User talk:AndyTheGrump/Archives/2012/March

Drinking with Karl Marx
Bringing this here, in order not to further divert the article talk page.

Marx was noted for his love of London pubs, as mentioned in several biographies. I think the one he is most associated with is the Museum Tavern in Great Russell Street; but he is also recorded as drinking at the Red Lion, the Rising Sun, Jack Straws Castle and many more. There is a wonderful account in Liebknechts memoirs of a pub crawl up Tottenham Court Road with Marx; at the time, there were 18 pubs along the road, and this article from Life Magazine in 1968 about the Karl Marx Memorial Pub Crawl (purportedly a fund-raiser for the Vietnam Solidarity Campaign). RolandR (talk) 22:46, 1 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Hmm, I think I've drunk in the Rising Sun, for a start. Possibly the Museum Tavern too. And thanks for the Marx pub crawl/lamp smashing link - I know I'd seen this somewhere before, but couldn't place it. AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:13, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

"cherry picked"
Um -- what better source for what The Times printed is there than the article printed by The Times? I fear that such a source is, in fact, the only reliable source as to what they actually printed, and, as it is not being used as a "fact" other than the fact they printed something, what kind of source is there for any article at all? Cheers - but I suggest the edit was fully NPOV as a matter of "fact" . Collect (talk) 14:26, 2 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Yes, obviously The Times is an appropriate source for what it said, if we choose to use it. But is it appropriate to go around looking specifically for sources that said it? I thought that was the point of the RfC - that it was an issue of weight, given that few sources were using the term. Still, par for the course for Wikipedia, where Google-mining seems to be the editorial skill most required. How long did it take for you to find this fine example of balanced reporting from a reliable source? ;-) AndyTheGrump (talk) 14:33, 2 March 2012 (UTC)
 * It is normal when looking for sources which say something to look for the articles which actually refer to the topic - for The Times I initially waded through a slew of articles ("UAF" is not a unique search term for the organization, and a number referred to the 1930's "Communist Front UAF') that I am confident the source is not "cherry picked" and is not used for anything more than stating that the source did, in fact, use the term.  Saying that the Times used the term is not the same as saying that "the UAF is (fact) left-wing."    The "workersliberty" bit was direct from Googlenews - so it took no time at all.  Cheers. Collect (talk) 14:48, 2 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Yup: you were "looking for sources which say something" - that is cherry-picking. AndyTheGrump (talk) 14:54, 2 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I looked for news reports about the UAF. What the hell does one do when looking for reports in Googlenews?  Use no search terms at all?  I think that is quite  absurd.  One looks for articles on "UAF" or "Unite Against Fascism" dated after 2000 -- which is how everyone looks for articles.  Really! Collect (talk) 15:09, 2 March 2012 (UTC)
 * You were looking for reports about UAF that described the organisation as 'left wing'. Anyway, I don't see why you want to discuss this on my talk page - how about actually answering the questions you have been asked on the article talk page? AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:14, 2 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Nope - I looked for articles on the current UAF. And this is exacrtly in line with my position of the John Birch Society which has fewer cites for the following:  It has been described as radical right-wing.[4][5][6] which was the wording I inserted.   The UAF edit has actually substantially more and better sources than that one has.  Cheers. Collect (talk) 04:27, 3 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Whatever. Not something I want to discuss here, while there is an ongoing discussion on the talk page. AndyTheGrump (talk) 04:40, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

Osama
Hi Andy - I saw that you were active on the Osama bin Laden talk page regarding his death, body, and photographs. According to new information leaked by wikileaks, Stratfor's Vice President of Inteligence Fred Burton believed his body was not buried at sea, but was transported to Dover, DE via a CIA plane, then on to the Armed Forces Institute of Pathology. Doesn't that make more sense than dumping a body in the ocean without collecting any biometric data? Anyways, I'm not sure how to update the Osama page, and because you were such a vocal critic of maintaining accuracy, could you update that page? Info here http://wikileaks.org/gifiles/docs/1102718_-alpha-body-bound-for-dover-de-on-cia-plane-.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.111.189.198 (talk) 18:48, 2 March 2012 (UTC)
 * We'd need to have this published in a secondary reliable source before we could add it to the article - and I'm not sure why what Fred Burton believes is particularly relevant anyway, without further evidence. AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:59, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

