User talk:AndyTheGrump/Archive/2015-2021

'''Note: this archive begins in September 2015, and contains material up to the end of 2021. During much of this period however, I did very little editing.'''

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)


 * 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 struck my 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)


 * 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 &#124; 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 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&cent; 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 of the 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 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 Arbitration/Requests/Case/Genetically modified organisms. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at 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, Arbitration/Requests/Case/Genetically modified organisms/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see 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)

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: For the Arbitration Committee, L235 (t / c / ping in reply ) (via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 10:59, 6 October 2015 (UTC))
 * 1) 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.
 * 2) 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.
 * Discuss this at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard

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)

ArbCom elections are now open!
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)

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!


Happy New Year! 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)

Callum James Greens AfD
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 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)

Keith Larson
Articles_for_deletion/Keith_Larson Only in death does duty end (talk) 15:45, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

Well, look at you!
Hey! Great to see you after all this time! Bishonen &#124; 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)


 * 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)
 * What the..? Few people write as clearly as AndyTheGrump. Might this wildly irrelevant comment have been copied from something somebody told you, IP? What account were you using at the time? Bishonen &#124; talk 16:09, 29 September 2019 (UTC).

Just noticed that you posted some comments a week or so ago, Andy, and thought I'd say "Hi". I hope you think about more frequent editing. I was away for a year when I had cancer and when I returned, I was surprised to see some familiar faces had left (or resigned or been blocked), there were many new editors who were active who I didn't know and there were definitely some changes here in the atmosphere. I think you don't notice how the environment changes over time when you edit every day. You might find a different climate here than in 2015 when you left. Any way, welcome back! Liz Read! Talk! 23:25, 8 February 2020 (UTC)

I'm Sorry
I'm Sorry I got mad at you over Alger Hiss.

CJK (talk) 22:17, 10 September 2019 (UTC)

A survey to improve the community consultation outreach process
Hello!

The Wikimedia Foundation is seeking to improve the community consultation outreach process for Foundation policies, and we are interested in why you didn't participate in a recent consultation that followed a community discussion you’ve been part of.

Please fill out this short survey to help us improve our community consultation process for the future. It should only take about three minutes.

The privacy policy for this survey is here. This survey is a one-off request from us related to this unique topic.

Thank you for your participation, Kbrown (WMF) 10:44, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

Nomination of List of Spanish flu cases for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article List of Spanish flu cases 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 Articles for deletion/List of Spanish flu cases until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, 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. John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:03, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

Hello!
Lovely to see you on Wikipedia, Andy. Bishonen &#124; tålk 17:44, 21 March 2020 (UTC).


 * Just passing through, so to speak. No intention of becoming a regular again. AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:38, 3 April 2020 (UTC)
 * I can't really blame you. Best of luck. Bishonen &#124; tålk 20:44, 3 April 2020 (UTC).

Thanks
I understand that you may only be here for a limited time, but I want to thank you for your recent comments about the Tenebrae fiasco. Cullen328  Let's discuss it  23:44, 23 March 2021 (UTC)


 * Nice to be appreciated. Seems to happen more when I'm only here occasionally. Wink.png


 * Seriously though, I've been following this for some time (as a Wikipediocracy regular, though one not involved in the initial blog and the related Daily Dot piece), and had only held off from commenting earlier as I wanted to see how ArbCom were going to handle it. To my mind, it highlights much broader concerns over the disconnect between CoI editing, biographical content, and Wikipedia 'outing' policies, which I have a vague hope might possibly be looked into as a result of the 'fiasco' - though I'm not going to get my hopes up too much over this. Frankly, I think that such matters might be better taken on here by those now contributing more regularly, and my criticisms directed instead from outside, where a little more openness, and dare I say it less concern for 'civility' (never my strong point) will probably make my efforts more worthwhile. For several reasons, my tolerance for hypocrisy and general BS is even lower at the moment than it usually is, and I suspect that were I to tarry too long, I'd outstay my welcome. AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:06, 24 March 2021 (UTC)
 * That may all be true, but still, you are doing excellent work here now, and I for one appreciate it. Cullen328  Let's discuss it  18:18, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

um
first of all,

i don't know where you get the idea 'deranged'. it's the truth.

throughout this website, it seems the writers have shown their clear favouritism for a methodology that isn't even real mathematics.

