyes on this issue. I truly worry that if Kitchen finds more articles with this wording he will spread this crusade and become more of a disruption.Camelbinky (talk) 23:16, 18 October 2013 (UTC) As Zad68 suggested in the ANI thread you started, WP:DRN is probably the place to sort this out. I've already made my position clear - the term 'western hemisphere' is ambiguous, and consequently sources using the term are also ambiguous. I suggested quoting Bielinski directly, since it appeared that his statement was equivocal anyway (or appeared to be - did you ever track down his actual words?), and as such wasn't being cited for a definitive assertion. Regarding the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court article, you seem to be suggesting that Wikipedia should make a definitive statement, based on an ambiguous term. Why? AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:48, 18 October 2013 (UTC) Because when the authors of the sources are using the word they are not using it in an ambiguous way, or at least we cant assume it one way or the other. I showed how there are many sources are out there that all use western hemisphere in the same way as the equivalent of being "Americas", at some point it becomes ridiculous to keep saying "this person is wrong" and "oh yea this person is wrong" and "oh yea, that person over there too" "yea, and her too"; at some point it becomes disruptive to keep saying all these authors are simply "wrong" all because they chose that one term. As for finding the book, yes, what I finally added was the exact quote from the book, I had no time to cite directly to the book before it was reverted and it was made clear that even directly quoting from the book was unacceptable to Kitchen Knife. There was no longer any reason to continue if Kitchen Knife was not willing to talk anymore or listen to what anyone has to say.Camelbinky (talk) 00:23, 19 October 2013 (UTC) Take it to WP:DRN. I'm not interested in continuing this discussion if you are going to go over old ground - it is a simple fact that the term 'western hemisphere' is ambiguous, and you can't prove otherwise by citing sources that use the term in one particular way. AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:44, 19 October 2013 (UTC) Perhaps some of the good points made in WP:NOR/N#Using OR to omit information may persuade you that the way in which the reliably sourced information is being removed is in fact a use of OR that is not allowed. This is not a matter of "citing sources that use the term in one particular way" it is the fact that sources ONLY use it in this particular way. If there was a single source that said "XY in England is the oldest charter in the Western Hemisphere" then there would be a source that directly is in dispute, or even a source that said "Lots of books and websites get it wrong in 'stating oldest in western hemisphere', in reality many things in the Europe claim that distinction". The fact of the matter is that places in Europe which are technically in the geographic definition of "Western Hemisphere" are NEVER listed as the oldest in the Western Hemisphere. You are using the fact that a competing geographic definition of Western Hemisphere exits as a reason to dispute the factuality of possibly hundred if not thousands of potential sources on multiple topics when there is not a reliable source that can be quoted that disputes the facts itself. That is OR, and Im disappointed you don't see the distinction between a source conflicting with another source and an editor stating the source is wrong because... "I know it is", not because another source exists somewhere that tells me that first sources is wrong.Camelbinky (talk) 18:04, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

Robert N. Rooks

Very likely you would see anyway, but to make sure I thought I would call your attention to my latest post at AN/I. I am grateful to you for prompting me to think carefully about the issues involved here, which has led me to see things differently than I did before, though, as I explained in that post, I am not sure that the way you did it was the best possible. JamesBWatson (talk) 07:11, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

Requesting a permanent block of user AndyTheGrump

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

Worldedixor (talk) 01:13, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

That discussion is now closed. Andy, if you're going to go past grumpiness into garroting, that would be most unfortunate, because grumpiness is so much better, and AndyTheGarroter just doesn't have the same ring to it. Worldedixor, Andy knows a lot of good stuff about policy, especially BLP policy, so try to take it seriously despite the chain/rope/scarf/wire/fishing line in his hands.Anythingyouwant (talk) 02:16, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

Advice taken, with thanks, Anythingyouwant. As for our article on the garrote, I'm inclined to think that it may lean a little to much towards the practical: WP:NOTHOWTO springs to mind... AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:25, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

I was going to comment at the discussion, but it has been closed so instead I'll comment here. Yes, Worldedixor has some serious misunderstandings about our policy, and yes, I can understand your frustration in dealing with them. But whatever the context, comments like this one are never acceptable. Next time, please file an ANI report rather than letting loose with invective, as that will have better results for all involved. If I see you making a similar comment again, I will block you, so please be careful. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 02:31, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

Break that grumpiness, Andy, and throw a saddle on it, and teach it to respond to your reins. We need your grumpiness, deployed in defense of Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, not in disregard for them. You wouldn't want to get blocked by somebody named after a notable violin maker, would you? Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 04:09, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

If it's between the article teaching people how to garrot versus your example teaching them, let's go with the article.  :-)Anythingyouwant (talk) 16:59, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

Books and Bytes: The Wikipedia Library Newsletter

Books and Bytes

Volume 1, Issue 1, October 2013

by The Interior (talk · contribs), Ocaasi (talk · contribs)

Greetings Wikipedia Library members! Welcome to the inaugural edition of Books and Bytes, TWL’s monthly newsletter. We're sending you the first edition of this opt-in newsletter, because you signed up, or applied for a free research account: HighBeam, Credo, Questia, JSTOR, or Cochrane. To receive future updates of Books and Bytes, please add your name to the subscriber's list. There's lots of news this month for the Wikipedia Library, including new accounts, upcoming events, and new ways to get involved...

New positions: Sign up to be a Wikipedia Visiting Scholar, or a Volunteer Wikipedia Librarian

Wikipedia Loves Libraries: Off to a roaring start this fall in the United States: 29 events are planned or have been hosted.

New subscription donations: Cochrane round 2; HighBeam round 8; Questia round 4... Can we partner with NY Times and Lexis-Nexis??

New ideas: OCLC innovations in the works; VisualEditor Reference Dialog Workshop; a photo contest idea emerges

News from the library world: Wikipedian joins the National Archives full time; the Getty Museum releases 4,500 images; CERN goes CC-BY

Announcing WikiProject Open: WikiProject Open kicked off in October, with several brainstorming and co-working sessions

New ways to get involved: Visiting scholar requirements; subject guides; room for library expansion and exploration

Read the full newsletter

Thanks for reading! All future newsletters will be opt-in only. Have an item for the next issue? Leave a note for the editor on the Suggestions page. --The Interior 20:56, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

I reverted your uninformed vandalism in South Sudan

Do not remove FACTS when you are this uninformed. I will not report you this time, but consider this as a warning. Whenever you are this uninformed on world affairs and on "factual" content in the future, leave the "factual" content in place and ask for citations in accordance with policy. Worldedixor (talk) 22:04, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

I have raised the above example of ignorance and/or provocation at WP:ANI. AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:44, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

Thanks!

Mrow?

Thanks for helping out here. I appreciated getting a calm, constructive explanation of the dispute.

Here's a kitten. I'm not quite sure what it signifies.

Best, m.o.p 14:59, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

Newsweek

A reporter from Newsweek would like to interview you, her name is Katie Baker <katiejmbakergmail.com>. She's on deadline, so if you'd like to speak to her, please try to get back to her as soon as possible. Kevin Gorman (talk) 17:51, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, AndyTheGrump. You have new messages at Kevin Gorman's talk page.
Message added 17:50, 28 October 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Kevin Gorman (talk) 17:50, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

"England, UK" vs "England"

A discussion has been started at Wikipedia talk:UK Wikipedians' notice board#England, UK or just England? on a topic you have recently discussed elsewhere. Please have your say if you wish. Thanks, Bretonbanquet (talk) 22:07, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

November 2013

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Gareth Jones may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

• * [[Gareth Paul Jones]] (born 1984), Welsh software engineer and hacker]

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 21:10, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

Population

Article content should be discussed on article talk pages
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
I don't know whether you might like this image better as a potential top image for Americans, but I thought I'd mention it. I'm not in the mood to be relentlessly attacked by another editor, so will not be editing that article anytime soon, but my objections stand. Cheers.Anythingyouwant (talk) 03:01, 5 November 2013 (UTC) As I have already made clear, I think that an infobox image should illustrate the article subject matter. AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:11, 5 November 2013 (UTC) On that we agree. Take care grump.Anythingyouwant (talk) 03:14, 5 November 2013 (UTC) No, we don't agree. 'Americans' are people. They are not statistics. AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:19, 5 November 2013 (UTC) The American people and American people redirect to that page. As much as I admire Democratic icons JFK, Eleanor Roosevelt, and Martin Luther King, they are not the American people, nor are they typical Americans. I am tempted to say that you know better, but maybe you don't. The Infobox places great emphasis on the geographic location of Americans overseas, so a natural complement is to show an image of their location in the US. Even if you disagree about that, I would have thought you'd at least acknowledge that it's preferable to show typical Americans rather than atypical ones.Anythingyouwant (talk) 03:42, 5 November 2013 (UTC) There is no 'at least'. I argued that the infobox illustration should show Americans. You had been arguing that it should be showing something else. If you wanted the infobox to show 'typical Americans', you should have said so, rather than replacing the image with something else entirely. Anyway, article content should be discussed on article talk pages, and I'm not interested in continuing this discussion here. AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:52, 5 November 2013 (UTC) As my edit summary said: "Picking our nine favorite Americans seems highly selective".[26] Anythingyouwant (talk) 04:00, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

I'm hoping perhaps a compromise can be reached?

West Fertilizer Company explosion (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Hi, Andy. Earlier today I made several edits to the article about the 2013 fertilizer plant explosion in West, Texas. You reverted my edits because they mostly focused around an estimation made by a Scientific American writer, albeit not an official writer.

