User talk:AndyTheGrump/Archives/2011/November

Hello Andy
I would like to engage you in a dialog regarding updating the file of Cue cat. I have posted several suggestions for factually updating the cue cat file. Could we please have a dialog about this I would love your comments. Thank you. (ProofPlus Professional Researcher) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Proofplus (talk • contribs) 19:38, 2 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Firstly, can you let me know whether you have any relationship, professional, financial or otherwise, with anyone involved with the CueCat? If so, you need to read WP:COI, and would be strongly advised not to edit the article yourself. Secondly, can you let me know whether you have previously edited the Wikipedi CueCat article, or discussed the same, under a different user name - an if so, divulge this name, for transparency? I've already had one 'contributor' make ridiculous allegations about me, and since I only got involved in the discussions in the first place as a result of attempting to discourage edit-warring, I've no wish to involve myself again without being fully aware of why participants are involved, and what their motivations for wishing to edit the article might be. Frankly, it seems a trivial dispute over a bit of hardware that was of questionable utility at the time it was conceived, and is now seemingly obsolete and only of interest to historians of the rapidly-changing IT industry. The inventor of the CueCat seems to have a bee in his bonnet over events surrounding the CueCat, but Wikipedia isn't an appropriate forum for airing such disputes. AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:59, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Hello Andy, no I do not have a financial interest in cue cat. But I do have factual records to add to the discussion. I simply followed the rules I read, posted to all who seemed to have an interest in the topic and aske for suggestions. Although I do not like Barek calling me a meatpuppet, since I can only assume that is an attack on my being female and I find it offensive. Just trying to participate. So, my interest is pure research and facts and I find the currents facts to be lacking. Thanks for your reply. Now can we get to the comment of the suggestions I made? Thanks (ProofPlus Professional Researcher 21:30, 2 November 2011 (UTC)) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Proofplus (talk • contribs)


 * You haven't answered my second question: have you previously edited the Wikipedia CueCat article, or discussed the article on Wikipedia, under a different user name?


 * Also are you saying that you are doing research into the CueCat? It seems a rather odd subject to be involved in researching if you have no links to it. Perhaps you could explain why you are so interested in this obscure topic? AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:35, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Here is my interest in Cue cat. RPX Corp is a public company. One of the old Paul Allen and groups guys collecting IP. They actually own the patents on the technology that was cuecat. Their stock is down 50%, but the cuecat stuff is their largest grouping. Microsoft, Google and others have licensed the former cuecat patents at $6.6 million each company and there seems to be 60 plus companies who have done the same. Supposedly these patents read heavily on G4 and other stuff and since I read the public filings I am very interested. The research I do is FINANCIAL in nature in Middle Eastern markets and seems this stock in RPX will take off and I want to know the facts. While investigating the facts of cuecat, I came across the wiki reference for cue cat and the record is just wrong and factually incorrect and I took it upon myself to add what I found out. Hope this helps. But there is big stuff in the financial markets going on relating to this OLD technology as you call it, but the patents are not old and are the next big thing. Comments? and you can find this is all public record, so I am not saying anything out of line or such. I own no stock in RPX corp, nor am I an investor, I am a researcher doing my required homework for getting to the heart of this technology (ProofPlus Professional Researcher 21:45, 2 November 2011 (UTC)) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Proofplus (talk • contribs)

You still haven't answered my question: have you previously edited the Wikipedia CueCat article, or discussed the article on Wikipedia, under a different user name? AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:59, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Andy, I felt that I had answered your question. But here is another try. (i) I have never edited a single wiki record, cue cat or otherwise. (ii) don't have another user name, have not had a different user name, dont use any other user name. Hope this helps to clarify (ProofPlus Professional Researcher 17:36, 3 November 2011 (UTC)) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Proofplus (talk • contribs)

Thank each of you, wiki editors and such, for giving me such great pointers and also for the direct emails of encouragement in learning this process. Shabbat Shalom - and since it's Friday I plan to make my additions and updates to the record on Monday. ProofPlus Professional Researcher 19:38, 4 November 2011 (UTC) (ProofPlus Professional Researcher 19:38, 4 November 2011 (UTC)) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Proofplus (talk • contribs)

Wikipedia:Wikiquette assistance
Not sure if you're aware, but a case has been opened up about your behaviour at WP:Wikiquette assistance. It seems you're telling editors that they're not wanted which is not civil, and certainly not correct behaviour. Feel free to comment at your case. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 19:05, 4 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Thanks for letting me know. I'm not exactly in the mood to respond with anything but my trademark grumpiness, but frankly, I'm getting fed up with this ridiculous playpen anyway. I probably need a break. AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:46, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Andy could you help me? Cue Cat
Andy, I know you are a Grump, but can you help?

