Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 14:37, 3 October 2012

Caution

I've blocked Iamthemuffinman for 24 hours for the personal attacks and leaving a note here to ask you to turn it down a bit. You can accomplish goals easier if there aren't insults being hurled around. Please leave the insults off even when others attack you, okay? I think you will find that you are more effective that way. Cheers,
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 13:23, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

A whole 24 hours! Wow. Talk about cruel and unusual punishments... ;) AndyTheGrump (talk) 13:25, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

Blocked

And I've now blocked you for two weeks. Your recent actions were utterly over the line - your block would be shorter were this not a consistent habit rather than a one-off. Ironholds (talk) 13:26, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

Can I ask for the block to be extended? Clearly I'd be better off not visiting this lunatic asylum where the 'punishment' handed out is in inverse proportion to the gravity of the 'crimes'. A longer block would at least make clear that mine was a minor offence. AndyTheGrump (talk) 13:30, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

I don't consider requests for self-blocks. And for reference, you're both acting inappropriately - the difference is that this is his first such time doing so, while you have a long and sterling history of flying off the handle. If I see him engage in such behaviour again, his next block isn't going to be the sort you come back from. Ironholds (talk) 13:32, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

"this is his first such time doing so". Yeah right. I think you mean 'his first such time with his current account'. A 'new' user, really: AndyTheGrump (talk) 13:42, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

Then I'll call in a checkuser :). Ironholds (talk) 13:43, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

this is outrages. the other user ("iamthemuffinman") who made sexist and homophobic remarks was blocked for a mere 24 hours , . i request to unblock andy, or at least reduce the block to 12 hours.-- altetendekrabbe  13:34, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

So we give people get-out-of-jail cards as long as the other participant was being a dick first? I think not. Now, personally, I'd love to extend Iamthemuffinman's block - but as someone who declined his unblock request it's probably inappropriate at this stage. Ironholds (talk) 13:38, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

From what I gather, Andy started it with this userpage vandalism. Unless there is something else that I am missing here, I have to support this block. --MuZemike 13:39, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

Try gathering further... AndyTheGrump (talk) 13:42, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

That userpage vandalism was preceded by a duplicated personal attack by "iamthemuffinman" several hours earlier. benzband (talk) 13:50, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

And while we are at it, how about someone pointing out on iamthemuffinman's talk page that he is lying through his teeth: "I was started on and became the victim of a calculated and viscious series of attacks by a user with a grudge against me" - nope. See here: . And how could I have 'a grudge' against someone who's (allegedly) only had an account since July the 22nd? AndyTheGrump (talk) 13:51, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

Hm, that use of the misspelled "viscious" to describe "attacks", and also the "grudge" allegation, are redolent of a user you ran across at a noticeboard fairly recently. I can't remember who, exactly; but you might. (Not that there's necessarily any connection.) I remember you hazarded a guess that "viscious" might be a neologism, lol. Writegeist (talk) 18:28, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

'Viscious' at AN/I was User:R-41 I've had run-ins with him before, but I doubt that it is him - more likely one of User:AnkhMorpork's gang of Islamophopic meatpuppets, I think. There are a fair number of them, along with a smattering of IPs. To be honest though, I've no idea who muffin-brains is, but it seems self evident that someone who gets into an edit war over Talk:Main Page within 7 hours or so of creating an account knows their way around well, and knows how to game the system. Still, if you want to find out for sure, you could ask muffin-head himself: he said that I have a grudge against him - so presumably he can tell us where I made this apparent, and what account he was editing under at the time. AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:58, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

I've done a sort of timeline on my talk page. If you have a look at this talk page's history Iamthemuffinman left a post about 5 hours before AndytheGrump posted the first on User talk:Iamthemuffinman. Callanecc (talk • contribs) talkback (etc) template appreciated. 13:58, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

So, because AndyTG has now been blocked, his suggestion of suspected sockpuppetry/ meatpuppetry just gets disregarded? From what I have seen, it's very likely to be a case of "Iamthemuffinsock". Martinevans123 (talk) 14:19, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

Not in the slightest. I've spoken to a CheckUser, but as I understand it things have been accelerated somewhat further up the food chain. Ironholds (talk) 14:45, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

Andy, do you have an idea who this might be?
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 14:26, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

Ironholds, I started this two weeks ago when I stumbled across it. I'm tempted to just fix it myself if they won't, as my patience isn't infinite and I'm tired of babysitting this. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 15:02, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

One thing I've learned over time is that arguing with a sock doesn't usually do much good. They rarely own up to it, and often just try to push the limits and get somebody else blocked. So the solution is: Don't get mad; get even. Take the suspected sock to your most trusted admin and ask, "What about this?" You don't have to swat the mosquitoes and run the risk of malaria. Let the admins do that. That's what they're paid for, so to speak. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 14:40, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

Even though Andy was kind of dismissive of me for pointing it out, I think a huge part of the problem we're seeing with this little war of Andy's is his lack of Civility. Iamthemuffinman doesn't have that many edits as a registered account and so its pretty easy to see a pattern develop. Iamthemuffinman makes some 'normal' edits, endorses a block against an editor at AN/I and not too long after that, Andy decides to start calling the guy a sockpuppet, other people join in, and this newly registered editor attempts to use Wikiquette to resolve the problem, but has a hard time getting any traction there because people are still failing to assume good faith and being incivil.

Iamthemuffinman states he has been editing as an IP for a very long time (link here), and our rules say that is fine. As I said at Wikiquette, the proper way to debate and to handle a sock is not to use it as an ad hominem attack in a debate, but as BaseballBugs says above, take the concern to a trusted admin and work on resolving it. One of our basic pillars is Civility, and editors routinely ignore that in favor of just throwing mud and dirt. I would hope that the accusations about socks can be handled professionally in the future, and that Andy would understand that a lot of very good content makes its way into Misplaced Pages without a need for him or anyone else to belittle their fellow editors. At this point it might be necessary for an interaction ban to be implemented between Andy and Iamthemuffinman in order to prevent more problems down the road, but simply acting in a professional manner would probably do just as well. -- Avanu (talk) 15:15, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

can people please note that (amongst other things) it was Incivility-Finder General Avanu's endless repetitious whining about 'civility' all over the place that led me to post the comment at the top of this page. Avanu, just to make things perfectly clear, I don't want to see your comments on my talk page - your clueless hounding achieves nothing beyond inflaming the situation further. You aren't being 'civil' you are being obnoxious. Go do it somewhere else. AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:03, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

Iamthemuffinman appears to have edited as User:2.99.69.69 before registering his account. However the IP account has a limited history, only editing on Talk:Main Page and his own talk page that day. It might be useful to run a checkuser on that IP. It seems that Iamthemuffinman may be familiar with altetendekrabbe and possibly Andy. Does either editor recognize him? TFD (talk) 18:07, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

As said, a CU has investigated and thrown it up the food chain. Ironholds (talk) 19:33, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

Since it has been 'handled', there's no need for continued focus on Iamthemuffinman by the two editors below. Don't you think it is a good time to finally drop the stick here and actually focus on something other than this one editor? It is sort of a self-fulfilling prophecy that this guy is getting all your attention, and simply moving on wouldn't hurt. -- Avanu (talk) 03:27, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

Avanu, can you please explain why you continue to post on my talk page after my explicit request that you cease doing so? - or preferably, don't explain, just stop posting on my talk page. Frankly, this is looking more like hounding by the minute. Haven't you got someone else to piss off with your relentless bullshit? This isn't about you. You aren't an admin. You aren't involved. I have already pointed out that your self-important 'civility trolling' is one of the things I've found most objectionable in the last few days - your pompous waffle about 'civility' may seem important to you, but when it repeatedly derails ANI discussions etc regarding serious issues concerning article content, as it did here , it becomes a net liability to the project. Yes, we know 'civility' is a Pillar - but that doesn't give you a license to engage in endless spamming of discussions just because you don't like the tone of the debate. Either report people for breaches of policy, or troll elsewhere... AndyTheGrump (talk) 04:30, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

"iamthemuffinman" came out of nowhere and tried to get me banned on the an/i where i had reported ankhmorpork... if i remember correctly, he had a total of 20 edits or so at that time. there exists a pack of editors who are whitewashing extremists' views and personalities here on wikipedia. in addition, they are trying very hard to smear islam as well. their favorite weapons include misrepresentation of sources, the use of fringe sources, and edit warring. please have a look at this page. the page promotes bigotry via gross misrepresentation of sources.-- altetendekrabbe  22:10, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

One other point. In his first appeal against his block, Iamthemuffinman writes that "I was started on and became the victim of a calculated and viscious series of attacks by a user with a grudge against me". Can I ask that Iamthemuffinman provides the evidence for these "calculated and attacks", and explains how I could possibly have 'a grudge' against a new account. Or failing this, can I ask that his block be extended further for making unfounded accusations. AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:27, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

I did read it

I apologize moist sincerely for making a mistake. I saw your paged had been blanked and I did not think that was right. I restored it. Then I went to the page history I saw my mistake and fixed it. Speaking as someone who has defended you in the past and who approves of the fact that you defend numerous articles from nonsense and time wasters I would suggest that you not lash out at every single editor you come across. I have no problem with you being Grumpy but being vindictive is a different thing. That is a path on which you will wind up with no one to defend you. I'll take your page off my watchlist so that I won;t make an error here again. I will miss some of the banter that goes on here but I certainly don't want to offend yu. Again my apologies.MarnetteD | Talk 15:14, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

Yeah - sorry for flying off the handle at you - if I'd been in a calmer state I'd have realised why you'd done it. Maybe what Misplaced Pages needs is a built-in delay after 'save page' is clicked to enable everyone to think about what they are doing, and change their minds... AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:25, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

