A note regarding email

Please note that I am unlikely to respond to any email that either concerns matters that can perfectly well be answered on talk pages, or that suggests to me that the person sending it hasn't bothered to read relevant policies and/or guidelines they have already been directed to. Wikipedia is a collaborative project, where relatively few things require discussion in private, and I'm certainly not going to engage in such conversations with people who haven't made the effort to find out how Wikipedia works. AndyTheGrump

It is so absolutely true. It is our biggest failing. I couldn't imagine how helpless or unfair it would feel in an article subject's position. Our website is too significant, too important, too heavily-utilised to not take this seriously.

Thanks for all your efforts trying to support article subjects from such things, whether it be misguided editors playing whack-a-mole with no situational awareness, malicious editors with an axe to grind, or somewhere in between. I hold out hope that slowly the tide will turn, and your userpage statement will become less and less true.

Daniel (talk) 12:55, 9 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Unfortunately, such problems are built into the very root of how Wikipedia operates (and into the WMF's vacuous promotion of a supposed 'movement' as the saviour of humankind through 'knowledge'), and there really isn't any cure short of a complete rethink, so at best all that can really be done is to try to deal with the worst examples (not always easy, since drawing attention to such issues can sometimes make things worse for the victims) and try to encourage a little more empathy for outsiders where we can. Not just the aggravated 'unwanted BLP' victims that Vigilant refers too, either. The set-up actively encourages people to plunge head-first into writing autobiographical content, only to then get into arguments with insiders screaming about supposed 'conflicts of interest' when they do so. My advice personal advice to anyone wishing to have a Wikipedia article about them is to think again, and to anyone already having one is to use what media contacts they have to state that it is full of misinformation (even if it isn't - though given the appalling standards of many BLPs I've seen, that might be quite rare), and not to engage directly with contributors at all, if it can be avoided. With seriously-problematic biographical content, the best option may actually be to consult a lawyer. AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:25, 9 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Now you've gone and ruined my quote from the article in my argument at talk: Edward Colston#NPOV failure: bold revert discussion (which I gave up as nobody else seems bothered). I shouldn't joke, it is not funny. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 09:27, 12 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

"00:48, 17 January 2022‎ User: AndyTheGrump talk contribs‎ 7,016 bytes −294‎ Undid revision 1066140507 by ThomasBi (talk) Please stop adding this irrelevant fluff."

This wasn't irrelevant stuff, it qualifies under the description and guidelines for Biography and Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons. It was neutral in tone, it added neutral details and a new source to a section of the article. ThomasBi (talk) 01:01, 17 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I'm not going to discuss article content here. That's what article talk pages are for. AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:03, 17 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Ah I thought this was acceptable, as you posted a question about a photo I posted on my talk page. Maybe commons talk is different, I will read up on that. Learning. ThomasBi (talk) 01:16, 17 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi, noticed you reverted my edit that added "ACMTC" group to the list due to it being unsourced. However, I sourced it on their article - which usually seems to be adequate on lists. For quick reference the article I used was this: https://www.vice.com/en/article/ywwnzm/cops-accuse-christian-commune-of-smuggling-and-raping-children

Now I know WP:RS/PS has no consensus on the reliability of Vice so maybe we can talk about that. But it is, or atleast was a communal group. I didn't add it for any political reason. In any case, interested in your thoughts and wish you a nice day. 24.44.73.34 (talk) 20:09, 17 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

'Commune' doesn't mean 'Communist'. Find a reliable source that explicitly describes them as 'Christian Communist' and they can be included. AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:43, 17 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

By commune I meant "holding all things in common" which is a universal theme in Christian communism. Semantics aside though, I have looked abit into it and it doesn't seem that was emphasized too much in this group, if at all. Apologies for jumping the gun with my initial edit - I believe now I was too hasty with it. Thank you for your edit/insight. 24.44.73.34 (talk) 02:52, 18 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

'Christian Communism' is a term that seems to have been applied in extremely diverse contexts, so I'm not sure it's wise to talk about 'universal themes'. Anyway, stick to what sources directly state (in contexts like this, preferably sources with more subject expertise than Vice), and let them decide what labels we attach, per Wikipedia's policies. I'm not sure, in the case of something like ACMTC, it matters a great deal anyway - the more important point is to convey to readers what those involved were actually engaged in. Present the verifiable facts, and let readers decide for themselves whether they want to lump them in with Thomas More, the Diggers, the Anabaptists, and the early teachings of Joseph Smith. I suspect most readers would likely consider it rather irrelevant, or at least, not much of an explanation for anything of consequence. Sadly, systemic child abuse can be found in all sorts of contexts, religious and otherwise, and 'communism' of any sort doesn't appear to be any sort of identifying characteristic. AndyTheGrump (talk) 06:18, 18 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

All good points, I will keep them in mind. Thanks again. 24.44.73.34 (talk) 20:11, 18 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.Govvy (talk) 00:34, 27 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

You might like to read Talk:Edward_Colston/Archive 3#NPOV failure: bold revert discussion. I was in a minority of one and didn't have the time to pursue it. I had only happened to read it at the time of the Bristol Four trial and thought - this is a load of codswallop but it would take more time to research the rebuttal than I had to give. I left a message at talk:Bristol that the article was being considered for GA [which it got] but no-one reacted. But when I say "slave-trader" being reverted as "not in citations"!! well you know the rest. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 00:40, 27 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I long ago came to the conclusion that GA status often had little to do with the merits of an article. As for the specifics of this particular article, we'll see, though I suspect that Govvy may regret posting at WP:ANI, which will no doubt attract more eyes to the article, and to Govvy's self-evident lack of understanding of several Wikipedia policies as demonstrated on the talk page. AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:47, 27 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Yes, I agree. See my challenge at User talk:Vacant0#Edward Colston, who did the GA appraisal. Govvy has a lot to learn, but could start with wp:cherrypicking. I expect the ANI report to be shut down pdq as a content dispute but if it escalates, wp:boomerang is the obvious outcome. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 00:55, 27 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Regarding your accusations of me being incompetent at Furry Fandom about my lack of competence. When I said I was gonna rewrite it that was merely a suggestion.

Also I have rewritten articles before in the past. So it’s not completely a new thing for me. Plus I have written over 200 articles within 2021 alone. So I don’t lack competence.

The reason the quality of editing wasn’t ideal because lately I have been busy in the real world. CycoMa1 (talk) 21:59, 7 February 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I am not going to get into a debate about it here. AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:29, 7 February 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Just don’t accuse people for being incompetent. Especially knowing the fact you only started interacting with me a couple of days ago.CycoMa1 (talk) 23:31, 7 February 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I am not 'accusing you'. I am stating clearly and unequivocally that in my opinion, based on what you have done to the Furry Fandom article, you lack the necessary skills to usefully contribute to the article in the manner you have been. This is based on my assessment of the article in question: the only valid thing to make such an assessment from. I don't have to 'interact with' someone to form an opinion about poor writing skills. Anyway, like I said, I'm not going to argue about it here, since it relates to a specific article, and to a discussion which should be taking place where others will see it. Please consider this discussion closed. AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:38, 7 February 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. TudorTulok (talk) 08:38, 12 February 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Source isn’t Spotify.com, it’s The Ryen Russillo Show a part of The Ringer Podcast Network from the ringer.com an SBNation affiliate. Discussed were facts, not opinions regarding David Bloom’s reemergence as a con artist in Southern California and this information should be listed publicly. ChCat1983 (talk) 03:03, 21 February 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Your refusal to comply with the Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons policy has been reported. AndyTheGrump (talk)

This is your only warning; if you make personal attacks on others again, as you did at User talk:CycoMa1, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Comment on content, not on other contributors or people. This is absolutely, manifestly unacceptable. Equivamp - talk 13:06, 26 February 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I don't fucking care. Giving false information about cancers is fucking dangerous. Fuck off, fuckwit. AndyTheGrump (talk) 13:09, 26 February 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.Equivamp - talk 13:18, 26 February 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This is an awful situation, I don't believe that you dont fucking care. You clearly do, and I sympathise. I'm also in trouble for the same reasons. Please take it easy. Regards. -RoxAndy the Grumpy dog. wooF 16:45, 26 February 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi - I see your editing is under discussion again at ANI. I don't particularly want to comment there, but while I don't imagine that I have any monopoly on good ideas, I'd like to offer some thoughts in case they are helpful.

Admins are (in theory) restricted in how we use our tools. They should not be used because we believe one party is right and the other wrong about content (no matter how bleedingly obvious that is); rather, we should only use them to blindly enforce policy. Now, they can be, and are, used to enforce policies like WP:V or WP:COPYVIO, but they are also very frequently used to enforce behavioural policies like WP:CIV, WP:NPA and so on.

So, here is where the dilemma appears. If a user is acting against policy to put poorly sourced stuff in articles, and they have been advised in a civil manner to desist from doing so, but they persist - well, that's an obvious and easy decision for an admin: block and move on with your day. It gets more complicated, however, where there are policy breaches on both sides: if one party is adding poorly sourced content, and the other party is calling them a fuckwit, I see two separate policy breaches there, and I find it a damned sight harder to think about acting on one without acting on the other.

So, this is my impassioned plea: you are an experienced editor, you know what good sourcing looks like, and I sure as hell don't want to lose your expertise. Please will you knock the incivility on the head, once and for all? Be the better grump. I'm not saying that you need to be all sweetness and light to every spammer and charlatan you come across, but keep it civil regardless. As an admin and checkuser I frequently deal with unpleasant individuals: I assure you that nothing is gained by insulting them. Similarly, if you think that someone lacks the skills to work productively in a particular area, just say that - it will be much easier for them to hear if you say it plainly, without embellishments. Just a thought, anyway. Girth Summit _(blether) 00:16, 27 February 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks for the thoughts. Two points in response though: (a) fremo ergo sum. [1], (b) the previous ANI thread regarding CycoMa1 achieved nothing of any real significance. And I'm not sure that this one will either, beyond creating a topic ban that even if CycoMa1 actually understands it, and complies, will merely move the problem elsewhere - and there are plenty of other article topics where gross incompetence and illiteracy can have real-world consequences.

