This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Note - this archive needs subdividing. It covers mid 2012 to September 2014. '
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JamesB17 ( talk • contribs) 01:49, 1 September 2013 (UTC)
Retired.
Regarding Startup_company#Co-founders --
See: Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons
"When material about living persons has been deleted on good-faith BLP objections, any editor wishing to add, restore, or undelete it must ensure it complies with Wikipedia's content policies. If it is to be restored without significant change, consensus must be obtained first, and wherever possible disputed deletions should be discussed first with the administrator who deleted the article."
Your idea that the citations to the lawsuits involving Elon Musk/Tesla Motors and Whitney Wolfe/Tinder violate WP:BLP is mistaken. If you need to obtain third-party confirmation, the burden is on you to show that you are not the only person who views this as WP:BLP otherwise the material should remain. Edits for tone and clarity, or any changes needed to ensure accuracy, would be welcome. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by RiskNerd ( talk • contribs) 00:33, 2 July 2014 (UTC)
You're just wrong about this, and furthermore you are choosing to be insulting instead of being collaborative. You have been warned many times before that your style of editing is offensive, results in edit wars and makes angry people where there do not need to be any. The sources cited are directly-relevant to the material in question here, and you have asserted WP:BLP1E in a completely invalid context in order to support your contention that it doesn't matter whether the sources support the material. See Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons#Subjects_notable_only_for_one_event "WP:BLP1E should be applied only to biographies" -- THIS IS NOT A BIOGRAPHY. Earlier today you removed even more of the Co-founders section for no justifiable reason, asserting coatracking where none is happening. This Co-founder section is a very important part of the Startup company article. Co-founders are frequently involved in lawsuits as a result of seeking to preserve their title as "co-founder" but you seem to want to remove the supporting citations that explain this clearly from newsworthy reliable sources. There are many other parts of this article that need improvement -- if you want to be useful as an editor, try making the material better instead of making threats and being unpleasant. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by RiskNerd ( talk • contribs) 01:12, 2 July 2014 (UTC)
How exactly is it off-topic? It seems like you have not noticed how positively-biased the material is without these examples. The two examples given of legal disputes over the use of a "co-founder" title are noteworthy ones that have resulted in substantial media coverage. Previously there was only one example cited, that of the lawsuit against Elon Musk, and it appeared useful and relevant to add the second example. There's no formal WP policy that I'm aware of that would support this idea but I believe it's important in this instance to give more than one example to support this section of the article. If you're interested in helping to make this article better, perhaps suggestions and an explanation of what you mean by "sources cited do not support the material" could be offered? When I first saw this article a couple years ago there was a section about "startupers" that asserted the nonsense claim that people involved in startups are known by that label. There isn't very much material in this article currently, so a complete reorganization of what is there seems pointless but I'd be happy to work with you to repair the entire article. One of the most important things for anyone who reads this article to learn is what a "co-founder" is, and I do not believe it is appropriate for the explanation to exclude the harmful aspects, the dangers and the risks of agreeing to be involved in a "co-founder" relationship. To exclude the dangers of being a co-founder would be like removing sections about divorce, marital rape and wife burning from an article about marriage... I have just finished reading your entire talk page and it is clear that you want to eliminate the bias toward insanity that comes from the delusional uneducated masses, so I respectfully support your grumpiness but hope you can be less warlike in your approach. In this instance the proper balance is achieved by NOT eliminating the important awareness of the fact that co-founders frequently cause each other harm and that the title "co-founder" is often the subject of political nonsense. The SEC uses the language "promoter" which I've clarified in an edit today, and I appreciate that you've left this addition unchanged, rather than using the language "co-founder" seemingly because "promoter" is more easily understood to be a bad thing if what is being promoted is unethical or fraudulent. I appreciate that you contribute your time as "volunteer law enforcement" within Wikipedia. In this case if you can't make a constructive recommendation about how to preserve a balanced tone, so that the title of "co-founder" is not misunderstood by readers to be problem- and risk-free as in a path to fantastic effortless wealth, then I suggest you undo your deletion and let's see if anyone else ever objects to the material. Thank you. RiskNerd ( talk) 02:23, 2 July 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for the explanation. Those problems with the material are easy enough to repair to avoid oversimplification. The Daily Mirror is not the best source, I agree, and I would have preferred to cite Bloomberg News but couldn't quickly locate a URL supporting their reporting about this subject today. Your summary in the case of Musk "settled their disagreement out of court" misses the point that Elon Musk referred to himself and his co-founders as co-founders, and clearly citations are possible to show that Elon Musk is still known as co-founder. Another citation should be added to finish rounding out the basis for the use of the word "bankruptcy" or that word could be removed -- the fact that Elon Musk invested all of his remaining personal wealth in Tesla and has said publicly that if the IPO had not worked out then both he and Tesla would have been bankrupt is irrelevant detail for this article but to your point perhaps the reasons behind the dispute over the use of the "co-founder" title are irrelevant. When I supply a citation from Bloomberg News regarding Whitney Wolfe, and another about Elon Musk, you will presumably still not agree that this is appropriate material -- but that seems to me to be less about your objection to name-calling or citing allegations as fact (which I was not doing, the fact in question here is the fact of the dispute about who can call themselves a co-founder and who has the right to revoke that right, and the fact that the allegation was made is directly relevant to the statement being supported, namely that co-founder title is a matter of agreement or DISAGREEMENT among the group of people who consider themselves to be in control or who are/were promoters of the startup company) and more about your aversion to certain types of content in WP. When you assert that certain content does not belong, inherently, in WP because it involves a contentious matter, I think you over-step the appropriate role as an editor of an open source community-moderated resource which doesn't have a "job" other than the one it is doing right now by connecting you and me in constructive fact-based decision-making about whether certain material is important enough to preserve for future readers to read. From the other articles you've edited it seems clear that you are advancing a particular political viewpoint about what you think an open source encyclopedia should be, and there's nothing wrong with that -- it's important that you voice your opinion and have an influence wherever you wish, but every single person I know who has ever edited Wikipedia in the past stopped contributing when it became clear that a single person, such as yourself, would come along and arbitrarily remove their contributions rather than improving the quality of the work. More people would make an effort to produce final-draft-quality content if editors would do more than just cut, and if every attempt to contribute resulted, at least, in an opportunity for a vote before removals. Yes, we can all move edit wars into the talk page and try to get other people to care, but as you know the user experience currently does not encourage that method if the editors simply cut rather than edit or relocate rough draft content to a rough draft staging area where it can be improved before being voted back onto the published page. I've started a talk section about this co-founders edit, here: Talk:Startup_company#Co-founders_and_promoters RiskNerd ( talk) 04:09, 2 July 2014 (UTC)
That's disappointing. I was hoping to talk over with you an idea or two I have for reforming the ethos here. Well, I hope you reconsider. -- Anthonyhcole ( talk) 09:46, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
hi. you reverted a good-faith and valid edit of mine for basically an inaccurate and befuddling reason. You said "there's no such thing as a 'pressure cooker explosive'". Huh? Yes there is, it's a "bomb". It's called "explosive" in the other article... So how can you say that there's "no such thing"? A "bomb" IS an "explosive". What exactly is the problem? I reworded that way, because "pressure cooker bombs" in the very very first sentence just doesn't sound right, right off the bat. But "pressure cooker" should be in the lede right after to simply elaborate it. But the point is it's called an "explosive" in the other article. So your revert was invalid, to be blunt, and the wording is arguably better this way now, in the lede. Regards. Gabby Merger ( talk) 07:19, 18 April 2013 (UTC)
-
Andy,
I know you not, but I agree with at least the first couple of things you posted on the Kermit Gosnell article's "Talk" page; and so I'm now asking you to please go read the two sections I just created on it (items 20 and 21, I believe) and see if you agree; and then to post, accordingly there, in response.
I'm not fan of semi-protecting articles; but this one has gone from such obscurity that some were calling for its deletion to, since FOX called attention to the story, an article that has become sufficiently hot that it's getting too many drive-by vandalisms, in my opinion.
Or am I wrong? I am, seriously, one grump to another, interested in your opinion. Thanks!
Gregg L. DesElms (Username: Deselms) ( talk) 21:53, 19 April 2013 (UTC)
Hi.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard#Juggalos_.28gang.29 — Preceding unsigned comment added by AnnerTown ( talk • contribs) 09:07, 25 April 2013 (UTC)
This message is being sent to you let you know of a discussion at the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult for editors. You do not need to participate however, you are invited to help find a resolution. The thread is " Juggalos (gang)". Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you! EarwigBot operator / talk 03:03, 26 April 2013 (UTC)
Andy -- I was hoping you could look into the current (as of this post at least) version of the Rick Nicholls article. I stumbled on his page and thought the last contribution is a BLP issue. You have more experience in that area than myself and I would be much more comfortable if you weighed in. Thanks! Lettik ( talk) 14:38, 26 April 2013 (UTC)
Your recent editing history at Psychotronics shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.
To avoid being blocked, instead of reverting please consider using the article's
talk page to work toward making a version that represents
consensus among editors. See
BRD for how this is done. You can post a request for help at a relevant
noticeboard or seek
dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary
page protection.
You have ignored the talk page repeatedly, ignoring the need for consensus and discussion. — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
Damonthesis (
talk •
contribs) 21:27, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
You currently appear to be engaged in an
edit war according to the reverts you have made on
British Pakistanis. Users are expected to
collaborate with others, to avoid editing
disruptively, and to
try to reach a consensus rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.
Please be particularly aware, Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states:
If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. Stop removing cited text for spurious reasons, it is not difficult to find sources for that content Darkness Shines ( talk) 08:25, 5 May 2013 (UTC)
Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Franco Reviglio may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "{}"s. If you have, don't worry, just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.
List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page(Click show ⇨)
|
---|
|
Thanks, BracketBot ( talk) 21:04, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
Ah sorry abut the comment at ANI that comment wasn't aimed at you. I was referring to the IP's talk page they claim they weren't threatening legal action but proceed to use the words legal action and libel right after that... Cameron11598 (Converse) 20:05, 10 May 2013 (UTC)
By the way, Orange Mike has blocked her IP address for legal threats. Robert McClenon ( talk) 20:11, 10 May 2013 (UTC)
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article 2013 Mother's Day Parade shooting is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2013 Mother's Day Parade shooting until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.
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. Thryduulf ( talk) 13:36, 13 May 2013 (UTC)
That fix on the Mongolian People's Republic article is what I was trying to do. I don't know why it didn't go through the first time... Odin of Trondheim ( talk) 19:41, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
Hi Andy, I had added a few lines to the Ahmadiyya on Israel. The lines are fully within the Ahmadiyya faith. I am myself an Ahmadi and had done so with a correct intention.. Please read the Ahmadiyya Commentary as cited in the Ref. Thanks. Be well. -- ڈاکٹر محمد علی ( talk) 19:39, 16 May 2013 (UTC)
at "Sergey Brin" article :
false statement that :" at Moscow State University, Jews were required to take their entrance exams in different rooms than non-Jewish applicants, which were nicknamed "gas chambers", and they were marked on a harsher scale."
So, despite I explained that the following statement is false -" According to Brin, at Moscow State University, Jews were required to take their entrance exams in different rooms than non-Jewish applicants, which were nicknamed "gas chambers", and they were marked on a harsher scale." - it is restored by moderator. Ofcource you may claim that it is opinion of mr. Brin (Seregy's father), but the fact is that facts reported in this quote are not true - Yes, I can understand mr. Brin's (the senior) resentment about some aspects of Soviet past and bitter feelings about Moscow University, but wikipedia is not a novel and to cite here obviously false statements would hardly be right...I am not very good in English language(sorry) and so I am not going to involve myself in discussions, but want to remind you some other articles from this same wikipedia about some Nobel Prize winners of Jewish origin who graduated from Moscow State University - look at this :
"Vitaly Lazarevich Ginzburg, ForMemRS[1] (Russian: Вита́лий Ла́заревич Ги́нзбург; October 4, 1916 – November 8, 2009) was a Soviet theoretical physicist, astrophysicist, Nobel laureate, a member of the Soviet and Russian Academies of Sciences and one of the fathers of Soviet hydrogen bomb.[2][3] He was the successor to Igor Tamm as head of the Department of Theoretical Physics of the Academy's physics institute (FIAN), and an outspoken atheist.[4]
Biography
He was born to a Jewish family in Moscow in 1916, the son of an engineer Lazar Efimovich Ginzburg and a doctor Augusta Felgenauer, and graduated from the Physics Faculty of Moscow State University in 1938. He defended his candidate's (Ph.D.) dissertation in 1940, and his doctor's dissertation in 1942."
There are numerous other examples of less known professors of Jewish origin in USSR....You may explore it yourself using this wikipedia. It is just to prove you that not only my own expirience contradict to this ridiculous statement that "at Moscow State University, Jews were required to take their entrance exams in different rooms than non-Jewish applicants, which were nicknamed "gas chambers", and they were marked on a harsher scale.", but also information from this same wikipedia also contradict to this statement. I think that it is your responsibility not to misinform readers - I understand that you report opinion of mr.Brin (father of Sergey Brin), but from reading the text a reader can't understand that this opinion may be not exactly true. I still recommend you to deleat this quotation - it is false and not nesessary even if you want to prove that Jews indeed had some difficulties in USSR (other facts pretty much prove that - no need to use false information to prove that) - so why to oppose obvious fact that this quotation is misleading? Please deleat it yourself - it is a matter of truth vs. false, not a matter of my attempt to prove my point no matter what.I'll come back to read your responce, but will not involve myself in further discussions, - I think that I provided enough proves. (or you may leave a quotation but to change the paragraph so that readers understand that there are alternative opinions about words of mr.Brin regarding practicies of Moscow Univeresity in Soviet times regarding Jews) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.252.74.147 ( talk) 21:34, 16 May 2013 (UTC)
Dear friend.I got the following responce from you - "The correct place to discuss this is at Sergey Brin. I edited the article to make it clear that this was Michael Brin's assertion. The article did not then state that Jews were discriminated against at Moscow State University. It stated that Michael Brin claimed that they were - and we cite a source which verifies that he made the claim. I suggest you familiarise yourself with Wikipedia policy regarding what is considered a reliable source for article content, and refrain from editing further - if you continue to do so, you are liable to be blocked for violating our policy on edit warring. If you wish to continue this discussion, please do so on the article talk page"
I have explained that despite it is cited as Michael Brin's quote (I see that), but it is actually a quote that may constitute a legal matter as far as defamation of Moscow Univercity is concerned (defamation is the communication of a factual statement that harms the reputation of an individual, business etc.) - so you communicated the factual statement of mr.Brin - I see that - but this statement is false and there are numerous proves for that (including other articles from Wikipedia that state that people of Jewish origin were not prohibited to enter faculty of phisics of Moscow University (*I cited for you one of those articles from wiki) as well as those facts about "gas chambers" and separate rooms for Jews in Moscow Univercity are not true - I have explained that my English is not good enough and that explains that I can't maybe express myself in friendly way (that I want to do), but for you English in not foreign language and so I don't understand your cold (to say it mildly) warning not to edit further...I again ask you to kindly reconsider your choice of quotation in the article (I think you can not realise that it is the case of defamation in its pure form)...In case you disagree with my opinion, please, provide me with information where I can file complain because I think that this case is too serious to leave it as it is. I still hope to find understanding with Wikipedia (which I respect a lot) - otherwise I'll have to bring this case for Univercity of Moscow to take this kind of things more officially and according to legal practice and international laws 178.252.74.147 ( talk) 22:42, 16 May 2013 (UTC).
Regarding this, [2] note that I deleted it as soon as it was asked, and someone put it right back. I then figured someone else might come to their senses and zap it. Thanks for being the one. :) ← Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 18:03, 17 May 2013 (UTC)
baseball Bugs, saying "interesting improvement" is just as bad of you. You saying "names like Denzel and Keisha certainly seem like an interesting improvement" is JUST AS R A C I S T . 'Interesting improvement'? So the names needed to be improved? Should they name their children pilot inspektor? moxie crimefighter? kal-el? wolf? Or are you quoting User:OsmanRF34? 71.191.244.33 ( talk) 11:08, 21 June 2013 (UTC)
Collect, I suggest you MYOB. I asked baseball bugs to clarify.