Personal attack and hounding by User:Avanu

Avanu, who evidently sees himself as some sort of self-appointed Misplaced Pages civility-monitor-in-chief, has now posted a personal attack on me on his talk page, in response to a request that he cease edit-warring on this page (reinsertion of a post of his I deleted after asking him not to post here). In this, he repeats the assertion that I have been 'hounding' Iamthemuffinman: "While it is *possible* that Iamthemuffinman is a sockpuppet, heck anything is *posible*, he is completely correct at this point in asserting that Andy is hounding him, and continues to focus on him even during his block". The simple facts of the matter are self-evident. I have not been 'hounding' anyone. Iamthemuffinman chose to hound me by repeatedly posting abuse here, without provocation. How the hell can I 'hound' someone without interacting with them? Yes, I responded inappropriately to a personal attack, but that doesn't constitute 'hounding'. And yes, I've continued to discuss Iamthemuffinman's behaviour here, and whether he is a possible sock/meatpuppet or not - but so have multiple other contributors. Have they also been 'hounding' him? Is the contributor who initiated the checkuser procedure regarding Iamthemuffinman 'hounding' him? It is worth noting that in the ANI thread where I first came across Iamthemuffinman, there were multiple contributors suggesting that he wasn't the 'new' user he appeared to be - including at least one (Darkness Shines) on the other 'side' of the debate . Has Avanu accused others of 'hounding' Iamthemuffinman? Not as far as I'm aware. In fact Avanu's recent contribution history seems to suggest that he has been tracking my edits, and is going out of his way to stir things up. He recently unilaterally collapsed a section I was posting in on Jimbo Wales' talk page - twice . Of course he is entitled as anyone else to raise issues of incivility - but when he restricts this to my incivility alone, while ignoring entirely the fact that the supposed victim of my 'hounding' chose to call me a "tosser" and "a pathetic litle cunt" , and to vandalise my user page with a bizarre homophobic rant , it seems entirely reasonable to suppose that Avanu isn't interested in combating 'civility' per se, but is instead engaged on some sort of bizarre crusade - or alternatively, simply hounding me. Yes, I've been uncivil, and yes, I know it is inappropriate, and no, I'm not going to try to justify my behaviour by going into personal details, or by offering excuses. I believe that editors should be judged on their net contribution to the project, and on nothing else. Some people (quite possibly including me) simply aren't cut out to contribute here for long - the petty bureaucracy, endless POV-pushing and the rest eventually drives many people to react inappropriately, and lash out in frustration. In my case, one of the reasons I felt this way was made entirely clear at the top of this page - It is bad enough having to deal with the nonsense, without being tracked by self-appointed 'guardians of morals' who happily accuse others of 'hounding' people by um, er, well, not actually doing anything until the person involved posts abuse about them, but seem incapable of recognising that their own behaviour constitutes hounding. Anyway, I clearly shouldn't have responded to the foul-mouthed halfwit responsible for this latest ludicrous dramafest, and should have walked away earlier, with what little dignity I had intact. So now I'm off, so so long, thanks for the fish, and congratulations Avenu for your success in adding to the strife that drove me away. I hope you are happy, now that I'm going and won't bother you any more - though no doubt you'll find another victim for your infantile crusade. (Personal attack removed)AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:03, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

Even though I don't necessarily agree with Avanu's interpretation; don't add personal attacks. Whatever point you are trying to make just gets clouded by it. IRWolfie- (talk) 19:41, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

Do you really think at this point I give a fuck? AndyTheGrump (talk)

Postscript.

For the record (should anyone be interested in such things), I think it should be noted that Iamthemuffinman has now been globally "locked due to cross-Wiki vandalism" . Surprised, anyone? I'm certainly not... AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:17, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

About an <- pre-redacted: begins with 'A' ->-2012-08-06T17:08:00.000Z">

see on another talk page that Avanu is trying engage in a bit of 'analysis' about the whole thing with me, the Muffin Man, AnkMorpork, altetendekrabbe, all the other contributors at the ANI thread , and at Wikiquette assistance, and with attempts to tag an entire ethnic community as paedophiles . Curiously though, Avanu's 'analysis' seems to omit one of the key participants: Avanu himself. Since he is engaging in Martix-style speculation about alternative universes, perhaps he should instead engage in a little self-analysis, and ask whether had he not disrupted the ANI thread with his pompous self-important 'lectures' about civility, and had he not then gone out of his way to hound me over my lack of civility (which I'm not denying, needless to say), while not only ignoring that of others, but actually encouraging muffin-between-the-ears to engage in further troublemaking, and, incidentally, grossly misrepresenting what went on (unless Avanu believes that I have a time machine, or have hacked Misplaced Pages's past records to alter the apparent sequence of events, his assertion that I was 'hounding' muffin can only be seen, at minimum, as a terminological inexactitude), things might have gone differently? Or has he now transmogrified from a mere Incivility-Finder General to His Holy Infallible Omniscience himself? Is He above reproach? Is He beyond the analytic powers of mere mortals? Or is He just another self-obsessed <- pre-redacted: begins 'P' ->, all too keen to criticise others, but incapable of seeing His own faults? Should I prove to be so deranged as to wish to engage in making further contributions to this 'project' it will no doubt be advisable to ask for an interaction ban between His Imperial Omniscience and myself, but I'm inclined to think that it might also be advisable for the project to deny His Pompous Infallibilitude access to any topic involving 'civility', and from making any comments on the 'civility' of others, unless and until He accepts that for the purposes of this encyclopaedia he will be seen as a mere fallible mortal, regardless of the Truth of His pronouncements. What think you? Can we risk taking on the Gods? Will the Roof fall in if we do so, as we take on the very Defender of the Pillar that holds it up? Or will we instead find ourselves actually better equipped to produce an encyclopaedia, free from the distractions of this <- pre-redacted convoluted sentence, epithets begin with most letters of the alphabet ->? I'd say that it might be worth a try... AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:08, 6 August 2012 (UTC)"> ">

Some semi-retired support! Try this - ALOTBSOL, well, it was that or "No one expects the Spanish Incivility Inquisition!". Keep on Grumping ;-) CaptainScreebo 19:30, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

I'm blocked, so I can't fix this myself...

 Done by Baseball Bugs - Youreallycan 03:19, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

Nothing to do with my block - I'm probably better off staying out of this funny-farm, but I noticed a rather blatant BLP violation on a talk page (allegations reported as fact, and an ethnic slur), Needs deleting at minimum: AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:59, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, Bugs and YRC. AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:21, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

Enjoy your break Andy and come back a happier Grump - regards - lovely weather here - enjoy - Youreallycan 03:25, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

Too hot... ;) I expect I'll be back though - can't seem to escape. Meanwhile, I'm thinking about writing an essay: You don't have to be mad to edit Misplaced Pages, but it helps (and it annoys Tarc too, which is a bonus) - see here for why Tarc deserves a special mention. His suggestion (I assume Tarc is a 'he'), if implemented, would require a special block template: "You have been blocked from editing Misplaced Pages on the grounds of suspected mental illness. To appeal against this ban please provide references from a qualified medical practitioner stating that you are no more nuts than the rest of us...". :D AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:39, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

Oh, Andy, nothing you have done here annoys me in the slightest. Kinda wordy for an essay title though; brevity is the soul of wit and the essence of lingerie, as Dorothy Parker put it. Maybe WP:UMADBRO? would work, or WP:ANIMALHOUSE. Tarc (talk) 19:49, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

Meanwhile, back at the deranged cultist's page...

Oooer, a personal attack - send for His Imperial Majesty The Great Civility Enforcer ;) Per this ridiculous edit , as soon as my block is lifted I'll be proposing that User:IjonTichyIjonTichy be topic-banned from any articles relating to TZM etc, on the grounds of complete and utter cluelessness. Adding a link to Wright brothers, Nicola Tesla, Imagine (song) etc to the 'See also' section? This can only be seen as evidence that Ijon is either utterly incapable of understanding how Misplaced Pages works, and what is for, even after all this time, or (more likely) he knows full well, and is simply engaging in a relentless campaign of trolling to piss so many people off that he'll have the article all to himself. Not that a topic ban will achieve anything much, given the number of 'new' editors that turn up, all promoting the infantile cult, and all incapable of communicating in English. On this basis, I'm also inclined, per WP:IAR to propose deletion of the article on the grounds that while TZM may be marginally notable by Misplaced Pages standards, they are also exceptionally annoying, and if they can't keep their POV-trolls under control, we can do without the article anyway - at least until they take over the world, and their robotic database-enforcers tell us to do otherwise.

Here endeth the grump of the day... AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:17, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

Imagine there's no Zeitgeist movement, it's easy if you try. I'm a bit surprised that this isn't at ArbCom. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 23:21, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

Bah, I see that Avanu has reverted the nonsense 'see also' links, and just as I was thinking about engaging in a little creative editing vandalism/sockpuppetry by logging out and adding Enghelab Metro Station, Count Dracula, Raipur International Cricket Stadium, List of Brachyscome species, Cristoforo Foppa, History of Aston Villa F.C. (1874–1961), Noctis Labyrinthus and Albéric Collin to the list. Some people have no sense of fun. ;)

Seriously though, Avanu, if you saw this here, thanks - though I doubt that it will do much to solve the long-term problem. We've tried civility, we've tried rudeness (or at least, I have), we've tried blocks, we've tried page protection - whatever we do, the same old problems occur. Ultimately I can see it ending in one of two ways only (unless and until TZM's dictatorship of the database comes about ;) ) - either it gets deleted per WP:TOOBLOODYANNOYINGTOBEWORTHTHEBOTHER, or it gets put into permanent full page protection. Not that the latter would shut the cultists up, judging by their previous behaviour.

BTW, for the benefit of anyone unfamiliar with TZMs bizarre use of language, I see that the justification given on the talk page for describing TZM as 'non-violent' (which they probably are, though it isn't really something one should source from the organisation itself) is a quote from their 'Mission Statement' which reads "The range of The Movement's Activism & Awareness Campaigns extend from short to long term, with the model based explicitly on Non-Violent methods of communication" . I'd hate to think what a 'violent method of communication' would involve. Any guesses?... AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:45, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

And to answer my own question (I might as well, since nobody else has), we have an article on non-non-violent communication: Propaganda of the deed - though this is of course an anarchist concept (or at least, it was - they seem on the whole to be a little less deranged these days), and TZM's philosophy is about as closely related to anarchism as I am to a brachyscome. AndyTheGrump (talk) 06:03, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

I've just blatently disregarded my block:

See ] - the IP is me, no SPI needed. I don't particularly care at this point if this results in me getting blocked for another fortnight, or indeed until the sun goes pop and vaporises this deranged-primate-infested planet. User:IjonTichyIjonTichy needs to be banned from editing Misplaced Pages, reading Misplaced Pages, and even having the ability to recall that Misplaced Pages ever existed. Along with the rest of his moronic cult of infantile loons... AndyTheGrump (talk) 07:38, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

Andy, you do more good for this project than you do bad. But you're cutting off your nose to spite your face, and only harming your cause. This might be one of the things you want to sit down and think out before you do it. But you already knew that. Magog the Ogre (talk•edits) 07:53, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

I'm 99% sure you're trying to get yourself blocked. The edits you reverted were entirely vanilla, and the edit summary was over the line. I can only think that you're trying to prove a point (WP:POINT of course) and go down in a flash of martyr's glory for a while. Or maybe you see that Misplaced Pages is bringing out the worst in you? I can't read your mind but I think your behavior is utterly baffling. Magog the Ogre (talk•edits) 08:04, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