for example, and this is what i said in my RfC before you removed it without basis: throughout this site the writers have referred to SR/GR using 'inertial reference frames'.

this is simply not the case. if the laws of physics are unchanged in any frame of reference, then it shouldn't matter whether it is global or local.

indeed, and this is what i said in my post, the Riemann surface clearly accounts for this phenomenon. it says something may look different locally than it does globally, but in no way does that mean the algebraic relationship at the local level *changes* at the global level.

yet, in SR/GR, this is precisely what is happening. a global perspective results in a completely different algebraic (and topological, if we want to believe it's adherent to geometrical axioms) representation.

and you have some nerve, to revert my RfC. are you even an admin? stay retired.

thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.53.108.48 (talk) 17:36, 14 June 2021 (UTC)


 * I should probably explain that my level of mathematics goes about as far as trigonometry. Preferably done on a piece of paper, with a compass and ruler just so I can check I've not misremembered the cosine law. Or more likely misread it when I looked it up, since I can't remember it anyway.


 * I reverted the post not because of anything you said about Riemann surfaces (whatever they are) but because, having seen a new 'request for comment added to the list at Requests for comment/Maths, science, and technology with missing text to explain what the subject was, I looked at your post, and saw something that started with 'its obvious..' and went downhill from there, to the point of apparently threatening to beat up (pseudo-)mathematicians who disagreed with you. As I said on your talk page, that isn't how an RfC is supposed to be conducted, and thus isn't likely to achieve anything useful. At least not unless the 'something useful' was you letting off steam.


 * As for your question no, I'm not an admin. And as for the advice, I should probably take it, since this project tends to bring about similar frustrations in me too. I do generally try to be a little more subtle in my rants. Skilled ranting can often be disguised as civil discourse, and only appreciated for what it is long after the event, when it is too late for the ranted-against to complain. I'd put more work into the subtlety, if I were you... AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:09, 14 June 2021 (UTC)


 * physicists lost any right to 'subtlety', 'manners', 'decency' and 'courtesy' a while ago if you ask me. i feel bad for my peers in mathematics because they act in the exact way you're recommending i should.
 * they're too timid and nice. when the physicist comes and cherry picks whatever s/he wants from the field, the mathematician says "oh don't worry, it's not proper math so it won't go that far"
 * in many ways they're right. physics is not using the math properly otherwise we'd call it mathematics and not physics. it's not the truth.


 * you should see when a physicist tries to do Group theory. it's hilarious. or when they excuse the lack of a proper integral theory for the alleged differential geometry they employ in their field.

it's time to fight. if we don't stand up for our discipline, we're going to get run over. the physicists are already highjacking the field of differential geometry, and it's going to get worse.

i appreciate your kindness, but do not worry about me. thank you 198.53.108.48 (talk) 18:23, 14 June 2021 (UTC)


 * If it's come to a fight, you should probably read this. Mathematicians may be at an advantage: "Before doing battle, one calculates in the temple and will win, because many calculations were made; before doing battle, one calculates in the temple but will lose, because few calculations were made." Them evil physicists don't stand a chance... AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:48, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

Thanks
Greetings,

Thanks for your positive response. May be that fellow user did not have good sleep recently, in spite of all the politeness from my side the fellow kept personalizing and insinuating constantly with unrelated subjects to a level of vicious harassment, but new users can't say any thing to established old guys.

First insinuated I am against women's rights, when told my record on women's rights is impeccable searched my most edited article and blamed me I write about feminism for one specific country (My most drafts are crosschecked by some experienced users or co authored and still fellow was unnecessarily insinuating). (Actually I had included criticism of Modi in my own suggested statement on talk page, usually I do take note of all sides but fellow was not and is not ready to acknowledge my neutrality) The fellow did it to a level I got fed up. At one point the fellow apologized while apologizing too insinuated!

what I edited elsewhere had nothing to here in this case still kept bringing up  to borderline of doxing   that was the reason I did not make any detail mention.

In a big project small small things keep happening. Usually I try to ignore, forget and forgive and focus on expansion of the various articles.