This isn't just a 'CycoMa1' problem though. It is a structural one, where desperately poor content gets through AfC on the nod, and where quantity-over-quality obsessives routinely create systemic problems that can take years for competent contributors to clear up. To put it bluntly (fremo ergo sum again), the incompetents are capable of creating crap faster than the rest of us are capable of cleaning it up, and while it may not be polite to tell them to take their effluent elsewhere, it is sometimes necessary.

And frankly, going off-topic slightly, I'd show a little more concern for Wikipedia's insistence on civility between contributors if Wikipedia wasn't routinely obnoxious to outsiders who get featured in e.g. biographies they haven't asked for, and complain, only to be showered with waffle about 'conflicts of interest' (which doesn't actually mean what Wikipedia thinks it does), and generally treated like something the dog dragged in for complaining that we've got things wrong. There are double standards involved, and they really don't cast Wikipedia in a good light.

Maybe I'd do better to go back to sniping at Wikipedia from outside though. I'm not really sure why I returned, after taking a five-year break, since all it seems to have done was told me what I already knew - that good intentions and 'civility' aren't enough, in a world where Google sticks Wikipedia content at the top of its search lists, where the poor readers might think they are being provided with something resembling encyclopaedic content. Sometimes they are. Very often they aren't - and the failures aren't down to individual incompetence, they are built into the way the whole thing works. 'Anyone can edit' isn't compatible with 'encyclopaedia', and it never will be... AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:50, 27 February 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Those are some pretty serious concerns about the underlying structure of the project. I'm not saying you're wrong, but fundamental issues like that are way above my non-existent pay grade. All I'm saying is that resorting to insulting people just weakens the strength of any argument you make, particularly in this environment. Girth Summit _(blether) 17:56, 27 February 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• ^{( Buttinsky)} I think it's a perfectly understandable view that Wikipedia "is always with us", that in some respects it is problematic, and that it's therefore a worthwhile activity to try and manage that problem. I often feel like that editing fringe medical content. The question then, though, is how to do that management most effectively. Painting a target on yourself through overly-uncivil interactions is ultimately not very effective as it gives ammunition to your enemies (those creating the problem in the first case). Alexbrn (talk) 07:13, 28 February 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Yeah, I clearly could have handled things better. No question about that. AndyTheGrump (talk) 07:24, 28 February 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

CycoMa1 is responsible for about half of what is currently written in the Sex article. (see [2]). Given that they have been topic banned from writing about medical topics for CIR issues, and that the article receives over 30,000 views every day [3], I think their contributions to the article need to be reviewed. I was wondering if you had any thoughts as to the current state of the article, and whether it was worth just rollbacking all of CycoMa1's edits. Thanks. Hemiauchenia (talk) 20:47, 28 February 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Fuck. Yes, it looks like CycoMa1 has crapped all over it: his illiteracy is easy to spot (and edits of his that aren't illiterate are copy-pastes). As for trying to roll it back, given the number of edits by other editors involved, that could be difficult. I'm not going to touch it with a ten-foot bargepole though, given the circumstances. AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:01, 28 February 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This issue had earlier been raised in a Wikipedia discussion forum where it was instructed that the issued be taken to article for deletion for proper discussion but you did not look at the merit of the issues raised then you conluded that the article is properly sourced? And if the filing was not properly done you either correct it to the starndad or leave it for those who would be willing to pay attention to the issue. 1600-1700s (talk) 21:52, 1 March 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I looked at briefly at the ridiculously-long 'issues raised', and concluded that you either failed to read what it says at Wikipedia:Proposed deletion "Proposed deletion (PROD) is a way to suggest an article or file for uncontroversial deletion..."), or failed to understand it. The article has been in existence since 2015. It has been edited by around 170 different contributors. It cites over a hundred different sources. It appears to discuss a legitimate subject, as defined by Wikipedia policy. In such circumstances, deletion could not possibly be described as 'uncontroversial'. Accordingly, per Wikipedia:Proposed deletion, I removed the template. If you wish to argue for deletion, you will have to use the process laid out in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion. And please note that you are not permitted to restore the template once it has been removed, as has been explained in Wikipedia:Proposed deletion. I suggest you revert your atempt to do so, before someone decides to take action on the matter. AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:08, 1 March 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks for reminding me of the inadequacy of a single example. I don't know if the BBC has a style guide, but they have routinely used the lower case 'black' in recent coverage of newsworthy African-Americans and African-Britons.CharlesHBennett (talk) 13:28, 20 March 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The BBC News style guide seems not to capitalise 'black', but they don't actually give any guidance on the matter: see their entry for 'race'. [4]

Looking at the article further, I'm not sure we should be discussing capitalisation of the term in the lede anyway, per MOS:LEDE, since it isn't discussed further in the article body. And if it merits discussion in the article body, it probably needs more sources discussing the (changing) usage, rather than examples. I'll raise this on the article talk page. AndyTheGrump (talk) 13:39, 20 March 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article List of aircraft accidents and incidents resulting in at least 50 fatalities, to which you have significantly contributed, is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or if it should be deleted.

The discussion will take place at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of aircraft accidents and incidents resulting in at least 50 fatalities (2nd nomination) until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article.

To customise your preferences for automated AfD notifications for articles to which you've significantly contributed (or to opt-out entirely), please visit the configuration page. Delivered by SDZeroBot (talk) 01:02, 3 April 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Regarding [5]: There's obviously no risk of the complaint against you being upheld, and it should perhaps be chalked off to a reaction to the editor being placed under a sanction they clearly did not expect. As an experienced editor in the BLP area, I am sure you will be able to think of the person behind the username and just disengage for now to avoid adding to their stress. Cheers. Abecedare (talk) 06:07, 20 April 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Yeah, I probably shouldn't have responded. It was too ridiculous to think anyone would take it seriously... AndyTheGrump (talk) 06:13, 20 April 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

"If over time you replace all the parts of a bus so that it becomes a tram but then over time replace all the parts of the tram with exactly the same parts as the original bus but new has it always been the same bus?" I gave up trying to get the punctuation right in that sentence. - LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 21:52, 5 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Where can I find the Wikimedia Terms of Use? Thanks, TrangaBellam (talk) 07:58, 8 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

There's a link at the bottom of every article/talk page. [6] AndyTheGrump (talk) 08:04, 8 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I have attempted some small fixes, but I'm baffled. An entire section about a woman being cursed, and becoming mysteriously ill with a kidney ailment that paralyzed her and robbed her of speech. ??? Pleading ensued, but no forgiveness, and the same fate will fall upon her family. Strange reports of money being "sprayed". (My cats have sprayed things, and it's not pleasant.) All of this has "sources"!! Of a sort...Gaahhh! Arghh! Any thoughts you wish to share...sorry to bother you. Best wishes, Tribe of Tiger ^{Let's Purrfect!} 08:28, 11 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Frankly, I'd more or less given up trying to get people to actually look into this. Nobody seems interested over at the ANI thread trainwreck - too busy shooting messengers and congratulating each other for their skills in hunting down UPE-monsters. A simple request for people to take a look at the article on WP:BLPN has had no response, other than yours. DGG, who offered to mentor Celestina007, hasn't responded to my request on his talk page to look at the articles concerned. And I'm not going to try to 'fix' the article (and the connected ones - there are at least three linked in one way or another) myself. Not if I'm going to be accused of hounding, canvassing, and failing to engage in fixing articles before I was even aware of the problem. This Odumeje guy may well meet Wikipedia notability criteria, and we need to be aware of cultural differences when looking at how the Nigerian media - and more importantly perhaps, Nigerian people in general - view such individuals, and to take into account the broader cultural context that such (alleged) curses are found in. Celestina007's article isn't the way to do it, however.

I know next to nothing about the Nigerian media, but the sourcing is simply abysmal. It seems to consist almost entirely of sub-tabloid tittle-tattle we'd normally dismiss out of hand. Is this really all that is available? And, as you seem to already have seen, the sources very often don't support the content they are being cited for anyway. Celestina007 takes a denial that something occurred as evidence that it did. She essentially attributes the power to wish death on someone to Odumeje, and more generally gives credence, in Wikipedia's voice, to a plethora of claims to "spiritual powers". Celestina007 is of course fully entitled to believe in such things. They are no more irrational than other beliefs in the 'supernatural' found elsewhere, and even the atheists amongst us probably have more irrational beliefs about the ways of the world that we could possibly contemplate. I'm sure I have quite a few myself. Wikipedia, however, if it is to have any credibility, needs to at least attempt to apply a modicum of common standards, when writing about living individuals. Or, if the only sources available are ones consisting of gossip, denials, and vague insinuation, not write about them at all. There may be better sources, sufficient to justify an article, but it probably needs someone both familiar with the media and culture of Nigeria, and with Wikipedia policy and the way to write about difficult topics in a neutral non-sensationalist manner, to do it. Celestina007 seems to meet the first requirement. She definitely doesn't meet the remainder, and the Odumeje article shows the consequences. AndyTheGrump (talk) 14:07, 11 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Dealing with her manner of UPE hunting is one thing. An opposition to UPE is fine, but bullying editors and creating poorly sourced articles is not. I found this particular article through the connected articles. Yngvadottir has worked through one of them, so far, culling the crap.

There's a difference between personal belief and reporting neutrally. As a child, growing up in the "Bible Belt" of the US, we were taught that Biblical miracles were facts. I've had some unusual experiences with topics that WP considers pseudoscience. But, these were MY subjective experiences! Supporting such, with gossip rags is non-neutral and unscientific, and not the purpose of an encyclopedia. As you said, this is a problem with Celestina007's edits, in these BLPs. Perhaps this person is notable, that can be debated/decided, but the bizarre claims, in WP voice need to go.

I didn't wish to mention this on ANI, but I am reminded of Wikicology. Same bullying attitude, especially towards fellow Nigerians. (What the heck is up with That?) Same tabloid-type sources, which, to a US/UK editor appear to be gossip rags, seen by grocery check-out area. "Elvis lives! or I was abducted and bore a three-headed alien!" I'm having difficulty bridging this cultural divide.

