User talk:AndyTheGrump/Archives/2011/January

Re: 'Truth' and self correction
Thanks for the note and good words :)... and Happy New Year to you as well! -- WikHead (talk) 03:59, 1 January 2011 (UTC)


 * With a ringing phone and NYE guests just arriving at the door, my previous reply to you was somewhat distracted and rushed. Upon returning to my talk page however, I laughed like hell at what you had written to me, and was actually a bit surprised that I hadn't noticed the quirky humour while I was making that edit. Thanks for the laugh! Best wishes, and best of luck in the new year. -- WikHead (talk) 03:48, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

Barnstar
Thanks for this, though it was a cooperative effort, with Elen doing an exemplary job with the follow-up. AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:46, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Talkback: Elen of the Roads
—  Spike Toronto  03:40, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of HIV-positive people
Could I invite you to revisit this debate and express an opinion on my argument there? It seems to be a relevant point that hadn't yet been raised and if you had a convincing rebuttal it would be likely to change my vote. - DustFormsWords (talk) 05:15, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Julian Assange two women accuser (names removed: AtG) conspiracy
hi,

This is a google translated page of two women intent to conpire.

http://www.samtycke.nu/2010/09/fallet-assange-uppgifter-raderas-om-och-om-igen/

One of the women who reported Julian Assange is (name removed: AtG). She stood for election to the City Council for the Social Democrats and is a public person to be examined. Therefore I publish her name.

....

please translate yourself. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Omega153 (talk • contribs) 03:24, 31 December 2010 (UTC)


 * I do not see a reason for removing the names. The names have been reported by hundreds of reliable sources.
 * Anyway, reading the sources some interesting connections came up. By the time Assange gets to Sweden hi will most likely be accused of satanic ritual abuse, including murdering small children (see Södertälje case).


 * The decision to exclude the alleged victims' names was arrived at by consensus, with regard to WP:BLP policy, particularly regarding the section on 'Presumption in favor of privacy'. As for Assange being accused of Satanic abuse, I dare say he may already have been somewhere, given the vitriol directed at him. Given that one contributor wished to insert claims that Assange was working for the CIA into the article, it wouldn't be any more bizarre. (Then again, half the 'contributors' to the article seem to think I'm working for the CIA. I'm not of course, I'm with the Illuminati ). AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:37, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

2011 Tuscon Shooting (talk)
Don't take the "liberty" to change others words. If this were in the actual article I would say you would have a point, but this is in the discussion page; leave others words alone! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jasonanaggie (talk • contribs) 04:00, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Well let me just say if this individual would have committed this act in my state (Texas), he would have been sent to execution express lane with the number of people that witnessed the crime. I completely agree with innocence until guilt is proven, but in this case, we can give some leeway in the talk pages. The assailant (not contestable, there was an assailant. People were shot and killed correct?) is not alleged. If you are going to correct people use common sense!Jasonanaggie (talk) 04:21, 10 January 2011 (UTC)


 * You execute witnesses to crimes in Texas? AndyTheGrump (talk) 04:23, 10 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Well, I guess you just proved yourself illiterate as well.Jasonanaggie (talk) 04:56, 10 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Nope. AndyTheGrump (talk)


 * Nope? Wonderful reflection of what you meant. You really need to take a look at yourself and stop editing others posts before you come to terms with your own mental defects. Jasonanaggie (talk) 07:53, 10 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Halfwit. AndyTheGrump (talk) 07:56, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

About this edit - That's not Original research. His prison number is clearly stated. What I am doing is using a primary source. Because including prison numbers and prison locations is adding supporting information to detail largely fleshed out by secondary sources, it is a-ok to use the primary sources in that matter. WhisperToMe (talk) 22:50, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm aware of that principle. There's a noticeboard thread where something similar came up, and it was determined that including that stuff is okay as long as the incarceration is sourced to secondary sources. WhisperToMe (talk) 23:01, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Here: Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard/Archive97 WhisperToMe (talk) 23:02, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

I include prison IDs mainly to show that the individual was processed and held by the system. I often use it as the main piece of info related to the incarceration, especially when the location of imprisonment isn't available. Sometimes secondary sources state prison ID numbers (like in Martha Stewarts' case). I guess the reason why the BLPN thread turned out the way it did is that prison info for adults in the US isn't seen as "private" information (like phonebook information) - On the other hand, in relation to juveniles, incarceration locations are privacy issues in the US. WhisperToMe (talk) 23:28, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Sure thing. We can wait to discuss this further till the editing frenzy dies down :) WhisperToMe (talk) 23:36, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