Thanks and warm regards

&#32;Bookku, &#39;Encyclopedias are for expanding information and knowledge&#39; (talk) 15:54, 5 August 2021 (UTC)

I did not expect...
...the Layla Love dispute to turn into the Spanish Inquisition. Fingers crossed that the editor in question finds a non-Wikipedia forum. David notMD (talk) 13:27, 6 August 2021 (UTC)


 * Yup, utterly ridiculous. I only got involved through responding to a post by Sennagod at WP:BLPN. I've still not figured out what their agenda was, though whatever the motivation it was a spectacular series of own goals if the intent was to get the Love article deleted. Sadly, this sort of thing is the consequence of telling people that 'anyone can edit'. It's technically true (anyone with internet access can click on an edit button), but being able to contribute usefully requires several attributes that not everyone has. Like basic competence, the ability to read instructions, and the ability to understand that not everyone who disagrees with you is part of some humongous conspiracy to promote New York photographers. Not the strangest conspiracy I've been accused of being involved in, but certainly one of the silliest... AndyTheGrump (talk) 13:55, 6 August 2021 (UTC)

Hmmm
Yeah, I know that. I'm still gathering the facts for all those figures. Moreover, what concerns figures with the fact that you erased the part that said that the Igbos are related to Afro-Americans,etc? Nyero12 (talk) 01:27, 8 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Nyero12, please wait until you've gathered the necessary facts before making an edit, that way you can cite a source at the same time, making things easier for your fellow editors. See WP:BURDEN, "The burden to demonstrate verifiability lies with the editor who adds or restores material, and it is satisfied by providing an inline citation to a reliable source that directly supports the contribution." Meticulo (talk) 01:35, 8 August 2021 (UTC)


 * Yeah, thanks for that: we find sourced data first, and then add it to articles. As for including African-Americans etc in 'related groups', Nyero12, I think you've misunderstood the purpose of that section. Certainly many African-Americans will have some Igbo-related ancestry, but that doesn't make them a 'related ethnic group'. The 'related groups' previously listed are peoples sharing a similar cultural and linguistic heritage. One cannot include all African-Americans there because some of them share ancestors with modern Igbo people. AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:45, 8 August 2021 (UTC)

Re: The NeoTheist Experience
I have distributed "lovely parting gifts", as they say on game shows, to that user. Let me know if you want me to squash their last comment with rpa or remove it entirely. —C.Fred (talk) 18:13, 20 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Not worth worrying about, it just makes the purveyor of 'Truth' look silly in my opinion: let it stand. Thanks for asking though. AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:11, 20 August 2021 (UTC)

POV warrior
I would formulate an ANI post at this point, but have to leave for a work-related appointment. If they're still banging on about this when I get back, I'll construct one.  Acroterion   (talk)   12:30, 27 September 2021 (UTC)


 * I was thinking about doing the same thing. I'll see how it goes... AndyTheGrump (talk) 12:33, 27 September 2021 (UTC)


 * Since it's gone completely off the rails into British Intelligence, Armenian genocide and Queen Elizabeth, I've brought it up at ANI.  Acroterion   (talk)   01:59, 28 September 2021 (UTC)

IP editor on Yiddish article
Hi. Thanks for your help in promptly reverting the edits made by that Holocaust denier on the article about Yiddish. It looks like you are much more experienced with Wikipedia than me, so I was wondering, what is the process for getting this IP banned? Or, how can we raise the level of protection on the page? Thanks again, Jacoby531 (talk) 16:06, 10 October 2021 (UTC)
 * I've already reported the IP at WP:AIV. Maybe not 'vandalism' in the strictest sense, but clearly not here for the benefit of Wikipedia. Page protection should only be needed if the problem carries on with another IP. WP:RFPP is the place to request that. AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:11, 10 October 2021 (UTC)

WP:BLPPRIMARY
You need to read carefully, no “assertions” are being mad and supported by a public court records. At least read it correctly. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rrmmll22 (talk • contribs) 20:35, 30 October 2021 (UTC)


 * If the content you added wasn't supported by court records, it would be an even worse violation of WP:BLP policy. Anyway, since you have ignored my advice, I've reported the matter at WP:ANI. AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:01, 30 October 2021 (UTC)

