User talk:AndyTheGrump/Archives/2012/January

I hate to bother you...
...but since your and Dr. K's names have come up in the latest posts at Talk:Demi Moore, I thought you might want to be alerted in case you wanted to comment. I truly apologize for any inconvenience, and wish you a Happy New Year, with all the promise that holds. --Tenebrae (talk) 17:37, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Ok, thanks. I'll take a look. AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:42, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

Neutral point of view/Noticeboard
I found this offensive. Please make your point (which I think I agree with) without the cheap gibes at other people's beliefs. Cusop Dingle (talk) 21:45, 5 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Having been raised in an environment where not only were these particular beliefs taught as fact to children from an early age, but actually having attempted at one point to become an active participant in the singing bit (I was rejected for being too out-of-tune even for them), I think I'm entitled to comment on such beliefs - or at least, on the outward signs of them. I'd also point out that such issues as transubstantiation, the legitimacy or otherwise of music in places of worship, and the efficacy of prayer have all been matters of serious debate within the different strands of the faith - and some of the comments from believers went a lot farther than I did. Finally, whether as a result of the actions a Creator, of natural selection, or of transcendental levitation, humanity as a whole seems to have been blessed with a sense of humour: can I suggest you have misplaced yours, and perhaps you should find it... 22:00, 5 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Suggest what you like. You were offensive.   Cusop Dingle (talk) 22:06, 5 January 2012 (UTC)


 * That is a matter of opinion. Do you want to hear my opinion on the offensiveness of many acts carried out in the name of religion? AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:16, 5 January 2012 (UTC)


 * I don't think so -- I was offended, so you were offensive. Cusop Dingle (talk) 22:19, 5 January 2012 (UTC)


 * And I'm sure you found being offended most satisfying. Do you do it as a hobby, or in a professional capacity? AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:26, 5 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Well, that makes your position clear enough. I suppose. Cusop Dingle (talk) 22:31, 5 January 2012 (UTC)


 * I found it funny. Are you familiar with Tom Lehrer's song on the subject? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 23:10, 5 January 2012 (UTC)


 * I must have seen that sometime or other Bugs - it seems familiar. To clarify a point though, I was raised Church of England, rather than Roman Catholic, and strictly speaking, most Anglicans (excepting the Anglo-Catholics) don't believe in transubstantiation as a literal occurrence - in fact, it is directly contrary to the Thirty-nine Articles to do so. But then again, nobody in the C of E actually takes these 'articles of faith' seriously any more. AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:41, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Non-free files in your user space
Hey there AndyTheGrump, thank you for your contributions! I am a bot, alerting you that non-free files are not allowed in user or talk space. I removed some files I found on User talk:AndyTheGrump.


 * See a log of files removed today here.
 * Shut off the bot here.
 * Report errors here.
 * If you have any questions, place a template, along with your question, beneath this message.

Thank you, -- DASHBot (talk) 05:02, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Welcome to Wikipedia and thank you for your contributions. However, I noticed that your username  may not meet Wikipedia's username policy. Despite promising Ample Grumpiness, this edit was found to be Insufficiently Grumpy. This sort of editing confuses other editors. This may in turn lead them to remove their tinfoil hats and let in THE TRUTH. Thank you. Andy Dingley (talk) 18:20, 9 January 2012 (UTC)


 * P AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:25, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

Nice quote
Einstein was a bit of a classicist -- see also   Collect (talk) 21:11, 9 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Nice - I'll add the quote. AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:19, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

Discussion you may be interested in
Hi Andy, I thought you might have an opinion in this discussion. Cheers. Yworo (talk) 22:22, 9 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Thanks - I'll take a look. AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:24, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