File:West-texas-1kt-yield2.png

I figured that the estimation of ~1 kt, as demonstrated by the simulated image I uploaded, seemed very close to accurate and a fair estimation when compared with the known damage from the explosion. For example: West Middle School suffered very heavy damage. In the image, you can see the school building just southwest of the plant facility, near the outer edge of the first circle. This seems fairly accurate to what the explosive range may have been.

You had pointed out to me that the Scientific American article was written by someone who claims not to be an expert in explosives, and that the 1.2 kiloton estimate is assuming all the ammonia gas had ignited. I was admittedly aware of that, and was going to note that in my edit, but I decided against it because I thought it would be saying too much just to explain one thing.

It may be a fact that the estimate was not official or expert. HOWEVER, it is also factual that despite a lack of expertise, his estimate actually was quite accurate. In your message to me, you stated: "It is simply a misrepresentation of the source to quote only the 1.2 kilotonne figure. The blog contributor makes no definitive claims, and neither should Wikipedia." I see where you are coming from, and I must say I do agree. However, as most of the readers likely do not know much about the explosive power of ammonium nitrate and/or other chemicals, I believe it necessary to provide a frame of reference. The TNT equivalence scale is something people are more likely to be familiar with, due to its use in measuring the yield of nuclear weapons.

To remedy this situation, I recommend the following compromise and kindly request your feedback: Instead of directly citing the article and the 1.2 kiloton estimate, I would suggest we instead put the simulated image in the article, with a caption directly stating that the image depicts a non-official, yet close estimate of what the explosive range may have been. That way, our readers will be able to comprehend the explosion's power, while at the same time we can avoid any untruths as it will be made clear that the estimate is not official, but is merely a simulation based on known facts (ex., structures damaged, etc.).

Jade Phoenix Pence (talk) 17:55, 6 November 2013 (UTC)Jade Phoenix Pence

How can estimates which vary by more than a power of ten be described as 'close'? As for your graphic, it is original research, and cannot be used. I have also to ask where you got the satellite image from, and whether the image was copyright-free? AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:08, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

That's just the thing, we don't need to include any exact figures - we could simply note in the image's caption that it is a simulated, non-official estimate of the explosive range - again, not the yield.

As far as the satellite image goes, it (including the blast simulation) comes from Nuclear Darkness.org, using the GPS coordinates included in the article in question.

As far as the copyright concerns go:

If you follow the link that I included above, you will see a notation which reads, "The data and algorithms used to create these simulations are based on information found in "The Effects of Nuclear Weapons", 3rd Edition, by Samuel Glasstone and Philip J. Dolan. Thanks to Dr. Alexander Montgomery and Dr. Lynn Eden for their assistance."

The website does have what is labeled as a "copyright page", however it is merely a notice that the author's [copyrighted] source material is used under "fair use" guidelines, and does not seem to claim any copyright on part of the author. Because the image is not being used for a profit, it too falls under "fair use". Jade Phoenix Pence (talk) 18:44, 6 November 2013 (UTC)Jade Phoenix Pence

If the website is claiming to be using images under 'fair use', it is more or less certain that Wikipedia can't use them - see Wikipedia:Non-free content, and note that we only claim 'fair use' under very limited conditions. Anyway, a "simulated, non-official estimate of the explosive range" of the West incident is still WP:OR unless it comes from a published source. Furthermore, I don't see what an image of a 'simulation' is supposed to tell our readers that they can't already get from sources not based on questionable 'estimates' from non-expert blogs (published a day after the event), and 'simulations' intended to model nuclear explosions. The article describes the actual damage already. AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:11, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

Well, I think it would be helpful to have a visual aid - a description in text doesn't really do much if you don't know the area.

I'll see what I can come up with, perhaps an aerial photograph or something. Thanks for your help, though. Jade Phoenix Pence (talk) 21:10, 6 November 2013 (UTC)Jade Phoenix Pence

Regarding...

...this:[27] Good removal. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:39, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:42, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

It reappeared shortly after, but I'm assuming that was an edit conflict, and I re-deleted it. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:48, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

It's a silly question even if sincere. I think the only thing you could get "all scientists and all philosophers" to agree upon is that there is, in fact, a cultural phenomenon called "religion". ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:51, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

I'm not sure you could get all of them to agree on anything. AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:53, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

I'm not so sure about that, Bugs. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 17:54, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

With all due respect to Jonathan Z. Smith, that is nonsense. It isn't just "scholars" that assign the term "religion" to a "grouping of cultural features". Most of us, scholars or otherwise, think we can recognise it, even if we can't define it to any degree of precision, and even if we may disagree on occasion as to what exactly is or isn't 'religion'. If the classification was "arbitrary", the term would be meaningless - and entirely lacking in utility. I for one find it difficult to believe that in so many different sociocultural contexts, a term exists for an idea entirely devoid of meaning. AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:21, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

hey, man, I didn't say I agreed with it, just that that might not be a thing that you can get all scientists and philosophers to agree on, just as you pointed out. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 18:39, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, sorry. It is probably the ex-anthropology student in me reacting to what looks a little too much like the postmodernist 'everyone makes everything up, and nothing is real' approach to scholarship. Not that Jonathan Z. Smith seems to be a postmodernist - and looking at the context of the quote [28], he is actually making a more subtle point anyway. AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:11, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

Let's hope he's just being satirical. If he's serious, then he's taking the Humpty Dumpty approach - defining a word in a certain way and then saying nothing in the real world fits his definition of that word, therefore it doesn't exist. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:45, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

Satire has its uses, if one wishes to define religion: "Man is a Religious Animal. He is the only Religious Animal. He is the only animal that has the True Religion--several of them. He is the only animal that loves his neighbor as himself and cuts his throat if his theology isn't straight. He has made a graveyard of the globe in trying his honest best to smooth his brother's path to happiness and heaven....The higher animals have no religion. And we are told that they are going to be left out in the Hereafter. I wonder why? It seems questionable taste". Mark Twain. The Lowest Animal. [29] AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:00, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

Yep. When the OP raised the question, Mark Twain came to mind immediately. A related theme that keeps popping up is the alleged "intelligence" of one ethnic group vs. another. Another Twain comment, possibly from that same article, comes to mind: "Man is an ignoramus." Note there is no particular race, creed, or other subgroup attached to that statement. It's a blanket. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:04, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

174.88.35.156

I was all set to report the troll to AIV, and you beat me to it. I question the validity of the entire section, but the IP-diot pushed it too far. Alternatively, if others think the section as a whole is worth keeping open, the IP's remarks could be zapped. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:45, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

Frankly, if it was up to me, I'd insist that any answers to questions regarding 'race' had to consist solely to links to our articles, and/or links to external sources - with a simple 'See here' statement, and a boilerplate message that we do not engage in discussions or debate regarding such topics. And then see that it was strictly enforced. If they aren't trolling to start with, they almost invariably lead to soapboxing. AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:52, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

Good point. If this situation works its way to the talk page, that would be a good proposal. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:17, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

Morgellon

Addressing the physiological aspect of the Morgellon disease, the wiki article should be completed with data extracted from the National Center for Biotechnology Information here: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3257881/#!po=5.00000 Hopefully someone (maybe you) should make the time and properly review the Morgellon wiki article that is presently addressing just the "psycho" part of the disease. If doctors and scientists take their time and study this condition seriously, not just labeling it "delusional belief" and put the a lid on it, I think the Wikipedia users can do the same and make the articles in such manner to reflect all points of view, not just the old, superficial ones. I hope you will find the time and take a look at the info before discarding it as before. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Blueyefinity (talk • contribs) 01:14, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

I am not going to discuss this here - per policy, you should discuss the matter on the article talk page. Should you not do so, but instead restore your edit, I shall report you for edit-warring. AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:17, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

Murder of Ayakanno Marithamuthu

Andy, I saw your note at ANI. I can't track down the original 1987 articles in the Singapore newspaper "The Straits Times", nor exactly where the allegation of chopping the body into curry came from. Most of the article was sourced to a culinary blog linked from yahoo! entertainment; I don't think that reliable for murder allegations. So I removed everything that was sourced to the blog that I couldn't independently verify. I do have access to The Straits Times via Lexis; the actual Curry Murder appears to be notable. I removed much of the sensationalism from the article where I could.

Interestingly, some of the accused later brought suit against The Staits Times for defamation and lost.

