User talk:Grundle2600/Archive 10

Music discussion: My 100 Favorite Albums Of All Time

My 100 Favorite Albums Of All Time. These are my 100 favorite albums of all time. This list is arranged in order of preference, starting with my #1 favorite. Grundle2600 (talk) 22:25, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Good call on http://rateyourmusic.com/artist/the_waitresses . She was very very good. PhGustaf (talk) 23:27, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. I agree - she and the rest of the band were awesome! Grundle2600 (talk) 00:09, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

All those cigarettes didn't exactly enrich her career. PhGustaf (talk) 16:29, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

I know. But she was only 40 when she died of stomach cancer. Grundle2600 (talk) 18:16, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

She was a gay lesbian, enough said..Waterjuice (talk) 06:53, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

If she was a lesbian, then yes, she was gay. But even if she was a lesbian, so what? Why would that matter to anyone other than her and her partner? Grundle2600 (talk) 12:58, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Well, 1 out of 100 at least; the pre-sellout Liz Phair. Tarc (talk) 15:11, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Whoo hoo! Grundle2600 (talk) 15:33, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Movie discussion: My 50 Favorite Movies Of All Time

My 50 Favorite Movies Of All Time. These are my 50 favorite movies of all time. This list is arranged in order of preference, starting with my #1 favorite. Grundle2600 (talk) 00:17, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

I like most of the movies on your list, and would watch them again and again (exceptions: 4 & 5 are not my cup of tea, I've never seen 6, 7, 19). I would have my list, if I made such, in a different order, and would be sure to include: Pirates of the Caribbean, Reservoir Dogs, The Day the Earth Stood Still, and Inside Man. Inserting obligatory improving the encyclopedia comment:. Perhaps someday you'll run a "Improve the movie articles" effort, like your recent donut-mania. I wonder how many of the "top 1000" movies have WP articles at all, let alone non-stubs with no tags. Happy Thanksgiving, --4wajzkd02 (talk) 19:41, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for your comments. That website is open to everyone, so you can post a list if you want to. I didn't actually start the donut-mania - I just gave permission for it to be posted in my userspace, and I made a few contributions to it. Grundle2600 (talk) 20:16, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

File:Bill Gates public domain mugshot.jpg listed for deletion

An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, File:Bill Gates public domain mugshot.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. — pd_THOR ^{| =/\=} | 07:07, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the notification. Since it's been replaced by another upload of the same image, I don't have any problem with deleting it. Grundle2600 (talk) 11:30, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Hmm

Pro gay-marriage, pro-choice, pro-healthcare reform, STAUNCHLY anti-obama? Interesting... --King Öomie 19:32, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Thank for you pointing that out. Here is my explanation: I favor a one page health care bill that lets all U.S. citizens sign up for medicaid. I oppose a 2,000 page health care bill that no one has read. I oppose raising taxes on "the rich," many of whom are small business owners who create most of the new jobs. I oppose corporate welfare and bailouts for AIG, Goldman Sachs, and General Motors. I oppose the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. I oppose Obama's appointment of dozens of czars, which violates the constitutional requirement that all Presidential appointees be approved by the Senate. I voted for Ron Paul for President. Grundle2600 (talk) 20:01, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

So you're the 1% of Americans who doesn't leech all their political opinions from whatever news channel their parents watched most during their childhood? Good to hear. It's too bad Ronny P never had a chance in hell.

In general, I don't care one way or the other in terms of parties. What drives me crazy is the misinformation being spread around by both sides (though, by the religious right in particular). This mentality that people have, not caring WHY people agree with you as long as they'll vote for you, is no good.

News outlets have two major problems, as I see it-

1. They're unable to find enough supporting evidence to sway people to their politcal position, so they make stuff up, and
2. THEY'RE TRYING TO SWAY PEOPLE TO THEIR POLITICAL POSITION AT ALL.

"Advocacy Journalism" needs to get the hell out of my country. Ratings be damned. --King Öomie 20:19, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

I don't care much for parties either. I spread my votes around among four different parties during the 2008 election - one each for Republican, Democrat, Green, and Libertarian. Even Ron Paul doesn't match my views 100%, as we disagree on abortion and universal health care. Grundle2600 (talk) 21:01, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

LifeHand

Haha. Why don't more people realize that "a long time ago" is catching up with us? Grsz¹¹ 06:30, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Heh heh. Thanks for telling me you saw that. I had a lot of fun on that one! Grundle2600 (talk) 17:12, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Great News!!!

