User talk:AndyTheGrump/Archives/2011/May

White Latin American

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on White Latin American. Users are expected to collaborate with others and avoid editing disruptively.

In particular, the three-revert rule states that:

1. Making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period is almost always grounds for an immediate block.
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 continue to edit war, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. SamEV (talk) 01:06, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Though you're a regular, I place this warning just to be on the safe side, to make sure you know what you're doing if you continue reverting.

FYI, I'm a veteran of such disscussions at the Latin America article, where years ago it was decided to totalling up the figures for the same field (the white percentages) in order to arrive at a regional total is *not* synthesis.

I suggest you seek discussion rather than trying to impose your view by edit warring. SamEV (talk) 01:11, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Decisions regarding policy cannot be made on article talk pages. And adding up figures for different ethnic groups to invent a new one isn't just synthesis, it is misrepresentation of the sources. AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:19, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

I am a Jew

I am a Jew so please watch what words you use. Comment on contributions not on editors. I suggest you allow Jews on Wikipedia to bring their own experiences and insight regarding what is acceptable for what is a Jew. No one decides who is or is not a Jew except Jews themselves, in particular a Beit Din.Camelbinky (talk) 20:48, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

"No one decides who is or is not a Jew except Jews themselves, in particular a Beit Din". Wrong. Jewish rabbinical courts have no authority in Wikipedia, nor anywhere else except where the participants accept their validity. And I suggest that as a Jew, you should maybe show a little more concern before making sweeping statements regarding nationality, allegiance etc - these are the very arguments that have often been advanced to keep Jewish people out of political office in many contexts. To give a practical example, Ed Miliband, the Leader of the opposition in the UK Parliament, is ethnically Jewish - do you think his political opponents should be able to use the argument that 'he's Jewish, so he has divided loyalty with regard the UK' against him? I'd say this was bigoted crap if I heard it, regardless of who said it. AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:04, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

AN/I

This is to inform you I have brought you before AN/I for your blatant rudeness and uncalled for anti-Jewish remarks that Jews can not be a nationality.Camelbinky (talk) 01:47, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

Oh! I sense a WP:BOOMERANG a coming, Andy would like some popcorn? Nom Nom Nom The Resident Anthropologist (talk)•(contribs) 01:59, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

Yeah - I should probably go to bed (it's gone 3.15 am here), but I think I'll see how this one runs. The sad thing is, I think that Camelbinky probably disagrees with what I actually said a lot less than what he/she thinks I said. The internet is a marvellous device for miscommunication. AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:19, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

Dunno if you like these, but here is...

		The Barnstar of Good Humor
		For preaching the doomsday end of the (typographic) universe! Tijfo098 (talk) 08:56, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Sorry

I am going to have to leave the scene for a little while, I am rapidly losing my temper with some of these people who are consistently and unapologetically uncivil and I cannot handle the way nobody bats an eye at this. I will try to stay a way from the articles and ANI discussions for a while, difficult as it is when one is trying to defend one's honor against abuse and slander. I'll have a cup of tea and come back when I feel better. Sorry to leave you hanging, you are one of the few editors here to have any understanding of social sciences, and I appreciate your editing very much. I'd give you a nice barnstar but someone beat me to it. ·Maunus·ƛ· 00:34, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

Ethno-tagging

Hey Andy. I've noticed that you seem to be very active in discussions regarding the obsession of "ethno-tagging" (I think you coined that, did you not?). To clarify right off the bat, I agree with you on all counts in these discussions. I personally started the "battle" over Nikki Yanofsky being ethno-tagged, and I'm quite surprised how much it's blown up. I'm wondering if it's possible to start an RFC about the issue of ethno-tagging on Wikipedia, as it's something that I'd greatly like to see done away with. I ask you, because you seem to have much more experience in the matter than I do; I wouldn't know where to start with something like that. Is it something that WP admins will take seriously, or will they just see it as an unwinnable battle? —Preceding unsigned comment added by TheFrozenFire (talk • contribs) 23:43, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure that it was me who coined the term - it was an idea who's time had come anyway. But yes, I'd like to see it stopped, or at least confined to places where it is actually significant to the person under discussion, but I think it is going to be a long battle, and trying to make dramatic changes to policy right now isn't likely to get far I'd think. It is worth remembering that the admins have no more say regarding changes of policy than anyone else (at least in theory). For now, I'm just pushing the point home where I can, and biding my time. It is unfortunate that Yanofsky has become the focus of the latest round of this - we shouldn't be dragging minors into debates, even indirectly, and to be honest, were it not the focus of a wider debate, I'd be tempted to let this one go - but others are using it as a point of principle and though in theory Wikipedia isn't bound by precedent, the fact that it has become such an issue implies that in practice it is.