Anyway, thanks for bringing this to everyone's attention. I don't think in any way I've *solved* the issue, but I've made a start. And I agree that the article is in no shape for the main page. Moishe Rosenbaum (talk) 01:08, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

Yeah - thanks for the work you've done on the article. I'd say you were absolutely right about yahoo! entertainment, and we probably shouldn't have cited it at all. Which leaves us looking for a reliable source for the 'curry' allegation - without which, we can't have a DYK, even reworded. AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:30, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

Cleanup

Where to start? [30]

• Murder of Ng Yuk Tim tagged for tone
• Murder of Elsie Lie I don't find mention of a conviction

SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:30, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

Where to start? Given that both articles are gross violations of WP:BLP policy, I can see no reason not to just blank them entirely. Actually, that is exactly what I'm going to do. AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:46, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

You can't just leave it blank. You need to take it either to WP:BLPN or WP:AFD. Ramaksoud2000 ^{(Talk to me)} 22:45, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

Actually, I can. Per WP:BLP policy, violations must be removed - which I have done. As for anything else, contributing is voluntary. I am not obliged to clean up after trolls, and I have no intention of doing so. AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:49, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

Were you just removing the specific parts to which you objected that would be one thing. Blanking the entire article was not warranted. Per WP:BLP "Biographical material about a living individual that is not compliant with this policy should be improved and rectified; if this is not possible, then it should be removed." Of deletion it says "Page deletion is normally a last resort. If a dispute centers around a page's inclusion (e.g., because of questionable notability or where the subject has requested deletion), this is addressed via deletion discussions rather than by summary deletion. Summary deletion is appropriate when the page contains unsourced negative material or is written non-neutrally, and when this cannot readily be rewritten or restored to an earlier version of an acceptable standard." You have not argued that this is the case with the article, but are instead pointing to rather small, easily-addressed concerns that do not warrant blanking the entire page. Blanking prior to deletion is typically reserved for copyright violations and attack pages and this was neither of those.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 01:51, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

Regardless of what you think I should or should not have done (and as I have pointed out above, I am obliged to do precisely nothing), you repeatedly restored material that contained blatant WP:BLP violations. Contributors are responsible for their edits. In any case, given that the article creator had already been shown to have repeatedly misrepresented sources in regard to other articles, the level of checking necessary to ensure compliance was such that anyone working on the article would have had to have left it blanked until such time as the sources could be verified. And talking of which, did you actually check the sources before restoring content? A simple yes or no response will suffice. AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:08, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

I think what you consider "blatant" is not the same as what other people consider blatant. As far as checking the articles, I only checked to see if the underlying facts were correct and if undoing your blanking would restore any plainly egregious content. Blanking a page is an extraordinary step and I saw nothing warranting it. Did you check for anything that would warrant blanking the entire page? You certainly haven't mentioned anything of that nature.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 04:17, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

Oppose deletion → Keep

I humbly suggest editing your !vote at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Talk:Chelsea Manning/FAQ to change “oppose” to “keep”, per Ego White Tray’s comment there. —Frungi (talk) 05:28, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

Done. AndyTheGrump (talk) 05:32, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Original Barnstar
	Thanks very much for taking the time to answer my question in the help section. MFM14 (talk) 11:28, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

Americans, trying for a fresh and friendly discussion

Hello, AndyTheGrump. You have new messages at Talk:Americans.
Message added 01:05, 19 November 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

N2e (talk) 01:09, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

dimoxinil

See [31] - particularly Mastcell's comment. AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:09, 20 November 2013 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Hi. I reverted your deletion at the science desk. The gentleman's neither asking us to diagnose a problem or advise him on whether to use a medication. His question is stated purely as a request for help with a math question. Deleting it prevents discussion. I would not oppose hatting the question and discussing it on talk, but I don't think it's really a problem at all. μηδείς (talk) 04:06, 20 November 2013 (UTC) The last post makes it entirely clear that the person is asking for advice on how to prepare a medical preparation, using information from a website that explicitly states that "Your physician will conduct a medical examination, and if this particular product is deemed suitable, it will be prescribed to you." It would be grossly irresponsible to assist someone in self-medicating with such a substance. Accordingly, I am going to remove the request again - and if it is restored, I will report the matter at WP:ANI. AndyTheGrump (talk) 04:14, 20 November 2013 (UTC) minoxidil This is odd and unexpected ehavior, but if you want to threat, so be it. You've been warned, asked to discuss, and multiply revereted. Your recent editing history shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. To avoid being blocked, instead of reverting please consider using the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. See BRD for how this is done. You can post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection. Stop edit warring on refdesk You're up to five reverts, I think, and your position is indefensible. Stop it now. --Trovatore (talk) 04:29, 20 November 2013 (UTC) an3 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.

Tarun Tejpal

In what way following sources covering the Sexual Assault case are "unacceptable":

http://www.indianexpress.com/news/accused-of-sexual-assault-by-staffer-tehelka-founder-steps-down-for-6-months/1197545/

http://news.oneindia.in/new-delhi/tehelka-shock-tarun-tejpal-steps-down-on-charges-sexual-harassment-1345038.html

http://www.deccanherald.com/content/370141/tarun-tejpal-quits-tehelka.html

http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/Tehelkas-editor-Tarun-Tejpal-steps-aside-after-incident-with-woman-journalist/articleshow/26112145.cms?

http://www.business-standard.com/article/current-affairs/tarun-tejpal-steps-down-for-6-months-as-editor-of-tehelka-113112000997_1.html

http://blogs.outlookindia.com/default.aspx?ddm=10&pid=3084&eid=31

http://www.ndtv.com/article/india/tarun-tejpal-steps-down-as-tehelka-s-editor-for-six-months-over-alleged-sexual-assault-448746?curl=1384978956

http://www.hindustantimes.com/india-news/tejpal-steps-down-as-tehelka-editor-for-six-months/article1-1153778.aspx

http://www.livemint.com/Consumer/l7JU2uIFUeILFLuv2vgyeL/Tarun-Tejpal-steps-down-as-Tehelka-editor-for-6-months.html

http://www.indileak.com/tehelkas-editor-tarun-tejpal-quits-after-sexual-assault-charge/

http://www.exchange4media.com/53529_tarun-tejpal-steps-down-as-tehelka-editor-for-six-months.html

Anmol.2k4 (talk) 20:48, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

I am not going to discuss this here. Read WP:RS, and then discuss on the article talk page. AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:52, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

Why have you reverted a legitimate news item? I sourced it but you claimed I did not source it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.10.100.75 (talk) 23:44, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion

This message is being sent to inform you that you have violated the 3 RR on the Tarun Tejpal page and are being reported at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.10.100.75 (talk) 23:53, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

Re: Polandball cannot into english Wikipedia

So, in your opinion, is Polandball admissible in english Wikipedia? --Babelia (talk) 19:08, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

The majority view at the AfD discussion was that there wasn't the significant coverage in reliable sources necessary to establish that the topic met our notability guidelines, and I am inclined to agree. Wikipedia isn't an exhaustive catalogue of every bit of trivia and fluff that gets onto the internet. AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:15, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

In conclusion, Polandball cannot into english Wikipedia unless reliable sources appear.

Thanks for the answer.

God bless you and greetings from Colombia. --Babelia (talk) 14:09, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

Wait... has Polandball into Columbia? --Demiurge1000 (talk) 21:48, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

Talk:Islamophobia

The IP seems to be the same as 72.66.30.115 (talk · contribs). Dougweller (talk) 21:34, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

Cargo cult

re relevance to "Cargo (2009 film)" - thanks for your revert - at first glance, a possible relevance (but a stretch) - on second look, seems unrelated after all - thanks again - and - enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 14:30, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

Fan Sites

Fansites cannot be listed? I see other fansites listed on other actresses' pages. Vivien Leigh for example. Also the fact that fansites are more thorough, have way more infos and frequently updated than all other sites mentioned. Wikipedia says one major fansite is appropriate?--Annpham (talk) 22:39, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

See WP:ELNO point 11: "Blogs, personal web pages and most fansites, except those written by a recognized authority". And read Wikipedia:Conflict of interest, since it is your website. AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:47, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

Rupert Sheldrake

Hey Andy, I noticed that you seem to have a good bit of experience dealing with contentious issues on Wikipedia. You also seem to have some experience with WP:FRINGE.

The editors over at Rupert Sheldrake have been having a remarkably difficult time dealing with the WP:POV pushers that the article has attracted, and the situation is starting to look pretty crappy. Since User:IRWolfie left the article has been without an editor experienced in dealing with WP:FRINGE topics.

Sheldrake is by no means a special case. He’s just a garden variety ex-scientist who has rejected reality in favor of fantasy. His followers are just garden variety thugs those skills at WP:LAWYERING are mediocre at best. Yet, for whatever reason, the page is starting to go to hell in a hand basket.

Please take a look at Rupert Sheldrake. If you don’t think you can help, then perhaps you could suggest someone who could? Thanks. 76.107.171.90 (talk) 00:42, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, but I think I'll give that one a miss. I'm inclined to let it go to ArbCom - it is certain to end up there, even if the current arb request fails. At least then we'll get a better idea of how much backing there really is for WP:FRINGE-related policy. AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:54, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

Well I’m disappointed, but I can certainly understand why you wouldn’t want to get mixed up in Sheldrake. That page is bad news. Thanks anyway. 76.107.171.90 (talk) 02:06, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

(Lurker de-cloaks) For my own part, although I'm interested in editing fringe articles, I've stayed away from Sheldrake because I suspected it would end up at Arbcom, and it then wouldn't surprise me if all the editors who'd edited it were article-banned by them (as an expedient solution to the "problem"). Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 07:53, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

Re: Mandela Article / Wachuku

Dear AndyTheGrump:

Thanks for your relevant advise and objectivity. Have a blessed week ahead!

