User talk:AndyTheGrump/Archives/2011/April

Benjamin Barber
YOu took out a lot of information claiming that it is not sourced. All the information if sourced, Mr. Barber is a paid agent for the Gadaffi Foundation, it is on his own website, he did give the interviews where the item listed were taken from. I request that you should do some reserach before delting

EagleEye (talk) 17:16, 2 April 2011 (UTC)


 * The information isn't sourced - you have given no links to Barber's website, or to anything else. I suggest you do some research before editing, and then add the proper links at the time, per WP:BLP policy. You might do well to read WP:NPOV too. AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:24, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

Maybe you need to watch CNN and see it for yourself. CNN does not give transcripts. It is a fact that this guy was paid by Gadaffi and it is on his own page.

EagleEye (talk)


 * Either find verifiable sources per Wikipedia policy, or stop going on about this. Barber's website states that he resigned from the governing board of the Qadaffi Foundation on February 22, 2011. If you have evidence from reliable sources that indicates he is still involved with the Qadaffi regime, then provide it. Likewise, if you have evidence that Barber was ever paid by the Qadaffi regime, then provide that too. Frankly, I have doubts that he ever took money from them at all, but if you can demonstrate this with verifiable sources, it should go in the article. And no, 'watch CNN' isn't an adequate reference for anything. You need to show what was said, by whom, and how we can verify this. If you can't do this, then don't waste your time posting on my talk page, because I'll not reply. AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:23, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

Ancient Astronaut
It clearly states the website is the Ancient Astronaut Society and those are its members.

What would be a better source? As there is a full list with each name stating it has a publications etc. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.229.148.12 (talk) 14:24, 4 April 2011 (UTC)


 * See WP:FRINGE, and discuss this on the article talk page, where others can see the debate. AndyTheGrump (talk) 14:29, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

I see a visit WP:AE on WP:ARBR&I grounds
We have WP:SPA at AFD... I am begin to collect evidence off wiki. Would you begin to prepare the same? The Resident Anthropologist (talk)•(contribs) 23:37, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I approve.·Maunus· ƛ · 23:43, 4 April 2011 (UTC)


 * I see that User:Miradre was notified regarding WP:ARBR&I, I'd thus think that raising the issue formally might be worthwhile. I'm not sure there will be much need for any extra evidence, as contravention of this is undeniable:
 * "Single purpose accounts are expected to contribute neutrally instead of following their own agenda and, in particular, should take care to avoid creating the impression that their focus on one topic is non-neutral, which could strongly suggest that their editing is not compatible with the goals of this project".
 * A 'neutral' editor would at least attempt to present both sides of a case, rather than asking for others to do it. AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:51, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I had to go back 2,000 edit to find a non-racial based edit and guess what the topic was? The Jews....  The Resident Anthropologist (talk)•(contribs) 23:55, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Prepping AE will post here again as soon as its live The Resident Anthropologist (talk)•(contribs) 00:13, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Its live [[Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement  The Resident Anthropologist (talk)•(contribs) 00:34, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Possible deletion
I saw your comment at WP:AN and I must say that I would fully support deletion of the article on those grounds. I thought the BLP policy used to endorse the deletion (through AfD) of borderline non-notable BLPs at the subjects' request; reading through WP:BLPDEL, maybe that's no longer the case. Regardless, I would say notability is questionable and, given things like this, deletion would probably be a good idea. Shall I send it to AfD? A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 20:36, 5 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Hmmmm. The article has actually been worked on a bit more, and seems to be adequately sourced. I'd be inclined to leave it for now, and reconsider the question if the problems recur. Thinking about this a bit more, it might not be a very good precedent to set, as it implies that if you don't like an article, you can get it deleted through troublemaking and threats. I'd say that if it is proposed for AfD, this issue shouldn't be considered as a factor, but instead it needs to be looked at on the article's merits as an article. To be honest, I'm not really sure what the standard of notability is for authors: I'll look into this. AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:50, 5 April 2011 (UTC)


 * It looks as if WP:AUTHOR is the relevant standard. Given that her works have been mostly published in other languages than English, I'm not entirely sure, but I'd think that she is unlikely to meet this. AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:01, 5 April 2011 (UTC)


