User talk:AndyTheGrump/Archives/2011/June

Hiya

See To_call_a_spade_a_spade. Also I replied on my talk page. —James ^{(Talk • Contribs)} • 6:05pm • 08:05, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Unacceptable

No matter what your disputes are, this is an unacceptable way to deal with it. Please refrain from this in future. PeterSymonds (talk) 17:37, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

I have to agree with Peter, Andy. Why dont you file that RFC/U now rather than engaging with content disputes with BusStop The Resident Anthropologist (talk)•(contribs) 18:01, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Yes, it isn't acceptable. But neither is Bus stop's endless circular arguments, and his refusal to answer simple questions. I totally agree that RFC/U is the way to go, but as I've already stated, I don't think I'm the best person to do this - I'm too involved to make a clear argument. I've got things to deal with now (real world), so I'll have a think about this and maybe return to it later, but if anyone is willing to start the RFC/U in the mean time, I'd be more than happy to leave them to it. AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:08, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

If you actually understood why your behavior was unacceptable, you wouldn't try to justify it. Regardless of what Bus Stop is doing, you need to own your frustration, and deal with it appropriately. No one is obligated to answer your questions or accept your arguments. 24.177.120.138 (talk) 07:04, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

You don't really need a RFCU - he has been at arbitration previously and is basically continuing again - he needs topic banning from Jewish issues indefinitely - he goes on and on creating reams of rubbish discussion about his obsession. Off2riorob (talk) 18:25, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Actually, yes, he has been topic banned several times already over exactly this sort of behaviour, by the look of it. [1] AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:16, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

WQA

Hello, AndyTheGrump. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Wikiquette alerts regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Note that you don't have to reply there if you don't want to, as the issue has already been discussed here. Gerardw (talk) 10:05, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

Category clarity

Andy,

I've been thinking about how to reduce conflict and clarify the categorization of members of certain tribes. You see, that's the essence of the issue, the "membership inclusion criteria" as defined by said tribes is more tribal than either religious or ethnic. Least of all ethnic, as the term in question is misused when attempting to label ethnicity. People may be of Ashkenazi, Mizrahi, or Sephardi descent: if this level of detail is available from sources it is likely that the fact is of relevance. Like many other categories, this would seem to be a case where the parent category should be empty. Simply applying this as a rule should be sufficient to limit misapplication of ethnic categorization.

As for the "religion" tree, the problem there is that it's not. It's more tribal affiliation. We should simply treat it that way. I'd say treat it "like" religion in that self-identification is required, but we should not have to delve into whether the identification is religious or ethnic. This may require moving the category tree (or simply adding it to Category:Tribes in addition to the categories it is in) and/or posting an explanation that gets included on every sub-tree how the self-identification is being treated, tribal rather than religious (since removing it from religious categories is unlikely to succeed). Certainly it should be completely separate from any "descent" categories.

What do you think? Yworo (talk) 22:55, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

Er, no. We can't redefine the word 'tribe' to suit our purposes. This would be OR/synthesis. I don't think this would actually help anyway. At its root, the problem with 'Jewish' categories (I assume this is the 'tribe' in question) is one that has plagued anthropologists almost from the days when ther first donned their pith helmets and khaki shorts - so much so that they created a phrase (or possibly stole it from linguistics) to describe it: "emic - etic confusion". When describing such things as how 'tribes' identify themselves, one has two different sets of terminology, that may not necessarily 'translate' well: the 'emic' terms which the tribes themselves use, and the 'etic' terms from academic analysis. Both sets of terminology are valid in their own context, but getting them confused is a sure-fire way to tie yourselves in knots - and I think this is exactly what you risk here. You are right that 'Jewish' isn't really an ethnicity (in most contexts) - it is at best an 'ethnic group', which is a looser term. That many Jews consider themselves to be 'a tribe with a religion' (or something of the sort) is no reason to depart from standard academic terminology (not that there would be any agreement that an 'ethnic group' is any more real than the context in which it is applied). By academic terminology, 'Jewishness' is (approximately) an ethnicity, and 'Judaism' is a religion. Wikipedia should describe them accordingly - at least until reliable sources of appropriate weight suggest otherwise. AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:20, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