ANI
I hope you have not forgotten the issue; I also hope that some solution can be reached, quickly. ~*~AnkitBhatt~*~ 16:52, 4 March 2012 (UTC)


 * I've said all that needs to be said, and frankly, I'd suggest you drop it. I'm not an admin, so couldn't do anything anyway. AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:01, 4 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Drop the issue that I was personally abused and people have used "Fuck off"? That's a great idea. Thanks but no thanks. If you don't have anything valuable to add, I will ask an admin to clarify this issue. ~*~AnkitBhatt~*~ 17:06, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

DRN
I appreciate your striking at DRN, thanks. I do share your frustration with seeing these things popping up and, frankly, if we had more people with clue involved in the subject area then such issues would be resolved much more quickly. An Indian government-backed organisation worked out in the 1980s that there were 4600+ castes, so we are barely touching the top of the iceberg and the problems are horrendous. It will only get worse as the WMF continue their push into India. Anyway, hopefully the present DRN issue can be resolved promptly. It was perhaps a little OTT to take it there in the first place, but I understand that frustration also! - Sitush (talk) 14:46, 7 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Thanks. Clearly a misjudgement on my part, and I'll not offer excuses. As for the broader problem, I'm not really sure what to suggest, beyond trying to get more clued-up contributors involved, and ensuring that proper standards of sourcing, NPOV etc are adhered to. We already have the template regarding general sanctions available, and there doesn't seem to be much else that could be done without severely restricting Wikipedia coverage of the topic. AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:04, 7 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Yes, your summary is correct. The problem is that we cannot severely restrict. It is an integral part of life in India and WMF are, if anything, only going to "exacerbate" the reflection of that here on WP. We are talking of something that affects ca. 1.2 billion people and we cannot brush it under the carpet. One curiosity is that the constitution of independent India basically said, right from the outset, that caste was an illegal concept ... but amongst other things it forms the basis of efforts ever since with regard to positive discrimination there. And the various union and state lists of those favoured name the castes that are supposedly illegal to name etc. Similarly, the contentious "shudra" issue (& varna as a whole) is illegal since independence, but govt documents continually use it. The chaos of their own systems is reflected here. While WP is far from perfect, it does offer the opportunity of presenting several opinions, and it is that which often proves to be a sticking point for the various activists. And, believe me, most of them are either activists or brainwashed. Or both. It is not a problem that is going to go away; but with sufficient eyes on the thing it probably can be contained, precisely because when we operate well then we do not take sides. - Sitush (talk) 00:49, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

Homo georgicus
Guess who's editwarring at Homo georgicus now...·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 15:56, 7 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Er, let me see. Collect? Bus Stop? Jimbo? ;-) Our friend from the Caucasus, I assume. I suppose I'd better join the bone-contending. Maybe I should throw in a few terms from cladistics, or toss in the aquatic-ape theory, just to add to the fun... AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:05, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Good guesses I must admit. You'd think we'd have invented a bot to automatically block nationalist pov-pushers as soon as they register. Its not as if they're difficult to spot.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 16:09, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Yup. Actually, what we need is a more general bot that pattern-matches user names with article subjects. Hmm, POVbot? Where do we make proposals for bot creation? ;-) AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:24, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
 * First parameter is everyone with a country in their username, and then everyone with a synonym for "warrior". ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 16:27, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Well, 'Jimbo' is a close match for 'Rambo'... ;-) AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:47, 7 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Oh, how lovely to talk behind one's back. -- Georgianჯორჯაძე 16:42, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
 * What do you expect? You bring an article to our attention. You make ridiculous demands for blocks. You refuse to accept any reasoning but your own. Would you prefer your behaviour to be discussed in a more public place? If you keep on behaving the way you are, you'll find it happening soon enough. AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:47, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Oh I am so scared. And what behaviour do you mean exactly? Do I break any rules or what? All you do is that you guys unite together to push some "newbies" you call us and talk behind their back. -- Georgianჯორჯაძე 17:00, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Given the length of your block log I'm sure you are aware enough of the rules. AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:04, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
 * btw, where are you from? -- Georgianჯორჯაძე 17:10, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Planet Earth. A small speck of rock orbiting a non-notable star in a nondescript galaxy. Why do you ask? AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:14, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Hey, relax and calm down. I am just interested and that's why I am asking. What's wrong with you? -- Georgianჯორჯაძე 17:20, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I am calm. As for whether there is anything wrong with me, that is no concern of yours. AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:48, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