I see why AtG did the revert - the material is not "entirely vanilla," it smells of "non-profit commercial promotion" from here. See for another editor who also finds it spammish. And the amount of interest the promoter has in the topic "Zeitgeist movement", and at insertion of Carl Sagan therein. That article's talk page also notes that editor's belief that Carl Sagan was a believer in the ZG movement apparently. There is, in fact, substantial conflict between Tichy and the other editors on that topic per that talk page. And so while AtG violated a rule, he did so in apparent attempt to enforce another rule. Cheers. Collect (talk) 14:09, 12 August 2012 (UTC) See allso <g> and as evidence of the non-vanillaness of the edits. Collect (talk) 14:13, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

Yup, thanks Collect. The edit I reverted (only one) was of a blatant link-spam for an organisation that SPA IjonTichyIjonTichy has been repeatedly promoting with complete disregard for Misplaced Pages policy for months. Magog, can I suggest that before using 'mind reading' to try to understand what is going on, you do a little research - starting at Talk:The Zeitgeist Movement, and its long and tedious archives, filled with ludicrous WP:OR arguments for why entirely unrelated topics need to be included in 'see also' (e.g. the latest effort, which included links to the Wright brothers, Nicola Tesla, Imagine (song) and much else besides ), explanations of why people who have as far as can be determined never even heard of TZM should be portrayed as supporters, and all sorts of other facile repetitive drivel, almost certainly written in an attempt to drive non-TZM contributors away so the 'movement' can revert it back to the illiterate and unsourced promotional page they'd like. And then ask yourself whether you'd still call anything that Tichy (or any of the other pro-TZM accounts and IPs - the place is an obvious sock-and-meatpuppet farm, and Tichy's is actually about the most rational of the accounts) has engaged in "entirely vanilla"? It isn't, unless Misplaced Pages has changed its policies in the last few days, and has decided to be a web-hosting site for bizarre fringe 'non-political' political cults. AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:09, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

And needless to say, Tichy is now edit-warring to retain his moronic 'see also' links: . Can someone please raise this at ANI, and get the deranged loon blocked... AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:42, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

• Andy that article/group are clearly attempting to use the project for promotion - Its been going on for a couple of years now, I had a spell there and it was one of the worst conflicted articles I have ever seen - I respect your willingness to accept blocks to highlight that - I have done the same myself - you will not change the built in problems with the En Misplaced Pages project that allow them to do that though - Users that really care about neutrality and respect for living people that unidentified editors use En Wikipeda to publish to the WWW like yourself, and I include myself can do good work elsewhere - to other projects - I will meet you there - LOL - have a nice day Andy - Youreallycan 15:44, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

@Andy: What forms of dispute resolution have you tried? Did you try notifying WP:FRINGE/N or WP:NPOV/N? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 15:54, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

I think that TZM-related issues have been raised at the entire alphabet soup of noticeboards etc at one point or another, and going through the same processes again isn't going to achieve anything concrete. Essentially, what needs to happen is that TZM gets the message that the article isn't theirs, and they have two choices at this point: a properly sourced and neutral article written by uninvolved contributors, or no article at all. I'm inclined to think that the latter would be the best procedure for the encyclopaedia as a whole. Endless arguments over an article concerning a marginally-notable (at best) political cult divert resources from more useful things. AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:04, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

And TichyBrains carries on with the edit warring: . Se also his facile comments on the talk page, where he seems to be claiming that our article on the Wright Brothers is 'peripherally related' to the TZM one... AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:32, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

This is getting weirder by the minute. Tichy has now gone to the dispute resolution noticeboard to get the issue resolved. . He evidently thinks that drawing more attention to his deranged arguments is going to help... AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:29, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

He has YRC in his sights as well. Collect (talk) 18:13, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

It might be worth pointing out at DRN that Tichy's opening statement is either malformed, or intentionally misleading: the dispute isn't between him and YRC, but between him and YRC, Avanu, Bbb23 and yourself. (and me as well, I suppose, though maybe I'd best keep shtum about that...). AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:22, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

What is weird is you are blocked for personal attacks, not only have you evaded your block you continue to make personal attacks, try not calling the other guy "TichyBrains" Darkness Shines (talk) 18:09, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

Please do not comment further on my talk page - your relentless POV-pushing makes you an entirely unfit person to comment on the behaviour of others. AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:11, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

Hello. There is currently a discussion at Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Darkness Shines (talk) 18:18, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

Would an uninvolved third party please post my response at AN/I:

Please note that I consider that Darkness Shines has not posted this in good faith - I ask that he explains why he has become involved. As for the substantive issues regarding 'block evasion' (How does telling everyone exactly what you are doing while you do it qualify as evasion? One for the philosophers, I suspect), and 'personal attacks', I recommend a little further investigation of the background, and suggest that the SPA User:IjonTichyIjonTichy's relentless POV-pushing should be taken into account. This is clearly the root of the problem, as multiple contributors have made clear: see Talk:The Zeitgeist Movement and its long and tedious archives for the details.AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:36, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

Done. Darkness Shines (talk) 18:39, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

Do you consider yourself an 'uninvolved third party', DS? Still, thanks, and stay off my talk page... AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:41, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

Andy, anyone can edit here Darkness shine is one of the anybodys - his imperfections and imperfect interpretation of policy and guidelines is something you will never be rid of - so you have a pre determined outcome. Look for the light, a place you can be beneficial.Youreallycan 18:52, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

I think that it is a well-established guideline that a contributor may ask another contributor to stay off his/her talk page. AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:04, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

Yes it is - I have thousands I have requested to stay of mine - lol - but there are millions of them - Youreallycan 19:08, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

Meanwhile, back at the funny farm, Tichy is now suggesting that the fact that Peter Joseph (TZM's L. Ron Hubbard-alike) and Ben McLeish have mentioned the Wright Brothers and Nikola Tesla in lectures is sufficient reason to include them in the 'see also' list. Regarding PJ, one can at least understand Tichy's thinking, even if it is nonsense, but who the fuck is Ben McLeish? No mention of the character in the article. Google seems to indicate that he is a high-up in the TZM London Chapter (though he could actually be the London chapter, as far as evidence from external sources is concerned...), but why does Tichy think that lectures by someone we've never heard of are going to be relevant to the discussion? Then again, Tichy's grasp of reality (if he ever had one) seems to have drifted further from his reach by the minute - he seems to think that Darkness Shines got involved in the discussion due to "erroneous and misguided motivations to come to the aid of his friends YRC and ATG". Friends? Beyond mere bizarreness... AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:07, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

Hey Andy

Breath deeply. Take some time off. Come back under a new user name. You're a solid Wikipedian and generally on the mark but it's time to reset and restart. My opinion. Carrite (talk) 22:15, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

I can see the merits of that - but can't really see a new name achieving much - people would figure out who I was soon enough. As for the time off, see my user page. This place is clearly addictive, and I'd probably need some sort of therapy to get out of the habit. Probably involving methadone to reduce the cravings ;)

Actually, what I probably need most right now is a few night's decent sleep. Insomnia does little to improve my thought precesses, and no doubt adds extra grump, too. If only... AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:26, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

I've now skimmed through your Talk page, Andy, and I must say for a blocked editor, you sure don't feel blocked. Each day you post your instructions, and when that doesn't work you just do whatever you feel like as an IP. It's like the Mafia inmate who still organizes his crime while in prison - not that I'm saying you're an evil criminal - it's the concept. Good luck on sleeping; I know only too well what that's like.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:28, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

"when that doesn't work you just do whatever you feel like as an IP". Would you care to back that up with some evidence? I've made one edit since the block - where I identified myself clearly, both in the edit summary and on this page. Yes, I shouldn't have done it - but implying that it is some sort of habit is stretching it a little. And as for your capo di tutti capi comparisons, if I've got the clout to 'issue instructions' to anyone, I'm unaware of it. Still, thanks for the comments about sleeping, and I wish the same to you. And if you wake up tomorrow with a horse's head in the bed beside you, it is nothing to do with me ;) AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:40, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

Actually, I was just poking fun, and to say you did it on a systematic basis fit much better with the metaphor. I slept reasonably well last night (hope you did as well), and I thought the horse's head was a nice touch, particularly your kind note pinned to one of his ears. :-) --Bbb23 (talk) 15:33, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

No problem - I'd probably have seen that if I'd been more with it. Anyway, I'm glad one of us got a decent night's sleep - I got four hours. :(

As for the horse's head, if you've done with it, can you send it back? I've just thought of someone else who might appreciate it. ;) AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:44, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

Could someone please raise this at WP:BLP/N?

With nothing better to do, I've been rooting around, and discovered a recently-added claim in our Rutger Hauer biography that he is "a supporter of The Zeitgeist Movement", 'sourced' to this . Given that (a) the source cited doesn't actually call him 'a supporter' (it tells us that he attended The Zeitgeist Media Festival 2012, and that "he great Dutch actor Rutger Hauer who is passionate about the sea premiered his animation about whales and then spoke to the audience and answered questions about his film"...), and (b) the source itself, an article on a Hollywood today website (which seems otherwise to be full of promotional puffery) looks to be of at least questionable reliability, I can't help wondering whether this is entirely in accord with policy? AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:28, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

It was reverted by Collect, do you still want it posted to the BLP board? Darkness Shines (talk) 21:08, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

No: at least, as long as it stays reverted - thanks. AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:11, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

P.S. While we are at it the rock group Enter Shikari are also claimed to be TZM supporters - though no source is given whatsoever. This should probably go, too. AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:11, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

Joy of joys

Who'd have guessed it? Tichy is at it again, filling the TZM article with more vacuous puffery... . AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:28, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

Maybe he thinks that adding in all those famous people will rub off on TZM and make them famous also I reverted it as a BLP issue BTW, that source was a joke. Darkness Shines (talk) 17:38, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

The term is sympathetic magic - though essentially TZM's philosophy seems to consist of little else. There website has some interesting documents relating to this: see for instance their TZM Chapters Guide :

A Member

It is important to clarify what is meant by the term “member.” A local chapter member will be someone who has“signed up” to their local community chapter, meaning they have signed up to your chapter website and/or electronic mailing list. If a chapter has 50 or 100 or 250 “members,” these are simply people who have signed up in this way. It is an extremely simple process in which there are no hoops to jump through, and members do not need to pay any “membership fee”. These people are not required to attend meetings, or be available for every chapter call, or even participate in any way if they don't want to. If your goal is maximal involvement then the reality will quickly become very discouraging as many, if not most, “members” will never participate at such a level. However, you can rest assured that this silent majority of the membership does, in fact, advocate for the Movement regardless of how visible their contribution may be. Many do so in their own sphere and interactions, in their conversations, even just in their own minds; and that is an important starting point for the required consciousness-shift.

So essentially, merely thinking about TZM is enough to become an active participant in their 'movement'. Doh...