Sincerely,

Genf7 (talk) 18:33, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

Advertainment

Dear Andy the Grump, well you certainly are living up to your name I must say! I am Zen Joseph Player, the author of the Advertainment article and indeed, the inventor of the Name and the System described. First off let me just say how upsetting it is to read your derogative comments about me, my ethics and motivations. Personally I found them completely unprofessional and uncalled for – especially to your co-workers! From a marketing perspective you are doing Wikipedia a great disservice, as your inflated authoritarian yet uninformed stance make you look stupid. Which makes Wikipedia look inept having people like you represent them. I know you're not stupid Andy, but just trying to be a good Wikipedian right? So I'd like to appeal to your better side, your helpful side, your intelligent side in this matter. Ok? Let's break it down please: 1. All information in the article on Advertainment is true and accurate, backed up by documented proof, which I have in my possession. The reason you and your Wiki colleagues are unable to find much online is due to the fact that the Publications sited (including ADWEEK/MediaWeek) never posted the original article (May 22nd 1995) online. My repeated attempts at contacting ADWEEK about this article failed to turn anything up, however I found an ORIGINAL COPY of the printed article – as well as copies of ALL PUBLICATIONS AND TV NEWS ITEMS sited. I'm willing to scan/copy and send these of course, with legal proof of their authenticity. 2. If I have not followed Wikipedia's requirements and conventions, this can be corrected by an editor more skilled and experienced in this regard. I am hiring an expert who will contact you for review and approval of the edited piece. 3. I have done my best to remove all 'self-promoting' language and report about the subject and history as OBJECTIVELY as possible, based on facts. Your claims and accusations are very harsh for a 1st-time author with clear intentions to make this subject known for what it is, and where it originated. Also, I have a LEGAL RIGHT to claim authorship of the name, and can back it up with forensic evidence if necessary. Again, the editor I'm hiring can conform my draft to Wiki's requirements. 4. I direct your attention to Wikipedias Rule: Ignore All Rules, found here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Ignore_all_rules – that states: "If a rule prevents you from improving or maintaining Wikipedia, ignore it." Now, I don't choose to ignore Wikipedia's Rules Andy, but I would greatly appreciate if you would HELP ME to get Advertainment posted in the correct format etc, and stop impairing the Improvement of this wonderful database! If you are unavailable of choose for any reason NOT to help me, please direct me to a Wikipedian with a more generous nature and professional ethic. I would be grateful for your response please to each point or detail, so we can untangle this mess and make it into a masterpiece. Sincere thanks and best of luck. Cheers, ZenJoseph (talk) 10:41, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

ps, if needed I can be reached at zen@zen-marketing.com

I have no interest in communicating with you by e-mail. If you wish to discuss the content of the Advertainment article, I suggest you do so in the proper place - on the article talk page. AndyTheGrump (talk) 12:36, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

Ok, thanks for that information Andy. Do I also post all questions and submit evidence/proof on that page? Please advise ZenJoseph (talk) 02:24, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

Yes - discuss this on the article talk page. Though I'm unsure why you think 'evidence' or 'proof' needs submitting directly. It doesn't. Articles are only based on published sources, and accordingly there is no point in trying to provide 'proof' of anything directly. Just let us know what published sources are available. AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:29, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Library Survey

As a subscriber to one of The Wikipedia Library's programs, we'd like to hear your thoughts about future donations and project activities in this brief survey. Thanks and cheers, Ocaasi ^{t | c} 15:21, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

List of vegetarians

Could you do me a favor and take a quick look at Talk:List of vegetarians#Mani and Mazdak in regards to two disputed names. I have some concerns, but as it is I'm on the fence myself about them (I'm simply not sure how far we can go in drawing conclusions about one's lifestyle from their teachings), so I'm happy to defer to a third opinion either way on this. Betty Logan (talk) 02:52, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

2013 La Défense attack

Could you run your grumpy eyes over this 2013 La Défense attack article.Martin451 00:10, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

gun control rfc

As you were involved in a previous discussion on this topic, I am notifying you of a new RFC on this topic. Talk:Gun_control#Authoritarianism_and_gun_control_RFCGaijin42 (talk) 16:30, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

Do you know where the chat room is?

Doesn't this site have an editor chat room? Do you ever go there? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.19.163.225 (talk) 17:37, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

User talk:174.19.163.225

If you're becoming agitated, which appears to potentially be the case, may I suggest just stepping back? I'm handling it. :-) Rjd0060 (talk) 18:21, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

Ayurveda in America

Created in one swell foop 2 days ago. Not sure what needs doing now, but how many new editors can create such a large article on their first edit? Dougweller (talk) 18:27, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

Interesting. From a quick glance it seems well-written at least, though it strikes me as veering well into WP:OR territory, and the title seems poorly-chosen. It should be 'Ayurveda in the West', I'd have thought - particularly so since there seems to be nothing in the article which suggests that there is anything particular to distinguish the reception of Ayurveda in the U.S. from other western contexts. As for POV issues, it is clearly pro-Ayurveda though it seems careful to avoid making specific claims.

Regarding authorship, I see no obvious reason not to assume that it is written by a new contributor. There has clearly been a fair bit of effort put into writing it - and someone capable of such work may well be better-equipped than the more typical 'first article' creator to sort out referencing etc, which tends to trip up newcomers. I think the best approach might be to get input from a few more knowledgeable contributors (WikiProject Medicine would seem a good place to ask), and then see how the contributor reacts to any criticism. AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:03, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

A kitten for you

Justanonymous has given you a kitten! Kittens promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Your kitten must be fed three times a day and will be your faithful companion forever! Spread the WikiLove by giving someone else a kitten, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend.

Spread the goodness of kittens by adding {{subst:Kitten}} to someone's talk page with a friendly message, or kittynap their kitten with {{subst:Kittynap}}

I know it's been a tough few days at Gun control and at ANI. I support and respect you even if we might not always agree! I know that you're dedicated to make Wikipedia better! Justanonymous (talk) 21:44, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

::I endorse these sentiments, though I do have some concern for the welfare of the kitten.  :-)Anythingyouwant (talk) 16:50, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

Message for you sir.

Hello, AndyTheGrump. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.— ArtifexMayhem (talk) 04:24, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

Gun control

Thanks for the revert. "European" was a typo. Incidentally, don't you think that my section title -- or something similar -- would be a good compromise? It clarifies what specifically the Nazi policies were (they generally relaxed restrictions on gun ownership, but sought to disarm jews), allowing for readers to make their own decision. Steeletrap (talk) 07:01, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

Please discuss article content on the article talk page. AndyTheGrump (talk) 07:05, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

don't be such a grump. *tear* Steeletrap (talk) 07:08, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

I Yam What I Yam... AndyTheGrump (talk) 07:10, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

Your edit summary at Talk:Gun control

I have no comment about the underlying discussion, I just wanted to say that this is my new favorite edit summary. Gamaliel (talk) 07:18, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

Thanks - though it isn't exactly original. Apparently, until recently in the U.K. the only persons not permitted to vote in elections were criminals, lunatics, and Members of the House of Lords... AndyTheGrump (talk) 07:22, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

I do enjoy a clever allusion. Though apparently some lunatics can vote now: "'idiots' may not vote and 'lunatics' only during their lucid periods." [32] Gamaliel (talk) 07:32, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

Have you been following this topic are and the circus

That goes with it? So ya, I think my comment is in fact spot on, cheers. Always amuses me that you think it just fine that you cuss folk out, but someone you dislike does it? Sanction that wanker. Grow up Andy. Darkness Shines (talk) 21:04, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

Hmmm, do you possess a mirror, DS? Given that you asked for sanctions against MM for calling someone a 'liar', I have to suggest that the inconsistency on WP:AN is yours, and yours alone. AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:24, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

Who did I call a liar? I admit I am a total twat at times, but I am bloody honest about it. Darkness Shines (talk) 21:27, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

I didn't say you called anyone a liar - I said that you asked for sanctions against MM for calling someone a 'liar'. Which you did. AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:32, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

It's time to topic ban the whole lot, IMAO. Mangoe (talk) 21:35, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

Personally, I'd be happy if Wikipedia was to indefinitely block anyone who had ever heard of the Austrian School of Economics... AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:39, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

Andy, you have heard of it But, ya, I support that one. Darkness Shines (talk) 21:41, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

Heard of what? Who wrote that? It can't have been me. Meanwhile, I've got one last Christmas present to open - from the 'Men in Black' it says. I can't think why I didn't open it earlier... AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:44, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

ANI Notice

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. ROG5728 (talk) 14:01, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

No.

If you do this again, you will spend a day on the sidelines and I will full protect the talk page for the duration. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 15:25, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

New front on the war against history

Gun Control in the Third Reich (book). Note the wording of the first sentence and the hatnote, designed to support NRA talking points. — goethean 21:38, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

And there's this as well. Facts are really not their friends. — goethean 21:42, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

You are involved in a recently filed request for arbitration. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case#Gun_control and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. Additionally, the following resources may be of use—

• Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests#Requests for arbitration;
• Wikipedia:Arbitration guide.

Thanks,

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case#Gun_control

Preciosa

You just don't get enough. You just never get satisfied with nothing. You look ridiculous being a pseudo Superman "rescuing" what does not really matter to you. Shit that does not harm you at all. Whatever the heck you've got against me or any of the individuals mentioned in the article have nothing to do with your obsession from "rescuing" shit. I'm not messing up with your shit. Don't mess with mine. Take this whichever way you want: a provocation, an insult, whatever. Don't get into my stuff. Okay? Küñall (talk) 04:48, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

I was a bit annoyed when I wrote the message above, and I apologize for some words I used. However, the point still stands: you seem like you were obsessed with my work on the article. If you feel unconfortable with some content, I am open to discuss it on the article's talk page, I may be completely wrong at times and so I like to hear feedback. But if you are just removing content, making it as if I were trying to publicize myself for that kind of things (university admission tests)... I mean, come on! I have left a message on the article's talk page, if you wish to comment. Regards, Küñall (talk) 05:22, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

"making it as if I were trying to publicize myself". You clearly and self-evidently are, given your obsession with adding your entirely non-notable name into articles (not to mention the category you created just so you could include yourself in it). And I'm not going to discuss this on the article talk page - I'm going to discuss it at WP:ANI, as I previously informed you that I would, though that will have to wait until tomorrow. Meanwhile, I suggest you read WP:OWN. The article isn't yours. AndyTheGrump (talk) 06:25, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

Gun control arbitration case notice

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/Gun control. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Gun control/Evidence. Please add your evidence by January 19, 2014, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Gun control/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, Bbb23 (talk) 19:16, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

EDL

Look at the contributions of editor who reverted me. Dougweller (talk) 20:57, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

