User talk:AndyTheGrump/Archives/2012/February

User talk:MoogleONE
While I agree that the user is violating NPOV, soapboxing, RS, NOR, and on the verge of 3RR ... he is correct that some of your comments cross the line of NPA. Please do not continue with those types of comments ... it's not worth getting yourself dragged down by a content dispute where the other party is already on a course towards a block. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 06:54, 3 February 2012 (UTC)


 * When someone is promoting bleach-drinking as a cure for AIDS (etc, etc), personal attacks aren't merely justified, in my opinion, they are obligatory. Most snake-oil salesmen merely dupe the gullible, but this particular bunch overstep the line, and deserve to be told what they are. I'd rather break Wikipedia policy than basic standards of human decency, per WP:IAR, or if you prefer, per WP:I'D_RATHER_NOT_BE_RESPONSIBLE_FOR_THE_CONSEQUENCES_OF_PRETENDING_THAT_THE_OUTSIDE_WORLD_DOESN'T_EXIST. This bunch of loons are dangerous, and we shouldn't pretend otherwise... AndyTheGrump (talk) 07:04, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Hi Andy! I hope you don't mind I joined that discussion. I have some experience dealing with people with a "brain infection". Von Restorff (talk) 12:16, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks. AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:07, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

apologies
For stepping on your edit - that BLP is still a "cn mess" . Collect (talk) 15:58, 3 February 2012 (UTC)


 * No problem. A bit of Googlery shows that Welsh surfer dude exists . Do we have a policy regarding the opinions of groms being cited as evidence of notability? ;-) AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:22, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks - and I have absolutely no idea about "groms" at all. Heck, this is the first place I ever saw that term. Collect (talk) 19:28, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

You have been reported for incivility
Address your case here: --R-41 (talk) 07:39, 5 February 2012 (UTC)


 * LOL. Pointing out the flaws in your arguments is 'incivility' is it? I've no idea where you got the idea that political debate is some sort of gentle intellectual exercise that your elderly maiden aunt would enjoy after lunch, and before tea and cucumber sandwiches, but it isn't... AndyTheGrump (talk) 08:16, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

Block
For goodness sake Andy, with all the recent talk of AN/I being a cesspit we don't need more evidence. Blocked 12 hours for gross incivility. Kim Dent-Brown  (Talk)  07:27, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

You have been blocked temporarily from editing for abuse of editing privileges. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the text, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first.
 * *whistles* Yeah... IAR does not cover violating one of our five pillars, especially not in such a brazen manner! Good block, Barts1a / What did I actually do right? / What did I do wrong this time? 08:00, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Whatever. I need a break from this pseudobureaucratic ego-fest anyway... AndyTheGrump (talk) 08:18, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Oh, and in case you missed it, WP:IAR is a restatement of one of the five pillars. Confusing, isn't it? AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:59, 8 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Hey Andy, I appreciate the spirit, if not the wording, of your comments. Am I being diplomatic enough? Maybe you'll be pleased to know that you just tied Bugs for number of blocks... Drmies (talk) 17:47, 8 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Thanks. As for a block-taking contest with Bugs, I wasn't aware I was in one, though if I am, I'd like to point out that Bugs had something of a head start. Though perhaps I'd better not, given the implications of this... ;-) AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:55, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

thank you for your comment, be bold and please cast your support and vote
Your support would be very much appreciated, as far as I understand, a "support !vote" would help as noted in http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requested_moves

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:The_Big_Bang_Theory_%28TV_series%29#Requested_move_to_promote_clarity.2C_minimize_confusion.2C_and_make_wikipedia_a_better.2C_accurate.2C_and_precise_research_tool.21 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.27.12.67 (talk) 07:41, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

List of Jewish Nobel laureates
I have commented further on the talk page of the article, which AFAIK fall under an ArbCom, please have a read and comment. KevinPerros (talk) 23:52, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

3RR
You have broken 3RR with this revert Please self revert. Darkness Shines (talk) 19:18, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks, remove it again tomorrow if you wish. When time allows I will add to the article so that it may be returned to the lede. Darkness Shines (talk) 19:24, 16 February 2012 (UTC)


 * I don't see it as breaking WP:3RR - I only edited the lede once. However, I've reverted, and I'll ask that you in turn comply with policy by discussing the issue on the article talk page. Not only does the current text violate MOS:LEAD (and arguably WP:NPOV), but the source cited appears not even to be about Mongolia: instead it is about Owen Lattimore, one of Joseph McCarthy's victims, who apparently accused him of "the top Russian espionage agent in the United States" - rather proving my point about cold-war propaganda. AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:32, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