Then again, I'm not sure that they approve of thinking either. See their Activist Orientation Guide :

Who makes the decisions in a Resource-Based Economy? No one does. Decisions are arrived at by the use of The Scientific Method, utilizing computers that gain real-time feedback from the environment, along with a Central Historical Database of all known technical information, and maintained by evolving Interdisciplinary Teams. This combination could be called the Cybernated Industrial System. This reduces erroneous opinions and subjectivity. We don’t want people in control of government. We want to utilize Scientific Methods for arriving at more appropriate decisions.In the end, the only real issues for society in the natural world are (1) the production of goods and services that are equally available to all, (2) research projects and educational systems to expand our knowledge, understandings and applications, and (3) the constant monitoring of the earth’s resources and atmosphere for feedback and possible environmental problems, enabling us to restore and maintain a pristine environment. Without the wasted energy and resources from going to war and other aspects of the monetary system, we could address true threats to humanity, such as unforeseen variables like tsunamis, earthquakes, illness and disease. The only real problems in life are the problems that are common to all humans.

So come the glorious day when the 'Central Historical Database of all known technical information' (Misplaced Pages on steroids?) takes over, 'erroneous opinions' will be eliminated. This is seriously scary stuff. Or at least it would be if it wasn't so ridiculous... AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:00, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

And now Tichy-but-tenacious-beyond-belief is back at the edit-warring, I see: . It this point, I think we should simply replace WP:OWN with a page saying "See here" and a link to Tichy's contributions page. For someone who claims to support the abolition of property, he seems remarkably reluctant to let go of any... AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:15, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

(ec)So now I read that and felt my brain implode, by the time I got to the "wiki on steroids"(great name BTW) my eyes were bleeding, these people are nuts. I mean really, do people actually believe this tripe? Whatever happened to commonsense? Darkness Shines (talk) 18:16, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

You have my sympathies. I need to remember that most people aren't as familiar as me with fringe politics, deranged cults, and general social wackiness, and that it can be a shock when first discovered. It is almost possible to live ones life without actually noticing these things at all - though I'd recommend it as an eye-opener. The next best thing to spending six months living among a newly-contacted tribe in the Papua New Guinea highlands if you want to understand just how bizarre belief systems can seem to those that don't hold them. Though of course, our friends in PNG actually have ideas that work (bar the odd over-enthusiastic spear-and-club-fight, and occasional strange disease). People are strange, but not everything that is strange is sensible... AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:32, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

Oh, I wish I wasn't blocked..

...Yep, my own fault. And I can't complain (well, I can, but I shouldn't). I've just seen this thread, querying whether the Ludwig von Mises Institute wiki is infringing on Misplaced Pages copyrights by reuse without attribution. Naturally, I had to check to see what the institute's own article had to say on the subject: . A nicely-written and concise article - indeed, as nicely-written and concise (in the lede at least) as the Encyclopædia Britannica article which it cites, but fails entirely to indicate that it is quoting directly. Isn't libertarian political theory wonderful? Anyway, I'll have to leave it to someone else to point out the irony here. ;) AndyTheGrump (talk) 04:30, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

I see that User:Pestergaines has now responded, has indicated that attribution to Misplaced Pages was generally provided and suggested that the particular example linked this "appears to have been forgotten". Interestingly enough, a user of the same name appears to have been a significant 'contributor' the VMI article on copyright. (And yes, I've taken the liberty of contacting the author of the EB 'copyright' article, to ask his opinion as to whether such textual similarities might have an innocent explanation - though that is of course none of Misplaced Pages's concern). AndyTheGrump (talk) 06:01, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

yes, your fault :P seriously, we need your insights, intelligence, and determination.-- altetendekrabbe  07:12, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

A beer for you!

welcome back mate!  altetendekrabbe  22:48, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

Thanks - though the beer will have to wait. I've just come down with the flu or something, and would probably regret even attempting to hold it down. :( Still, if ever Misplaced Pages changes it's policy regarding WP:OR, I have gathered some useful data on projectile vomiting. Have to look on the bright side... AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:54, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

at least you vomit rapidly it seems ("projectile vomiting"). when i vomit the shit just oozes out :P get well soon!-- altetendekrabbe  15:39, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

"Human genetic diversity: Lewontin's fallacy" (scientific paper)

Hi, John CD let me know about your comment to him about the move of this article. When I added the db-move, I did not intend to go against the consensus on the talk page, but rather conform to WP:TITLE. If you see at WP:TITLEFORMAT, it says Do not enclose titles in quotes. The quotation marks here signify that it is a published article, and our conventions are clearly not to include the quotation marks. (This was the reasoning for the move last year at ). Because the disambiguation is unnecessary, an article at Human genetic diversity: Lewontin's fallacy is clear and unambiguous. However if you think the parenthetical is necessary, the article should be titled at Human genetic diversity: Lewontin's fallacy (scientific paper). Thanks!— Preceding unsigned comment added by Reywas92 (talk • contribs) 00:05, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

Regardless of what WP:TITLEFORMAT says, it was clearly inappropriate to move the article to a name that suggested in Misplaced Pages's voice that a scientific argument was a fallacy. This has been discussed at length on the article's talk page. Can I suggest you read the discussion, and then make any proposals regarding a move there? For what it's worth, I'd say that WP:NPOV trumps WP:TITLEFORMAT every time. AndyTheGrump (talk) 13:34, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Misplaced Pages's policy on edit warring. Thank you.

I'm dropping the notice here so you can participate in that discussion as well if you like. Cheers! --Tgeairn (talk) 01:39, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

How about reading WP:NOT3RR before implying that I'm also edit-warring. Ridiculous. AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:41, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

Apologies for being unclear... I left the message here so you would be aware of the thread at ANEW, not to imply that you are edit-warring. I may not agree with your read on this being a BLP violation, but I don't think you are out of line either. I will clarify at ANEW as well. --Tgeairn (talk) 01:46, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

Re your edit of the Elvis Presley article.

Thanks for the help. And yes, I do know that the subject is controversial, hence the reason for the attempt to make the section neutral and unbiased as per Misplaced Pages rules. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SUNY Boy (talk • contribs) 13:21, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

It is advisable not to accuse others of 'bias' - I suggest you discuss this on the article talk page, as is conventional for disputed content. AndyTheGrump (talk) 13:26, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

?!? Didn't accuse anyone of being biased. Just stated what we already know and keeping things in-line with Misplaced Pages rules, which states, "...maintain a neutral, unbiased point of view." In any case, I'm still having issues with getting the citations into the article. You seem to be having better luck than I. If I give you the links, would you mind putting them in for me? — Preceding unsigned comment added by SUNY Boy (talk • contribs) 13:31, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

The article didn't write itself - if you are saying it is biased, you are saying that someone has made it so, I'd have thought. As for the references, you should be able to add them now, but I still think that this would be better discussed on the talk page. There is no hurry and it is generally better to arrive at a consensus over such contentious issues before adding material. At minimum I think your edit needs rewording, as it seems to be citing a Wall Street Journal article without giving the proper reference, and you don't actually tell us what Schlussel and Chandler have to say on the issue. AndyTheGrump (talk) 13:44, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

Notice of Dispute resolution discussion

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Misplaced Pages:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute in which you may have been involved. Content disputes can hold up article development, therefore we request your participation in the discussion to help find a resolution. The thread is "Monavie article and talk page". Thank you! — Mr. Stradivarius 12:26, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

Mind your own business

Thought you were a crawling bot but after browsing this talk page I realize you're just a troll. You have no business policing talk pages, and the comparison I made between the accusations against Assange and another Swedish rape/sexual assault case, judged under the same laws a few years ago, has all the relevance it needs.Strausszek (talk) 02:41, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

Your posts violated both WP:BLP and WP:NOTFORUM. If you add it again I will revert it again - and report you for the BLP violation. AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:53, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

@Strausszek, based on your Talk page, you appear to have a history of making personal attacks. Calling someone a "troll" is a personal attack, and if you believe in complying with Misplaced Pages policy, you should retract it. In addition, I've looked at your post that Andy removed, and both of his bases are correct, but the more important one of the two is WP:BLP. BLP policy applies everywhere on Misplaced Pages, including on Talk pages. I suggest you be more careful in the future when expressing yourself.--Bbb23 (talk) 03:50, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

Your comparison was a BLP violation and original research with no hope of contributing to the article in question. It was particularly inadvisable considering the big notice on the top of that particular article talk page. The removal of the comment is consistent with wikipedia policies and guidelines. IRWolfie- (talk) 16:52, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

heads up

i just removed this huge coatrack from the heywood, greater manchester-page. the original rochdale gang-page now contains even more misrepresented sources.-- altetendekrabbe  19:43, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, but I seem to be completely incapable of engaging in discussions with the bunch of POV-pushing %$^&*%s that dominate that article without blowing my top - I'll have to stay out of this one. Try raising it again with a neutrally-worded request for input at WP:BLP/N. You could start by mentioning the entirely unnecessary and gratuitous level of detail it goes into concerning specific incidents involving minors. AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:09, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

i know what you mean. thanks for the advice. i'll come back to it when i'm not totally swamped in work. in the meanwhile, the "heywood, greater manchester"-page needs more eyes on it. bringing up the subject there is a blatant violation of wp:coatrack.-- altetendekrabbe  20:18, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

I've watchlisted it. AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:19, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

Star Wars Revisited

The first cited source,[http://meridianstar.com/backstagepass/x681140941/Star-Wars-revisited ] the Meridian Star, appears to be a legitimate newspaper. Here's their About page. Even the second cited source doesn't appear to have the movies available for download on their site. Or if it does, I don't see it. I didn't revert you since I don't see how a fan's edit has anything to do with an article about Lucas's changes. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 20:34, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

Have I boobed? I Thought the links led to a site with bootleg downloads - I'll check into it ASAP. AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:01, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

Humm, I don't know what I did there. Obviously not what I thought I had done. Anyway I've self reverted. If you look hard enough on the second linked site, you can find a link to links to downloads, though whether that is a problem, I'd rather not try to have to figure out. As you say, fan edits don't really belong in the article, but since it is mostly OR/fancruft neither does much of the remainder of the content. If I had the stamina, I'd move it for deletion, or at least stubbify it, but I suspect that taking on Star Wars fans might be more troublesome than it would be worth. AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:22, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

The Zeitgeist Movement

Andy (Personal attack removed) information is provided (e.g. tens of hours of TZM documentary films, tens of hours of TZM-produced lectures, numerous reliable secondary sources , and comments on the TZM talk page, ...), (Personal attack removed) refusal to learn about TZM, are not motivated by bad faith - he is obviously only motivated by good faith and a desire to help Misplaced Pages, but he is too emotionally involved, and spends too much effort being clever and witty in seeking the approval and admiration of other editors, instead of taking the considerable time and effort needed to ameliorate his deep ignorance by listening carefully and patiently in order to facilitate deep comprehension and understanding of the subject matter. IjonTichyIjonTichy (talk) 15:32, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

