Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 15:36, 18 July 2012

ANI British Pakistanis closed with no action

To prevent any action, the ANI incident was closed by User:Bwilkins at 13:44, 19 May 2012 (dif-2473). Meanwhile, I was posting my !votes to that thread (dif-5650), and those 2nd carefully considered comments were reverted (and thrown away), rather than re-closing the ANI thread 20 minutes later. Sorry for all the wasted effort (and it was also a huge waste of time on my part). I suspect that many ANI threads are closed-no-action to reduce the size of the ANI page. Bwilkins suggested to perhaps post to WP:RFC/U, which might be the better way to get results, without the pressure to close a detailed thread to make the ANI page smaller. -Wikid77 (talk) 14:36, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps not surprising this was closed with no action, as quite a few editors were beginning to find it frustrating (were they just getting bored that there wasn't more gory "action" to entertain the assembled blood-thirsty crowd?) But not sure if this was a satisfactory outcome. There is (of course) no mention in the closing summary that one party felt they had to retire as a result. One suspects that the other party must have been over the moon with this "result". But neither is there any indication of the balance of votes. By my reckoning the "informal outcome" was as follows:

Topic Ban AnkhMopork: Oppose = 7, Support = 3.

Topic Ban AndyTheGrump: Oppose 12, Support = 1 (the ip proposer did not actually vote).

But I think perhaps some of the comments were more enlightening than the votes, particluarly those from OhioStandard. I do hope that Andy will re-consider his self-imposed retirement in due course. Martinevans123 (talk) 15:36, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

Five pillars of Misplaced Pages = 0, Commonsense = 0.

Trolls in charge of the project = Jackpot. Penyulap ☏ 16:22, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

JC Fremont Misidentification Resolved

A Bancroft Library photo archivist replied, "I had not seen this portrait before. I agree it is unlikely to be JC Fremont. It has been in the Bancroft Portrait File for decades, and the identification was noted as 'questionable' many years ago on the sleeve containing the photo. It is unfortunate it was scanned and put online."

Farther down in his post, the archivist wrote that the Bancroft contributor, Leo Stashin, appears to have made an 8 X 10 gelatin silver print in the mid-1900s of a quarter-plate daguerreotype original shot in San Francisco in 1855. My speculation is there were exposures of Fremont family members elsewhere on the plate, and that identification was mistakenly transferred to the Mystery Man, whose true identity is probably lost to history. RalphWiley (talk) 18:49, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

Bah

• Bah... this is what will be the downfall of this well intentioned project.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 00:57, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

Hey Andy

Have a couple beers, take a two week vacation, be back soon. NPOV always wins in the long run, just have a little faith. Carrite (talk) 04:07, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

Prejudice

Combating prejudice can be a thankless job. Your efforts at Jimbo's talk are extremely commendable. In time I will comment but I just wanted to thank you for your persistence and your clear and unperterbed manner. The editor in question may not "get it'. But others do. ```Buster Seven Talk 16:08, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

I agree with Buster. This place can't afford to lose good people like you. Gandydancer (talk) 17:25, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

Hear, hear! (And I do hope you don't find anything I've written on Jimbo's page at all patronising –  it certainly wasn't meant that way!) —MistyMorn (talk) 21:56, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

Mentioned you...

...here. Writegeist (talk) 21:37, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages Help Survey

Hi there, my name's Peter Coombe and I'm a Wikimedia Community Fellow working on a project to improve Misplaced Pages's help system. At the moment I'm trying to learn more about how people use and find the current help pages. If you could help by filling out this brief survey about your experiences, I'd be very grateful. It should take less than 10 minutes, and your responses will not be tied to your username in any way.

Thank you for your time,
the wub (talk) 18:06, 14 June 2012 (UTC) (Delivered using Global message delivery)

A belated welcome!

Here's wishing you a belated welcome to Misplaced Pages, AndyTheGrump. I see that you've already been around a while and wanted to thank you for your contributions. Though you seem to have been successful in finding your way around, you may benefit from following some of the links below, which help editors get the most out of Misplaced Pages:

• Introduction
• The five pillars of Misplaced Pages
• How to edit a page
• Help pages
• How to write a great article

Also, when you post on talk pages you should sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); that should automatically produce your username and the date after your post.

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! If you have any questions, feel free to leave me a message on my talk page, consult Misplaced Pages:Questions, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there.

