User talk:AndyTheGrump/Archives/2011/September

An unconfirmed news about the Energy Catalyzer
Hi Andy, here is Francesco writing.

According to an Italian blog ( http://www.energeticambiente.it/sistemi-idrogeno-nikel/14742857-novita-cella-piantelli-2.html#post119247556 ), the day after tomorrow (ie 3 September 2011) NASA will start to perform tests about the Energy Catalyzer. Up to now I have multiple other sources that confirm this but unfortunately no one, among them, can be considered WP:RS.

I want to specify that these tests alone, I mean the news that these tests will be performed, do not represent nothing more valuable than what we already knew before: NASA researchers at the Marshall Space Flight Center offered to examine Rossi's device (if Rossi pays for the tests). Hence it seems that Rossi decided not to lose this opportunity.

Regards.--79.24.132.183 (talk) 16:58, 1 September 2011 (UTC)


 * As you say, blogs aren't WP:RS. It isn't clear from the blog (or at least, from what Google translate makes of it), exactly what NASA's involvement in this is anyway. Are they just providing access to a laboratory? Or are they actually overseeing the tests themselves? If it is the former, it cannot be taken as evidence that they endorse any of Rossi's claims - and even the latter might be a simple commercial agreement to carry out tests: there is nothing in this to indicate that NASA take Rossi's claims seriously. AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:17, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

FYI
Hello Andy, I just wanted to let you know that you are mentioned by myself in this ANI post. Thanks,  Red thoreau  -- (talk) 21:24, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

Updated reply
Just to let you know, I changed my reply on the wifi router on the RD/C after your reply. The key point I added was "However a major spoiler which just occured to me while doing some research for the answer, it seems a lot of ADSL modems use a low voltage AC input (usually from 9-22V or so) rather then DC input, [3] mentions that and this BT one [4] does too and I seem to recall many of the ones I've owned have as well (which is what got me thinking). Since it sounds like you have a wifi router with a built in ADSL modem, then perhaps yours does as well" Nil Einne (talk) 14:28, 5 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Thanks - yes, it is combined router/ASDL modem: one of these . I'll have to unplug the power supply to check, but I think it is 12v DC. AndyTheGrump (talk) 14:38, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

...that Wikipedia has decided...
Hey, listen, I understand your beef about List of Jewish Nobel laureates. It's important to source claims about people's ethnicity, especially in biographies of living people. But the move you made was not appropriate. First off, Manual of Style/Self-references to avoid indicates clearly that such a title is wrong. And more importantly, Do not disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point. If there's unsourced information, fix it... but don't make pagemoves like that. – Quadell (talk) 16:05, 2 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Yeah I know. I'll administer the necessary trout-slapping myself. The trouble is that everyone agrees on the talk page that the criteria for inclusion should be given, but nobody has done anything about it - for the simple reason that if they did, it would immediately become clear that the whole thing is based on WP:OR. The list has no business being in Wikipedia in the first place, but there are too many 'contributors' willing to engage in boosterism for their pet cause, be it religion, ethnicity, nationalism, politics or which end of a boiled egg you should crack open. This is merely one of the most blatant examples of self-serving spin. I should probably raise the issue on the article talk page, but it is obvious that no resolution will be arrived at... AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:21, 2 September 2011 (UTC)