FYI
Someone is asking for a boomerang. Von Restorff (talk) 12:40, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Yup. Just not actually doing it very effectively. Since he doesn't say anything specific, I think it is best ignored. If he wants to be more specific, the evidence is clear enough: he is POV pushing, inserting OR into articles, and generally being disruptive (e.g. ). I suspect a boomerang would hit hard. AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:50, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Nicole Kidman
An article in which the inclusion of a religious category meets all points of WP:BLPCAT, I believe, yet is being over-stridently opposed. Do you agree? See Talk:Nicole Kidman. Yworo (talk) 15:59, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I'll look into it. AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:01, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Don't you ever take a break from the 'pedia? Yworo (talk) 16:05, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Only when insomnia finally catches up with me. Actually, I'm not a person at all, I'm a prototype GrumpBot, and can run for 24 hours a day. Once the bugs are ironed out, multiple copies will be run at once, and I'll take over Wikipedia entirely ;-) AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:15, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

If you continue LOLing me and responding with arrogant haughty remarks on my efforts I am going to report you for being abusive
I'm serious. I swore on the talk page of East Germany because I am REALLY mad that you are treating me as lesser than a dog for all the effort I've poured into the discussion by providing scholarly sources. You might as well have just called me "a loser" in your last comment, because that is what you implied. Either stop behaving like a snob to me by laughing at me or I will report you for being abusive.--R-41 (talk) 23:50, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Ge ahead, report me then. But read WP:BOOMERANG first. AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:53, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I'll accept any reprimand for swearing at you that I accept is inappropriate, this is not a bargain of threats where I will back off from reporting you based on your threat to report me. You treat me like a dog, I won't take it anymore. I have reported your actions to the administrator overseeing the discussions, User:Kudpung.--R-41 (talk) 00:02, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Really? I was unaware that administrators 'oversaw' Wikipedia discussions. Still, I'm sure he can point you to a more appropriate place to raise the matter. AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:06, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Oversaw is near Warsaw, which I guess is not too far from East Germany. One of my favourite moments (I lost the diff) was when User:Sandstein was erroneously ascribed the role of "the administrator in charge of dealing with communist terrorism". --Demiurge1000 (talk) 00:24, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
 * On the contrary, I suspect most of the inhabitants of Warsaw would wish that Germany was further away ;-) Maybe I should stand for adminship, and ask to be put in charge of MI5. It would be fun to see if they have me on file... AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:31, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

I have reported you for your abusive behaviour to me, I acknowledged in the report that I swore at you and will accept reprimand for that.
I have filed an AfN request here:. I'm not asking for you to be blocked or anything extreme, I am asking for administrators to request for you to behave more respectfully to other users. I acknowledge that I was disrespectful to you when I swore at you, I was very angry with your abusive behaviour, either way I've taken my responsibility for my actions by addressing them to the administrators myself, so you don't need to remind me of WP:BOOMERANG again or report me, they know and it is in their hands. If they judge that we both behaved inappropriately then we will both be reprimanded for that.--R-41 (talk) 01:20, 14 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Look, I apologize for swearing at you. Will you please just apologize for being so sarcastic and denigrating to me.--R-41 (talk) 01:55, 14 January 2012 (UTC)