 * At AfD, a deletion rationale of the sort I mentioned above would have to cite WP:IAR, I suppose. And you're right that, upon further reflection, citing IAR in that way could set a poor precedent indeed. I know that I've seen AfDs in the past where a case could be made for the subject's notability, but (more civil, less disruptive) requests for deletion from the subject carried the day; this is clearly not the same thing. So if there's any case for deletion, it should be based on lack of notability. I agree that the sourcing has improved; whether she meets our notability guidelines is, I would imagine, a borderline case. I'll look into it further ad see if she meets WP:BIO at all. A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 21:18, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Just a mention
This is a note to let you know that I have mentioned you here. I am not calling for any action to be taken against you. I am merely expressing my concerns over the thread that transpired here. I just thought I should tell you that you have been mentioned, nothing more. Bus stop (talk) 22:01, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

NEWB Question
I have a number of articles to report in the "biographies of living people" report news/discussion page.

However can a page owner see my comments? I would not like my edits or corrections to link to me directly.

It just makes me a "tell tale" a bit and traceable as such. Creating a dubious war between editors no? — Preceding unsigned comment added by JasonBournes1 (talk • contribs) 14:36, 12 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Wikipedia actually relies on every edit being traceable, if only to an IP address - if it was possible to make anonymous reports/complaints etc, I suspect that the whole process might break down into a slanging match. If the articles you report have real problems, or if you have simply misunderstood what is permissible, drawing attention to them shouldn't reflect badly on you in any case. I'd suggest that you deal with one or two at a time to start with, rather than trying to deal with them in bulk. If the problems are relatively minor, raise them on the article talk page first. Make it clear what you think the problem is. Or correct the article yourself if you have good sources, and feel competent to edit. If there is something major that needs attention (something reflecting badly on the biography subject that is unsourced for example) you can simply delete it, per WP:BLP policy - I'd make clear on the article talk page why you have done this if it looks contentious. If you think an article has problems that need attention from others, raise it on WP:BLP/N - again, make clear what you think the problem is. The important thing is to remember you are reporting problems with the article, not the editor, and try not to make it personal (something that I've been known to get wrong myself on occasion).


 * As an alternative, you could perhaps list a few of the articles here, with an indication of what the problem is, and I'll take a quick look, and advise on what I think is the appropriate course of action. AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:03, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Whoa! Look at you go :) - OK well I had the following things on my mind.

1/ Entry for http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BigFish_Media - Is not a "notable" company - The company profile seems to be generated by the reference of BBC - yet that is irrelevant to the company product or notability. It seems rather like a business advertisment listing.

2/ Entry http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ricky_Salmon links to the same above company under the link for Big Fish Media and an advertising page and does not warrant being a reference to the person. Similarly the hyper link to Big Fish Media is very prominent on the link to the Ricky Salmon Page. This rather seems like "link wheel" strategies. Had the Ricky Salmon page mentioned Big Fish Media that is reasonable but this page seems to have been deliberately created with the link positioned as such.

3/ Guy Harris http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guy_harris seems to read like a sales CV of a non noteworthy voice over artist. Its claims about "being heard on thousands of commercials" is not verifiable. There are millions of voice overs who could cite their client list in order to claim notability, but this does not constitute him as such, moreover those claims are not verifiable without direct links to each reference in context.

Anyway I'm learning so again don't want to start deleting, you rock ! JasonBournes1 (talk) 17:44, 14 April 2011 (UTC)


 * I'm still learning myself (or at least, I'm trying to). I'm not quite sure about the notability requirements for companies, though it seems unlikely that Big Fish Media would meet them. I'll look into this. As you say, the whole lot seem to have been created to link to each other, or at least, someone is engaging in PR work. As articles go, this sort of thing is actually relatively harmless, in that I doubt anyone will use Wikipedia as a directory, or as a reference, for this sort of business. Still, it isn't encyclopaedic, and needs fixing.


 * BTW, I'm a bit old to 'rock', though I do sway from side to side in time to the music sometimes ;) AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:53, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

HA @ Swaying..thanks for your help btw on those pages JasonBournes1 (talk) 14:10, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

Invitation to take part in a pilot study
I am a Wikipedian, who is studying the phenomenon on Wikipedia. I need your help to conduct my research on about understanding "Motivation of Wikipedia contributors." I would like to invite you to a short survey. Please give me your valuable time, which estimates only ‘’’5 minutes’’’ cooldenny (talk) 15:50, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

Thanks
Too many words? Collect (talk) 20:42, 17 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Perhaps. AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:45, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