WP:AN notice
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at WP:AN regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is "Topic ban proposal for User:Youreallycan (ex Off2riorob)". Thank you. -- В и к и  T   00:33, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Though we sometimes disagree on specific issues, I think of you as quite sensible, and so I'm sorry to see you supporting YRC in this instance on AN. I think he has become quite counterproductive on BLPs -- his intentions are often good but his actual editing and his interactions with others do more to polarize debates than to improve BLPs.  This is certainly true when it comes to anything where homosexuality is part of the issue.  Nomoskedasticity (talk) 08:54, 19 February 2012 (UTC)


 * I can aver from experience that AtG gives thought to his positions, and that appeals based on anything other than Wikipedia policies are a teensy bit unlikely to make him waver.  Cheers. Collect (talk) 13:22, 19 February 2012 (UTC)


 * It might be true that YRC has issues regarding his general behaviour with BLP issues - but this wasn't what was raised at AN - instead, it was an explicit request to ban him from Santorum-related topics, and as such improper. This issue has been a prime example of activist abuse of Wikipedia right from the start, and the ban proposal looks to me as being exactly what Collect suggested - an attempt to exclude YRC for his opinions, rather than his behaviour. Given that the santorum neologism was a provocative personal attack, it is less than honest to suggest that reaction to such provocation being spread to Wikipedia, however misguided the particular reaction to provocation is, can be held to be the sole responsibility of the one who reacts. People who engage in gutter politics need to accept the consequences, and stop pretending to hold the moral high ground. I've largely stayed out of this mess, and would have stayed out at AN too if it wasn't for the self-evident hypocrisy involved in calling for a ban based on allegations of personal attacks, where the subject matter itself was exactly the same thing. AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:33, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

Civility in recent edit summary on Julian Assange
Notwithstanding the merits of your reversion in question, you might like to ask yourself whether conforms to WP:CIV. ISTB351 (talk) 01:10, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Please see [], and User talk:Audrey Horne 89. This new user has been repeatedly asked to discuss the issue on the talk page, but instead continue to add the material without discussion - this is a waste of our time. Incidentally, the material added duplicates other material - the Simpsons appearance is now mentioned (briefly) in the article, in a more appropriate way. AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:16, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I wasn't commenting on the merits of the dispute, merely trying to calm the tone a little. Having said that, given the repeated addition (I count at least six occasions) of the material when consensus does not exist, can I suggest you take the matter to the 3RR noticeboard. It looks as if administrative intervention is needed to prevent the editor from continuing to edit disruptively. ISTB351 (talk) 01:21, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I think that perhaps this comment of mine on the user's talk page may get the point across more effectively. AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:45, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

Just my personal curiosity,
(1)- regarding the weird discussion about placing the term „satellite state” into the infobox, would you say, you are (a) satisfied, (b) indifferent to, (c) or unsatisfied with the result? (2)- regarding the use of the term „satellite state” in the article, would you say, you are (a) satisfied, (b) indifferent to, (c) or unsatisfied with the result? Me: 1a, 2b/c. As a reader I'd like a broader reference to the background of the use of the term in relation to East Germany. As a small author in Wikipedia my ambition is too limited to spend hours to dig sources for that point and to place the referring sentence into this crocodile pond of an article. I even can imagine reasons, why such further explanations should not be inserted into the article. I just hope, leaving the short-circuit-ideologists with their sentence alone, will increase the level of world happiness ;-)).
 * Your patient argumentation during the lengthy and nailed discussion in Wikipedia, in my opinion is an example, how the Enlightenment can be saved with striking arguments. Nice, if you drop a line here, though i completely accept, if you don't. --fluss (talk) 17:52, 18 February 2012 (UTC)


 * 1 a, 2 c I'd say. It doesn't belong in the infobox as an assertion of fact, but it doesn't belong in the article as assertion either. It is opinion, and can only ever be, given that there is no formal 'satellite state' status. It is certainly reasonable to say that the DDR was frequently described as a satellite state, because that is verifiable. Also, some of the sources cited for this fact/opinion are questionable, as I noted on the article talk page. I may go back to this at some point, but ideally I'd like to find some sources actually addressing the subjectivity of the term - I'm sure there must be many.


