User talk:AndyTheGrump/Archives/2010/December

AfDs
Hi. As you just participated in discussions on a closely related topic (also a current AfD re a Jewish list), which may raise some of the same issues, I'm simply mentioning that the following are currently ongoing: AfDs re lists of Jewish Nobel laureates, entertainers, inventors, actors, cartoonists, and heavy metal musicians. Best.--Epeefleche (talk) 08:33, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

WikiLeaks
--Cyber cobra (talk) 00:40, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Sockpuppet investigation of Kleenezplease
You mentioned the desirability of checking out this new account that is obviously being run by a savvy user with plenty of ANI history. I took a look at WP:SPI but I'm not sure how to file a request there or even if such a hit-and-run SPA would be eligible for checkuser.betsythedevine (talk) 03:40, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Use of "race", linguistically
This is me inviting you to explain what you were on about over at Articles_for_deletion/List_of_ethnic_Chinese_Nobel_laureates. I for the life of me can't see what's wrong with suggesting that "African-American" might be loosely referred to as a "racial grouping", being the collective name for a group of races with a shared recent cultural context. Wikipedia's page on African American specifically describes them as "the second largest racial group [...] in the United States". Is it that you have a sensitivity to the term and would prefer another one? Is it that you're saying it should be confined to its narrow biological sense and shouldn't be used to include ethno-cultural groupings? Jew likewise defines that term as referring to an "ethnoreligious group", and except insofar as "race" might be a fairly loose way of approaching that concept I again can't see what the objection is. Please enlighten me, I'm genuinely intrigued. - DustFormsWords (talk) 04:09, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
 * "Is it that you're saying it should be confined to its narrow biological sense and shouldn't be used to include ethno-cultural groupings?" I would say that, but I don't actually need to: Wikipedia policy seems to say the same thing. There are many problems with the concept of 'race', but one of the more obvious ones is brought up in your comments: 'African-Americans' may share a common culture to some extent, but it is undoubtedly closer to 'White American' culture than to that of 'Black' Africa. Likewise, if one looks at descent, genetics shows clearly that many (most) 'African-Americans' have some 'White' ancestry, and a smaller proportion (but possibly larger number, given the different proportions in the US population) of 'White Americans' have some 'African' ancestry. The whole concept of 'race' is built around an idea of fixed unilateral descent, which is contrary to common sense, never mind anything else. It is an arbitrary social construct, rather than a biological reality. AndyTheGrump (talk) 04:23, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Nationality is a social construct too, but we don't really have a lot of problem in being able to say one person is American and another Canadian, and to the extent that there are gray areas we look at how people self-identify and at how the majority of reliable sources describe them. But that's an aside.  I understand your argument now.  I view it as a valid and respectable viewpoint in an ongoing debate about these issues, but not one that currently has the support of the consensus view on Wikipedia according to the relevant articles on these topics.  While I don't agree, I appreciate your taking the time to explain where you're coming from.  Thanks! - DustFormsWords (talk) 04:27, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Asking you again a consult about this redaction
I have no problem man, if you have anything that you want to get done first, I'm ok with it.

But it has passed a long time, and even I have been many days without conecting to Wikipedia. Now that I'm back, I ask you what I did the last time.

This is the last redaction I had prepared for the section we were discussing. Tell me if it's well written. I bet it is.

"The poem says that in the Kadesh battle the Hitites appeared with a force like “grashoppers”. This was conformed by the union of the vasalls peoples of the Hitite Empire, and amongst them were some of the sea peoples spoken of in the egyptian inscriptions previously mentioned, and many of the peoples who would later take part in the great migrations of the 12th century BC".

I'll try to bother you no more with this translation stuff. I've discovered other ways to solve this kind of problems, specifically the section of the spanish Village Pump that is made for consults about translations.--Nolemaikos (talk) 07:22, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

DON'T HURRY SO MUCH
1) I didn't disappear; I am just collecting more bibliography on the "argentinos blancos". As I've already said, before, it is not a term I have invented; it is mentioned in many books in both Spanish and English language.