Hey, I get that. Thanks! Yworo (talk) 23:23, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

"Old enough to know better"

Regarding your userbox - no, you are not old enough to know better. You are old enough to be obsinate, nothing more. If you really think that you can patronize me, you're wrong. --Thonos (talk) 04:40, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

And regarding your userbox - since you self-identify as a neo-Nazi, why should I be worried about what some pig-ignorant (and illiterate) turd thinks? AndyTheGrump (talk) 11:47, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

Your statement is clear violation of WP:PA. You have no right to blank my userpage because it in fact complies to WP:UP#NOT. It appears that you are not "old enough to know better" at all, comrade. :) --Thonos (talk) 16:12, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

I think it is best not to insult people regardless of whether or not they have a very misguided philosophy. I don't get the userbox though. It shows a swastika, but is talking about racism. Surely "KKK" would be better given their association with racism. Even though Nazis were racists in the extreme, most associate that symbol with anti-Semitism. Unless he is also one of those, in which case he should have a separate userbox for it with the swastika. He is also off my Christmas and Hanukkah card list if that is the case, I'm afraid. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie | Say Shalom! 16:26, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

Ancient Aliens, Doctor Who and Fiction

You said "Fiction is not allowed" when I tried to work in the sixth season of Doctor Who. Well, if fiction is not allowed, then what is H.P. Lovecraft doing on the list? :/

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ancient_astronauts/

--WatchingPreacher (talk) 14:02, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

If we included every work of fiction loosely related to the 'Ancient Aliens' theory in the article, it would be ridiculously long. You also gave no source at all to verify that the Doctor Who episodes were about 'Ancient Aliens'. If the article had an 'Ancient Aliens in popular culture' section, and a proper source could be found, it might be relevant - though I think that a 'popular culture' section would be a waste of time, as the idea is so common. AndyTheGrump (talk) 14:07, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

Ah, okay. I see your point. WatchingPreacher (talk) 14:20, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

Theory? =p You mean a very poor hypothesis. It could never be a theory. =p Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie | Say Shalom! 14:43, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

It isn't a scientific theory, but I use the term loosely (it saves valuable thinking time...) ;-) AndyTheGrump (talk) 14:48, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

Yep, I'm just being a pedant. =p I think it doesn't really qualify as a hypothesis either. I think the words "mad", "ravings" and "lunatic" can be combined to form the proper descriptor. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie | Say Shalom! 16:19, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

User:Bus stop

I think it's about time an RFC/U was started with the goal of at least topic-banning Bus stop from doing any editing related to Jewish ethnicity and religion. I think you've probably been dealing with this issue longer than I have. If you were to start the process, I'd be happy to certify the problem. Yworo (talk) 15:47, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

I agree that something needs to be done, but frankly I'm in no mood to attempt it right now: he's pushed me right to the edge of civility - and quite a way beyond on occasion, I'll freely admit. and I know how frustrating it will be trying to get the point accross without him (am I right in thinking Bus stop is a 'he'?) going through his usual 'reliable sources' routine, and generally arguing in circles. It might be better for someone less involved to start the process anyway. It shouldn't be too difficult to demonstrate the problem, though I'd draw attention to his actions at Talk:Dominique Strauss-Kahn where he seems to have taken exactly the opposite approach to his usual one, asking "Do we have a source supporting that Dominique Strauss-Kahn's ethnicity is Jewish? If not then why are we making that assertion in the Infobox?" - I hardly need to point out the inconsistency here, nor hazard a guess as to why this should be so. He also has some very irritating habits regarding talk page usage - he endlessly revises his posts after first posting them, making replying practically impossible sometimes due to edit conflicts, and I've complained to him more than once about his editing posts after they have been replied to. Frankly, I think there may be a competance issue involved, as he seems totally unaware of how his behaviour obstructs proper talk-page discussions, and he seems to actively look for any opportunity to argue his position, even in totally inapropriate contexts. AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:07, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