You're needed in talk
You're needed in the az shooters talk page/ --Protostan (talk) 23:51, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

?
You didn't care when I asked for your opinion of the shooter qualifying (or not) as a phi(l)osopher. --Protostan (talk) 01:08, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Polite request
I'd appreciate it if you didn't try to make discussions on article talk pages personally about me. You'll notice I've never done that to you. Kelly hi! 03:09, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
 * There is in fact a lot of writing on the talk page saying that Loughner was left wing.  He in fact hated the government, supported the gold standard, was afraid of ZOG and the Amero, was anti-immigrant and believed in conspiracy theories.  TFD (talk) 03:20, 12 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Oh, I've had plenty worse - have had Sarah Palin on my watchlist since before she was nominated, and was one of a handful of editors trying to maintain BLP on the article during this insanity. Sorry, I am not a Palin political supporter, I just periodically try to lend a hand on this topic. Have gotten kind of jaded regarding POV-pushers on the issue. But Palin is a human being and deserves the same treatment we would give Obama or any other politician of similar public prominence. Your friend - Kelly  hi! 03:26, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
 * But I echo my respectful request to keep your comments to the topic, and not me. Please? Kelly  hi! 03:26, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
 * That is what Fox said - it could be they were wrong about ZOG, but his view is definitely conspiratorial. TFD (talk) 03:48, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Fox News is usually good - it's their opinion sections (Beck, etc.) that are the problem. TFD (talk) 03:58, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Jared Lee Loughner, atheism and WP:BLPCAT
Hi, Andy. Did you come to a clearer understanding of WP:BLPCAT after your discussions? I think the policy is addressing when you can put a living person in a CATEGORY at the bottom of the page. In Loughner's case, it would mean that he could only be put in the CATEGORY of "Atheists" if 1) he self-identified as an atheist and 2) his atheism is directly related to his notability (I'm not quoting the policy verbatim here, but I think you know what I mean) and 3) it's all reported by reliable sources. If my understanding of the policy is correct, then, in the body of the Loughner article itself, it's OK to say he is an atheist (supported by the AP, the Guardian, and reports of his classmates' statements reported in reliable sources, but it's not OK to put him in the "Atheist" CATEGORY at the bottom of the page because the WP:BLPCAT requirements are not met. What do you think? --Kenatipo (talk) 07:19, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Template:White People
I suppose you could list it here: Templates for discussion. I'd definitely participate. But there's a lot of "keep" frenzyness going on lately. We can only hope people will be reasonable with this one. Bull dog123 23:30, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry, I meant to post my earlier message here instead of on Bulldog's talk page. But even so: if you don't agree with a page or template, then you still shouldn't vandalize it.  Take it to TfD if you really want to see it gone, as advised above.  As for reporting the vandalism, that message was a report, and it was aimed at you. Vandalism is not normally sent straight to WP:AIV on sight, unless it can be reasonably assumed that a particular user has no intent here other than to disrupt.   —  Soap  —  00:01, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Loughner photo coverage
Hi, after you reverted me twice, I've started a discussion at Talk:Jared_Lee_Loughner. Could you please explain your objections there?  Sandstein  18:18, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

Sorry
About that revert. I was reading through it on my phone... I shan't be doing that again! Regards, wacky  wace  07:30, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

So serious...
Please, look at: The Century and the Millennium; Cardinalists vs. Ordinalists. Friendly, --WPK (talk) 18:07, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Very interesting.-- SPhilbrick  T  00:13, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Sarah Palin as politician
AndyTheGrump - I am inclined to disagree with you regarding Sarah Palin's designation as a politician, as opposed to a former politician. By definition, a politician is someone who currently holds an elected office or is politically influential. Since the latter relies on subjective interpretation of the individual's impact on decision making, I think it is an inappropriate measure in and of itself for an encyclopedic entry that strives for objectivity. Referring to Ms. Palin as a "politician" without supporting evidence of her direct influence on current political decisions reflects a biased view. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tryggvi bt (talk • contribs) 17:44, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