I posted to Cue cat as I said I would. Once again Bbb23 undid my work as he has done to all other. But in the process of dismantleing my work he left out the Codie Ward for cue cat. Would you look over my links for the award and consider improving the file of cue cat on my behalf for the codie award? Seems, me being new and female is hurting me. Can you help improve the cue cat file? I have left the links and info in the discussion page. Thanks ProofPlus Professional Researcher 16:20, 8 November 2011 (UTC)  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Proofplus (talk • contribs)

RfC on Astrology
Because you have participated in a related RfC on this article, or have recently contributed to it, you are hereby informed that your input would be highly appreciated on the new RfC here: []. Thank you!Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 17:27, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

Edit war on Anders Behring Breivik
May i ask the both of you to cease reverting eachother, and instead discuss the issue on the talk page? Reverting over and over will not solve the issue, and it will definately not improve the discussion, so please, i would really prefer to see this solved without the need for silly measures such as full protections or 3RR blocks. Also as a warning, you are technically already over the 3RR Josh, which normally means an automatic block. So please, don't step over it any further and discuss before changing again. And please provide a source on the talk page for the claim. Excirial ( Contact me, Contribs ) 19:46, 14 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Er, I'm not Josh, for a start. I'm not over 3RR, and I've been trying to get Josh to talk. AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:52, 14 November 2011 (UTC)


 * I tend to post the same message to both parties, since that tends to make the discussion a lot easier to document on a talk page (And it prevents people from thinking i'm taking sides in a discussion) - the latter part of the message was only meant for Josh though, since he is the one outside 3RR. Excirial ( Contact me, Contribs ) 19:55, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

source
just to help you out :P... today in court, breivik claimed that he was the "military commander of the norwegian anticommunist resistance movement" .--  mustihussain   20:24, 14 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I think that'll do as a source :) Thanks. AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:30, 14 November 2011 (UTC)
 * you're welcome. i would have entered the discussion myself but i'm busy with the islamophobia article which is flooded with unreliable sources and minority views...another victim of pov-pushers.--  mustihussain   04:15, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, I assumed you were busy elsewhere. I think I'll stay out of the Islamophobia article for now - I've been causing enough of a ruckus elsewhere, and should probably keep my head down for a bit. I'm sure you know a lot more on the subject than I do, anyway. AndyTheGrump (talk) 04:30, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

Wikileaks/Conspiracy theory of manipulation.
14:24, 6 November 2011‎ AndyTheGrump (144,798 bytes) (Undid revision 459293426 by 81.50.20.140 (talk) This is WP:OR, and would need a source that stated there was a 'conspiracy theory', at the very least)

Hello Andy,

I was 81.50.20.140. Sorry for my English, it is not my native tongue. Indeed, I forgot to put a reference for the second half of the sentence. The reference would be "see Main article Reception of WikiLeaks". Please have a look at the subsection I put there at the time on the subject. Regards, Adrian Belua (talk) 20:27, 16 November 2011 (UTC)


 * It is a matter of policy that Wikipedia does not cite itself as a source, and nor does it cite other-language Wikipedias. Personally, I don't think that the two other sources cited actually back up the suggestion either. The correct place for discussion of article content, however, is on article talk pages, so others can contribute. AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:42, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

Ram Dass
Could use some support on this article. Another editor keeps added "religion = Jewish" even though the subject was a professed atheist before converting to Hinduism, the only religion the subject has professed. Yworo (talk) 22:32, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

Discussion involving you at WP:AN/I
Hi AndyTheGrump,

I realise you are upset about this, but the usual procedure is to first of all discuss the problem with yourself. If that doesn't work, you might also want to report yourself to WP:WQA, before moving to WP:ANI.

I also note that you did not notify yourself of this WP:AN/I discussion, as you are required to do.

Lastly, please don't burst an artery; as I'm sure you are aware, if that happened, Wikipedia cannot give you any medical advice.