Looks like he followed you from the Hayley Wickenheiser article, I see he reverted you there. But I am guessing you figure this is an old hand returning. Darkness Shines (talk) 21:06, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

@Dougweller: Obvious sock of this guy. Darkness Shines (talk) 21:10, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

Yup - I'd say so - though the sockmaster is User:Allthekidsinthestreet. SPI filed: [33] AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:36, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

Invite you to comment on Template:hat

I have shared some view on hatting, Template talk:Hat#Hatting should be used if and only if the section does not WP:FOC, feel free to comment/discuss. :) --14.198.220.253 (talk) 09:53, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

Philipism

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1226182/Heir-tribe-South-Pacific-tribe-worship-Duke-Edinburgh-want-meet-Prince-William.html http://www.telegraph.co.uk/expat/expatfeedback/4203013/South-Sea-tribe-prepares-birthday-feast-for-their-favourite-god-Prince-Philip.html http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-388901/Is-Prince-Philip-god.html http://www.vice.com/en_uk/read/this-guy-went-to-live-with-the-tribe-who-worship-prince-philip?utm_source=vicefb http://www.amazon.co.uk/Man-Belong-Mrs-Queen-Worshippers/dp/1908699647

Sometimes the truth is stranger than fiction — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.3.181.44 (talk) 16:31, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

Is there something about 'discuss this on the talk page' that you find difficult to comprehend? AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:34, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

Aircraft Flag Edit War - Resolution Requested

I have been adding flags next to place names in the infoboxes of various aircraft crash pages; which for some reason has so offended you as to begin an edit war against me. I would like to clarify - the purpose of my adding these flags was to clarify for the reader, which I hope is the purpose in general of this website. You, for some reason, seem to instead believe the purpose of this site is to look exactly as you (the individual) desire. You have now reverted my improvements to seven aircraft crash pages twice each. I am considering requesting you blocked on all pages to do with aircraft crashes due to your belligerence in the matter, but before I do I simply wish to give you an opportunity to redeem yourself and stop reverting visual improvements in the sections. Is that really so much to ask? I didn't think so (: — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mickeys1fan (talk • contribs) 01:17, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

Have you read WP:INFOBOXFLAG as I suggested? If not, do so. It makes perfectly clear that not cluttering infoboxes with flags (which provide no information not already there) is the community consensus. And then read Wikipedia:Edit warring. And then take a look at the article history for the relevant articles. And at my recent contribution history. And then see if you can provide evidence that I have reverted anything twice. And then learn some manners. Or if you'd prefer to make a complete fool of yourself, go ahead with requesting that block. I could do with a laugh... AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:32, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

I think this user is not going to take no for an answer. We may need to escalate this to ANI. He has edit-warred in too many articles for 3RRN to be effective in this case. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 02:43, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

I'd hoped to have avoided that - though Mickeys1fan isn't a new contributor, s/he has made few edits, and may not have been aware of WP:INFOBOXFLAG. Looking at the sequence of events, it seems to me as if s/he wasn't aware that you had reverted the 2nd edits, rather than me. Maybe s/he will see sense after looking at the edits again. AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:59, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

The problem is after your reply here at :32 past the hour Mickeys1fan went and added new flags at America West Airlines Flight 556 at 50 past the hour. It appears s/he is not heeding your advice. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 03:07, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

Well, they've stopped now. I'd give it the benefit of the doubt, and assume that they've got the message unless we see evidence to the contrary. AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:18, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

I fully agree. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 03:28, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

break into smaller paragraphs

I read your evidence on Gun Control and it would benefit from a few paragraph breaks for readability <g>. I tried to follow as best I could, and it has a great deal of merit, but I am more patient than some of the folks there. And each break only adds one character so you do not need to fear it will get chopped down by a clerk. Cheers. Collect (talk) 17:17, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

Yeah - you're probably right. I'll take a look. AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:36, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

Pugwash

Are you sure you're not me? You're very grumpy! Andy Dingley (talk) 18:25, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

Er, yes to both. The IP seems to be a complete idiot... AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:29, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

Last call for Support/Oppose survey on Problem of Evil page.

There are now several references posted on the Problem of Evil page. Last call for Support/Oppose survey on Problem of Evil page. FelixRosch (talk) 21:20, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

East Germany

I'm just reminding participants that East Germany falls within the scope of WP:Discretionary sanctions per Arbcom here. Please see recent comments at talk:East Germany. Thanks. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 00:58, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

Personally, I'd have thought that Germany was in central Europe - it is after all almost entirely located to the west of any claimed geographical midpoint - but if ArbCom says otherwise, I'm not going to argue. AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:05, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

Hi Andy

Can I ask you something?

I think the world's encyclopedia should be reliable.

Presently, I'm especially concerned about our medical content. The studies I've seen on the quality of our medical content are inadequate. I asked at WT:MED if we should commission a rigorous review of medical content with a big enough sample to say something meaningful and was met with a kind of, "Why would we do that?" I then suggested on Jimbo's talk page that we invite the relevant charities to fund, and learned societies to implement regular stringent fact-checking by named experts, and locking those articles that pass the review until the next review.

Several people commented. Jimbo didn't really address it and favoured the far more bottom-up method of applying pending changes or flagged revisions to some articles and hoping we attract expertise somehow.

Doc James raised his plan to engage journals to review our articles. When, earlier at m:WikiProjectMed, he had mentioned his negotiations with various journals, I said we need the highest possible rigor in their review process, but no one seemed too concerned.

I would rather we invited the learned societies and their relevant charities to take on the review process, than publishers: let the learned societies arrange for the finest possible fact-checking, and let the charities and agencies whose missions allow or oblige them to support such endeavors fund it.

Between reviews, a fact-checked article should continue being edited as a draft page prominently linked on both the published article and the talk page, under the usual policies and guidelines, by the same editors. If the editors choose to publish a version that has not passed fact-checking, I think they should replace the prominent badge saying the article has been fact-checked with one saying it hasn't, or it failed its last review.

What do you think? --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 13:23, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

Cochrane is working with us. I will be heading to India to speak at the colloquium again this year. Had some of the worlds leading experts editing last year in Quebec.

Some editors at WPMED are already world leaders in the field. They however do not want to connect their real names with their Wikipedia ones. We also have no mechanisms for verification. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 13:30, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

(Sorry I've not replied earlier - got tied up in other things) While I obviously agree that accuracy in medical content is a priority, and would welcome any efforts to engage external expertise in reviewing such articles, it seems to me that Anthonyhcole's proposal is departing rather from the Wikipedia ethos, and might risk stifling article development. It also seems to be presuming rather a lot regarding learned societies etc to ask that they would take on a commitment to a continuing review process. AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:29, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the feedback Andy. I'm in the bush without wifi just now. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 05:58, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

ANI-notice

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Bus stop (talk) 14:59, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

Notice of a discussion that may be of interest to you

There is a Split proposal discussion on the Gun politics in the U.S. talk page that may be of interest to you. Lightbreather (talk) 04:33, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

Note

Andy, I've warned Alansohn against making further personal attacks. I advise you not to comment on or speak to him, either, directly or indirectly, as that might be seen as baiting. Bishonen | talk 08:23, 30 January 2014 (UTC).

Since Alansohn has now chosen to ignore your advice (and attacked your integrity in the process [34]), I see no reason why I should abstain from defending myself. AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:32, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

Just to let you know

Just to let you know you have been mentioned at: Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Editor_Retention#Editor_of_the_Week_award. XOttawahitech (talk) 20:35, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

Moved

I moved your comment - [35] when I added comment section to other parts. Feel free to revert me. Hipocrite (talk) 22:32, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

Your apology at ANI

I think that your comments there were very gracious and thoughtful. I appreciate your words, I thank you for them, and I look forward to agreeing with you on BLP issues in the future. We need editors with your concerns and understanding of policy, and if you express them forcefully but with more moderate language, it will be a benefit both to you and to the project. Take care, my friend. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 02:32, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:02, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

Sockpuppet investigations/Golden Prime

Hi Andy, I am aware that you have engaged in discussion with Golden Prime in some admin noticeboards before, and shortly after his block, a new user showing the same editing patterns and thoughts returned to the same tiger vs lion article to force the same Ken Spiro statements while claiming other valid sources invalid ([like here]). The new account also attempted to create two new lion vs tiger wiki pages dedicated to Ken Spiro. The new account is currently being involved in sockpuppet investigations here and since you have exchanged conversations with Golden Prime, your inputs and comments will be helpful to the investigations. Thanks for your help! BigCat82 (talk) 12:57, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

Non GC UK related question

Have you heard of http://www.channelregister.co.uk/ before? Are they notable/reliable in general in the UK? Gaijin42 (talk) 19:13, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

We have an article: The Register. I've seen them used as a source for IT-related articles - as for whether they are reliable, as always, it depends on what for, though they've been around for a while, seem to have a large readership, and are probably better than many IT-related news sites. AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:40, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

Eugene Plotkin

I have been adding and editing articles on notable Eastern European and Jewish mathematicians for some months now. With regard to Eugene Plotkin, my intent was not to confuse the two individuals with the same name. I believed (apparently erroneously) that a page containing solely a redirect was essentially a placeholder. The BLP for the first Plotkin should have never been (this is why it was moved) while the second Plotkin (the mathematician) is actually notable. I would appreciate your guidance on the best way to proceed. My thinking, having reviewed information on deleting redirects and moving pages, is that a good solution could be to merge the old Plotkin page (the redirect) with the Reebok Insider Trading Case page (the page being redirected to) and then create the new Eugene Plotkin (mathematician) page. What do you think? Jaytwist (talk) 18:10, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

Regardless of your intent, your actions clearly resulted in confusion. For a start, there was at least one article-space link to the existing Plotkin redirect - in our article on the United States Penitentiary, Lompoc. As a result of your edit, Wikipedia ended up implying that the Israeli mathematician had served a three-year prison sentence there. And then there is the obvious confusion in the edit history for the Plotkin redirect - which clearly starts out referring to one Plotkin and then with no explanation whatsoever switches to another. Furthermore, you'd done nothing whatsoever about the fact that the talk page for the redirect was itself redirected to the talk page for the insider dealing case.