Off Wiki contact
Andy, You don't have an "E-mail this user" link, but I could do with a few words off Wiki if it's possible. If you don't want to use the E-mail this User Link on my page because it would reveal your real email to me then you can grab my email address from one of my webpages i.e; and use a throw-away account. It's not urgent but it's a small thing that might interest you (or might not) Stuart.Jamieson (talk) 11:48, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

Talkback
Best Wishes AnkhMorpork (talk) 14:30, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

Regarding this edit please see this Wiktionary definition: "Substantially: In a strong substantial manner; considerably. To a great extent; in essence; essentially." This was not something I had "wished I had said" as at that point, I had failed to take in account the intellect of the person I was addressing. I am surprised that you quoted a policy mentioned with regards to article talk pages in connection with my user talk page. However, one again, in the spirit of cooperation, you may revert my edit. Best Wishes AnkhMorpork (talk) 17:31, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

I have no intention of reverting you edit - I will instead amend mine to make clear what it was I was replying to. If you didn't think the edit was significant, why did you make it? As for your comments regarding my intellect, I suggest we let the evidence speak for itself: "When pages in other namespaces are used for discussion and communication between users, the same norms will usually also apply". Facile point-scoring looks even more facile when contradicted by the evidence. AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:56, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

A Project proposal
Hi, I write because I have an idea for a wikiproject that would focus on news events of the kind that doesn't fall under the WIkipedia:In the News categories - that is news that are interesting for people who care about something other than sports, distasers or international politics. Currently there is no place on wikipedia to find news of cultural events or events that are primarily of interest for specific minorities or subcultures in the world (including subcommunities interested in academia, music, arts, or literature). The aim of this project would be to get articles that are newsworthy but doesn't fit the current ITN criteria featured on the main page - and to promote awareness of topics outside of the sports-politics-disaster triangle. I was thinking you might be interested.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 01:17, 12 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes: sounds interesting: I'll look into it. AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:25, 12 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I've been toying with the idea of making an entire alternative main page something like WP:The Other Main Page, to highlight other kinds of content than what is suitable for wikipedia's face to the world. We have a lot of really good articles on topics that will never be featured articles or news worthy. I'd like a place where one could go to find those.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 01:28, 12 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I like it :) AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:34, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

Ready Flowers
Hi there. I stumbled upon your name while I was checking out our article at Ready Flowers. It appears that the major editor of that page, Thegarty is also editing under the name of Whistleblower-flowers. I'm not sure exactly what the deal is with that article or with that editor(s?), but it seems likely to me that there's some kind of hidden agenda at work. Just an FYI. Matt Deres (talk) 03:40, 14 March 2012 (UTC)


 * I think you'll find that Whistleblower-flowers is one of Thegarty's opponents. Hegerty owns Ready Flowers, and Whistleblower-flowers wasn't being exactly complementary about his business. As I've recently discovered, the online florist business seems to be rather less benign that one might expect, with competitors suing each other, allegations of dubious 'commissions' being paid, and other shenanigans. Not to mention an angry mob of dissatisfied customers alleging that they have been ripped off (on good grounds sometimes, from what I can tell). I think that one should probably approach this as one would on topics involving the Israeli - Palestinian conflict: never assume that anyone is who they say they are, always assume a hidden agenda, and expect to be accused of working for Mossad, Hamas, or the Illuminati by everyone involved. Say it with flowers? Hand grenades would be safer... ;-) AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:58, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

Hi Matt Deres (talk)/ AndyTheGrump (talk -

I set up this user name as I am disgusted that this company is allowed to trade and deceive people. I can not believe the comments Hegarty puts on his profile "helping companies...establish their own notable identities online and present a balanced and fair POV". This company is embarking on black hat strategies to manipulate the consumer (including false google reviews, false competitions, ignoring complaints and lots more - see for yourself!). A mentor to other online businesses..I really hope not..

I have nothing to do with this company or the flower industry - I'm just a very P$$ed of customer and who is appalled by the smoke and mirrors cleverly created. I also help set up online businesses but would never use the tactics this person does.

I did list something on Hegartys page (more out of anger) which I quickly removed as I realised that i was just putting myself on the same level as this person.

