User talk:AndyTheGrump/Archives/2011/August

r&i
please note the recent debate on the subject.-- mustihussain (talk) 15:55, 2 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Thanks - it is on my watchlist. AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:57, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

SlowhandBlues = Bentheadvocate
I requested a checkuser to be run and that was what came out. That explains various things ... Mathsci (talk) 16:25, 2 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Yup, I had my suspicions from early on - I'd been involved in the Kingston University debate, where Bentheadvocate first surfaced. I hope I'm not being stalked, though I suppose that will make the next sock/troll easier to find. AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:32, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Steven Krivit and the Energy Catalyzer
"But Steven Krivit is still working to..."

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uX0vcU4iedQ

Andy,

I am Francesco, i.e. the "black sheep" that reported the interview of Giuseppe Levi made by Daniele Passerini. In my opinion, and according to the information I have collected until now, the reports made by Krivit are a T-O-T-A-L hoax and this hoax will be dismantled very soon...

--79.20.140.196 (talk) 21:02, 2 August 2011 (UTC)


 * I am not the slightest bit interested in your opinion, unless it is backed up by reliable sources - I'd be interested to learn why you make this claim though. Are you connected in any way with Rossi, or with Defkalion? AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:11, 2 August 2011 (UTC)


 * No. But I am Italian, therefore I can have a more direct access on what is going on.
 * --79.20.140.196 (talk) 21:19, 2 August 2011 (UTC)


 * If and when anything is published, it may merit inclusion in the article, but for now, we can only go on what we have. AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:23, 2 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Post Scriptum
 * and also access to non-Italian sources:
 * "What Drives Steven Krivit?", written in 2008 by Brian Josephson.
 * http://www.tcm.phy.cam.ac.uk/~bdj10/articles/NET1.html
 * --79.20.140.196 (talk) 21:40, 2 August 2011 (UTC)


 * I'm quite prepared to believe that Professor Josephson has said some uncomplimentary things about Krivet - he's said uncomplimentary things about me too, on the 'Catalyzer' article talk page (though to be fair to him, I wasn't at my most polite either). Personal animosity isn't evidence of anything else though. Unless you have anything of actual significance to the article, from published reliable sources, I consider this conversation closed. AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:53, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

the phrase has a property citation.
The phrase has a property citation just click on the opinion polls of US presidents lol. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Magicevan (talk • contribs) 17:10, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

what did we actually disagree on?
I actually can't remember . Cheers. Collect (talk) 23:51, 4 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Politics, I think. 'Communist terrorism', or was it 'Terrorist communism'? I don't visit that topic much any more. Still on my watchlist I expect, along with 'Christian communism' - I should probably add 'Christian terrorism' too. Actually, I think we need an automatic article generator here - take any two topics and merge the titles: if nobody has edited after a month or so, we can delete it, but meanwhile it will give us all something new to argue about ;-)


 * Actually, you can do it by hand, with the 'random article' feature - click twice, then create an article linking the two topics - let's see - The Favor (2006 film) + 2002 UEFA European Under-19 Football Championship squads - oh, well, maybe not... AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:55, 5 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Films viewed by football teams at their fourth reunions. Easy.  Collect (talk) 00:58, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

Semiprotected your userpage...
let me know if you want it undone. &mdash; Scientizzle 15:37, 5 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks - this should at least slow Magnonimous down a little.

Adam Levine
You're asking me why I reverted despite an ongoing discussion? I can ask the same question - why did you revert despite an ongoing discussion? That's what you did when you removed the sourced text a few days ago - there was no consensus to do so on the discussion, but you did it anyway. As for the discussion, it seems to be about categories and whether to call Levine "Jewish" or some variation of that. I see people keep citing BLPCat or WP:CATEGORIES, both of which have nothing to do with article text, so I'm not sure how that discussion is relevant to the text? I don't know about otherstuffexists, but the (sourced) stating of ethnicity is an amazingly common practice on Wikipedia that seems to have no challengers, and is not banned by any policy whatsoever. But aside from that, I stress my initial point - you reverted the information during the ongoing discussion despite reaching no consensus to do so. Why is that okay for you but not for me? All Hallow&#39;s Wraith (talk) 20:10, 5 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Are you not going to reply to any of the points I just made to you? Surely if you don't, you could be accused of or reported for "edit warring" just as easily? All Hallow&#39;s Wraith (talk) 20:16, 5 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Reported for what? I didn't violate 3rr, nor did I game the system by waiting 24 hours and then immediately reverting. How were there questions of sourcing? The sources now in the article are the same ones that were there when you removed the text. All Hallow&#39;s Wraith (talk) 20:25, 5 August 2011 (UTC)
 * If we count your initial removal of the content, then we've clocked in an equal number of reverts on the page - 3 and 3. How am I any more of an "edit warrer" than you? Second, I am engaging in discussion, as evidenced by your talk page. You're the one who keeps removing text, something no one else seems to support, so you're the one to talk to. All Hallow&#39;s Wraith (talk) 21:04, 5 August 2011 (UTC)
 * The fact is, we have an equal number of reverts on this issue. It looks like another user has now inserted something else that probably isn't factually accurate and seems kind of strangely worded ("has a minority of Jewish ethnicity, most of his related ancestry is not Jewish"). All Hallow&#39;s Wraith (talk) 21:10, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