Bacon Materializer

Unable to resist bacon's temptations, rogue editors have kicked off the Bacon Challenge 2010 before the New Year even starts! This is a fun and collegial event and all are welcome. There are many non-pork articles for editors who enjoy some sizzle, but object to or don't like messing with pig products. This year's event also includes a Bacon WikiCup 2010 for those who may want to keep score and enjoy engaging in friendly competition. Given the critical importance of this subject matter, I know you will want to participate, so remember to sign up today and get started A.S.A.P. ALL ARE WELCOME!!! The more the merrier. ChildofMidnight (talk) 22:39, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. Good luck! Grundle2600 (talk) 20:41, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Climatic Research Unit e-mail hacking incident

Please don't add utterly meaningless diagrams to Climatic Research Unit e-mail hacking incident that have nothing to do with the hacking incident whatsoever. Also, please don't use diagrams culled from a blog written by a climate change skeptic, sourced from Willis Eschenbach who is a well-known climate change denier. At least make some effort to be neutral! -- Scjessey (talk) 00:20, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Actually, The Daily Telegraph is a reliable source. Grundle2600 (talk) 00:22, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Not the opinion piece by a guest blogger who happens to be a climate change skeptic though. Use your noggin, Grundle. -- Scjessey (talk) 00:27, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Oh, come on Grundle. If an article (which is a blog) starts with:"James Delingpole is a writer, journalist and broadcaster who is right about everything. He is the author of numerous fantastically entertaining books..." you should see the red flags w/o the need of someone pointing it out to you. I usually wouldn't bother to tell you but you're doing this over and over again, not reading a news article in whole, edit and then leave it to others to "fix" it. The Artificial intelligence's article comes to my mind where I had to fix some minor but yet fundamental facts of your edit which would have not been necessary if you just would have done some simple research on your own before editing. You can do better than this.The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 01:01, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your help. I make a large number of additions to wikipedia. Most of them are never contested, but a few are. I try to do the best I can, and I appreciate your advice. Grundle2600 (talk) 01:05, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

I see you are referring to this edit where you made a few formatting changes after I added new content to Artificial Intelligence. Your formatting made my addition better, but I hadn't done anything wrong. I appreciate you making my addition to that article better. Thanks for doing it. Grundle2600 (talk) 01:10, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Well, it was a little more than formatting. Wrong country, wrong city, wrong institution. *smile* The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 01:24, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

It's good that you fixed it. But those errors weren't my fault. The source states, "*The article previously misidentified Lausanne as being in France." Grundle2600 (talk) 01:30, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

I know and I saw it at the time, yet this is why it's good to check "the rightness" of a source since in this case it contradicted itself in regards of the city. Lausanne is not Paris. But hey, don't want to ride a dead horse. It was just an example which didn't involve politics or another possible controversial subject. Cheers, The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 01:48, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

"Most of them are never contested"

I'll have to look harder then LOL! -- Scjessey (talk) 01:13, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Please do not use edit summaries to offer editorials or your opinion

Stick to the facts. It's irrelevant what Robin Williams has to say about genitals. Enigma^msg 03:35, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

It's entirely relevant. If Woods had been thinking with his brain instead of with his penis, he would not be out millions of dollars in ad revenues. Grundle2600 (talk) 03:44, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Maybe you should make sure your brain gets enough blood when editing. Gosh!The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 04:02, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

It doesn't belong in the article or in edit summaries. I really couldn't care less what Robin Williams thinks about penises. Enigma^msg 04:14, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Please keep jokes off the talk page as well. I'm sure you can find an appropriate webforum for those.--Chaser (talk) 04:30, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

I do not tell jokes. I do not even possess a sense of humor. Grundle2600 (talk) 04:36, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Relaxing

Seriously [please see edit summary[1] ]: Could it be that all your "problems" you've encountered here on Wiki are just the result of missing blood flow to a certain upper area within your human body at times?The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 18:42, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Definitely. I had thought the same thing myself. Grundle2600 (talk) 20:40, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

That is proof that you do indeed have a good sense of humor. Kudos. But think further when editing. Think about baseball/football or whatever works for you when editing. *LOL* The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 21:27, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

• But here a more serious advise I would like to give you: Just don't place jokes where they are clearly misplaced. The editors above (incl. me) that pointed it out to you where absolutely right.The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 21:35, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

• OK. I'll keep the jokes limited to my talk page and those of other consenting editors. Grundle2600 (talk) 21:48, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