Sorry - I won't interfere again Whistleblower-flowers (talk) 05:50, 14 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Thank you for your honesty. While Wikipedia isn't here to fight great wrongs, we do try to ensure that we don't promulgate them either - or even relatively small ones, which in the grand scale of things is where being scammed by a florist (if that is what has happened) has to be seen. I'll carry on trying to ensure that we at least avoid handing articles over to the Hegerty's of this world - but the real fix is beyond our control. AndyTheGrump (talk) 06:08, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

Thanks.Whistleblower-flowers (talk) 06:24, 14 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Just for full disclosure, it was your posts on their user page that caught my attention. When I see someone editing another user's page, it often means that the users are linked (either the same person or they use the same computer - even a public one, like a library or something). When the user reverts their own edit - as you did - it appears even more like they're the same person and they've logged in to the wrong account (see WP:SOCK for why having two accounts active would be a concern). Matt Deres (talk) 10:29, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

Understand Matt Deres (talk), but I think if you saw the list I had put up, it was far from complimentary to that users page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Whistleblower-flowers (talk • contribs) 20:21, 14 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I did :). Just in case you're not aware, every edit you make on Wikipedia is saved, except for an extremely small number of edits that get oversighted. Matt Deres (talk) 23:43, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

Re List of Jewish Nobel laureates
With regard to your edit summary here you write (correctly) that "as I understand the discussions, the article is including ethnic/cultural affiliation". Given that the article itself doesn't make this clear, and there seem to be a large number of Wikipedia contributors that don't think that we should make this clear, can you tell me what exactly is wrong with the edit? Is there actually a requirement to read through reams of past talk-page history to ascertain what an article is supposed to be about? Or should "an encyclopaedia that anyone can edit" perhaps assist newcomers a little by trying to make article editing a little more user-friendly, by insisting that such articles at least give a vague indication of their subject matter...? AndyTheGrump (talk) 05:29, 14 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Clearly I'm not the right person to ask for this, since I don't edit the article. I'm simply restoring the consensus version. Why don't write some sentences for the introduction, referring to the academic literature, and why the list is ordered along the lines that it is? I think we also had a discussion on Muslim article. Again someone should try to improve the sourcing for that article. My personal opinion is to try to keep as much information on here as possible, but to just explain clearly what we are saying in each article. If we make a lot of lists by religion, I think that's fine as long as we explain exactly what we're including in the list in the lead. Avaya1 (talk) 00:12, 15 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Oh just saw you're discussing on talk. I'll put a vote in. Avaya1 (talk) 00:15, 15 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Yes - it's an ongoing debate, though it doesn't seem to be going anywhere. AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:21, 15 March 2012 (UTC)


 * You probably should have just edited in a very unobjectionable sentence (i.e. 'This list includes both people who had a Jewish background and those who practised the religion'), rather doing than the RFC. The majority of editors just seem worried that you're going to add a long discussion about cultural and religious identity at the beginning of the article. Avaya1 (talk) 00:46, 15 March 2012 (UTC)


 * I wish it were that simple. This has been tried before (or something very similar). It always seems to get removed. Still, if you want to give it a go... AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:50, 15 March 2012 (UTC)


 * What I'll try to do is re-write the lead in a few weeks, when it's quieter, and it can be done incrementally. The difficult part would be changing the title of the list. Avaya1 (talk) 18:29, 16 March 2012 (UTC)


 * That isn't really how one is supposed to edit - if something is contentious, it should be discussed rather than snuck in. I doubt that it would work anyway, there are too many people watching the page. AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:36, 16 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Hi Andy, don't worry about the IP, it's just that some computers at my university residence timeout my account from editing without me realising. I agree about consensus. But I can't understand why it's contentious in this case, and I think it has a lot to do with editors expecting, and not wanting, a long discussion in the lead. If it is concise, there shouldn't be an issue. Avaya1 (talk) 18:49, 16 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Oops! Sorry about the mixup - I'll strike through the comments I made on the IP page. AS for why it's so contentious, there are probably multiple reasons, but a lot of it is to do with the way the list effectively asserts that there can be a single objective definition of 'Jewishness', whereas in reality there cannot be - it is a complex social construct, revolving around issues of ethnicity, faith, and personal self-identification. For an indication of how complex it can be, see the debate on the Harrison Ford talk page, and the related one on WP:BLPN. Ford said, when asked about how his ethnic roots affected his self-identity (perhaps jokingly) that he feels Irish as a man, and Jewish as an actor. Just how is one supposed to reach a sensible 'conclusion' from that? One can't. One shouldn't try... AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:01, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