Defkalion
seems that Rossi and they have parted ways: see http://www.e-catworld.com/2011/08/07/press-release-rossi-terminates-relationship-with-defkalion-green-technologies-will-not-build-e-cats-in-greece/ 94.170.239.207 (talk) 15:23, 7 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Interesting. Sadly, I don't think that e-catworld.com is in itself a sufficiently reliable source for this - we'll have to wait for reports from elsewhere. No indication in the press release as to why this happened, but one can speculate... AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:36, 7 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Not secondary, but here is the page containing the horse's mouth: http://www.journal-of-nuclear-physics.com/?p=501&cpage=9#comments


 * Thanks - we can probably cite that as RS for Rossi making the statement -though there is no rush, and it may be best to see if we can find secondary sources. Hopefully, the reasons behind this will become clearer. AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:25, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

BLPN
Hi AndyTheGrump. I don't know why you said my report was not a BLP issue. 's edits attach pejorative labels to living people so they're clearly related to BLP in my view. I added some background detail in my report, not strictly related to BLP, that I thought would be helpful to other editors. Christopher Connor (talk) 23:39, 7 August 2011 (UTC)


 * It looks more like a complaint about JonFlaune's behaviour to me, and as such, better dealt with elsewhere. If you want to discuss the article in question, rather than the contributor, then BLP/N may be appropriate. AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:44, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

You're response deleted with troll question...
Sorry, but I had to delete your good faith response with an obvious troll question here. You are free to have any emotional response to this event that will make you happy. -- Jayron  32  18:07, 8 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Er, Yes... Probably... I'm happy enough already, thanks (just got Bus stop into an argument with himself, by agreeing with him ;-) ). AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:19, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

My Astrology page proposition
Hi Andy - hope you see the comment I placed under yours just now. I'm not proposing ignoring the MOS guidelines that are clear, was just using that example as why I think we may as well use the British convention throughout. That's my personal opinion. I'm not seriously fussed and don't want to start a big *thing*. Maybe what really got on my nerves was the thought of any national flag waving across the top of the page. Good to see you back on the page. Cheers, -- Zac  Δ talk! 15:35, 12 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Ah, I misunderstood. I'm not sure you'll necessarily be pleased to have me back on the page though - I have a proposal for new article content that may ruffle a few feathers - though I need to do a little research first... AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:45, 12 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Nah, not the case - anyway my own feathers have been ruffled so many times that those remaining are stuck in firmly :) I'm presuming it will be critical content, which is not something that concerns me. When I get more time I intend to develop the criticisms section to give more explanation on the notable arguments and philosophical objections that are part of the subject's history.  It would be good if you could give an outline on the talk-page of what you are proposing. I'll certainly support it if it proposes relevant content that ensures the article gives an objective account of all pertinent facts. I would love to see this article obtain good or FA status, and am very aware that will not happen if it shows bias in its content selection. Hence it would be good to have more input from editors like you and Occassi - I'm sure others will (or ought to) feel the same --  Zac  Δ talk! 16:26, 12 August 2011 (UTC)


 * I'll certainly propose any significant changes on the talk page first - but like I said, I'd better do the research first. AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:38, 12 August 2011 (UTC)


 * OK. If it gets serious think about giving an indication of what you plan to cover so we can expect to keep some room for it. (If it helps, ask for information on good sources that might cover what you are looking into - if I can help I will). -- Zac  Δ talk! 16:59, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

2011 England riots - deletion of See also section
Hello there, I've started a discussion topic at Talk:2011 England riots in response to some recent edits of yours. Please come and have a conversation. Thanks.  Rubywine. talk 02:08, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

Jay Risher
Nor have many of those accused in the 21st century ponzi scheme list.. ie. http://www.vindy.com/news/2011/jul/13/2-plead-innocent-in-14m-ponzi-case/?print

It is not a list of those that have been convicted, it is a list of notable ponzi schemes of the 21st century. At very least his previous CONVICTIONS would add him to the list as it is, that is if you take the time to read the references that cite his previous convictions for PONZI SCHEMES. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.78.128.207 (talk) 15:25, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

Additionally neither have the previous two..


