User talk:AndyTheGrump/Archives/2011/February

Actually it was a great idea
I mean bringing so called copy rights violation that were not copy right violation to AN/I. The other article was brought up to AN/I and is going to be deleted. I guess this one will follow the suit, not that I care too much. But still have you done what I asked you to do in this edit here's the link to the search, just click the first one, and read the whole article from the Wall Street Journal. Do you still cannot see the whole article printed in the Wall Street Journal with exactly the quote used in the wikipedia article.? Of yes, may I please ask, you if you are going to respond please do use only letters versus "*" as you did yesterday. Please have a pity on my English and me. Don't give me hard time in understanding what you meant.--Mbz1 (talk) 21:22, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Please respond at AN/I. I am no longer interested in attempting to communicate with you. AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:29, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Sorry you were right.--Mbz1 (talk) 22:25, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

White Argentine
It doesn't look like there's going to be a consensus on the talk page any time soon, but the "keep" platoon don't appear capable of making an argument in sufficiently rational form to convince a wider audience - do you want to possibly move to taking this to AfD? I'm not really interested in the article as a whole so at the very least an AfD result would give me some closure on the discussion. - DustFormsWords (talk) 01:54, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Sure. Do you want to do the honours? I've not done an AfD yet, and I wouldn't want to mess this one up - it will probably look better coming from a relatively-uninvolved editor too. AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:00, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm much better at arguing them than nominating them but I'll give it a shot. - DustFormsWords (talk) 02:06, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
 * :-) AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:07, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Nomination of White Argentine for deletion
''Comment: Just installed Twinkle. Makes it much easier!'' - DustFormsWords (talk) 02:19, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

The article White Argentine is being discussed concerning whether it is suitable for inclusion as an article according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Articles for deletion/White Argentine until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on good 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 template from the top of the article. DustFormsWords (talk) 02:17, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Thanks
Hi, AndyTheGrump. Thanks for this post. Regards.--Mbz1 (talk) 16:03, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Patna
I am a native of Patna. I will try to improve the utilites part with proper references soon. Don't remove that section. Reverting it once again. Use the discussion page from now on before reverting.  Boolyme   Chat!! 22:55, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

Yup. It is an advert. But, feeling really sleepy right now. Didn't want to lose data there. Will try to do it first thing when I get time. Appreciated your interest.. Good night :)  Boolyme   Chat!! 23:06, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

I have removed the template after you replied. I don't need to use other IPs. See the page history and see what edits I have done on the page. After that do whatever you want. I just don't care.  Boolyme   Chat!! 23:11, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

Ignore everything. I just don't care. A proper advice would do good to you.  Boolyme   Chat!! 23:14, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

Old Village Pump Discussion
You should definitely leave me an invite if you decide to start a wikipedia-wide proposal regarding this. I'd support it. Somebody mentioned bringing the matter to Arbcom. I'm not sure if it warrants that yet... but it might because RfCs tend to descend into vote-and-dashes. I think this issue can also apply to the obsessive Infobox Montages, since the blanket ban RfC is not going anywhere. Bull dog123 10:07, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

GiovBag's vandalism
Andy:

Please do, because then it will be obvivous that not only what Giovanni was doing was blatanat vandalism, but that you will do anything, even engage in the defense of someone's vandalizing a Wikipedia article, to impose your whim that the page just disappear.

You, of course, are only here to cause disruptions, and seem to think that Wikipedia is a forum in which you can turn you self-professed need to be petulant into some sort of pseudo-intellectual sport. The worst part is, that you think yourself very original. Say what you will (and you will), but you're hardly the first to attempt to work out inner demons at Wikipedia's expense, and so, you only embarrass yourself, Andy.

As much as you may enjoy all this trouble, this saddens me in numeorus ways. Not the least of these is because you're terribly articulate, I like your witty, ironic oulook on things, and suspect we'd agree on a lot.

Until better days, then.

Sherlock4000 (talk) 20:44, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Who laughes the last, laughes the best
This site is invaded by intelectualoid ****, like you and GiovBag, so I'll move for greener pastures. I'll concentrate my efforts in my own website Razas del Mundo, and I won't waste them here where they are not considered valuable. I hope you create some article soon, and not only criticize somebody else's work, which seems to be the only thing you are good for. When I get ready, I'll come back and restore White Argentine to its original shape.--Pablozeta (talk) 02:38, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

MMS talk page
I've deleted all of that, I hope you understand and will back me on this. It was getting way out of hand. I added a talk page header as well. Dougweller (talk) 08:12, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

February 2011
Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, you are reminded not to attack other editors, as you did on Talk:Miracle Mineral Supplement. Please comment on the contributions and not the contributors. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. You are welcome to rephrase your comment as a civil criticism of the article. It doesn't matter how many people an editor might have harmed. (Also, Claiming to be someone doesn't mean the editor actually is that person.) Comment on the edits: the shouting, the use of Wikipedia to promote the unapproved use of a substance as medicine despite no demonstrated medical benefit and a track record of harm, or the non-contributory nature of a talk page edit trying to refute reliable sources with his say-so. Try not to take the bait. Instead, try WP:COIN. That should end things.Novangelis (talk) 05:20, 19 February 2011 (UTC)
 * You best serve the world by keeping your voice on Wikipedia, which means you have to remain civil. Don't insult the other editors, no matter how how slimy they are. Shut them down by reason and the facts. All the evidence goes against MMS, so argue the evidence. While insulting people who profit from the harm to others is satisfying in the short term, kicking the soapbox out from under their feet is more satisfying.Novangelis (talk) 05:48, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

User_talk:Ultraexactzz re Theosophical Society
You've been mentioned at User_talk:Ultraexactzz re Theosophical Society - the IP user has introduced a long complaint there. JoeSperrazza (talk) 18:12, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

lol
I thought that the links in this and this might make you LOL. SmartSE (talk) 18:38, 19 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Yup, Wikipedia, the perfect source for information on MMS, provided you don't read the article on MMS! I see they haven't yet discovered it also turns base metals into gold :¬ AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:28, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

talk:Jimbo Wales
Why did you Undid revision it? Where was more gibberish?--山吹色の御菓子 (talk) 13:38, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Riley slice
The article is well-sourced to mainstream scholarly journals. The sentence you complain of not understanding is taken almost verbatim from the first page of the first reference. I think you ought to refactor your comments and apologise to the originator of the article, User:r.e.b., who is in fact quite an eminent mathematician and does not deserve your snide accusations of hoaxing. 212.183.140.4 (talk) 23:00, 24 February 2011 (UTC)