 * It is at AN/I now. I'm not going to preempt anything that might happen there. AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:05, 14 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Now it's been closed down. I say again, I apologize for swearing at you. Please apologize for being so sarcastic and denigrating to me.--R-41 (talk) 02:18, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I've never understood why coerced apologies are important to so many people on Wikipedia. To be meaningful an apology must be freely given. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 02:20, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I am asking him voluntarily to apologize, he doesn't have to and I have retracted my address at the AfN for him to receive a warning on Etiquette issues. I am not forcing him to apologize, it's his choice.--R-41 (talk) 02:27, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
 * R-41, if you want to know where this all went wrong, it was with this edit where you implied that you had 'expertise' in the subject, having "studied the concept of the satellite state and client state at university as a major paper". A patronising statement, if ever I saw one. You aren't the only Wikipedia contributor with a degree, and frankly, I'd hope that someone who had one would know better than to use it to 'pull rank', and then fail to provide evidence for your assertions when requested. I repeatedly asked for evidence that "empirical research" was involved in determining in what was and what wasn't a 'satellite state', and you have singularly failed to do so. Yes, I found it funny when you finally provided a source for your assertions, only for it to actually support my case. And no, given your wild exaggerations regarding my behaviour, I'm not going to apologise for anything. As Short Brigade Harvester Boris notes, such apologies are largely meaningless anyway. AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:46, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
 * @R-41: People chose their usernames to say something. Some people chose a username that represents an a topic they are interested in. (My username is the number of a field hockey shirt I wore.) Some people chose a username that is their real name.  And some people chose usernames that describe some aspect of their personality (Malleus Fatuorum being one of the best examples of this).  When you interact with someone whose username is "AndyTheGrump", I would venture to say you are somewhat forewarned.
 * @AndyTheGrump: why does all the good drama happen while I'm at work or asleep? A bit more consideration should be shown for those in the less fashionable timezones.
 * --Shirt58 (talk) 03:20, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
 * @Shirt58: timezones? Sleep? It's 4am here. You obviously have your priorities wrong. ;-)
 * @R-41: I'd recommend you take things a little less seriously. I know for a fact that there are cleverer and more knowledgeable people than me here. It never stopped me arguing with them - hell, I've argued with a Nobel physicist before now - but I don't confuse intellectual debate with personal insult. Or when I do, I expect it to rebound. If you aren't prepared to accept you might be wrong, to at least the extent that someone else can see things differently without being a total lunatic, I'd recommend you stay away from scholarly debates about abstractions, and do something safer instead. Like taking up soccer hooliganism or alligator-wrestling. Getting into an almighty huff because someone doesn't accept the logic of your argument isn't actually an effective way to achieve anything much in this particular arena. The trick is to look for chinks in someone's intellectual armour, and then gather the evidence to destroy their arguments. To do that though, you need to respond to what they are saying, rather than repeating your own views. And then make darned sure the evidence you present actually backs up your claims. And that the evidence is actually relevant to what they are arguing, rather than just backing up an argument that they don't accept as valid in the first place. I think you'll find that this is closer to the Socratic method you referred to at AN/I than your 'argument from everyone agrees with me' tactics. Being in the majority is hardly evidence that one is right... AndyTheGrump (talk) 04:33, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Seriously though, whatever the time-zone, I think it's five minutes past you-two-should-disengage-for-a-while o'clock. --Shirt58 (talk) 05:45, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

Getting a Pulse
Hello Andy, just trying to get a read on a discussion that spilled over into an article I watch. Am I write on Talk:Israel that R-41 was not being pressured over at Talk:East Germany into making an argument about Israel? From my read of it, R-41 brought up Israel several times as a defensive reflex, going to so far as to defensively respond that he would be accused of anti-semitism or something before you ever suggested anything be brought up on Talk:Israel. It seems to me that you were baited, and you called his bluff. --OuroborosCobra (talk) 18:14, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
 * That's how I see it, anyway. Personally, I think the presumption that any raising of the issue would automatically lead to accusations of antisemitism is itself in rather questionable taste. While I'm sure that genuine attempt to actually argue for putting the term 'U.S. satellite state' into the Israel article infobox would lead to heated debate, I see no reason to assume that all who would oppose it would accuse those in favour of antisemitism. Actually, I don't need to assume it - I know it for a fact. I'd oppose the use of the term there, for the same reason as I oppose it with regard to our 'East Germany' article: because it is a matter of opinion, rather than a meaningful factual statement. Whether I think this opinion is has any validity or not (in either case) is irrelevant. AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:53, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Sunday Sharpe
I've continued our conversation at the helpdesk about this article on the article's talk page, in case you're interested in participating in the discussion.  —Entropy (T/C) 23:45, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

January 2012
This is your only warning; if you make personal attacks on other people again, as you did at talk:East Germany, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Comment on content, not on other contributors or people. I would have blocked you  on  the spot  for this, but  as I opened the discussion, I  will  refer your comment to  AN/I. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 04:44, 17 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Fine by me. If Wikipedia considers calling someone an 'asshole' to be offensive, whereas repeatedly implying that someone is an apologist for the criminality committed in the name of the USSR isn't, it is quite entitled to block me. Can I suggest a merger with Conservopedia? AndyTheGrump (talk) 04:48, 17 January 2012 (UTC)


