User talk:AndyTheGrump/Archives/2011/July

Magen David shaped synagogues
Hey, Andy. I found two others: the one in Wharton Texas burned down last October; the one in the Gaza Strip (no kidding!) was probably bulldozed by the Palestinians when the Israeli settlers left in 2005. --  Kenatipo   speak! 04:47, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Cheer up!
 * Shearith Israel, Wharton, TX
 * Yamit Yashiva, Neve Dekalim, Gaza Strip

--  Kenatipo   speak! 22:01, 29 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Yeah, thanks. I've had better days, but to be honest, getting blocked at least encouraged me to get on with other things. As for the Star of David shaped temples, evidently there are a few of them - though I've not looked for more. Christian churches are frequently cross-shaped in planform (at least in the West), and I've been told this is symbolic: though on the other hand, it is a convenient shape architecturally too, unlike the Star of David. AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:55, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Never mind you might enjoy this feel free to link to whenever. John lilburne (talk) 13:01, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

Length and legibility
If in future you are involved in lengthy discussions on Wikipedia similar to your recent AfD participation, I ask that you use the template to reset indent nesting whenever the nesting exceeds five layers. This is for the sake of legibility.

Thank you. DS (talk) 18:42, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

Julian Assange misconduct
Hi, you reverted the edit I made to include the exact misconduct Assange is being accused of according to this article. If you have other information on the exact allegations, would you please include them in the article along with the source? Regards, --Jules.LT (talk) 06:41, 4 July 2011 (UTC) (please put in my talk page when you answer)

Pyramid Schemes in Albania References
I am guessing that probably some references can be found on local archived newspaper articles or at the reference list. Thanks for pointing it out. Hopefully the issue will get fixed very soon.Shikuesi3 (talk) 02:38, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

WP:AE for Miradre?
We just about had a topic ban for him before he dropped off the radar back in late April, if he took a three month vacation and is back with the same shit the its time for AE. I will have more time this weekend to follow it up. Think we can get something done? The Resident Anthropologist (talk)•(contribs) 19:35, 8 July 2011 (UTC)


 * It needs thinking about. He certainly seems keen on skewing every article he can to suit his POV. He now seems to think he can cite his own articles as evidence, and then asks others to 'disprove' them. Not exactly the expected norm for Wikipedia. AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:55, 8 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Further - this ] looks relevant here:


 * Single purpose accounts


 * 7.1) 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.


 * Passed 9 to 0, 22:34, 24 August 2010 (UTC)


 * I think Miradre would be hard-put to argue that his isn't a 'single purpose account', and his 'own agenda' seems fairly self-evident. AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:11, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

Comment on content, not contributors.
Please do not attack other editors, as you did at News of the World. Comment on content, not on contributors. Personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you. - SudoGhost&trade; 23:26, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

Negotiating content and adversarial attitude...
I'm just posting looking for advice. With two editors diametrically opposed on an issue about an article's content, which they're both passionate about, how would _you_ suggest trying to come to agreement on it.

-- Bob drobbs (talk) 03:02, 15 July 2011 (UTC)


 * A good question, though not necessarily one I'm best qualified to answer - I've got into such disputes rather too often myself, and not always in ways that reflect well on me. I can only really offer the suggestion that those involved try to step back from seeing it as a personal conflict, and instead ask themselves what do Wikipedia readers want? Where there is plenty of media coverage (as with the DSK alleged sexual assault issue), and there is relatively little factual information, combined with a great deal of spin (again, as with the DSK issue), there is little merit, it seems to me, in trying to do anything other than summarise the issues, state the undisputed facts, and leave questions of innocence or guilt to the jury. Readers interested in juicy speculation can read it elsewhere, but Wikipedia is intended to be a long-term record, not an ongoing newsfeed - and those that try to treat it otherwise should probably concentrate their efforts elsewhere. AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:16, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

Welcome to AN/I (again)
You have been brough to AN/I for your swearing and insulting manner at the BLP/N which you have been warned multiple times about.Camelbinky (talk) 17:56, 17 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents - Off2riorob (talk) 17:57, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