As regards to BLP policy in general, there has been an increasing concern shown by Wikipedia policy to privacy issues, and I think that this is probably a reflection of a greater awareness of the consequences of the internet age regarding this - the debate is actually a much wider one, and Wikipedia is largely reflecting what is going on elsewhere. This isn't a reason to sit back and do nothing, of course - such changes only occur as a result of individuals making active choices. I wonder whether attaching too much significance to the ethno-tagging issue might be a mistake, and what might be more constructive would be a wider debate on privacy issues, and on what the purpose of BLPs should be. Such a wider debate would have the advantage of engaging more than the 'pro' and 'anti'-tagging factions, and would hopefully be more likely to bring about real and significant change in the long run. This needs more thinking about though, and at the moment, I'm still ruminating, and gathering evidence. If you have any specific proposals, I'd be interested to see them, and will support anything that looks viable. AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:38, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

In any case, it was from you that I saw its first use, so I'm giving you credit for a coined term that describes quite well the disturbing tendency of certain groups, in this case probably Zionist Jews, to tag the "Jew" affiliation onto everyone that is notable and could be of Jewish ancestry. And, of course, that tagging comes with the connotation that those who are identified as Jews necessarily support the Zionist movement, which is far from the case.

But, more generally, and somewhat more important, the practise of ethno-tagging is shared by many religious groups, except that theirs isn't necessarily tagging individuals with ethnic labels, but rather religious ones. Zionist Jews are the most frequent users of this practise, but it's also something done by many Mormons, Catholics and so on. That is, they assign the label of "Mormon" or "Catholic" to their children, and the children only rid themselves of that by explicitly stating that they are *not* associated with that group. In the case of Jews, it is much more difficult to evade, since it's not just a belief system, but instead encompasses all of those with Jewish ancestry, or at the very least Jewish mothers.

Now, it's worth mentioning that I certainly don't come to Wikipedia with an aim or a purpose, other than to contribute factual content, so I don't want you to think I have an "axe to grind" with religious or ethno-religious groups, that I'm bringing to Wikipedia. I've simply found that this issue is one that pervades Wikipedia's BLP articles, and is something that needs to be addressed, for the sake of ensuring a factual encyclopaedia, as well as for the sake of the privacy of those targeted by these groups.

My suggestion for addressing this matter wouldn't necessarily be to seek to immediately establish a policy forbidding such activities, but rather try to bring the issue to the group consciousness of WP. For instance, having a general RFC on the matter, without any particular aim, except perhaps to establish that the community recognizes the activity, and that it can be harmful. If an article is created which explains the activity, and explains *why* it can be a problem, then it's something we can point people like Bus Stop to, and say "This is what you're doing; it's harmful to the accuracy of the article, and to the wellbeing of the BLP subject. Please stop."

As you say, it's likely to be an uphill battle, and no immediate solution is likely, but I think that if we initiate a well-reasoned discussion on the matter, we can shift the debate from the talk pages of BLP articles to a centralized location, so that we don't end up edit warring BLP articles over such a sensitive issue. I agree that it's a delicate matter, and putting a minor's BLP article into the middle of the debate will do substantial harm, especially if it becomes a matter of public inquiry (people asking Yanofsky to address the issue publicly). When I first started removing those tags, it was entirely out of concern for WP:BLPCAT, but I think it's spiralled into a bigger issue of article accuracy. As Bus Stop so frequently repeats, there's no policy relating to the article content that addresses the issues that BLPCAT address for categories, in this regard. TheFrozenFire (talk) 02:54, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