 * I suggest you strike out your metaphorical reference and we can discuss in the ANI thread your complaints about R-41's comments. TFD (talk) 06:36, 17 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Yeah, I know... AndyTheGrump (talk) 06:44, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Notice of discussion at the Administrators' Noticeboard
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.Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 05:13, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks
Thanks for fixing my post on Jimbo's talk page. I'm no genius on formatting, so I'm glad you knew how to correct it. Alphateam7911 (talk) 05:32, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
 * yeah, no problem. The trick is to use colons (':') rather than leading spaces to indent text. One of the peculiarities of Wikipedia markup that probably seemed a good idea at the time, but with hindsight, wasn't... AndyTheGrump (talk) 05:39, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

My best wishes to you
That is all. (For now!) Writegeist (talk) 04:34, 18 January 2012 (UTC)
 * And to you, likewise. AndyTheGrump (talk) 04:44, 18 January 2012 (UTC)
 * You might want to be aware of this, where one user incites another to complain about you at WQA. Writegeist (talk) 18:11, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Writegeist could you please stop with the forum shopping.  Caden  cool  21:16, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
 * This isn't a forum - it is my talk page. Given that I was discussed there, I think I'm entitled to know. AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:37, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Stormfront and jewishfaces
Shouldn't these sites be blacklisted anyway? Not sure how to go about doing that but I can't imagine a legitimate use of those domains on WP. N o f o rmation Talk  19:44, 20 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Yes, I'd agree. I think the appropriate place to raise this probably is at MediaWiki talk:Spam-blacklist. It might be worth doing a search first to see how often they are being linked, though. AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:29, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

I am leaving the issue at East Germany, now please leave me alone.
Please stop reminding me what I "should" or "should not" do. I found what I thought was an important source and posted it in Talk:East Germany. Now please stop giving me sarcastic reminders and leave me alone. Good bye.--R-41 (talk) 05:02, 23 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Statement of objective facts is hardly 'sarcasm', but whatever... AndyTheGrump (talk) 05:29, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Andy, WP:AGF with you has become virtually impossible for me based on your entire behavior and posts over at Talk:East Germany. I don't blame R-41 for leaving the discussion after the way you've been treating him. Honestly, I do not see how you are helping on the talk page. You make me want to quit the discussion.  Caden  cool  17:57, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
 * AGF works both ways. And not basing Wikipedia articles on original research, or misrepresenting opinion as fact, is policy. If R-41 wishes to continue to do this, I will continue to point out what he is doing. AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:12, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Like I said above AGF is impossible with you. Let me make this clear, R-41 did NOT misrepresent a single source and he did NOT do any original research. You on the other hand have been rude and unhelpful and I'm honestly beginning to wonder what your agenda is. Oh and I will continue to point out your poor behavior as others have already begun to point out.  Caden  cool  18:21, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
 * "I'm honestly beginning to wonder what your agenda is". So much for AGF. Please do not post personal attacks on my talk page. AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:36, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