Again, welcome! S. Rich (talk) 02:12, 19 June 2012 (UTC)--S. Rich (talk) 02:12, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

A beer for you!

i'm glad you're back. we all need excellent people like you.  altetendekrabbe  10:23, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

Hi

Can I just say I admire the level of discourse in this discussion. I appreciate your contribution very much. Would you mind trying to persuade me to your view on images of Muhammad? The reason and eloquence you display in that thread compels me to ask. I won't be a bit offended if you'd prefer not to. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 10:49, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

I think I've made my position clear on several occasions: There are no 'images of Muhammed' in the sense that he was never portrayed in his lifetime (or at least, no such portrayal appears to exist), and in Islamic tradition, portraits of the Prophet are rare, and often seen as offensive. It adds nothing whatsoever to an article on Muhammed to add such illustrations - at least, not without making it clear that such portrayals are widely condemned - and it would be more encyclopaedic to omit them (in the main article - there is no reason why we should not have a 'portrayals of the prophet Muhammad' article, with illustrations), and instead explain to readers why such portrayals are rare. Sadly, the issue has been hijacked by 'free speech' campaigners who seem to think that this is some kind of 'creeping censorship', rather than a discussion on the merits of illustrations in a particular article, and by Islamophobes, overt and covert, who wish to engage in shit-stirring for the usual suspect reasons. AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:37, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

It is the equal of having photographs of the garden of eden showing adam and eve having sex with the animals put into the article about the catholic church in the name of free speech. Penyulap ☏ 16:52, 19 Jun 2012 (UTC)

_{then asking the local schoolkids to vote on which animal they like best Penyulap ☏ 16:59, 19 Jun 2012 (UTC)}

So...Cain and Abel used their I-Phones to take pics of Mom and Dad having sex with __________________????? (fill in the animal of choice). Interesting. ```Buster Seven Talk 17:05, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

The perfect analogue for 'which images of Mohammed should we include in the article', if there is a better one than yours I can't think of it. Penyulap ☏ 23:05, 20 Jun 2012 (UTC)

I couldn't remember what your position was. I agree with every word of that. Thanks. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 20:19, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

Manning

This topic is closed. I will not allow Sceptre to violate Wikipedoa WP:BLP policy on my talk page in pursuit of his deranged and obnoxious campaign to 're-gender' Bradley Manning against his own express wishes. Sceptre, fuck of off and troll elsewhere, you repulsive little lying bigot. AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:48, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

I don't mean to nit-pick here, and feel free to let fly with abuse in my direction, but you forgot one f in off. It's f off rather than f of. Penyulap ☏ 17:15, 21 Jun 2012 (UTC)

Ooops! Well spotted. Thanks... AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:28, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

Yep, spot on now. you're welcome. Penyulap ☏ 17:36, 21 Jun 2012 (UTC)

If

If you're going to keep editing, then you really ought to revise the top of your page. We don't need a layer of silly accusations about your integrity or truthfulness driven by the disconnect between your words and your actions. WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:42, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

Good point, though I've not really decided what my intentions Misplaced Pages-wise are. For the moment, I'm just checking in occasionally, and dealing with subjects on my existing watchlist, and don't intend to spend much time here - in any case, my personal life is in a state of flux at the moment, and I can't really make any long-term plans. I'll remove the 'Retired' section though, as it is plainly not true. This place still seems to have a hold on me... AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:50, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

a little light reading

As the only recipient of the Grumpy editor award, I thought you may enjoy a little light reading Penyulap ☏ 23:01, 20 Jun 2012 (UTC)

June, 2012

Please desist from making personal attacks (flat-out insults, really) on other editors with whom you disagree, as you do here As you are doing this in full awareness of Misplaced Pages policy, and people's objections to your insults, and over a protracted period of time, please consider this a first and last notice, if this persists much longer I'll call this to the attention of administrators at the appropriate place and ask them to decide what to do. It's utterly unnecessary, and it does not further your editing goals at all. - Wikidemon (talk) 18:23, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

Do as you see fit. While Sceptre persists in misusing Misplaced Pages facilities in pursuit of his deranged involuntary re-gendering campaign, I will continue tell it like it is. He should be given the boot for gross violations of WP:BLP policy, not to mention being totally off his rocker. AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:07, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