And just so you know, saying " interesting improvement" is not a compliment.
71.191.244.33 (
talk) 00:19, 22 June 2013 (UTC)
I just received your message regarding citing personal interviews. The policy you cite makes perfect sense. Considering wikipedia's 5th pillar regarding "Wikipedia does not have firm rules," and considering that I don't want to teach my young charges to lie, can you help me find a way to bridge the gap between what the students did and what wikipedia allows? Is there some way to cite an oral history? Someway to acknowledge a local expert?
I understand this is not the only thing for you to concern yourself with, I just want to be forthright with the students when I speak to them. I also want to reinforce citing sources. Please, any help would be appreciated.
Mcadorette ( talk) 17:41, 19 May 2013 (UTC)mcadorette
Thank you for the quick response. I appreciate your candor.
Mcadorette ( talk) 18:01, 19 May 2013 (UTC)
Dear AndyTheGrump, Good evening! I find it extremely important to bring to attention that PubMed indexed journals are really important for the progress of Ayurved in scientific direction. My motive is to put the names of the journals is to percolate the information. If this information will be put, the reader will get the better idea about the topic of 'Science and Ayurveda'. I really appreciate your concern to remove the material as it may not be suitable at that particular place. But can you suggest me a better place for that information? Maybe an article with title - Pubmed indexed journals in Ayurved? There one can write the history, importance, limitations and current journals in Ayurved which are PubMed indexed. Thanks. -- Abhijeet Safai ( talk) 12:43, 20 May 2013 (UTC)
you dont even have the common sense to explain to me why u have undid my edit, (I have added one appropriate section, I want to know why u think it is in appropriate) think before u write something, dont just revert my edit BLINDLY, JUST BECAUSE UR FRIEND SAID IT ) who ru to report and what would u report??? I WANT TO KNOW WHAT IS WRONG IN THE CATEGORY I ADDED, I WANT TO KNOW, U HEAR ME DO U DO U DO U Murrallli ( talk) 14:18, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
TO ME WHAT IS GROSS VIOLATION, EXPLAIN TO ME, EXPLAIN EXPLAIN EXPLAIN EXPLAIN
Murrallli (
talk) 14:23, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
1. he was in jail for 15 months, and even if he is not convicted, he has half part in the scandal.
2. I did not intend any threat to u, I take it back, but you learn to put proper edit summaries, u addressing me with the word gross violation is not acceptable.
3. You just blindly accused me of gross violation, what should I do for that report??? Time waste Murrallli ( talk) 14:37, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
an action was conspired to take on me by you and ur friend, few days earlier itself??? tell me who ru, i think u know me personally and hold grudge on me Murrallli ( talk) 14:59, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
your point of view on how to address u is ur policy, not wiki policy, u report me to take action on me for no apparent reason NON SENSE Murrallli ( talk) 15:00, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
Dear AndyTheGrump, An article, Nadi pariksha has been created. You might be interested to have a look at it. Thanks. -- Abhijeet Safai ( talk) 11:13, 25 May 2013 (UTC)
I felt like this edit was a little WP:BITEy since that was the user's first ever edit and you could have easily noticed that nobody had even welcomed them yet since their talk page was a red link. Just thought I'd leave this here and maybe you can be a bit more magnanimous next time. AgnosticAphid talk 15:57, 25 May 2013 (UTC)
Journal of Ayurveda and Integrative Medicine is one of the indivisual journals. As per your these edits, should we discuss it in the article of Ayurveda? I have posted this on the talk page of Ayurveda. Thanks. -- Abhijeet Safai ( talk) 18:08, 25 May 2013 (UTC)
You recently undid an edit I made on the Wiki, citing that you my sources "said nothing of the kind". I'm sorry if you were confused and unable to find the relevant information on the websites I provided.
Here is the edit you removed:
However, the Nazis actually banned paganism, while tolerating Christianity. [1] [2] Here are the links since they don't seem to work on your lovely page here. http://www.bbc.co.uk/schools/gcsebitesize/history/tch_wjec/germany19291947/2racialreligiouspolicy2.shtml http://www.timeshighereducation.co.uk/181472.article
The first link explicitly says that pagans were banned. Click the link and push "CTRL F" on the keyboard, and search for the word "pagan". It will lead you directly to "the kind".
The second link, if you click on it and read the article states
"The paganists found themselves locked in an ultimately futile battle for influence over the "positive Christians" who dominated the higher echelons of the party. While Christians were tolerated, the paganist organisation, the "German faith movement", was banned by the Nazis in 1935."
Again, it might be easier for you rather than having to actually put too much effort in reading, push "CTRL F" on the keyboard and search for the word "pagan". Once you confirm, please get back to me or undo your revert. Greengrounds ( talk) 05:18, 26 May 2013 (UTC)
References
In this case, ranting at the Help Desk about the removal of the poorly formatted list of cities had an unintended consequence (to those who wanted it all in the article). I am not convinced that the article is fixable, and I nominated it for deletion. Robert McClenon ( talk) 01:03, 27 May 2013 (UTC)
You should be willing to discuss a rationale for removing as you are in danger of violating of the 3-revert rule. 71.2.172.65 ( talk) 23:02, 27 May 2013 (UTC)
Re: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of bullycides - some editors, when they have lost the debate, will try to provoke intemperate responses from their opponents in order to refocus on the discussion on civility issues. Your opinion is prevailing so stop bloody falling for it. It really is the oldest trick in the book. CIreland ( talk) 23:33, 27 May 2013 (UTC)
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you. Ramaksoud2000 ( Talk to me) 05:07, 29 May 2013 (UTC)
- Vianello ( Talk) 04:13, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you.
Zad
68
18:46, 30 May 2013 (UTC)Since when is it considered controversial to move a page to a neutral title? What is controversial? Wikipedia's NPOV policy? -- Uncle Ed ( talk) 15:09, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
The significance is that other OTRS agents can see the communications relevant to the article, and the ticket was provided per request by IRWolfie-. Further discussion can be seen on the article talk page. L Faraone 23:58, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
respected AndyTheGrump, i would like you to look at the recent removals by Littleolive oil ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Littleolive_oil ) in Ayurveda Article. thanking you. dr nachiket . — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nachiket Vijay Potdar ( talk • contribs) 15:42, 1 June 2013
Respected Sir, Lancet is most respected journel in medicine,as its a quoted in lancet and i being new to wikipedia ,i did the changes unknowingly.But still i want my changes to be resumed and shouldnt be removed for mere langiustic issues.As per your instructions i have made paraphresial changes and even after doing so the content is removed. Being a doctor i feel humiliated even after giving 'The Lancet's ' referense. Please consider. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nachiket Vijay Potdar ( talk • contribs) 16:12, 1 June 2013
I removed some comments of yours that degraded the climate of discussion at RSN. It can never be helpful or productive to make personal attacks, and the ensuing escalation was predictable. Regards, -- Ohc ¡digame!¿que pasa? 23:26, 1 June 2013 (UTC)
Thanks, I am not sure how I did that. I was leaving a one line comment on the page. Oh, wait, I followed a link in to the discussion from a talk page. I bet I followed a link to a old point in time in the discussion and not the most current discussion. Anyway sorry and thanks for the fix. -- Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) ( talk) 14:25, 2 June 2013 (UTC)
If a PubMed indexed Ayurvedic journal says that there is difference of opinions in ayurvedic doctors about diagnostic methods, why the sentence is being removed? It is a fact that many diseases needs to be reclassified! I really did not like that the sentences were removed under the section of diagnosis.-- Abhijeet Safai ( talk) 05:36, 3 June 2013 (UTC)
In answer to what I wrote, I think you advised me to read the piece on fringe science. I have. Would you be good enough to read what I wrote on the E-CAT topic talk page and tell me where it is not factual? (copied below) I tried editing the actual article but it was immediately deleted. Possibly go to Resolution?
This discussion page rambles to the point it is difficult to follow. There are two main points that are clearly wrong.
1, The statement that no independent test has been carried out. You can't prove a negative and so can't possibly know that. In fact an independent test has been carried out. The paper is available for viewing or downloading at arXiv:1305,3903 It was paid for and commented about by Elforsk on their official site. Elforsk is a large, well known R&D organization, equivalent to EPRI. It can't get much more official than that.
It doesn't matter that it has not been peer reviewed yet, or that some don't like the experimental procedure. An independent test HAS been run. There are various secondary sources of confirmation mentioned, such as Gibbs in Forbes magazine. I expect that several other tests have been run by large organizations doing their due diligence.
2. The comment on an independent test is followed by a very negative commentary taken from a blog site run by Ugo Bardi. The comments to his post were uniformly negative. Mine was censored. What is the justification for this? I can point to several other blogs run by scientists, including a Nobel Prize winner and a Chief Scientist at NASA, that come to the opposite conclusion.
One can only conclude that there are several editors on this topic that are so convinced that LENR is impossible that they favor anything negative about it. For example, the selective quote from Elforsk given. The full quote is shown below. (Google translation)
Swedish researchers have tested Rossi energy catalyst - E-cat
"Researchers from Uppsala University and KTH Stockholm has conducted measurements of the produced heat energy from a device called the E-cat. It is known as an energy catalyst invented by the Italian scientist Andrea Rossi.
The measurements show that the catalyst gives substantially more energy than can be explained by ordinary chemical reactions. The results are very remarkable. What lies behind the extraordinary heat production can not be explained today. There has been speculation over whether there can be any form of nuclear transformation. However, this is highly questionable. To learn more about what is going on you have to learn what is happening with the fuel and the waste it produces. The measurements have been funded by such Elforsk."
For those the prefer peer reviewed papers, there are several hundred listed that confirm LENR here. lenr-canr.org
Rossi forecast at the beginning that nothing would convince the skeptics until working E-CATs were out in the market and he was right. I wonder what you will say when Defkalion demonstrate their Hyperion at the National Instruments Week in August.
LENR has now been proven beyond all reasonable doubt. This negatively biased wiki entry on the E-CAT is doing a great disservice to thousands of viewers. Parallel ( talk) 20:48, 3 June 2013 (UTC)
I have opened a dispute notice and you are invited to respond. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard#Energy_Catalyzer Parallel ( talk) 00:53, 4 June 2013 (UTC)
You write you are not interested in debating this, but as you believe LENR is fringe science and accuse me of being clueless, you might get a better understanding if you read this short post by Jed Rothwell.
…The author asked: "Jed, thanks for this. I see the experiment is clearly defined on pages 8 and 9. The paper was written in 1996. Do you know of any place the number of successful vs. unsuccessful times this specific experiment has been done?"
My response: Storms himself did this when he was writing the paper. He began with 98 cathodes. It took him about a year to test them following the methods in this paper. At the end of that time he found 4 that passed all tests. These 4 worked repeatedly at high s/n ratios. So, looking at those 4 the success rate was 100%. Looking at the entire batch of cathodes the rate was 4%.
Take your pick. It depends on how you look at it.
Miles tested 94 cathodes and found 28 worked. That’s a 29% success rate. However, when he used cathodes recommended by Fleischmann and Johnson Matthey, 4 out of 4 worked,producing about 10 times more heat than any other type. So that’s 100%. Again, take your pick. The McKubre figures in this report show a similar pattern: http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/McKubreMCHcoldfusionb.pdf
If you get a good source of material such as Johnson Matthey or the ENEA, and you are good at electrochemistry, and you test the cathodes beforehand by the methods recommended by Storms, Cravens, Fleischmann and others, and you measure control parameters so you can tell how close you are and what to do next, then it will work nearly 100% of the time. If you do not do these things it may work 30% of the time, or 3%, or never. There is no telling. It is like shooting in the dark. Or, as Storms puts it, it is like picking up pieces of gravel, testing them, and hoping to find a semiconductor.
Let me add that practically the only person who made a serious effort to replicate Flieschmann exactly, following all advice and protocols, was the late Georges Lonchampt. He was an engineer. He was the chief designer of the French fission power reactors and a commissioner on the French Atomic Energy commission. Such people are technically skilled and they are used to following instructions, unlike academic scientists. He reported that it worked every time, exactly as Fleischmann said it would. The head of BARC and later chairman of the Indian Atomic Energy commission also replicated successfully, again because he was the kind of person who is used to following instructions.
He and his colleagues also successfully replicated the U.S. thermonuclear bomb. That is an extremely hazardous undertaking, so he knew a thing or two about following instructions.
If you want something replicated properly you should turn to people like this. The last people on earth you should turn to are academic physicists, especially plasma fusion scientists. In 1989 and 1990 they found more ways to do this experiment wrong than you can imagine, including mixing up the anode and the cathode. - Jed Parallel ( talk) 12:36, 8 June 2013 (UTC)
This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult for editors. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help find a resolution. Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you!
Hello Andy,
I no longer remember the context, but a couple of years ago, I disagreed with you about something, and commented that you should try to be less grumpy. Now, I believe that you should be a grumpy as you wish, and are able to be, within reasonable limits, and in opposition to the hoardes of POV pushers and cranks who swarm to Wikipedia. Something motivated me to take a look at your recent work on several controversial topics. Your firmness and insistence on high standards, especially on topics related to science, medicine and most especially BLPs, is really needed here. I do not have the personality traits to consistently do the type of work that you do. I work mostly on welcoming and mentoring new users, as well as non controversial content creation. But as I have learned more about the "dark underbelly" of this wonderful project, I have developed a deeper appreciation of the importance of your work. So, thank you. I hope that you contribute for many years to come. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 02:04, 4 June 2013 (UTC)
Dear Andy, Thank you for your message on my Talk Page. I have responded in full there. Horatio Snickers ( talk) 11:40, 5 June 2013 (UTC)
Apollosmile= I get blamed for minor vandalism on a edit witch in fact was Minor yet this group goes to second life steals peoples work and hack there account and grief sandboxes and others homes and im causing vandalism on a minor edit its laughable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Apollosmile ( talk • contribs) 04:23, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
I didn't know that, thanks 74.101.128.155 ( talk) 18:15, 5 June 2013 (UTC)
WhiteWriter speaks 19:45, 6 June 2013 (UTC)
Is your spidey sense tingling too? — The Potato Hose 15:25, 7 June 2013 (UTC)
I've blocked the IP you warned and their brother. If other siblings continue to edit war, I suppose there's nothing for it but semi the article. Bishonen | talk 15:45, 7 June 2013 (UTC).
Hello. There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. -- Ivilbderoneday ( talk) 15:51, 7 June 2013 (UTC)
It has been over 30 days since the RfC on the Eugene Plotkin talk page was opened and I believe consensus regarding a page move was reached a good 10 days ago. However, I am concerned if I move the page, it will set off another edit war with user Smallbones. Can you please close the RfC and move the page as you see fit? Factchecker25 ( talk) 00:23, 8 June 2013 (UTC)
I accidentially reverted you via edit conflict, but I would have done so anyway. Perhaps you would like to use the talkpage and explain how it is "a gross violation of WP:NPOV" to try and introduce neutral and unemotional wording to an article which has been tagged as broken for ages? I know that prejudice exists, but using an article titled about an inflammatory slur to discuss them is not a very clever idea. "Islamophobia" is like "pro life" and "pro choice", the term itself stifles all discussion because it is a wholesale attack on an opposing view. If you want to discuss Islam-related controversies or the like, please do it under a neutral title. I am sure we can agree that "abortion controversy" is a more wikilike title than "baby-killing", right? Then why make the same mistake here. -- dab (𒁳) 15:46, 9 June 2013 (UTC)
Hi Andy. Was just wondering; in
this edit you remove the statement about McEnroe doping from the lead and imply it is unsourced, but the paragraph in the body contains a reliable source. Did you realise this? Or am I missing something?