origin of "ideology" usage
1796 apparently for "metaphysics" etc. . As far as "doctines" as a specific meaning - this source dates it only to 1909 (well after Marx). Marx appears to have used it in the first sense (i.e. including "metaphysics") in his works. Argh - this is one heck of a complex area - but what is clear is that Marx was not the one who made it so complex  and that he did not use it to refer to the "belief system of the ruling class" in any case. Cheers. Collect (talk) 13:10, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Yup, it's complex, and nope, Marx isn't solely responsible for this. I think the he himself would have argued that his 'complexity' was derived from Hegel's (though turned on its head). And he certainly meant more than "belief system of the ruling class" by it. A good starting point for his perspective is my favourite Marx work The Eighteenth Brumaire of Louis Napoleon "Men make their own history, but they do not make it as they please; they do not make it under self-selected circumstances, but under circumstances existing already, given and transmitted from the past. The tradition of all dead generations weighs like a nightmare on the brains of the living. And just as they seem to be occupied with revolutionizing themselves and things, creating something that did not exist before, precisely in such epochs of revolutionary crisis they anxiously conjure up the spirits of the past to their service, borrowing from them names, battle slogans, and costumes in order to present this new scene in world history in time-honored disguise and borrowed language". Marx at his most evocative. And clearly 'conjuring up the spirits' of his own time too - he seems to have had something of an obsession with the role of 'ghosts', 'spirits' and 'spectres' in making history ;-) AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:13, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Which goes well against such views as Turner's views on the frontier, etc. And Shakespeare's words about "The fault, dear Brutus" (later reworked by Barrie IIRC.)  To what extent can any person be in control of their own destiny if Marx is right there?  Collect (talk) 19:40, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't think that Marx is saying much in terms of 'destiny' in general that most modern social scientists (regardless of politics) would disagree with. We are, like it or not, shaped by our sociocultural environment - which in turn is shaped by us. For Marx, the most significant part of this environment is economics - in his terms, our relationship to the means of production. AS to the extent to which this it true, it is of course debatable - and debated endlessly, as personal experience (anthropology degree) demonstrated only too well. The crass linear economic determinism of some 'Marxists' (the sort that Marx said he wasn't) is palpably false, but a more nuanced interpretation of the social sciences and humanities that allows "dead generations" (and dying economic relations - his somewhat dismissive comments on the role of the peasantry in the Eighteenth Brumaire reflect this too, in fundamental ways) a role in shaping the future can be very productive. Often not capable of actually being proven one way or the other, but "useful to think with". Of course, if one wishes to draw a parallel with modern times, the near-deification of Mao, in the context of a China which has actually dropped any pretense to Maoism (not that this isn't a good thing), and is evolving (if it hasn't already got there) into a major capitalist economy, is something to think about. I wonder if the Eighteenth Brumaire is on sale in China? AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:41, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
 * IMHO, "Communist China" is indeed one of the most "capitalist" states around, as you noted, which rather disproves much of Marx' thesis about the inevitability of communism. Propbably Karl is rolling over in his grave. Collect (talk) 02:01, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
 * As Zhou Enlai allegedly remarked when asked whether he thought the French Revolution had been a good thing, "too soon to say". History ain't over yet, and the Chinese proletariat (now that they have one) may yet take the opportunity to seize control of the means of production from the Capitalist ruling class. That would put the cat amongst the pigeons... ;-) AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:31, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Somehow I doubt it - people, on average, tend to look at results - the result of "equal poverty" was "not good", the result of "uneven wealth but almost everyone being far better off" = "good."  Which ought one choose?   BTW, the "French Revolution" was pretty much annihilated by Napoleon - the effects later are, IMO, pretty much nonexistent.  Other than a blood-seeking anthem. Collect (talk) 14:50, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
 * And you're reason for assuming the Chinese proletariat would compare an underdeveloped rural economy with an advanced industrialised one, and assume that taking over the latter would result in the former is based on what? Anyway, I didn't say it will happen, I merely pointed out that we cannot discount the possibility in principle. As for the blood-seeking Marseillaise, it is hardly unique, and actually illustrates Marx's point about "the tradition of all dead generations" rather well - "Aux armes, citoyens...". Whatever. Like I said, history isn't over, and there are no doubt more tragedies, farces, and bloody revolutions in store for us yet... AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:03, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
 * The USSR is the example the Chinese do not wish to emulate - the development of new technologies stagnated in the USSR as industries were content to meet "production quotas" instead of improving products or even creating products based on consumer demand. China seems extraordinarily attuned to the problem (which it saw encompassed in the "Great Leap Forward")  and appears quite determined not to make that same mistake twice.   Note that large numbers of influential Chinese leaders have received technical educations in the US for example.  Collect (talk) 18:34, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Economic determinism rears its ugly head again. You seem to be assuming rather a lot there. As for 'not making the same mistake twice', I'm sure the Chinese are as capable as anyone else of developing entirely new ones... ;-) AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:41, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