A couple of points. Firstly, I'm not sure that all those involved on ethno-tagging 'Jewish' people are necessarily Zionists - though the term 'Zionist' is rather vague, sometimes used in a defametory context, and best avoided anyway, in my opinion. Secondly, that the ethno-tagging issue often comes up in regard to people of (claimed) Jewish descent, is probably a side-effect of this being a US-based, English speaking Wikipedia. The issue can be just as controversial in other contexts. Indeed, I first got involved in the question in regard to articles on Latin America, where some contributors were intent on creating a 'white' ethnicity out of thin air. This is a complex subject, and one has to be careful not to do the very thing we are objecting to - which is attaching labels to groups, based on our prior perceptions. It is for this reason that I argue that if we are to achieve a meaninful change in policy, it needs to be done in the broader context of privacy issues, where hopefully the debate could move beyond narrow labelling, endless name-calling, and circular arguments that only serve to deter outside contributions. AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:24, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

WP:BLP

Hi Andy. I just wanted to say Thank you for your comments on my recent question on the WP:BLP with the example on the Romanian wikipedia. While I did not make any progress and the situation is now worse than before, I do appreciate your input. I also believe WP:BLP is quite good as it is and the only major problem I see is mostly with its interpretation. Gigi marga (talk) 18:03, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

Thank you in turn. I agree that most of the problems with WP:BLP are to do with its interpretation, though I think it could still be improved a little. I'm optimistic that with time attitudes will change regarding personal information, and that we will come to appreciate that sometimes it is better to avoid padding out articles with information of peripheral relevance, regardless of whether it is properly sourced or not. There are some issues (like ethnicity) which are inherently contentious, and often a simple statement that 'person X is an Y' is of little meaning without further context, even if it is 'correct'. Unfortunately, there are always contributors who wish for whatever reason to include such details, and where this becomes contentious (as seems to have occurred on the Romanian Wikipedia), there is a tendency for people to dig their heels in, and ignore the complexities for the sake of asserting a particular position. Fortunately, on the English-language Wikipedia, we have a broad enough range of contributors to make such stubbornness less effective, and it is a pity that this seems to have been the problem with Romanian Wikipedia. AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:25, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

Apology

I just wanted to drop a little note of apology on your talk page, over the tongue lashing I gave you at WP:ANI. Looks like I was in a pissy mood and took it out on you; you didn't deserve that. So I just wanted to say I'm sorry and offer the peace pipe. --Jayron32 22:40, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

No problem. We all have our off days, and I've written things I shouldn't more than once myself. I see the 'prof' has replied at AN/I, and cleared it all up in any case - one of his students clearly wasn't paying attention. AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:47, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

Speaking of which--you may want to consider striking a comment from a certain AfD... Drmies (talk) 16:09, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

Yeah. I probably should... AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:19, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

Thanks Andy. I have to tell you, I haven't been in an AfD this ridiculous in a long time. May it end soon. Drmies (talk) 19:15, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

Provincialism

Andy,

I am sorry about this: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Energy_Catalyzer&diff=prev&oldid=429739143
but there is a sort of Italian "faida" going on concerning the E-Cat.

Unfortunately, after a bitter initial match
( http://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Pagine_da_cancellare/Catalizzatore_di_energia_di_Rossi_e_Focardi )
it seems that someone wants another ring to fight on here...
--79.6.9.51 (talk) 17:30, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

Yes, You are probably right. I was tempted to delete the section entirely, as it has no particular relevance to our article. AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:35, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

I am Reporting You

I am reporting you for slander. You labeled me an Antisemite when the opposite is true, but this "truth" is far too deep for you to understand.GegenIsrael (talk) 22:59, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

You labelled yourself as an antisemite when you wrote "My goal is the identification of Jewish threads throughout Wikipedia that have not been identified". Report away, but read WP:BOOMERANG first. AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:08, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

Further proof of your overt antisemitism (and ignorance): [1], [2]. AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:16, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