 * As for saving the Enlightenment, I think it is a bit late for that, historically speaking. ;-) AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:05, 18 February 2012 (UTC)


 * I understand. Your good answers make me smile. Some minds have not arrived in the time of the Enlightenment yet. Some would reverse the direction of time, if they only could, before arriving there ;-) --fluss (talk) 14:42, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

Dick Smith
Interestingly, why does Richard Harold Smith (check wiki article) keep calling himself Alex Dick Smith in the Ecatnews.com posts and Defkalion comments? 94.170.237.123 (talk) 21:03, 20 February 2012 (UTC)


 * If you mean this for example on Ecatnews.com, I think you've misunderstood. Or possibly Smith has missed out a comma. He is replying to  Alex Xanthoulis, starts his e-mail "Alex Dick smith here", and signs it "Dick Smith". I think it is intended to be read as "Alex, this is Dick smith here". AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:39, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes. I'm a dumbass! 94.170.237.123 (talk) 21:52, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
 * LOL! :) An easy mistake though - people seem rarely to check e-mails before posting them, and punctuation is often less than perfect. I've seen real confusion result from this more than once. AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:01, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for responding to my talk entry on the Noreen Renier entry I made. As you noted, I need an independent editor to help with this page since I am at such a loss as to how to make entries that I ended up violating basic policies with the single entry I did make. I even have a hard time navigating this talk system. Is this something you can do? If not, can you tell me how to locate someone who is skilled in making entries? I have given up on trying to figure out this extremely complex system being not that computer literate. I spent an hour trying to figure out what they meant by an "orphaned" article and never could. Much appreciated WashTeh (talk) 02:15, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

Reverted change to "Ponzi scheme" article
Could you please elaborate on your revertion of this edit? http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ponzi_scheme&oldid=477608584


 * I reverted it because (a) it was sourced solely to a Wikipedia article, which is against policy, and (b) because the source cited doesn't support the claims made - as to whether MMM-2011 is a 'gambling game' or fraud seems to be a matter of some dispute. See also Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents. AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:59, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

People's Republic of Bulgaria
I believe that IP is a sock of User:Heonsi who was a sock of User:Chaosname. I have reverted him based on that. It would be best to request page protection as he will continue to edit war and you may get blocked by a trigger happy admin. Darkness Shines (talk) 19:28, 22 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Hello Andy, while I agree with you that "satellite state" is rather a political term than the neutral description of the "status" of a country, it is still used in reliable sources. Therefore I would advise against claiming "propaganda" or "POV pushing", but rather keeping the argumentation on a factual basis. We should not fuel the conflict. Kind regards --RJFF (talk) 19:54, 22 February 2012 (UTC)


 * As Darkness Shines says, this is almost certainly a banned sock - he's been repeatedly making the same change to multiple eastern-bloc articles, and is well aware of the talk-page discussions. I wonder if there is some way we can handle this without having to page-protect multiple articles? AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:01, 22 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Blocking the IP will only help if it is static. --RJFF (talk) 20:29, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

Noreen Renier entry
Hello Andy--I sent an inquiry two days ago, but it is missing a headline, so got posted under Dick Smith and didn't get answered. I will check your talk for any replies. Thanks, WashTeh (talk) 23:44, 23 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Yes, as I said here Editor_assistance/Requests, the article needs looking into. I'll put a note on Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard, do a bit of online searching myself if I get the chance, and then see how to proceed from there. It either needs cleaning up and sourcing properly, or deleting entirely. AndyTheGrump (talk) 13:39, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

your removal
I don't think you appreciate that this is a psychological question, though perhaps I could have posed it to the science reference desk. I even quoted a poster on another site (the exact link is here: http://www.reddit.com/r/AskReddit/comments/q3kxm/ladies_how_do_you_feel_when_you_catch_one_of_us/c3ug9h5 ) that shows this EXACT thing.

So, this is a psychological question and a legitimate one. I don't know how I can put in clearer terms that I'm interested in the psychology of it. --80.99.254.208 (talk) 13:08, 24 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Referring to rape victims as 'ugly' and 'very fat', even hypothetically, isn't "a psychological question". In any case, it isn't an appropriate question for a public reference desk. Please show more consideration for others. AndyTheGrump (talk) 13:28, 24 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Andy!! You were completely misreading my question.  Please read it again.  I'm not talking about rape victims as 'ugly' or 'very fat'.  I am talking about someone who is ugly and very fat, and their psychological state, and how they feel after unwanted advanced, even in the extreme, and whether the cited phenomenon(i.e. what I just linked and quoted to you) is a true psychological response on some level.  Please change the question to your liking and put it back, or I will put it back myself in the original or a very close form. --80.99.254.208 (talk) 14:00, 24 February 2012 (UTC)


 * I read your question perfectly well, and I stand by what I said. Obnoxious crap like that doesn't belong on the reference desk. AndyTheGrump (talk) 14:07, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

Noreen Renier entry

 * Thank you for your postings. If you get a chance I would appreciate some clarification concerning what I need to do to properly source my original entry that is now entirely deleted.  Much appreciated WashTeh (talk) 00:17, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I see that someone has already posted useful linkks at the top ofg your talk page (User talk:WashTeh). I'd take a look at the links in the 'Policies and Guidelines' section, to get an idea of what is required. Note particularly that our Biographies of living persons policy will apply to this article, and that we are particularly strict with such articles. Everything needs to be based on published reliable sources (note that court documents are not usually acceptable), and neither unduly promotional nor unduly negative material is permitted. For an article to be justified, the subject matter needs to meet our WP:NOTABILITY guidelines - and we need sources that verify this too. I'd also point out that we have a conflict of interest policy - if you have any relationship with Renier (personal, business-related etc), or are involved in any dispute with her, you should not be editing the article yourself: instead suggest changes on the article talk page, for uninvolved contributors to act on. AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:53, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

