User talk:AndyTheGrump
Regarding retiring...
...I was about to ask what happened, and then I looked at your contributions and saw this. I hope you return, since Wikipedia is better with you here. But we both know how stressful and unrewarding this site can be. Either way, I wish you well. Flyer22 (talk) 08:00, 20 September 2015 (UTC)
- C'mon Andy there's no way you're really retiring. Also the template has become a joke, owing to its common deployment by editors who return soon afterwards. I assume you're above that, so how about replacing it with the Wikibreak template, which is surely nearer the truth? Anyhoo, I look forward to seeing you back again. Writegeist (talk) 18:06, 20 September 2015 (UTC)
- Well if he's blaming me, fine. I had nothing to do with the situation. He asked a question and I answered it. Being pissed off isn't a good enough reason to retire. Being discussed in general is not a good enough reason to retire. Being frustrated with the outcome of a DRN is no reason to retire. I gave the exact procedure as it was spelled out to lodge a formal complaint about the editor he had an issue with but if Andy is going to simply accuse others of complicity whenever someone replies, he might need time to cool off. I do suggest re-filing the DRN if he is not happy with the outcome of the last filing as clearly there is reason spelled out in the instructions. Guy had previously had a connection to the article by having made a handful of edits he had forgotten about. That is enough to ask for any determination to be set aside for new mediation. And yes...Wikipedia is better with Andy here, not retired.--Mark Miller (talk) 23:44, 20 September 2015 (UTC)
- For the record, had AndyTheGrump simply asked me to withdraw from the case and turn it over to another DRN volunteer (either on my talk page or the DRN talk page) I most likely would have recused myself -- the workload is light this week and there are multiple volunteers who can do just as good a job as I can or better. Instead he asked for specific restrictions on what I or anyone replacing me could do while mediating a DRN case.
I see no reason for [redacted] to single out Mark Miller out of the nine people who opposed AndyTheGrump's request (zero supporters so far). Instead he should have named the person AndyTheGrump named two minutes before posting the retirement template--Guy Macon (talk) 01:21, 21 September 2015 (UTC)
- For the record, had AndyTheGrump simply asked me to withdraw from the case and turn it over to another DRN volunteer (either on my talk page or the DRN talk page) I most likely would have recused myself -- the workload is light this week and there are multiple volunteers who can do just as good a job as I can or better. Instead he asked for specific restrictions on what I or anyone replacing me could do while mediating a DRN case.
- Guy Macon, I just saw your response and I'm returning to state that I was singling out no one. When I stated that I was about to ask what happened and then I saw this matter, I was speaking of the situation, including the edit summary. You know, the edit summary that was very clear that he'd be leaving? It was the last edit summary he made before slapping the retired tag on his talk page and user page. It was the edit summary that made it clear to me, when looking at his contributions to see why he'd left, that it was the edit that held the answer. And clicking on that edit gave me insight into why he'd left. I was not implying that anyone was at fault by pointing to that edit summary/diff link. Flyer22 (talk) 21:50, 5 October 2015 (UTC)
- That's how I interpreted this post as well. I didn't perceive your comment as anything other than pointing out what Andy said for the convenience of those reading this page.