July 2011
This is your last warning; the next time you vandalize Wikipedia, as you did at Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. ''Andy--you and I both know that "Fuck off and troll elsewhere, you patronising ignoramus" is really not acceptable. Being somewhat of an ignoramus myself, I chose not to block you temporarily, but PLEASE tone it down.'' Drmies (talk) 18:03, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Er, I suggest you look at how the term 'vandalism' is used in Wikipedia. Yes it was rude, but did you see the context? I'd been asked whether I knew anything about multiculturalism, pointed out that I have a first class honours degree in anthropology (which would seem to imply that I know at least a little about the subject), and was then told "A simple class for you would help you get an introduction to cultures, because it's clear you know nothing at all, no matter what degrees you can cite". Can you suggest a better response to that? - Actually, don't bother to answer here, I see I'm wanted at AN/I. AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:13, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes you are wanted there, which is why I came here. To repeat myself: yes I did see the context, and I still urge you to take the high road. Now go have dinner: a low blood sugar is bad for the temper. With grumpiest regards, Drmies (talk) 18:39, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, I'm not going to suggest that with hindsight I don't wish I'd responded differently, but I didn't. As for dinner, already had it. Another cup of tea may help though, and then I'll see what more happens at AN/I. AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:04, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Someone boldly closed the ANI incident, but having reviewed the whole thread that started it and the ANI discussion, I wanted to drop by and say something. I'm not sure I would have been as forceful as Drmies was above, and I do appreciate your having admitted that you wish you'd responded differently.  But - to remind you and reinforce things - this is why civility matters.  If you abuse people badly enough, no matter what the provocation was etc., then there is blowback and repercussions.  It doesn't help the community, it doesn't help resolve the conflict, it doesn't help you.
 * You've been around a long time; you seem to know it already. I think and hope that this is over and done with.  I hope the rest of your week goes better.
 * Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 20:01, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Yes, hopefully I'll do better next time - as you say, it doesn't look good. I need to learn that if I can't control my temper, I should at least try to be rude in more subtle ways... AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:38, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia can't cope with much reality William M. Connolley (talk) 20:43, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia doesn't recognise reality, unless it is in a 'reliable source' ;-) AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:50, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Someone boldly closed the ANI incident - that was me (and coincidentally, someone dropped a barnstar on my talk page minutes later). The thread was just a lot of attitude being flung around, and I had determined that if there was anything to be handled, AN/I wasn't the place to do it.  I thought it more of a Wikiquette issue and suggested that to the original poster of the thread.  The only reason I popped over here is because there was some slight discussion following the closure mentioning that you'd agreed you could have handled it differently.  I want to commend you for saying that, and to say next time use your head before typing something that might offend someone else. =)  On Wikipedia, it's not so easy to just take back something you say, as it's in the history forever.  CycloneGU (talk) 22:37, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Got mail? Drmies (talk) 23:54, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
 * ? AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:01, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm going to echo that.
 * ? CycloneGU (talk) 00:11, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

<--I do hear an echo. Andy, I was trying to ask you if you had considered enabling your email function. Drmies (talk) 03:53, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I haven't seen the necessity so far. By and large, I'd rather stick with using normal Wikipedia communication channels - I think it encourages openness. Was there a particular reason you asked? AndyTheGrump (talk) 13:53, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
 * No, I guess not. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 19:07, 19 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Just a FYI: You may want to note Jimbo's page here. (haven't read through everything on this myself) — Ched : ?  15:19, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I'd seen it, but frankly it looks like forum shopping to me, regardless of what Jimbo says - though as an involved party, my opinion of this is probably not particularly useful. I don't see much point in responding unless Jimbo addresses the specific issue. I suspect that most people seeing it will realise that a couple of the posters are pushing their own agenda in any case. AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:34, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

Reading before opinionating Kiefer .Wolfowitz 06:16, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
Andy, you appear not to have read anything on American Left. Not your usual standards! Kiefer .Wolfowitz 06:16, 19 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Sorry, but the wall of text you've just posted here tells me little about the American Left, and a great deal about how easy it is to start of with a particular point to make, and work backwards until you can pretend there is a valid context to make it in. AndyTheGrump (talk) 06:24, 19 July 2011 (UTC)