I'd like to point out that the bad language in the first one has been corrected (see above), and mentioning the same diff two times doesn't generally make it twice as bad,.... but actually that is a popular strategy, and this is wikipedia, so hey, maybe I'm wrong there, the remainder appear to be dictionary definitions. Penyulap ☏ 20:42, 21 Jun 2012 (UTC)

It's known as doubling down, and makes it more than twice as bad. I deleted a completely inappropriate insult, with an edit summary to explain why. The passage in question was: "this applies just as much to your infantile obsessive-compulsive Jew-tagging as it does to anything else." There are no bad words per se, and bad language by itself is permissible, but referring to others' actions as infantile, OCD, and Jew-tagging is an inappropriate comment in any forum, particularly Misplaced Pages. Instead of rewording it, leaving it out, or moving on, he inserted the exact same comment again, only in bold the second time - erasing any doubt that this was intentional and he meant to provoke and offend. For the record here, I'm not the one who did in fact report him to AN/I, nor have I participated at present in that discussion. - Wikidemon (talk) 22:59, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

Notice

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is AndyTheGrump. Thank you. —TBloemink _talk 21:28, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

Blocked

I warned you against making more personal attacks, but you did it anyway. Being correct is not a good reason to engage in personal attacks (assuming you are correct, which I don't necessarily). Please take a week off to reconsider your style, or it may involve escalating blocks in the future. Magog the Ogre (talk) 22:48, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

Please note that given Magog the Ogre's attempt to pre-empt any questioning of this block with threats , I have no intention in engaging in any discussion with him. Never mind - Magog has struck the comments. AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:05, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

Sorry Andy for your block - as you well know - I have attacked you more than that - and you took it on the chin and kept it private - Youreallycan 00:39, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, YRC. Could someone point out to Wikidemon that criticising someone for personal attacks, and then raising straw man arguments about a "homosexual agenda" is hardly consistent. My position is entirely clear. I respect Manning's right to make his own decision regarding gender identity. When questioned on the issue, Manning has made it perfectly clear that he wishes to be identified as male. My position is thus entirely in accord with any ethical interpretation of what 'LGBT rights' should mean - and I find Sceptre's attempts to 'medicalise' this and to 'diagnose' a 'disorder' entirely contrary to everything I have understood the various campaigns regarding sexuality and gender issues to be about. If people want to criticise me for making personal attacks, fine. But don't make out that it is me who is trying to impose an external 'identity' on a vulnerable person, against his clear wishes. Is that what 'LGBT rights' are about now? I sincerely hope not... AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:52, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

As a Bi-Sexual transsexual (M2F) I totally agree with you...but you really ARE Grumpy, you know that? Hehe. (Sorry, I was skimming through AN/I...came across the almighty bowl of shit-soup) --Τασουλα (talk) 02:14, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

"I yam what I yam, and that's all what I yam". Regarding my own sexuality/gender identity etc, beyond conforming (broadly) to cultural norms, I've not really decided yet what I am. But I'm only 55, so there's no hurry. ;-) AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:23, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

And that's not a bad thing to be. In fact someone has to.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 02:41, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

When people are messing with BLPs, I think it's more important to resolve that issue first before spending time blocking someone for a personal attack. Screwing with someone's life is a more serious issue than insulting a pseudoanonymous Misplaced Pages account. Magog, have you indef blocked the editor(s) who are messing with the BLP in question? Cla68 (talk) 02:21, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

Yes, yes you are, and I can be a bitch, but I'm currently on a drive of maintaining civility! And well anyway it's never too late for...anything. And no, certainly not a bad thing to be, some people are rather comfortable being neither here nor there, somewhere in the middle suits them fine...and there is a proposed topic ban for the user who was trying to change Bradley Manning's gender (which is nothing but a straight-forward BLP violation if there ever was one) but it might not be passed and for the sake of my sanity I wont get involved. --Τασουλα (talk) 02:58, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

Oh, and we all have to deal with pricks on Misplaced Pages. At least your fair when you're Grumpy Andy, I understand issues can arise passion, but when someone is an asshole to you for no reason, then it bites and you loose your temper with someone who was the first to uncivil. Note, my talk page. --Τασουλα (talk) 03:08, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

I'm reminded of an infographic I saw online once about religious debates online. It went something like this: you think you're just telling it like it is, and everyone else is just too stubborn to accept the facts. But in reality, you just come across as a dick. If you are atheist, you see yourself as Carl Sagan, but everyone else sees you as Bill Maher or Richard Dawkins. If you're a theist, you see yourself like Mother Theresa, but you come across as Westboro Baptist or as a Crusader. I don't remember the other comparisons. To quote m:DICK: "Being right about an issue does not mean you're not being a dick! Dicks can be right — but they're still dicks. If there's something in what they say that is worth hearing, it goes unheard, because no one likes listening to dicks. It doesn't matter how right they are." It should be worth noting that I agreed with you in substance in both this case and the previous one where I posted on your talk page.