You ask that people be polite and assume good faith here on your talk page. I would appreciate the same. Of course I read the articles I link to. Please provide evidence that Palin is currently seeking political office.Tryggvi bt (talk) 19:54, 21 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Since Tryggvi bt has chosen to link here in his edit summary, rather than to the article talk page, which would be the correct place to discuss this, can I ask that people respond there. I have no wish to see my talk page cluttered with facile debates, and reserve the right to delete content I consider not of relevance to my edits, as per Wikipedia talk page policy. AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:07, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Ethnicity
"I think what is needed is a more general clarification of policy regarding 'ethnicity' articles." Is this something that we can define in a guideline? I've been wondering about this issue for a while. In general, I'm trying to be sympathetic to the various beliefs regarding what ethnicity means, but there's no single definition that seems to suit everyone. I think it would help if we could somehow limit usage, since the vagueness tends to foster nationalism and a battleground mentality. --Nuujinn (talk) 15:25, 22 January 2011 (UTC)


 * This has been a pet issue of mine, and I've brought it up in numerous places, perhaps most notably here: Village pump (policy), which seems to have attracted some interesting comments. Broadly speaking, I see two connected problematic areas: Firstly, assignment of 'ethnicity' to individuals, and secondly the creation of articles about 'ethnicities'. The first clearly comes under WP:BLP policy, which at least insists on good sourcing for living persons (it does not as yet insist on self-assertion of 'ethnicity', though I've strongly argued that it should). The second is actually much harder to deal with, as there are few 'ethnicities' which are clear-cut and undisputed, even by those who consider themselves members. Often though, articles seem to be about 'ethnic categories': groups to which membership is assigned by outsiders. In the case of some Wikipedia articles, the 'ethnic categories' are either based on a false analogy with 'ethnicity' elsewhere, or are an arbitrary synthesis cobbled together to suit a POV. This is clearly against policy, but arguing individual cases can be time-consuming and problematic. Personally, I'd argue that policy should be that an article about an 'ethnicity' can only be written if it is recognised as such by a significant proportion of those who are supposedly 'members', and that no individual should be named as a member unless (a) they have unambiguously self-assigned to the ethnicity, and (b) their ethnicity is somehow significant to their notability. None of this is really stretching WP policy much further than is implied at the moment (apart possibly for (b)), but getting a consensus to actually enforce it might prove difficult - there are many articles which would fall foul of this, and as soon as one starts to discuss individual cases, long-winded explanations of why this particular instance is exceptional are likely to result. This is of course the crux of the problem. Ethnicity is complex, it is contested, and it is situational: sometimes I'm a Brit, sometimes I'm English, and sometimes I'm a stuck-up wet southern ****, depending on context. Frankly, I'd be happy to get on without 'ethnicity' at all, but it does seem to be fairly universal (ok, non-committal that, I know...) - people like to fit other people into arbitrary categories, and can only do that if they make one for themselves too. I think the best we can do is let everyone choose their own 'ethnicity' if and when it suits them (and if they want to), and insist that it isn't an attribute you can meaningfully assign to someone else as an objective 'fact'. AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:23, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

Use of leaked diplomatic cables
This has probably been discussed somewhere already, but what do you think of the usage of the leaked US diplomatic cables on Wikipedia? I find it highly problematic that they are often cited as facts, although they actually simply represent opinions of some random US diplomats. These diplomats are not experts in anything. They often do not know any more than mere journalists and are usually much less neutral. Basically, the leaked cables are used to ensure that the opinion of the American government about everything is prominently displayed. What if instead, Chinese diplomatic cables would have been leaked? Would we then have the Chinese government view inserted everywhere as a fact? What do you think of this, and is there something we should do? Nanobear (talk) 21:36, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
 * That is a very good point. The attitude that "it is a secret, so it must be true" is all to prevalent. I'm not sure there is much one can do about this though, beyond pointing out when they are cited/quoted that they are only opinion, and often, as you suggest, not particularly well informed. AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:48, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, they should definitely be cited only as their opinion. But I would be inclined to go further and simply remove these opinions from articles where they aren't especially notable. For example, about important topics there is a huge amount of different opinions by journalists, academics and experts - and we rarely include even those. So why is the opinion of some US diplomat so important that warrants insertion? Especially given that we don't even insert official statements by the American politicians into these articles. Nanobear (talk) 22:03, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I think you need to treat individual cases on their merits. There may sometimes be instances where the 'leaks' have actually generated significant media attention etc, and to cite the commentary without linking the 'leak' might seem odd. Sometimes too, though the content isn't notable in itself, the fact that a diplomat for instance is saying something may be. A journalist saying that the President of X is a crook on the make may merely be repeating common knowledge (or gossip), but when the US ambassador to X says the same thing it can have consequences. This isn't so much because the ambassador is more likely to be right, but that he is more likely to be seen as reflecting a broader opinion amongst those in power. But yes, in other cases, the fact that some junior diplomat says something in a leaked cable makes it no more of a reliable source for facts than something he/she said in a press release. Secrecy does not imply notability. AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:39, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