So sorry that your well-founded comments have been ignored by BLPN and DGG. The articles are our face on the internet, thus very important. Anyway, thanks for your comments, and for allowing me to vent. I would write more, but because of physical problems, I am constrained to tippy-type on a tablet, which is very slow. Best wishes to you, my grumpy friend, Tribe of Tiger ^{Let's Purrfect!} 21:36, 11 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

And best wishes to you, my stripy friend. ;) AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:07, 11 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I keep trying to bring up her impact on this subject area, but you're right...they're far more interested in fussing about UPE than they are her actual impact on an entire region's coverage. Sad. Intothatdarkness 12:28, 12 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The subject area of Nigeria is highly important, and Nigerian-identifying editors, as best I know, haven't spoken, save one mild comment by one editor. Perhaps they are busy writing decent articles, vs checking on ANI... The act of bullying people, so one can be perceived as the only great expert for an entire, probably underrepresented country, troubles me, so very much. She stated: "I’m literally the most renowned editor dealing with Nigeria related articles in the history of the English Wikipedia so please respectfully do simmer down." [7]

Although I may be the best editor on my country road, (4 homes) & possibly in my entire subdivision (25 homes), I'm NOT making the same claim for my entire rural county, which is only 1 of 100 in the state of NC. Much less for an entire country. (Nigeria is over 7 times large than NC, and has a larger population.) ^[1]

Obviously, there are important cultural differences between Nigeria and UK/US/Australia, etc., and the topics/sources should be vetted by more than this one person, who seems to be claiming that they are representing an entire country. Thanks for your comment, ITD! Best wishes from your vexed, snarling & possibly intemperate friend, Tribe of Tiger ^{Let's Purrfect!} 08:38, 13 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

References

Why did you delete the edit of christofee Drew and Analicia Safire getting a divorce. It's all true 2A02:C7C:232:D300:1028:2359:140C:6030 (talk) 00:59, 17 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Read the Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons policy. Articles (particularly those concerning living people) need to cite published reliable sources. And even with sources, we need to consider peoples' privacy. AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:51, 17 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello from lowlying Stoneleigh! Just wanted to emphasise that I completely support the collaborative aspect of Wikipedia and don't intended to edit war. Just felt strongly that the edit should have stayed and was disappointed that it was considered original research.

Happy Editing, Barney

Barney1995 (talk) 11:40, 23 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I was interested on your opinion on something since you seem to care a lot about biographies of living people and seem to have some kind of expertise in editing them. There's a backlogged category, with 1700+ articles, entitled Category:Unreferenced BLPs. I never really understood how a category like this was allowed to exist, but maybe I'm missing something crucial. Clovermoss (talk) 21:06, 24 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Actually, the category that technically has the 1700+ articles listed is Category:All unreferenced BLPs. Clovermoss (talk) 21:20, 24 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

If it was down to me, I'd delete the lot (or at least, any that don't actually have any references, since there may be some that do, despite being in the category). To qualify as an article, it needs a claim to notability. Which needs sourcing, I'd argue, given that WP:BLP requires sourcing for anything contentious - which an unsourced claim to notability ought to be. Sadly though, the general consensus seems to be that as long as the claim to notability is vaguely credible, that is good enough to disqualify from speedy deletion. Meaning that anyone wishing to deal with such articles needs to deal with them through normal deletion processes (WP:PROD or WP AfD), after first trying to find sources to see if the subject actually is Wikipedia-notable. Under the circumstances, I'm not surprised there that many of them. AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:53, 24 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks for the reply. I was aware about A7 and claims about notability. I was just confused about how there was this many articles that hadn't gone through AfD. I guess I thought more people would care? Is it the tediousness of it all? Or that there's so much that could be done while editing Wikipedia that it's hard to narrow down everything that needs to be taken care of? Taking a closer look at random articles within this category, a lot of these articles have an external link or something that would disqualify it from WP:BLPPROD, so I guess it makes sense that there's so many articles in the category. It still makes me uncomfortable, though. Category:BLP articles lacking sources is an even huger backlog, there's 97,000 articles! The page literally states that the category is for articles about biographies of living persons lacking sufficient reliable references. One of the subcategories goes back to January 2007. Clovermoss (talk) 23:23, 24 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Although taking a look at that category too it also seems like not every article listed should nessecarily be there. Maybe I'm more concerned than nessecary. Clovermoss (talk) 00:27, 25 May 2022 (UTC) I also feel that it's important to mention that AfD isn't the only option. Ideally, all of this content should be cited. If the subject doesn't meet our standards for notability, there's AfD. What makes me uncomfortable is the sheer amount of uncited content that exists because it just doesn't feel right. I'm typically an eventualist but I feel like biographies of living people should have a different standard, y'know? Because what's written has an effect on real people's lives. Since it does bother me though, I should probably look into doing what I can to help with that backlog. Clovermoss (talk) 10:18, 25 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

There is a useful tool which allows you to find all articles in a category, and sort them by pageviews. Using this on 'Category:All unreferenced BLPs' shows which ones are most likely to be of significance, and that most of the pages in the category are getting relatively few views. [8] From a quick sampling, the highest-view ones are probably generally ok, in that while they don't actually cite anything, they usually have external links which should at least confirm something. The low-view ones are more likely to lack any useful external links, and are more likely to be dubious and/or promotional, though since they are getting less views this generally shouldn't matter so much. There may of course be some in there that really need dealing with, since even if few people are looking at them, they may potentially be the only content on the subject a web search will find.

On reflection, my 'delete the lot' reaction was probably over the top, but it certainly isn't good to have so many biographies in the category, so if you want to have a go at reducing it, you'll be doing good work. AndyTheGrump (talk) 10:46, 25 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thank you for showing me that tool! I think it could be very useful. It's also a way to determine how I should go about improving articles, as it's much less overwhelming than a massive list. There's an endless list of things to do on-wiki, since there's a lot of backlogs, but I do want to try to do something about this. Again, I appreciate your responses to me. Clovermoss (talk) 10:52, 25 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi, in regards your last comment on the Madonna economy article, I'll work to leave only sourced comments about the term. Not sure about the deadline to this matters, bc all information at least is well-referenced and aren't kind of isolated per se while I need to work with finding references; etc. Perhaps, like you have pointed out from this case, you would like to help in regards the Shakira Studies and Shakira Wannabe. Both articles were created by the same user inspired (WP:OTHERSTUFF) in the Madonna studies and Madonna wannabe (both well-documented terms in academic writings and popular literature; more than the Madonna-economy). The first Shakira's article is my main concern, and could be treated as WP:NOW as I pointed out in the talk page; and I also support Scyrme's view that even is not worth merging for a term that doesn't exist and originated by an user; I think dedicate a simple line about scholarly articles on her in the Bibliography of works on Shakira could be ok instead merging. The second one, I also support Richard3120's point of view. Thanks in advance, --Apoxyomenus (talk) 23:57, 29 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Discussion regarding the Madonna article is best confined to the relevant talk page. As for articles on Shakira, I've not looked at them, and have no particular interested in being diverted away from the topic at hand. I looked at your article because someone asked about it on one of the reference desks [9], and noted that it seemed problematic. And while you are right about there being no deadline, the article is in article space, rather than being a draft, so it is expected to comply with policy. AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:11, 30 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Anyways, thanks. --Apoxyomenus (talk) 01:35, 30 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

so, I heard you are retiring. i cannot find anything in your talk page. are you just joking? If you aren't, then I think fandom (created by "the wikipedia guy") is a beter place. the reason i think you are joking about retiring is because some people in your talk page are talking about it for more than two years and you still appear active. you posted to me a lecture about Wikipedia not being censored in the talk page of humans a couple of days ago. just asking and suggesting.signed,103.114.211.46 (talk) 15:08, 4 June 2022 (UTC) edit:they are talking about you retiring for more than seven years.signed,103.114.211.46 (talk) 15:11, 4 June 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I wouldn't have said disruptive. You guys will reach a consensus, and I'll support it. Lighten up. -Roxy the grumpy dog. wooF 15:45, 13 June 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

You recently undid a POV edit over at Thomas More Society. However, you only undid the most recent edit of the particular IP user, and if you look at the diff from before they started editing, you'll find they'd preceded that with some smaller POV edits.

I'm really trying to maintain a policy of not editing article space, but I hope that you can take a look at that dif and see the problems. Thanks. --Nat Gertler (talk) 05:00, 29 June 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Done. Should have seen that. AndyTheGrump (talk) 09:32, 29 June 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Seeing as you are the only other active member: [10] - LuckyLouie (talk) 20:38, 21 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Now there's a blast from the past. User:AndyTheGrump/Conspiracies is rather out of date, but I should probably add that one. AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:55, 21 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This revert deserves special mention for the posters sheer volume. - LuckyLouie (talk) 13:24, 12 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Did you see the included "...this is not a crazy nut job ramble..."? I was tempted to add a 'citation needed' tag for that before deleting. AndyTheGrump (talk) 13:38, 12 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Not that I haven't predicted it.
Feel free to remove this comment. CABF45 (talk) 01:15, 29 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thank you for your feedback on my proposed edit that was reverted. By making another file to avoid further issues, can I crop an image a bit?

The Harvett Vault (user; talk) 04:23, 12 August 2022 (UTC); edited: 04:29, 12 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Personally, I'd think it better to have a photo of an actual person in a fursuit for the top image. This should really be discussed on the article talk page though - it's not my call. AndyTheGrump (talk) 04:33, 12 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

...regarding this [11] look at the context. Or rather the complete lack of it. Some guy has an affair, has to quit his job (but maybe not really...). Is it notable? In his biography, just maybe. In an article about a WWE 'era' (proclaimed as such by google-mined marketing and fancruft sources), no. Not at all. Not without proper sources actually explaining what this has to do with any specific supposed 'era'. The guy isn't even mentioned earlier in the article. It is either a deliberate coatrack, or just plain vacuous fancruft, thrown in for no reason beyond 'it happened'. Which, since no explanation for its inclusion is given, is a WP:BLP violation. Having a source for something isn't even remotely a legitimate justification for throwing it into an article on another subject without explanation.