I figure you probably already know much of this, and it is awkward (and probably futile) for me to be giving advice to someone the age of my father, but I hope that I have a sliver enough of wisdom, even at my young age, that it is worth sharing. Magog the Ogre (talk) 12:17, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

This gets even stranger - we now have User:Roux taking up where Sceptre left off, trying to 're-gender' Manning against his own express wishes: . How many times does it need to be said: Manning has made it perfectly clear that he wishes to be identified as male. At no point has Manning expressed any public desire to be identified as female - the claims that 'he' wishes to be a 'she' are all based on a selective interpretation of private conversations, and other questionable 'forensics' engaged in by Misplaced Pages contributors. No published reliable source has ever claimed that Manning has asked to be identified as 'Breanna', or that he has asked to be identified as female. To the contrary, Manning has been explicitly questioned about this, and made the situation entirely clear. Given Roux's refusal to acknowledge the self-evident facts of this case, and to instead take over the soapbox from Sceptre (not to mention Roux's use of intemperate language on a thread originally started regarding my use of the same), I can't help wondering whether the proposed topic ban for Sceptre needs extending to Roux too... AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:02, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

Apologies, Andy, that I know nothing of the background to this "debate". But, regardless of Manning's wishes, is there a legal perspective here? Is that individual legally a man or a woman? One other thought, if agreement cannot yet be reached between the two opposing views here, would there be any scope for trying to avoid gender pronouns in the article altogether, as in the guidelines for non-sexist langauge? In practice that might look too clumsy, but it's just an idea, until things became clearer. But I know you think you are right. And you probably are. Regards. Martinevans123 (talk) 16:53, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

(@Martinevans123) Unless we have a source that makes it clear that legal gender changes have been taken, we need to assume that a person is what they seem to be. In this case, a male. (By the way, I am not saying that legal action is the only approach to this.) There's no need to write in a super cumbersome way because we *might* not be getting things perfect. I actually tried to write about Sceptre in gender-neutral language, but there were times that it was a lot longer or more complicated. The only reason I did that was because I didn't want to get into a debate on that with Sceptre and wanted to focus on the issue at hand.

As far as agreement between the opposing views, there is no need for that. We need sources, plain and simple. Sceptre has indicated via blog that most Wikipedians are "source fetishists", which seems to indicate that relying on sources is foolish or something. Whether we agree with the Verifiability policy or not, it is the policy and we need to follow it. To me, making absolutely sure that we source and attribute things sufficiently is a very proper approach. I don't see how else we can do it. We can't just assume facts out of thin air or intuition. While Andy is in fact a grumpy guy, I believe his actions overall are motivated by a good intent. -- Avanu (talk) 17:04, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

Um, I was hoping for a reply from Andy... I don't have a reliable source that Andy is, in fact, Grumpy. But he seems to be, haha, and even professes to be. Maybe that's why you've kindly answered for him. But yes, I was hoping for some kind of source for legal status. Maybe I'm being old-fashioned, but I was assuming that in the US, as well as in UK, a person legally has to retain their birth gender until it is legally agreed that their birth certificate can be changed. Maybe this is an irrelevance these days? Martinevans123 (talk) 17:21, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps, but I don't think that legal status would prevent us from changing gender pronouns if the sources were changing. -- Avanu (talk) 17:24, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

