User talk:AndyTheGrump/Archives/2011/December

Unblocked
I've unblocked you per your own recognition of your behavior and opposition to the block at Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents. Please stay away from CETI Patterson Power Cell and the AfD until the AfD has completed. If you have specific rationale that you would like in the AFD, I'd be happy to copy it over there for you.--v/r - TP 16:26, 29 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Thanks - I'll try to keep my temper under control in future, and I'll leave the article and AfD to fester without further intervention from me.


 * Regarding the AfD, I've said my piece - the Patterson Cell is a run-of-the-mill failed 'cold fusion' contraption of little interest to anyone beyond the 'free energy' crowd who seem to lack any rationality when dealing with the subject, and to dubious salesmen looking for gullible 'customers' and 'investors' to flog their magic teapots to. My only consolation is that the latter will no doubt derive most of their income from the former.... AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:54, 29 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Jolly good show. Trust DefendEachOther to pull you through. :-) --Kim Bruning (talk) 17:05, 29 November 2011 (UTC) Addendum: Though... it looks like there's a bunch of RS claiming that this subject existed at some point. (Though discredited?). Consensus should probably go in that direction --Kim Bruning (talk) 17:22, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Edits like this are really pushing it... You were told to stay away from the article and related topics and this is not staying away! Barts1a | Talk to me | Yell at me 04:03, 2 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Actually, I wasn't 'told to stay away' from anything. I volunteered to stay off the relevant article and AfD discussion until the AfD closed, that's all. If you think I've broken that voluntary agreement, raise it at WP:ANI - but be prepared to explain why you think me pointing out that breaches of WP:NPA were occurring at the AfD is somehow problematic. AndyTheGrump (talk) 04:10, 2 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I complained about Barts1a who claims to be under "editing restrictions" on his Yell page. 128.59.171.194 (talk) 20:41, 2 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Not worth bothering about, as far as I'm concerned. AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:02, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

Evolutionary traits..
An article I found on the evolution of personality psychology.

http://generallythinking.com/research/buss-1991-evolutionary-personality-psychology/

"The five personality factors, in this  view, represent important  features  of  the  human "adaptive landscape."  Those who had the  capacity to  perceive and act  upon these  major individual  differences  in  others  had a selective  advantage when it  came to  negotiating  hierarchies,  selecting  and attracting  mates, and forming effective  coalitions  with other  humans"

(Buss 1991)Evolutionary personality psychology

If a human psychological trait is not evolutionarily adaptive, it would not exist. A trait needs to be maladaptive enough to make it so that that specific generation could not mate for it to not exist. If it is not evolutionarily adaptive what is the alternative might I ask? Averylongdream (talk) 05:18, 2 December 2011 (UTC) comment added by Averylongdream (talk • contribs) 05:15, 2 December 2011


 * I fail to see how the quote from Buss supports your argument. As for your own comments, they don't even make sense - the second sentence contradicts the first. In any case, evolutionary psychology is a contested academic field, not scientific consensus - Wikipedia cannot (must not) make assertions regarding such topics based on the opinions of a minority. In any case, this is an argument for the article talk page, not here. AndyTheGrump (talk) 13:07, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

A new religion
Hi Andy. If you ever get bored of arguing about Judaism, I just removed a bunch of unsupported entries in the religious category tree Category:Thelemites. Of course, they were promptly put back on some articles resulting in this thread on BLPN, Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard. At least this religion isn't assumed to be hereditary, so it'll probably be a refreshing break from more convoluted arguments. :-) Yworo (talk) 03:51, 8 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't think I've really argued about Judaism itself at all - just on the extent that its classification scheme is applicable to Wikipedia. Not that it has only one anyway. One positive thing you can say about Judaism (though not the only positive thing, I hasten to add) is that its long-standing tradition of deep theological debate enables one to find arguments to support any position one chooses. This adaptability has clear advantages over the more dogmatic and doctrinally-rigid faiths. Speaking of which, I seem to be spending most of my Wiki-time currently in discussions with cold-fusioneers, some of whom could out-dogmatise the most dogmatic of any faith. So maybe I should look at BLPN for a bit of light relief... AndyTheGrump (talk) 04:05, 8 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I saw some of those cold fusion arguments,they really take the cake. Yworo (talk) 04:48, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

Don't worry
TOP SECRET - Don't worry, your secret government contracts involving secret payments to do your secret evil stuff will remain a secret. Don't forget, this is TOP SECRET.--v/r - TP 20:12, 8 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Yeah. Where's the cheque, by the way? :) AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:53, 8 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Shhh. I sent it first class through the USPS.  >TOP SECRET<--v/r - TP 21:49, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