They just don’t care. Granted the term pedophile could possibly be in conflict with the term as that could be an assertion however there were no other assertions being made and pedophile was not backed up by that original research. Idk I am off to dinner and by the time I log on to Wikipedia again will be a few days. I am not like the administrator and editor who has the most edits on here who lives with his mom and dad in his mid thirties. Says something about the people on here. I only have been on here a month or two and am loosing interest. Especially because of how inaccurate much of Wikipedia is. Granted most research organizations don’t want Wikipedia used in course work for an obvious reason. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rrmmll22 (talk • contribs) 21:15, 30 October 2021 (UTC)


 * There are very many reasons to be sceptical about much Wikipedia content. Not the least of which is that it lets people who don't understand what the word 'assertion' means edit it. Your edit asserted that the person in question had been convicted. The only source cited for this was a court record, unacceptable as a source per WP:BLPPRIMARY. If the statement that the individual had been convicted wasn't based on that source, then it was cited to absolutely nothing at all, which would also have been a violation of WP:BLP policy. AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:26, 30 October 2021 (UTC)

What we end up seeing is the article should probably be deleted all together because the news did not pick up on his conviction. There are a lot of perverts out like this guy and they are not news worthy. In a few weeks there will not be a better article to source because no one is interested in this guy. It’s just more of the fluff and junk on Wikipedia. There are so many useless articles on Wikipedia It’s ridiculous. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rrmmll22 (talk • contribs) 21:42, 30 October 2021 (UTC)


 * I am also of the opinion that there are many useless articles on Wikipedia, and have made it clear on numerous occasions that I think the notability criteria should be mode strict. Or even properly adhered to as they stand, which they often aren't. If it is true that "no one is interested in this guy", then Wikipedia shouldn't be either, which solves the problem. An encyclopaedia (or something that aspires to be one) isn't the proper place to document every crime committed. AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:04, 30 October 2021 (UTC)

I personally don’t understand why they would not want to include primary court documents. That’s a bad policy no matter how it reads. The fact is It’s been 10 days and the plea has not made the news. I don’t think the news is going to cover it at this point. Plus the guy the article is on does not even want to be on Wikipedia so I think It’s more harassment of him by those people. Especially the guy that removed what I put on, Mikehawk10 “. The subject of the article claims he is a dying man. Plus would you not rather have the whole story. It’s incomplete without knowing he has been convicted. I live in the Boston area and I don’t know of this guy. But the news tends to be current and not basically two weeks old when I watch it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rrmmll22 (talk • contribs) 01:44, 31 October 2021 (UTC)

delorean* page
I can reverse my revision but it will just reappear tomorrow but this time be complete nonsense from a raving loony calling himself ty delorean about how hes John Delorean's son, the whole reason that section was written was for people to see he isn't his actual son and John Delorean's wiki was getting vandalized each day from crazy edits trying to legitimize himself. Since that section has been added many of Ty delorean's antics have been stopped as journalists and interviewers have looked up his name. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Starbug22 (talk • contribs) 12:37, 22 November 2021 (UTC)


 * I have quite enough experience dealing with 'raving loonies' on Wikipedia to be able to handle this appropriately. Which isn't achieved by edit-warring to restore content that doesn't belong in the article in the first place. I suggest you revert, and let experience contributors deal with it. If necessary the page can be edit-protected, though that may not be needed now it has become apparent that the page is being watched.


 * As for journalists using Wikipedia as a source for their articles, that is one good reason why we try to avoid sourcing our own content to tabloids etc. Any serious journalist should know better than to take such fluff seriously, and it isn't Wikipedia's responsibility to correct the inadequacies of hacks that do. AndyTheGrump (talk) 12:50, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