He uses that "subject has never said he was of Jewish ethnicity" to imply that the subject professes Judaism as a religion. It's a ploy to broaden ethnicity=Jewish to religion=Jewish. Yworo (talk) 16:11, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

That is his usual ploy, but I got the impression he was Wikilawyering to avoid having 'ethnicity' in the infobox here, without accepting a general principle. Whatever, there is plenty of other evidence of his problematic behaviour. AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:54, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

To add to that. Here [2] is a diff to where he's arguing that DSK's 'identity' can be Jewish without it being an 'ethnicity'. Hardly consistant with his usual all-inclusive categorisation. I think he was trying to keep DSK's 'Jewishness' out of the article. AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:06, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

Hmm, I've never noticed him trying to keep Jewish identity (either ethnic or religious) out of an article. This seems telling evidence that his intent is actually to disrupt and will take whatever side of the argument from which he can maximize his disruption (p.s. I've no idea whether Bus stop is a he or a she). Yworo (talk) 18:05, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

I don't think he is intent on disruption as such. Rather, he is engaging in ethno-boosting, and DSK might be an embarrasment here. Frankly though, it is difficult to tell what he was trying to do - but it doesn't really matter, he was definitely arguing that DSK shouldn't be labelled as 'ethnically Jewish', whereas in allmost every other case, he argues that people should be, even when the evidence is much less clear-cut. I don't think Bus stop needs to be questioned over his motives though - it his actions that are the problem. AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:22, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

My main run-in with him was helping in the Judaism article in 2009 ... I offer my deepest sympathy here. Collect (talk) 22:05, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

Hmmm, you know I never thought there was actually a difference between ethnicity and heritage. (then I looked up ethnicity after seeing one of the comments here). O_O So what's the big deal about this BusStop guy? Short history please. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie | Say Shalom! 22:47, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

Sample diff: [3]. One of many, many posts. [4]. Cheers. Collect (talk) 23:34, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

Yes, 'ethnicity' is one of the subjects that anthropologists have to study for many years before they can definitively state that they can't actually define it, but can usually recognise it when they come across it - except of course when among the 'X' people of 'Y', whose concept of the matter is entirely different...

Regarding Bus stop, he seems to have been sowing confusion over the issue long before I had the misfortune to get involved, so I'm not really in a position to say. Personally, I'm going to apply the obvious stereotype, and blame his mother. ;) AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:09, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

If those commenting here are still willing to take action against BusStop, please drop me a message and I'll start a complaint myself. I've had enough of his shit. The fact that he's done it not only inconsistently among many related topics and at least twice in the case of Talk:Ed Miliband is beginning to grate. Links are helpful by the way, it'll help me catalogue his edits when constructing a case against him. If there's any alternate action anyone recommends, feel free to discuss with me. --Topperfalkon (talk) 17:13, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Reliably sourcing statements

A start. SilkTork *^{Tea time} 13:31, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

What prompted that?

I saw the PA in Talk:Death of Osama bin Laden (even though they should be in Ramallah =p), but what is the reason for that pic and the edit comments? xD Also how can one be both a Communist and a Capitalist at the same time? O_O That's like having a Black Klansman. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie | Say Shalom! 04:56, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

Most likely a Wikistalker from Talk:Race and crime, though I recall that a Google search for my name found a reference to me on one of the more disreputable right-wing forums, suggesting (wrongly) that I was a sockpuppet of some old enemy or other. As for being a 'communist' and a 'capitalist' at the same time, it isn't really logical except to some elements of the far right - in it's early days the Nazi party in particular had a thing about how 'finance capital' and 'Bolshevism' were all part of the same conspiracy (run by you-know-who). You'll still find similar nonsense lurking under rocks if you look for it in some far-right sources. As for the pic, after I was called a 'communist partisan', I posted a link to some of Tito's men, ridding Yugoslavia of the Axis occupiers - not something your average neo-Nazi troll wants to be reminded of.

Incidentally, I see that I'm apparently 'Jewish' as well according to the anon troll. Isn't circular logic wonderful? AndyTheGrump (talk) 14:37, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

I don't see it in a search I'm afraid. =p If I ever get around to trolling Stormfront, maybe I will. =p Some of the more nationalist Croats don't like it much either.