• Good call and it is in your best interest to do so. You have my consent to post whatever you want on my page and even forget about wp:etiquette. I guess we both know how far we can go at least most of the time with you being the more polite one in regards of choosing words and me being at least sometimes (or maybe often? :) ) more the rough and rude one so I won't take any offense at whatever you post there. I remember that you had the courtesy to do so at one point. Hey, w/o you Wiki would be a lot less fun at least for me, honestly. As long as we agree to disagree everything is fine (Tuxedomoon, In heaven, "...you get yours, I get mine..."). Cheers, The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 22:34, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

• Thank you so much. If you ever were rude to me, I honestly don't remember it. Grundle2600 (talk) 22:40, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

• Well, I was ones (at a time...) on my talk page where I just had to vent and express my thoughts about your edits and I didn't do it behind the flower curtain. Shame on me. Anyways, I distinguish between my personal and my Wiki opinion. Have fun, try to stay out of trouble and enjoy whatever WP can give you. Best, The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 23:23, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Diane Francis article

"Hint": Start with information, not with alleged wp:or and wp:synth hypocorism.--The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 00:56, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

All of the information that I added is true and sourced. I rewrote it to address your concerns, but the info remains the same. Grundle2600 (talk) 02:48, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

I have since added several additional sources. This information has become highly notable. Grundle2600 (talk) 22:26, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Please stop trying to suppress information.

What?????????? (copy and paste post from my talkpage to keep it together) Millions of people turn to wikipedia every day for information. On websites, blogs, and message boards all over the internet, people are referring to the Diane Francis wikipedia article's claim that she has two children. The fact that you removed such information in this edit is something which should be of concern to anyone who favor wikipedia's policy of openness. It is very common for wikipedia biographies to cite the children of the article's subject. Please stop trying to remove this relevant, well sourced information from this article. Grundle2600 (talk) 22:38, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

I didn't object at all to mentioned that she has children, two of them, and I made it clear in my editsummary what I rejected by citing WP policies and even gave you advise here on your talkpage how to get started to expand this BIO. The editor after you did a way better job than you did. Did you take a look? Do you see the difference? And for gods sake, stop with your blogs as you know very well that they're not RS's especially for non-notable opinions just because they fit into your agenda. Please, take a more conservative approach when editing politic related articles (and I'm not talking about the American politics meaning of the word "conservative" as you just recently learned the difference and should know by). Best, The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 23:41, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

And BTW, if you want to become famous as you point out at your editsummary "(My wikipedia entry for this article has become famous across the internet!)" you have to do way better than this. You must be joking but good luck anyways.The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 23:41, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

I know what you meant in your edit summary. But the fact is that you did erase the info about her children. Grundle2600 (talk) 23:43, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Create a info-box or a personal section and include it with a RS. If your intent and action is sincere and in good faith nobody will reverse you. Can you do that?The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 23:52, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

The two topics (her favoring a one child policy, and her having two children of her own) are related, so they should be cited together. I even cited multiple sources that cited both topics, and pointed out her hypocrisy. Grundle2600 (talk) 23:58, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

See also my ANI comment on this --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 00:03, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Grundle, you're also treading, far from the first time, on WP:WEIGHT and WP:POINT. "Hypocrisy" is only your opinion. MCC is working hard with you to help; do some listening. PhGustaf (talk) 00:04, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

I added true, well sourced information to the article. That's a good thing, not a bad thing. Grundle2600 (talk) 00:06, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

No, you added OR, synt or with other words just your personal POV, again! The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 00:10, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

• And besides the valid points given above, When did she gave birth to her children? When did she favor a "one-child" for all besides talking about what seemed to work in China? What she did say is what I pointed out in my editsummary which you chose to ignore.The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 00:08, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

• I don't know when she gave birth to her children. Their birthdays were not cited in the source. I only added information that was cited in the source. I never add information without citing a source. Grundle2600 (talk) 00:15, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Remember when I told you to research before editing as even RS sources sometimes get it wrong? Here you got a BLP example where you should have done so in the first place to be on the save side. Neithertheless, I concur whit PhGustaf's comment below in regards of your last edit. That's how it's done (even so a better source could be found)The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 00:45, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. I think the subject's own personal blog is a highly reliable source for information about the number of children that they have - people tend not to lie about those kinds of things. Grundle2600 (talk) 00:52, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, but you cited only the bits of the blog that supported your point. Please don't do this. Oh, and you have an excellent sense of humor. Go easy with it in edit summaries, though PhGustaf (talk) 01:03, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your "small" compliment. Grundle2600 (talk) 01:09, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