2) Don't haste so much to erase all the people mentioned in the article. In 40 days' time I'll have in my hands a book about White Argentines and I'll restore many names you have arbitrarily erased. I said that I was in the process of buying the book, but you are so in a hurry to tear this article to pieces that you couldn't wait a little.

3) I STRONGLY OPPOSE THE MERGING OF THIS ARTICLE WITH "IMMIGRATION IN ARGENTINA". It includes data of immigration because I wanted to demonstrate where the White Argentines come from, and the magnitude of that immigratory wave, but it is neither meant to deal with Immigration topics ONLY, nor with Amerindian/Mestizo immigration from the bordering South American countries, or from anywhere else (That is is sufficiently dealt with in that article).--Pablozeta (talk) 14:40, 3 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Pablozeta, I think you misunderstand how Wikipedia works. If something is clearly wrong, or in breach of policy, it can be erased immediately. As a matter of courtesy, if the problem is simply lack of a proper source citation, it may be sensible to allow a reasonable amount of time for this to be corrected, but this isn't a requirement, and in any case is only applicable where the problem is with sourcing and doesn't also involve breach of policy. Since the unsourced caregorisation of large numbers of living Argentines into a highly-questionable and arbitrary "ethnic" category is a clear breach of WP:BLP, it could very well have been deleted right from the start. That others have tried to work with you to correct the problem, rather than doing this immediately, is no reason to expect them to continue to do so. Given your refusal to accept that your categorisation is inapplicable in that it is pushing a very-much minority POV, and isn't itself founded on any theoretical analysis from an external reliable source, it seems unsurprising that people no longer wish to wait, and are instead amending the article without your input.


 * Regarding this book about "White Argentines", I must ask whether this is the one you have earlier referred to: Argentine People by Ethnic Or National Origin published by Books, LLC? If it is this work, I'd point out that it is highly unlikely to be accepted as a reliable source, given that it appears to be a self-published work by an unknown author. I note that it is only 49 pages long, which to me makes it seem even less likely to be accepted, as little more than a pamphlet. To get a work such as this approved as WP:RS, it would almost certainly be necessary to demonstrate that it had been at least reviewed by competent outside sources with knowledge of the topic.


 * In the unlikely event that this book was accepted as a reliable source, there are still no reasonable grounds to assume that the lists you compiled can be included in an article, as WP:BLP policy makes clear that categorisation of people by ethnicity can only be done where this is relevant to the category itself. For example, f your book states that notable Argentinian footballer X is 'White', he might be included in a list or category of White Argentinians (if the ethnic categorisation was acceptable at all), he can clearly be included in Argentinian footballers, but he cannot be included in a category of White Argentinian footballers because the use of ethnic criteria to determine category membership is only permissible if the ethnicity is relevant, and nothing you have written so far suggests that ethnicity is relevant to Argentinian football.


 * To conclude, I think you'd be well advised to study Wikipedia policy more closely, and accept that what you are trying to do is unlikely to get far. You clearly have skills in researching topics, and it would be a loss to Wikipedia for you not to continue to contribute. Can I perhaps suggest you find a less controversial topic to involve yourself with instead? Doing so is likely to give you a better idea of how Wikipedia works, and will perhaps ensure your further efforts are less likely to result in wasted efforts.


 * I'd like to make clear that dispite our differences, my comments are not, and have never been, intended as a reflection on you as a person. My sole objective has been to see that the article in question has been written in the well-sourced and neutral way required by Wikipedia policy.


 * AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:13, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

IP editions
In fact, I made this delation (plus a few cosmetic changes )), and I forgot to register. I just made the change that had been scheduled (point 6)  and when I saw your warning I refrained to continuing. It was my mistake, I know. I apologize for the inconveniences this may causes.--GiovBag (talk) 23:51, 3 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Look at this . I definitely think this user is making this article personally. Excuse my ignorance, but proselytizing is allowed? Regards. --GiovBag (talk) 13:26, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

Sorry
Sometimes I have a habit of taking a bait and drifting off-topic, and this is especially annoying when I know I'm drifting but do it nevertheless. Will keep on topic in the discussion from now on.--Stor stark7 Speak 03:01, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

I'm sorry too
Hey Grump, I'm really sorry for the confusion I caused at BLPN. All I did was forget some crummy colons, and that was enough to ruin everyone's day (or a little part of it anyway). Hopefully my feeble mind will remember next time!Anythingyouwant (talk) 20:43, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

Religion Field in BLP infobox
I have proposed that the religion field be removed from the BLP infobox at Village Pump/proposals following what you said under Ed Milliband on the BLP Noticeboard. It would help if you added a comment. Mark Dask 08:09, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

3RR
Friendly notice that you have now hit 3RR on the Miliband article, and you might want to visit ANI before getting the notion that this will be treated as a BLP exemption (look for the section "Foolish editor"). Nomoskedasticity (talk) 17:24, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Cartoon Sexuality
The admin WhisperToMe (talk) is adament about adding sections about the possible homosexuality of the cartoon characters below. These sections are all based on the opinions of one man, JP Dennis, in one paper he wrote. Dennis is a gay man himself who seems to write exclusively about gay issues, so in my opinion, it's not surprising that he sees homosexuality where there is none. Also, there are already complete articles regarding this topic (LGBT themes in comics, LGBT themes in speculative fiction). If you believe these sections would place undue weight on this topic (which I believe is a non-issue), please comment on the talk pages below, otherwise WhisperToMe will add these sections back. Thanks in advance for your input.

Scooby-Doo (character) (talk), Shaggy Rogers (talk), Daphne Blake (talk), Velma Dinkley (talk), Pinky and the Brain (talk), Heffer Wolfe (talk) and Yogi Bear (talk). Judgeking (talk) 18:18, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

(Alleged victim: name removed: AW)
I read your reason for removal and understand. I found a news article from The Jerusalem Post which list the alleged victim has moved to the village of Yanoun in the West Bank. This information would have bearing on the case to be added to the article of Julian Assange. Please see the article and provide me your feedback: http://www.jpost.com/Headlines/Article.aspx?id=198862 DavidMinhPham (talk) 15:21, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

Threading
This is threading. See WP:THREAD for more. Cheers.--Chaser (talk) 03:54, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

Assange revert
Youi undid one of my edits, please participate in the respective discussion. Thank you Skäpperöd (talk) 19:03, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Your question ignored
That discussion is on my watchlist. I admire your perspicacity. But you won't get a straight answer from that one; you will only be drawn into conflict; that's his thing. (Beware.) Great photographs on your user page BTW. Writegeist (talk)


 * Thanks, but I'm familiar with Collect's style, having run into his relentless stonewalling early on in my Wikipedia encounters (my own fault for jumping in at the deep end. A couple of edits on minor topics, and then headlong into Wikipedia's own daily reenactment of the Russian Civil War...).


 * Regarding the photos, there is something almost hypnotic about vortices. I think it was Leonardo da Vinci that first managed to draw them with any realism: I'll see if I can find that image too. AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:47, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

Mass killings under Communist regimes POV tag
Andy, the discussion seems to have wandered away from the POV tag. Are you satisfied with my response about the two sentences you initially identified as problems, and do you have any other examples? AmateurEditor (talk) 22:20, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