 * 1) n early 2010, it was reported that Tzvi Erez from Toronto had scammed 76 creditors out of a combined 27 million dollars. He created an illegitimate print business called E Graphix, and convinced investors to give him large loans in order to carry out fictional printing orders. He was charged with fraud and forgery by Toronto police, but was not convicted because the Canadian courts lacked adequate trial time to give him a trial.[63][64] ***conviction failed***
 * 2) On May 20, 2010, the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) filed a federal case against Edward A. Allen and David L. Olson, two former brokers of World Financial Group / World Group Securities, accusing them of having raised approximately $14,800,000 through the offer and sale of promissory notes as part of an illegal Ponzi scheme in the States of Ohio and Florida between September 2005 and December 2008.[65] *** still in courts***

Lastly, I have personal knowledge of this individual, not as one of his victims but as a close acquaintance to one of his victims and met him personally on various occasions. This has also given me insight into the damage this guy has caused to families and such as he did not target the wealthy but targeted working class folks that may have had 20 or 30k in their accounts or the accounts of their family members or in property.. I ask that your refrain from continuously dropping his article as this guy is just as qualified to be on the list as others who as well have not been convicted or have had a conviction fail. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.78.128.207 (talk) 15:33, 13 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Wikipedia policy is entirely clear on this (as are libel laws uin most places) we cannot make assertions about individuals committing crimes unless and until they are convicted - see WP:BLP. If Risher is convicted of the offences alleged, I have no doubt he will merit inclusion, but we cannot prejudge the case. AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:54, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

BTW
BTW, since you reverted three times in 24 hours, should I now report you for violating BLP? Or the spirit of BLP? Or something? Or for reverting three times during an ongoing discussion? I keep forgetting the intricacies of policy-within-policy-within guideline that are being offended or violated here, so you may just have to report yourself and save me the headache of figuring it all out! All Hallow&#39;s Wraith (talk) 20:08, 13 August 2011 (UTC)


 * How about reading WP:3RR for a start? And how about not accusing me of inserting something I didn't? And how about taking part in the discussion at BLP/N?. AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:16, 13 August 2011 (UTC)
 * WP3RR says it doesn't entitle someone to revert three times, and so on - exactly what you told me. You didn't insert the "atheist" part but without your journeying to this page and starting this - which was completely unnecessary and you had no policy backing your initial edit - none of this would have happened. I'll discuss this at BLPn when you tell me what part of BLP the initial version was violating or potentially violating. Otherwise, we might as well discuss the weather at BLP. All Hallow&#39;s Wraith (talk) 20:20, 13 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I have now removed the 'atheist' statement, and the misapplied source, and clarified Levine's lack of formal religion per the remaining source. I am not going to discuss this here while there is an ongoing debate at BLP/N - please don't waste my time and yours by posting here. AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:23, 13 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I support your edit. But you ought to know that you "violated" the gaming the system part of 3RR. I don't believe anyone who didn't really break 3RR should be punished for it so I do not care. However, remember this in the future if you plan to again threaten to report me for breaking 3RR when I haven't reverted four times. All Hallow&#39;s Wraith (talk) 20:26, 13 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Seriously, dude? You stopped deleting this yesterday, then decided to re-start? And you've certainly championed edit warring on that page, considering your number of reverts. I just don't understand this behavior. All Hallow&#39;s Wraith (talk) 22:17, 14 August 2011 (UTC)
 * (a) Look through the edit history, to see who did what, when, and then (b) take part in the BLP/N discussion. I am not going wto engage in private debates. AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:20, 14 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't understand how cited text is a BLP issue. If there's no reason for it to be on BLPn, then we might as well go to BLPn to discuss the weather. I don't insist on private discussions. That's why I started the conversation on Levine's talk page. All Hallow&#39;s Wraith (talk) 22:25, 14 August 2011 (UTC)
 * For a start, the text is a BLP issue because it doesn't match the source cited - but you seem to have been too busy reverting it to actually check. AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:54, 14 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Again with the revert? The source says his father and maternal grandfather were Jewish. What is the issue? All Hallow&#39;s Wraith (talk) 06:50, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
 * What does it say about his grandmother? - and do you really think it is justifiable to discuss the religion of Levine's father and grandfather, without noting that the same source states that he'd rejected this faith? Or are we going to have yet another 'being Jewish isn't about religion' debate - in spite of the fact that the 'being Jewish' brigade included references to his protestant maternal grandmother solely for the purposes of asserting that Levine wasn't Jewish? The simple fact is that a source was cherry-picked to make Levine's precise position in the cosmology of Halachic Judaism clear - regardless of his own opinions on the matter. This was never about anything other than ethno-tagging, and has never been remotely concerned with presenting an objective article about the person in question. I don't know whether Levine considers himself entirely Jewish, partly Jewish, or not Jewish at all - all I know is that it isn't Wikipedia's job to make the decision. AndyTheGrump (talk) 07:05, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Can you explain to me how Wikipedia would be making the decision that Levine is Jewish or not Jewish? I think I saw you say that elsewhere and I don't understand it. The article simply makes reference to his ancestry, which is accurate and does not appear to be in dispute. It is up to the reader, I suppose, to decide if they consider him Jewish or not (the category is another matter, but we are not talking about that). Nothing in the article states that Levine is "Jewish". If you want to state that Levine doesn't practice any religion, I have no problem with that. The more sourced information, the merrier. That's my approach. Present the facts to an accurate degree as they can be presented, and as completely as possible. Readers can decide for themselves based on their own ideologies. Of course, categories are another matter. But we are not talking about that. All Hallow&#39;s Wraith (talk) 07:20, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