Martinevans123, legal status isn't an issue here - Manning has made it perfectly clear that he wishes to be known as male, and called 'Bradley' or 'Brad'. As for other articles, where questions over gender identity are actually relevant, writing a biography in 'gender free' language simply doesn't work - English isn't constructed to do it, and you end up with incredibly clumsy phrasing. These issues probably need to be dealt with on a case-by-case basis - and there is no 'case' at all regarding Manning, unless and until he makes a public statement. The attempt by Sceptre and others to 're-gender' Manning through a selective interpretation of private conversations, and through 'medicalising' the issue and 'diagnosing' a form of supposed mental illness (which is what 'gender identity disorder' is made out to be, at least in the U.S. - Europe seems to have a more rational approach to this) are not only contrary to WP:BLP policy, but are a fundamental attack on Manning's right to determine his own identity. Issues like legal status and non-sexist language are total red herrings, though such questions have often been brought up to divert attention from what is actually going on - POV-pushing by individuals with a rather peculiar idea of what LGBT rights are supposed to be about... AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:43, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

I see. Well, I hope you don't think I was just trying to divert attention from POV pushers. I thought legal status was important, insofar as if you got that wrong, you (or wikipedia) could be sued. Celebrities shouldn't get to decide exactly how their articles should look, should they. But here we seem to be saying that how Manning wants the world to see him/her trumps everything else. Maybe it should. I guess being a woman instead of a man, doesn't quite carry the same "wieght" as, say, lobbying Congress in secret, or being convicted of tax fraud. Perhaps it carries more. Martinevans123 (talk) 19:48, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

And now Sceptre is 'agreeing to his topic ban' by arguing that he was right all along, and that our refusal to 're-gender' Manning against his express wishes is somehow " a precedent that we can determine someone's gender identity by a consensus of people who don't even think about gender identity at all". Nope. We are saying the exact opposite: Misplaced Pages doesn't determine anyone's gender identity. And neither do random blogs... AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:12, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

I had assumed you were off the block already, but just a couple days left I guess. Let's be positive, Sceptre is trying to be conciliatory and has agreed to abide by the block. Its probably a positive thing for the time being because it will give people a chance to debate with different voices and give Sceptre a bit of time to consider other things as well. -- Avanu (talk) 19:17, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

We shall see, but it doesn't look like a good start to me - he's still trying to spin sources his own way, in total disregard for any pretence at objectivity. Trying to use a source that states that "one of us has the right to switch pronouns for Manning unless he tells us otherwise" to do the exact opposite doesn't look like an attempt to be conciliatory, it looks like an attempt to carry on with the same old nonsense... AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:26, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

A beer for you!

lookings forwards to your return. have a beer while you wait. cheers!  altetendekrabbe  12:05, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Special Barnstar
	Because you are honest. Darkness Shines (talk) 15:43, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

Hi Andy, ya grump

		The Joo Janta 200 award
		I award you these JJ 200's for your outstanding efforts to protect[REDACTED] to the highest standard possible. Penyulap ☏ 21:18, 24 Jun 2012 (UTC)

It seems I broke my silence (solidarity) to address the crowds at WikiProject Penyulap, some new dramaboard that sprung up just for me. Penyulap ☏ 02:40, 25 Jun 2012 (UTC)

Telepathy

Hi, Andy, sorry you're blocked. I've rearranged the lede of Telepathy a little, just to make the scars of (I assume) edit war compromises less obvious. It looks like you're probably watching the article; if you'd let me know here on your page if you have any objections to my changes, I'd appreciate it. Bishonen | talk 12:39, 25 June 2012 (UTC).

Yes, I've had that on my watchlist - mainly in an attempt to keep the worst of the woo out. Regarding the lede, I think that "Telepathy... refers to the transmission of information from one person to another without using any of our known sensory channels or physical interaction" may need the word 'supposed' inserted before 'transmission'. If memory serves right I'd made a change along these lines before. AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:38, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

Hmm… well, maybe, but I think I'll leave that to you, when you return from the block. (Or to one of your talkpage watchers.) It doesn't feel logically necessary to me, especially now that somebody has just changed "telepathy is" to "telepathy refers to". After all, "telepathy" does refer to the transmission of information from one person to another without using etc. That it refers to something that doesn't exist is another matter (dealt with in the next sentence but one). :-) Bishonen | talk 19:21, 25 June 2012 (UTC).

@Bishonen - Thanks for your post on my talk page. I actually joined in on the lede after seeing your conversation here, while friendlily stalking Andy's page. I also posted a clumsily worded and carefully concealed query on the telepathic talk page rather than here because I feel that, when possible, it's better to discuss content issues in the usual place. As it stands, I fear the last sentence of the lede could be a potential source of confusion to some readers (though such concerns pale into insignificance alongside the concluding cquote here). Best, —MistyMorn (talk) 13:12, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

unblock request

I've requested two unblocks. Here is the template: Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Arcandam (talk) 04:59, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

This help request has been answered. If you need more help, you can ask another question on your talk page, contact the responding user(s) directly on their user talk page, or consider visiting the Teahouse.