Basalisk
inspect damage⁄
berate 17:53, 9 June 2013 (UTC)
You chastised another contributor for using the term "nutters" to refer to those who fake cancer. Your justification for this admonishment is that the term seemed to show disrespect for those with mental health issues. But you referred to my contributions as "utterly insane".
That is inconsistent.
If you and I were friends I would offer you the heads-up that this kind of inconsistency is likely to erode your credibility. If you and I were friends I would warn you that using inflammatory language, like calling other contributor's work "utterly insane" is damaging to the project in general -- where we are all supposed to do our best to maintain an environment of civility and collegiality. Geo Swan ( talk) 19:43, 9 June 2013 (UTC)
This is to notify you that I have replied to your comment attempting to ban me. I gather there is an automated way of advising you but I don't know how to use it Parallel ( talk) 20:47, 9 June 2013 (UTC)
You wrote: Harassing other editors and threatening to reveal their identities
This is your only warning for harassing other editors and threatening to reveal their personal information. Because of an editing dispute, you posted at Talk:Energy Catalyzer "How would yo like to be made out to be a criminal, by name, on WIkipedia?" This constitutes harassment, a violation of the policy WP:HARASSMENT and revealing the name of another editor who wishes to be anonymous would violate the policy WP:OUTING. Any repetition of such behavior will result in your being blocked from editing. Such comments are not a reasonable part of improving the article, which is the only purpose of the talk page. If you intended to complain that another editor had called you a criminal, there are other venues for that, such as first asking the editor on his talk page to remove the offending text or second, complaining at WP:ANI. In any event, it would be well to remove or strike through the text in question. Edison (talk) 14:35, 9 June 2013 (UTC)
Hard to believe that you are so biased you didn't recognize that was a rhetorical question to "unsigned" (how the hell would I identify him anyway) who accused Rossi of being a criminal. I therefore asked him how he would like it. Parallel ( talk) 21:50, 9 June 2013 (UTC)
I have posted a piece mentioning your name on MastCell's talk page Parallel ( talk) 03:24, 11 June 2013 (UTC)
Your name came up. Geo Swan ( talk) 09:36, 11 June 2013 (UTC)
I have posted an appeal here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard Parallel ( talk) 19:45, 11 June 2013 (UTC)
[7]+ [8]+ [9]= ? — The Potato Hose 23:35, 13 June 2013 (UTC)
I believe you are correct. Thanks! Capitalismojo ( talk) 17:45, 14 June 2013 (UTC)
After initiating this thread both policy and common courtesy obliged me to leave you a timely heads-up. I got called away, and hadn't done that yet. I see you saw it. Nevertheless I apologize for not getting the heads-up to you prior to you seeing it on your own. Geo Swan ( talk) 14:31, 16 June 2013 (UTC)
The Editor's Barnstar | |
Thanks4Help! TY of Walk 16:51, 16 June 2013 (UTC) |
Dusti *poke* 18:11, 16 June 2013 (UTC)
Hi. I noticed your name at the noticeboard and was wondering if you could comment at this post. I've been getting feedback only from editors who've used the source in question in the articles they add to, so I don't think I'm getting a very impartial response. Dan56 ( talk) 18:16, 16 June 2013 (UTC)
Dusti *poke* 18:21, 16 June 2013 (UTC)
Dusti *poke* 18:30, 16 June 2013 (UTC)
Dusti *poke* 18:52, 16 June 2013 (UTC)
Dusti *poke* 19:07, 16 June 2013 (UTC)
Gaijin42 ( talk) 17:58, 20 June 2013 (UTC)
Cool it, my friend Angry Thumped. Jimbo blocked me for saying that. Supposing he's on the prowl? Bishonen | talk 19:13, 20 June 2013 (UTC).
You were right. You gave your reasons, but I overlooked it so sorry for my angry comment (crossed it out). I gave my reasons on TP now. Gun Powder Ma ( talk) 14:36, 22 June 2013 (UTC)
I've put a comment on "broadly construed" on Kumioko's page. [11] Bishonen | talk 18:04, 23 June 2013 (UTC).
I see we're already three helpers working on Michael Pliuskaitis ;) I removed the tag form the article before I noticed your reply and I'll add proper citation templates or at least link the URLs to the titles as soon as edit conflicts can be avoided (if that hasn't already been taken care of by then). jonkerz ♠talk 18:04, 25 June 2013 (UTC)
I think I know the answer, but I will ask anyway. You had an edit summary of: "rvv - nonsense in Arabic script)". Did you use that summary because you knew that the Arabic original was nonsense, or did you refer to the Arabic post as nonsense because Arabic is nonsense to most English-literate editors? (Having recently tested Unicode, it was a test of the ability of the Wikimedia servers to handle Unicode, but such a test should be done either in a sandbox or with the native Arabic names of persons and places.) Robert McClenon ( talk) 23:56, 25 June 2013 (UTC)
Even without Google translate, it seems self-evident that this is nonsense: no language will have so many repeating letters - and the word length is implausible too. AndyTheGrump ( talk) 00:08, 26 June 2013 (UTC)
Darling is (basically) a newbie with a low edit count. Please don't WP:BITE! I urge you to retract the comment about disruptiveness. – S. Rich ( talk) 20:56, 26 June 2013 (UTC)20:58, 26 June 2013 (UTC)
I am writing to inquire why you have tagged me for copyright violation. I am the Artist Corina and I have spent all day updating this page. I am new to Wikipedia, how can I edit my page without these isues? I have copyrights to every detail and image on the page as it is me who the page represents.
Corina — Preceding unsigned comment added by Yes Behind The No ( talk • contribs) 00:56, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
AndyTheGrump,
Thank you for asking that the vandalism be erased from the warning. I am indeed the Artist for which this article exists. This is my first day on Wikipedia and I was entirely unaware that there might be a problem editing a page about me. I have had even the hardest time just finding out how to message you about this matter.
Is there a way for me to edit my page without someone calling it cpyright infringement? I have copyrights to my work.
Thank you Corina — Preceding unsigned comment added by Yes Behind The No ( talk • contribs) 01:31, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
I've replied. I meant to only revert and then issue the appropriate warning with Twinkle. Apologies. Amaury ( talk) 01:46, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
Hey, Andy. Could use more eyes at Aquatic ape hypothesis. Check out the last two sections of the talk page. Thanks. Dominus Vobisdu ( talk) 00:00, 28 June 2013 (UTC)
Here, you seem to think the members of the EDL can spell? Darkness Shines ( talk) 12:39, 28 June 2013 (UTC)
Thank you for your help desk answer. -- Khmer Prun Them ( talk) 18:11, 28 June 2013 (UTC)
Look dude, I won't add it to anymore articles because quite frankly I'm tired of fighting with everyone about it - but please read my user page before making blanket judgements. My goal on Wikipedia is to take news/opinion sources an integrate them into articles that are not up to par. If you look at the James Gandolfini article, it's embarrassing how little information it contains for a figure as important as he is. These were good faith additions. If you have better citations, feel free to add them in its place, but I would rather have good content with a questionable citation than no content at all. AtlasBurden ( talk) 22:50, 28 June 2013 (UTC)
Hi, I see you have reverted several edits by Khmer Prun Them ( talk · contribs), some of which pertain to a meetup in Horsham, UK. However, the edits made by this user at Meta are still up. Should they be reverted too? If not, there will be a discrepancy between the meetups described at Meta and those listed on en.wp -- Redrose64 ( talk) 08:13, 29 June 2013 (UTC)
User Wraithful is continuesly removing the material from the article even after requesting him to get conses before on the talk page. I have written 2 messages on his talk page. I dont know how to handle this kind of activity. Please guide and kindly give your opinion. Thanks. -- Abhijeet Safai ( talk) 16:57, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Human Genetic History#Guidelines desperately needed. Thanks. Dougweller ( talk) 13:24, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
You are involved in a recently filed request for arbitration. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests#Alger Hiss and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. Additionally, the following resources may be of use—
Thanks,
CJK ( talk) 13:31, 4 July 2013 (UTC)
While you acted in good faith, describing the link I posted regarding the airliner involved in the SFO crash as "linkspam" was not. The link was germane to the article, and a non-commercial site. Not sure why you removed it, but I'm assuming good faith. Next time use only the language that is appropriate, especially when the editor who made the addition in the first place is well established and has a very low revert rate. And, frankly give a better reason for something of that nature. Thanks. Juneau Mike ( talk) 23:14, 6 July 2013 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/QVD (software) Delicious carbuncle ( talk) 01:35, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
How about you no try to WikiHound me, and read the WP:Deletion policy? Inappropriate re-nominations or nominations that are frivolous are subject to a Speedy Close. Just because you may want the article kept, deleted, etc. does not mean you attack the closer. Further, I didn't close the previous discussion - I relisted. Two entirely different things. Your empty threat of an AN/I discussion mean nothing to me. Don't make threats that are meaningless, please. It further degrades my already ill view of you. Dusti *poke* 01:37, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
This is a courtesy notice to inform you that a request for arbitration, which named you as a party, has been declined. Please see the Arbitrators' opinions for potential suggestions on moving forward.
For the Arbitration Committee, — ΛΧΣ 21 20:41, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
Hmmm. I have a problem. One the one hand, I understand and agree with your edit. On the other hand, that page actually includes some useful and accurate information that doesn't seem to be otherwise easily accessible. I guess I'm somewhat conflicted. Do you have an opinion on the topic? Cheers, Pdfpdf ( talk) 16:36, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
I'd like to know why you think mourning by Chinese netizens is, as you put it, "meaningless"? This was reported by a reliable source and documents a widespread reaction to a major news event. Just because it didn't happen in the United States does not lessen the fact's importance. CaseyPenk ( talk) 02:32, 9 July 2013 (UTC)
Andy,
I don't want to edit war over this edit. There's a discussion on the article's talk page. Please add your thoughts and lets get consensus. At least 3 editors (myself and the original editor, plus the one who tweaked the verbiage) think it is a proper addition to the article. As I said in my Edit Summary, don't forget the "D" in WP:BRD. Thanks and best regards, JoeSperrazza ( talk) 18:27, 9 July 2013 (UTC)
Hey, Andy. Considering that you deal with WP:BLP violation issues a lot more than most of us at this site, perhaps you'd be willing to tackle the List of teenage parents article before it gets even further out of hand? I've commented on the matter already; see its talk page. Flyer22 ( talk) 21:23, 9 July 2013 (UTC)
Hi Andy, if you happen to get a spare moment from your main quality control work would you perhaps care to take a look at this? Cheers, 86.161.251.139 ( talk) 13:36, 10 July 2013 (UTC)
Yo, AtG, just FYI, I think your first comment in the Retrolord ANI thread got edit-conflicted out in the shuffle, which is presumably why Retrolord hasn't answered it. Frankly, I've given up trying to post in it. Writ Keeper ⚇ ♔ 15:09, 10 July 2013 (UTC)
[ GOT HIM!]
You are most welcome, ★ ★ Retro Lord ★★ 16:25, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
May be of interest: [16] Note "Testimonial One". Regards. Martinevans123 ( talk) 20:37, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
Hi Andy, regarding this discussion, I want to let you know that I support administrative action here. Although Bugs has occasionally contributed to the talk page (notice never the article, however), his legitimate contributions are far outnumbered by his WP:NOTFORUM violations. Even after your exchange there was this discussion in which he dug in and insisted on his right to soapbox, even when consensus was against him. And today he has liberally sprinkled his views once again. This is well past the point of being disruptive. -- Dr. Fleischman ( talk) 17:29, 15 July 2013 (UTC)
Hi,
just in support of your deleting stuff on "immigrant non-Western males" re rape in Norway. Your reading of the police report is entirely correct. Summing up all categories of rape, Norwegians themselves (or, ourselves) are the leaders in that particular rat race. Note also that the referenced numbers were from 2006 - 2008, iirc, while the report deals with 2010 (and there is now a 2011 report out).
Just a precaution: The NO Penal Code § 192 has three sections specifying aspects of this particular crime; the "five categories" are merely "typical scenarios" given by the analysts in the report; they match neither the sections in para 192 nor do they in any legal sense constitute specific crimes with specific sentencing. The categories would correspond to (US) - "date rape" ("party rape", festvoldtekt), - "spousal rape" (relationship rape, forholdsvoldtekt), - "inadvertent rape" (lack of consent, but no mens rea (?); prev. AKA sexual misdemeanor), - abuse of authority (/control/power: vulnerability rape), - assault rape, - and "other" covers all the non-typical, non-scenariofiable cases. Different traits of different scenarios (like degree of degradation, violence, STD etc.) are covered under the various provisions in the sections of para 192. The report itself has some intersting perspectives, a fair piece of analyst craft, besides being an authoritative source for numbers. Just so that one is careful how one uses it, is all.
MVH,
T 88.89.144.119 ( talk) 05:13, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
Hello. There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.
Here's a direct link for your convenience. -- Dr. Fleischman ( talk) 07:43, 23 July 2013 (UTC)
It appears you may have misread who wrote the support with this strike. It appears to be ToAT that wrote that support. Yobol ( talk) 15:07, 23 July 2013 (UTC)
Sorry about that! I'm new at this game and I think I am being hung out to dry by a lot of sock puppets. -- Damorbel ( talk) 15:51, 23 July 2013 (UTC)
You made a typo in your last comment. For the sake of clarity in the thread, Ill wait for you to fix it before replying. Gaijin42 ( talk) 18:15, 23 July 2013 (UTC)
I just happened to notice this. Clever of you! Bishonen | talk 19:38, 23 July 2013 (UTC).
Great minds think alike i see. Have a nice day ツ Jenova 20 ( email) 14:36, 24 July 2013 (UTC)
Ive noticed yet another !vote has mentioned that "Andy wants to eliminate an 11 year old article" despite you having mentioned twice (or thrice?) already that this is not accurate representation. At this point I believe those saying "11 year old article" are doing so intentionally to mislead future !voters and sway the discussion. Is there a place, perhaps AN/I where it can be requested that such existing comments be refactored to state the situation accurately or striked through; and that future editors who !vote with that reason have their !votes labeled that "closing admin not take it into consideration due to" (spamming... intentional misinformation, intentional dumbassery, whatever) with potential warnings and blocks if necessary if they are by editors with a history of being in this dispute and have caused disruption or misinformation in the past. Camelbinky ( talk) 15:48, 24 July 2013 (UTC)
Did you know ... that since you expressed an opinion on the GA/DYK proposal last year, we invite you to contribute to a formal Request for Comment on the matter? Please see the proposal on its subpage here, or on the main DYK talk page. To add the discussion to your watchlist, click this link. Regards, Gilderien Chat| What I've done22:55, 28 July 2013 (UTC) |
The edit war in which you have been engaged disrupts the reasonable operation of Wikipedia's reference desk, and you've chosen to engage in pointless and disruptive edit warring rather than worthwhile and moderate discussion. It's really difficult to understand why you felt the trivial matter in question was so important that you felt warring over it was more urgent that discussing it. Consequently I have blocked the accounts of both parties to this pointless dispute.-- Finlay McWalterჷ Talk 23:25, 28 July 2013 (UTC)
3RR is a brightline and the result is a block, with you so far. However, 10 days is overkill. 12-48 hours is enough to remove someone from a situation so that discussion can take place amongst other editors and a consensus reached. Granted, there are some cases where a longer block is necessary, but I'm sure this matter will be resolved by tomorrow if not already. Thus, I recommend shortening to 12 hours if not time served. Noformation Talk 00:18, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
Please see my comment on User talk:Finlay McWalter. Newyorkbrad ( talk) 00:33, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
Dear Andy, I would request your comments here. Thanks in advance. -- Abhijeet Safai ( talk) 06:15, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
As the AN has closed, this has been reopened. Gaijin42 ( talk) 15:33, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
I doubt you didn't understand the matter of discussion properly, on Jimbo's page. It is only about his early contributions in Commons; nothing about his current or future ones. J Kadavoor J e e 19:22, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
Just FYI: the "disputed" image and AK's other uploads have been deleted from Commons. His earlier indef block has been left in place, though he may come back after providing evidence to WMF-legal or OTRS of his legal competence. -- Túrelio ( talk) 13:25, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
Best to leave it to someone else now, having hit three reversions in quick succession. Just for you own good. No comment at all about the edits. The Rambling Man ( talk) 21:16, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
Please don't get this worked up. It's counterproductive, and I'm sure you know what it could lead to. Bishonen | talk 16:45, 2 August 2013 (UTC).