That was nice. Is this an acceptable user name? Drmies (talk) 23:30, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

If you are asking about GegenIsrael's username, I'd think not, but frankly this is a minor issue compared to the 'contributors' other activities. AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:41, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

I am commending you

Yeah, just popped over to say thanks for dealing with all of these agenda-mongers, I didn't really understand User:GegenIsrael's rant on the DSK talkpage but by the time I had checked you had reverted it. Without going into stuff too far this is a minefield as you have Zionists, Jews by birth (whatever that means), Jews by religion, anti-Zionist Jews and Israelians and so on. I see that there seem to be a lot of what I would term "Jew-haters" who seem to obsess about categorizing people as Jewish when it is totally not notable, just because it mentions in the article that they had a Jewish ancestor. Heck, I come from a RC family, my mother wasn't religious, I was baptised, no way would I categorize myself as a Roman Catholic, but this is what a lot of editors seem to want to do.

So just to say I am totally with you on this one and that this user probably meets the criteria for username deletion as per Wikipedia:BADNAME, as they blatantly state on their userpage that the name means "anti-Israel" and their stated purpose "foutre la merde" if you read French, sorry but I recently got reprimanded for saying a sub-stub article was "written by a chimpanzee" and was then accused of BITE, NPA and so on. Some people have no sense of humour. CaptainScreebo ^Parley! 23:18, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

Just to add that I see from the above #Ethno-tagging discussion that you know what I'm talking about. CaptainScreebo ^Parley! 23:26, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

Yes, it is a mess - we have 'Jewish ethno-taggers' and 'antisemitic ethno-taggers' all acting at once, and it sometimes becomes difficult to determine who is who. If it wasn't so tragic, it would be hilarious. AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:32, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

I asked User:ErrantX if they consider that username blockable. In my opinion, it is disruptive at the least. Drmies (talk) 23:40, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

I am... asking you what the heck all this was about...

Greetings Grumpy one. I read through most of that discussion about the IMF's guy's Judaism. How did all that start exactly? I still don't get it. I also don't see why it's big deal. You're born Jewish as an ethnicity, but it doesn't mean jack about your religion (you could be a Protestant and still be a Jew), and it's definitely not a nationality. Why was all that crap necessary exactly? Also, GegenIsrael does indeed mean Against Israel, in German (I should hope that fellow is not German himself as such behaviour is shameful). Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie | Say Shalom! 02:13, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

What is it all about? I think it would need a doctoral thesis to scratch the surface of that question. The short answer is that we are 'advanced' primates, and we tend to resolve political disputes by making a lot of noise, waving our arms around, and throwing shit. With regard to this particular topic, personally, I've never met 'a Jew', though I know plenty of people who are 'Jew-ish'. Sticking labels on people is simpler than thinking... AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:25, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

Sounds like day to day internetz behaviour. At least the two main wikicrusaders are now banned. Ah yes, labelling theory; learned about that in Anthro. Of course most people prefer using labels to save time {it's also hard to describe things without them). That's why whereas we have a sorta clear definition of who's a Jew (typically someone with a Jewish mother), we've got all sorts of labels for different kinds, secular Jew, Reform Jew, Reconstructionist Jew, Conservative Jew, Orthodox Jew, Haredi Jew, chasidic, ashkenazi, sephardi, mizrahi, good Jew, bad Jew, etc, some are religion based, some are part of the subethnic groups. It's wonderfully confusing you see and you must be a certified Jewish mother to understand them. =p Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie | Say Shalom! 02:37, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

Yep, anthropology helps (sort of). I've not got the Jewish mother (or at least, not as far as either of us are aware, but when you allow for the 'Jewish by mDNA factor, who knows?), but I have got the social science degree - and 'some of my best friends are...'. Well, you get the picture. I rather walked into this debate by accident, having got more involved over ethno-tagging initially via a debate over the (now renamed) 'White Argentine' article. At least there the debate was only apparently about one sort of 'whiteness', even if nobody could agree what it was, how much of it you needed to be one, and whether it mattered whether you thought you were 'white' yourself. A much simpler topic... AndyTheGrump (talk) 10:04, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

DSK and obsessive editors

Hi, I saw that you are still around and have just replied to Mr.Grantevans2 here, I wrote a fairly detailed explanation that I put on the talk page, at the top, so hopefully it catches people's attention, and while I was doing so this user put the information that he is obsessing about back.