As for whether the article on the insider dealing should originally have been named after Plotkin or not, you may well be right - though the reason for the move was as much that this Plotkin wasn't the only person involved in the case, and it was thus inappropriate to name the article after him. However, given that this Plotkin was central to the case (and given that there wasn't really any consistency in what sources were calling it), a redirect from Eugene Plotkin to the case was entirely appropriate - you will note that we also have a redirect to the article for David Pajčin, the other key individual concerned.

Regarding the relative notability of 'insider' Plotkin vs 'math' Plotkin, I'd suggest that a simple Google search is enough to show that 'insider' is the more (in)famous - and I'm not even sure that your article on 'math' Plotkin demonstrates with citations to reliable sources that he passes WP:Notability criteria. You seem to be aware of the issue, in that you have included a template noting the lack of inline citations, which to me rather begs the question why you didn't add them yourself - you must have had the sources to write the article in the first place. Why haven't you cited them?

If we assume that you will be able to rewrite the 'math' Plotkin article sufficiently to meet guidelines, we then have to decide what to do about the name issue. I'd suggest that to minimise any risk of further confusion, you create the article with the name Eugene Plotkin (Israeli mathematician) and we add a hatnote of some sort clarifying that there is another Eugene Plotkin, and providing a link to the insider dealing article - I'll have a think about exactly how best to word this later (we may need a hatnote for the insider dealing article too). We can then change the existing Eugene Plotkin redirect into a disambiguation page, with links to the 'math' Plotkin and the insider case. That way we can ensure that readers searching by name won't end up at the wrong article, and minimise the possibility of them thinking that the two Plotkins were the same person. That has to be our priority, for obvious reasons. AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:40, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification. I appreciate it. As you suggested, I have created a Eugene Plotkin (mathematician) article, added inline citations, and will look for additional sources to support notability. Within mathematical circles, Plotkin and his work are quite notable. As far as creating a disambiguation page and hatnotes on the respective pages, I would like to follow your lead, if you have a particular way you think best to do that. Jaytwist (talk) 18:12, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

I'll sort out the disambiguation page now - the sooner it is done, the less opportunity for confusion. AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:43, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

I've altered the redirect to a disambiguation page, and added custom hatnotes to both articles. They may need tweaking, but they will do for now. AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:21, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for working with me on this. I now have a better understanding of how to handle same name situations in Wikipedia and will make sure that my future edits avoid this type of confusion. Jaytwist (talk) 16:16, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

Tommy Oliver

I filed a dispute against the user. I I think you should try to repost it yourself. I certainly wouldn't be surprised if he got blocked. He think he can push people around with duck test claims but i Won't Back Down either. 08:14, 15 February 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.236.68.115 (talk)

Dispute resolution isn't intended for complaints about behaviour. AndyTheGrump (talk) 08:18, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

Why are you validating this banned editor's postings? He knows how to sign posts as just time stamps. He knows about DRN and 3RR.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 08:21, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

So far you have produced precisely zero evidence that this is a banned user. You have filed no SPI. You have done nothing but assume bad faith from the start. And so what if an IP knows something about DRN or 3R? What is that supposed to prove? AndyTheGrump (talk) 08:26, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

Uh, yeah I have, and all my evidence is there.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 08:28, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

I think we're dealing with someone that will go out of his way to get other editors blocked and assume bad faith. I have opened an ani discussion. Just make sure you comment before he takes it down because we already know what he is capable of. --Anonymous 16:53, 16 February 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.236.98.130 (talk)

An award for you!

The WikiProject Medicine QuackStar

Quack!

Quack!

Your exceptional duck-hunting efforts on Wikipedia have not gone unnoticed; for all your hard work in defending the Wiki from the legions of badly edited quackery, I award you the WikiProject Medicine QuackStar.

Also, good hunting. Alexbrn 10:21, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

Thanks - though actually it was User:QuackGuru who first made the connection: [36] - note the edit summary. I'm not entirely sure that there isn't more to this, but I'll keep my suspicions to myself for now. AndyTheGrump (talk) 10:31, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

Beaten to it

Haha. Their last edit summary happened to come up on my watchlist. Bishonen | talk 18:53, 17 February 2014 (UTC).

And now we have Medeis and Til Eulenspiegel doing the same thing. Since it seems self-evident that we can't put a stop to this nonsense, I shall be proposing that an exception to WP:NOTFORUM be formally made for the ref desks, and the notice at the top of the desks be amended to read "This desk is reserved for off-topical political sniping, infantile jokes, and miscellaneous drivel. If you have a serious question that can't be answered from our articles, search elsewhere..." AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:00, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

Nomination of Genocide definitions, Definitions of pogrom and Definitions of fascism for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Genocide definitions, Definitions of pogrom and Definitions of fascism are 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/Genocide definitions 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. Oncenawhile (talk) 09:49, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

Trust

In this comment, you jumped to a conclusion that I am very disappointed about. It appears that you don't trust my motives. I have tried to be very clear about what i am trying to achieve, yet you are taking a very dim view of my actions.

It seems from the afd discussion that i went to the wrong forum - i should probably take it to the village pump. But why bite my head off for it? I am not, and have never been, the type to play silly games. I am just learning how to get the community to reach a consensus on a difficult question.

I don't know what i have done to make you so negatively predisposed today. Prior to today it all seemed fine.

What can i do to rebuild the trust between us?

Oncenawhile (talk) 15:15, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

Prior to today, I was prepared to give you the benefit of the doubt over your earlier pointy attempt to introduce other articles into the recent 'Definitions of pogrom' AfD. [37] That you should then go ahead and do the same thing again, despite the comments of multiple contributors, suggests to me that I was mistaken to do so. I judge people on Wikipedia by their behaviour. Does that answer your question? AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:30, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for explaining, it makes sense.

In a perhaps forlorn attempt to try to change your mind, my learning from that previous situation was that the objections were timing based. Ie people were unhappy that they were not added near enough to the start of the afd, and that i didn't fully notify. So this time made a real effort to do it all properly.

I didn't see anyone suggest that the articles were not comparable at the time. The only person who came close to questioning comparability was you at the copyright page, but you followed it with "but I can certainly see the merit in looking at them as well".

As proof of my mindset, see this thread where I tried to clarify so others would not make the same mistake.

Should I give up trying to convince you to give me the benefit of the doubt, or is there anything else i can do?

Oncenawhile (talk) 16:07, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

(a) Withdraw the AfD nominations. (b) Apologise to Zargulon for saying that s/he was attempting to "sabotage the new afd" (c) Stop taking it so personally. This isn't about who trusts who, it is about creating an online encyclopaedia. AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:15, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

(a) Sure, do I just do that at the AFD page?

(b) This diff should illustrate how any chance of a collaborative relationship between me and Zargulon died. Anyway the canvas allegation was not mine (see this comment.

(c) Actually i disagree here. We build the encyclopedia by gaining consensus between us, and we are all human beings. If relationships break down and trust disappears, we stop AGFing and the whole thing breaks down. Trust is very important to me.

Oncenawhile (talk) 16:31, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion#Withdrawing a nomination. AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:34, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

Done. I'm not going to actually do the close i'm not sure i can and because the rules talk about "speedy keep" and i think that would only excite Zargulon more. Oncenawhile (talk) 16:40, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

Addressed your Concerns

The unnecessary step of creating an "incident" over me created by your behavior, I have replied to on the notification talk board.

You seek to be my executioner very eagerly... My "outlawry" as "foregone conclusion" without a trial, is your stated desire...

I hope one day Wikipedia has a more dispassionate ambiance. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.52.186.148 (talk • contribs) 19:51, 21 February 2014 (UTC) ‎

• Please put down Sir Walter Scott and the thesaurus. You don't know anything about AndyTheGrump's desire. I've known him for years and I still don't have a clue. Drmies (talk) 19:53, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

Thanks

Moutrie is in the wrong and not in the least bit suited to Wikipedia, but someone is also clearly yanking his chain. Thansk for fixing the latest example. Guy (Help!) 18:02, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

Abigail and Brittany Hensel

The question asked was about DNA. I know the answer to the question, simply because I happen to be the same gender as the women concerned. I was writing the explanation while you were busy deleting. I can assure you that there is no "speculation" about it at all, and the matter is not even remotely sensitive or offensive. It is a simple matter of biology. Amandajm (talk) 03:40, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

Firstly, article talk pages are for discussions of article content, they are not forums for general discussions of the subject. And secondly, I fail to see what gender has to do with anything - your assertion that the Hansels' have each contributed one functioning ovary to their shared reproductive system seems to be based on nothing but supposition. There is certainly nothing in the article to support that - and we shouldn't be speculating about people's reproductive capabilities on article talk pages, whether they are conjoined twins or otherwise. BLP policy requires that we have regard for individuals' privacy, and I see no reason why we should make an exception in this case. AndyTheGrump (talk) 04:01, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

• My experience on Wikipedia is that it is best to deal with straight forward questions, rather than delete something of that nature, as if it was invasive or required very personal knowledge to answer.
• My assertion that they have two functioning ovaries is not "supposition". It is based on the fact that they are described as having a "normal" set of reproductive organs. That would normally include two ovaries.
• There is no speculation about their "reproductive capabilities". They are described as having "normal reproductive organs". That would give them "normal reproductive capability". However, no mention, let alone speculation, concerning any such capability was made.
• The statement that the DNA of a child would come from whichever women provided the egg at the time of fertilisation is not speculation. It is fact.
• This is a very straightforward matter of biology. It is not private, not intrusive and requires no speculation to answer.