Could use some eyes on Acupuncture. Some editors are trying to elevate some unsupported or poorly supported explanations to the level of "theories". A lot of the material in the section on "Proposed mechanisms of action" is not supported by sources complying with WP:MEDRS, and the most widespread explanation, the placebo effect, is played down, probably violating WP:NPOV. Dominus Vobisdu ( talk) 18:56, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
I added a comment that it was ironic that Peter Capaldi, having played a WHO Doctor in World War Z, is cast in the role of Doctor Who. You revert that - why? It is quite ironic and interesting. Why revert it?
Nextraterly ( talk) 19:11, 4 August 2013 (UTC) nextraterly
Greetings! I've been working on a little project and noticed that you have previously criticized the Daily Mail. So I'm guessing you won't be interested in this?? -- Hillbillyholiday talk 03:19, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
Hi, why are you deleting my changing in MMM-2011 article? It's empty now and redirecting to another article, I'm trying to fill it with text — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alagherii ( talk • contribs) 13:54, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
Thanks for your help with reverting the copyright violations of this editor. Just thought I'd mention that there were more that I reverted: [22]. I suspect the editor is an operative who is out to insert favorable material in articles of politicians approved by the Ripon Society. Notice that the editor alternates adding press releases to American politician articles with minor edits to Russian billionaire articles. It makes one suspect that the editor is trying to disguise their modus operandi. 71.139.152.154 ( talk) 16:26, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
I mentioned you on AN. [23] And yeah, I wouldn't be surprised if you're next. :-( What a place. Bishonen | talk 12:35, 6 August 2013 (UTC).
Hello. There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Horatio Snickers ( talk) 16:42, 8 August 2013 (UTC)
Hello. There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. 46.71.203.2 ( talk) 22:59, 9 August 2013 (UTC)
I guess you did not watched the video. http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Essiac&diff=568103780&oldid=568103720 Prokaryotes ( talk) 18:34, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. You appear to be engaged in an edit war with one or more editors according to your reverts at Workers' Youth League (Norway). Although repeatedly reverting or undoing another editor's contributions may seem necessary to protect your preferred version of a page, on Wikipedia this is usually seen as obstructing the normal editing process, and often creates animosity between editors. Instead of edit warring, please try to reach a consensus on the talk page.
If editors continue to revert to their preferred version they are likely to be blocked from editing. This isn't done to punish an editor, but to prevent the disruption caused by edit warring. In particular, editors should be aware of the three-revert rule, which says that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. While edit warring on Wikipedia is not acceptable in any amount, breaking the three-revert rule is very likely to lead to a block. Thank you. Mentoz86 ( talk) 15:11, 14 August 2013 (UTC)
[24] I have opened a thread concerning you. Miacek and his crime-fighting dog (woof!) 16:47, 17 August 2013 (UTC)
A grump? LudicrousTripe ( talk) 07:32, 20 August 2013 (UTC)
I think it would be best to refactor your characterization of the other editor that you made here, don't you? -- Ronz ( talk) 21:30, 20 August 2013 (UTC)
Please reconsider your disgracefully uncivil tone, since you only sound grumpy. Engaging in a civil fashion with those with whom you disagree costs nothing, and is the sign of a lack of grumpiness. Please pause before replying to people who are lacking in sanity in future.
Best wishes, LudicrousTripe ( talk) 17:12, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
Thank you for your swift revert on the Chelsea Manning talk page. I personally appreciate that. Sumana Harihareswara 17:25, 22 August 2013 (UTC)
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. The thread is Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:AndyTheGrump reported by User:Me and (Result: ). Thank you. — me_ and 18:02, 22 August 2013 (UTC)
Hi Andy, Thanks for your help. I've been improving the page, it's ok now or still considered for deletion? Kind regards Martin Campos Martin raul campos ( talk) 19:08, 22 August 2013 (UTC)
Despite you opposing the topic ban, I'd like to actually thank you for correcting your mistakes in gendering me; I do hope that the actual disclosure of my own trans status (which I had not disclosed on Wikipedia at the time) makes my actions more understandable; indeed, reading the talk page at the moment it does get hard not to take all the blatant transphobia (from admins, even) personally.
As I said, I don't particularly want to bring up the argument again, but I feel like I must correct the misconceptions there. I still firmly believe that I made my edits with regard to BLP, RS/V, and the understanding of the issue as a trans person myself, and, really, as one of the few openly trans editors on the project, I desperately want to help with trans issues on Wikipedia (especially the abuse of COMMONNAME that comes up every time someone comes out), that I fear my topic ban would prevent me from doing. Sceptre ( talk) 01:39, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
Hi, I'm trying to improve this article and save it from deletion. What do I need to do? I think I already fix the problems that you mentioned. Thanks in advance. Martin Campos Martin raul campos ( talk) 17:51, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
Re your userpage — what does the story about the Tornado pilot have to do with reliable sources? I get your point about the quality control place whose authors have writing skils. Nyttend ( talk) 23:59, 25 August 2013 (UTC)
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited 20,000 Leagues Under the Sea: Submarine Voyage, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Sea bass ( check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot ( talk) 11:18, 26 August 2013 (UTC)
Hi Andy, thanks for your help and explanation. I'm not gonna put the youtube links anymore. Regarding the conflict of interest, I'm going to read everything and I'll let you know my opinion. Thanks Martin Campos Martin raul campos ( talk) 19:21, 26 August 2013 (UTC)
I used to believe that Islamophobia wasn't racism at all but then I reached out on the talk page because I thought I could be wrong. It turns out I was. Islamophobia can be racism because it can target ethnic groups people think are Muslim. I also believe that is an instant where ALL people would agree that Islamophobia is racism. I was trying to reconcile the two sides and used the sources to do so.- Rainbowofpeace ( talk) 20:19, 26 August 2013 (UTC)
Hi there Andy, What was the problem with the addition I made to the Bloomex page? Asking in good faith as I don't understand the issue. The Ottawa Business Journal is a reputable, fact-checked publication. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JSWS2013 ( talk • contribs) 18:14, 30 August 2013 (UTC)
Can you check my article? Article's name is Veron (Software). Is this article satisfy Wikipedia's notability guidelines ? Faisal6545 ( talk) 22:58, 30 August 2013 (UTC)
Your feedback is required to improve the content you called, quote =" badly-written, and an entirely undue generalisation of the source" /info/en/?search=Talk:Vaccine_controversies#Removal_of_legitimate_study Prokaryotes ( talk) 20:24, 31 August 2013 (UTC)
I see you have reverted an admittedly unexplained (no edit summary) change to this article, referring to Frost's death. I was going to make the same change away from "he died during the speech" earlier in the day. I intended to do this as although my reading of the source told me he was on the ship to make a speech, at no point does it definitely say that he was delivering the speech when he died. Read the source and see whether you think my reading of it is right. Britmax ( talk)
Andy - I added in the Newsnight stuff because the whole scandal doesn't make sense without it. It is where the revelations about his abuse originated. I also think that the HMIC report is in a sense the nearest we have to a final report on casualties although I can see a point in removing some of the earlier provisional reports instead. Dan904 ( talk) 06:14, 2 September 2013 (UTC)
Hello, someone made a Wikipedia edit for Juvederm on September 26th 2012 with a deliberately erroneous statement to support a legal case which they have filed against a practitioner. Is there any way that the lawyers of the practitioner can request the IP address for the edit to help prove that the entry was malicious and deliberate? Thank you. Cosmeticspecialist ( talk) 00:29, 7 September 2013 (UTC)cosmeticspecialist
You changed my edit to something incorrect! Why? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Benobikenobi ( talk • contribs) 17:31, 10 September 2013 (UTC)
I was wondering if you were interested in looking into this, given your stance on the topic of the rampage killers list. Ed Gein is listed on the article-list of List of American serial killers, however given the opening sentence definition in Serial killers he wouldn't meet the criteria. He was only convicted of one murder, admitted to only one more (I believe, I could be wrong) and they never bothered trying him on it after the other conviction, and the rest of the bodies couldn't be tied to him as far as a murder was concerned, he admitted, and it was to the best of the medical examiner's inquiry confirmed that the other bodies were dug up from the local cemetery after they had been buried. If we go based on convictions only, a person convicted of only one murder couldn't be a serial killer. I was wondering your opinion and if it was worth a discussion to remove him. It could get controversial given how infamous he is as the "protype" inspiration of Psycho, Texas Chainsaw Massacre, and Silence of the Lambs (Buffalo Bill). Camelbinky ( talk) 18:26, 10 September 2013 (UTC)
You may want to comment here. You might not have felt a complaint was necessary but still smarting from a topic ban as I am I'm not going to let a blatant edit war like this go ahead. Another compliant will follow shortly and you can guess whose name will be on it. SonofSetanta ( talk) 16:36, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
I'm curious as to which recognized authorities you would argue define a British Jew as being necessarily someone who participates in organized Jewish community life.
As you know, adherents of Halachic law do not impose any such requirement, even recognizing converts to other faith as Jews. The Board of Deputies does not envisage any narrow definition either. Their 2010 report on Jewish community statistics pointed out that their figures, although ' indicative of actual demographic trends, only represent those Jews who have chosen, or whose families have chosen, to associate themselves with the Jewish community through a formal Jewish act, ie circumcision, marriage in a synagogue, dissolution of marriage by a beth din, or Jewish burial or cremation. Consequently, Jews who have not chosen to identify in these ways do not appear in this report.' The import is that there are no specific narrow criteria of community involvement for those who would self-identify as Jews.
Your own opinion is one thing, but if you're going to narrow the scope of a Wikipedia article on an historically enduring community, I feel you ought to cite relevant authorities representative of the views of the community in question. VEBott ( talk) 23:03, 15 September 2013 (UTC)
Thanks for pointing out it was mid-quote - I see your point. The article has a long history of dynamic IPs attempting to purge any mention of Rhys Morgan from the article - in my revert I should have looked at where the ref was located that was being removed. In the article history, it looks like the ref was at one-time used for the mention of "which is equivalent to industrial-strength bleach" in the lead paragraph, but was later moved to mid-quote for some reason. It could still fit at the end of the quote, as it contains the quoted material as well; but the existing two refs already adequately cover it, no need to over-reference the quote. --- Barek ( talk • contribs) - 17:11, 17 September 2013 (UTC)
Do you think it's time to ask the Foundation for legal advice on this point? Not that our editorial discretion should only be guided by the legal position, but it seems clear that (a) there is a lot of bush lawyer bull shit being spouted and (b) there may be a serious legal issue here. -- Anthonyhcole ( talk · contribs · email) 12:45, 23 September 2013 (UTC)
Back at WP:RSN. Dougweller ( talk) 12:53, 29 September 2013 (UTC)
I only used the source which Doug Weller put in the talk page, but I appreciate that a more reliable source is needed.
The thing is that this bizarre hoax is spreading over Islamist sites, blogs and social networking but on no source even remotely viable, as with the Muslim rage over false comments attributed to Nicki Minaj and David Villa over Islam.
If this ever gets a reaction from Atkinson or his management, and that reported on a viable site, then would a short sentence on the matter be notable enough on the 'Personal life' section? Indiasummer95 ( talk) 20:34, 4 October 2013 (UTC)
Hi Andy,
I while back I was involved in a dispute between you and other user, but I can't remember their username (I think it had "Goat" in it somewhere), you wouldn't happy to remember it would you? Reason I ask is this post on my talk page struck me as suspicious since it's really the only connection between us, so once I have the username I'm going to do a bit of digging. Thanks, Callanecc ( talk • contribs • logs) 01:29, 5 October 2013 (UTC)
What the fuck is your problem with the wording change? You cant discuss on the talk page like a civil person FIRST? The wording change was perfectly fine and reflected consensus at the WP:VPP, and I had even put a section header announcing that discussion was ongoing on WT:Jimbo to get more people. I'm sorry if you had no time or inclination to comment while we all agreed the change needed to happen. But "I wasn't involved" is not a legit reason for the "revert" part of BRD. Camelbinky ( talk) 19:36, 7 October 2013 (UTC)
If you dinna like where I moved it too, just move it back. As you are the alpha and the omega innit Indiasummer95 ( talk) 21:58, 7 October 2013 (UTC)
Andy the Grump Your deletion of this in the lede ignores the importance of the Manning disclosures. These leaks led to Manning's conviction under the Espionage Act of the United States despite Whistleblower laws. Please put the important facts in the lede and do not bury them in the verbose body. Patroit22 ( talk) 01:08, 8 October 2013 (UTC)
Greetings Andy! Saw you reverted my last edit on MonaVie. I apologize for not explaining my edits more fully, I'm trying to rework the article for wp:NPOV, I feel like the frequent use of quotations slants it in a way that doesn't meet these guidelines. I know your speedy reversion is my fault for not being as descriptive in the edit summary as I ought to have been, but I wonder if there's a way for us to come to a sort of compromise, for sake of making the article more readable and more neutral? Looking forward to your response. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Blueskymorning ( talk • contribs) 19:29, 11 October 2013 (UTC)
I am very happy and amazed at your ability of your eye to find artefacts. I do not remember if the information was added by me or someone else. But surely your action is right. Thanks for your untiring patrolling at the page. It gives a great feeling to see activities at the page created by oneself. -- Abhijeet Safai ( talk) 12:12, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. UltraExactZZ Said ~ Did 20:34, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
First they came for the communists,
and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a communist.
Then they came for the socialists,
and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a socialist.
Then they came for the trade unionists,
and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a trade unionist.
Then they came for me,
and there was no one left to speak for me.
I'm really sorry for the harassment you've endured. I get that kind of stuff all the time. I tried to remove as much of it as I could as quickly as I could. I want you to know that despite our disagreements. I respect you as an editor. Have a kitten.
Rainbowofpeace has given you a kitten! Kittens promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Your kitten must be fed three times a day and will be your faithful companion forever! Spread the WikiLove by giving someone else a kitten, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend.
Spread the goodness of kittens by adding {{ subst:Kitten}} to someone's talk page with a friendly message, or kittynap their kitten with {{ subst:Kittynap}}
The term 'western hemisphere' is ambiguous. I am not interested in debating the issue further. AndyTheGrump ( talk) 18:12, 19 October 2013 (UTC) |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
User:Kitchen Knife, despite being told by User:Gaijin42 that his logic is faulty, and despite the compromise you and I worked out regarding the actual book by Stefan Bielinski, has continued to be obstinate about the whole Western Hemisphere issue and has removed the mention of Western Hemisphere from Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court as well. I tried to get admin help at AN/I but apparently his "don't hear you" attititude and battleground language of winning and losing is not enough to get help and more people to look at it. I'm just making things worse with my anger, I was hoping you'd be able to help get more eyes on this issue. I truly worry that if Kitchen finds more articles with this wording he will spread this crusade and become more of a disruption. Camelbinky ( talk) 23:16, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
|
Very likely you would see anyway, but to make sure I thought I would call your attention to my latest post at AN/I. I am grateful to you for prompting me to think carefully about the issues involved here, which has led me to see things differently than I did before, though, as I explained in that post, I am not sure that the way you did it was the best possible. JamesBWatson ( talk) 07:11, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.