Per Talk:The_Zeitgeist_Movement#.27See_Also.27_section, I expect that jonTichyIjonTichy's behaviour will be raised at WP:ANI shortly - volunteer needed. Meanwhile, bask in the glorious (presumably unintentional) irony - apparently I am "too emotionally involved". AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:00, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

Hello. There is currently a discussion at Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. IRWolfie- (talk) 16:53, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

Thank you, IRWolfie. AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:57, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

Section headings

Andy, Talk page guidelines explicitly say no one owns headings, and encourages new topics to be given new headings even including the words "split off from". Oops, I said spinoff instead. Are you arguing recreationally or do you want to work with an editor who is genuinely trying to think through all the shouting? You should see the appellate briefs I've written.... many different arguments, all seeking the same result. No court can work through all the claims mishmashed together. If you want to see a change happen, its only going to occur because we find consensus, and that won't happen talking about everythingmishmashedtogether. Ronz' argument in this section was not about BLP, so in accord with the talk page guidelines, I gave your new subject a subheading. I inserted mine before yours because (A) we were in edit conflict, and (B) you started talking about an entirely separate subject. It's your choice if you want to help or obstruct mutual efforts for clear thinking. Only one of those choices has a chance of actually resulting in change. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 17:42, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

Firstly, Misplaced Pages is not a court of law. And secondly, you don't get to decide what is a spinoff. The article is very much within the remit of WP:BLP policy - and labelling people as "opposing the mainstream scientific assessment of global warming" based on our own made-up criteria is a BLP violation. This is actually what the debate over the arbitrary criteria is about. We have no business trying to inventing criteria decide who does and who doesn't 'oppose' something as controversial as this in the first place. The only part of the article beyond the consideration of BLP policy is the 'dead scientists' section - and of course WP:OR covers that too. And cut out the crap about 'clear thinking' - you don't hold a monopoly on that either. AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:00, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

Never said your BLP lacked merit. Just that it was a different argument. I notice in a prior thread you mentioned the idea of writing an essay called "You don't have to be mad to edit Misplaced Pages, but it helps". Various people have tried that approach on "List of Scientists opposing...." but it didn't change much. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 19:18, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

an/i or rfc-u?

i suggest to start a thread on rfc-u instead. that would be more appropriate. at least, that was the advice given by administrator bwilkins a few months ago regarding the ankh-issue.-- altetendekrabbe  20:13, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

I'm going to raise it at AN/I for now. Shrike is currently attempting to edit a contentious article, and the matter needs prompt attention in my opinion. AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:21, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

armstrong

I understand why you don't like the large quote.

Do you know how to put a box quote? Not for this article but for future use.

Auchansa (talk) 01:56, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

My edit summary read 'ridiculous'. This referred to the content, not its size. AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:59, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

In the spirit of cooperation, can you tell me how to make a box with a quotation. I promise not to use it in the Armstrong article. Auchansa (talk) 02:00, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

I'm not sure - try Template:Quotation. On the whole, long quotations are best avoided though - see WP:LONGQUOTE. AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:06, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for being nice and not a grump. I caution you that some may take it the wrong way with the word "ridiculous" and could start edit warring. However, I assume good faith since you were not a grump after that.

Here is one way to have a quote. The key is { { cquote| .....this is a test

Auchansa (talk) 02:09, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

Kudos

'Covert anti mass murderer conspiracy' is the best thing I have seen written here in ages, well done... Dbrodbeck (talk) 16:47, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

Funny

Meowy isn't going to ANI. I wonder why... I mean, he's such a good editor. Anyway, seeing how he's threatening other editors, I'm waiting for him to drop just a bit more rope before calling in more attention. I'll let you know so you can strike through your wonderful instructions to him (because you obviously didn't mean to lose your cool) before doing so, though. Ian.thomson (talk) 20:28, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

Hmmm. Rope, eh? ...Klickety klick... (sound of self-revert) 20:36, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

WP:ANI discussion

There is currently a discussion at Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue you are involved with. Thank you. Meowy 20:56, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

• Sorry about my comment. You're right - you're just speaking common sense. I've struck part of my comment at the discussion; at least you care enough to try and counter the madness here. Basalisk ⁄_berate 22:32, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

Offer to help

Andy,

To the best of my recollection, we've not interacted. I have thought well of your contributions from afar, however.

Before the current ANI discussion comes to a bad end, would you be interested in /Wikipedia:MENTOR#Voluntary_mentorship? It is just a thought, but I'd be happy to help, if you're interested. I do think Ellen has a good point - it is possible to "tell someone to f off" without using those words.

Wishing you all the best, JoeSperrazza (talk) 23:20, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the offer, but I can't see it helping. I've probably been around too long (2 years, almost to the day), and I think I'm just about burned out anyway. I've said my piece, and I should probably find something less stressful to occupy myself with, like lion-taming or cocaine-smuggling. Misplaced Pages can go on its merry way without me: its not as if I ever got around to writing an article or anything... AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:03, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

Well, things are likely to chill out soon, so don't be hasty. BTW, you really made me laugh with your comments about finding a less-stressful way to spend time. I recall, earlier in my career of IT outsourcing, I used to say I needed to find a less stressful job, like Bomb disposal. Thanks for making me laugh, and best wishes. JoeSperrazza (talk)

Disappointing

As much as I agree with your sentiments here you ruined in with "puke brains" i mean, what the hell is that? Shit for brains would have been far more suitable. Going to ANI to oppose the talk of you being indeffed. Facts, not fiction (talk) 00:06, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

I don't want to see you indef'ed either but holy hell Andy, surely you possess a thesaurus and can find more creative ways of expressing yourself, or at least know that just before you press "Save page" after typing in "fuck off of an die", well, maybe the better option would be to ping an admin. It isn't that you do wrong things, it is that you do things in the most controversial ways, which means we all get to waste OUR time discussing it at ANI, and it is a waste of talent to see you sitting on the side lines, not able to edit, simply because you won't hold your temper and use a little judgment. Meowy is indeffed, but he would have been had you just brought it to someone's attention and saved all the drama. You're smarter than this, but you have to work on your communication skills and anger threshold or the community will indef you, whether you and I want it or not. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 01:10, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

I can empathise with what tripped Andy into the "fuck off and die" response, but it really, really, was inappropriate. And I say that as an editor not shy about calling another editor a fucking cunt. Malleus Fatuorum 04:16, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

Agree. IRWolfie- (talk) 13:25, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

Andy, as I said on a ANI thread I do think you are a good contributor and that you have a lot to contribute to the project. However I think that your temper and that you resort to language of the sort the thread is about is what is stopping you from being a great contributor. My suggestion on the ANI thread, was just a way of trying to find a way to get you to think twice about what you write before you click the save button. I hope you understand that, and we can get back to working together (relatively) like we were with the talk on Talk:Phallus. Also, about pinging an online admin, you can check who the most recent online admin is (that is, who last blocked, deleted and protected) on the block log, deletion log and protection log Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 14:44, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

I really had hoped for more dialog, but perhaps Andy is busy in the real world. This isn't a problem that is going to just go away and I'm hoping for a non-drastic solution. Are you really that burned out Andy, or was that just an off the cuff remark? Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 22:31, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

I think it's a combination of burnout and personal issues - as to which is the larger problem, I can't really tell right now. I'll try to post some sort of apology on AN/I when I can get my act together - right now I'm not really up to writing anything sensible, but obviously I didn't intend to cause all this drama. And thanks to everyone who has offered support - including the ones who've told me not to be such an %$*&@#. AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:45, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

The ANI is closed, but my biggest concern is helping you avoid issues later on. Whether you need a self imposed break, or whatever, I don't know. You do great work here, I don't want to see it end badly due to "hoof in mouth" disease. I'm not in a hurry, but I want to inject myself here a bit and help find a real long term solution, or support one in any way I can. Ping me. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 23:10, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

Hi andy, sorry about your depression. I hope you get better soon. Pass a Method talk 14:32, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

I think I'm over the worst of it for now at least, thanks. AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:59, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

If thats the case you could get a name change. Pass a Method talk 12:52, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

I know this was a month ago, but it ends up on someone's talk page, and there is no possible way to defend. I won't labor it, you know the score. This is why I keep asking, what do we need to do to "fix" this problem? You are smart enough to know that otherwise, it won't end well. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 13:12, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

"No possible way to defend"? How about a defence of "about as factual as the illiterate utopian technobabble that TZM supporters attempt to fill the article with"? Yes, I shouldn't have done it, but this has all come up before, and if I'm going to be repeatedly 'tried' and 'punished' for the same 'crime' there is no point in trying to defend myself anyway. If you want Misplaced Pages content determined by POV-pushing sockpuppets who go out of their way to stir things up, fine. Have it your way. Just don't kid yourself that you are improving Misplaced Pages. The simple facts of the matter regarding the TZM article are that supporters of the movement have used every trick in the book to spin the article their way. You'll note for instance that the latest 'new' supporter for instance, who claims to have only been editing Misplaced Pages for a couple of months, manages to wilfully misrepresent two sources - neither WP:RS - as eight . And then there was User:IjonTichyIjonTichy, who's usual technique was to drive everyone insane with walls of text, while alternating between claims of a plot by us against TZM and assertions that we were all acting in good faith, and only needed to watch ten hours or so of TZM videos to understand everything. And these are among the more polite and rational of TZM supporters. Within days of getting involved with the article I was being accused of being part of some conspiracy against them. This is how they operate - and it isn't as if I'm the only person who pointed out that the latest TZM-pusher's contributions were against policy either. As for why this came up on "someone's talk page", I think the answer is obvious. I noticed that 'new' user Zgoutreach was apparently using his/her user space for material which didn't seem appropriate, but given the past history between us, thought it better to get a third party to take a look. I'd not thought of the copyvio aspect, and wasn't expecting Elen of the Roads to delete it immediately. My intention was that Elen look at it, and if she thought it was inappropriate, advise Zgoutreach so in time to copy it elsewhere off-Misplaced Pages. Evidently though, I am to be blamed for Elen's actions, and my attempt to handle the matter tactfully is instead to be portrayed as 'a bias' against someone who I'd (supposedly) never encountered prior to our discussion over the recent TZM issue. Frankly though, this passive-agressive swinging from over-friendly chumminess (see User talk:Zgoutreach#RE. The Zeitgeist Movement) to accusations of conspiracy at the drop of a hat seems all too familiar, and I'm beginning to wonder whether Zgoutreach is in fact a sock of a rather more familiar and verbose 'contributor' - or maybe TZM supporters all get lessons in passive-aggressive paranoia along with 'how to speak technobabble' and 'how to fill Misplaced Pages up with walls of text that don't belong there'? Either way, Zgoutreach seems to have raised my past misdemeanours on Elen's page in order to divert attention from actually discussing the immediate issue - material that Elen saw as a copyvio, and which even if it wasn't didn't look remotely appropriate as an article. I suggested that Elen looked into it to avoid any suggestion of 'bias', and a fat lot of good that did. AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:03, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