 * You really are a grump! ;-)
 * Try not to be a grumpy ignoramus, however. T4D's sectarian version of article American Left discussed some members of SDUSA serving in the White House, with POV language. (The topic of SDUSA members and the Reagan/Bush/Bush administrations has been widely discussed by lumpen leftists, and lately by unlettered rightwingers, and so has been discussed by some scholarly sources. A sentence or two on the topic is warranted, and has been accepted by editors of related articles, who know something about these topics or have the discipline to defer shooting off their mouths until they have tried to remedy their ignorance.)  Kiefer .Wolfowitz 09:21, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

DSK Religion
I've updated the DSK talk page reflecting your concern about the citation not demonstrating that DSK identifies as Jewish. In my opinion, this is only one issue; the second is your removal of the other section of content about potential adverse effects for the American and French Jewish communities as a result of the alleged sexual assault. It was inappropriate to remove this section without bringing it to the talk.

Regardless, I have added the citations to the talk page: http://radioislam.org/islam/english/jewishp/france/strauss_khan_imf_jew.htm

It would seem any reasonable person would agree with that quote... I do think you should revert your undo of all of my content and add the citation.Factothy (talk) 23:37, 19 July 2011 (UTC)


 * I will reply on the article talk page. AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:49, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

WP:COAT
"It would be reasonable to include brief information of the background behind a key detail, even if the background has no relevance to the article's topic, as long as such information is used sparingly and does not provide any more explanation than a reasonably knowledgeable reader would require." Enough Said.  BE  TA  00:28, 21 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Utter hogwash. You are pushing a self-admitted POV. Do you want this to go to AN/I? AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:31, 21 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Man, give me a real reason, something that doesn't only rest on your opinion. I have a source for everything I've added. It's not right to remove something just because "you don't like it"  BE  TA  00:37, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

I've started an AN/I, maybe we need objectivity from other editors, I don't know. Because it seems like we're both too close to this now. BE  TA  00:48, 21 July 2011 (UTC)


 * I think you have misunderstood the purpose of AN/I. It is for "reporting and discussing incidents on the English Wikipedia that require the intervention of administrators". It isn't a forum for resolving content disputes. Still, you've saved me the bother of having to start the thread. Any further discussion on this issue should be conducted there (Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents). AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:59, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

pro-Mexica Movement argument
"You've done nothing to improve the situation. Just more of the usual blame-shifting. Where's the rewriting? Nor is your pro-Mexica Movement argument convincing. As to being familiar with your work, sadly, I am. You keep violating WP:BLP at an ethnic group article, copying and pasting content between articles without a care to how lazy it looks, generally refuse to communicate on talk pages (this article being one of two exceptions), and when confronted you respond petulantly and childishly, insisting on having your way. I, on the other hand, am prepared to accept your work if you make significant changes."

Anyone full of that much toxic hatred and smart-mouthed hypocrisy deserves it all thrown back at them. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.199.55.244 (talk) 07:51, 21 July 2011 (UTC)


 * If I knew what this was about, I might be able to respond. At a guess, it is Mexicans of European descent, though I've done nothing much with the article. AndyTheGrump (talk) 14:43, 21 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Curiouser and curiouser. The original can be found in Talk:Hispanic_and_Latino_Americans/Archive_1, and is a comment by SamEV in December 2008. Not really any of my concern, though I suspect that it relates to my posting on his talk page, where I offered sympathies over vitriolic postings there. If the person who posted this is here is the same one responsible for the attacks on SamEV, I suggest that he/she takes note that I'm not interested in ancient vendettas conducted through anonymous racist rants. Any further postings here relating to the issue will be deleted without response. AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:06, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Need help on the Evolutionary Psychology and Criticisms of Evolutionary Psychology Pages
Hi Andy. You've been a level-headed editor on these pages in the past. Manus has been away and these pages seem to be going to hell in a proverbial hand-basket with a new editor joining the mix. Can you pop on the discussion pages and weigh in? Logic prevails (talk) 10:29, 22 July 2011 (UTC)


