User talk:AndyTheGrump/Archives/2011/October

Careful
Watch 3RR at Astrology. That "new" account is shoveling a lot of nonsense, but don't get yourself into trouble reverting it. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 04:08, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

Thanks - You're probably right. I should have gone to bed hours ago anyway. I'll let others deal with it. AndyTheGrump (talk) 04:11, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

Revert
You reverted my edit. That made me sad. TheThingy TalkWebsite 20:48, 8 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Your edit was unsourced nonsense - and you've been a Wikipedia contributor long enough to know better. AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:55, 8 October 2011 (UTC)
 * He wrote on his userpage to edit the page and say something that would make him smile. That's what I did. TheThingy  TalkWebsite 21:17, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

British Bangladeshi
Shall we take this to the talk page? I hardly think acting like large numbers of other people in Britain do (and frankly everywhere else) is controversial. I'd like to also clarify what you don't like about the edits. -- Eraserhead1 &lt;talk&gt; 17:50, 15 October 2011 (UTC)
 * If you have issues with the writing style feel free to copyedit the text. -- Eraserhead1 &lt;talk&gt; 17:53, 15 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I think this is best discussed at WP:AN/I. You seem to be unaware of Wikipedia policy. AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:55, 15 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm perfectly happy to discuss this at ANI. -- Eraserhead1 &lt;talk&gt; 17:59, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

Please understand uber-categories
The whole topic already has a category. Articles are supposed to be in the most specific category. Thank you. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 17:39, 16 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I think that is a rather odd way to look at categories - an article can clearly relate to more than one, and presumably 'Christian Terrorism' isn't a subcategory of '2011 Norway attacks' or vice versa?. In any case, this is best discussed on the article talk page, not here. AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:43, 16 October 2011 (UTC)
 * sigh* alright. FWIW, is in  Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 17:45, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

Stephen D. Leonard
Your comments at the talk page for this article, though deleted, were appreciated. Blunt and properly....grumpy. Thanks, 99.137.209.90 (talk) 14:39, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Glad to be of assistance... AndyTheGrump (talk) 14:54, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

WP:CIVIL, WP:NPA
Hi Andy,

Editing Wikipedia can be frustrating, but there's really no excuse for calling editors "idiots" or telling one to "go f--- yourself". I strongly recommend you redact your comments. I won't be looking back here for a response, by the way, as I'm not really interested in an argument or debate about this. I'll just watch to see if the article Talk: page is redacted, and take appropriate action if it's not. Thanks. Jayjg (talk) 02:59, 24 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Well then, for the benefit of anyone else watching this page - I've no intention of redacting anything. See the talk page he's referring to: Talk:List_of_Jewish_Nobel_laureates. Jayjg was dragging up a tired old 'fix something else instead' arguments, and telling me to 'move on' from a page he'd rather control himself. As for Epeefleche, he accused me of religious bigotry (why? the article isn't even about people who are Jewish by religion), but failed to provide the slightest evidence to back it up, or to report me for it. If Jayjg wants to drag up week-old comments that's fine by me. I see no particular reason to worry about drawing attention to the manipulation that has gone on in that article to keep it the way it is. (And BTW, note the reluctance to actually seek outside input when I questioned the reliability of sourcing...) AndyTheGrump (talk) 04:06, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

Personal attacks
You have three times accused me of conducting a smear campaign, please remove your personal attacks. The Last Angry Man (talk) 09:35, 26 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Please stop doing it then. AndyTheGrump (talk)
 * You may explain your actions here The Last Angry Man (talk) 20:28, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Request to stop disruptive editing
Your recent edits seem to have the appearance of edit warring. Users are expected to collaborate and discuss with others and avoid editing disruptively. Please be particularly aware, the three-revert rule states that: If you find yourself in an editing dispute, 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 an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. ==
 * 1) Making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period is almost always grounds for an immediate block.
 * 2) Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

-- Request you stop reverting [[Church Planting Movements based on personal opinion. I shouldn't need to report you for adminstrative action. --[[User:DeknMike|DeknMike]] (talk) 18:57, 26 October 2011 (UTC)


 * I shall be reporting your copyright violation, and other behaviour, at AN/I shortly. I have to go out for a few minutes though, and I suggest you take the opportunity to read the relevant policy (WP:COPYVIO), and self-revert. Wikipedia takes such violations very seriously. AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:03, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Church Planting Movement
Hi Andy--so far so good, I reckon. Please don't wave the article farewell; it might actually be an interesting topic, and more eyes are always better. Take it easy, Drmies (talk) 14:23, 27 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Hi. First of all, thanks for stepping in and cleaning the article up. You're probably right about this being an interesting topic - but finding sources outside the evangelical Christian movement looks to be problematic. I had a look myself, but couldn't find anything useful. Without this, we seem to be left with an article based around a metaphor and a series of unverified claims. As I said to DeknMike, we already have good evangelism and proselytism articles, and without something to distinguish the CPM, beyond the words themselves, it is difficult to see how an article can be justified. An article on the broader topic of the spread of evangelical Christianity in less-developed parts of the world in recent times would be much easier to source, I'd think, and might be less problematic from the POV perspective. As with any article on religion, there would still be problems no doubt, but I think it would be more viable. AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:01, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Sure, glad to do it. I think that the limited use of the term is both the challenge and the interest. If it turns out that it is a very limited use and topic, then at some point we might have a merge discussion, but I don't know off the top of my head what the other articles in that field (of conversion, evangelicalism, mission strategies, etc.) are like. I do think that such topics need coverage from sources outside of the practicioners, so to speak, and that's something that Deknmike will have to live with. If he can, we'll see. As you saw, I've edited the lead to reflect that limited use; it cannot be expanded until sources become available that allow it. A decent definition is the first burden, and we're not really there yet. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 16:25, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