Like I said, I'm not laboring it as I'm sure other already have. I'm just using it as an example. When it comes to the facts of a situation "should this be included or not", "is this neutral or not", I have found your judgement to be right on the money. That isn't the issue, how you deal with the disagreements over the facts is. This is why I'm here, because you have lots and lots of clue on the content side, but you just fly off the handle and it actually hurts your case. I want you to be here, to help, to contribute, to provide your judgement. I'm worried that you won't be because of your reactions to stress here. I'm not ragging you, and hope you understand this. I have tremendous respect for your work or I wouldn't bother explaining. I'm here because I'm trying to figure out if there is some way I can help you not fly off the handle, so you can stay here, spend less time defending your (over)reactions, and more time doing the stuff you are really good at. I'm sure you are as tired of being dragged to ANI as much as everyone is tired of seeing you there. What can we do to fix this? What can I do to help you? Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 20:27, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Original Barnstar
	For your disarming sincerity, Andy . Respect! MistyMorn (talk) 22:51, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

Thank you

Thanks very much for your helpful edit at the article page Donkey puncher, most appreciated! Cheers, — Cirt (talk) 02:10, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

Yeah - it seemed sensible, at least at the time. I'm supposedly not editing at the moment, but happened to notice it, and it looked a bit off. Looking into it further though, I'm not sure I'm right: dictionary.com (not the best source admittedly) defines a 'gyppo (or gypo') logger' as "a logger who operates on a small budget and typically gleans the timberlands already cut by larger companies". , and a Google search seems to throw up other links that confirm this. In particular the Society of American Foresters defines 'gypo/gyppo' as amongst other things "an independent logger who runs a small-scale logging operation" . It looks as if the connection to Gypsies/Romani may be tenuous at best (probably just slang for 'itinerant'), and the Wikilink misleading. As for what to do about it (short of creating an article on Gypo loggers, which might prove difficult), I'm not sure. Maybe change the caption to 'A donkey puncher at a small-scale logging operation (1941)'? AndyTheGrump (talk)

I agree with your suggested change. — Cirt (talk) 14:35, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

Actually, I've since edited the article, and gone for simpler phrasing "A donkey puncher at work (1941)". As for what is going on at AN/I in (indirect and stupid) relation to this article, I'd best not comment, beyond saying that I don't give a 'darn' (watching my language here) who is who - we've got an article on men who punched donkeys and why, and Misplaced Pages is better for it, if only very marginally. AndyTheGrump (talk) 14:45, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

I've redone the photo and tweaked the caption again, for what it's worth. best, —Tim //// Carrite (talk) 18:36, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

Nice work. At this rate, it'll be a featured article by next week ;-) AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:38, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

A barnstar just for you!

	The AndyTheGrump Barnstar
	In recognition of your work defending Misplaced Pages from POV-pushers, here's your very own Anagram Barnstar. Hope you like it. Bishonen | talk 22:47, 30 August 2012 (UTC).

LOL! :D AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:20, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

And also "Guard Nymphet", "Grand yet hump", "My Purdah Gent", "And Purge Myth"... --Shirt58 (talk) 04:47, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

"Guard Nymphet"? I've not been called that for a long time ;-) AndyTheGrump (talk) 05:04, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

<recursive literary allusion> When I read Nabokov's "Speak, Memory", I was reminded of a passage in Erica Jong's Fear of Flying where one character says "Is this an invitation to a beheading?" and the other replies, "You can stuff your literary allusions up your ass!", which itself has a passing mention in Nabokov's "Speak, Memory". </recursive literary allusion> --Shirt58 (talk) 16:17, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

Resource exchange

Hello.Your request was fulfilled.You can find a link to the article/s you requested in the relevant section at WP:RX.Please indicate when you've downloaded successfully and add a resolved tag to your request.Thank you.--Shrike (talk)/WP:RX 17:12, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

Done. Thanks very much, Shrike. AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:14, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

The Olive Branch: A Dispute Resolution Newsletter (Issue #1)

Welcome to the first edition of The Olive Branch. This will be a place to semi-regularly update editors active in dispute resolution (DR) about some of the most important issues, advances, and challenges in the area. You were delivered this update because you are active in DR, but if you would prefer not to receive any future mailing, just add your name to this page.

In this issue:

• Background: A brief overview of the DR ecosystem.
• Research: The most recent DR data
• Survey results: Highlights from Steven Zhang's April 2012 survey
• Activity analysis: Where DR happened, broken down by the top DR forums
• DR Noticeboard comparison: How the newest DR forum has progressed between May and August
• Discussion update: Checking up on the Wikiquette Assistance close debate
• Proposal: It's time to close the Geopolitical, ethnic, and religious conflicts noticeboard. Agree or disagree?

--The Olive Branch 18:47, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

• Dispute Resolution!*!?? Why don't you fuck off and die? A watcher in the wings who says "don't get yourself indeffed, where will I buy my snake oil from?" ;-) CaptainScreebo 17:32, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

G'day

Can I point this out to you? If it interests you, I'd value any thoughts you may have about the project. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 17:43, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

I had the same thought a while back, but felt you had enough going on at the time. —MistyMorn (talk) 19:41, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

I'm not remotely qualified (this will need people with a lot of background knowledge, I think), and I think I'd be rather out of my depth, frankly. Thanks for the suggestion though. AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:18, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

I asked you because of your intelligence, morality and vision. I wasn't looking for any particular expertise. I'd feel more comfortable about that project if I knew you were watching. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 06:55, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

I'm not sure about 'intelligence, morality and vision' - opinions on this seem to be divided. ;) Seriously though, I'm in rather a state of flux at the moment (though the large unfriendly dog that was following me around seems to have backed off a bit for now), and I can't really commit to anything. Maybe I'll look into it later. AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:50, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. And good luck with the dog. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 15:56, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

Yes. Support! —MistyMorn (talk) 17:55, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

Talkback

Calm As Midnight 05:17, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

AN/I

You're at an/i. you're welcome.

User talk:Dennis Brown#Oxycut sockpuppet

You were right on-target about this user. Thanks again for your help. Flyer22 (talk) 22:33, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

I DID PROVIDE EVIDENCE

I included a link in the article but User:IronGargoyle has decided to delete this article even though the discussion was already in progress. I therefore have opened a case on User:IronGargoyle for what I believe to be a breach of Misplaced Pages rules. --Kijoorete-Bahnhof (talk) 00:44, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

A link to an article isn't in itself evidence that a person meets Misplaced Pages notability guidelines. You are wasting your time posting such nonsense. AndyTheGrump (talk)

Camelbinky fails to read what I wrote...

You seriously said that a policy "spells out" something stated in the 5P? Are you really in the understanding that policy some how fleshes out the 5P? The 5P is non-binding and does not require policies to spell out anything. The 5P is nothing more than an essay that summarizes what policies already state. Many policies, and all core ones, being long established before the creation of the 5P as a welcome page for newbies.Camelbinky (talk) 00:45, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

And that makes a difference how? The point is that Misplaced Pages:What Misplaced Pages is not is sufficiently 'core policy' to be summarised in the first of the five pillars - as I said "it is a setting-out in greater detail the principles explained in the first pillar of Misplaced Pages:Five pillars". Which came first is utterly irrelevant - and I didn't say the pillars came first anyway. AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:00, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

Trout

Whack! You've been whacked with a wet trout. Don't take this too seriously. Someone just wants to let you know you did something silly.

Your just asking for drama.--intelati/talk 00:56, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

Fish for supper again eh? I see Camelbinky hasn't exactly appreciated the one you posted on his/her talkpage. Some people have no sense of humour... AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:03, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

Ugh. Please don't.--intelati/talk 01:07, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

Seems like I hit a nerve--intelati/talk 01:21, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

Additional questions for you

I have asked some additional questions that need short, simple answers at WP:ANI. Thanks. --Jayron32 01:19, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

ANI

Don't get bent out of shape, particularly when most everyone already agrees your actions were in the best of faith. As for who should have brought it to whose talk page, you can hash that out, but getting upset won't help you, but it will hurt you. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 01:47, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

Just to clarify, I also believe you acted out of good faith in everything you did here. My only objection is being dragged to court over an issue like this, without you ever coming to me directly. We could have talked person to person about this, as grownups do, and not have involved the dramaboard for no reason. If we work out our disagreements like adult people do, then we don't have to get our parents to solve our problems for us. Next time, before going to ANI, come to me, and we'll chat it out and come to an agreement between the two of us. ANI's only purpose is to take a disagreement that could have been easily worked out between two people, and turn it into an unresolvable shitstorm. In conclusion: my talk page: we work it out. ANI: worthless shithole where nothing ever gets solved. Next time, just come see me and we'll actually solve the problem. Is that OK? --Jayron32 01:56, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

You are replying to me, but I'm assuming this was meant for Andy. He was asking about HIS actions, he really didn't seem to be calling you out. At least I didn't see it that way. Again, looking back, he probably should have talked with you first, but I personally don't see bad faith in what is going on, even if you think there was some bad judgement. I tend to be on the slightly trigger happy side when it comes to personal harm issues on enwp myself, so perhaps I empathize with acting quickly, even if sloppily. But I just don't see any bad faith by anyone, like I said there, just poor communications. Maybe we can all just admit the communications side of this issue was sloppy, and work on that in the future. But I would rather see us mad at each other now, than have a potentially harm situation get ignored, so this is still the lesser of the two evils. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 02:03, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, I was trying to say that to Andy, not you particularly. I just don't like to be dragged out into public to make an account for my actions, especially when no one ever came to deal with the problem in private. --Jayron32 02:20, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

I've closed the ANI by the way, and about to head off to bed for a few hours, but happy to continue the discussion with you two here, or step out of the way if you prefer. I just don't want to see hard feelings over what I think was an innocent misunderstanding in an unusual situation. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 02:08, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

Thanks Dennis. I believe that Andy and I could work this out here if he's ammenable to do so. I certainly have said all that I need to at ANI, and if there is no action an administrator needs to do in relation to this event, I'm sure you did the right thing. --Jayron32 02:20, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

Jayron32, I hope it is evident that I took it to the 'dramaboard' as much to have my own actions looked at as those of anyone else - and under such circumstances, it isn't appropriate to 'come to an agreement between the two of us'. More to the point, I wonder if there are lessons to be learned here, and that isn't going to happen with private discussions. Like it or not, if you contribute to Misplaced Pages, you have to work within the system at least to some extent. With hindsight, maybe wasn't the best place to bring it up - though when I did, the discussion on the consequences of drinking formaldahyde etc was still ongoing on Misplaced Pages talk:Reference desk - which to my mind made it an 'incident' of sorts, still needing urgent admin attention. AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:11, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

Except your actions don't need to be looked at. You acted in good faith, as did I. I understand why you did what you did, but since you went straight to ANI, it seems clear that you didn't understand why I did what I did. Here's my interpretation of the full set of events. Correct me if I have misrepresented anything:

1. Someone posts a wildly inappropriate question on RDS.
2. It gets removed. At this point, everyone is in agreement that it was the correct thing to do.
3. The user goes to WT:RD to ask for an explanation as to why their question was deleted. In asking for that explanation, they quote their original question.
4. You deleted that question, because you saw the part where they quoted their original question.
5. I restored the question because I believe that you missed the part where they asked for an explanation, and explanation they were due.
6. Some people don't provide that explanation and instead proceed to answer the wildly inappropriate question with wildly inappropriate answers
7. You go to ANI and invoke my name, and leave the "you've been taken to ANI to account for your actions" subpoena on my talk page. This is the first I have heard from you about this incident
8. I go to ANI and explain why I restored the request at the time I did (when it hadn't yet received any of the irresponsible answers from other ref desk denizens, check the timing).
9. And here we are.