Could someone please post the response below in the appropriate place (Misplaced Pages:Administrators'_noticeboard#Block_review:_Sceptre_and_AndyTheGrump):

• Oppose, this attempt to involuntarily 'request an unblock on my behalf'. I have not requested an unblock, have accepted that my behaviour merited a block, and intended to accept the block without appeal. To use an involuntary unblock as 'fairness' to justify unblocking someone else seems to me to be highly questionable - and more so when the block has little time left to run, and this is supposed to 'balance' an unblock for a continuing refusal on Sceptre's part to conform to WP:BLP policy, and to cease using Misplaced Pages as a platform for a campaign to 'regender' Bradley Manning against Manning's own express wishes. Sceptre's continuing IDHT behaviour should be looked at on its own merits. AndyTheGrump (talk) 11:36, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

 Done (✉→BWilkins←✎) 11:44, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. AndyTheGrump (talk) 11:51, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

Looks to me like Arcandam didn't want you left out. You've definitely been a great sport about your block, and I'm looking forward to you being able to get back to your normal grumpy routine. -- Avanu (talk) 14:40, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

Certainly makes me ashamed of my attempt at solidarity, I'm doing little in the way of article space, but I was doing less lately because of so many problems just the same, and as for staying away from the drama boards, omg, I admit I've abandoned you. I feel awful. Penyulap ☏ 15:54, 27 Jun 2012 (UTC)

A Tasmanian football oval for you

	Your Grumpiness may or may not match that of ha-Qoheleth of the KGV... erm, KJV
	"For in much wisdom is much grief: and he that increaseth knowledge increaseth sorrow." As a kid I saw Peter Hudson kick ten goals for Glenorchy against Hobart at the North Hobart Oval. It naturally follows that that I get "KGV" and "KJV" confused.... Or something... --Shirt58 (talk) 14:57, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

Unblock

Here's a note to let you know that I've unblocked you per discussion at AN. Keilana| 18:16, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

And has since reblocked you, per your request not to be unblocked at this time. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 18:41, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

...Meanwhile, there has still been no clarification as to what the scope of Sceptre's topic ban is. Is he allowed to continue violating WP:BLP policy on talk pages, or not? AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:59, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

My understanding is that no, he's not; it's just that that should have been made more clear before he was blocked. - Jorgath (talk) 19:10, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

That's how I read the outcome of the discussion as well. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:35, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

LOL: "I think it's a no-brainer that, for such a sensitive topic as LGBT issues, you do need a quick 101: MOS:IDENTITY favouring a person's self-identity to others' perceptions of the identity is no accident, it reflects medical, academic, and journalistic manuals of style". Yup, Sceptre is still at it, arguing for the exact opposite of what he's actually doing. Manning's 'self identity' as he wishes the public to see it, is currently as a male, named Bradley, as he has himself made clear. Sceptre's 'perceptions of the identity' of Manning are based on a selective interpretation of sources. It takes little effort to discover that Sceptre's position is not only rejected by the Bradley Manning Support network, and by many within the LGBT community, but that at there are trans women who likewise reject a position that allows others to 're-gender' a person based on private conversations and hearsay evidence - see for instance some of the comments here: . Are these women 'transphobic' too? AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:26, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

Hi Andy.

I mentioned you here Penyulap ☏ 06:41, 2 Jul 2012 (UTC)

The laughing nutter

	The Laughing Nutter
	you almost killed me with this one, "Farts of the rich and famous? Half-eaten sandwiches of people featured in the tabloids? ... If people want to create meaningless junk like this they should found their own website: Sowhatopedia" Oh god, I needed a doctor after that. Penyulap ☏ 07:38, 2 Jul 2012 (UTC)

Ron Ron

Did you really mean to remove as much content here as you did? I don't like to second guess your cleanup efforts, but you might want to take one last look, just to make sure you left the article the way you intended it to be.  -- WikHead (talk) 04:28, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