The notability of the Hensel twins is dependent solely upon their conjoined state. Therefore, any matter of scientific interest, such as the DNA that they might pass to an offspring, is of interest.

The matters that have no place on Wikipedia are questions of concerning their emotions, their sexual behaviour and the more intimate aspects of their lives such as personal hygiene. The answer provided did not touch on any personal aspect of their lives. It referred only to the common reproductive biology shared around the globe.

You need a better understanding of what is speculation and what is not, and what is personally invasive and what is not.

Amandajm (talk) 05:30, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

You need a better understanding of WP:BLP policy. You unsourced speculation about the reproductive capabilities of individuals has no place on an article talk page. And frankly, I find it astonishing that anyone could suggest the matter under discussion doesn't concern "any personal aspect of their lives". If this is restored, I shall regrettably have to take the matter further - which I had hoped to avoid, since I have no wish to draw further attention to this BLP violation. AndyTheGrump (talk) 05:42, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

Incidentally, you do realise that you are using the Daily Mail as a source for your assertions regarding the twins reproductive system(s)? Hardly the most reliable source for science-based issues, as I hope you are aware... AndyTheGrump (talk) 05:49, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

I'd also like to add that you should never use rollback like this in a dispute. Rollback is for blatant vandalism and disruption only. This edit falls nowhere under that. If abuse of the rollback continues like that, it will be removed. only (talk) 10:49, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

Firstly, I didn't use rollback - I blanked the section, as a WP:BLP violation. Secondly, I've never used rollback, so taking it away would be rather pointless. AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:37, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

Er, if you kept my indentation as I originally had it, and if you look at the link I had put in the comment, you'd see that I was telling Amandajm about her misuse of rollback. only (talk) 21:08, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

Oops - apologies, I'd misunderstood. AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:46, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

• My apology for the misuse of "rollback".
• "You unsourced speculation about the reproductive capabilities of individuals has no place on an article talk page. And frankly, I find it astonishing that anyone could suggest the matter under discussion doesn't concern "any personal aspect of their lives"." This comment is ridiculous. I have not speculated about the subjects' reproductive capabilities. My reply contained no speculation of any type whatsoever.
• Regardless of the source of the information that they have "one normal set of reproductive organs", the fact remains the same: If they were to conceive a child, then it would have the DNA of which ever of the two females provided the fertilised egg. The question is hypothetical, not speculative. Do you understand the difference?
• Why do you imagine that, from an encyclopedic point of view, referring to the fact that they have one (quote: "normal") set of reproductive organs (so presumably two ovaries) is more personal that stating that they have two hearts and three kidneys? The presumption that they have bowel, urinary and menstrual function is not invasive. It only becomes "invasive" with speculation over how they, as individuals, manage the more private functions of a conjoined body, e.g. sexual activity and personal hygiene. No such speculation has been entered into.
• I am not insisting that my response to the question goes back onto the talk page. it is not of sufficient importance, and I agree that it is "general discussion" rather than entirely pertinenet to the content of the article.
• However, I want you to withdraw your ridiculous implication that my response to the question is "speculation" and invasive of privacy.

Amandajm (talk) 07:23, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

WP:BLP

Hi, Regarding your recent revert [38] — As I mentioned in my edit summary, the present sentence in the BLP policy falsely implies that any edit on a talk page, not just those edits about living people, has the burden of evidence. The Burden of evidence section of WP:V doesn't apply to talk pages. However, we would want WP:BLP to apply burden of evidence to talk page edits about living people, but not otherwise. That was the purpose of adding "about living people". --Bob K31416 (talk) 17:24, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

Um, no. The burden of evidence is the same, regardless. If you make a claim on Wikipedia, you should be able to back it up - it isn't up to other people to disprove it. That is how Wikipedia works. BLP policy doesn't come into it. Clearly we don't expect everything said on a talk page to be fully referenced - but ultimately, if it is of relevance to article content, it needs referencing if it is challenged - and if it isn't relevant, what is it doing on the talk page? Anyway, the sentence in question said nothing about talk pages, and neither did your edit, which seemed to imply that the burden of evidence was different in non-BLP article contexts - which simply isn't true. AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:48, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

There's various related points in your response. I'll first try to address the one that may lead to resolution of the others.

The present sentence of WP:BLP is,

"The burden of evidence for any edit on Wikipedia rests with the person who adds or restores material."

It refers to "any edit on Wikipedia", which incorrectly includes talk pages.

WP:BURDEN doesn't apply to talk pages. It applies to Wikipedia mainspace, as indicated in the second paragraph of WP:V. If WP:BURDEN did apply to talk pages then editors' legitimate talk page comments related to editing an article could be removed because they weren't verifiable, i.e. their opinions about editing the article would need to have been in a reliable source. For example, your last comment at WT:BLP, "this shouldn't be used an an excuse to include anything beyond a direct rebuttal",[39] could be removed and you could not restore it without an inline citation to a reliable source. --Bob K31416 (talk) 19:00, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

I'm not interested in pointless nitpicking - your edit to BLP policy was undiscussed, and in my opinion misleading, in that it implied that the burden of evidence didn't apply to non-BLP articles. Which it does, If you want to discuss this further, do so at Wikipedia talk:Biographies of living persons - we can't decide policy on our own. AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:06, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

Need help

Hey!AndyTheGrump please help me by contribution at the article Isrg Rajan. I will be very grateful to you thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Iraag (talk • contribs) 17:44, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

Help with what? If this guy is notable, it is up to you to provide the evidence. AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:55, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

I have added more sources under the article Isrg Rajan, please verify and remove the template that you've added. Thank you! Iraag (talk) 18:01, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

What the heck is the new source supposed to be referencing? You give no page number, and no indication whatsoever as to why the book is in any way relevant. What does it say about Rajan, and how does it establish that he is notable by Wikipedia standards? AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:10, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

Why you have restored the article?

The article Isrg Rajan is still under discussion and I've added some reliable sources but you've removed. Please restore it if you can't contribute more to it. This wikipedia and the articles on the wikipedia are not owned by you — Preceding unsigned comment added by Iraag (talk • contribs) 18:46, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

This is Wikipedia and we don't cite fake references - do that again, and I will report the matter. AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:54, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

Why restored the article Chirag Paswan

I would like to know the cause for restoring the artile Chirag Paswan, that you've restored without giving any reason. I would also like to let you know that this person, Chirag Paswan is a noticeable personality. It's like you are jealous with writing of my articles as you have restored all many articles and even nominated some for speedy deletion. Please don't forget you are only a Admin not the developer or the owner of Wikipedia.

You should have created a discuss page before restoring the article as you are not the author one more thing I would like to inform you that the article that you have redirected to does not matches. Since the redirected article is about a person and other article is about a movie. Iraag (talk) 08:02, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

ANI

Andy, besides the Smartse thread, there's also a thread concerning the above user on ANI, in case you wish to comment. Bishonen | talk 08:53, 25 February 2014 (UTC).

Accessing Help Desk

On the Help Desk yesterday, I asked how to access the Help Desk and you understandably said to do it how I had just done it! FYO, to get to the Help Desk, I was going through a search engine and wanted to know the direct way via Wikipedia. Another Help Desk member has told me how and answered my other query re Wiki amendments satisfactorily. I am new to Wiki editing and finding one's way around the Wiki site can be quite daunting at first, you know. P123cat1 (talk) 12:46, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

"BLP violation"

Hello again, my dear friend.

Thanks for being such a helpful, cooperative, and pleasant person, as well as for explaining in detail what the alleged BLP violation was instead of simply reverting my edits and making vague, childish threats. It's heartwarming to know that people like you exist in this world. I don't know how the Wikipedia project would ever survive without you.

In any case, a simple Google search revealed that the suspect in question was convicted of the crime and received probation in a plea deal. I added the citation to the article and restored the text in question. I hope this clears things up.

Best regards,

AnnerTown

XOXO

AnnerTown (talk) 03:44, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

Since you clearly lack the competence to edit Wikipedia, I am now reporting you at WP:ANI. AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:53, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

February 2014

"do not post on my talk page again" means what it says
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Your recent editing history at Juggalos (gang) shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. To avoid being blocked, instead of reverting please consider using the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. See BRD for how this is done. You can post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection. STATic message me! 04:24, 28 February 2014 (UTC) See WP:BLP policy, and the thread I'm starting at WP:ANI. AndyTheGrump (talk) 04:33, 28 February 2014 (UTC) As for you message on my talk page, please realize personal attacks are not allowed. I am not going to play favorites, you both were very clearly edit warring, and I really doubt AnnerTown will be blocked indefinitely, but good luck with the content dispute. STATic message me! 04:57, 28 February 2014 (UTC) Pointing out that you are clearly unfamiliar with Wikipedia policy isn't a personal attack. AndyTheGrump (talk) 05:02, 28 February 2014 (UTC) Just doing it to run your mouth is, since I obviously am. You are the one that is not familiar however. Just take a good look at WP:3rr, before you start an edit war next time. I have not made a single comment on your dispute or the content in question, but blindly reverting over and over when the edits are not vandalism, is not okay. STATic message me! 05:08, 28 February 2014 (UTC) "3RR exemptions:... Removal of libelous, biased, unsourced, or poorly sourced contentious material that violates the policy on biographies of living persons (BLP)". Get a clue... AndyTheGrump (talk) 05:11, 28 February 2014 (UTC) Yet surprisingly you never explained how your reverts fall under the exception. Instead just crying BLP over and over. The content was clearly backed by reliable sources so no, not unsourced or poorly sourced. STATic message me! 05:15, 28 February 2014 (UTC) If you wish to demonstrate your ignorance of Wikipedia policy further, please do so elsewhere - do not post on my talk page again. AndyTheGrump (talk) 05:18, 28 February 2014 (UTC) Oh, did I do that? Seriously, learn to lighten up dude. STATic message me! 05:24, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

It would appear...