I have no problem with this latest edit, but, as you can see, the comma is messed up. BTW, I simply have to say that you've managed to, over this, break every single one of the rules you warned me about, and then some. First, you edit-warred ceaselessly - not reverting more than 3 times in 24 hours, but doing everything but. Then, the personal attack ("own obsessions"). And now, you've actually broken 3rr itself! The actual one, not the "gaming the system" one. I'm not going to report you, but I sure hope you're not planning to go around warning anyone not to break these policies anytime soon. All Hallow&#39;s Wraith (talk) 07:40, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Frankly, I no longer care, after you remarked "The more sourced information the merrier" Ok. Do I take it from this that you will be researching into the ethnicity and faith of Levine's remaining grandparents? In the interests of providing more 'sourced information' this might seem a sensible course. But that wasn't what seems to have happened here. Someone (I don't know who, and it doesn't really matter) had chosen to include sufficient information in the article for those obsessed (and yes, I'll defend my use of the word here, if necessary) with dividing the world into 'Jew' and 'non-Jew' to arrive at a conclusion - while at the same time omitting the most significant content from the source - which was Levine's own rejection of the categorisation. This is far from unique. Far too many Wikipedia articles are blighted by POV-pushing, and of labelling individuals on the basis of marginal sources, for the purposes of advancing a particular perspective regarding faith, and/or ethnicity. I know next to nothing about Levine, and if I've heard his music I'm unaware of it, but I'm darned sure that, as a human being, he deserves more than to be a pawn in the endless Wikipedia ethno-tagging circus, AndyTheGrump (talk)
 * Remaining grandparents? Didn't the article already state his grandmother was Protestant? How many grandparents does he have? All Hallow&#39;s Wraith (talk) 07:50, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Four, one would assume. Yes, the article stated that his maternal grandmother was Protestant (though without a source) - and the article seemed to consider Levine's grandmother's religious beliefs more important than his own. Do you think that this is reasonable? AndyTheGrump (talk) 08:06, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

muslim section
ønography is suspected of socket puppetry not only here but also on the norwegian wiki Bruker:Ønography. his bizarre behaviour seems to have no limits. i have added his pet-term "spitting" into the text but i suspect he'll continue his edit war.-- mustihussain (talk) 17:37, 16 August 2011 (UTC)
 * as i suspected, he is now obsessed with something else.-- mustihussain (talk) 17:43, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

--"en sokkedukke eller dobbeltgjenger", eh? That makes sense. I wondered why he was posting here, rather than somewhere his language skills might be better utilised.. AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:21, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Miliband and Trivia
Nothing wrong with a bit of truthful trivia eh? Cameron gets to support Aston Villa on his wikipedia page, why can't Ed have his baseball? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kaiser93 (talk • contribs) 15:00, 30 August 2011 (UTC)
 * See WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. If you think Cameron's support for Aston Villa is trivia, then sort out that article. AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:06, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

trivia
Hi Andy. I also thought "trivia" on first glance. After reading the interview and him describing himself as a "fanatic =" of the red sox I though might be worthwhile trivia - a little trivia is noteworthy in highly public figures, readers want a little imo its of interest to many readers. I also think that after I added some "bones" to the factoid it allows mention of two periods Miliband spent in USA as a child and went to school there, more interesting detail...what do you think - I also formatted the referance as I am looking for a GA review soon ..?

After two spells living in Boston as a child, one year when he was seven and one junior high school term when he was twelve, Miliband is a baseball fan, supporting the US team Boston Red Sox.


 * Ok, perhaps we should discuss on the talk page: I'm not convinced, but I'll think about it. AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:12, 30 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, lets see, no worries - I am going off-line so -see you later, regards - Off2riorob (talk) 15:15, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

2011 England riots
Hello Andy. There has been a resurgence of edit warring over the infobox location details in 2011 England riots. To try to stabilise this, and raise another closely related issue, I've started a discussion topic here: Talk:2011 England riots. I'd be grateful if you would come and comment. Thanks.  Rubywine. talk 01:28, 31 August 2011 (UTC)