Civility, please
Hi there, just a friendly reminder for WP:CIVILITY at Articles for deletion/Charles S. Herrman. :-) I know it's frustrating that he's continuing to argue and not really grasping what the consensus is saying, but I think comments like these don't really add anything to the discussion.  Thanks, Mildly MadTC 01:20, 21 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Yeah, you may well be right, though I suspect that Herrman is immune to incivility, along with any other evidence that his ideas are met with anything other than astonishment at his sagacity and perceptiveness. In fact, were he to acknowledge that others disagree with his own assessment of himself he might actually benefit from the revelation. AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:37, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

circular discussion
Hi, that thread is getting extremely tiresome, I think the best thing is just to ignore him and without any replies he will just go away, the thread has been open 19 days already. Off2riorob (talk) 16:29, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Yeah, probably right. Though I doubt he will 'go away' any time soon, unfortunately... AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:35, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

MEDRS is no longer policy I fear - Modern phrenology would make a good article
At least I added MEDRS compliant information on the strange article - a lot of the article has naught to do with brains and everything to do with modern phrenology. I can not believe a close indicating that MEDRS has no function anymore. Think we can put an article together on that? Cheers. Collect (talk) 14:26, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I'll look into this, when I get the chance, and get back to you. Frankly, phrenology seems to be better based in fact than some of the weirdness that survives in Wikipedia... AndyTheGrump (talk) 14:32, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Wikileaks
Just a heads up: Guantánamo Bay files leak. Tell your friends, Ocaasi c 14:49, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, I saw that - I'll read up on it when I get the chance, and see what we need to do. AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:24, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Gosnell
While you're at it, would you mind restoring the dates from the older revision? I was in the middle of doing so, but got edit-conflicted, and I don't want to remove your edits to the language. (Or perhaps, since you know what changes you want to make, it might be better to restore the older revision and then make your changes. The IP's dates aren't supported by sources and hir language is worse, so may as well.) Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 22:04, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I've just had a quick hack at it to remove the obvious violations - I'll check with the sources cited to see what can be salvaged though, and dates etc are clearly worth including. AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:08, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I checked the first time this IP changed the dates two weeks ago; the edits aren't supported. Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 22:14, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Oh Good catch....
Good catch, I dont recall ever hearing that personal attack before! The Resident Anthropologist (talk)•(contribs) 22:15, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Well, I suppose it shows evidence of at least a little education. Personally, I think that the more-frequent usage of F-words etc has led to a decline in the standard of insults. Having recently been told off for referring to an extremely learned (if rather stubborn) contributor's comments as 'hogwash', I like to think I've done my bit to keep this ancient art alive, though I could do with investigating the subject further. Perhaps I should form a pressure group - the Campaign For Real Insolence? Or maybe it needs a historical re-enactment group to do justice to the subject. We could meet once a week and exchange remarks about each other's parentage, and the frequency with which we consult the pox-doctor... ;) AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:32, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Reference desk
Hi, I've undone your deletion from the Reference Desk because I don't think the question was asking for a prediction about a future event (does the Day of Judgement really count as a guaranteed future event?) It seemed to me to be a reasonable-ish theological query. Even if it had been against the RefDesk guidelines, however, it would not have been trolling; that is a very serious allegation not to be bandied about, if I may so advise you! Best, ╟─ Treasury Tag ►  co-prince  ─╢ 13:20, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
 * You don't think someone creating a User:Satanist God account is a troll? Fair enough. If you thought it was a "reasonable-ish theological query than why ask "who'd win in a fight between Satan and a dinosaur?". Whatever... AndyTheGrump (talk) 13:24, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
 * You don't think someone creating a User:Satanist God account is a troll? No, I don't, any more than someone whose username states that they are grumpy is a troll. If you have such little awareness of what trolling is then you definitely shouldn't be using the word. If you thought it was a "reasonable-ish theological query than why ask "who'd win in a fight between Satan and a dinosaur?" It was intended to be a riotously amusing piece of comic parody. Whatever... ╟─ Treasury Tag ►  duumvirate  ─╢ 13:36, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

WCAG-LP
The potentially controversial BLP material that popped up in this article today, that you removed, was re-added by an IP. I reverted it and left a message on their talk page to take the issue to the article's talk page. cheers Deconstructhis (talk) 20:29, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks - I've got the article watchlisted. AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:59, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Mexicans
Maybe could interest you. Someone decided to remove the template you put a couple of weeks ago. Without resolve the problems of the article --GiovBag (talk) 22:04, 29 April 2011 (UTC)