Species notability
Hey, I saw your argument here and I thought it might be useful to know why species of flatworms (and any other organism) are almost always notable. To be considered a species and to get a name, a species must be described in a published paper in a reputable, peer-reviewed journal (usually a really really obscure journal, but still). So there's at least on RS automatically. If there's something particularly interesting about the species, that will often be published separately. Then there will often be phylogenetic analyses of the larger taxa that the species is in that will include it. And the organism itself has to be "published" by keeping a type specimen on file. It's not continuous coverage in People magazine, but it'll get you pretty far. (I guess the point is that species aren't a very good example of barely or borderline notable.) I'll take off my taxonomist hat now and leave you alone. Best, Danger (talk) 05:22, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

The search goes on, and some things I have found
Hi, Andy. I should have supposed you were British for your specialty is to bother Argentinians. The book was not what I expected, but I'm searching for sources all the time. I give you one here, where it provides information and some statistics on people who self-identified as "argentinos blancos". As our relationship is in such good terms, I won't help you with the language difference, find yourself a translator. Ah BTW, time runs the same direction here in the southern hemisphere, which now happens to be much warmer than yours.--Pablozeta (talk) 06:59, 23 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Actually, on the subject of 'bothering Argentines' I was one of the minority at the time of the Malvinas/Falklands nonsense to oppose the entire thing, on the basis that it suited the ruling elite on both sides of the Atlantic to stir up trouble and divert the proles from domestic concerns. Still, you mustn't let awkward facts get in the way of convenient stereotypes, must you? AndyTheGrump (talk) 06:59, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

It is good to know that we have at least certain opinions in common. Anyway, my opinion took shape years after the event, for I was only eleven when the War broke out -I'm forty now-. You must be at least 15 years older than me. Did you take a look at the source I showed you?--Pablozeta (talk) 11:10, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Infobox deletion
Dear Sir:

Please stop deleting the infobox from the "White Argentine" article. I've noticed that your beef is only with white people from Argentina, and not, for instance, white Brazilians, White Chileans, White Americans, etc. Your believing that the group does not exist is merely subjective, and constitutes patent nonsense (much like my wishing that grumps and curmudgeos - as you proudly call yourself - did not exist either). There's a very good rule against that.

As always, live...and let live.

Take care, 98.166.201.254 (talk) 19:37, 24 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Read WP:V, WP:SYN, WP:RS and WP:BLP, and then debate the issue on the article talk page. Until you provide reliable evidence that "White Argentine" is an ethnicity widely sell-assigned by a significant proportion of the supposed members of such an alleged 'ethnicity', I will continue to delete any infobox that suggests it is, as a violation of Wikipedia policy. AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:26, 24 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Andy:


 * As you know, many academic texts wtitten outside the United States will interchange the word "white" for "European", and all the example provided, if you bother to read them, deal with the central role Europeans played in the Argentine identity. Your claims that this well-referenced article violates reliability and verifiability so much that its very existence is unwarranted is analogous to the flat earth paradox said to have, at least once, been used by an editor or two to disrupt Wikipedia.


 * You insist on playing the devil's advocate with this particular group (and not with articles on White Brazilians, White Cubans, or White South Africans, for instance), and seem to think that, by attrition only, everyone else will simply give up. Just remember that the White Argentine article will not be deleted just as no similar article should be, however biased one thinks it may or may not be. I invite you to try the same chicanery on articles dealing with other white Latin Americans (God help you!).