Barnstar of Good Humor

 * I suspect it is a very old joke, but thanks :) AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:17, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

age of the earth
I would like to hear a more detailed reason for your revert than "unneccessary" please. That is too vague for my good-faith edit which I believe makes the lead better quality. If you give a legitimate reason I won't argue with it. Cadiomals (talk) 20:29, 18 March 2012 (UTC)


 * It seems to me to be tautological: 'age' esssentially means 'time elapsed since formation'. I can see no benefit in making the first sentence of the lede more complex than it needs to be to make evident what the article subject matter is. In any case, the lede goes into further detail later, and makes clear that the 'formation' was a process taking place over millions of years, rather than a single event. Also, sadly the article tends to attract creationists of various kinds who wish to spin the article one way or another - a concise and definitive start (combined with the link to Dating creation above) probably discourages this. Still, if you wish, we can discuss this further on the article talk page, to see what other contributors think. AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:11, 18 March 2012 (UTC)


 * You bring up good points. All I wanted was a more detailed explanation, so thanks. I do have two concerns however: 1) Can we bold the actual age, as it is in Age of the universe? and 2) Can we get add a margin of error using ± for the standard notation age (I used ± 0.05 based on the ±1% in the scientific notation one)? I just feel that's necessary because I have seen a number of different ages for the earth in a number of places all lying between 4.4 and 4.6 billion years, so it helps to indicate the margin of error (especially since Earth didn't form all at once, after all). Once again, thanks for your reply. Cadiomals (talk) 21:56, 18 March 2012 (UTC)


 * I can't see any objections to that - go ahead, and if anyone else has any comments, no doubt they will raise them. AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:12, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

List of California public officials charged with crimes
Andy, leave the edit-warring to me, or to anyone else. Don't get blocked again, even if you're right. It's not worth it, and California won't sink into the Pacific because of this article. Drmies (talk) 18:11, 20 March 2012 (UTC)


 * As I understand it BLP violations are exempt from WP:3RR - but I think the point got through any way. Ill not revert again though, thanks. AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:22, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, that understanding is correct, but the question might be asked, in this case, if they are really BLP violations. I think they are, and you do too, but the AfD indicates that it's hardly along the lines of "Actor X is gay and fucks penguins." I just don't want you to expand your log. ;) BTW, good work on BLPN--thanks. Drmies (talk) 18:31, 20 March 2012 (UTC)


 * I think that List of American state and local politicians convicted of crimes will need looking at too: it says in the lede that "This list includes American state and local politicians convicted of crimes while in office. Convicted politicians are those politicians who have actually been convicted in a court of law. They include governors, secretaries, comptrollers, state senators and state representatives, their close staff and appointees. Private citizens, businessmen and family are included only as they relate to the crime". To my way of thinking, "close staff and appointees" aren't 'politicians'. I'm not particularly familiar with the mechanics of US politics at the local level though: is a Schools Superintendent a politician? If an advisor to a Governor is convicted of tax fraud (sourced to an article on page 9 of the Chicago Tribune - one has to assume that this wasn't seen as exactly significant), should he be included on the list? Should we list a State Representative who "was sentenced to five years" without informing our readers what he was sentenced for? Are we supposed to guess...? AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:33, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

Sorry regarding the section title. Didn't consult the edit history, so I'd assumed based on chronology that you had copied the excerpt. That was obviously incorrect. My apologies again, --Cyber cobra (talk) 02:40, 21 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Oh well - these things happen, apology accepted. I've added a note to the AfD regarding this copying, as I'm not exactly happy with the way it was done. AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:49, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