Criollos
Could you take a look at this article? It even included images of celebrities (Gael Garcia Bernal, Cameron Diaz,) claiming they're criollo. And then it claims 36% of Latin Americans are criollo. Does it even exist as a category in those countries census data? --John KB (talk) 04:58, 19 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I know. The term was popular 200 years ago, and here we have people identified as criollo by some random ip from Spain. Then we have an infobox, which I'm not sure why it includes White Latin American groups (a trend started by Special:Contributions/66.176.219.186 ), % of latin americans that are criollo (!!!!), and that they're located "throughout Hispanic America", as if people still identify themselves as criollo, instead of Spanish.
 * Checking the page's history, infobox was included by Special:Contributions/Spain21, which feels like WP:SYNTH. Then User:Pablozeta adds this to describe the % of criollos in Latin America, which feels like WP:FRINGE published as a research paper with a 19th century mindset.
 * A similar article, but less problematic, is Moors, which was also a popular term to describe an ethnic group. It doesn't include categories like Category:Ethnic groups in Spain or Category:Ethnic groups in Europe (something that happens in Criollo people with their respective categories), and more appropiately includes Category:History of Spain, Category:History of North Africa, and it actually feels more accurate. Peninsulars, on the other hand, seems to be the edited by the same people who edited Criollo. At least they didn't include pictures of Mexican Belinda or Venezuelan Bárbara Palacios as examples of the Penisular ethnic groups of Venezuela and Mexico.

WP:BLPCAT
Saw you participating in the discussions to add ethnicity. Don't really feel like reading through all of it. Any progress? Bull dog123 02:31, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

UAF
Merry Christmas. I cannot find the reference either. It doesn't sound plausible because even if it were true, the SWP would be unlikely to admit it. Here is a link to a search of the SWP site for "Unite Against Fascism". BTW I started two articles, Radical Right and American Left (and rewrote the lead for Right-wing populism and American exceptionalism) and wondered if you would like to help improve them. TFD (talk) 14:59, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

Alive and kicking
I just want to tell that I'm not dead, but gathering sources and collecting data. They don't appear easily, but they do, and once they're strong enough, I'll restructure the article again. Futhermore, don't think that I'm a fool; I didn't eat that stupid story of "the rules" -as you said to the Italian-. That crap of BLP policy regarding ethnicity is brand new; IT WAS INVENTED BY YOU AND YOUR ACCOMPLICES, just to screw other people's work, nothing but that. Let's see if next year you create some article of your own -for a change- or continue destroying other editors' work, as you seem to be commited to. Ah, by the way, I DON'T WISH YOU A GOOD NEW YEAR; I don't wish you a bad year either, but I don't wish you anything good. You don't deserve any good wish.--Pablozeta (talk) 15:55, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

Fluoride edits
Are you gritting your teeth when reverting the fluoride edits? If so, I hope they are nice and strong. Please enjoy this WikiCookie, which is nice and soft, as you plug away at them. Thanks! --S. Rich (talk) 19:02, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

Something to smile about
I feel your pain. The Flouride Gang visited the Christmas Eve article and Talk page on December 24. Until every last one of the Trillion of them is gone, don't let it keep you from singing and smiling. -- This lousy t-shirt (talk) 20:38, 27 December 2010 (UTC)



This lousy t-shirt (talk) has given you a bubble tea! Bubble teas promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by giving someone else a bubble tea, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Happy drinking!

Spread the awesomeness of bubble teas by adding to someone's talk page with a friendly message!

Tea and a cookie! Actually, being a Brit, I'll insist on calling it a biscuit, but much appreciated all the same. I'm not sure about tea with tapioca balls, but I'll try (almost) anything, if it takes the taste of fluoride fruitcake away. ;-) AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:41, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

And some more!
My first Barnstar! I'm not sure it is really deserved, though, and I may eventually lose my temper and violate WP:NPA in spectacular fashion if the 'fluoride' gang come back!

Only kidding ;-) Thank you SmartSE, I'll try to live up to it. I think getting myself involved in this issue has been useful to my own understanding of Wikipedia policy and culture. It also keeps the grey matter exercised, which can only be a good thing on a cold winters day (or night - I'm currently more or less nocturnal...). AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:14, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

WikiLeaks/Assange articles - Avaaz petition
Please could you refer to the discussion pages as soon as you can and revert once you're happy. Grumpily, though still with thanks, BrekekekexKoaxKoax (talk) 04:05, 28 December 2010 (UTC) Thank you for doing so and for your further comments, BrekekekexKoaxKoax (talk) 21:36, 28 December 2010 (UTC)