 * I have mentioned the matter at WP:ANI. Warden (talk) 17:51, 2 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Allow me to administer that trout, and this particular one, I'm sad to say, has little sense of humor. Please refrain from such pointy behavior that contributes nothing to the discussion or the project. Drmies (talk) 22:29, 4 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Andy, I'm not sure what you mean when you say "the criteria for inclusion should be given, but nobody has done anything about it"? As has also been pointed out on the Talk: page, the "criteria for inclusion" are the same as for any other Wikipedia article - we go by reliable sources. If reliable sources say someone is Jewish and a Nobel Prize winner, then they're included in the list. End of story. Also, as I've asked in the past, why are you going after this particular list, as opposed many of the more horrific examples of the "issue" you says exists. For example, List of Jewish American politicians? Jayjg (talk) 20:09, 5 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I think that this will best be discussed on the list talk page, but I'll point out that the MOS says that "The contents of an article that is a stand-alone list should be clear. If the title does not already clarify what the list includes, then the list's lead section should do so. Don't leave readers confused over the list's inclusion criteria or have editors guessing what may be added to the list" (Manual of Style/Lists). The term 'Jewish' is never defined in the article lede, and many of those on the list have some Jewish ancestry, but are by no means unequivocally Jewish. There has been extensive discussion of the criteria for inclusion on the article talk page, which can only suggest that it isn't at all clear who should be included on the list - and it seems to me that creating our own criteria could well be seen as WP:OR. There is also the not-insignificant fact that there are not always references to the persons 'Jewishness' provided on the list. This type of problem has been discussed extensively before, and in relation to BLP's, the consensus seems to be that the list itself must provide a source which demonstrates that an individual merits inclusion. AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:39, 5 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Made me laugh, anyway. The persistence of Wikipedia advocacy groups in asserting ownership based on their criteria not those of the subject is a long-standing cause of frustration. I am sure they are justly proud of being Jewish (or Methylated Wesletarian or whatever) and identify themselves as such first and foremost, but they have to recognise that the reason a lot of people dispense with such self-labelling is that they do not actually consider it in the least bit relevant to themselves or their work. Guy (Help!) 19:42, 8 September 2011 (UTC)


 * The annoying thing is that there seems to have been a talk-page consensus of sorts for making the criteria explicit, but nothing gets done about it. I think I'd better lie low for a bit over this (I doubt I'll get away with just a trout if I overstep the line again), but if someone else feels like making a concrete proposal on the talk page, I'll be glad to add my support. I suspect that this is likely to be contentious though, given the subject. AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:14, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

Note
That was quite a shot you fired at Sumter. :) ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 03:00, 9 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Yeah - I'd better watch out for a ricochet. I may regret it later, but someone had to say it. He was, as we say this side of the pond "taking the piss". Sometimes, old-fashioned rudeness is the best response. AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:07, 9 September 2011 (UTC)


 * FYI... Fort Sumter. :) ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 03:28, 9 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Hmm, I thought the name rang a bell somehow. I suspect that if I've (accidentally or otherwise) fired the first shot in the Wikipedian Civil War, it isn't going to be this one though. I seem to have stirred up more trouble elsewhere... AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:59, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

Swedes Article
The reason I made that edit was because the link was dead. TheGoodSon 20:40, 10 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes - there is a notice saying that the website is down for a few hours. That doesn't justify deleting the paragraph entirely, just to suit your arguments. AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:50, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

I am truly not trying to be argumentative or anything. I honestly just want to keep the article as factual as possible, that's all. The thing is the Swedes and Finns are an ETHNICALLY unrelated people. Swedes are a Germanic people who speak a Germanic language and share culmtural ties to other Germanic peoples (ie. Danes, Norwegians, Germans, etc). The Finns are a Finno-Uralic peoples, who speak a Uralic language and share cultural ties with other Uralic peoples (ie. Estonians, Hungarians). So are they related ethnically, no. Yes, all Europeans are related to each other in one way or another (all are Caucasians, or "white people"), but there are separate groups that are more closely related to each other than to others. That is all I am trying to do - is keep the article factual. TheGoodSon 21:08, 10 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Also wanted to add, they are also genetically unrelated. The Swedes are genetically much closer to other Germanic peoples, that is a no brainer.TheGoodSon 21:11, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