(od) Yep - there are always new mistakes to be made - but this particular one is I think quite unlikely to recur in China. The place to watch, as if this were news, is the Middle East - especially Egypt with potential control of the Suez Canal (which is actually harder to keep open that the famed Strait of Hormuz) held by a religion based political alliance, with the "right wing" (as it were) being primarily the "poorer classes." Think that can fit into a nice neat box? Collect (talk) 19:15, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Yep, Egypt is a place to watch (if not quite on the scale of China), and nope, it doesn't fit into neat boxes - history rarely does. I think your references to 'poorer classes' rather misses the point though - what sort of poor? Rural, like the near-peasants of Marx's France, or a poor proletariat? And of course, the poorest of the poor in Egypt are almost certainly the Christian minority that make a living scavenging in the garbage dumps of Cairo. Anyway, this is wandering well off-topic (in as much as we actually have one), and I think we'd best leave this thread to fade into history. No doubt we'll find something else to argue about soon enough. La lotta continua... AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:28, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Relying on news reports - the right-wing Islamic movement is strong in both the poor rural groups and the poor urban groups. The Copts do not support the radicals, to be sure.    And I would rather have an honest disagreement with you than a "disagreement for disagreement's sake" colloquy with editors who make asides on other users' talk pages   Collect (talk) 19:34, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Yup, yup, and yup. AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:45, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Talk:Miracle Mineral Supplement
Hey Andy, if you and Yobol had warned that IP earlier, a few times perhaps, I could have blocked them already... Drmies (talk) 22:38, 24 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Yes - I probably could have handled it better. This is a recurring problem on that talk page, and there are grounds to suspect that the IP is either the promoter of this 'miracle', or one of his associates. They are a stubborn lot. AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:43, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
 * A level-4 warning seems to have cooled them down some. I assume you're keeping an eye on it--perhaps RPP is the next step. Onwards, Drmies (talk) 22:53, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 05:24, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Good point... AndyTheGrump (talk) 05:41, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
 * It gets better: "my tooth root infection that travelled to the brain"! . Satire is dead, Reality has surpassed it once again... AndyTheGrump (talk) 05:47, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

January 2012
Please stop adding unreferenced or poorly referenced biographical content, especially if controversial to articles or any other Wikipedia page, as you did at Miracle Mineral Supplement. Content of this nature could be regarded as defamatory and is in violation of Wikipedia policy. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Prioryman (talk) 08:48, 25 January 2012 (UTC)


 * The truth is never defamatory. And there is plenty of material available from reliable sources to back up what I wrote. Still, whatever... AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:35, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

DRV
A notification that the Templates for Discussion discussion (oy, repetition) has been taken to a deletion review discussion. The Article Rescue Squadron was notified, and as notifications to previous involved parties isn't normal practise, I and a few ARS members agreed that, in the interests of transparency and fairness, we should let everyone know...hence this talkpage message ;).

If anyone has an issue with me sending these out, do drop me a note on my talkpage. Regards, Ironholds (talk) 10:24, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

UK vs US spelling
I saw your comment on the spelling of "organis/zation" at Talk:Illuminati. We had exactly this issue (over the same word) at the Freemasonry article several years ago... Huge edit wars as the spelling was changed back and forth between "s" and "z". You may find the solution we came up with both instructive and amusing. Take a look at the instances of the word in the article (we settled on UK spelling)... and then pretend you want to "correct" it to US spelling (ie look at the text in the edit window). Our solution actually works... the addition of hidden text in the middle of the word defeats spell checkers, and informs anyone who tries to "correct" the word by hand that it isn't actually misspelled after all (and more importantly, tells them why it isn't a misspelling). We have not had a "correction" in a long time. Blueboar (talk) 17:21, 28 January 2012 (UTC)


 * That would do it - though the grounds for using British English in that article look a little easier to explain than the 'we started it' one for the Illuminati article. We've had the same problem with our WikiLeaks article (they describe themselves as an 'organisation', as any Aussie should), and the next time it crops up, I'll incorporate your fix and a similar fix seems to have been applied. AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:42, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

Mongolian People's Republic
You just went over 3RR, better to self revert. Darkness Shines (talk) 18:01, 28 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Sorry, got it confused with PRB article. Darkness Shines (talk) 18:03, 28 January 2012 (UTC)