ANI
Regarding this, that's certainly a new twist, demanding to see your tax returns. As if! I'm reminded of the time a few of us were fighting against marauders who were convinced Apollo never happened, and we were accused of being NASA employees. They never asked for my tax return, though. Congratulations on being the target of a new depth of paranoia. :) ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 21:05, 8 December 2011 (UTC)


 * It seems to be par for the course for me - just another one to add to my list: User:AndyTheGrump/Conspiracies. :) AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:09, 8 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Wow, that's awesome. I have a little list buried on my user page somewhere, but it seriously pales next to your list. That must mean I'm not trying hard enough. :) The one thing that's missing, though, is citations. It would be nice to be able to track the first time you were accused of a given conspiracy. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 21:44, 8 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Nope, I can't do that. It would give the game away about the conspiracies I'm actually involved in ;-) AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:55, 8 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Excellent point. Mum's the word. :) ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 23:11, 8 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Just noting that I closed the ANI thread, but if you do intend to propose a topic ban, you're free to undo that. Regards,  Swarm   X 00:38, 9 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Unless and until AB responds, I can't see much point in doing anything more. Given that the subject matter falls under General sanctions, such a ban would seem to have precedents, though as I've said, I think AB has a more general problem regarding compliance with Wikipedia expectations. Still, it won't be my decision... AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:53, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

Bleeding edge technology
Oh, I wouldn't argue that the article doesn't define the term "bleeding edge", only that it goes above and beyond what a dictionary would offer, looking at costs and benefits of adoption and the place of cutting edge technology in various strategies. The article doesn't look (just) at the word, but at the objects themselves, and that is the encyclopedia vs dictionary divide. Also, I have added another couple of sources for you. Re: "Could you perhaps find a source that indicates this?" indicates what? That it's not jargon? Why does it have to not be jargon? Also, 4.3 million GHits would suggest to me that it is in fact a well known name for a category of technologies. Happy to discuss further if need be :) Regards, - Jarry1250 [Weasel? Discuss.] 17:20, 14 December 2011 (UTC)
 * (Indeed, let's not forget the 50,000 hits a year or the high article feedback scores when assessing the current value of the article. - Jarry1250 [Weasel? Discuss.] 17:32, 14 December 2011 (UTC))
 * Thanks - I think maybe this needs to be looked at in conjunction with other articles related to the development cycle of technologies, or something. I'll look into this in the next few days... AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:24, 14 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Oh, quite, I guess I could support a merge. But you know what these things are like. - Jarry1250 [Weasel? Discuss.] 11:29, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

Truth cabal
According to User talk:dmcq you and I are members of a cabal pushing a Truthiness POV. Itsmejudith (talk) 20:02, 14 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Yawn... Far too mainstream an accusation to even merit adding to the list. AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:20, 14 December 2011 (UTC)
 * P.S. When's the next cabal meeting planned? AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:20, 14 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Do add it. Itsmejudith (talk) 13:14, 15 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Ok - you're the boss ;-) AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:34, 15 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I meant, truth cabal is too weird to be left out of a list of cabals. Itsmejudith (talk) 09:48, 16 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Already added it - though as 'weird' goes, it's hardly exceptional: no mind-controlling aliens, no artificial-intelligence-suppressing French computer-scientists (yeah, really...), and not even an implication that I'm being paid to plant truth into Wikipedia articles. Still, I'm sure I'll have another cabal revealed soon enough - . Let's see? Freemasonry? Not had that one yet - and curiously enough, I do have connections, of sorts. Or the grand fluoride-waste-disposal-in-tapwater theory? Or maybe somebody will come up with a new one? Watch this space... AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:12, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

Bugs
Have you ever known Bugs Bunny to get updoc all over his baseball uniform like this before? (I'm guessing probably). Yworo (talk) 06:57, 15 December 2011 (UTC)
 * That joke is older than I am. One of its cousins goes something like, "I'm looking for a henweigh that I seem to have misplaced." ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 14:11, 15 December 2011 (UTC)
 * What a lot of fuss over a South African actress ;-) AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:20, 15 December 2011 (UTC)
 * It's a little-known fact that she does all her filming in South Africa. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 16:25, 15 December 2011 (UTC)
 * The US army does all its fighting in other countries - does that make them Afghans and Iraqis? ;-) AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:32, 15 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Only if they become citizens. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 02:36, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

Apology for unintentional deletion
I don't know how that happened, and it was unintentional. Perhaps we were editing the page at the same time. I do apologize and assure you it was inadvertent.--Tenebrae (talk) 18:46, 18 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, it can happen. No harm done, apology accepted. AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:27, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

hi
read here evidence and sources and here .. thanks. and please be a good editor and wikipedian and show everything here!! no hiding news about criminals even if they comes from your country..