Competence is required. AndyTheGrump (talk) 05:08, 26 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Genuine question - why have you not reported this to WP:EWN? — @Czello 07:32, 26 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

He didn't because 1. of his uncivil comments and pas: [12], [13], 2. I repeatedly requestd him to gain consensus, he claimed its BLP violation when its just a mere metion of Vince retiring which is significant, Vince retired after 40 years with the company and his daughter Step and son in law Hunter took over, but he falsley accused me of BLP violation and removed WP:RS info which all agreed this was a major turning point and the start of the enxt era, just based on his personal views. I told him to take it to AN, he backed down. Anyway I am not the editor who included that section anyway, the page is protected till September 2 and my prefered contents still stays, I merely wanted to protect the page, its ok, I accept how it is. But @AndyTheGrump never falsely accuse anyone of BLP violation again, good night. Dilbaggg (talk) 08:15, 26 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

See admin's comments, no BLP violation: [14]. Dilbaggg (talk) 08:22, 26 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

If it is added again without prior discussion on WP:BLPN (or an other appropriate venue where uninvolved contributors familiar with WP:BLP policy will see what the dispute is about) I will again remove it - as a violation of policy. Deepfriedokra's comment that they "Don't see as BLP violation" is an opinion, not a ruling (admins don't make rulings like that), and misrepresenting it as such while ignoring the remainder of the sentence "...but I protected theough serendipity the version w/o challenged material", makes it absolutely clear that the material is contentious. Which means, per WP:BLP, that the onus is on those who wish to include material to provide justification for it. Establish consensus first. Then restore.

And cut out the crap about telling me to take it to AN. I was the first to mention ANI, and repeatedly suggested you do that. Or took it to WP:BLPN instead. You didn't. You merely continued to edit-war WP:BLP-disputed material back in.

The article itself is, as should be obvious, a fork of the WWE article, which already discusses the company's products in considerable depth over the time period concerned - and does so without concocting 'eras' out of marketing phrases, and without misrepresenting staged performance as competitive sport. The 'era' article is fancruft built around a common phrase used in passing as a marketing term, and has no legitimate grounds for independent existence at all. Certainly not while including unexplained context-free negative material about an individual who's involvement with the industry long pre-dates the fictitious 'era' the article is built around. Wikipedia is under no obligation to host such crap, and in as much as it involves living persons, has strong policies limiting what can be included.

Competence is required. AndyTheGrump (talk) 11:20, 26 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Agree 100% with that final paragraph. Given this discussion it seems there's a growing agreement that the article is problematic. Perhaps you'd have more luck with an AfD than I did. — Czello 11:35, 26 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Taking individual articles to AfD won't deal with the real issue here - which is a structural one, inherent in permitting articles to be concocted around phrases Google-mined to support contributors' own narratives. This is an issue that goes way beyond content on wrestling pseudo-sport, and can't be dealt with solely by picking off a few examples. And, to be frank, there are more important subjects that suffer from the same problems. I didn't delete the contested material because it was in a wrestling article - I deleted it because it concerned a living person, and inclusion wasn't justified by policy. If Wikipedia really wants to host fanfiction, I'm clearly not going to be able to prevent it from doing so, but meanwhile, when I see negative content on living individuals shoehorned without explanation into such articles, I will do my damnest to try to see WP:BLP policy is complied with. AndyTheGrump (talk) 11:57, 26 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

How is this a BLP violation? https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Steven_Fernandez&curid=71607784&diff=1107079048&oldid=1107076623 Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 12:36, 28 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

See Wikipedia:SUSPECT. The person concerned has not been convicted of any 'criminal stuff'. AndyTheGrump (talk) 12:40, 28 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Fair enough. Thanks. I guess use of the word "alleged" can mitigate this? Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 12:43, 28 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

At absolute minimum, yes. Though suggesting that someone is notable because they had allegations made about them some years ago, which appear to have come to nothing, would seem to me to be rather unconvincing. AndyTheGrump (talk) 12:46, 28 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello. This is a friendly head's up that a discussion was started on the reliable source noticebaord to determine if the Journal of Park and Recreation Administration is a reliable source. You may be interested in participating in the discussion, so I wanted to let you know about it and say you may participate here. Have a good day! Elijahandskip (talk) 03:45, 3 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Save the royalty at all costs of truth. Absolutely Certainly (talk) 11:45, 9 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Your inference is delusional. AndyTheGrump (talk) 11:47, 9 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

That user's tendency to ask variations on the same question over and over, reminds me somewhat of another user, possibly Joseph A. Spadaro, who was banned from Wikipedia about a week before Grotesquetruth made his first appearance. This is not an accusation, just a puzzlement. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:27, 11 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

It seems to be fairly common behaviour on 'reference desk' type websites. Some people seem to be compelled to ask questions, even when they aren't really interested in the answers. AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:31, 11 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello, AndyTheGrump. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the ((You've got mail)) or ((ygm)) template.

Forza bruta (talk) 13:37, 16 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I shall delete the email unread. I'm not the slightest bit interested in getting involved in any dispute conducted through vague unsubstantiated allegations posted on the wrong noticeboard. Follow proper procedures, or go away. AndyTheGrump (talk) 13:43, 16 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

[15] ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 16:57, 25 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I picked a random insult. Coulda been nonce. Coulda been berk. Went with ponce. Discovering it has more of a meaning than I'd intended. Changing to something more appropriate. --Golbez (talk) 21:08, 3 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

If you'd used 'nonce' I would have gone immediately to ArbCom, calling for you to be de-sysopped. AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:11, 3 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

sorely tempted. --Golbez (talk) 21:12, 3 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

So am I. AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:12, 3 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

it's not my fault our dumb language has so many words ending in "nce" that are insults. they blur together. I apologize for bringing in more heat than necessary. As for the rest, you do what you need to. --Golbez (talk) 21:13, 3 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

You may want to step away from 'Berk' as well... its etymology forgotton to all but us cockneys. I have a general rule of thumb that I dont use words I dont know the meaning of. Especially in relation to other people. Learned at a young age when I mimicked my Spanish au-pair's use of 'puta'. Only in death does duty end (talk) 21:58, 3 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Nice. [16] AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:04, 3 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I am choosing to believe that's in the precise and careful usage (which is actually a bit more well known these days due to its use in the title of that well known book: The Nice and Accurate Prophecies of Agnes Nutter, Witch.) Only in death does duty end (talk) 22:32, 3 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Planescape: Torment, actually. --Golbez (talk) 01:55, 4 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I've just been accused of "promoting" my novel. Lol. Seriously? All I did was include relevant info on a relevant page. Check the page for Sambo and under Literature section you'll see the other texts have been "promoted" in the same way. That's how information is presented ffs. What is wrong with you? 49.187.56.48 (talk) 01:02, 6 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I'd not seen the edit in question, but you stated that sources on your novel don't exist. Which means that as far as Wikipedia is concerned, content on it isn't relevant to articles - per policy, which requires verifiability from such sources. We also have policies and guidelines concerning conflict of interest editing, which also seems to apply here. And if there is similar unsourced content, it should be deleted, not added to. Which 'Sambo' article are you referring to? AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:11, 6 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

For your calm forbearance while under personal attack at Talk:Adam Levine, merely for sticking very reasonably to WP policy on BLP. Storchy (talk) 11:30, 10 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Many thanks. AndyTheGrump (talk) 11:32, 10 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hey, if you have a minute in the future, I thought you might want to have a look at List of countries by GDP (PPP) in the nineteenth century, the article ASTRO Clifford invoked to justify their own OR. It does look like another variation of the same thing. I tagged it and explained the possible issue on the talk page, but this isn't my topic of interest and maybe you'd have a stronger opinion on it (or might know a more knowledgeable editor to ping). Thanks (and no worries if this is outside your interest), R Prazeres (talk) 18:48, 10 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Yup, I looked at briefly myself earlier, and agree entirely: 'another variation of the same thing'. As I noted in the ANI thread, this sort of problem is endemic to Wikipedia demographic data - not just lists, but more or less everywhere. People cite the least trustworthy of sources, often in ways that hides what exactly the source is (when they cite any at all), combine data from multiple different sources, and 'interpolate' or otherwise engage in WP:OR. And then, often as not, someone else comes along later to change the numbers without explanation. Personally, I'd never trust any such numbers for anything I considered remotely important. As for what can be done about it, my preferred solution is probably too inclined towards the incendiary to gain much traction on Wikipedia. AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:02, 10 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello, I'm Tyw7. I noticed that you made a comment on the page Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion that didn't seem very civil. Wikipedia is built on collaboration, so it's one of our core principles to interact with one another in a polite and respectful manner. If you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_deletion&diff=prev&oldid=1116096998 Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 20:00, 14 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

If I wanted lessons on civility, I'd have asked long ago... AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:02, 14 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. MicroSupporter (talk) 15:25, 19 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Damn! I moved too slow and missed the todo at ANI. Donald Albury 00:46, 26 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Not much to it really. I've seen more excitement outside a Skegness chipshop on a dull Tuesday afternoon. AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:52, 26 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Are there general sanctions for the micronation topic yet? ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 00:48, 26 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Not as far as I'm aware. Possibly there should be, and if so, they clearly need scope broad enough to cover topics like Nationality as a Service too. Lots of promotional editing, by dubious 'new accounts'. AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:52, 26 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Cleaned the history there and here... - UtherSRG (talk) 12:08, 26 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Since you were involved in past discussion related to it, I am notifying you to inform you that there is a discussion I opened at the administrator's noticeboard appealing my topic ban. Feel invited to review/re-familiarize yourself with the initial circumstances and review my appeal. Feel free to involve yourself in the discussion as you see fit.