DYK
Not too difficult to see what motivates some people. Anything that helps the cause. Hopefully more than his 10 points will be removed. Leaky Caldron  16:00, 21 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Thanks - though I suspect that not everyone approved of my efforts, and I seem to have out-Grumped myself in the process of trying to get this fixed. One thing that became apparent is just how labyrinthine (wow - spelt it right first time!) the DYK nomination process is. I can't help feeling that if it was a bit more open, there would be more input, and such problems would be less likely to occur in the first place... AndyTheGrump (talk) 04:30, 22 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Well, I'm glad you persevered in spite of disapproval. The fact that the system is so labyrinthine (delicious wording - the only other one that comes close is Byznatine note that I didn't connect to the article for the empire :-) ) is why I've been happy to stay a wikignome over all my years of editing. You are correct about the need for more openness I've seen GA's FA's DYK's have such limited input that I've rarely found them reliable as to whether a given article was any better than those without the distinctions. Well I've taken up enough of your time. I'll just say thanks again and cheers on wiki and off. MarnetteD | Talk 05:08, 22 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Yup, 'Byzantine' was another word that occurred to me. Actually, if our Labyrinth article is correct, I made the wrong choice: "A labyrinth... has an unambiguous route to the center and back and is not designed to be difficult to navigate". Of course, the Byzantine Empire wasn't actually designed to be "difficult to navigate" either - it just sort of evolved that way - allegedly. Our article suggests otherwise: "The elaborate system of titulature and precedence, which gave the court prestige and influence, makes the imperial administration look like an ordered bureaucracy to modern observers". Maybe we need a new term for this: "Wikipedian: Adjective. overly complex, bureaucratic, and lacking in coherent structure..." ;-) AndyTheGrump (talk) 05:33, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

Every time there is a contest on Wikipedia, biological nonsense is perpetuated on the Main Page DYK. This year, I attempted to correct some of the nonsense by posting that it was wrong on the Main Page/Errors page. I also posted on the talk page of the editor who created the nonsense. My posts on the Main Page/Errors alert page were ignored (because all of the administrators who could correct the main page were occupied with discussing the annual April Fool's jokes). The editor who created the nonsense could not be bothered to correct it (but he did score points for it).

But the important thing happened, DYK Wikicup points were soared. Who cares if the wrong information is still being told by Wikipedia? After all, what's a little bit of accuracy to stand in the way of scoring points?

Thanks for being a total asshole about this DYK; or so it seems people consider you for being outraged at a stunning lapse in basic human decency.... Please continue being decent. Sgsfdhd (talk) 19:13, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

Request
Could I respectfully request that you do not repeat either the content or the edit summary here? I am not sure where this strength of feeling comes from but expressing it in this way is not helpful. Thanks for your consideration. --John (talk) 10:20, 22 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Come on Andy. There was absolutely no need for that, and it's well within NPA territory. Drmies (talk) 16:19, 22 March 2012 (UTC)


 * yeah - I know. Mea culpa. I shouldn't have done it, and I've struck it out. I've just that been getting more and more frustrated with the attitude of some contributors - that all that matters is 'finding sources', 'establishing notability' and then filling Wikipedia with irrelevant personal details (DOB of minor radio presenters, etc, etc...), dubious assertions regarding ethnicity, religious faith, sexual preferences and name of pet dog (see about half our BLPs) and composing long lists of marginally-notable (or entirely non-notable) individuals that meet some made-up criteria that is either carefully constructed to exclude the obvious candidates for it, (see Talk:List of California public officials charged with crimes, and the explanation from the 'owner' as to why Tricky Dicky doesn't qualify), or refuses to actually explain to readers what the criteria for inclusion are (see... well, I'm sure you know about that one already). Sometimes I wonder why I even bother... AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:08, 22 March 2012 (UTC)
 * A sincere thank you from a fellow "delete" voter for striking that. 28bytes (talk) 17:25, 22 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks from me too. --John (talk) 19:52, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

Zeitgeist Movement
I just skimmed though the talk page of the article for The Zeitgeist Movement, and I see the vast WP:COI and WP:OWN problems from supporters of the group are still present. I attempted to intervene over a year ago, but it seems even worse now. I am now coming out of retirement specifically to help address this. Giving my regards because you seem to be the primary representative of sanity on that page at the moment. Zazaban (talk) 23:01, 22 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Thanks. Though I'd question the 'sanity' bit - I must be nuts to get involved in such nonsense in the first place ;-) AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:36, 22 March 2012 (UTC)


 * True, true, you and me both. Though that an organization is successfully managing to keep their wikipedia article as a propaganda piece long-term is incredibly infuriating. Zazaban (talk) 23:47, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

Rolando Delgado
Saw the post at BLPN and I've done substantial clean up and citing. Could you have another look and see if you are comfortable removing the BLP ref needed tag? Thanks for your help.-- — Keithbob • Talk  • 17:29, 22 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Yeah, thanks - I'll take a look. AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:31, 22 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I've removed the tag - though it would be nice to see articles like this using a few sources beyond MMA websites. AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:17, 23 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, I agree the sources are not mainstream, but that's all I could find. Thanks for the help. -- — Keithbob • Talk  • 20:24, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