MKuCR — I may not be clear and you may have misunderstood the scope of my comment
In regards to this, I collapsed it not "as a claim to authority" but simply for reading purpose — I support deletion and found your arguments persuasive, which is why I am being extra cautious in waiting for the moderator's comment, because I do not want the AfD to be closed, since it appears to be there may finally be consensus for deletion. I am not against you at all, and I hope this was clarifying. It was my bad because I may not have been clear and made it appear as if I was putting it on hold myself, when Siebert is correct that "[it] is a friendly request to suspend it", just waiting for moderator to comment, but it is not effectively put on hold and is still open now. Davide King (talk) 19:43, 22 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Fair enough. I would however suggest that using fancy collapse boxes looks like an attempt to claim some sort of special privilege in what should otherwise be a civil discussion about article content. If that wasn't the intent - I'm prepared to take your word over that - might in not be a good idea to remove the formatting so it doesn't stick out like a sore thumb, and discourage people from participating on the grounds that they think the AfD is liable to be closed without reaching any conclusion? AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:52, 22 November 2021 (UTC)
 * That certainly was not my intent, so thank you for understanding. In fact, I can agree with both yours and Levivich's comment — I just do not really want the AfD to be wasted. To be clear, it is still open and I am fine by it; maybe Siebert and I are being too diplomatic with the other side, which have shown no lack of understanding and resorted to personal attacks, but trust me — we do not want to ruin the AfD and you can consider it well open and never put in hold. If the moderator gives the green light, and the other side is unconvincing as usual, waste our time, refuse any rewrite solution, etc. — I will be more than happy to express my view in favour of deletion, though I am thinking of my comment being more a demolition of sources (e.g. Jones and Valentino) who are not even the best sources (genocide studies are a minority) but are strongly claimed to support the topic but are completely misunderstood, since both you and Levivich already convincingly addressed all the other issues.
 * I have attempted to made clear my collapsed text should not be taken as authority or as a claim for authority but is simply for readability purposes and to avoid endless discussions; consider the AfD still open, but I suggest we do not further comment and debate whether to put it in hold or not, and wait for the moderator, who may instead put on hold the DRN and be the AfD closer. Davide King (talk) 20:31, 22 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Update. Davide King (talk) 20:43, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

Thanks
Thanks for trying to stop the madness. Skeszler92 (talk) 17:27, 25 November 2021 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure that thinking I can do anything of any significance about it isn't in of itself a sign of insanity... AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:31, 25 November 2021 (UTC)

Well you can sleep better knowing you tried. Skeszler92 (talk) 17:42, 25 November 2021 (UTC)

Good faith comment
I've known (virtually) and interacted with the editor you called a male appendage for more than 12 years. I'm happy to stand corrected, but I've never known them to engage in personal attacks. No doubt that AfD is a train wreck of mind-bending proportions and there are definitely contributors there not helping matters, but bringing personal attacks to bear can only make things worse. Regards, --Goldsztajn (talk) 11:20, 28 November 2021 (UTC)
 * I could, no doubt, have said much the same thing in regard to said contributors relentless and counterproductive attempts to assert control of the AfD process, while using multiple paragraphs of convoluted and repetitive phraseology and fancy formatting to disguise what exactly it was I was saying. Sometimes though, brevity and honesty are more suited to getting the point across. See also an previous response to said contributor. AndyTheGrump (talk) 11:36, 28 November 2021 (UTC)
 * We're in heated agreement that burying the AfD with decade-long content debates is counter-productive; but so are personal attacks. Regards, --Goldsztajn (talk) 12:10, 28 November 2021 (UTC)
 * If personal attacks were inevitably counter-productive, I doubt that people would make so many of them... AndyTheGrump (talk) 12:18, 28 November 2021 (UTC)

Invitation to take part in a survey about medical topics on Wikipedia
Dear fellow editor,

I am Piotr Konieczny, a sociologist of new media at Hanyang University (and User:Piotrus on Wikipedia). I would like to better understand Wikipedia's volunteers who edit medical topics, many associated with the WikiProject Medicine, and known to create some of the highest quality content on Wikipedia. I hope that the lessons I can learn from you that I will present to the academic audience will benefit both the WikiProject Medicine (improving your understanding of yourself and helping to promote it and attract new volunteers) and the wider world of medical volunteering and academia. Open access copy of the resulting research will be made available at WikiProject's Medicine upon the completion of the project.

All questions are optional. The survey is divided into 4 parts: 1 - Brief description of yourself; 2 - Questions about your volunteering; 3 - Questions about WikiProject Medicine and 4 - Questions about Wikipedia's coverage of medical topics.

Please note that by filling out this questionnaire, you consent to participate in this research. The survey is anonymous and all personal details relevant to your experience will be kept private and will not be transferred to any third party.

I appreciate your support of this research and thank you in advance for taking the time to participate and share your experiences! If you have any questions at all, please feel free to contact me at my Wikipedia user page or through my email listed on the survey page (or by Wikipedia email this user function).

The survey is accessible through the LINK HERE.

Piotr Konieczny Associate Professor Hanyang University If you wish to opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself from the mailing list. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:24, 13 December 2021 (UTC)