Worldedixor ( talk) 01:13, 26 October 2013 (UTC)
Volume 1, Issue 1, October 2013
by The Interior ( talk · contribs), Ocaasi ( talk · contribs)
Greetings Wikipedia Library members! Welcome to the inaugural edition of Books and Bytes, TWL’s monthly newsletter. We're sending you the first edition of this opt-in newsletter, because you signed up, or applied for a free research account: HighBeam, Credo, Questia, JSTOR, or Cochrane. To receive future updates of Books and Bytes, please add your name to the subscriber's list. There's lots of news this month for the Wikipedia Library, including new accounts, upcoming events, and new ways to get involved...
New positions: Sign up to be a Wikipedia Visiting Scholar, or a Volunteer Wikipedia Librarian
Wikipedia Loves Libraries: Off to a roaring start this fall in the United States: 29 events are planned or have been hosted.
New subscription donations: Cochrane round 2; HighBeam round 8; Questia round 4... Can we partner with NY Times and Lexis-Nexis??
New ideas: OCLC innovations in the works; VisualEditor Reference Dialog Workshop; a photo contest idea emerges
News from the library world: Wikipedian joins the National Archives full time; the Getty Museum releases 4,500 images; CERN goes CC-BY
Announcing WikiProject Open: WikiProject Open kicked off in October, with several brainstorming and co-working sessions
New ways to get involved: Visiting scholar requirements; subject guides; room for library expansion and exploration
Thanks for reading! All future newsletters will be opt-in only. Have an item for the next issue? Leave a note for the editor on the Suggestions page. -- The Interior 20:56, 27 October 2013 (UTC)
Do not remove FACTS when you are this uninformed. I will not report you this time, but consider this as a warning. Whenever you are this uninformed on world affairs and on "factual" content in the future, leave the "factual" content in place and ask for citations in accordance with policy. Worldedixor ( talk) 22:04, 27 October 2013 (UTC)
Thanks for helping out here. I appreciated getting a calm, constructive explanation of the dispute.
Here's a kitten. I'm not quite sure what it signifies.
Best, m.o.p 14:59, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
A reporter from Newsweek would like to interview you, her name is Katie Baker <katiejmbakergmail.com>. She's on deadline, so if you'd like to speak to her, please try to get back to her as soon as possible. Kevin Gorman ( talk) 17:51, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
Kevin Gorman ( talk) 17:50, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
A discussion has been started at Wikipedia talk:UK Wikipedians' notice board#England, UK or just England? on a topic you have recently discussed elsewhere. Please have your say if you wish. Thanks, Bretonbanquet ( talk) 22:07, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Gareth Jones may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.
Thanks, BracketBot ( talk) 21:10, 4 November 2013 (UTC)
Article content should be discussed on article talk pages |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
I don't know whether you might like this image better as a potential top image for Americans, but I thought I'd mention it. I'm not in the mood to be relentlessly attacked by another editor, so will not be editing that article anytime soon, but my objections stand. Cheers. Anythingyouwant ( talk) 03:01, 5 November 2013 (UTC)
Anythingyouwant ( talk) 04:00, 5 November 2013 (UTC) |
West Fertilizer Company explosion ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Hi, Andy. Earlier today I made several edits to the article about the 2013 fertilizer plant explosion in West, Texas. You reverted my edits because they mostly focused around an estimation made by a Scientific American writer, albeit not an official writer.
I figured that the estimation of ~1 kt, as demonstrated by the simulated image I uploaded, seemed very close to accurate and a fair estimation when compared with the known damage from the explosion. For example: West Middle School suffered very heavy damage. In the image, you can see the school building just southwest of the plant facility, near the outer edge of the first circle. This seems fairly accurate to what the explosive range may have been.
You had pointed out to me that the Scientific American article was written by someone who claims not to be an expert in explosives, and that the 1.2 kiloton estimate is assuming all the ammonia gas had ignited. I was admittedly aware of that, and was going to note that in my edit, but I decided against it because I thought it would be saying too much just to explain one thing.
It may be a fact that the estimate was not official or expert. HOWEVER, it is also factual that despite a lack of expertise, his estimate actually was quite accurate. In your message to me, you stated: "It is simply a misrepresentation of the source to quote only the 1.2 kilotonne figure. The blog contributor makes no definitive claims, and neither should Wikipedia." I see where you are coming from, and I must say I do agree. However, as most of the readers likely do not know much about the explosive power of ammonium nitrate and/or other chemicals, I believe it necessary to provide a frame of reference. The TNT equivalence scale is something people are more likely to be familiar with, due to its use in measuring the yield of nuclear weapons.
To remedy this situation, I recommend the following compromise and kindly request your feedback: Instead of directly citing the article and the 1.2 kiloton estimate, I would suggest we instead put the simulated image in the article, with a caption directly stating that the image depicts a non-official, yet close estimate of what the explosive range may have been. That way, our readers will be able to comprehend the explosion's power, while at the same time we can avoid any untruths as it will be made clear that the estimate is not official, but is merely a simulation based on known facts (ex., structures damaged, etc.).
Jade Phoenix Pence ( talk) 17:55, 6 November 2013 (UTC)Jade Phoenix Pence
...this: [27] Good removal. ← Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 17:39, 7 November 2013 (UTC)
I was all set to report the troll to AIV, and you beat me to it. I question the validity of the entire section, but the IP-diot pushed it too far. Alternatively, if others think the section as a whole is worth keeping open, the IP's remarks could be zapped. ← Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 21:45, 8 November 2013 (UTC)
Addressing the physiological aspect of the Morgellon disease, the wiki article should be completed with data extracted from the National Center for Biotechnology Information here: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3257881/#!po=5.00000 Hopefully someone (maybe you) should make the time and properly review the Morgellon wiki article that is presently addressing just the "psycho" part of the disease. If doctors and scientists take their time and study this condition seriously, not just labeling it "delusional belief" and put the a lid on it, I think the Wikipedia users can do the same and make the articles in such manner to reflect all points of view, not just the old, superficial ones. I hope you will find the time and take a look at the info before discarding it as before. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Blueyefinity ( talk • contribs) 01:14, 10 November 2013 (UTC)
Andy, I saw your note at ANI. I can't track down the original 1987 articles in the Singapore newspaper "The Straits Times", nor exactly where the allegation of chopping the body into curry came from. Most of the article was sourced to a culinary blog linked from yahoo! entertainment; I don't think that reliable for murder allegations. So I removed everything that was sourced to the blog that I couldn't independently verify. I do have access to The Straits Times via Lexis; the actual Curry Murder appears to be notable. I removed much of the sensationalism from the article where I could.
Interestingly, some of the accused later brought suit against The Staits Times for defamation and lost.
Anyway, thanks for bringing this to everyone's attention. I don't think in any way I've *solved* the issue, but I've made a start. And I agree that the article is in no shape for the main page. Moishe Rosenbaum ( talk) 01:08, 13 November 2013 (UTC)
Where to start? [30]
SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 19:30, 14 November 2013 (UTC)
I humbly suggest editing your !vote at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Talk:Chelsea Manning/FAQ to change “oppose” to “keep”, per Ego White Tray’s comment there. — Frungi ( talk) 05:28, 16 November 2013 (UTC)
The Original Barnstar | |
Thanks very much for taking the time to answer my question in the help section. MFM14 ( talk) 11:28, 16 November 2013 (UTC) |
N2e ( talk) 01:09, 19 November 2013 (UTC)
See [31] - particularly Mastcell's comment. AndyTheGrump ( talk) 23:09, 20 November 2013 (UTC) |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
Hi. I reverted your deletion at the science desk. The gentleman's neither asking us to diagnose a problem or advise him on whether to use a medication. His question is stated purely as a request for help with a math question. Deleting it prevents discussion. I would not oppose hatting the question and discussing it on talk, but I don't think it's really a problem at all. μηδείς ( talk) 04:06, 20 November 2013 (UTC)
minoxidilThis is odd and unexpected ehavior, but if you want to threat, so be it. You've been warned, asked to discuss, and multiply revereted. Your recent editing history shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.To avoid being blocked, instead of reverting please consider using the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. See BRD for how this is done. You can post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection. Stop edit warring on refdeskYou're up to five reverts, I think, and your position is indefensible. Stop it now. -- Trovatore ( talk) 04:29, 20 November 2013 (UTC) an3Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussionHello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you. |
In what way following sources covering the Sexual Assault case are "unacceptable":
http://www.deccanherald.com/content/370141/tarun-tejpal-quits-tehelka.html
http://blogs.outlookindia.com/default.aspx?ddm=10&pid=3084&eid=31
http://www.indileak.com/tehelkas-editor-tarun-tejpal-quits-after-sexual-assault-charge/
http://www.exchange4media.com/53529_tarun-tejpal-steps-down-as-tehelka-editor-for-six-months.html
Anmol.2k4 ( talk) 20:48, 20 November 2013 (UTC)
This message is being sent to inform you that you have violated the 3 RR on the Tarun Tejpal page and are being reported at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.10.100.75 ( talk) 23:53, 20 November 2013 (UTC)
So, in your opinion, is Polandball admissible in english Wikipedia? -- Babelia ( talk) 19:08, 25 November 2013 (UTC)
The IP seems to be the same as 72.66.30.115 ( talk · contribs). Dougweller ( talk) 21:34, 25 November 2013 (UTC)
re relevance to " Cargo (2009 film)" - thanks for your revert - at first glance, a possible relevance (but a stretch) - on second look, seems unrelated after all - thanks again - and - enjoy! :) Drbogdan ( talk) 14:30, 27 November 2013 (UTC)
Fansites cannot be listed? I see other fansites listed on other actresses' pages. Vivien Leigh for example. Also the fact that fansites are more thorough, have way more infos and frequently updated than all other sites mentioned. Wikipedia says one major fansite is appropriate?-- Annpham ( talk) 22:39, 27 November 2013 (UTC)
Hey Andy, I noticed that you seem to have a good bit of experience dealing with contentious issues on Wikipedia. You also seem to have some experience with WP:FRINGE.
The editors over at Rupert Sheldrake have been having a remarkably difficult time dealing with the WP:POV pushers that the article has attracted, and the situation is starting to look pretty crappy. Since User:IRWolfie left the article has been without an editor experienced in dealing with WP:FRINGE topics.
Sheldrake is by no means a special case. He’s just a garden variety ex-scientist who has rejected reality in favor of fantasy. His followers are just garden variety thugs those skills at WP:LAWYERING are mediocre at best. Yet, for whatever reason, the page is starting to go to hell in a hand basket.
Please take a look at Rupert Sheldrake. If you don’t think you can help, then perhaps you could suggest someone who could? Thanks. 76.107.171.90 ( talk) 00:42, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
Dear AndyTheGrump:
Thanks for your relevant advise and objectivity. Have a blessed week ahead!
Sincerely,
Genf7 ( talk) 18:33, 8 December 2013 (UTC)
Dear Andy the Grump, well you certainly are living up to your name I must say! I am Zen Joseph Player, the author of the Advertainment article and indeed, the inventor of the Name and the System described. First off let me just say how upsetting it is to read your derogative comments about me, my ethics and motivations. Personally I found them completely unprofessional and uncalled for – especially to your co-workers! From a marketing perspective you are doing Wikipedia a great disservice, as your inflated authoritarian yet uninformed stance make you look stupid. Which makes Wikipedia look inept having people like you represent them. I know you're not stupid Andy, but just trying to be a good Wikipedian right? So I'd like to appeal to your better side, your helpful side, your intelligent side in this matter. Ok? Let's break it down please: 1. All information in the article on Advertainment is true and accurate, backed up by documented proof, which I have in my possession. The reason you and your Wiki colleagues are unable to find much online is due to the fact that the Publications sited (including ADWEEK/MediaWeek) never posted the original article (May 22nd 1995) online. My repeated attempts at contacting ADWEEK about this article failed to turn anything up, however I found an ORIGINAL COPY of the printed article – as well as copies of ALL PUBLICATIONS AND TV NEWS ITEMS sited. I'm willing to scan/copy and send these of course, with legal proof of their authenticity. 2. If I have not followed Wikipedia's requirements and conventions, this can be corrected by an editor more skilled and experienced in this regard. I am hiring an expert who will contact you for review and approval of the edited piece. 3. I have done my best to remove all 'self-promoting' language and report about the subject and history as OBJECTIVELY as possible, based on facts. Your claims and accusations are very harsh for a 1st-time author with clear intentions to make this subject known for what it is, and where it originated. Also, I have a LEGAL RIGHT to claim authorship of the name, and can back it up with forensic evidence if necessary. Again, the editor I'm hiring can conform my draft to Wiki's requirements. 4. I direct your attention to Wikipedias Rule: Ignore All Rules, found here: /info/en/?search=Wikipedia:Ignore_all_rules – that states: "If a rule prevents you from improving or maintaining Wikipedia, ignore it." Now, I don't choose to ignore Wikipedia's Rules Andy, but I would greatly appreciate if you would HELP ME to get Advertainment posted in the correct format etc, and stop impairing the Improvement of this wonderful database! If you are unavailable of choose for any reason NOT to help me, please direct me to a Wikipedian with a more generous nature and professional ethic. I would be grateful for your response please to each point or detail, so we can untangle this mess and make it into a masterpiece. Sincere thanks and best of luck. Cheers, ZenJoseph ( talk) 10:41, 9 December 2013 (UTC)
ps, if needed I can be reached at [email protected]
Ok, thanks for that information Andy. Do I also post all questions and submit evidence/proof on that page? Please advise ZenJoseph ( talk) 02:24, 10 December 2013 (UTC)
As a subscriber to one of The Wikipedia Library's programs, we'd like to hear your thoughts about future donations and project activities in this brief survey. Thanks and cheers, Ocaasi t | c 15:21, 9 December 2013 (UTC)
Could you do me a favor and take a quick look at Talk:List of vegetarians#Mani and Mazdak in regards to two disputed names. I have some concerns, but as it is I'm on the fence myself about them (I'm simply not sure how far we can go in drawing conclusions about one's lifestyle from their teachings), so I'm happy to defer to a third opinion either way on this. Betty Logan ( talk) 02:52, 10 December 2013 (UTC)
Could you run your grumpy eyes over this 2013 La Défense attack article. Martin451 00:10, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
As you were involved in a previous discussion on this topic, I am notifying you of a new RFC on this topic. Talk:Gun_control#Authoritarianism_and_gun_control_RFC Gaijin42 ( talk) 16:30, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
Doesn't this site have an editor chat room? Do you ever go there? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.19.163.225 ( talk) 17:37, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
If you're becoming agitated, which appears to potentially be the case, may I suggest just stepping back? I'm handling it. :-) Rjd0060 ( talk) 18:21, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
Created in one swell foop 2 days ago. Not sure what needs doing now, but how many new editors can create such a large article on their first edit? Dougweller ( talk) 18:27, 17 December 2013 (UTC)
Justanonymous has given you a kitten! Kittens promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Your kitten must be fed three times a day and will be your faithful companion forever! Spread the WikiLove by giving someone else a kitten, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend.