--Neogeolegend (talk) 04:36, 20 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Firstly. Bush isn't from 'my country': I'm British. More to the point though, neither of the sources you provide actually back up the edit you made. Bush hasn't been "indicted by the International Criminal Court". Maybe he should be - actually, I'd be happy if he was. But it hasn't happened yet. If you care about the issue so much, I suggest you do your best to ensure this happens, rather than making misleading claims that it already has. AndyTheGrump (talk) 05:15, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

MonaVie
Not sure what's up with this article, but it's being tinkered with by SPA's. I've asked for temporary semi-protection. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 22:59, 21 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Yup - it's a long-running problem. A dodgy 'multi-level-marketing' company selling dubious 'health' products... AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:04, 21 December 2011 (UTC)


 * It's now semi'd for a week. I've a hunch this is not the first time, and probably not the last. Is it possible the article doesn't even belong here? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 23:18, 21 December 2011 (UTC)


 * I see deletion has already been tried, e.g. Articles for deletion/MonaVie (2nd nomination). Not surprisingly, the article's creator is long gone - at least under that name. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 23:20, 21 December 2011 (UTC)


 * I think the company probably is notable - as a notable example of dodgy-dealing on the fringes of legality. It makes regular appearances on AN/I etc (see for the latest). All we can really do is keep an eye on it, and revert the boosters... AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:32, 21 December 2011 (UTC)


 * The page is now indefinitely semi'd. The hope is that it will force the company's marketers to discuss things instead of edit-warring. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 00:39, 22 December 2011 (UTC)


 * I doubt it will make much difference - there is little point in discussing things with people who per WP:COI shouldn't be editing the article in the first place. I suspect this nonsense will go on for as long as the company can get away with its behaviour - though usually, even shutting them down seems to just result in them reappearing under another name. AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:46, 22 December 2011 (UTC)


 * I wonder how long it's been since the last deletion proposal, and whether the article would still stand up to notability scrutiny? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 00:48, 22 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Personally, I'd argue against deletion. There is enough sourced material to indicate just how iffy the company is, and our article helps get the message out. We'd do our readers a disservice to remove any opportunity to learn about what the company is actually up to. AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:55, 22 December 2011 (UTC)


 * OK, that's what you tried to tell me before, but I'm slow. :) Still, it should not be a hatchet job, as such. The issues he/they raise should be discussed on the article talk page. I don't mean so-called issues like "the article is biased", which is useless; but rather, specific issues should be dealt with, one by one. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 01:00, 22 December 2011 (UTC)


 * If (properly sourced) specific issues are raised, they can be dealt with - but it is difficult to do this in the context of accusations of bias. And again, if these issues are being raised by people involved with the company, WP:COI is significant. Still, I'll take a look... AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:08, 22 December 2011 (UTC)


 * One item they tried to zap had to do with stating some business technicality which they claim is true for all businesses and hence is redundant. That seems mundane enough to be a starting point. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 01:12, 22 December 2011 (UTC)


 * See my comments on the article talk page... AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:20, 22 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Good responses. :) ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 01:22, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

ARB notice
You are involved in a recently filed request for arbitration. Please review the request at Arbitration/Requests and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. Additionally, the following resources may be of use—
 * Arbitration/Requests;
 * Arbitration guide.

Thanks, Tenebrae (talk) 15:49, 22 December 2011 (UTC)


 * What a joke. Yworo (talk) 15:56, 22 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Yup. Comical. AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:07, 22 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Especially funny since the only comment he made in the WP:BLPN discussion was an extended personal attack against User:Youreallycan. Yworo (talk) 16:22, 22 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Even so, it could be useful to get a ruling on it. My argument is that the so-called "reliable" sources have no legally valid way to know what her birth name is, unless she herself states it somewhere as being something other than "Demi", and no evidence to that effect has been presented. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 16:31, 22 December 2011 (UTC)


 * But ARBCOM won't make such a 'ruling' - it is outside their remit. If what you say is true (source?), and Demi's birth certificate isn't publicly accessible, it does seem to imply that the 'fact-checkers' couldn't have checked the 'facts' though... AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:57, 22 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Perhaps not. It's just that someone needs to. Regarding fact-checkers, probably all but one has copied from someone else. Someone needs to figure out where her supposed full name was first reported, and see if she was the source or not. If not, then they guessed. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 19:03, 22 December 2011 (UTC)