 * If this is aproblem of semantics, I might support you in moving the article to "European Argentine" (pending consensus), but make no mistake: This article will remain unless and until all entries on the white communities elsewhere are deleted, and it will continue to have an illustrated, referenced infobox such as what you might see for any similar entry pertaining to anywhere else in the world. As you are the one pushing for its deletion, it is you who should provide well-sourced, compelling reasons to do so.


 * This notwithstanding, I look forward to the chance to work with you at some other opportunity.


 * All the best, Sherlock4000 (talk) 23:09, 24 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Since you have completely ignored my central point, that you must find evidence for a self-asserted 'white Argentine' ethnicity, and not addressed the very important point regarding WP:BLP violations at all, I am now going to remove the disputed infobox. AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:15, 24 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Nuvola apps important.svg You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war&#32; according to the reverts you have made on White Argentine. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period. Additionally, users who perform several reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. When in dispute with another editor you should first try to discuss controversial changes to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. Should that prove unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. Please stop the disruption, otherwise you may be blocked from editing.


 * Cordially, Sherlock4000 (talk) 23:31, 24 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Utter hypocrisy. Your last revert has an edit summary that makes no attempt whatsoever to discuss the issues regarding WP:BLP and WP:V I have raised. If I didn't consider it infantile behaviour to post an edit-warring template on the page of someone with whom I was already debating, I'd reply in kind. I'll clearly have to raise the gross violation of WP:BLP elsewhere. AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:39, 24 January 2011 (UTC)


 * See Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard. AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:53, 24 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Further to this, can you clarify whether the posting made by IP 98.166.201.254 was made by you? I note that this IP editor frequently contributes to similar articles to you, and would point out that if it is you, you appear to have already violated the 3RR rule. AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:45, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

BLP issue of interest to you
Hi Andy. In the past you've expressed significant concern about applying Jewish ethnicity/religion categories to articles, citing WP:BLP as the issue. A similar issue has arisen at Esther Shapira; it has also been raised here on BLP/N. Perhaps you'd like to look at it? Thanks. Jayjg (talk) 20:26, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

Sorry
Sorry if I interrupt you, but proselytizing is allowed on Wikipedia? The text is in Spanish, from Pablozeta to different Spaniards users , calling them to form a bloc to request a change in policy to allow the articles on "white" people Letina America (in Argentina, Mexico and Colombia), have the status ethnic group.--GiovBag (talk) 23:31, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

Go Troll Yourself
"Go troll elsewhere" you say to me on an article talk page. Same back to you + I'll call you a Ownership of articles offender too. Mr.Grantevans2 (talk) 01:08, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks and no problem. I apologized to Errant last week. Mr.Grantevans2 (talk) 04:25, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

And another one

 * So presumably if I thank you for this one, I get another one? This could get complicated... AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:57, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I have a vision... I see Andy's talk page completely covered with thank you messages and awards. Just kidding. I often enjoy reading what you have to say at different places and completely agree with your sentiments. I think sometimes the situations here at Wikipedia require somebody to be blunt and to the point and you fulfill that role perfectly. Therefore, you are an important part of the community. I do beieve there is a need for many different types of personalities here at Wikipedia in order to have a well-balanced encyclopedia. My personality type is often far too verbose and so my message gets lost in all my words (like now), so I am glad to have you here and hope you keep doing a great job. Thanks. -  Hydroxonium  ( H3O+ ) 08:33, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

Please stop
Please stop writing edit summaries to intimidate me as you did here. With accordance of guidelines for edit summaries that states "Avoid using edit summaries to carry on debates or negotiation over the content or to express opinions of the other users involved.".--Mbz1 (talk) 21:19, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
 * If you consider advice to stop making things worse for yourself as 'intimidation' I suggest you consider what writing bigoted personal attacks on journalists looks like. AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:23, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I am afraid you response shows that you have no idea what you are talking about. Once again I ask you stop giving me "advices" in edit summaries. It violates guidelines for writing edit summaries. I consider calling my comment "bigoted personal attack" a PA against me. On a side note, if I feel as reading your response or responding to it, I will, please to not add talkback templates to my talk page. Please have a nice day.--Mbz1 (talk) 21:32, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
 * You can consider my remarks about you however you like. Your comments on the article talk page about the Palestinian journalist were a gross violation of Wikipedia policy, so I'd suggest you shut the **** up. AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:37, 31 January 2011 (UTC)