...that you are reverting my sourced edits to that page for no apparent reason. Where is the BLP violation? The man claims to be a member of the IRA. I don't see how it would violate WP:BLP if he himself claimed to be a former member. Frankly, your behavior here is getting plain ridiculous. — Preceding unsigned comment added by AnnerTown (talk • contribs) 04:25, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

Your policy violations have been reported at WP:ANI, where I am calling for you to be blocked from editing on competence grounds. AndyTheGrump (talk) 04:39, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

Your opinion

If you have got a few spare moments, can you offer your opinion on latest rant from a fringe proponent on the parapsychology talk page. Thanks. Goblin Face (talk) 06:05, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

BLP issues at a former President of India

Hi, I'm not great on BLP stuff because I prefer my article subjects to be dead. I seem to recall that you quite like them alive! I wonder if you could caste an eye over the edits reported here and comment on at Talk:Pratibha Patil as you feel appropriate? Or advise if you think that the issue(s) should go to WP:BLPN. - Sitush (talk) 10:19, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

Let's see. "Rs 205 crore spent on her foreign trips" - how is this a 'controversy'? It seems to be a statement of (supposed) fact. Our article doesn't explain who thinks it is controversial, or why. (Or why it has to tell our readers about it twice).

"Post-retirement Bungalow Scam" - that's a BLP violation for a start. We don't describe things as 'scams' without very good sourcing - i.e. a conviction. "yet another controversy" - um, no. we've yet to show that there has been any controversy at all, and such language belongs in partisan sources, not an encyclopaedia. "an organisation of ex-servicemen in Pune has alleged..."? I dare say they have. Who says this is controversial? "what's worse..." Nope - we don't decide what is better or worse, we cite sources, and let our readers decide such matters for themselves. "Ironically..." Nope, we don't decide what is ironic either. " Former defence personnel also allege..." possibly. Is anyone taking these allegations seriously?

So even without looking to see if the sources are valid, or if the material accurately reflects the sources, it is obvious that the material doesn't comply with policy. It is utterly unencyclopaedic in phraseology, and makes no attempt at neutrality. I've no idea whether the former President is a living saint, or a leading contender for the Annual Worlds Most Corrupt Politician Prize (a fiercely-contested event), but either way, this 'controversy' section doesn't belong on Wikipedia. Material about real controversies, cited to sources that explain what is controversial may well do - if they have been reported in sufficient depth by mainstream sources to meet WP:WEIGHT requirements. And no, a separate 'controversy' section is generally not a good idea. We report the facts, and let the readers decide for themselves. I'd take it to WP:BLPN if you can't get the contributor to see sense. AndyTheGrump (talk) 11:01, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

Ok, thanks. It's much as I thought but you've said it better by miles. I get fed of repeating myself when it comes to these so-called controversies. - Sitush (talk) 12:13, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

Reliable Third Party Sources

Hello, I've seen that you have undone my edit on WikiLeaks due to the source being directly from the WikiLeaks website. Would Glenn Greenwald's "The Intercept" count as a third party reliable source in your eyes? https://firstlook.org/theintercept/article/2014/02/18/snowden-docs-reveal-covert-surveillance-and-pressure-tactics-aimed-at-wikileaks-and-its-supporters/ The Electronic Frontier Foundation cited the The Intercept publication https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2014/02/surveillance-and-pressure-wikileaks-readers . --77.57.23.123 (talk) 22:43, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

No. The Intercept isn't 'third-party', it is very much involved with the Snowden leaks etc. If this story is of any real significance, it will be picked up by the mainstream media. Frankly it strikes me as a non-story anyway - I'd have been astonished if the spooks weren't watching Wikileaks, given what we already know regarding the breadth of their activities. AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:59, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

Okay, thank you for your time. Concerning 'non-story'-ness: I think it still counts as a reaction to WikiLeaks by a government, despite not being a surprising one. If a trustworthy third party reports on it, I may come back to this, but as it stands, I completely understand your revert. 77.57.23.123 (talk) 23:22, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

Question

So if I mention your name on a talk page where you asked me to start a debate, will you get a notification? Sorry I'm pretty new here.Horselover Fats (talk) 19:15, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

I'll respond on the article talk page. AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:21, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

Electronic harassment

I think there could be something to an article and it would be a better, single location for a lot of material which is currently scattered around various EM-based articles. You got the time help me put it together if I make a start and show you what I've got in mind? I've got a little time tomorrow. GDallimore (Talk) 17:32, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

Fair enough - though I'll have to say that I'm not sure there is enough in-depth coverage in RS to establish notability as a topic. AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:57, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

Just noticed Category:Electronic harassment devices. Probably worth deleting if I get nowhere with the article, or even ifI do... GDallimore (Talk) 18:29, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

Yup. A rag-bag collection lacking any rationale beyond conspiracy theories. Needs to go. AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:36, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

Soliciting comment...

Hi! Would you care to review or comment at my FA nomination for the article Misterioso (Thelonious Monk album)? It is a short article about a jazz album. If not, feel free to ignore this message. Cheers! Dan56 (talk) 06:19, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

Please help with consensus-forming at a BLP talk page

Talk:Ronn_Torossian. The article has been subject to a lot of POV editing down the years and some neutral BLP expertise would be helpful. --Dweller (talk) 11:41, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

Lions & tigers

In reference to this edit, if you do nominate it for deletion, I will be grateful if you can drop a note on my talk page, so that I can add my "delete this crap" to the debate. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 09:06, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

Talk:Human

The 118 was an obvious Mikemikev sock. Dougweller (talk) 11:24, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

re: a word of advice to Mansoor Ijaz

Thank you for your comment.

Please tell me how you characterize a user who accuses me of using my Wikipedia page to "schmoze" my business dealings? I did not create the section on Formula One. I never entered into even looking at how to manage the Wiki process of editing until people used outright words that could only be considered such affronts to my person.

TheRedPenOfDoom has taken a stance that shows some sort of personal enmity. As I do not know who that is by name, I cannot know what his motivation is. But certainly he does not have the right to level such accusations when there is no basis in fact.

Thank you for your comments. I will take them under advisement.

Sincerely, Mansoor Ijaz (talk) 03:55, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

Firstly, it isn't your page. It is a page about you, on Wikipedia. As For Red Pen's motivation, I can only assume it is the same as mine - to ensure that Wikipedia maintains its standards as an encyclopaedia. Having looked at the disputed material, I happen to agree with Red Pen that it is of little encyclopaedic merit - it is convoluted and inconclusive, and it is less than obvious how much of this complex business dealing is directly related to the subject matter of the article - you. If and when the deal is completed, it may merit inclusion - but that will depend on what independent sources have to say on the matter, and not on press releases, or on your personal wishes. AndyTheGrump (talk) 04:06, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

Andy, I never said it was "my" page. But it is an article in the public domain about me and what I have done throughout my life. I take your points. And I withdraw my comment made to Red Pen about approaching libel or slander because now I understand both of your points of view. But I repeat, I did not create the section on Formula One and if it were to now be eliminated entirely, it gives the impression -- understandably -- to readers of the article that the deal does not exist anymore. This is both inaccurate and unfair use of the article in public domain dealings, as it is the first hit on any search engine under my name. When people wanted to call me all kinds of names because the deal did not conclude late last year, how was that okay but to include the fair and NPOV version of the Formula One deal is not?

What others wrote about the press release, etc was factual. But most of that section is based on publicly available and documented information that was written by the premier journalists in Formula One. How does that make it not relevant to me or about me? I agree that we could dramatically shorten the entire F1 section. Guffdrawers and I had that discussion on my talk page already. We are very close to concluding this whole affair, and so I suppose Guffydrawers would have tidied it up anyway.

Long story short. I take your point. I apologize for my harder reaction when I did not understand what was being done and why. And if there are ways that the F1 stuff can be constructively and neutrally be edited, shortened or if you insist, taken out, then by all means do as you see fit. I do not wish to enter into edit wars with any Wiki editor, and I have tried assiduously to be a positive contributor to many different pages in the Wiki Encyclopedia.

Sincerely, Mansoor Ijaz (talk) 04:43, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

Nostradamus

Dupe

Sorry

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Drprinceton (talk • contribs) 20:03, 19 March 2014 (UTC) 

1000 Quatrains in Nostradamus article wrong

The 1000 Quatrains info in the Nostradamus section is wrong. He did not intend to write 1000. The source cited has a published book on how the 7th and 6th centuries were not 100 quatrains to come up with 741. 99 in the 6th is 1 minus then he put 42 in the 7th so 742 - 1 = 741 or 147 the date of the French Revolution. In fact 6:99 named the person who then went on to reveal how 742 was really 741 in the book cited.

So saying Nostradamus decided to author 1000 quatrains is wrong. The numbers in the 6th and 7th centuries published before he even died was a clear pointer to the French Revolution as claimed in the published book I cited.

Please reconsider the erasing of that important information.

Thanks