• According to her blog, which you cite, her children were more than 5 and 6 in 1981. Please read your whole sources, not just the convenient parts. PhGustaf (talk) 00:23, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

• I do not know their exact birthdays. Grundle2600 (talk) 00:26, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

• Anyway, your last edit is much better than the earlier ones. You should really stop walking this same path over and over. PhGustaf (talk) 00:31, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

• You mean because I put the info about her family in the first paragraph. OK. Thanks. Grundle2600 (talk) 00:34, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

I seem to have joined the ranks of those "supprsessing information" according to your talk message. Your obsession with this looks unhealthy; please try to remain calm William M. Connolley (talk) 08:23, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

You deleted relevant, well sourced info about her immediate family - that seems a bit odd. I assure you that my obsession with truth, transparency, and openness is quite healthy. Grundle2600 (talk) 12:21, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Hypocrisy seems to be epidemic. Maybe science will develop an antidote or a vaccine against it some day. This would be far more useful than the current focus on perfecting tricks to push personal agendas while fighting disclosure and transparency. Enjoy your fame and fortune. ;) Cheers. ChildofMidnight (talk) 18:13, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks! Grundle2600 (talk) 19:16, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

DYK for Maurice Clemmons

On December 11, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Maurice Clemmons, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits your article got while on the front page (here's how) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Materialscientist (talk) 02:42, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. Grundle2600 (talk) 02:48, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

December 2009

Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute to Wikipedia, at least one of your recent edits, such as the one you made to People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals, did not appear to be constructive and has been reverted. Please use the sandbox for any test edits you would like to make, and read the welcome page to learn more about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. Thank you. You know better than that. Stop it. PhGustaf (talk) 19:46, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Vandalism? No. Not at all. Grundle2600 (talk) 20:18, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Ditto, And to add a more personal note that I was about to place:

Did you ever think of adopting an animal from a shelter or even thinking of and giving one animal in need a home? Just wondering since you love to accuse people of hypocrism. BTW, I did do so and although "he" is no longer under us as he died from natural causes some time ago, (may he rest in peace) he's still "my" beloved dog. What about you? Ever thought about adopting a dog in need? Just wondering as organizations like PETA can't do better w/o the help of volunteers willing to spare some of their time, be it by adoption, or be it just by donations. Don't answer. You and you only does know the honest answer to this. So maybe you want to take your POV out of this article and add some context to your edit before someone else has to do it. Cheers, The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 20:09, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Oh, yes. I adopted the best dog in the world. She lived for 12 years, and died of old age. I now live in an apartment that doesn't allow dogs. Grundle2600 (talk) 20:18, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Cats?The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 20:23, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

I've adopted a dog and plenty of cats, just so you know I'm sincere and not hypocritical in my comment further above.The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 20:28, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

AND you can adopt animals w/o having to provide them a home by yourself. You can do so by taking the financial burden and/or helping with providing your labor at the shelter.The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 20:34, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm not a cat person. I have donated substantial sums of money (as a percentage of my annual income) to the no-kill shelter that I got my dog from. Grundle2600 (talk) 20:40, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Good for you and the animals and the shelter. Still wondering why you're trying to one-sided "trash" PETA because of one single article. Remember my research comment? maybe you should start doing so and add a fair and balanced view into this article. Don't you think that would be a good idea?The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 20:50, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your kind words. I thought I was bringing balance to the article. Grundle2600 (talk) 20:57, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

(ec)The thing that precipitated my "vandalism" note was the "innocent doggies and kitties" line. You had to be asking for trouble with that. The Newsweek reference, useful as it might be, is not a bit for the lede, either. (I agree that PETA is largely misguided, and that dogs are superior to cats.) PhGustaf (talk) 20:53, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Oh. OK. Thanks for explaining that. Grundle2600 (talk) 20:57, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

My concern is you you seem to reverting to exactly the same editing patterns that got you topic banned. Dancing around the edges (as in the Copenhagen edits) doesn't help either. I'm sure you're capable of getting the bans expanded if you like, but that would seem pointless. PhGustaf (talk) 21:03, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

OK. Excellent point. Thanks for the warning. For now, I'll stick exclusively to the kinds of articles and edits that you people don't seem to have a problem with me editing, such as articles on animals, technology, and pop culture. I certainly enjoy working on those, and would not want to get blocked. Grundle2600 (talk) 21:06, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Sarcasms won't help you. Learning how to edit WP is the key point.The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 22:30, 12 December 2009 (UTC)