Did I miss anything? What do you wish to do now? I think we need to hat all of the inappropriate responses, and leave a blanket response of "We're not going to answer questions that we believe will lead you to harm yourself" or perhaps some better wording, because the person who asked still has the right to know why we've deleted their question and refuse to answer it. What think you? --Jayron32 02:20, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

The ANI notice isn't a 'subpoena'. It is what it says it is. A notification that "there is currently a discussion at Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved". As for the rest, my response is simple. Misplaced Pages isn't a court of law, or a city-state with its own government (elected or otherwise). Nobody has any 'rights' which can either be conferred by Misplaced Pages, or withdrawn by Misplaced Pages. I took the decision that the most appropriate action I could take at the time, given what evidence I had at the time, was not to provide a platform for a question that to me (and evidently to others since) seemed to indicate that the questioner might be intending self harm. I didn't know for sure, obviously. I erred on the side of caution, as both Misplaced Pages:Responding to threats of harm and common sense suggested I should. As for what happened afterwards at Misplaced Pages talk:Reference desk, that clearly isn't my responsibility. And as I suspected, it soon turned into a debate on the very question that raised concerns in the first place.

Anyway, it seems unlikely that any action is going to be taken against anyone, which suits me fine - my objective in raising the matter (beyond trying to get the ongoing discussion at talk:Reference desk stopped) was to ensure that individuals concerned thought things through a little. I suspect we got off at cross-purposes here from the start in that neither of us understood the motivations for the others actions. As I said at ANI, it was always open to you to ask me why I had deleted the original reference desk question - and had you done this, much of the 'drama' need never have happened. I'm not claiming I did everything right - but given the choice between the minor 'wrong' of acting in a pre-emptive manner which might ruffle a few feathers, and allowing some poor sod to talk himself into glugging formaldehyde, I know where my choices lie. AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:56, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

Glad to see we've worked this out then. I intend to come to you directly as well. Oh, and calling things innocuous names doesn't change their nature. ANI is a kangaroo court and almost everything that goes on there bears that out. It really doesn't work well as a place to hold general discussions of this nature. ANI does work in one, and only one, type of instance: If you want someone blocked or banned or something protected, but need some space to explain exactly why, ANI does a pretty good job of that. Otherwise, it is ill suited for a general "how do we handle these sorts of problems" discussions. Maybe WP:VPM or something like that may be better for a discussion of this nature. Back to the original issue: I should have come to you, you should have come to me, we each meant well, and can't be faulted for that. Next time, I'll be sure to come to you first, please offer me the same courtesy. Thanks for taking the time to work this out here, I found this discussion much more enlightening than anything ANI could have produced. I will work better to not let it get to where it did. --Jayron32 03:03, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

Yeah - with hindsight we probably both got unnecessarily uptight about it all. Sorry if it looked as if I was holding you personally responsible - that wasn't my intention, and I should have realised that naming you in the way I did at ANI wasn't appropriate. As for ANI itself, it clearly needs reform (or revolution), but meanwhile, I'll continue to use it as I think appropriate, it I think things are urgent and important enough to merit it. It isn't perfect, even remotely, but it is what it is, and it has the advantage that it is being watched - for all the feedback I'd got after the initial reply to my e-mail to the foundation (which told me that "we'll take a look"), I'd had nothing to indicate that anyone was paying the slightest bit of attention. AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:18, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

It's all good. --Jayron32 03:20, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

Like Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 13:37, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

Andy, I can't find any proposals to codify your stance, with which I agree, more recent than this one, but there are several over the years in WT:RD archives. However, WT:RD is not the place to change guidelines. Do you want to use this example to try something at WP:VPP? Perhaps with an RFC and WP:CENT? —Cupco 05:34, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

If I may be so bold as to comment on that: such a discussion should not just consider what potentially dangerous information can be provided by RD, but rather by wikipedia as a whole. There's a big difference between potential harm that may arise from being given incorrect information, which is a valid concern with RD, and the risk that correct information can be used to do harm. Ssscienccce (talk) 10:13, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

Phallic architecture

Fella, just take things easy and allow other editors to edit. "Problems" can be sorted later, it is most-offputting to contributors when you keep reverting.♦ Dr. Blofeld 17:52, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

Pardon? Can you cite a policy that states that? Since when do we construct articles by filling them with irrelevances and dubious sources, and then 'sort them out later'? AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:58, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

Just take it easy. We're all volunteers here and most of us would prefer a stress free environment without unnecessary pressure. We're all here for the same reason, remember that. If there are outstanding issues they are likely to be identified in due course before it goes through DYK. Thanks for pointing out the flaws, you are welcome to help improve it. ♦ Dr. Blofeld 21:26, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

"before it goes through DYK"? Why do you presume that it is a candidate for DYK? And regarding 'improving it', as far as I'm aware at least, removing unsuitable material from an article constitutes 'improvement'. AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:29, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

Because I know the articles I've working on which I intend working on with others and nominating for DYK and those which I'll stub and not develop. Good spirited collaboration, you should try it sometime.09:41, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

Please DON'T start an edit war. As I told you the article will get my attention when I am ready to edit it. Any reverts you make will be reverted when I come to edit so quit wasting everybody's time.♦ Dr. Blofeld 15:41, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

If you edit war to include false, misleading and policy-violating material, it is evidently you that are doing the time-wasting. AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:43, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

I normally try to remain calm and civil on here but you are starting to test my patience.♦ Dr. Blofeld 15:39, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

So what? You said you'd "lost interest and motivation", and the article needs fixing. I have explained the problems on the talk page. I see you have removed the template again. I shall replace it, and if it is removed again I shall report the matter - if you think it isn't justified, then explain why the article doesn't need attention on the talk page. AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:43, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

How many people are experts in phallic architecture? Its absurd to even consider adding an expert tag, similar to how it would be on an article on Ice cream making in Easter Island. I'm a member of the architecture project myself and a lot of my GAs are architectural subjects. But placing expert tags pointlessly on articles is not going to bring about an improvement.♦ Dr. Blofeld 15:47, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

Removing them pointlessly certainly isn't going to improve it. The subject clearly isn't just 'architecture' anyway - it is as much about sociology and anthropology for a start. AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:58, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

And since you've reverted again, please see Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:Dr. Blofeld reported by User:AndyTheGrump (Result: ). AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:04, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

Everybody please chill out.

It's like Loki has planted that blue thing here. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 17:23, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

Andy, I'm pretty sure Dr. Blofeld didn't start the article as a joke. Granted, being guys, we all snicker a little inside but the concept is 100% valid, and the concern should be on sources. I completely understand the desire to insure it doesn't degrade into some unsourced and juvenile article on any building remotely penis shaped, but my experience with Dr. Blofeld is that he takes his work pretty serious, even if he has a sense of humor while he does it. Maybe giving him a week to clean up and continue building it might be in order. The doctor doesn't own the article and he likely knows that, but he is the one doing the research and adding most of the content, so I say give him a little rope and see what happens. You have to know that he will put sincere effort into it, and has, to make it pass criteria here, and any concerns can be expressed on the talk page. I don't say this to diminish your concerns, but as a way to hopefully help you channel them in a more constructive way. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 18:12, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

The article topic yes is an amusing one, bizarre probably more so than laughable. But you only have to read the prose of the origins and symbolism sections to see that it is actually a legitimate topic and indeed one which is worthy of an article, but previous editors lacked the bollocks to start it. "All dick and no balls" I once heard Steven Seagal say I think LOL... If such an article is done well, much like Gropecunt Lane or similar articles they make wikipedia a far more interesting and valuable resource. If it was intended purely as a joke, I most certainly wouldn't be looking for scholarly sources in google books would I? I think it becomes more bizarre the more research that goes into it to show that yeah, actually this is a really encyclopedic topic for both architecture and anthropology/sociology in history. As for WP:OWN, I invite other editors to collaborate on this and assist me in my research and writing. ♦ Dr. Blofeld 20:03, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

Hey guys, I know Misplaced Pages isn't Facebook, but I'm impertinent enough to number both of you among my friends here. Fwiw, I took a quick shufty with GoogleScholar, expecting to see more hits than I did . —MistyMorn (talk) 20:21, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

Yeah - Maunus made the same point on the article talk page earlier - there doesn't seem to be much written directly on the topic. I suspect that this hs much to do with the fact that it may not really be 'a topic' at all, in a scholarly sense. As Maunus suggests, there is a school of psychology which (after Freud) sees phallic symbolism everywhere - but that is a topic in psychology, not architecture. If one is going to write about 'phallic symbology in architecture' one has to decide who's symbols one is writing about - and if one is writing about the symbology of the architects/constructors, one darned well needs to show that it is there, and not merely assume it is, or else make it clear that this is a way of analysing architecture, it isn't 'the truth' . Having said that, there are certainly overt examples of phallic symbolism in e.g. Buddhist or Hindu architecture - but these need to be seen in the wider cultural context, where the symbols have more 'meaning' than mere reproductive organs, or even symbols of potency and power. Indeed, they may not mean that at all. To take an example from the West, the Washington Monument has occasionally been described as 'phallic', but is it? If it self-evidently represents anything, it represents (or rather models almost exactly) an Egyptian obelisk - and modern Egyptologists seem fairly sure that those obelisks were representations of the Sun-god's rays. I'm sure there are good historical explanations (as well as bad conspiracy theories regarding Freemasons) as to why the US chose the obelisk design - but there seems no obvious reason to assume that there was anything intentionally phallic about the choice. This is WP:OR of course - but so is including the Monument in the article in the first place. And so indeed, is assuming that an article about 'phallic architecture' can be written without sources that discuss it in depth as a topic. AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:11, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