- As for what Andy said about the DRN case I was mediating (and which he complained about to the other DRN volunteers and was told that I wasn't doing anything wrong), what he missed in his desire to start a war with me was that a DRN volunteer mediator often seems sympathetic to someone who really isn't following policy, for the very simple reason that a successful resolution of the case often happens when that person realizes for himself that [A] he is violating Wikipedia policy, and [B] the policy in question is a good policy that was put there for a good reason. This can take some time, and often involves asking some gentle questions, but if it works we can turn a difficult editor into a productive editor. Andy clearly wanted me to give an ANI style warning, but that isn't what DRN is about. ANI is staffed by administrators with the power to block and thus any warning they give you have teeth. DRN volunteer mediators purposely have zero power or authority. We either persuade the editors who are disputing to agree or the case fails. It is sad that Andy decided to leave Wikipedia because DRN isn't being run the way he wants it to be run instead of simply withdrawing from the case and unwatching the page. --Guy Macon (talk) 04:13, 6 October 2015 (UTC)
- And he spoke of you in that edit anyway; so I don't see why you'd think I was singling out Mark Miller. Flyer22 (talk) 21:54, 5 October 2015 (UTC)
- (Goes back and looks at the previous comment) Oh dear. I named the wrong person entirely. I have
struckmy comment and redacted the name I mentioned. I am sorry and I apologize. Please forgive me for making such an error. --Guy Macon (talk) 04:13, 6 October 2015 (UTC)
- (Goes back and looks at the previous comment) Oh dear. I named the wrong person entirely. I have
- Maybe just give him some space.(Littleolive oil (talk) 02:41, 21 September 2015 (UTC))
- For the record, the Grump made some excellent points at the RfC and if it wasn't snow-closed already I'd have registered support. Writegeist (talk) 21:26, 22 September 2015 (UTC)
- Might I suggest that you go to the DRN talk page and make a proposal detailing how you think we should do things differently? The DRN volunteers are pretty open to trying new things and rethinking how to resolve disputes. --Guy Macon (talk) 04:13, 6 October 2015 (UTC)
- I like a lot of the edits but the tone is often curt and dismissive and not as helpful to the collaborative spirit. I did like the recent rejection of a historical revisionism attempt at Armenian genocide and considered barnstarring ATG but the truth is that the abrasiveness cancels the intellectual chops. I hope to see the emphasis on accuracy for which ATG is known but please please not so bitey. Please don't bite anybody newbie or not. But yeah, stay around and make suggestions with the understanding that obstinacy is not the same thing as conviction to principle and be mindful of the effect your curt posts have on other human beings. AccountInCompliance (talk) 20:24, 1 October 2015 (UTC)
Fuck!
Fuck. Bishonen | talk 19:40, 20 September 2015 (UTC).
- I'll second that. One of the bluntest, most abrassive and most uncompromsing editors I have ever seen. But always for the good of the encyclopedia. I do hope you will reconsider. Martinevans123 (talk) 09:28, 21 September 2015 (UTC)
- I don't know what to say. Perhaps after six monthe R+R Andy will return, who knows. I do hope so though. -Roxy the dog™ (Resonate) 10:55, 22 September 2015 (UTC)
- Yes, indeed. I hear that Finland can be very nice at this time of year. Martinevans123 (talk) 12:08, 22 September 2015 (UTC)
- I don't know what to say. Perhaps after six monthe R+R Andy will return, who knows. I do hope so though. -Roxy the dog™ (Resonate) 10:55, 22 September 2015 (UTC)
- I had the exact same reaction. I hope what you need is a well deserved break and not a total break, but these are personal decisions. I have always considered your contributions worthwhile and important. I just hope they aren't over. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 15:21, 23 September 2015 (UTC)
- I second the sentiments of my esteemed colleague Dennis Brown. I hope you will be back in a few weeks or a few months, having re-focused, rested, re-evaluated the place of Wikipedia in one's life, and then decided to go back in ant take another look. Until then, the place won't be the same without you. --John (talk) 22:17, 5 October 2015 (UTC)
- If you have gone for good, can I have the name? 8-)
- Please don't go. The tsunami of woo-woo needs anyone and everyone who can wield a baler. Your efforts in that were much appreciated. Andy Dingley (talk) 09:40, 6 October 2015 (UTC)
- '
One ofthe bluntest, most abrasive and most uncompromsing editors I have ever seen. But always for the good of the encyclopedia. I wish you well whatever you decide. A pleasure to have known you, albeit briefly ! Pincrete (talk) 21:08, 6 October 2015 (UTC)
Sorry to see you go
Hi AndyTheGrump. I am sorry to see you leave Wikipedia. Thank you for your five years of contributions while a Wikipedian. I wish you all the best.