Sorry that I didn't give sooner notice of this. It appears to have been an accidental oversight that you weren't among the previously-involved editors I gave notice to yesterday. SecretName101 (talk) 20:00, 27 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

[17]

Any more accusations of bad faith - and in edit comments what's more - and it's WP:ANI for you. You have been warned. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 14:09, 5 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

See my post at WP:FTN. I'd be happy to have your abuse of Wikipedia to promote your pet exercise in historical revisionism discussed on ANI. AndyTheGrump (talk) 14:14, 5 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Please stop attacking other editors, as you did on Flying car. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Comment on content, not on other contributors or people. Nigel Ish (talk) 14:16, 5 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

When I see a contributor abusing Wikipedia facilities to engage in the same historical revisionism they have engaged in elsewhere, I will comment on the matter. AndyTheGrump (talk) 14:17, 5 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you make personal attacks on other people, as you did at Wikipedia:Fringe theories/Noticeboard. Comment on content, not on fellow editors. Describing other editors as "lying through our teeth" like you did here is a personal attack. Stop these attacks nowNigel Ish (talk) 18:10, 5 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Have you ever read Wikipedia:Don't template the regulars? You probably should. And then read what I actually wrote. AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:14, 5 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Just because you are a regular does not give you carte blanche to ignore Wikipedia:No personal attacks. If you want to cast aspersions about other editors motivations then you need to go to WP:ANI - otherwuse stop commenting on the other editors and start commenting on the issue.Nigel Ish (talk) 18:33, 5 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

How about you stop commenting about me? Please don't post here again except as required to under policy. AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:35, 5 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

[18] You probably mean "credibility". Otherwise, I agree. --Hob Gadling (talk) 21:26, 5 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I think you've posted on the wrong userpage. At least, it wasn't me that wrote 'credulity' in that diff, though it's entirely possible I've done it elsewhere. I'm rather prone to wixing my mords up, particularly when short of sleep... AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:32, 5 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Argh - it's an artifact of my method of scanning Talk pages by looking at several edits at once. Sorry. --Hob Gadling (talk) 19:49, 10 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

No problem. AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:42, 10 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. - ZLEA _T\^C 00:29, 6 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

 You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Dorothy Moon § Request for comment. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 18:51, 10 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello. How long does it take to go over the talks and references? Because you have started the BRD cycle, I am looking forward for you to participate in the discussion actively. I just made a different edit through the cycle. I guess you agree with at least these changes from your mentions. If not, please refine it, not just reverting all changes. Trusci (talk) 15:06, 13 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I am not going to discuss article content here. And no, I didn't 'start the BRD cycle'. You did, with the edit. You were reverted. At which point, you should have started a discussion on the article talk page. An actual discussion, based on Wikipedia policies and guidelines, explaining why you thought the lede needed such a fundamental rewrite. A clear explanation, not vague handwaving at previous threads which got nowhere. And please stop making unjustified assumptions about what I 'agree with'. AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:22, 13 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi Andy. I was not vandalising the talk page. My apologise for inadvertently revising EVERYTHING back to July 2022. I was merely aiming to reply to Joe’s comment, but for some reason that I don’t understand, a person had deleted my work on starting an important discussion ‘ debate on weather humans were ONLY hunters/ gathers 12,000 yrs ago. The current Nov 2022 article actually uses 13,000 and 12,000 years ago, which is a good example of the debate & the issues. Thank u for your assistance in bringing my attention to the fact the everything en-mass got reverberated by mistake. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Eco-climber (talk • contribs) 19:04, 14 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Eco-climber:. It wasn't deleted, it was automatically archived because nobody had replied for more than a month. It's preserved here: Talk:Human/Archive 35#Why is this stated as fact?. – Joe (talk) 05:55, 21 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi joe.

thx for that info. Eco-climber (talk) 09:56, 21 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Talk:Political Islam Doug Weller talk 14:59, 25 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I hadn't, and to be honest I'm not in the mood to get involved in that particular bun-fight. There's just too much spin-induced crap on Wikipedia to do anything more than scratch the surface, and anyone with any sense will realise that Wikipedia can't be trusted for topics like that. People without sense will believe what they like anyway, so Wikipedia isn't going to make any difference... AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:07, 25 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. ZLEA _T\^C 01:11, 27 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The fuss at ANI caused me to notice a message at the top of this page saying that some early archives had disappeared. At User talk:AndyTheGrump, clicking "Page information" in the left sidebar shows various things including "Number of subpages of this page 26". That links to a list of the 26 pages. The link is Special:PrefixIndex/User talk:AndyTheGrump/ and it probably shows the wanted pages. A similar link for user subpages is Special:PrefixIndex/User:AndyTheGrump/. Johnuniq (talk) 02:21, 27 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Ah, thanks for that. I'll see about linking them at the top of the page, for the benefit of anyone wishing to engage in early-Grump research. AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:25, 27 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Ah, those early AndyTheCheerful days! Bon courage (talk) 02:58, 27 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:07, 27 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 12 December 2022. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2022 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add ((NoACEMM)) to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:11, 29 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard#Zoophilia Foorgood (talk) 21:56, 30 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I have begun a section in the Talk page of Paraphilia. You are clearly employing double standard on Kinsey's report.Foorgood (talk) 01:06, 1 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Go away. Get a fucking clue. Come back when you have one. AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:12, 1 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Stop your propaganda for communist dictators. You remove word "dictator" for communist criminals: Castro and Lenin were criminals. Forza bruta (talk) 23:05, 30 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

In 16 September I send e-mail to you: read my e-mail and put your post on my talk for friendly discussion. Forza bruta (talk) 20:23, 2 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I read your reaction versus user Foorgod and your hostile language, which is the same of your post on my talk: I invite you to keep calm for collaboration. Forza bruta (talk) 21:08, 2 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

If you wish to discuss article content, do so on relevant article talk pages. I am not interested in 'collaborating' with you, and ask that you do not post on this talk page again other than to post any necessary notifications. AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:11, 2 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Foorgood (talk) 23:43, 1 December 2022 (UTC) Foorgood (talk) 23:43, 1 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

What do you mean by 2 different products? ^[1] — Preceding unsigned comment added by U220606000000 (talk • contribs) 14:08, 20 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

What I mean is that the lamp being promoted by Rossi isn't the device our article is about - a supposed 'cold fusion' reactor. Not that it matters anyway, since none of the content you added even remotely cites a reliable source. You are wasting your time adding such material as it will be reverted. And if you persist in doing so - all your edits seem to be promoting Rossi's devices - you may find yourself blocked from editing. Wikipedia is not a provider of free advertising space. AndyTheGrump (talk) 14:18, 20 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

First, to add this info was a suggestion of Gråbergs Gråa Sång ^[2]. Second, according to WP:BOLD you can't intimidate me. Third, youtube live is a fact , so I've fulfilled a requirement WP:RS. If there is no rules (just some users with "illusive reputation" will undo you efforts on they own mind), yes it forces me to give up. Forth, youtube live shows not a lamp, but a reactor connected to the load (in this case the lamp). Fifth, my info was not promotional, but unmasking quite the contrary (e.g. why did he restart the Live 9 times). — Preceding unsigned comment added by U220606000000 (talk • contribs) 14:47, 20 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

You appear to have no understanding whatsoever as to how Wikipedia works, or what are policies are regarding sourcing and appropriate content. I suggest you take the time to find out before proceeding any further. Start here: Help:Contents. AndyTheGrump (talk) 14:53, 20 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

It seems (as you don't say anything, just I'm doing all wrong) you mean that youtube live created by Rossi is not independent source. Is it correct ? But the Live shows some physical apparatus. It is video of experiment, no matter who is experimenter. Why does this require reconfirmation? If you don't answer directly I don't understand my failure and will continue doing the same. — Preceding unsigned comment added by U220606000000 (talk • contribs) 15:19, 20 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Read Wikipedia:Reliable sources. That is the standard, as agreed by the community. Rossi's promotional YouTube videos don't meet it. AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:23, 20 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I've just emerged from being the outsider in a Greek/Albanian dispute at Greeks/Talk:Greeks, which seemed like hard work until I compared it to what you took on at Talk:Binary prefix. Time to reappraise and reconsider my own involvement. Thanks anyway. NebY (talk) 18:49, 24 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I'd like to echo that: kudos for the heroic effort, AndyTheGrump. I have already thought that I will need to steer completely clear of anything that even vaguely smells of this. —Quondum 20:31, 24 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Yes indeed. Thank you for trying. Dondervogel 2 (talk) 01:51, 25 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Happy New Year!

AndyTheGrump,
Have a prosperous, productive and enjoyable New Year, and thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia.
Abishe (talk) 21:41, 31 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

   Send New Year cheer by adding ((subst:Happy New Year fireworks)) to user talk pages.

Abishe (talk) 21:41, 31 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I mean this in the calmest and most civil of ways, but could you please try and ensure that in your discussions surrounding my work, and the work of others on Prime (beverage brand), that you ensure you are following WP:NPA, and WP:FOC. An example of this is you criticize my "apparent inability to understand Wikipedia policy on sourcing abilities", which could be considered unkind.

This is not a complaint, simply a calm reminder to follow WP:NPA, and WP:FOC. Tbf69 22:45, 5 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

(talk page stalker) Softy. -Roxy the dog 23:15, 5 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I consider my assessment accurate. AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:40, 5 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Please do not attack other editors. Comment on content, not on contributors. Personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you. SurfingOrca2045 (talk) 20:45, 30 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Describing your response as 'complete bullshit' was a comment on the content you added to the talk page. Meanwhile I note that an account with only 193 edits knows where to find a WP:NPA template. An enquiring mind might well ask whether this is evidence for reanimation? AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:52, 30 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I am notifying you as I filed a general complain against you, or at least a request for scrutiny of your edits, because you continue to delete pertinent information to an article, while reinstating your own uncited information. Jbole (talk) 04:14, 31 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

That went well. [19] AndyTheGrump (talk) 09:22, 31 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Do you think it says something that SO MANY of the comments to you boil down to, "Please stop being a jerk?" 2620:DF:8000:4125:0:2:29BD:C07B (talk) 04:55, 14 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Forgotten to sign in? AndyTheGrump (talk) 12:41, 14 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

(talk page stalker) 2620:DF:8000:4125:0:2:29BD:C07B, do you think it says something that you daren't be a jerk from your account, but only when logged out? Bishonen | tålk 13:32, 14 February 2023 (UTC).Reply[reply]

I support that "vs" replace "vs." and "v" in boxing match titles.

However, to get consensus on this issue, I've opened an RfC on the issue.

Please comment and offer your opinions on it.