Thank you, and columns of superheated-water-ly happy editing.--Shirt58 (talk) 05:56, 29 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved.   Thank you.--Shirt58 (talk) 05:56, 29 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Er, yes - I've obviously failed to notify myself properly, and should therefore raise a complaint on AN/I about this...


 * Thanks for the comments, anyway. I'll try not to burst anything I might regret later ;-) AndyTheGrump (talk) 06:05, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

November 2011
Your recent editing history at CETI Patterson Power Cell shows that you are in danger of breaking the three-revert rule, or that you may have already broken it. An editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Breaking the three-revert rule often leads to a block.

If you wish to avoid being blocked, instead of reverting, please use the article's talk page to discuss the changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection. You may still be blocked for edit warring even if you do not exceed the technical limit of the three-revert rule if your behavior indicates that you intend to continue to revert repeatedly. » εϻαd ιν  ΤαΙk Ͼδητrιβμτιoης 06:33, 29 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Please don't post ridiculous notices about 'consensus'. The fuckwits edit-warring over this article don't give a damn about such concepts - and frankly, if Wikipedia is going to tolerate such morionic POV-pushing turds, it can manage without me... AndyTheGrump (talk) 06:36, 29 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Iceberg_1_1997_08_07.jpg Oioioi! Stay frosty! --Kim Bruning (talk) 16:40, 29 November 2011 (UTC) ("If you are angry or in a panic, you are not solving the problem" -- canadian air force manual (probably paraphrased badly), iirc, ymmv.)

Only Warning
This is totally unacceptable. Retract and apologize now. -- Chris 06:39, 29 November 2011 (UTC)


 * NO. I consider the integrity of Wikipedia more important than civility. If Wikipedia consensus is to the contrary, it can do without me. AndyTheGrump (talk) 06:42, 29 November 2011 (UTC)
 * That is no attitude to have in this matter. Have yourself a nice cup of tea and sit down before making any further edits. You have clearly grown quite angry and that is understandable (I myself have had my fair share of morons to deal with), but there is NO REASON for this level of incivility! Barts1a | Talk to me | Yell at me 06:45, 29 November 2011 (UTC)
 * (ec) Ok, I gave you a chance. I've blocked you for 24 hours. I'd suggest taking this time to cool down a bit. If you can't engage in civil discussion, then you're only serving to hurt Wikipedia not help it, even if you are right. -- Chris 06:47, 29 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Lengthened to 72 hours. Please understand that we take such grievous insults very, very seriously. I don't care if they're directed at the worst person in the world; as Chris G said, even if you're right, being uncivilized only hampers things. Please take some time to reflect. m.o.p  07:00, 29 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Without commenting further on other events, or on the merits of the block, can I ask whether Master of Puppets should be involved in this, given his/her earlier involvement in a debate with me over a questionable premature AfD closure of another 'cold fusion'-related article? See AN/I archives here for the background. AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:02, 29 November 2011 (UTC)
 * It's called "payback." Just a part of life on Wikipedia. You get used to it after a while. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 15:10, 29 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Eh? When did that become normal? Because it shouldn't be! --Kim Bruning (talk) 16:42, 29 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I know I'm a bit late, but I find the notion of payback ludicrous - I would have made the same decision regardless of any previous 'conflict' (or lack there-of). m.o.p  04:51, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
 * This comment inspired me to comment on m.o.p.'s user talk. I am sorry that someone treated you this way, AndyTheGrump. If there was any sort of reasonableness built into the place, m.o.p. would be banned from Wikipedia now, or at least had his admin tools removed and be assigned to write an article on some academic incunabula before he could get them back.. 128.59.171.194 (talk) 23:31, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
 * IP guy from Columbia: You get the 50¢ word award of the day for incunabula! Nice play. Binksternet (talk) 23:37, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
 * @m.o.p. Seeing your comments on an/i and here, I get the idea you're on the up-and-up. :-) (now I wonder what gave Short Brigade Harvester Boris the impression though? ) --Kim Bruning (talk) 23:46, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

discussion
Hi - I opened a discussion thread on the Talk:Ed Miliband page about the comment you removed. Thanks - Youreallycan (talk) 14:34, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

I have presented another addition - would you please comment in regards that desired addition thanks - Youreallycan (talk) 15:12, 30 November 2011 (UTC)