Richard27182 (talk) 08:52, 21 September 2015 (UTC)
- I second that. Reminds me never to go to DRN... Ssscienccce (talk) 02:09, 29 September 2015 (UTC)
Genetically modified organisms arbitration case opened
You may opt-out of future notification regarding this case at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Genetically modified organisms/Notification list. You recently offered a statement in a request for arbitration. The Arbitration Committee has accepted that request for arbitration and an arbitration case has been opened at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Genetically modified organisms. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Genetically modified organisms/Evidence. Please add your evidence by October 12, 2015, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Genetically modified organisms/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 20:56, 28 September 2015 (UTC) on behalf of L235 (t / c / ping in reply) 20:56, 28 September 2015 (UTC)
Andy the Grump doing great work holding the line at Armenian genocide who will take up the slack????
|
The Barnstar of Diligence | |
| For policing the article on the Armenian genocide and resistance to historical revisionism on that topic. AccountInCompliance (talk) 20:33, 1 October 2015 (UTC) |
Arbitration temporary injunction for the Genetically modified organisms arbitration case
You are receiving this message because you are on the notification list for this case. You may opt-out at any time The Arbitration Committee has enacted the following temporary injunction, to expire at the closure of the Genetically modified organisms arbitration case:
- Standard discretionary sanctions are authorised for all pages relating to to genetically modified organisms and agricultural biotechnology, including glyphosate, broadly interpreted, for as long as this arbitration case remains open. Any uninvolved administrator may levy restrictions as an arbitration enforcement action on users editing in this topic area, after an initial warning.
- Editors are prohibited from making more than one revert per page per day within the topic area found in part 1 of this injunction, subject to the usual exemptions.
For the Arbitration Committee, L235 (t / c / ping in reply) (via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 10:59, 6 October 2015 (UTC))
- Discuss this at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard#Arbitration temporary injunction for the Genetically modified organisms arbitration case
Continued Anti-Semitic concern trolling by User:Mrandrewnohome at the Reference Desks
I haven't mentioned you directly, but you appear on the user's talk page regarding this matter' see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Continued_Anti-Semitic_concern_trolling_by_User:Mrandrewnohome_at_the_Reference_Desks. μηδείς (talk) 02:08, 5 November 2015 (UTC)
Genetically modified organisms arbitration proposed decision posted
Hi AndyTheGrump. A proposed decision has been posted for the Genetically modified organisms arbitration case, for which you are on the notification list. Comments about the proposed decision are welcome at the proposed decision talk page. Thank you. For the Arbitration Committee, L235 (t / c / ping in reply) via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:05, 12 November 2015 (UTC)
Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 14:27, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
Happy Christmas!
|
Happy Christmas! | |
| Have a happy holiday season. May the year ahead be productive and happy. John (talk) 17:44, 24 December 2015 (UTC) |
Fuck2
I was just about to cite you as an example of "ways to survive Wikipedia" and I see you've been ground down. Fuuuuuuuuck. Please come back: it probably won't be fun, but believe me: you've done some good; and you can do some more. Alexbrn (talk) 21:17, 31 December 2015 (UTC)
Happy New Year, AndyTheGrump!
AndyTheGrump,
Have a prosperous, productive and enjoyable New Year, and thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia. Liz Read! Talk! 23:44, 31 December 2015 (UTC)
- Send New Year cheer by adding {{subst:Happy New Year fireworks}} to user talk pages.
A kitten for you!
Come back soon. This kitten will protect your talkpage.
The Quixotic Potato (talk) 12:25, 12 June 2016 (UTC)
Neat
You had a cool userpage before you switched it all to "retired". NoToleranceForIntolerance (talk) 21:12, 8 August 2016 (UTC)
Hi Andy. I am notifying all the participants in the previous AfD for this article that it has recently been re-created and has been nominated for deletion again. The new discussion is at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Callum James Greens (2nd nomination). Voceditenore (talk) 06:04, 6 September 2016 (UTC)
Miss ya dude
Miss ya, grumpiness and all,
Scott P. (talk) 23:43, 16 September 2017 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Keith_Larson Only in death does duty end (talk) 15:45, 12 June 2018 (UTC)
Some baklava for you!
|
Just a general thanks. Ebyabe (talk) 00:52, 30 July 2018 (UTC) |
Cold one
|
An incisive analysis. Cheers, ——SerialNumber54129 16:31, 2 July 2019 (UTC) |
Well, look at you!