Here is something else that you can read for yourself. I quote this from the Finns article: " For example, Haplogroup U5 is estimated to be the oldest mtDNA haplogroup in Europe and is found in the whole of Europe at a low frequency, but seems to be found in significantly higher levels among Finns, Estonians and the Sami." It is referenced, so it's not like someone just made it up. Sorry, I don't mean to bombard you with messages, I just want to prove my point. TheGoodSon 21:19, 10 September 2011 (UTC)
 * You seem to use the word "fact" in a very loose sense. And I think it is a bad idea for you to use the word "nobrainer" about these issues. The fact that one haplogroup is more frequent among Finns than swedes does not mean that the two groups are unrelated. Believeing that it does is a "nobrainer".·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 21:29, 10 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Exactly: the Swedes may well be more close genetically to other 'Germanic peoples' than to Finns - but that doesn't mean that they are 'genetically unrelated'. I'd also point out that Maunus is an anthropologist (and come to that, that I have a Bsc in anthropology), and that you are simply wrong in your understanding the meaning(s) of ethnicity. I see that Maunus has removed the disputed field from the infobox entirely - this seems to me to be the most sensible course, since it is of little real significance anyway. AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:34, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

How do you figure that it the section in the infobox can't be "sourced". It doesn't take a rocket scientist to know that Germanic peoples are closely related ethnically. I mean what is it going to take to get this point across to you? The Swedes are a Germanic people. OK? They speak a Germanic language. OK? They share cultural and genetic ties to other Germanic people. OK? The Finns are a Uralic people. Ok? They speak a Uralic language that is totally unrelated to Swedish. Ok? They share cultural and genetic ties to other Uralic peoples like the Estonians, Hungarians, and Saami. This I quote from the Finns article, ok? " For example, Haplogroup U5 is estimated to be the oldest mtDNA haplogroup in Europe and is found in the whole of Europe at a low frequency, but seems to be found in significantly higher levels among Finns, Estonians and the Sami.[38]". So the Finns are genetically unrelated to the Swedes, their languages are totally unrelated, and culturally the Swedes are closer to their Germanic brethren (ie. Danes, Norwegians, Germans, etc). What part of that is so difficult to understand? TheGoodSon 21:33, 10 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Guys, I didn't say that the Finns were a totally isolated group of Europeans - yes, they probably share some genetics with the Swedes and all other Europeans. My point is that genetically, culturally, and linguistically the Swedes are more closely related to other Germanic peoples than they are to the Finns. That is a fact. TheGoodSon 21:37, 10 September 2011 (UTC)
 * It is not a fact. And if it were you'd still have to provide a very good source stating so. I am a Dane, I know many Finns and Swedes and most of them would be very much surprised at being told that they are more ethnically related to Austrians and Hungarians respectively than to each other. It makes no sense. Now go read some books and come back when you have some sources about ethnic relations and not population genetics and linguistic classifications.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 21:44, 10 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Linguistically yes. Can you provide a source stating that they are more closely 'culturally' related to Germanic peoples in general than to Finns? (I'm not sure how you can measure this anyway). In any case, this is all beside the point. 'Less closely related' doesn't mean 'unrelated' - and that is the only fact that matters. AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:47, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

The Germanic people (Swedes, Norwegians, Danes, Germans, Dutch, English, Icelandics, etc) all speak Germanic languages, they are obviously more closely related to each other genetically since they share a common ancestry, and culturally the Swedes are closer to the Norwegians than they are to the Finns, for example. The Finns don't even speak an Indo-European language. Go read Ethnic groups in Europe right here on wikipedia. It lists the Swedes, Norwegians, Danes, Germans, Dutch, Icelandics, and English as one ethnic group. The Finns aren't included, they were listed as one ethnic group with the Hungarians, Estonians, Kven people, Mordvins, Saami, Komi, Mari, etc. TheGoodSon 22:20, 10 September 2011 (UTC)
 * You are simply repeating yourself. Using words like "obviously" and "fact" doesn't make you exempt from having to justify your basic assumptions.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 22:21, 10 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, firstly, Wikipedia articles aren't reliable sources in general, and that one in particular is a bit of a mess. Secondly, the article lists lists the 'Swedes, Norwegians, Danes, Germans...' etc in a section clearly marked Linguistic classifications and nobody is denying that Swedish is a Germanic language. Frankly, I'm not sure why this discussion is going on on my talk page anyway - if all you are going to do is repeat yourself, I'm going to delete this section, as I'm entitled to. You were told where to raise content disputes, and this isn't an appropriate place. AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:40, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