See: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Boxing#rfc 029C646

Thanks, --Tbf69 userpage • talkpage 19:23, 8 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

You have recently made edits related to gender-related disputes or controversies or people associated with them. This is a standard message to inform you that gender-related disputes or controversies or people associated with them is a designated contentious topic. This message does not imply that there are any issues with your editing. For more information about the contentious topics system, please see Wikipedia:Contentious topics. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 08:32, 21 February 2023 (UTC) Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 08:32, 21 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Your sig is missing your name here and it has no links : https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Help_desk&diff=next&oldid=1141527221 ... don't know what gappened. David10244 (talk) 05:21, 27 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Most likely an error on my part. I've left a note, thanks. AndyTheGrump (talk) 05:30, 27 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Strolling by and I noticed this section., I do this all the time, three ~'s just produces a name, 4 a signature, and 5 just a timestamp. Bet that's all that happened! Courcelles (talk) 16:00, 2 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

There is a difference between modifying claims to make sure they reflect the sources that were used, and adding "disputed claims" without a source. SpruceyWind (talk) 21:07, 27 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

None of that applies to what you have been doing. AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:11, 27 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Andy AndyTheGrump blows his top. Thank you.User:Shirt58 (talk) 🦘 09:39, 2 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Andy, you are civilly requested, without any technical block, to refrain from editing for six hours or until the boiler has been fixed, whichever comes first. Bishonen | tålk 12:28, 2 March 2023 (UTC).Reply[reply]

There may be some delay before normal service resumes. AndyTheGrump (talk) 13:19, 2 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• A fully understandable blowout - with a fair result, I think. Enjoy a few hours relaxation ;-) Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 13:39, 2 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Yeah, per your suggestion at ANI, I'm occupying myself working on a new oeuvre of children's literature. 'Andy The Grump Blows His Top' will be followed by 'Andy The Grump Invents New Rude Words', 'Andy The Grump Kicks Inanimate Objects Across The Room', and 'Andy The Grump Despairs At The State Of Humanity'. I'll be sending advance copies to Florida, since their libraries are running short of suitable content... AndyTheGrump (talk) 13:49, 2 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Hehe, if you need any copy-editing... Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 14:10, 2 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  May I just add that I enjoyed the candid honesty of all concerned, a sign of human warmth at Wikipedia; and the outcome seems satisfactory too. Thank you for your continued efforts in what can be a grumpiness-inducing environment. Elemimele (talk) 21:50, 3 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Thanks in turn for your thoughts, though I can't in all honesty blame the environment for my grumpiness - I was like that from a very early age. I suspect this may be due to poor timing, my mother having birthed me in the early hours of the morning. I'm very much a night-owl, and having me go through that sort of rigmarole at 6 AM was a very poor idea. AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:06, 3 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I owe you an apology. I didn't mess things around nor do anything. I just want to find out how tall of height and weight for Gymnast Kim Zmeskal. And I'm sorry. I was scared. I tried to keep looking for the reference everywhere in the search of her record and her story. I like Kim Zmeskal. 100.2.114.167 (talk) 19:27, 4 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

No problem. We don't expect everyone to understand everything about editing Wikipedia straight off. 20:15, 4 March 2023 (UTC) AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:15, 4 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I think you hastefully reverted my properly cited edit without rigorous study of sources. I am still in a learning phase so I would suggest you to please again take a look at the sources of my edit and suggest corrections or improvements if any, respectfully Rama. RamaKrishnaHare (talk) 23:48, 4 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Discussions regarding article content should take place on article talk pages. I am not the only contributor to the article. AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:13, 5 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Re: [20]. I wrote the unrelated piece about self-bias below. The byline is for the entire page, the controversial one by Nathan is just one part of it. Obviously I had no input into writing that one. Each piece has its own byline under the heading, so I think it's ok... _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 01:24, 10 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Yeah, I figured that out for myself, eventually. I see you've avoided commenting in the ANI thread. Can't say I blame you. AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:32, 10 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@AndyTheGrump Wait, there's an ANI thread too? :( _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:02, 10 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Yup. [21] Though honestly I think you'd do better to stay out of it. AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:14, 10 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Yeah, I see no reason to comment, it's not like people couldn't guess my view. Although, actually, maybe they couldn't? I tend to be for free speech and such, so actually, I am not opposed to this being published. If I was a Signpost editor, I might c/e it with some further "according to this reviewer", to avoid creating the impression that this piece represents views of The Signpost (although the published version has been c/e-ed a bit to address that concern, not perfectly, but it looks a bit better than what was initally submitted, I think), and/or ask parties for responses (Right of reply?). Regarding the latter point, reading through the discussion on TS talk pages, I noticed that the review author reached out for clarifications to the essay's authors and updated it with some feedback, but they have not reached out to "the other party", i.e. to his fellow co-volunteers (ex. myself). (I did send an email a few days ago to the review's author, an email to which they haven't replied). A bit disappointing, that. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:58, 10 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Well, I'm in favour of free speech too, as a general principle. This doesn't however extend to giving someone one agrees with a megaphone, while nobody else has access to one. Which seems to be the way the Signpost team has acted here, and not for the first time. As for rights of reply, I'd say you would be well justified in asking for one, though maybe there are better platforms to publish it on. I see no particular reason to play by the Signpost's game, and pretend that it is a legitimate 'online newspaper', rather than the roleplaying toy it clearly is. That would only encourage them. AndyTheGrump (talk) 04:20, 10 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

What a wonderful concept :-) Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 12:12, 6 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Not so good when you come across it though. :-( AndyTheGrump (talk) 12:53, 6 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Sadly not, no. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 17:01, 6 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi, I and others have proposed additional options at Wikipedia:Village_pump_(policy)#RfC_on_a_procedural_community_desysop. You may wish to review your position in that RfC. TonyBallioni (talk) 02:28, 20 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Yeah, I say it's time to send that cat to ANI. - UtherSRG (talk) 16:52, 20 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Done. AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:57, 20 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Now if it was Lions vs Bears there is probably scope for an article... Only in death does duty end (talk) 23:13, 20 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

How about polar bears vs penguins? AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:33, 20 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Gorillas would totally destroy Bears... - UtherSRG (talk) 00:37, 21 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The accepted consensus is that the larger bears will pretty much destroy everything. Combination of bite strength, strength and protection afforded by their build. There are a few documented (to an extent it could be at the time) cases of lions imported to NA in the 1800's to be pitted against the bigger bears. Went as expected. Chomp and skull crushed.

RE Penguins, a penguin at Birdland has been voted best in the world. I've actually been there about 5 years ago I think? And they still had one of the penguins alive from Batman Forever. It came as a shock to me that King penguins can live to over 30 years old in captivity. Also this means I am only one penguin away from Danny DeVito. (And thus I have a Bacon number of 4.) Only in death does duty end (talk) 08:16, 21 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Be careful. I think this edit is in NPA territory. ~ ONUnicorn^{(Talk|Contribs)}problem solving 21:46, 22 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The Grabovoi shills are monumental time-wasters. They sock incessantly. They IP-hop incessantly. They refuse to accept that they aren't going to get Wikipedia to promote their fraudmonger-cult. All the evidence (and there is a lot of it) points to them being idiots. JUst read the nonsense at the start of the thread. If stating the obvious is a 'personal attack', it is one necessary for the proper running of Wikipedia. That is what WP:CIR is about, and why WP:DISRUPTIVE behaviour like this is grounds for blocking. Ultimately, Wikipedia can and does block people for being idiots. And making it clear to idiots that they are being blocked for being idiots is probably in their best interests, since it might just possibly get them to recognise their idiocy, and do something about it. In such circumstances, blunt honesty is better all round than polite equivocation that doesn't get the point across. Which it clearly hasn't. AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:05, 22 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I hadn't seen this section when I posted my message below, headed "total crap", but now that I have seen it, here are my thoughts about it. On the one hand, ONUnicorn is right: it's pretty close to a "personal attack" in Wikipedia's terms, but on the other hand every word that Andy said is absolutely true. I see this as a situation where it's probably advisable to moderate one's language for one's own protection against NPA blocks or other sanctions, but I fully sympathise with Andy, in view of the frustrating experience of dealing with this complete nonsense being endlessly plugged. Even my own much more limited language in my message below is perhaps open to question, and way outside the limits I usually set myself, but quite frankly this is a situation where polite statements about the need for sources and neutral point of view are so far from expressing the nature of the problem as to amount to misrepresentation. TLDR summary: I think Andy would have been better advised not to use the terms he did, but I can't blame him for doing so. JBW (talk) 09:19, 28 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

A lake of competence for you! This beautiful lake of competence is for you, for all you do for Wikipedia. Bishonen | tålk 19:42, 26 April 2023 (UTC).Reply[reply]

Thanks. Maybe Wikipedia should institute a lac de compétence award for embarrassingly-placed typos? Not that I'm asking for one myself, since I mess things up so often that purely by chance a few are going to be howlers. AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:11, 26 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I didn't mean to elicit a sad face, Andy. Seriously, you swim in a competence lake.. kind of. Bishonen | tålk 20:33, 26 April 2023 (UTC).Reply[reply]

(embarrassed smiley). AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:21, 26 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi, Andy. I just want to say thanks for the time you put into getting rid of the total crap that was being posted by Eightbillion. In case you haven't already seen, the account has now been indefinitely blocked. That was bound to happen eventually, but it's quite likely that your efforts, by calling administrators' attention to it, may have led to it happening sooner rather than later. 👍 JBW (talk) 08:59, 28 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I see Eightbillion appealed against the block - by repeating the same nonsense that led to it in the first place. That didn't get very far. AndyTheGrump (talk) 09:25, 28 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

It wouldn't have got very far if I had got there first, either. JBW (talk) 09:48, 28 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Well, the source is Wikipedia itself, check it out. I didn't want a new section for just one but important fact. Polluks ★ 14:09, 30 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Internal details regarding Wikipedia policy very rarely belong in articles, and I really can't see why this one would. Not without third-party commentary on it, anyway. AndyTheGrump (talk) 14:41, 30 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Apologies, but it took me long enough to garner all the links that I didn't see you'd commented on it already. Not shutting you down! SN54129 12:01, 3 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

No problem. The two of us saying the same thing probably helps to get the point across anyway. AndyTheGrump (talk) 12:07, 3 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

See User talk:JeddBham64#Bludgeoning and wikilawyering. Article locked now but I have more to add when I can. Won’t be popular with a couple of editors. Doug Weller talk 18:31, 5 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I'm not really involved, my only edit was to remove a copyright-violating image. [23] AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:38, 5 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

No problem. Doug Weller talk 18:58, 5 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This wasn't very WP:CIVIL. I understand that the editor's contributions are not helpful, but it does no good to berate like that on a very first interaction. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 14:16, 9 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The evidence strongly suggests that regardless of what I'd said, it would have gone the same way. [24] And the claim that the apparent absence of plate tectonics on other planets in the solar system is evidence for an 'expanding Earth' is pure and unadulterated drivel. Not the 'common sense' that the contributor claimed. Drivel. Along with the rest of the entirely unsourced 'evidence' provided. Functionally, such edits are almost indistinguishable from vandalism. AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:08, 9 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks for the quick fix on https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Pueraria_mirifica, came to do the same and you were way ahead of me. Mildly entertaining as bad drive-by edits go, at least... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Eggsyntax (talk • contribs) 17:26, 19 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello, AndyTheGrump. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the ((You've got mail)) or ((ygm)) template.