Yourself and Avanu apparently. =p (but not the actual Jew =( ) Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie | Say Shalom! 20:21, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

Idea

Create a mini-project to bring the articles of Neda, Mohamed Bouazizi, Khaled Said, and Hamza Ali Al-Khateeb up to GA/FA status. Possibly expand to include others whose deaths became symbols of war and peace (i.e. Pat Tillman). Would you like to work on something like this? Ocaasi ^{t | c} 23:47, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

• Wikipedia:WikiProject_Council/Proposals/HistoryBioLife. Might need a new name, but check it out... Ocaasi ^{t | c} 04:05, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, but no. To focus on individuals is to downplay the broader issues, and reinforces a concept of 'sacrifice' that actually has little bearing on contemporary political realities. 'War and peace' aren't appropriate topics for abstract symbolism, while the reality involves the deaths of many who remain anonymous, and don't get front-page coverage in the Western media.

I'm sorry to be so harsh, but I've seen the negative effects of such symbolism (here for example), where it actually reinforces a perspective that presents political struggle as a moral battle between 'good' and 'evil', and discourages any objectivity regarding finding a road to peace. It is better to concentrate on the plight of the living... AndyTheGrump (talk) 05:04, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Interesting perspective, and not altogether ungrumpy. To be frank, most people never learn about these events in the absence of a representative individual. Our culture of celebrity has the redeeming quality that if there is one person to take on a cause, people actually notice and talk about it. You know, 1 death is a tragedy, 1 thousand a statistic. We have the potential to turn these events into the real tragedies and possibilities they are and represent rather than a distant and confusing interplay of geopolitical and internecine politics. So it's a cheat? It's a decent, noble cheat. Even if 1 deserves no more attention than another, what harm do we do in giving the one their due? Ocaasi ^{t | c} 05:20, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

I've thought about this further after reading the above, however, I'm still not convinced. Firstly, per WP:NOT#SOAPOX or whatever, we shouldn't really be engaging in 'decent, noble cheating' (or if we do, we shouldn't admit to it ;-) ), but secondly, and more important, it needs to remembered that the indecent and ignoble can also use such tactics: see the cult that developed around the death of Horst Wessel. I'm not sure that 'our culture of celebrity' is particularly prone to such things in any case - people are still going on about this bloke 2000 years or so after he was done in for embarrassing the politicos. Yes, such individuals deserve high-quality articles, but this shouldn't be seen as an alternative to describing the broader issues. AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:02, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for chewing on it. A few thoughts: For one, we can wipe the slate of any conflicts and simply say, these articles have ample sources in RS, therefore we have articles on them, therefore we should make them as good as we can. Soapbox is a concern, but not with the caliber of editors involved. They are all equipped to write neutrally about emotional subjects. You can be a counterweight, if you want. Jesus was a great reference point, but that kind of WP:SOAPBOX/WP:CRYSTAL concern is equally outside of our consideration. We shouldn't make martyrs or avoid them, just recognize the notability of the subjects and go from there. This project is a yes not a rather. Having good articles on these individuals is not to distract from the underlying core articles. It might well bring a group of editors to work on them. You of course, don't have to be a part of that, and your bias-siren is fairly sounding, but I think we can edge around the issues and just get several great articles out of it. These articles write themselves, they're so compelling and well sourced. I just want to bring some editor muscle to bear on it. You're strong, right? Ocaasi ^{t | c} 01:11, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Maybe the best contribution I can offer is to keep a sceptical eye on such articles as they develop, in the hope that a little 'grumpiness' might discourage any hype creeping in - I can't really make any long-term promises regarding personal involvement in any case (real-world issues etc), but if you let me know what you are working on, I'll try to take a look.