Unite Against Fascism and RS
How is 'Russia Today' not a reliable source? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.16.25.21 (talk) 15:51, 12 September 2011 (UTC)


 * How about finding a source from the mainstream British media? The whole issue is off-topic to the article anyway. Please discuss this on the article talk page, as requested. AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:01, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

Yoga shennanigans
The same editor(s) responsible for the Siddhamrit Surya Kriya Yoga article created this article Swami Budhpuri Ji the day this article Swami Buddhapuri Ji was deleted. Sneaky little bastards, ain't they. I recommend we discard AGF and move to directly to deletion of both Siddhamrit Surya Kriya Yoga and Swami Budhpuri Ji. There is no doubt that they are just spam added in bad faith by the two perps, user:ssky and user:ssky2. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 02:46, 15 September 2011 (UTC)


 * If they are duplications of deleted pages, that would seem sensible. I suspect that the 'perp' is actually a believer, and that 'bad faith' isn't really the problem as such. Not that this matters really - we can't have articles claiming that sitting in the sun protects against skin cancer, or that you can survive without eating for 5 years (or, at least, we can't without better sourcing...). AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:54, 15 September 2011 (UTC)


 * This article has been rewritten and is on the talk page, inviting reviews. Please review it and suggest improvements.Svechu (talk) 08:22, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

Epeefleche
I usually rollback his comments from my talk page... but since you added something, I can't! If I can't have that simple pleasure of rollbacking Epeefleche comments, what's the point of editing Wikipedia at all? All Hallow&#39;s Wraith (talk) 04:27, 17 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Feel free to roll back, delete, or otherwise flush down the virtual plughole, at your pleasure AndyTheGrump (talk) 04:46, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

Joe McGinniss
Hi, Andy. Did you notice that the editor doing the reverts at the Joe McGinniss article calls herself Nancy E Doherty and that Nancy Doherty is shown in the infobox as the "partner" of Joe McG? I was going to jump to a conclusion and write something about COI on her talk page but didn't know how to proceed. What do you think? What's the protocol? She only has a handful of edits. Appreciate your thoughts. --  Kenatipo   speak! 05:31, 25 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Hmm, interesting. We aren't supposed to 'out' contributors, but if someone uses their own name, they can't complain if people come to conclusions. A check through the McGinness article history indicates that a User:Nancyedoherty was involved early on. I'd say that the obvious way to proceed would be to ask on Nancy E Doherty's talk page whether she is the same Doherty, and if so, direct her to WP:COI. AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:01, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

Please see this page
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Editor_assistance/Requests#Abraham_Isaac_Kook_.28edit.7Ctalk.7Chistory.7Clinks.7Cwatch.7Clogs.29 Ksavyadkodesh (talk) 17:26, 27 September 2011 (UTC) Please see response on the site above. Ksavyadkodesh (talk) 20:09, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Proposed edit for Astrology
I am making all recent contributors to the Astrology article and its discussion page aware of a proposed amendment to the text which discusses the 1976 'Objections to astrology' and the relevance of Carl Sagan's reaction. This is in response to the comments, criticisms and suggestions that have been made on the published text, with the hope of finding a solution acceptable to all. Your opinion would be very welcome.

The proposal is here.

Thanks, -- Zac  Δ talk! 15:51, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Hello
Hi,

I have looked at the edits again. I think it was more spamming than anything else. I identified some spamming in Huggle, plus it had already said that he had been warned, I checked and the warning was from a user rather than a bot so I reverted the edit and warned.

There was 1 and 2 plus the other's you mentioned were vandalism.

The person that I mentioned who reverted it was User:Calabe1992.

Thanks. :) --Onewhohelps (talk) 16:44, 29 September 2011 (UTC)


 * There seems to be more discussion going on at Help_desk. AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:54, 29 September 2011 (UTC)