Girth Summit _(blether) 10:34, 12 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@AndyTheGrump, thanks for your input on the talk page. I just having a minor issue with including multiple sources under one reference. This is specifically in relation to the sentence "In 1922, Trotsky formed a bloc alliance with Lenin to counter the bureaucratisation of the party and the growing influence of Stalin" featured in the opening paragraphs. Some of the sources i.e. Mccauley, Kort and Moshe do not have their book details made visible whilst citation information for other sources such as Service and Volkogonov are visible. Can you assist with this issue ? WikiUser4020 (talk) 19:52, 20 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Good point. I suspect the references may have been in the bibliography at some point, and got removed. As for finding them, with an article that's been edited this much, it may prove difficult. I'll have a quick look to see if I can find them, but you'll probably have to raise this on the article talk page, if they aren't easily located. AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:10, 20 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@AndyTheGrump Don't worry, you are correct and I was just in the process of fixing the links. Thanks for the quick response. WikiUser4020 (talk) 21:19, 20 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

AGF and be more civil. Your snark is not appreciated, and if anyone at that page "has a clue", it is I. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 22:59, 23 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The evidence is entirely to the contrary. And I'd suggest you drop your facile attempts to justify playing amateur private detective before it rebounds on you. I've seen people blocked for similar attempts to use uninvited personal communication with article subjects as sources. We don't do that. We don't use answering machine responses as sources. We don't 'IAR' to rush through questionably-sourced biographical material. Policy on this is blindingly clear. Your possession of clue quite obviously isn't. AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:12, 23 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Except that I already agree with 99% of what you said about normal PAG. I have replied at the talk page and amended my easily misunderstood comment there. I hope it's more understandable in this confusing situation. IAR really grates against my nerves, but it is a policy. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 23:25, 23 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

IAR, properly understood, is only ever applicable where it is of substantive benefit to the reader. And when it doesn't involve running roughshod over fundamental principles like not infringing on the privacy of article subjects, or those closely affiliated with them. Not while they are potentially grieving. AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:38, 23 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi Andy, you removed my edits from Alef Aeronautics and Flying car's page, all the info is taken from sourced material that is already cited on the page and all the images are from flicker with proper license. I don't see any point in removing them that are under wiki policies Wikipedia:Verifiability and all sources are reliable. Also, all cars mentioned are prototypes, so we should have to remove all of them because they are all 'eventual vehicle'. Beeuu (talk) 18:06, 5 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The issue with the Flickr photo isn't the license. It is that we have absolutely no source for what it actually shows. As for the rest, we don't take marketing claims as factual, and until the Alef vehicle is shown to be more than hype, we are under no obligation to include anything about it at all. And furthermore, your removal of the 'multiple issues' template was entirely improper. If you wish to contribute to Wikipedia further, I suggest you familiarise with how we actually work. This isn't a platform for promotion, as has already been indicated to you with regard to another topic.

Any further discussion of the vehicle should take place on the article talk page. AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:44, 5 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Sorry to say but I think you don't know about Wikipedia yourself, the company founded something and you are removing it from the page and calling it bullshit, looks like a personal grudge or something. You are not familiar with basic Wiki rules and don't even know what language you should use and calling it bullshit. Beeuu (talk) 18:51, 5 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

My editing statistics: [25] Yours: [26]. Discuss the vehicle on the article talk page if you insist, but don't post here again. AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:57, 5 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

hi there. in atheism article you reversed all i had done. even if there was something you didn't deem to be correct, you could have removed that part only. which parts consist of problems? if you have read it remove the incorrect parts only, so that at least all was not for nought. i did provided citations and not all of the arguments were specifically about christianity. Ryanxastron (talk) 07:37, 8 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This is a discussion that belongs on the article talk page. AndyTheGrump (talk) 08:00, 8 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

why did you reverted my addition of the potato cabal on the list of cabals 92.24.83.192 (talk) 09:29, 12 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

wp:EWN#User:Kuangtianwen reported by User:Adakiko (Result: ) Cheers Adakiko (talk) 09:39, 12 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

In the 1997 Disney film RocketMan, Bud Nesbitt was responsible for the 13 accident (though Bud later reveals that it was Paul Wick that cause it). https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reference_desk/Humanities#Apollo_13_-_An_accident_and_someone_that_caused_it? 86.135.116.213 (talk) 18:39, 16 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Possibly. Hollywood's regard for factual accuracy in its historical dramatizations is often lax, to say the least. AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:44, 16 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

You recently offered a statement in a request for arbitration. The Arbitration Committee has accepted that request for arbitration and an arbitration case has been opened at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/AlisonW. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/AlisonW/Evidence. Please add your evidence by June 30, 2023, which is when the evidence phase closes. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, Dreamy Jazz ^{talk to me | my contributions} 23:51, 21 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Won't be a stick in the mud about the revision, but what was inaccurate about what I had?

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Alef_Aeronautics&diff=prev&oldid=1163235098 Rjohnson1980 (talk) 15:24, 4 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This was already discussed in the article, where the source cited made it clear that the certification was for an experimental 'Armada Model Zero' prototype, not the Model A. AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:16, 4 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The proposed decision for the AlisonW case has been posted. Statements regarding the proposed decision are welcome at the talk page. Please note that comments must be made in your own section. For the Arbitration Committee, Dreamy Jazz ^{talk to me | my contributions} 15:24, 10 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The arbitration case Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/AlisonW has been closed, and the final decision is viewable at the case page. The following remedy has been enacted:

• For failure to meet the conduct standards expected of an administrator, AlisonW's administrative user rights are removed. She may regain them at any time via a successful request for adminship.

For the Arbitration Committee, Dreamy Jazz ^{talk to me | my contributions} 17:45, 16 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Discuss this at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard#Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/AlisonW closed

I noticed that my added paragraph was recently removed from the article. I wanted to understand the reason behind the removal to ensure that I contribute effectively and in line with Wikipedia's guidelines. The paragraph I added was intended to provide valuable and sourced information, and I believe it added to the overall balance and depth of the article. The reference I included was from the National Cancer Institute, which is a reputable source known for its credibility. I am genuinely interested in maintaining the quality and integrity of the article and would appreciate if you could share your reasoning for the removal. This would help me better understand any potential issues or guidelines that need to be considered in future contributions. Erfan2017 (talk) 17:40, 19 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Firstly, you have copy-pasted almost the entire paragraph directly from the source. See WP:COPYPASTE for why this is inappropriate. And secondly, you are correct that the National Cancer Institute is a credible source. Only for what it actually states though, and only if accurately represented. You have instead cherry-picked a particular phrase from the source in a misleading manner, since it goes on to state that Whether equivalent concentrations of relevant molecules can be achieved in the bloodstream of individuals who consume Essiac or Flor Essence in the amounts recommended by their manufacturers has not been determined. An uncharacterized Flor Essence commercial product was dosed at amounts lower than those recommended by the manufacturers for humans, and there was an increase in tumor incidence in this model. An increase in tumor incidence. It is improper to selectively cite sources in this way in any article, to give a false impression of what is actually being said, and even more so with regard to medical content. I would strongly recommend you read Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources (medicine), and broader Wikipedia policy on sources and their appropriate use, before editing articles on medical/health topics again. AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:03, 19 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thank you for your response. I want to clarify that my addition was minimal, consisting of only two lines (precisely 29 words) directly copied from the source. I want to emphasize the importance of presenting both sides of the controversy surrounding Essiac in the article. Readers should be informed of both narratives, allowing them to understand the full picture not getting a false impression. As it stands, the current article portray Essiac as nothing more than a useless substance with several side effects, which doesn't accurately represent the reality.

Additionally, I believe it's essential to consider the numerous comments from verified users on Amazon who claim to have benefited from Essiac and the PubMed articles that support its effectiveness. Just because something isn't peer-reviewed doesn't automatically mean it lacks efficacy – this is a common phenomenon with herbal medicine and supplements.

To ensure a balanced article in accordance with the principles of WP:NPOV, it's crucial to include both positive and negative points, presenting a fair representation of the topic. I picked that part to create the balance, it does not mean cherry-picking. Erfan2017 (talk) 01:55, 20 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Sorry, but you completely and utterly misunderstand WP:NPOV policy. Wikipedia does not 'balance' appropriate reliable sources by selectively quoting them to promote products they are explicitly advising against. That is simply dishonest. And nor does it consider 'verified Amazon users' even remotely qualified to comment on the efficacy of purported cures for cancer. If you want to concoct some imaginary 'balance' between your opinion on the efficacy of Essiac and those actually qualified to comment, you will have to do so somewhere else. I would again advise you to read WP:MEDRS (along with what WP:NPOV has to say on WP:FALSEBALANCE), and accept that Wikipedia is not going to amend core policies to satisfy your own personal preferences. These aren't my policies, they are those of the community, arrived at over many years, and not open to negotiation. You aren't the first to argue for 'balance' in this way with regard to 'herbal medicine'. Or any similar product. It isn't how Wikipedia works. AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:35, 20 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I believe I may have misunderstood the concept of a balanced article. A balanced article can still maintain its balance even if it presents 95% negative and 5% positive information about a substance, as long as these percentages are supported by reliable evidence and documents. It does not necessarily imply a strict 50%-50% split.