Noreen Renier entry

 * Thank you Andy for that info! I am going on vacation this week, so will read over the guidelines next week and go from there.  I have no intention of making any more attempts at an entry on Wikipedia given it is really too complicated for me to understand.  I am to understand that sources are to be from a book, journal, etc. and I'm assuming that includes eBooks as well, but not sure about newspapers and magazines.  That is not something that was clear to me initially when I first read over the entry requirements.  In any event, I am glad to find out how one goes about suggesting entries to editors, which again I knew nothing about.  Thank you again for your expertise and taking the time to help me out.  Much appreciated, WashTeh (talk) 18:46, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

Demi
Your intervention has been excellent and really productive. I hope it now plays out successfully. --Dweller (talk) 16:14, 28 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Thanks :) And apologies if I've overdone the grumpiness in the process. AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:30, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Deletion
Please do not delete the article when it is under AFD. That will be decided by the consensus, not you. Thank you. JunoBeach (talk) 00:08, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Wrong. WP:BLP violations are deleted on sight. And incidentally, they are exempt from WP:3RR, so I suggest you discuss the matter in the appropriate places (WP:BLPN, and the AfD discussion), rather than getting involved in pointless edit-warring. AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:13, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

Edit waring
Can you please stop the edit waring you are having on me? It will be reported if it happens any more. Theworm777 (talk) 06:50, 29 February 2012 (UTC)


 * See WP:BLP: "We must get the article right. Be very firm about the use of high quality sources. All quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged must be explicitly attributed to a reliable, published source, which is usually done with an inline citation. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced—whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable—should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion. Users who persistently or egregiously violate this policy may be blocked from editing". Given the multiple contributors who have confirmed that the article in question was a gross violation of policy, I am obliged to revert. AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:19, 29 February 2012 (UTC)


 * It had good sources was not "unsourced or poorly sourced—whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable. So it did not need to "be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion." It really didnt not matter and was going to be deleted like I had said but It should have been left there for the discussion. The guy only started the page 4 or 5 days ago. I was just there helping him. The way that guys article was done was really wrong. I know it was a stub even with info I added back in but you all just removed it there was nothing to even talk about on it.But.

That was not the warring I was talking about it, was edit warring on Articles for deletion/Police officers charged criminally in Canada as it was below.

(cur | prev) 01:46, February 29, 2012‎ Theworm777 (talk | contribs)‎ (12,068 bytes) (Undid revision 479430104 by AndyTheGrump (talk) Was not Wikipedia:Canvassing and is allowed Warning WP:0RR WP:1RR WP:2RR WP:3RR) (undo) (cur | prev) 01:40, February 29, 2012‎ AndyTheGrump (talk | contribs)‎ (11,642 bytes) (Undid revision 479428150 by Theworm777 (talk) nothing at all to do with this AfD) (undo) (cur | prev) 01:17, February 29, 2012‎ Theworm777 (talk | contribs)‎ (12,068 bytes) (Undid revision 479426301 by AndyTheGrump (talk) Was not Wikipedia:Canvassing) (undo) (cur | prev) 00:55, February 29, 2012‎ AndyTheGrump (talk | contribs)‎ (11,642 bytes) (revert canvassing for an unrelated AfD) (undo) (cur | prev) 00:48, February 29, 2012‎ SineBot (talk | contribs)‎ m (12,068 bytes) (Signing comment by Theworm777 - "- →Police officers charged criminally in Canada: Can any of you all look at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nancy Seaman?") (undo)

It was when you said I was Canvassing What I did was allowed. and I had given you these 3 Warnings WP:0RR WP:1RR WP:3RR after the 2nd time you reverted it. You should read Canvassing before you accuse someone of it. Theworm777 (talk) 20:44, 29 February 2012 (UTC)


 * I don't give a rats arse about your 'warnings' - it has been explained to you repeatedly that WP:BLP violations are deleted on sight, not edit-warred over. As for canvassing, the link you gave in the AfD was for another article entirely, and raising it there was entirely inappropriate. If you want to argue that toss over whether it was 'canvassing' or another violation of policy instead, do it somewhere else. The article has been deleted, the topic is closed. Why not do something useful instead? AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:19, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

Revert if necessary
--George Ho (talk) 08:22, 29 February 2012 (UTC)