There is more than one article to be written regarding the penis and art, architecture, culture and philosophy, that is for sure. Sometimes you have to just start the article and see what you find and what branches off over time, and yes, it needs to be done seriously and accurately, but I have faith it will. And Dr., your wording is more accurate than mine, as usual. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 18:30, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

Actually I found a source supporting both the sun and phallus worship so not OR. Its just about ready for DYK. I've requested a few journal entries which might be of further use. I don't think its far off GA quality now and with a bit of further work should be achievable.♦ Dr. Blofeld 13:22, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

Sir—I was intrigued to learn in your illustrious organ that that the well-endowed Priapus, Greco-Roman god of fertility is "also known as Biggus Diccus ". —MistyMorn (talk) 14:32, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

Indeed, twas where Monty Python got the name from LOL!! I was waiting to see who'd notice! ♦ Dr. Blofeld 16:59, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

Are you saying Python fallically plucked the name from the skyscraper? —MistyMorn (talk) 18:18, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

New contributors Help desk

I was told it exists and I have a couple of questions to ask. Could you please link me to such desk? Thank you. Timothyhere (talk) 20:41, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

You probably want Misplaced Pages:Teahouse - and welcome to Misplaced Pages. AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:47, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

Thank you!!! Timothyhere (talk) 20:52, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

Your article request for fair use

https://docs.google.com/open?id=0B86iegI5pG5TTjdYT0ItMlhzWVE

Please let me know when you are done. Churn and change (talk) 16:47, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

Thanks - much appreciated. AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:05, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

Orgastic potency article

Hi, AndyTheGrump. Since you seem to know what counts as fringe and/or undue regarding sexual topics, do you feel that you can help out with the orgastic potency issues I addressed at WP:MED -- Orgastic potency article and its WP:FRINGE health/medical/sexual claims? 199.229.232.42 (talk) 18:49, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

I'd not lay claim to any particular expertise in the topic. I suggest you raise this at the Misplaced Pages:Fringe theories/Noticeboard - from a brief look at the article, it does seem to be going into excessive detail about an outdated theory that seemingly never had that much acceptance at the time, and adding a 'disclaimer' in the lede doesn't really justify constructing the rest of the article almost exclusively around citations from Wilhelm Reich himself. AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:08, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

Okay. Thanks. I didn't mean to imply that you are an expet on sexual topics. But you do appear to know what counts as fringe and/or undue. I'll take it to the Misplaced Pages:Fringe theories/Noticeboard. I did suggest at WP:MED that the article be retitled Orgastic potency theory. 199.229.232.42 (talk) 19:18, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

You vandalised the Soledad O'Brien article.

I expected as much from you. Do it again and I will escalate this matter. I used reliable sources, which you predictably derided as "conservative blogs". Bobinisrael (talk) 04:10, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

Escalate as much as you like. The more people that see what you are up to the better. AndyTheGrump (talk) 04:58, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

And for the benefit of any talk-page-watchers, see Soledad O'Brien, Talk:Soledad O'Brien, Misplaced Pages:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard#Soledad O'Brien, the previous ANI thread , User talk:Bobinisrael (where multiple attempts have been made to try to persuade Bob to drop the combative attitude), and of course Bob's whole edit history , which documents this one man crusade against a 'leftist bias' which Bob is seemingly so obsessed with that he can hardly string two sentences together without referring to it. I've no doubt that at some time soon, Bob is going to be back at WP:ANI, where he will be blocked per WP:COMPETENCEISREQUIRED, WP:NOTHERE, or just WP:ARIGHTROYALPAININTHENETHERREGIONS. If I wasn't (a) too involved, and (b) about to go to bed, I'd start it myself... AndyTheGrump (talk) 05:14, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

And now the repulsive little turd is accusing me of sockpuppetry . Clearly deranged, given that the sockpuppet in question's second edit was to delete my talk page contributions... AndyTheGrump (talk) 05:25, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

I've reopened the ANI thread (Donfarberman > This ain't over yet). Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 05:35, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

So I see -thanks. AndyTheGrump (talk) 05:39, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

Stay grumpy, my friend. But be of good cheer. 76.248.149.47 (talk) 17:07, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

namesake

User:AndyTheGrunp has been hardblocked today. Just FYI. Secretlondon (talk) 23:59, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

Oh dear - the troll seems upset ;-) The stupid thing is that if he'd tried to argue logically about 'bias', rather than ranting, he might have got some support. There is a fair degree of undue political spin in a lot of articles - and while the 'spinning' goes in both directions, which tends to 'balance' things, we end up with some peculiarly-structured articles, with point and counter-point piled one on top of the other. Hardly the best way to write coherently, as the Soledad O'Brien article that the 'bias-troll' was trying to spin illustrates. A section on the awards she's won, followed by one on the howlers she's made - evidently written by different people entirely, and rather laid on with a shovel in both cases. It would have been hard to argue against trimming some of the praise-trivia while at the same time dismissing the 'oh dear she didn't understand the finer points of (allegedly) Marxist sociological theory' trivia. AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:43, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

Random information

I see now it is not supposed to be hidden in the talk, but... it would be deleted if it was showing up anyway, right? But that kind of comment is not something I would transfer to a talk with someone I barely know. Kind of weird attitude, especially if the arguments of one are directed at the opposite direction of those of yours. Talk is a personal space here, I would find myself ridiculous if I started to make arguments and answers in it in a first contact. Lguipontes (talk) 22:56, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

If you want to have a private conversation, find somewhere else to have it. Article talk pages are for discussing improvements to articles - and a hidden comment clearly can't do that. AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:09, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

This policy sometimes justifies exclusion of minority views, which I agree that shouldn't be present in articles without sources and consensus, but I believe discussion of them should be free. Lguipontes (talk) 23:21, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

What you believe is beside the point. See WP:NOTFORUM. AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:25, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

Are you playing hard to get? Contrary to popular belief, I don't use Misplaced Pages as a forum. Did you see my userboxes? I have way more controversial/minority views than what I actually sport in my edits and discussions here. Lguipontes (talk) 23:35, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

Elvis' Greatest Shit

You said you wanted a reference. I gave you one. So what's your issue? 7&6=thirteen (☎) 20:46, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

We don't need a reference for 'shit' being an anagram of 'hits'. We need a reference that says that Elvis Greatest Shit was named that way because it is an anagram of Elvis Greatest Hits. If you can't find one, it is original research to suggest that the album was named as it was because of the anagram. AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:51, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

wp:civil Happy editing. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 00:22, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

Oh I do love it when editors trot out wp:civil as though it was some kind of trump card - especially when they've been merrily ignoring WP:MOREIMPORTANTSTUFF (wp:or, wp:rs, wp:synth, wp:npov ...) pablo 13:23, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

If 6+7 thinks that is an example of me not being civil, he clearly isn't familiar with my postings. ;-) AndyTheGrump (talk) 14:40, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

hey there

Hi Andy-

I just wanted to stop by and award you with

		The Special Barnstar
		for having an especially hilarious talk page right now.

24.177.121.137 (talk) 02:29, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. It is probably only my sense of humour that keeps me sane (if indeed I am...), and I do seem to find myself in the absurdest of discussions. I should probably archive most of it though, as it is getting a little over-long - and I might be better of hiding some of the stuff near the top. ;-) AndyTheGrump (talk)

Really? Sorry I missed that one, there was me thinking you were a grump only. Hmm. Phallic architecture will become TFA one day, but not before Mr. Gustafsson of the Department of Phallicology of the University of Reykjavik contributes his expertise to the article..., naturally.... I'd hate to think that the article had missed a big wooly mammoth cock.♦ Dr. Blofeld 12:14, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

Care to explain?

Why this is more of a "canvassing" than the rest of the notes in that list? Tijfo098 (talk) 13:05, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

"Even though it has plenty of sources, some editors said this article is WP:SYNT, and I don't know how to fix that. Please help!" You have pointed out that there is a dispute as to whether the article violates policy, and made clear that you are asking for support for the position that it doesn't. Clearly not a neutral request for help in improving an article, but a direct violation of WP:CANVASS. AndyTheGrump (talk) 13:10, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

Advice? Help?

Hi Andy, you were very helpful in avoiding coatracking on the Golden Domes article and was wondering if you could advise me on an even more egregious example of coatracking by the same editor/creator, on an article called Maharishi Group. I give a succinct, highlighted summary and illustration of the problem on the talk page here. When you have a minute could you glance at it and advise me on h ow I might proceed? Many thanks.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 21:55, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

I'll take a look... AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:12, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. I've posted the entire Toronto Star article on the talk page.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 17:22, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

Um, I don't think you should have done that - it may be a copyright violation to paste the entire article - I suggest you self-revert. Given that the only reference to any "Maharishi Group" involvement is the single sentence "Turner's source hooked her up to the Maharishi Group Venture, a non-profit benevolent society based in India that aids students. Together, Centennial and the society formed a partnership and started marketing a 3-D program designed by Centennial staff", I think it is safe to say that the source cannot possibly be used for any assertion that the entire conglomeration is 'non-profit' - and it can't even be used for the article at all without verification that the "Maharishi Group" it refers to is actually even connected with any other 'Maharishi' organisation - it makes no such assertion. AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:47, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

Galloway edit

Hello, Andy. I'm sorry that I didn't discuss my edit to George Galloway first. I've added a comment on my proposed edit at the end here. Epa101 (talk) 20:51, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

Thanks - I'll respond there. AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:01, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

Just so we are clear

Your behavior wasn't a whole lot better, and I was, and continue to strongly consider blocking you. "Are you actually trying to look stupid, or does it come naturally?" is not something you are justified in saying, nor is it what Misplaced Pages is here for. Make petty insults on your own server time.--Tznkai (talk) 01:42, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

typo?

I think you meant "Directory" and not "dictionary"?  ? -- The Red Pen of Doom 19:48, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

Oops - brain apparently not engaged again. Thanks. AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:31, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

stop policing !! material added is highly relevant

i am really surprised to see this, several years ago we used to motivate one another and celebrate addition of new material here. but maybe the times have changed. Do you not have a brain of your own to see whether the essay to which the link leads, is relevant or not. i can understand if you went there, had a look, and then decided that it was irrelevant. but you did not even do that, simply because the essay is written by someone who is not as famous as Peter Joseph or Madonna or Obama, you decided that it is irrelevant. There was a time when jimmy wales was equally unknown or not so famous :) - in short, you are no more behaving with common sense or employing any degree of judgement, other than that which is ordained by WP policies that are used to regulate problematic content or behaviour. But what i want you to understand is that there is no problem here in the first place; it is you who is simply creating the problem in the first place, rejecting a source, an essay, without even having a look on it, simply because the name of the author is unknown to you. here is the link for others to see whether this is relevant or not:

• Omar, Maysara. The Twilight of Capitalism: On the Future of Revolutionary Socialism and the Zeitgeist Movement, October 2012.