Regarding the particular individuals you named in your first post, I think that Mohamed Bouazizi needs particular care - as the existing article notes, there have been a number of 'copycat' incidents, and any article about him needs to reflect the complexities of the case (including the possibility that he didn't actually intend to set himself alight, as has been reported in some sources), rather than making it look like a noble 'martyrdom' for a cause that there is no real evidence he supported. AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:35, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Just why we need you. Counterpoints and a critical eye are an asset. I'll keep you posted on any development, and/or once we pick our first article. Bouazazi seems a likely starting point. Cheers, Ocaasi ^{t | c} 01:58, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Request for Comment

So I started a wee discussion here about Venezuela's main opposition candidate> As I said from the source, he doesn't self-identify as a Jew and therefore is not in any of our ethnic groups, but his heritage has caused him to get a good deal of grief there and so it should be covered more. Mostly in that context I am thinking. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie | Say Shalom! 20:54, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Re: Talk: Ed Miliband

You turned up at just the right moment there, thanks. Feel free to drop me a message any time you need/wamt support maintaining the status quo on that article, I do check up occasionally. --Topperfalkon (talk) 01:30, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Yes, is is a recurring debate there, though the general ethno-tagging issue in general seems to have got a lot more attention lately. I think that at some point this is all going to come to a head, and it could turn nasty (I've already bean accused of being an antisemite after objecting - perhaps not in the most civil terms admittedly - to the stereotyping of Jews!). There are a lot of people committed to wildly-differing viewpoints, and a little clarity over the terms we are using, rather than involvement over the minutiae of a particular case, often gets the point accross better. A good number of people attempting to classify people by ethnicity seem to have little understanding of what it means. AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:45, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

I am definitely starting to arrive to the viewpoint that such broad categorisations should be removed wholly from Wikipedia. They seem to be additions merely for the sake of BLP trivia than actual encyclopaedic content. I haven't the time to muddy my feet in any other arguments on Wikipedia (I'm not even sure how I got involved in this one), but I definitely see this coming to a head. But like I said, my support is on offer should there be a time it is needed or wanted. --Topperfalkon (talk) 12:01, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Oops, sorry for that wipe. I hate bloody edit conflicts :P --Topperfalkon (talk) 22:41, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

WP:CIVIL is going to go completely out the window soon at this rate. --Topperfalkon (talk) 00:54, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Defenestration? A little over the top I think... Only kidding - I know what you mean. Jayjg seems to be getting more like Bus stop by the minute. You'll note that he (Is Jayjg a 'he'?) insists he has policy on his side, but doesn't actually reinsert 'ethnicity: Jewish' into the infobox. I think this is telling... AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:01, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

It's "telling" that I prefer to discuss rather than edit-war, despite having policy on my side? Hmm... Jayjg ^(talk) 05:03, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

If you were to discuss why you want to include "ethnicity: Jewish" in the infobox, you might actually be able to argue that policy supports you (though I'd still debate this). However, until you do, you are not complying with a basic Wikipedia procedure: The WP:BRD cycle. You 'boldly' added the ethnicity parameter, I reverted, and explained why (the parameter seems to be an almost-entirely unused, and undocumented addition, and thus marking Miliband out as 'different' in this way is unmerited). You still have not discussed why you consider your edit justified - this requires an explanation as to why this is necessary, not a mere assertion that it is 'allowed'. Unless and until you can explain your 'bold' edit, it will remain 'reverted'. Wikipedia editing is supposed to be a cooperative effort. You are refusing to cooperate - in fact, you are refusing to communicate in any meaningful way. Yes, tempers have become somewhat frayed, and I may have been less than civil at times, but at least I am attempting to explain my actions. Can you please now do the same? AndyTheGrump (talk) 13:42, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

