User talk:AndyTheGrump

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

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

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

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

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

Good faith

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

Poisoning the well

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

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

ANI

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

List of deprogrammers

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

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

Arbitration

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

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

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

The Ecologist

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

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

Nomination of Cathisophobia for deletion

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

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

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Srleffler (talk) 21:11, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

Arbcom evidence

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

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

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

Lia Olguța Vasilescu

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

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

William Shurtleff

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

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

Semi-protected

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

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

RM notification

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

MMS

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

leave this to you

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

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

Yet another flaming bag of

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

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

we don't need 4 almost identical images

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

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

Hispanics ?

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

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

Poor Sources

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

See this

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

Regarding our new mutual acquaintance at Talk:Illuminati

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

Gravitation Relativity Cosmology

What is happening with the topic ?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Calling an IP editor "a moron"

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

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

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

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

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

Penguins, etc.

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

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

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

neutral RfC notification

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

So..

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

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

Notice

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

Hello regarding your revert of my recent change

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

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

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

Max Gerson

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

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

Sangram Singh

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

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

Sangram Singh continued

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

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

RE: User:Scalhotrod

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

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

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

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

Talk:Jimbo Wales

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

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

Sanjay Singh - help, please

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

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

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

Thanks

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

The 'Reliable Sources' give no information.

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

Your comment...

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

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

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

Notice of Neutral point of view noticeboard discussion

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

Platforms

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

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

Notify ppl, mkay?

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

Non-standard cosmologies and tired light

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

Would you have any suggestions?

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

Venustar84

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

Neutral notification

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

You shouldn't have reverted my edit

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

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

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

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

Routine notification

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

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

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

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

You've got mail

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

Tendentious Editing at No-go area

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

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

Martin McGuinness

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

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

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

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

Reported UnifiedBalance, mentioned you

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

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

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

A barnstar for you!

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

Baconlr2002

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

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

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

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

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

Steven Emerson

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