Hey! Great to see you after all this time! Bishonen | talk 17:30, 2 July 2019 (UTC).
- +1! Will we see you in mainspace too? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 12:15, 3 July 2019 (UTC)
- Unlikely, given that the current custard-pie-fights are symptomatic of the very issues that led to me leaving in the first place. The simple fact is that 'anyone can edit' is incompatible with anything aspiring to be an encyclopaedia, and that this incompatibility is at the very root of most of Wikipedia's problems (well, that and the fact that it is being written by human beings, not rainbow-coloured equines, and accordingly reflects all the usual stuff that us relatively-unhairy apes bring as baggage). The WMF seems to want a social media platform, quite possibly because it will get more shiny stuff that way. Some of the contributors though (including me when I was one) take the 'encyclopaedia' thing seriously, as an aspiration if not necessarily always a reality, and understand that to achieve that, one has on occasion to be not-so-nice. It isn't pleasant to be told you lack the necessary attributes to usefully contribute to something that claims that 'anyone' can participate in. Or to be told that your contributions, regardless of your personal opinion concerning their benefits to the human race, aren't compatible with an encyclopaedia intended to summarise existing knowledge, rather than fix the worlds problems through whatever magic potion, deity or perpetual-motion-machine you are promoting. And it isn't nice to be told that you are batshit crazy, that nobody can even understand whatever the heck it is you are trying to say, and that Wikipedia is not a platform to explain to the world that the Earth is a seven-dimensional torus, that the number fourteen doesn't exist, and that the CIA is run by a cabal of Gerbils from Theta Muscae. It isn't even very nice to be told that while you are clearly capable of contributing to an online encyclopaedia, it needs to be one written in a language you can write in comprehensibly. And to be an encyclopaedia, or attempt to be, Wikipedia has to say all those not-nice things. Or rather, those creating and maintaining it do. The 'good faith' that the WMF seems to think is sufficient grounds to permit participation isn't enough. Competence is required. And so is at least a basic understanding of the objective of the encyclopaedia, and an understanding that this objective applies regardless of your enthusiasm for boosting your favourite football team, your granfalloon, or your employer's new brand of anti-ageing cream. An while I wouldn't necessarily always hold myself up as an ideal model for how to do it, aspiring contributors often need to be told this. Sometimes repeatedly. And in the end rudely. Accompanied by a block that tells them that as far as Wikipedia is concerned they are outlaws, and will be metaphorically shot on sight if they are seen in town again. You can have an encyclopaedia (or an attempt at one), or you can aspire to universal niceness. You can't do both. And as long as the pretence that fluffy-bunny-pedia is ever going to work is kept up, you are going to have the same problems. The only solution, in my opinion, is for Wikipedia contributors to tell the WMF that they aren't interesting in running Facebook-for-nerds-and-anime-fans, that slogans asserting what 'anyone' can do aren't compatible with summarising useful knowledge, and that from now on the contributors are going to make it clear from the start that participation in the project is conditional on agreeing to work within the stated objectives of the project, and conditional on being able to demonstrate the capabilities required to do so. Get that straight, drop the 'anyone' pretence that only leads to inevitable 'except you's, and maybe Wikipedia will make some progress. Or failing that, at least have more time to sort out the important things like the proper use of em-dashes and the correct word to use to entitle an article on an expensive hydrocarbon fluid used in personal transportation. AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:00, 3 July 2019 (UTC)
- Your eloquence is missed. Johnuniq (talk) 01:52, 4 July 2019 (UTC)