Your recent reverts
Did have a talk page on the mundane astrology article I started earlier but it disappeared. Adding content, sources, references and links on the topic only serves to expand and improve the article. Those who Revert based on ideology and POV tend to be hostile, according to Wikipedia's guidelines, "making editing Wikipedia unpleasant. Sometimes this provokes a reciprocal hostility of re-reversion. Sometimes it also leads to good editors departing Wikipedia, temporarily or otherwise, especially the less bellicose. This outcome is clearly detrimental to the development of Wikipedia, thus fair and considered thought should be applied to all reversions given all the above." This new talk page is to discuss the quality of the article with well-written, concise additions by editors with references and sources along with internal and external links that the reader can go to if they choose. The addition of a critical section should also improve the overall quality of the article.Eagle Eye 01:34, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

Thanks and invitation
Hi Andy, Your participation on the Golden Domes article sometime back, was very helpful. Please accept my belated thank you. (NOTE: I didn't participate there but I was watching the page and scanning the talk threads and admiring your insights and tenacity) Now I am in the process of reviewing a related article, MERU, Holland, that was also created by the same (recently banned) user and I'm wondering if you would have a moment to scan the article and give some input on the talk page. There is no controversy going on there. I'm just looking to improve the article and a fresh pair of eyes would be really valuable, if you have a few minutes. Thanks,-- — Keithbob • Talk  • 16:32, 29 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Hum. If the "Council of Supreme Intelligence of Maharishi's Global Administration through Natural Law" is based there, I suppose it must be notable ;-) I see you've been tidying it up - it doesn't look too bad now. I'll take a more in-depth look later if I get the chance. AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:42, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I agree, some of the terms and titles from this organization are really over the top. And thanks for the humor. We need more of that on Wiki. But be careful because if you show too much of it you will have to change your user name :-) Anyway, thanks for having a look. I've organized it but I'm still concerned that some of the content is off topic and may even have undue weight. If you get a chance to have a better look some time, it would be appreciated. I know you are busy with your own projects, but if you have time, no rush about it tho. Thanks again, -- — Keithbob •  Talk  • 20:27, 30 March 2012 (UTC)
 * It is only my sense of humour that keeps me sane. But yes, I'll try to have another look. AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:23, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

AN
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard#Coordinated_voting_by_Fringe_Theories.2FNetwork_participants_in_AfD_and_other_debates".The discussion is about the topic Coordinated voting by Fringe Theories/Network participants in AfD and other debates. Thank you.—Romulanius (talk) 18:13, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

Just trying to get it right.
I would like to know why you are being so rude. If I am doing something incorrectly and you want to explain it to me, then please do so in a professional nonconfrontational way. There are actually other businesses and products that I would like to attempt to add to Wikipedia, but am trying to work through these difficulties first. I cannot add 50 documents in a week. I have just started this. I did not add the Shaahin document. Yes, I have edited it. I did add the Excelerol document, after reading through many Wikipedia documents on how to do so, what is permitted and what is not permitted. I am trying to stay within the guidelines. I have been challenged on a number of items and I responded, explaining what I think what I did was proper. If I am incorrect, then fine. But please be professional about it and do not attack me. If you do not like Shaahin, do not take it out on me.

Staceymont (talk) 02:17, 31 March 2012 (UTC)


 * If you copied material from another website, and claimed it as your own, you were not 'staying within the guidelines', you were breaching copyright, or at minimum involved in plagiarism. And if your intention is to edit other articles as well, what is stopping you? What is the particular attraction of these topics to an uninvolved new editor? As for 'not liking Shaahin', I have very little opinion one way or another - I do however dislike people misusing Wikipedia to promote products - and copying large chunks directly from a company website can hardly be seen in any other way. If you really have no conflict of interest, you seem intent on making it look like you do. (And by the way, do you normally refer to people you don't know by their first name?) AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:32, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I do, Andy.

Staceymont (talk) 15:39, 31 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Yes you do what? Have a conflict of interest? (and could you at least try to reply in the correct section) AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:43, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

Yes I do normally refer to people I don't know by their first name, Andy.

Staceymont (talk) 16:16, 31 March 2012 (UTC)