 * As a professional journalist, I would like to make the editors aware that getting secondary confirmation from a subject's parent or sibling is valid. So are other documents such as passports. (I'm not speaking of us doing it; I'm referring to what is standard, everyday practice at a place like People and fellow Time Inc. publication Entertainment Weekly; I can personally guarantee all the stringent fact-checking done for the latter.) It is erroneous and an assumption to believe the only way to confirm a name is via witnessing a birth certificate. That contention is a straw dog. Also, Pulitzer Prize-winning biographers give such details as birth names. If it's not trivial for seasoned, accomplished professionals who do it for a living, it's presumptuous for others to call it trivial.--Tenebrae (talk) 20:58, 22 December 2011 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure that anyone needs to check this. Doing it ourselves would be WP:OR anyway. More to the point, the whole thing is trivia. Wikipedia isn't a database, and we don't need the name on someone's birth certificate to write a bio about them. Sourcing is a necessary requirement for adding material, but it is never a sufficient one. AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:12, 22 December 2011 (UTC)


 * A Quick question at Reference_desk/Humanities brought a prompt response (thanks to Trovatore): Demi's birth certificate isn't available for public access, as "State law restricts access to the registrant's Immediate Family members or those who represent tangible proof of legal interest in the requested record" . Of course, this doesn't prove that a researcher hasn't seen the document - but it implies that they may not have done - I'm sure that journalists don't refrain from asserting that people have names, even if they've not seen the certificate ;) AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:57, 22 December 2011 (UTC)
 * From Wikipedia's perspective it doesn't matter what her name really is. Repeat after me: "Verifiability, not truth." Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 20:05, 22 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Yup, we've verified that a claim that Demi's name can be verified is unverifiable... AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:10, 22 December 2011 (UTC)


 * @Bugs, my point of view exactly. We can compare her past and present statements, but her present statements trump past third-party sources. @Boris, in general that's true, but some BLP policies trump that. In particular, if there is any doubt about something, it should not be in a BLP article. @Andy, why is it always such an uphill battle to get other editors to understand BLP issues? I am starting to think that we should have a special "BLP" permission, and require editors interested in editing BLPs to study the policies and pass a test on them before they get the BLP permission. Also, regardless of Wikipedia's policy on allowing unregistered users to edit, BLPs are one subset of articles which would benefit from not allowing such editing. Yworo (talk) 20:12, 22 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Agree and go one further: We should only let professional journalists edit BLPs. --Tenebrae (talk) 21:02, 22 December 2011 (UTC)


 * If you wish to propose that, do it elsewhere. Personally, I rate many journalists on the same level as pox-doctors clerks - and try to have as little as possible to do with either. AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:12, 22 December 2011 (UTC)


 * I have no idea what "pox-doctors clerks" are, but denigrating a noble profession is unbecoming and unnecessary. I don't know where you would get your news of Congress, Kim Jong-il, the latest corporate mergers, your town's new zoning laws or the next Peter Jackson movie without journalists. --Tenebrae (talk) 22:12, 22 December 2011 (UTC)


 * If I considered journalism as self-evidently a 'noble profession', my statement would be illogical, never mind unnecessary. I don't. AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:18, 22 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Well, doesn't that just speak volumes. --Tenebrae (talk) 23:02, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

Assange Falsely Claiming Credit for Starting the Tunisian Revolution
Could you please read my newest comment in the Assange article's Talk page and maybe reply to it?Rtmcrrctr (talk) 15:26, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

Talk:Max Gerson
While I agree with you that Gerson Therapy is in the realm of tinfoil hats and contrail theories, please watch the personal attacks. (You might want to go back and tone down your comment.) - Sum mer PhD  (talk) 01:41, 25 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Done - and season's greetings to all... AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:58, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

Season's tidings!
FWiW Bzuk (talk) 02:16, 25 December 2011 (UTC).

List of polyamorists
When you have a chance, could you check on the situation at this article? Full of original research into people's sexual relationships and identification, labeling them not based on citation of self-identification or even third-party sources, but rather based on the sole opinion of ... who responds with WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT when the relevant policies are pointed out to him or her. Yworo (talk) 07:11, 29 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Yup - it looks that way. If I get the chance, I'll look into it - though I suspect my chronic insomnia, combined with overindulgence in C2H5OH over the festive season) may finally have caught up with me, and I may be less active over the next few days... AndyTheGrump (talk) 07:21, 29 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Well, I hope that you don't have too unpleasant of consequences. Drink plenty of H2O too. (Not to be confused with H2O2). Yworo (talk) 07:48, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

Talk: Atheism
yes, there was a decimal point error. I came back to correct the figures, and your post was there. I have deleted it and corrected my post in the interests of clarity. Regards, Chemical Engineer (talk) 00:50, 30 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Ok, I'm fine with that. :) AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:52, 30 December 2011 (UTC)