Spread the goodness of kittens by adding {{ subst:Kitten}} to someone's talk page with a friendly message, or kittynap their kitten with {{ subst:Kittynap}}
I know it's been a tough few days at Gun control and at ANI. I support and respect you even if we might not always agree! I know that you're dedicated to make Wikipedia better! Justanonymous ( talk) 21:44, 21 December 2013 (UTC)
::I endorse these sentiments, though I do have some concern for the welfare of the kitten. :-)
Anythingyouwant (
talk) 16:50, 26 December 2013 (UTC)
Thanks for the revert. "European" was a typo. Incidentally, don't you think that my section title -- or something similar -- would be a good compromise? It clarifies what specifically the Nazi policies were (they generally relaxed restrictions on gun ownership, but sought to disarm jews), allowing for readers to make their own decision. Steeletrap ( talk) 07:01, 27 December 2013 (UTC)
I have no comment about the underlying discussion, I just wanted to say that this is my new favorite edit summary. Gamaliel ( talk) 07:18, 27 December 2013 (UTC)
That goes with it? So ya, I think my comment is in fact spot on, cheers. Always amuses me that you think it just fine that you cuss folk out, but someone you dislike does it? Sanction that wanker. Grow up Andy. Darkness Shines ( talk) 21:04, 27 December 2013 (UTC)
There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. ROG5728 ( talk) 14:01, 30 December 2013 (UTC)
If you do this again, you will spend a day on the sidelines and I will full protect the talk page for the duration. Georgewilliamherbert ( talk) 15:25, 30 December 2013 (UTC)
Gun Control in the Third Reich (book). Note the wording of the first sentence and the hatnote, designed to support NRA talking points. — goethean 21:38, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
And there's this as well. Facts are really not their friends. — goethean 21:42, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
You are involved in a recently filed request for arbitration. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case#Gun_control and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. Additionally, the following resources may be of use—
Thanks,
Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case#Gun_control
You just don't get enough. You just never get satisfied with nothing. You look ridiculous being a pseudo Superman "rescuing" what does not really matter to you. Shit that does not harm you at all. Whatever the heck you've got against me or any of the individuals mentioned in the article have nothing to do with your obsession from "rescuing" shit. I'm not messing up with your shit. Don't mess with mine. Take this whichever way you want: a provocation, an insult, whatever. Don't get into my stuff. Okay? Küñall ( talk) 04:48, 4 January 2014 (UTC)
You were recently listed as a party to 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/Gun control. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Gun control/Evidence. Please add your evidence by January 19, 2014, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Gun control/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, Bbb23 ( talk) 19:16, 5 January 2014 (UTC)
Look at the contributions of editor who reverted me. Dougweller ( talk) 20:57, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
I have shared some view on hatting, Template talk:Hat#Hatting should be used if and only if the section does not WP:FOC, feel free to comment/discuss. :) -- 14.198.220.253 ( talk) 09:53, 13 January 2014 (UTC)
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1226182/Heir-tribe-South-Pacific-tribe-worship-Duke-Edinburgh-want-meet-Prince-William.html http://www.telegraph.co.uk/expat/expatfeedback/4203013/South-Sea-tribe-prepares-birthday-feast-for-their-favourite-god-Prince-Philip.html http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-388901/Is-Prince-Philip-god.html http://www.vice.com/en_uk/read/this-guy-went-to-live-with-the-tribe-who-worship-prince-philip http://www.amazon.co.uk/Man-Belong-Mrs-Queen-Worshippers/dp/1908699647
Sometimes the truth is stranger than fiction — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.3.181.44 ( talk) 16:31, 13 January 2014 (UTC)
I have been adding flags next to place names in the infoboxes of various aircraft crash pages; which for some reason has so offended you as to begin an edit war against me. I would like to clarify - the purpose of my adding these flags was to clarify for the reader, which I hope is the purpose in general of this website. You, for some reason, seem to instead believe the purpose of this site is to look exactly as you (the individual) desire. You have now reverted my improvements to seven aircraft crash pages twice each. I am considering requesting you blocked on all pages to do with aircraft crashes due to your belligerence in the matter, but before I do I simply wish to give you an opportunity to redeem yourself and stop reverting visual improvements in the sections. Is that really so much to ask? I didn't think so (: — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mickeys1fan ( talk • contribs) 01:17, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
I read your evidence on Gun Control and it would benefit from a few paragraph breaks for readability <g>. I tried to follow as best I could, and it has a great deal of merit, but I am more patient than some of the folks there. And each break only adds one character so you do not need to fear it will get chopped down by a clerk. Cheers. Collect ( talk) 17:17, 20 January 2014 (UTC)
Are you sure you're not me? You're very grumpy! Andy Dingley ( talk) 18:25, 20 January 2014 (UTC)
There are now several references posted on the Problem of Evil page. Last call for Support/Oppose survey on Problem of Evil page. FelixRosch ( talk) 21:20, 23 January 2014 (UTC)
I'm just reminding participants that East Germany falls within the scope of WP:Discretionary sanctions per Arbcom here. Please see recent comments at talk:East Germany. Thanks. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง ( talk) 00:58, 28 January 2014 (UTC)
Can I ask you something?
I think the world's encyclopedia should be reliable.
Presently, I'm especially concerned about our medical content. The studies I've seen on the quality of our medical content are inadequate. I asked at WT:MED if we should commission a rigorous review of medical content with a big enough sample to say something meaningful and was met with a kind of, "Why would we do that?" I then suggested on Jimbo's talk page that we invite the relevant charities to fund, and learned societies to implement regular stringent fact-checking by named experts, and locking those articles that pass the review until the next review.
Several people commented. Jimbo didn't really address it and favoured the far more bottom-up method of applying pending changes or flagged revisions to some articles and hoping we attract expertise somehow.
Doc James raised his plan to engage journals to review our articles. When, earlier at m:WikiProjectMed, he had mentioned his negotiations with various journals, I said we need the highest possible rigor in their review process, but no one seemed too concerned.
I would rather we invited the learned societies and their relevant charities to take on the review process, than publishers: let the learned societies arrange for the finest possible fact-checking, and let the charities and agencies whose missions allow or oblige them to support such endeavors fund it.
Between reviews, a fact-checked article should continue being edited as a draft page prominently linked on both the published article and the talk page, under the usual policies and guidelines, by the same editors. If the editors choose to publish a version that has not passed fact-checking, I think they should replace the prominent badge saying the article has been fact-checked with one saying it hasn't, or it failed its last review.
What do you think? -- Anthonyhcole ( talk · contribs · email) 13:23, 28 January 2014 (UTC)
There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Bus stop ( talk) 14:59, 28 January 2014 (UTC)
There is a Split proposal discussion on the Gun politics in the U.S. talk page that may be of interest to you. Lightbreather ( talk) 04:33, 29 January 2014 (UTC)
Andy, I've warned Alansohn against making further personal attacks. I advise you not to comment on or speak to him, either, directly or indirectly, as that might be seen as baiting. Bishonen | talk 08:23, 30 January 2014 (UTC).
Just to let you know you have been mentioned at: Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Editor_Retention#Editor_of_the_Week_award. X Ottawahitech ( talk) 20:35, 30 January 2014 (UTC)
I moved your comment - [35] when I added comment section to other parts. Feel free to revert me. Hipocrite ( talk) 22:32, 30 January 2014 (UTC)
I think that your comments there were very gracious and thoughtful. I appreciate your words, I thank you for them, and I look forward to agreeing with you on BLP issues in the future. We need editors with your concerns and understanding of policy, and if you express them forcefully but with more moderate language, it will be a benefit both to you and to the project. Take care, my friend. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 02:32, 1 February 2014 (UTC)
Hi Andy, I am aware that you have engaged in discussion with Golden Prime in some admin noticeboards before, and shortly after his block, a new user showing the same editing patterns and thoughts returned to the same tiger vs lion article to force the same Ken Spiro statements while claiming other valid sources invalid ([ like here]). The new account also attempted to create two new lion vs tiger wiki pages dedicated to Ken Spiro. The new account is currently being involved in sockpuppet investigations here and since you have exchanged conversations with Golden Prime, your inputs and comments will be helpful to the investigations. Thanks for your help! BigCat82 ( talk) 12:57, 4 February 2014 (UTC)
Have you heard of http://www.channelregister.co.uk/ before? Are they notable/reliable in general in the UK? Gaijin42 ( talk) 19:13, 12 February 2014 (UTC)
I have been adding and editing articles on notable Eastern European and Jewish mathematicians for some months now. With regard to Eugene Plotkin, my intent was not to confuse the two individuals with the same name. I believed (apparently erroneously) that a page containing solely a redirect was essentially a placeholder. The BLP for the first Plotkin should have never been (this is why it was moved) while the second Plotkin (the mathematician) is actually notable. I would appreciate your guidance on the best way to proceed. My thinking, having reviewed information on deleting redirects and moving pages, is that a good solution could be to merge the old Plotkin page (the redirect) with the Reebok Insider Trading Case page (the page being redirected to) and then create the new Eugene Plotkin (mathematician) page. What do you think? Jaytwist ( talk) 18:10, 13 February 2014 (UTC)
I filed a dispute against the user. I I think you should try to repost it yourself. I certainly wouldn't be surprised if he got blocked. He think he can push people around with duck test claims but i Won't Back Down either. 08:14, 15 February 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.236.68.115 ( talk)
The WikiProject Medicine QuackStar
|
Thanks - though actually it was User:QuackGuru who first made the connection: [36] - note the edit summary. I'm not entirely sure that there isn't more to this, but I'll keep my suspicions to myself for now. AndyTheGrump ( talk) 10:31, 16 February 2014 (UTC)
Do I hear quacking on another page? Here is an IP edit but there are edits by registered accounts. [37] [38] QuackGuru ( talk) 19:37, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
/info/en/?search=Special:Contributions/121.217.220.179
/info/en/?search=Special:Contributions/124.179.85.140
There is definitely IP socking by DJFryzy at chiropractic. QuackGuru ( talk) 19:17, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
Haha. Their last edit summary happened to come up on my watchlist. Bishonen | talk 18:53, 17 February 2014 (UTC).
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Genocide definitions, Definitions of pogrom and Definitions of fascism are suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Genocide definitions until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.
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. Oncenawhile ( talk) 09:49, 20 February 2014 (UTC)
In this comment, you jumped to a conclusion that I am very disappointed about. It appears that you don't trust my motives. I have tried to be very clear about what i am trying to achieve, yet you are taking a very dim view of my actions.
It seems from the afd discussion that i went to the wrong forum - i should probably take it to the village pump. But why bite my head off for it? I am not, and have never been, the type to play silly games. I am just learning how to get the community to reach a consensus on a difficult question.
I don't know what i have done to make you so negatively predisposed today. Prior to today it all seemed fine.
What can i do to rebuild the trust between us?
Oncenawhile ( talk) 15:15, 20 February 2014 (UTC)
The unnecessary step of creating an "incident" over me created by your behavior, I have replied to on the notification talk board.
You seek to be my executioner very eagerly... My "outlawry" as "foregone conclusion" without a trial, is your stated desire...
I hope one day Wikipedia has a more dispassionate ambiance. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.52.186.148 ( talk • contribs) 19:51, 21 February 2014
Moutrie is in the wrong and not in the least bit suited to Wikipedia, but someone is also clearly yanking his chain. Thansk for fixing the latest example. Guy ( Help!) 18:02, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
The question asked was about DNA. I know the answer to the question, simply because I happen to be the same gender as the women concerned. I was writing the explanation while you were busy deleting. I can assure you that there is no "speculation" about it at all, and the matter is not even remotely sensitive or offensive. It is a simple matter of biology. Amandajm ( talk) 03:40, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
Hi, Regarding your recent revert [41] — As I mentioned in my edit summary, the present sentence in the BLP policy falsely implies that any edit on a talk page, not just those edits about living people, has the burden of evidence. The Burden of evidence section of WP:V doesn't apply to talk pages. However, we would want WP:BLP to apply burden of evidence to talk page edits about living people, but not otherwise. That was the purpose of adding "about living people". -- Bob K31416 ( talk) 17:24, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
Hey!AndyTheGrump please help me by contribution at the article Isrg Rajan. I will be very grateful to you thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Iraag ( talk • contribs) 17:44, 24 February 2014
The article Isrg Rajan is still under discussion and I've added some reliable sources but you've removed. Please restore it if you can't contribute more to it. This wikipedia and the articles on the wikipedia are not owned by you — Preceding unsigned comment added by Iraag ( talk • contribs) 18:46, 24 February 2014
I would like to know the cause for restoring the artile Chirag Paswan, that you've restored without giving any reason. I would also like to let you know that this person, Chirag Paswan is a noticeable personality. It's like you are jealous with writing of my articles as you have restored all many articles and even nominated some for speedy deletion. Please don't forget you are only a Admin not the developer or the owner of Wikipedia.
You should have created a discuss page before restoring the article as you are not the author one more thing I would like to inform you that the article that you have redirected to does not matches. Since the redirected article is about a person and other article is about a movie. Iraag ( talk) 08:02, 25 February 2014 (UTC)
Andy, besides the Smartse thread, there's also a thread concerning the above user on ANI, in case you wish to comment. Bishonen | talk 08:53, 25 February 2014 (UTC).
On the Help Desk yesterday, I asked how to access the Help Desk and you understandably said to do it how I had just done it! FYO, to get to the Help Desk, I was going through a search engine and wanted to know the direct way via Wikipedia. Another Help Desk member has told me how and answered my other query re Wiki amendments satisfactorily. I am new to Wiki editing and finding one's way around the Wiki site can be quite daunting at first, you know. P123cat1 ( talk) 12:46, 25 February 2014 (UTC)
Hello again, my dear friend.
Thanks for being such a helpful, cooperative, and pleasant person, as well as for explaining in detail what the alleged BLP violation was instead of simply reverting my edits and making vague, childish threats. It's heartwarming to know that people like you exist in this world. I don't know how the Wikipedia project would ever survive without you.
In any case, a simple Google search revealed that the suspect in question was convicted of the crime and received probation in a plea deal. I added the citation to the article and restored the text in question. I hope this clears things up.
Best regards,
AnnerTown
XOXO
AnnerTown ( talk) 03:44, 28 February 2014 (UTC)
"do not post on my talk page again" means what it says |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
Your recent editing history at
Juggalos (gang) shows that you are currently engaged in an
edit war. Being involved in an edit war can result in your being
blocked from editing—especially if you violate the
three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three
reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.
To avoid being blocked, instead of reverting please consider using the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. See BRD for how this is done. You can post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection. STATic message me! 04:24, 28 February 2014 (UTC)
|
...that you are reverting my sourced edits to that page for no apparent reason. Where is the BLP violation? The man claims to be a member of the IRA. I don't see how it would violate WP:BLP if he himself claimed to be a former member. Frankly, your behavior here is getting plain ridiculous. — Preceding unsigned comment added by AnnerTown ( talk • contribs) 04:25, 28 February 2014 (UTC)
If you have got a few spare moments, can you offer your opinion on latest rant from a fringe proponent on the parapsychology talk page. Thanks. Goblin Face ( talk) 06:05, 28 February 2014 (UTC)
Hi, I'm not great on BLP stuff because I prefer my article subjects to be dead. I seem to recall that you quite like them alive! I wonder if you could caste an eye over the edits reported here and comment on at Talk:Pratibha Patil as you feel appropriate? Or advise if you think that the issue(s) should go to WP:BLPN. - Sitush ( talk) 10:19, 28 February 2014 (UTC)
Hello, I've seen that you have undone my edit on WikiLeaks due to the source being directly from the WikiLeaks website. Would Glenn Greenwald's "The Intercept" count as a third party reliable source in your eyes? https://firstlook.org/theintercept/article/2014/02/18/snowden-docs-reveal-covert-surveillance-and-pressure-tactics-aimed-at-wikileaks-and-its-supporters/ The Electronic Frontier Foundation cited the The Intercept publication https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2014/02/surveillance-and-pressure-wikileaks-readers . -- 77.57.23.123 ( talk) 22:43, 28 February 2014 (UTC)
So if I mention your name on a talk page where you asked me to start a debate, will you get a notification? Sorry I'm pretty new here. Horselover Fats ( talk) 19:15, 2 March 2014 (UTC)
I think there could be something to an article and it would be a better, single location for a lot of material which is currently scattered around various EM-based articles. You got the time help me put it together if I make a start and show you what I've got in mind? I've got a little time tomorrow. GDallimore ( Talk) 17:32, 4 March 2014 (UTC)
Hi! Would you care to review or comment at my FA nomination for the article Misterioso (Thelonious Monk album)? It is a short article about a jazz album. If not, feel free to ignore this message. Cheers! Dan56 ( talk) 06:19, 6 March 2014 (UTC)
Talk:Ronn_Torossian. The article has been subject to a lot of POV editing down the years and some neutral BLP expertise would be helpful. -- Dweller ( talk) 11:41, 12 March 2014 (UTC)
In reference to this edit, if you do nominate it for deletion, I will be grateful if you can drop a note on my talk page, so that I can add my "delete this crap" to the debate. The editor who uses the pseudonym " JamesBWatson" ( talk) 09:06, 14 March 2014 (UTC)
The 118 was an obvious Mikemikev sock. Dougweller ( talk) 11:24, 15 March 2014 (UTC)
Thank you for your comment.