 * I'll take a look, but I'm not sure there is a great deal I can do. Unfortunately, I think that articles of this type (science-based ones where the field of science is itself controversial) are always going to have problems with a systematic bias within Wikipedia, simply because it reflects the asymmetric representation of the dispute within scientific discourse - supporters of evolutionary psychology are a relatively tight-knit group with established journals etc, whereas those dismissing it (or large portions of it) tend to be spread through multiple fields, and have little to gain from expending effort on pointing out its flaws. In a situation like this, the Wikipedia sourcing policy tends to make the over-representation of general scientific support for such fields more or less inevitable. Actually, I think this is more of a flaw with scientific 'culture', and with a research funding methodology which inevitably skews results towards the 'popular' and 'positive', than with Wikipedia itself. AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:14, 22 July 2011 (UTC)


 * I agree with what you are saying. I have been tempted, for some of the reasons you describe, to leave that page and let it turn into the disaster is seems destined to become. However, I also suspect that when the timing is right (e.g. enough academics get 'annoyed' with how far the 'science' of EP has gone), it will attract enough 'sensible' editors who are willing to accurately reflect the scientific debate in these Wiki pages. There was a time, months ago, when there were no criticisms at all on these EP pages. A handful of editors changed that. At any rate, I appreciate your input. Logic prevails (talk) 12:30, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

Cb
I have a lot of respect for your editing but Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents is a waste of ANI. You should have expected the "yes but you're rude too" answer, which is inevitable (I know exactly what you mean, though, but it won't help; you should know that by now). Just leave it at WQA William M. Connolley (talk) 15:54, 22 July 2011 (UTC)


 * I'm sorry, but Camelbinky has accused me of antisemitism before, and never retracted the (entirely unsupported) allegation. He/she continues to make much the same insinuations, always without evidence, and with no attempt to take such allegations to a place where they could properly be examined. I'll readily admit to rudeness (and frankly, after my last outburst, was somewhat surprised on reflection that I didn't get blocked), but I don't see why I should have to tolerate such extreme attacks on my core beliefs and integrity. AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:12, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm not saying it is correct. Just inevitable. Using words like "fuck" get you blocked (or in your case, rather fortunately, didn't; but it was close), because they are clearly incivil. Using thinly disguised smears doesn't, because of the ambiguity / thought problem William M. Connolley (talk) 16:29, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I think that after Camelbinky's latest wall of text, there is little room for ambiguity. AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:02, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Point taken
I'm certainly willing to abide by MOS guidelines. The previous argument against Wiki-linking Christian fundamentalism, that it "had nothing to do with the Norway attacks", was silly and patently false to say the least. I'll grant that most CF's aren't bombing and shooting, but notin that he is a CF, with a link to just what that is, is relevant. But you make a good point with the MOS policy. Point taken, thanks. AlaskaMike (talk) 19:59, 24 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Thanks - though I'd suggest that (as I noted earlier on the talk page in the 'Why the Facebook Page/PDF is Not WP RS and Christian status is dubious' section), our article on the subject takes a very narrow US-centric stance, and thus lacks the broader outlook that would make it more relevant. That however, is a problem with that article, not the one in question. AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:05, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Incompetence hurting Wikipedia
What do I want to see? Check this out, edit to article, edit on talk page  Yogesh Khandke (talk) 04:29, 26 July 2011 (UTC)


 * I'm sorry, but I'm not particularly interested in disputes as to whether 'caste X' is 'Y' or 'Z'. The whole system stinks, and arguing about rankings within it only serves to preserve it. As far as I'm concerned, there are only two groups of people in this context: those who wish to preserve the caste system, and those who don't. I consider the former inferior to the latter. AndyTheGrump (talk) 04:48, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Notification of request for a block
Notification that you are mentioned hereCptnono (talk) 04:58, 28 July 2011 (UTC)
 * This should be fun... AndyTheGrump (talk) 05:01, 28 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Fun ended early with your edit. I will be modifying it and asking you to watch NPA if you were attempting to assert that I was a fan of Beck. Cptnono (talk) 05:02, 28 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I'll assert nothing, other than that you should read before you write... AndyTheGrump (talk) 05:04, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Lewontin's Argument
Fllowing the recen |afd our participation in the dicussion about the title and scope of the article will be apreciated.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 01:06, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

WP:OR
I'm new to adding content to wikipedia. I'm willing to discuss my proposed change regarding the Oslo killer. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fiolou (talk • contribs) 22:36, 30 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Read WP:OR, and then discuss this on the article talk page if you still think it can be included (it won't be). AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:42, 30 July 2011 (UTC)