Allow me to address your question directly: There are research papers highlighting the benefits of Essiac. In the interest of balance, it is essential to include the share of evidence supporting these positive findings in the article. Without prior knowledge, readers should be able to learn that Essiac has shown some benefits in certain research studies. Where is the share of those articles? Erfan2017 (talk) 03:53, 20 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

IF you have any WP:MEDRS-compliant sources regarding Essiac which you think merit citation in the article (after taking note of what WP:MEDRS has to say regarding avoiding primary sources), I suggest you start a discussion on the article talk page, providing a full citation, along with the text you propose to add. Wikipedia is a collaborative project, and discussions regarding article content need to be conducted where all those interested in a topic can participate. AndyTheGrump (talk) 04:02, 20 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I would like to offer another suggestion. The 29-word addition I made to the article was sourced from a highly reliable and relevant field. To encourage a more comprehensive discussion on Essiac, I propose adding it to the article and inviting input from others. Additionally, I had asked earlier if you could share any positive sources about Essiac, but unfortunately, none were provided. Erfan2017 (talk) 23:41, 20 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Given that the way you have cherry-picked the source in order to entirely misrepresent what it has to say about the topic, I will warn you now that if you do that, I will immediately revert your edit, and then report you at WP:ANI, calling for you to be sanctioned. And that is all I have to say here. You have been informed of policy. You have been told of the appropriate place to discuss article content - the article talk page, not here - and I am neither obliged to engage in negotiations with you over such content, nor in any position to do so. Consider this discussion closed, with a final unambiguous warning as to the consequences of you proposed actions. AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:36, 21 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note for third-parties who may read this thread: given that Erfan2017 followed up on their last post above by almost immediately restoring the cherry-picked material, without even waiting for my response, I have now started a thread at WP:ANI, calling for sanctions. [27] AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:16, 21 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Sorry! I was looking at the diff of your edit to WP:AV, when I set my tablet down, and was of the room for 25 minutes. I must have inadvertently hit the rollback button and then the OK button as I was leaving. I purposely have a script that requires confirmation to avoid accidental reverts. I don't think I've ever done hit both in succession accidentally before, so it was just one of those freak things. BilCat (talk) 23:01, 31 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

No problem. Stuff happens. AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:04, 31 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

		The Original Barnstar
		Because there isn't a "you're better at this whole human-relations-and-discourse thing than me" barnstar, for shame. — Trey Maturin™ 18:07, 5 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks. Not sure I deserve it, but if its shiny, and a thing, I'll take it anyway. I may possibly have bowerbirds somewhere in my ancestry... AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:48, 5 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello,

Please restore the wikitree challenge part of the wikitree page as it is an important part of explaining Wikitree itself. It was non biased and perfectly fine. Will you please let people work on the section and not delete it? Thank you. Cferra (talk) 19:08, 14 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

No. We do not build whole sections of articles around content sourced to the subject itself, and to blogs. AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:17, 14 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

[28] this made things a bit better. I've been following the talk page and it's heartening to see some sense from you and others. Knitsey (talk) 23:37, 22 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This is not the way to get rid of spammers. Materialscientist (talk) 05:42, 25 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Yeah, I know. It just gets so frustrating when its so blatant. The link wasn't even remotely a citation, just pure advertising. Vandalism for commercial gain. AndyTheGrump (talk) 05:45, 25 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I know, I see dozens of such spammers per day on Huggle. We've lost dozens of experienced editors simply because they've lost temper. Maybe this is a reason for this page. Materialscientist (talk) 05:50, 25 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

"this abomination... This random collection of badly-sourced stuff vaguely relating to the topic". Heh. Half of the articles in Category:Topics in popular culture meet your description. But I'll disagree about that Nightlife. Anyway, look at that category, click a few random entries and despair... _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 08:51, 15 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I've responded at the AfD. And yes, desperation is a regular part of my Wikipedia reading experience... AndyTheGrump (talk) 12:00, 15 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

A revert isnt how citations are added, use the remove citation process

Abusive language is never tolerated and I will be taking this further as experienced editors who abuse the process and others is the last thing Wikipedia needs~~ Okerefalls (talk) 04:11, 3 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

If you want to look an idiot, go ahead. AndyTheGrump (talk) 04:19, 3 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Okerefalls, you wrote in your edit summary, " implausible, the propellers were more likely geared that way", which shows that you don't know the topic. You don't have a leg to stand on here. Binksternet (talk) 06:11, 8 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Okrefalls seems to have acknowledged that the article was correct all along about the engines revolving in opposite directions. As far as I'm concerned, that's all that really matters - otherwise this was just a rather silly argument that could probably have ben avoided if Okerefalls had bothered to do a little research before guessing what was 'more likely'. As for the latest business over sources, I don't really care what we cite so long as it meets RS, though I'd advise not linking anything online without being sure about copyright status. The Manual I cited was written by General Motors, and could theoretically still be copyright as I understand the law, which is why I didn't provide a URL to a download. There are undoubtedly secondary sources that discuss the engine configuration too, I just went for the first source I found which provided the necessary information. AndyTheGrump (talk) 07:02, 8 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thank you for dealing with the user that was vandalizing the migraine page with pseudoscientific claims. I had worked very hard to clean up and perfect the lead over the course of the past few months, so I appreciate your prompt attention to protecting the article :) AGIwithTheBraids (talk) 04:58, 13 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

No problem. Just something I've had on my watchlist for a long time. AndyTheGrump (talk) 06:26, 13 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

SPECIAL THANK YOU FOR CLOSING THE DISCUSSION BOARD ABOUT THE OFF TOPIC THING AT THE HELP DESK!!!!

The Industrial Me 1563 (talk) 19:42, 10 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I've finished the edit on LifeSiteNews (I think). You might have a look; you objected to my initial bare comment on their 2023 conference. Best wishes, Pol098 (talk) 17:13, 12 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Why is it promotional fluff? Other songs by artists on similar levels of notoriety are referenced and Kojaque has had top 5 charting Irish albums and won multiple awards. Nialler9 is also a reputable music magazine in Ireland. Is there a better source I can include because I believe a song named after McEnroe is relevant enough to be included. Peelingoffthebark (talk) 20:17, 23 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

it is promotional fluff because it says absolutely nothing about the subject of the article - which is John McEnroe, not songs named after him. Clearly only 'relevant' to someone who, like you, seems to be using Wikipedia to promote a band. Per Wikipedia:"In popular culture" content, inclusion would require a source that explained how the song was of significance to an understanding of McEnroe. As for 'other songs' etc being referenced, I'd missed that - I'll see about removing some of the other fancruft from the article too. And as for Nialler9, I have serious doubts as to whether it should be cited on Wikipedia, given that it appears to include 'sponsored content', [29] and appears to be largely the work of a single individual. AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:23, 23 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2023 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add ((NoACEMM)) to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:35, 28 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello. Please tell me what obvious problems. And if you have a more recent source, well, come on! Greetings. ~~~~ Mcorrlo (talk) 18:56, 12 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Discuss on the article talk page. I'm not the only person to have reverted you. AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:36, 12 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Following the discussion at Cargo cult science, I thought that the lead of the main Cargo cult article needed improving. As someone who is probably more familiar with the topic than I am, do you have any feedback? Hemiauchenia (talk) 07:50, 18 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I was just looking at that. I'm not sure it really captures what the 'cults' were about (assuming for the sake of argument that we are actually describing something more than a label slapped on disparate phenomena by outsiders), though doing that in a few words is always going to be problematic. The previous lede wasn't any better though. Thinking about it further, describing the 'cults' as a 'belief system' may be part of the problem. That isn't really how anthropology has tended to analyse them. And as an explanation for anything, saying people believe this or that in isolation doesn't get very far. And for anthropology, also the 'why Melanesia' question needs asking, since the same pattern has been described there, repeatedly, but with little directly comparable occurring elsewhere. And at least a part of this has to be the pre-existing 'belief systems' characteristic of Melanesia. The 'cults' arose as as a consequence of the interaction between existing Melanesian worldviews, and the rapid social change and political and economic disparities of the colonialist endeavour. Right from the start, anthropology has seen the cults as movements - as the actions of motivated individuals. Actions necessarily contingent on how the participants saw the world around them. This is where it gets tricky though, since one can't fully describe say the Melanesian sense of self, of time, or of what constitutes material wealth in a sentence or two. And all those things matter if you are trying to account for the peculiarities of the 'cults'. Without that, it is too easy to end up trivialising it, and dismissing it all as the magical thinking of the 'other'.

Over the years, I've repeatedly looked at the Wikipedia article, and despaired. It was always, to my limited but nevertheless better than nothing understanding of the topic, plainly wrong, or at minimum wildly missing the point, but actually fixing it without turning it into an essay all of my own seemed liable to be a fruitless endeavour, given the inevitable tendency for Wikipedia articles to turn into mush when academic understanding runs contrary to the popular culture of the average Wikipedia contributor. Maybe it just can't be fixed. I've said before that there are some topics where the Wikipedia model simply doesn't work. Or perhaps all of them, only in most cases I don't know enough about the subject to realise it. Maybe I'm being too pessimistic though, and maybe fresh eyes on the article would help. AndyTheGrump (talk) 08:49, 18 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I agree with you that "Cargo cult" is not really a useful anthroplogical category, as it over lumps numerous disparate movements together in a way that exaggerates their similarities and obscures their differences. It's hard to pithily sum up a term that as you correctly point out is a label slapped on disparate phenomena by outsiders. I think the article could be fixed, but it would need to be a fundamental rewrite that would be a huge amount of work. At the very least pointing out the problems with the term is a start I suppose. Hemiauchenia (talk) 10:04, 18 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Whether it is a useful category is an ongoing debate within anthropology itself. I've not really made up my mind one way or other. If they'd gone with a label that was less glib and dismissive, things might have been a lot simpler. The question as to whether they were actually describing multiple examples of a single phenomenon would still arise, but it probably wouldn't have impacted western popular culture so much. AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:59, 18 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]