Please tell me how you characterize a user who accuses me of using my Wikipedia page to "schmoze" my business dealings? I did not create the section on Formula One. I never entered into even looking at how to manage the Wiki process of editing until people used outright words that could only be considered such affronts to my person.
TheRedPenOfDoom has taken a stance that shows some sort of personal enmity. As I do not know who that is by name, I cannot know what his motivation is. But certainly he does not have the right to level such accusations when there is no basis in fact.
Thank you for your comments. I will take them under advisement.
Sincerely, Mansoor Ijaz ( talk) 03:55, 16 March 2014 (UTC)
The 1000 Quatrains info in the Nostradamus section is wrong. He did not intend to write 1000. The source cited has a published book on how the 7th and 6th centuries were not 100 quatrains to come up with 741. 99 in the 6th is 1 minus then he put 42 in the 7th so 742 - 1 = 741 or 147 the date of the French Revolution. In fact 6:99 named the person who then went on to reveal how 742 was really 741 in the book cited.
So saying Nostradamus decided to author 1000 quatrains is wrong. The numbers in the 6th and 7th centuries published before he even died was a clear pointer to the French Revolution as claimed in the published book I cited.
Please reconsider the erasing of that important information.
Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Drprinceton ( talk • contribs) 20:03, 19 March 2014 (UTC)
Any thoughts re: the discussion at Talk:Nick Stone (author)? - Sitush ( talk) 15:38, 21 March 2014 (UTC)
Greetings good Sir. Please would you cast your experienced eye over this section of the Mick Jagger BLP, specifically the fifth paragraph's reported allegations re. MJ (which he has not confirmed, as far as I can deduce). They look speculative and contentious to me. Shouldn't the entire paragraph be removed? Writegeist ( talk) 06:42, 25 March 2014 (UTC)
I have no intention of responding to threats of violence here - the issue has been raised at WP:ANI |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
I am taking this here, not wanting to clutter ANI. The deleted sentence did not say anything about whether the argument was getting traction elsewhere in the world. It said that the argument is not confined to the United States. I am always open to rephrasing, but I do not think that merely blanking this info is appropriate. The last version that Lightbreather deleted said: "The latter motivation is mostly but not entirely confined to the United States." If you can improve on this, go for it, but stop supporting violation of Wikipedia policy. On a more personal note, I continue to deeply resent your insults last year at the gun control talk page. That is the primary reason why I left that article. But even more than your filthy insults, I resent your insinuations that I am seeking to use Wikipedia for propaganda purposes. I assure you that if duelling were still legal, I would be seriously considering it. In your grotesquely exaggerated self-righteousness, you cannot see anyone's position but your own. Anythingyouwant ( talk) 16:36, 29 March 2014 (UTC)
|
Enough - I'm not interested. |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
The link
|
I agree that Sergey Brin should not be introduced as Russian-American (although I would probably accept Russian-born American), but WP:MOS is pretty big. What section and rule are you invoking here? I suggest that you narrow down references to WP:MOS in future edit comments. — Anomalocaris ( talk) 18:55, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
I've semi-protected this page for 24 hrs. Hope you don't mind. SmartSE ( talk) 22:09, 5 April 2014 (UTC)
Savile appears in the documentary, Fawlty Towers: Re-Opened, from archive footage of a chat show, touching a child and leering into the camera, John Cleese is also a guest. Xb2u7Zjzc32 ( talk) 01:14, 6 April 2014 (UTC)
Would you weigh in on the move discussion as you did on Jimbo's page? It is becoming straight-up ridiculous. Thanks. - WPGA2345 - ☛ 17:31, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
Hello Mr Grump.
I have just reworked this article in the hopes of saving it. I think the ridiculous response of the government and the extent of the coverage surrounding this nonsense make it a good candidate for notability and inclusion. Would you please look at it again? If people at least say something it will get closed. Nobody wants to touch it right now.
Thank you! Panyd The muffin is not subtle 20:43, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
http://www.homeopathyawarenessweek.org/
Not appropriate really but good :-) My friend Laura is involved in this. Guy ( Help!) 22:28, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
Just wondering if you're still looking into nominating the Tiger versus Lion page for deletion for being non-encyclopedic? I am staying away from it I assure you. But since you said you were looking into it, I'm curious. EasyTherePilgrim ( talk) 02:43, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
Hi Andy. As you volunteer at the help desk, I wanted to bring your attention to a grant proposal under review. A small team of us want to implement a system of mentorship that focuses on the specific skills new editors want to learn and incorporates the 1-on-1 relationships from the adopt-a-user programs. Please read over our proposal here. At this stage, your feedback would be much appreciated, particularly as you work with new editors on a regular basis, and we want to make our proposal fit the community's needs. You can leave comments on the grant talk page, and if you like the proposal, please feel free to add your endorsement at the bottom of the page.
In addition, we are gathering information and attitudes from experienced editors on the current ways new editors can get help. If you are interested, please consider taking our brief survey here. Thanks very much, I, JethroBT drop me a line 05:42, 20 April 2014 (UTC)
Hiya, Just wanted to say thanks for making me see sense yesterday at ANI! It's just I've never had it blatantly copied but yeah in hindsight it was probably a stupid fuss over nothing, |
The Purple Star | ||
Awarded to you for wounds received during AfD "discussions". May your injuries not prevent you from being involved in further debates. ☾Loriendrew☽ ☏(talk) 23:42, 22 April 2014 (UTC) |
Hello. You are named as a party to the Gun control arbitration case. The committee is now voting on its decision for this case, and findings and/or remedies relating to your conduct have been proposed. The decision is being voted on at the Proposed decision page. Comments on the decision can be made at the Proposed decision talk page. As voting is underway, please submit promptly any comments you wish the arbitrators to consider. Thank you. For the Arbitration Committee, AGK [•] 11:30, 23 April 2014 (UTC)
Hi,
I suggest that the articles on Max Gerson and Gerson therapy be separated (at the moment, they seem fused... a lot like an article on Kepler being fused with one on his laws of planetary motion!)
Also, the current tone of the article seems rather one sided. I think it should be neutral. The Gerson therapy 9and most alternative medicine) is ridiculed in USA, even if it is followed in other countries.
Hence rather than " The therapy is both ineffective and dangerous", I feel it should be "The studies foudn teh therapy to be ineffective and dangerous"
(PS - I read the studies and do not see any statistics of the number of people whose health worsened after Gerson therapy. The study has been worded rather loosely)
The article on Gerson Therapy is (and will always ) remain controversial, hence I feel wiki should give a balanced account of both view points. I read the fringe theories wiki guideline - but this one seems more akin the fringe theory prevalent in the 1500s that the earth is round and not the center of the solar system.
Do let me know what you feel.
Notthebestusername (
talk) 11:13, 24 April 2014 (UTC)
Hi Andy,
nice to meet you in Wikipedia. Moreover, thanks to review my first article in Wikipedia.
I want to write "Measures Affecting the Production and Sale of Clove Cigarettes" as a case, not a item like "kretek". Can I?
Anyway, thanks for your advise.
BP02Aveline ( talk) 14:48, 25 April 2014 (UTC)
There is an RfC in which your participation would be greatly appreciated:
Thank you. -- Lightbreather ( talk) 14:48, 25 April 2014 (UTC)
There is an RfC on the Gun politics in the U.S. talk page which may be of interest to editors who participated in "RfC: Remove Nazi gun control argument?" on the Gun control talk page.
Thank you. -- Lightbreather ( talk) 22:24, 25 April 2014 (UTC)
Hello AndyTheGrump! I would like to know why you undid the information of the city of birth of Henry Kissinger. They appear in the Spanish, German, Italian, French and Hebrew versions (amongst others) of wikipedia and I don't see the political, religious or historical reason to ban that information. Thank you for your answer. Ibn Gabirol — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ibn Gabirol ( talk • contribs) 19:19, 27 April 2014 (UTC)
I respect your opinion, as it is, AN opinion. I would have liked that you had asked me, or discussed it before, otherwise I consider it censure. And of course this is just MY opinion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ibn Gabirol ( talk • contribs) 14:27, 28 April 2014 (UTC)
The above named arbitration case has closed, and final decisions are now available at the link above. The following remedies were passed:
The topic-ban remedies passed in this case may not be appealed for at least twelve months, and another twelve months must pass for each subsequent appeal.
For the Arbitration Committee,
-
Penwhale |
dance in the air and
follow his steps 20:18, 30 April 2014 (UTC)
You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Jews_and_Communism_(2nd_nomination). Thanks. MarkBernstein ( talk) 21:57, 9 May 2014 (UTC)
It appears that we can agree on a few things. We have the same conclusions on the recent BLP discussion, and on the infobox succession issue. I hope that we can put the past behind us and continue to work with collegiality in the future. Gaijin42 ( talk) 21:08, 14 May 2014 (UTC)
An arbitration amendment request(Gun control :Gaijin42), which either involved you, or in which you commented, has been archived, because the request was declined.
The original discussion can be found here. For the arbitration committee -- S Philbrick (Talk) 23:36, 14 May 2014 (UTC)
A discussion you recently participated in has resumed here:
Your participation would be welcome. Lightbreather ( talk) 01:17, 17 May 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for highlighting the unsourced edit from Uralla to Urana by Njb1969. In the reference I supplied (and two more in the talk page), it clearly states Uralla was the town that the Kelly gang went to, to try and find the traitor Sullivan. (It was not original research as you asserted) Uralla was only about a week's travel by horseback from the border, and given that during that time the Kelly Gang operated extensively in outback NSW, it cannot be considered an impossibility. Also since two other references also give the same town name, it is unlikely that it can be just brushed off as a typo. To just change it to Urana, just because it sounds the same, despite no evidence given that it was Urana, is clearly unsupported, and as such I have reverted the change by Njb1969. Unless he or you can provide a separate reference which contradicts the current references, then Uralla stands. David.moreno72 ( talk) 08:49, 19 May 2014 (UTC)
After re-reading your comment, I see that yes, I did misunderstand what you said. Oops, my bad. So yes, you are right. The change that Njb1969 made was original research, unsupported, contradicted the original citation, and should have not been made. (Strangely he made the change first and then went to the talk page, instead of the other way round) Anyway,I have now reverted the change as it was not supported with a reference. Thanks again for your diligance and patience. Also, yes later Ned does mention that after the hold up of Jerilderie that he wanted to hold up of the Urana coach, but I suspect that this was a rouge, so that the police would be diverted in the wrong direction as he made his escape. David.moreno72 ( talk) 10:34, 19 May 2014 (UTC)
It is definitely a competence issue. If the original poster had had a clue and a real case, he or she (and the meatpuppet or sockpuppet or tagteamer) would have known to go to Arbitration Enforcement rather than to the noticeboard, where there are boomerangs. Oh well. Robert McClenon ( talk) 16:49, 19 May 2014 (UTC)
This talk page needs archiving. Robert McClenon ( talk) 16:49, 19 May 2014 (UTC)
Every single thing I added or changed isn't unsourced. 64.134.102.119 ( talk) 03:25, 27 May 2014 (UTC)
64.134.102.119 ( talk) 03:33, 27 May 2014 (UTC)
There is recent activity at this page. - - MrBill3 ( talk) 05:57, 4 October 2014 (UTC)
Andy: This is just a CC: for you since you are obviously already aware of this. I posted it on Tendergreens's and 172.56.16.194's talk pages as well.
I moved Talk:Lloyd Bancaire to Draft:Lloyd Bancaire (2) because articles do not belong on Talk: pages and the article page has been blocked from being created without approval by an administrator due to repeated re-creation of the page by banned editors. I will look at merging the content and merging the histories of the existing Draft:Lloyd Bancaire and Draft:Lloyd Bancaire (2) shortly. See also: [48] on my talk page and this at WP:ANI. davidwr/( talk)/( contribs) 03:43, 29 May 2014 (UTC)
Hi Andy. Re: Strip search phone call scam, and this discussion - [50] Any views? Thanks. Martinevans123 ( talk) 21:53, 30 May 2014 (UTC) Hello, I'm Wholegood. I noticed that you made a comment that didn't seem very civil, so it has been removed. Wikipedia needs people like you and me to collaborate, 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. Thank you. — Preceding undated comment added 04:10, 1 June 2014 (UTC)
Book Source is here noted (a rather well-known book) Paramahansa Yogananda, in his "Autobiography of a Yogi" (published by Self-Realization Fellowship), reports that he met Therese Neumann and that from 1923 until her death in 1962, she consumed no food other than The Holy Eucharist, and claimed to have drunk no water from 1926 until her death. It is noted that on July 1927 a medical doctor and four Franciscan nurses kept a watch on her 24 hours a day for a two-week period. They confirmed that she had consumed nothing except for one consecrated sacred Host a day, and had suffered no ill effects, loss of weight, or dehydration. Yogananda also reports meeting Giri Bala when she was 68. At that time she had not eaten nor taken fluids for over 56 years and existed purely on Light.
B) below on Inedia page, under Hinduism is noted Therese Neumann -- yet, she was not Hindu but a Catholic (Christian) Mystic. Perhaps this could be moved to the Christian Section. There is an article on Wikipedia on her and this can be included also: Paramahansa Yogananda, in his "Autobiography of a Yogi" (published by Self-Realization Fellowship), reports that he met Therese Neumann and that from 1923 until her death in 1962, she consumed no food other than The Holy Eucharist, and claimed to have drunk no water from 1926 until her death. It is noted that on July 1927 a medical doctor and four Franciscan nurses kept a watch on her 24 hours a day for a two-week period. They confirmed that she had consumed nothing except for one consecrated sacred Host a day, and had suffered no ill effects, loss of weight, or dehydration.
Autobiography of a Yogi is an autobiography of Paramahansa Yogananda (January 5, 1893–March 7, 1952) first published in 1946. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.144.152.106 ( talk) 19:18, 1 June 2014 (UTC)
K The Venus Project sells merchandise. Therefore, under "purpose," "merchandising," should be included; don't you think? Xan81 ( talk) 23:03, 1 June 2014 (UTC)
Hello,
I saw your comment in the Human skin colour page. Thanks for the reference about Gerland. I had one opinion I wanted to bring up to you. Whilst all of these skin colour maps contain huge flaws (especially the one by Von Luschan, huge errors for certain regions of the world), I'd suggest we use the one by Gerland, while still maintaining the reference for Von Luschan's map on the page. I already brought this up some time ago on WP:ANI due to an IP who was trying to get into a RV war, and in the end the mods agreed we could change if more people agreed about it.
Regards - LouisAragon ( talk) 16:33, 3 June 2014 (UTC)
There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is User:Useitorloseit_and_Ta-Nehisi_Coates_-_request_for_topic_ban. Thank you. Gamaliel ( talk) 22:09, 3 June 2014 (UTC)
I know you follow some questionable DYKs so I wondered what you thought about this one that was just posted?