So I rolled back (again) and this time left them a message asking them to stop and read the WP:NOTNEWS entry that I posted on the talk page. I am not interested in getting into a revert war, I'm off to bed soon so could you keep an eye and eventually warn them if they insist on putrting this info back. I warned them that this would end up at BLPN if they continue.

I also removed the list of charges as I do not see why such a detailed list of the allegations is necessary, oh and someone French added a whole bunch of badly-written stuff about the consequences of the case for his political career which I removed too.

Incredible how a BLP can turn into such a free-for-all! Oh, and would you give me your feedback on the talkpage entry that I posted at the top - is it faithful to the spirit of what BLPs should and should not contain? CaptainScreebo ^Parley! 04:10, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

Chris Lee

Well you now... he commited suicide and he is now dead in my hands. --194.219.11.88 (talk) 00:44, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

Andrea Rossi's E-Cat

You deleted my section "How it Works" for the Rossi Energy Catalyzer as WP:RS.

I am not a regular on Wikipedia, nor am I a die-hard believer in Rossi. I am a simple systems engineer with a bit of quantum physics courses under my belt, who is skeptical but interested. I just think that the current wiki article leaves much to be desired in describing the proposed mechanism. "How it Works" was indeed a poor choice of words, but I was trying to get something up for expediency sake. I understand that it may NOT work, but the theory of how it MAY work (if it does) is quite germane to the article. I am out-of-the country on business, working long hours, and figured that the relevancy of the data preempted the style.

I do take umbrage with your claim of "reliable source", though. - For who better to describe how the E-Cat "works" then its inventor? Not to be pedantic, but if this were an article of an fictional land of leprechauns invented in an author's novel, would the author's own description of that land not be relevant?

This is an article on the E-Cat, not cold fusion, but a specific device. Regardless of your beliefs in its merits, its inventor should indeed be a reliable source. The entry should have merely stressed that it is the inventor's understanding of the processes that may be at play, and not confirmed science.

Again, I am new to this Wikipedia thing, but I may have to roll up my sleeves and get involved. This could get interesting. Thank you for your time, and please consider the relevance of the formulae in question. 89.211.58.141 (talk) 11:23, 26 May 2011 (UTC) R. Williams

Hi, Welcome to Wikipedia.

Firstly, the best place for discussions about the content of an article is the article's talk page. Discussing it here isn't helpful, as others may also wish to comment. Secondly, it is a normal part of the editing process to delete 'bold' edits, if they are seen as controversial: indeed, it is usually the way major changes to articles tend to occur - see WP:BRD - and to try to shortcut this with comments in an edit summary ("This information is critical to inderstanding the process - please update / clean up, but don't remove") is not entirely respectful to the rights of other contributors. If you wish to debate this, it will be better to do so in the appropriate place and manner - in the mean time, I'll look into this matter further, though I'll point out now that your new section was almost entirely an unattributed straight copy-and-paste from Rossi's 'Journal', and as such breaches WP:PLAGIARISM, as well as being a possible copyright violation - and where copyright is an issue, Wikipedia has strict policies.

I suspect if I'd known you were new to Wikipedia editing, I'd have been a little more expansive in my edit summary, and for that I apologise - with several anonymous IP editors involved, it is difficult to tell. I'd suggest that if you wish to contribute regularly, you register with a user name - it tends to make communication a lot easier. Also, you've chosen a rather controversial topic to get involved in, and there has already been considerable debate about article content. I'd recommend looking at the article talk page to see why attempts to broaden the scope of the article or to push it in a particular direction have led to discord. Editing wikipedia is a cooperative effort, and though articles like this aren't perhaps the best examples of the process at work, we can still reach a compromise - but only through discussion in the proper place. AndyTheGrump (talk) 12:07, 26 May 2011 (UTC)