I didn't add it, I restored it, and I've explained my reasoning quite clearly, many times. What you mean to say is "I don't accept your arguments, because I think mine are better than yours" - which is, of course, quite a different thing. And, frankly, most of your arguments had nothing to do with policy (e.g. we should base our actions on what the "British media" finds important), but you did have one actually pertinent argument: that is, that no other articles at all appear to use the ethnicity parameter for that Template. Unfortunately, you weren't able to clearly articulate that, so it took a lot of guessing until I finally worked out what you meant to say but hadn't. Once I confirmed that through some searches, that specific argument carried more weight. Jayjg ^(talk) 03:06, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps I hadn't made myself clear - heated debates can sometimes make clarity difficult to achieve. However, I hardly think I'm alone in this. I'd repeatedly asked why you considered the "ethnicity: Jewish" label as merited, and got no real answer, beyond assertions that you considered it important - or that you considered that Miliband considered it important. This is where WP:WEIGHT comes in. It isn't down to us to assess how significant Miliband's ethnicity is to him (or indeed, what he considers his ethnicity to be - he seems to have self-identified as a 'Polish Jew', rather than as 'Jewish' - should that go in the infobox?). Instead, we have to look at how much this is discussed in articles about him. And as I have pointed out, it gets commented on, but only in passing - the very point that the Guardian article you linked to made. I happen to think that this relative lack of concern over 'roots' is one of the few positive things in contemporary British politics (and let's face it we need a few positives), and that to look at Miliband from the perspective of an 'ethnic' politics is to do the subject an injustice. He isn't a 'Jewish politician', he is a politician who happens to be Jewish. AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:35, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

Getting rid of categories

I'm happy to, but haven't had much success in the past. If you submit that category to CFD, or any of the ethnicity categories people have tried to add or have added to the Miliband article, I'll support you. Jayjg ^(talk) 04:37, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

I must admit I'm a little confused by this. My objection to 'ethnicity' categories is the same as to 'ethnicity' lists (and to 'ethnicity' parameters in infoboxes for that matter): they are essentialising, often misleading, and frequently dubiously sourced items that are anything but encyclopaedic. They encourage the random addition of data by POV-pushers intent on turning Wikipedia into a database cum paean to the glorious achievements of whatever ethnic group the 'contributor' is a member of - or alternately, a marker for the 'usual suspects' in an age-old global 'conspiracy', added by a particularly repulsive form of internet troll.

So why do you wish to see ethnicity categories deleted? AndyTheGrump (talk) 13:56, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

My reasons for wanting them deleted are quite similar to your own. Jayjg ^(talk) 00:51, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

Ok. So why are you so keen on categorising Ed Miliband as ethnically Jewish in the article infobox? The article explains his background in a lot more detail than any simple "ethnicity:Jewish" statement ever could, without the problems of undue weight that are inherent in all infobox parameters not directly relevant to a subject's notability. To be honest, I think the whole 'infobox' idea reeks of laziness, even without the stereotyping it encourages. If someone is notable enough to deserve an article in Wikipedia, we ought at least do them the honour of writing a line or two of prose, rather than just 'filling in the blanks'. AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:38, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

If you really felt this way, you should have done what I did, and deleted it from the infobox Template itself, rather than arguing we shouldn't use it on a specific article. Jayjg ^(talk) 03:09, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

If I was a bit more clue-up on the intricacies of templates, I'd like to have investigated how it came to be there in the first place, and just how often (and why) it was used. However, deleting it from the infobox while it was being argued over might have looked rather pointy. What really matters is article content, not the tools we use to construct it. AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:14, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

Re DSK sexual assault case talk page

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Wran (talk) 02:47, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Help! Am I blocked or not?

Can some kind person please contact User:Larry V and ask him to actually unblock me, rather than merely stating that he has in my block log...

(And yes, I'll admit to a marginal case of edit-warring, as a reaction to drivel on the Reactionless drive talk page. Bad Grump...) AndyTheGrump (talk) 13:31, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

Curiouser and curiouser. The block log says I'm not blocked, but I am. Somebody has broken Wikipedia... One for the techno-geeks I think... AndyTheGrump (talk) 13:44, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict)You are unblocked, at least AFAICT - your block log is the record of you being unblocked, not just saying you will be. You would also show up here if you were blocked. Maybe try logging out and back in or purge your cache. If that still doesn't fix it, try {{adminhelp}} or post again and someone can post at WP:VPT for you. (I also tried to unblock you again, but it didn't work). SmartSE (talk) 13:48, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

{{admin help}}

It seems that my IP is autoblocked: [5]. AndyTheGrump (talk) 14:01, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

Ah! Some kind person has now unblocked the IP, I see. Thanks, anon. AndyTheGrump (talk) 14:10, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict) IIrc correctly, he said he waffled on it because the material you removed was "blatantly OR", which is not covered by the 3RR restriction. Check your page history. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie | Say Shalom! 14:12, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

• Ooops, I undid your autoblock and then got distracted by something shiny and forgot to actually tell you. You should be good to go. --Floquenbeam (talk) 14:19, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

Thanks Floquenbeam.