What kind of new editors is this supposed to attract? The most bizarre aspect is that there have been attempts since March to get this necrophilia article featured on the Main Page. They worked and rewrote and tweaked the hook to get this one ready. Liz Read! Talk! 23:57, 4 June 2014 (UTC)
The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar | |
For leading the charge to remove the offensive and patently stupid DYK hook on today's main page and truly understanding WP:NOTCENSORED's statement that "words and images that can be considered offensive should not be included unless they are treated in an encyclopedic manner". EvergreenFir ( talk) 03:41, 5 June 2014 (UTC) |
This IP filed a report at Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard#Talk:Plasma_cosmology. After seeing this, I also added Plasma Cosmology and Hubble's law to my watchlist to revert any further edits to those articles by him. Since I'm not a dispute resolution volunteer, I refrained from asking him "Did you try citing mainstream scientific sources?" Ian.thomson ( talk) 21:06, 6 June 2014 (UTC)
I've opened up an SPI about the Daniell family articles, as there's reasonable belief that this is the work of one person creating socks. I've made it at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Sdfghjkgh, if you want to add anything to it. Tokyogirl79 (。◕‿◕。) 07:08, 8 June 2014 (UTC)
Regarding your reversion of my edit, the talk page discussion you cited deals with a specific theory about Nazi gun control impact on modern gun control debates. The text I added to the article made no such claim. All it did was add another historical example of gun control under the history section. -- PiMaster3 talk 14:30, 8 June 2014 (UTC)
I've reported him on ANI. Ian.thomson ( talk) 15:08, 13 June 2014 (UTC)
Thank you for your reply, it's much appreciated. Could you please clarify which parts of BLP are in conflict with citing published court material relating to the case? 2.121.253.7 ( talk) 20:08, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
Sir, Corruption in Haryana is not about a single person, when there is corruption it will be discussed about various persons and doesn't violate Wikipedia policy and sources are referred authenticity. Rajsector3 ( talk) 02:26, 18 June 2014 (UTC)
Summary: Agreed i tagged it with a PROD. Lets see if it needs a AFD at all. Lor Chat 02:37, 18 June 2014 (UTC)
The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar | |
For your tireless work preventing violations of the BLP policy. Even when I've disagreed with your take on things (which I don't think has happened very often), I've always been impressed with the zeal with which you protect us from committing libel or worse. Figured it's about time I actually said thank you... Yunshui 雲 水 10:48, 18 June 2014 (UTC) |
The Undead Parrot Barnstar | |
An award for your tireless grumpiness. Are you aware of your namesake, Grump the undead parrot? darwinbish BITE ☠ 15:18, 23 June 2014 (UTC). |
LOL!
I'm not that grumpy... AndyTheGrump ( talk) 15:29, 23 June 2014 (UTC)
Dear While my work as one of the US agents remains classified, (while I had lots of problems and I had a hard time during writing the articles) so I will confront with some kind of security complaints and threatening problems if my account remain here so I ask you to delete my account and all of what is remained here inside of the encyclopedia please. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Peyman_Ghasemi Peyman Ghasemi ( talk) 15:20, 23 June 2014 (UTC)
have a free version of my book for your self and make a page if you liked. https://archive.org/download/MeAndMyFriendPresidentObama/Me-and-my-friend-president-obama.pdf don't loose the track of oppinions of the authors in amazon: https://kdp.amazon.com/community/thread.jspa?messageID=742705򵔱
Regards. End. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.54.34.242 ( talk) 15:27, 23 June 2014 (UTC)
Hi there. I was somewhat shocked to see your recent changes to the Julian Assange page.
The Julian Assange and its side-kick Assange v Swedish Prosecution Authority has a lot of issues right now, chiefly:
I had rebalanced some statements, added some of what I believe to be pertinent content (chiefly comments by some of the only parties whose opinion is relevant on the matter, ie. experts in the legal system in question, leading international experts in intra-EU and international legal settlements), and basically attempted to resolve the matter in part, while involving the community by posting multiple points of concern to both talk pages.
It appears that you have suddenly removed the merger proposal and reverted changes without discussion.
I am not sure what you feel gives you the right to do this, but in my interpretation this is not really in the spirit of Wikipedia. You are more than welcome to raise specific points of concern with newly added content and join in the just started discussions around issues identified with the two pages, but breaking the merger process and arbitrarily unilaterally reverting changes without any attempt to either enter discussions or notify the people involved strikes me as highly disingenuous and unacceptable.
I would like you give you a chance to reconsider your actions, return the page to the previous status of your own accord, and engage in the conversation.
In all honesty, contrary to your commented suggestion, I have not been 'cherry picking sources' but rather only found semi-holistic and recent sources which support one interpretation of the legal case. This includes legal experts from the EU and Sweden and people of public standing. If you are able to come up with any alternative sources, I am all for including them in a balanced way. Basically, there's a massive NPOV problem with the current treatment: it's basically slander.
To pre-empt a time-wasting discussion here: I don't want to get in to a personal talk page dissection of the matter, and would prefer to focus community energies on improving the page, so please reconsider your actions and cancel your recent changes ASAP. If I don't see any action within 24 hours I will be reverting them myself and filing appropriate notice of such so that we can continue enhancing the page in a manner that keeps the community involved. prat ( talk) 04:52, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
The Barnstar of Good Humor | |
You are the official winner of the internet for this comment in the
Talk:Homeopathy page:
JoelWhy?( talk) 14:06, 24 June 2014 (UTC) |
− − You may be blocked from editing if you disrupt Wikipedia. Your edits at The Zeitgeist Movement, including your comments in edit summaries, your comments on discussion pages, are clearly willfull disruption to make a point. Earl King Jr. ( talk) 15:22, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
Hi there. Just dropping a courtesy note that I've listed Donghua Liu for AFD here: [51] because it looks like a magnet for BLP problems. Hopefully I'm not treading on anyone's toes. Cheers. Daveosaurus ( talk) 05:39, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
Please sign with four tildes, not five. [52] Five makes it anonymous, and it's a real pain to have to dig the name out of the ANI history. I see it done a lot (not specifically by you); it's presumably a typo, but a really time-wasting one. Please consider previewing. Bishonen | talk 12:58, 25 June 2014 (UTC).
Thank you for fixing the image on the baseball player's page. 71.52.101.107 ( talk) 07:55, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
I was unnecessarily rude to you and have apologised on the relevant page. Amandajm ( talk) 11:11, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
And I removed that "English" comment of yours at ANI. I mean, seriously, that's a low blow, and I hope you won't reinstate it or say something similarly offensive. Drmies ( talk) 00:51, 28 June 2014 (UTC)
Please join in the conversation. (You will notice that I have not reversed your edit immediately, although I confess that was my first impulse.) -- Orange Mike | Talk 17:59, 28 June 2014 (UTC)
Okay, I've seen this practice often enough on fringe articles that I've drafted a short essay on it. See Wikipedia:Citation shotgunning (shortcut: WP:CITESHOT). Feel free to add or edit. TenOfAllTrades( talk) 20:37, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
Thanks. Non-free anyway so shouldn't have been there, it can only be used in Muslim Massacre: The Game of Modern Religious Genocide. Dougweller ( talk) 19:28, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
Hi there! I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. Recently, you reverted my fix to Juggalo gangs.
If you did this because the references should be removed from the article, you have misunderstood the situation. Most likely, the article originally contained both <ref name="foo">...</ref>
and one or more <ref name="foo"/>
referring to it. Someone then removed the <ref name="foo">...</ref>
but left the <ref name="foo"/>
, which results in a big red error in the article. I replaced one of the remaining <ref name="foo"/>
with a copy of the <ref name="foo">...</ref>
; I did not re-insert the reference to where it was deleted, I just replaced one of the remaining instances. What you need to do to fix it is to make sure you remove all instances of the named reference so as to not leave any big red error.
If you reverted because I made an actual mistake, please be sure to also correct any reference errors in the page so I won't come back and make the same mistake again. Also, please post an error report at
User talk:AnomieBOT so my operator can fix me! If the error is so urgent that I need to be stopped, also post a message at
User:AnomieBOT/shutoff/OrphanReferenceFixer. Thanks!
AnomieBOT
⚡ 23:15, 8 July 2014 (UTC) If you do not wish to receive this message in the future, add {{
bots|optout=AnomieBOT-OrphanReferenceFixer}}
to your talk page.
The Civility Barnstar | |
Thank you for your support of me during a recent situation regarding another editor. I really appreciate it, Daniellagreen (talk) (cont) 23:54, 11 July 2014 (UTC) |
Hello Andy. Why you revert my changes in articles Ukrainian nationalism, Euromaidan, CIS-EMO and Right Sector? — Preceding unsigned comment added by S0u1x14 ( talk • contribs) 23:27, 14 July 2014
Hello. You have a new message at Kudpung's talk page. 01:44, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
Philippe Beaudette, Wikimedia Foundation ( talk) 19:48, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
I feel like the anthem is misrepresented as an anthem for the far right in South Africa, and wanted to demonstrate it doesn't only represent them. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dutch Ninja ( talk • contribs) 18:29, 26 July 2014 (UTC)
He's wasting too much of other editors' time. Any suggestions once the AfD is closed? Dougweller ( talk) 15:43, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
You chose to collapse my talk page contributions [53]. The proposed content is intended to improve the article. There is nothing wrong with it for as far as I can tell.
84.106.11.117 ( talk) 01:50, 3 August 2014 (UTC)
Mr. Grump, can you please make a redirect for this term, to lead to Hedgehog slice? It's really delicious. Thank you, 66.168.160.62 ( talk) 03:21, 3 August 2014 (UTC)
Look, both of you need to find something more important to edit war over. Quit it.
And Andy, bear in mind that if you change the text in the header for a thread, you break all the links to that thread from users' contribution list and from the page history. (Not to mention potentially upsetting other parties, whether you think they deserve it or not.) If you must rename a discussion thread, please always use the {{ anchor}} template so that links to the section's original name will still work. TenOfAllTrades( talk) 17:05, 3 August 2014 (UTC)
I have no intention of appearing in the debate but you might look at Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Stand-alone_lists#Citing_sources which states Stand-alone lists are subject to Wikipedia's content policies and guidelines for articles, including verifiability and citing sources. This means statements should be sourced where they appear, they must provide inline citations if they contain any of the four kinds of material absolutely required to have citations. HTH Deltahedron ( talk) 19:58, 3 August 2014 (UTC)
Hello, AndyTheGrump. You have new messages at Center for HIV Law and Policy's talk page. |
Hey, could you take a look and tell me what you think at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Politics#Local_Election_Results_.28Particularly_in_Wales.29 ?? Gaijin42 ( talk) 16:31, 6 August 2014 (UTC)
Andy, I cordially invite you to add some sources to the individual entries of List of pornographic actors who appeared in mainstream films, instead of just posting tags on the article about your opinions on the article. Now, just yesterday you nominated the article for deletion, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of pornographic actors who appeared in mainstream films, which closed as speedy keep. If you don't want to help and would rather work on something else, that's fine of course, but you're being rather annoying in your current posture. Cheers.-- Milowent • has spoken 20:54, 6 August 2014 (UTC)
UK/England has Counties and Districts. Are either of those equivalent to say US States, or Canadian Provinces? Is there any designation along those lines? Are the individuals in the house of lords and commons representing a particular geographic area? Or are they just based on the national elections? Some of it is apples to Oranges just due to the size of the countries involved as all of England is smaller than the medium US states, but it would be helpful to know. This is a continuation of that earlier election discussion I pinged you about. I was thinking about proposing some guidelines for notability of elections, with a statement about if state/province elections (governor etc) are generally inherently notable, but don't know what some of the other analogues in that bucket would be. Gaijin42 ( talk) 12:59, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
You are indirectly named in a recent edit at Blacklight by an IP in Cranbury. LeadSongDog come howl! 15:00, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
dont sweat it. the complaint looks like something the intern did as a summer project. 64.134.160.26 ( talk) 12:35, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
What can we do about the Edward Snowden image? The current one seems a little oudated... no? Naftprod ( talk) 00:37, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
The Original Barnstar | |
So I was showing one of my classes a WP article today, going through the history of Gilgamesh to point out how one might spot vandalism and such, and of course I had to run into an article where you made a number of good reverts (including this one). In other words, thanks! Drmies ( talk) 18:06, 21 August 2014 (UTC) |
Hiya, is it okay if I run by potential points of contention with you in the future before raising them publicly? It seems like you have a clear understanding of whats suitable or not and if something may be problematic. I'd love to have a second opinion before bringing it to the talk page or to the noticeboards. Prasangika37 ( talk) 21:51, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
The Ulysses S. Grump award | |
To paraphrase Wayne's World: "if you were a President, you'd be Ulysses S. Grump." Shirt58 ( talk) 11:14, 28 August 2014 (UTC) |
This discussion is closed. Any further violations of Wikipedia policy will be reported |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
Andy ... Thanks for your response. Each and every line of the section that I had added was sourced. I will wait for a court judgement and add necessary section (if one is warranted). I must point out that your response "I shall see to it that you are blocked from editing" did n't sound very professional or polite. Take care! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.125.121.9 ( talk) 02:14, 30 August 2014 (UTC)
I am familiar with wikipedia policies ... but first and foremost lets calm down!!! This much excitement is not good. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.125.121.9 ( talk) 02:30, 30 August 2014 (UTC)
Actually, it will be a good idea for you to also refresh your understanding of Wikipedia policies. Adding well sourced comments is not a violation of Wikipedia policies. Buts first and foremost calm down, take a deep breath! It may not be a bad idea to attend a Radhasoami Satsang ;-). 24.125.121.9 ( talk) 02:45, 30 August 2014 (UTC) |
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 31.49.243.63 ( talk) 01:23, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
Your inference that my edit of several minutes ago was based only on my opinion was unfair, a page on the Univeristy of California website does carry authority. As demonstrated in the "Racism" section there is no consensus that Islamophobia is racism. That many people who are "Islamophobes" may also be accused of racism doesn't make them the same thing.
Islam is not an ethnoreligious group: the implication that the fear of Islam equates to the hatred of all races with significant Muslim populations is no better, logically speaking, than arguing that Christianophobia, if there is such a thing, is synonymous with the hatred of caucasian people. You may like to consider that the Runnymede report made no reference to race.
The generally accepted definition, as demonstrated by the most equitable sources provided in the article, and also helpfully by the prefix "Islam", is that Islamophobia is a dislike or hatred of Muslims, and not necessarily by extension of Arabs or Malays or Bosniaks. I feel that for the purposes of satisfying arguments otherwise the section titled "Racism" suffices. Hayek79 ( talk) 13:27, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
Have always had a lot of respect for you wearing the word "Grump" on your sleeve, and you seem a solid voice of reason whenever you pop up on a talk page, but I was surprised to see you using an "um" at the start of a sentence earlier. I used to deal out a lot of ums myself, until reading that some online forums banned the word as a sentence opener because it's always a redundant "wow, I can't even think down to your level" eye-roll, and undermines the otherwise flat authority of whatever simple statement follows it. I caught myself doing it for a while, checked to see if it ever actually added anything, and it never did - I wince a bit when I see people using it now. Do with that thought what you will, and grump on. -- McGeddon ( talk) 15:58, 4 September 2014 (UTC)
An IP subtly vandalized Qnet by changing the list of countries that sued Qnet into part of the list of countries where Qnet operates, to try to hide evidence of the legal troubles. When I reverted, did I leave any redundancy behind anywhere? I don't see any now. Jackmcbarn ( talk) 18:42, 6 September 2014 (UTC)
See [55]. Dougweller ( talk) 06:31, 7 September 2014 (UTC)
Hi Andy. Some advice? Do you think this kind of comment is appropriate at an (almost) completely unrelated article Talk Page? Thanks. Martinevans123 ( talk) 22:18, 11 September 2014 (UTC)
You wrote: "it is possible I suppose that this is a troll, rather than Jim-Siduri". You mean a troll who is not Jim Siduri. Jim Siduri has also become a troll. He was originally a well-meaning and deeply ignorant editor who had some weird idea to make the world a better place via Wikipedia and either by starting a new religion or reviving a four-thousand-year-old religion. He is now a troll. Robert McClenon ( talk) 03:22, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
we're a bit worried about him — Preceding unsigned comment added by 166.137.8.50 ( talk) 19:26, 13 September 2014 (UTC)
- - MrBill3 ( talk) 06:34, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
Prove that it is wrong.( talk) — Preceding undated comment added 18:37, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
Hi Andy,
Would you mind taking a look at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Personal_attacks_and_incivility_by_User:Mike_Searson and advising me on how to proceed? Best, GabrielF ( talk) 12:32, 26 September 2014 (UTC)
Please consider archiving the talk page. Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 09:37, 29 September 2014 (UTC)