- Unlikely, given that the current custard-pie-fights are symptomatic of the very issues that led to me leaving in the first place. The simple fact is that 'anyone can edit' is incompatible with anything aspiring to be an encyclopaedia, and that this incompatibility is at the very root of most of Wikipedia's problems (well, that and the fact that it is being written by human beings, not rainbow-coloured equines, and accordingly reflects all the usual stuff that us relatively-unhairy apes bring as baggage). The WMF seems to want a social media platform, quite possibly because it will get more shiny stuff that way. Some of the contributors though (including me when I was one) take the 'encyclopaedia' thing seriously, as an aspiration if not necessarily always a reality, and understand that to achieve that, one has on occasion to be not-so-nice. It isn't pleasant to be told you lack the necessary attributes to usefully contribute to something that claims that 'anyone' can participate in. Or to be told that your contributions, regardless of your personal opinion concerning their benefits to the human race, aren't compatible with an encyclopaedia intended to summarise existing knowledge, rather than fix the worlds problems through whatever magic potion, deity or perpetual-motion-machine you are promoting. And it isn't nice to be told that you are batshit crazy, that nobody can even understand whatever the heck it is you are trying to say, and that Wikipedia is not a platform to explain to the world that the Earth is a seven-dimensional torus, that the number fourteen doesn't exist, and that the CIA is run by a cabal of Gerbils from Theta Muscae. It isn't even very nice to be told that while you are clearly capable of contributing to an online encyclopaedia, it needs to be one written in a language you can write in comprehensibly. And to be an encyclopaedia, or attempt to be, Wikipedia has to say all those not-nice things. Or rather, those creating and maintaining it do. The 'good faith' that the WMF seems to think is sufficient grounds to permit participation isn't enough. Competence is required. And so is at least a basic understanding of the objective of the encyclopaedia, and an understanding that this objective applies regardless of your enthusiasm for boosting your favourite football team, your granfalloon, or your employer's new brand of anti-ageing cream. An while I wouldn't necessarily always hold myself up as an ideal model for how to do it, aspiring contributors often need to be told this. Sometimes repeatedly. And in the end rudely. Accompanied by a block that tells them that as far as Wikipedia is concerned they are outlaws, and will be metaphorically shot on sight if they are seen in town again. You can have an encyclopaedia (or an attempt at one), or you can aspire to universal niceness. You can't do both. And as long as the pretence that fluffy-bunny-pedia is ever going to work is kept up, you are going to have the same problems. The only solution, in my opinion, is for Wikipedia contributors to tell the WMF that they aren't interesting in running Facebook-for-nerds-and-anime-fans, that slogans asserting what 'anyone' can do aren't compatible with summarising useful knowledge, and that from now on the contributors are going to make it clear from the start that participation in the project is conditional on agreeing to work within the stated objectives of the project, and conditional on being able to demonstrate the capabilities required to do so. Get that straight, drop the 'anyone' pretence that only leads to inevitable 'except you's, and maybe Wikipedia will make some progress. Or failing that, at least have more time to sort out the important things like the proper use of em-dashes and the correct word to use to entitle an article on an expensive hydrocarbon fluid used in personal transportation. AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:00, 3 July 2019 (UTC)
- Good to see you. I was just thinking about you the other day; it was after I posted my "21:13, 1 July 2019 (UTC)" commentary in a talk page discussion. It's because you were involved in the archived discussion I pointed to. After that post, I looked at your contributions and came to your talk page. And now you are here not too long afterward. Take care. Would be great to have you back. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 14:28, 4 July 2019 (UTC)
- I am sorry you feel the Wikipedia Community has not been so nice to you. Sometimes things can feel unpleasant, but everyone is trying to help you. You may feel like the community is calling you batshit crazy, but we are just trying to help you make your contributions compatible with an encyclopedia. Increasing reader clarity and comprehension of what you write is not intended as a personal attack. Yes we have to say these things, but consider taking them constructively and feel free to return.--108.56.202.118 (talk) 15:19, 29 September 2019 (UTC)
I'm Sorry
I'm Sorry I got mad at you over Alger Hiss.