NOTCOURT
Your thread at Wikipedia_talk:What_Wikipedia_is_not/Archive_37 was interesting, too bad I didn't see it at the time. It strikes me that the greater problem is exhibited in articles such as Murder of Meredith Kercher, which degenerate into wp:battlegrounds. Perhaps an essay simply discussing the existing policies would be worthwhile? LeadSongDog come howl!  18:48, 28 October 2011 (UTC)


 * That sounds like a good idea. I'm sure there are a few who could usefully add to this. Perhaps you could suggest this somewhere else, and see who's interested? AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:06, 28 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Or perhaps just be bold and draft it? I'm thinking of something along the lines of:


 * There were earlier suggestions of wp:NOTMOOTCOURT too, IIRC. LeadSongDog come howl!  20:17, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

The problems are endemic to the articles, alas. I tried an essay at WP:Advocacy articles suggesting one interesting solution. Cheers. Collect (talk) 20:26, 28 October 2011 (UTC)


 * I can see the logic of your proposal, Collect, though I'm not sure it would necessarily help - it might present the opportunity for yet more convoluted discussions on whether a particular article was 'advocacy' or not, and might even be seen to actually encourage more of this sort of editing. In any case, I was proposing something more limited in scope - to see the application of existing policy with regard to articles where court cases were concerned more explicitly stated in What Wikipedia is not. I think it was mostly the Swedish Judicial Authority v Julian Assange article, and particularly the discussions on the talk page, that motivated this, though we had similar problems with New York v. Strauss-Kahn. With both, we had arguments that 'evidence' must necessarily be added to articles, not because it was seen as particularly important by outside sources, but because individual contributors thought it was significant in determining 'guilt' or 'innocence'. The Assange talk page also had a great deal of debate on the intricacies of extradition law etc, little of which was actually helpful in determining article content, as it lacked useful sourcing. A lot of this actually comes down to ensuring strict compliance with WP:NOTFORUM in relation to such articles, and to giving due regard to WP:NOTCRYSTALBALL in terms of the significance of 'evidence'. Added to this there are the obvious WP:BLP issues, and possibly legal issues (e.g. sub judice restraints) for contributors themselves. All in all, it seems worth making the relevant policy as clear as is possible in regard to such matters. That is why I proposed the addition to 'What Wikipedia is not', though an essay on the subject might be a better approach. AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:04, 28 October 2011 (UTC)
 *  The principle is that some topics intrinsically bring out advocates (basically in the areas of religion, politics, economics and sex) - if we simply said "OK - this is your playground, and the other guys get the other playground" I think a lot of them would quickly get bored of the game of trying to get articles tilted their way. I grant this is a tad contrary to NPOV, but heck - I bet you can name at least two articles which do that already.  Cheers. Collect (talk) 23:57, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

Patent Examiner
Andy, in a regular process of patent and review, I as a patent prosecutor regularly review and update patent information. I an effort to promote patent accuracy and the use of the United States Patent and Trademark system it is important these facts be check and updated. This is part of an plan to foster greater patent development and cross referencing and searching. I am completely befuddled by your removing of my federal patent database references and improving this record of invention and forward citations. Please clarify your intent and explain your actions? To just simply edit a professional record without documentation is not understandable. Seems you have a long record of this, would you please cease and desist. Thanks you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Factiod (talk • contribs) 17:17, 29 October 2011 (UTC)


 * I note that your only edits to Wikipedia have been the three you have made at the CueCat article. You may well not therefore be aware of Wikipedia's policy regarding original research. Articles must be derived from published reliable sources, and cannot be based on unpublished research done by contributors, qualified or not. So no, I will neither cease nor desist, as I am merely conforming to Wikipedia policy. I suggest that you endeavour to study the said policy, and do the same. AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:26, 29 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Factiod, do not demand any Wikipedia editor "cease and desist" or you will be blocked per WP:No legal threats. Thank you. Binksternet (talk) 17:58, 29 October 2011 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure that it can be seen as a 'legal threat'. Experience suggests that unverifiable claims of legal qualifications need to be taken with a pinch of salt anyway. AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:11, 29 October 2011 (UTC)