@ Flinders Petrie: yeah, I'm not denying that was drifting around in the general region of a WP:3RR violation (he says, trying to sound contrite without actually admitting to anything...) This'll teach me to behave myself in future (or perhaps not - old dogs, new tricks etc). Anyway, I can edit again now. If I misbehave again, I recommend a clip round the ear with a rolled-up newspaper. AndyTheGrump (talk) 14:24, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

Oh, well in that case...

Smash!

You've been squished by a whale!
Don't take this too seriously. Someone just wants to let you know you did something really silly.

(highly recommend deletion if it slows down things here) Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie | Say Shalom! 14:37, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

Hooooooly crap, that's what I get for going through WP:ANI at 2 a.m. My humble apologies, AndyTheGrump. @Floquenbeam: OUCH. Consider me zinged. :'( Larry V (talk | email) 17:24, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

No problem Larry V. It was my fault for 'overenthusiastic' reverting in the first place. AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:57, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

DSK Admin discussion re: ownership, tag-teaming

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. See here. FatTrebla (talk) 10:03, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

Resolving discussions

Hiya, I concluded discussions in general but particularly re the arsenic poisoning needed some help so have posted it here Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard#Homeopathy_-_to_mention_a_summary_or_the_conclusion. I hope you see this in the positive light in which it was it was done. I'm instructed to notify you hence me posting here - it being the most efficient as far as iI understand. Cjwilky (talk) 01:06, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

Adminship

Ever thought about it? --John (talk) 01:27, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

I don't think at the moment I have enough experience - and anyway, I'm probably a bit too opinionated (& Grumpy) to make a good admin. There are personal issues too, which may lead to me having less time for Wikipedia, so I can't really make any long-term commitments. Thanks for the vote of confidence though. AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:37, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

You're welcome. Please let me know if you ever change your mind. --John (talk) 02:17, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

Please let me know as well, best wishes! --Nuujinn (talk) 02:30, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

Support -- in the future at least. :p Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie | Say Shalom! 11:35, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

Again, thanks. I'll bear it in mind if I'm still contributing in a year or so - though I should probably do a little more actual article writing first - how come all the best subjects already have an article? ;-) AndyTheGrump (talk) 12:14, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

Anonymiss Madchen has given you a cookie! Cookies promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. You can Spread the "WikiLove" by giving someone else a cookie, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend.

To spread the goodness of cookies, you can add {{subst:Cookie}} to someone's talk page with a friendly message, or eat this cookie on the giver's talk page with {{subst:munch}}!

June 2011

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 24 hours for edit warring, as you did at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Temple Emanuel (St. Louis, Missouri). Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the text {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first.

During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. SarekOfVulcan (talk) 04:56, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Block rationale includes the personal attack in this edit summary.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 04:59, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

I see no reason to retract a "personal attack" based on a statement of fact. user Bus stop edited a talk page comment after I had responded to it, in breach of [[WP:REDACT guidelines, and in spite of me pointing this out in edit summaries, repeatedly reinserted it. This is entirely consistent with his usual line in the "nitpicking, POV-pushing bullshit" that I commented on in my last edit summary. That I had earlier raised his behaviour at AN/I, only to be told (after Bus stop's fellow POV-pushers had weighed in to distort the issue) that there was nothing wrong with his behaviour (misrepresenting source content in that particular instance), suggests to me that maybe I'm wasting my time trying to prevent Wikipedia becoming a playground for special-interest groups, an ethnobureaucratic database, and a general repository of trivia found on Google. AndyTheGrump (talk) 11:14, 29 June 2011 (UTC)