The article contains multiple serious WP:BLP violations - unsourced allegations of criminal activity etc. As such, blanking the lot is preferable to any other course - and indeed is required under policy, if the alternative is leaving it in. Yes, it would be nice to spend longer picking out the unsourced policy-violating hype and waffle from all the other hype and waffle, but our first concern has to be with the violations. If Ron Ron merits an article which can be based on reliable sources, and which doesn't violate policy, someone can write it. For now, we are better off with nothing than with a potential legal minefield. Feel free to add back anything that (a) can be sourced properly, and (b) conforms with policy - though you may have trouble finding it... AndyTheGrump (talk) 04:38, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

Alright, I'm happy with that . I figured I should ask though, because with your removal of the categories, it appeared to me that an accidental page-chop might have occurred. I see them happen from time to time, and the user most often isn't even aware that something went wrong. I was just making absolutely sure. Have yourself a great day Andy, and happy editing! :)  -- WikHead (talk) 05:08, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

John Derbyshire and the pronunciation of his surname.

I don't see how Mr Derbyshire, presumably he is now long a naturalised, or naturalized, citizen of the United States, can somehow insist upon, nay dictate, that his surname is still to be pronounced only in the English (English, not British, in this instance; the word "Shire" is definitely pronounced very differently in Scotland) way? Both the English way and the American way would do, surely? -- KC9TV 02:52, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

True enough - when it comes to pronunciation, there is often no 'correct' way - and the pronunciation of English place names (counties, cities, etc) is often less-than-obvious. To a Londoner like me, there is no 'r' sound in 'Derbyshire' - but then there is no 'r' sound in 'Londoner' either: it's "Lund'n-na". Does Mr D have an opinion on whether my pronunciation is correct? And what about someone from Wans'weuff or Acknee? Should we give the local pronunciation, or the 'correct' version? I think that the best advice I could offer Mr D is that if you don't like having your name mispronounced, don't spend so much time and effort trying to bring it to people's attention... AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:35, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

In case you didn't know:

"There was a whole section on ethics and how you'd react in a given situation, like dealing with an obnoxious customer", she says. "The message was pretty clear - if you're a grumpy type, don't be a waitress." Andrea was surprised... (continued page 94)

—MistyMorn (talk) 22:30, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

LOL. "...according to the author Annie Murphy Paul, as many as three-quarters of test takers achieve a different personality type when tested for a second time". Bunkum. Profitable bunkum I expect (though no doubt my high GQ* makes such a response inevitable). I've never worked as a waitress (wrong gender/gender identity), or as a waiter, though from personal experience, I suspect that some are employed purely on their ability to combine overt politeness with a barely-concealed contempt for the customer. This may even make economic sense - it ensures the customers feel uncomfortable, so eat quickly, and don't hang around hogging the tables...

* GQ = Grumpiness Quotent. I'm thinking of forming an organisation for individuals of high GQ, analogous to this lot. Or maybe we need a campaigning group instead. The 'Grumpy Liberation Movement'? We could organise marches, and chant slogans: "What do we want? Everything fixed! When do we want it? Whenever - it isn't going to happen...". AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:53, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

How about a nice Italian waitress appreciation society? You know, the ones with barely-concealed quotients, who ensure the customers feel good, eat well, and like to come back. —MistyMorn (talk) 09:30, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

request for comment

i would like you to comment on this thread on my talk page. -- altetendekrabbe  08:07, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

Talkback

Nathan2055 20:30, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

Ad hominem comments

Andy, please keep talk page comments focused on the discussion, not the participants. Thanks. Jojalozzo 13:08, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

Can I appeal?

I have to admit that ever since I saw this Dilbert comic in print, I have thought of it whenever someone asks the question, "Can I appeal?". TenOfAllTrades(talk) 21:06, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

ROFL! AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:08, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

And I give up... —MistyMorn (talk) 21:20, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

ROFL again! Strangely enough I've just had the same message while trying to use a rude comment about my ISP as a password for a WiFi internet hub... AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:36, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

That's the sort of stuff that gets me really ROFSLI, porca puttana ... (notcensored!)—MistyMorn (talk) 00:18, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

Here is my favourite, it sums up pretty much 95% of the consensus tensions I run across on here. Every time I discuss the ENG:VAR with anyone, I want to go away and draw up a homage to Dilbert for the "What the F#$% is consensus" policy page. You point out manipulation or outright defiance of existing consensus, and cognitive dissonance is like a mandatory response for all[REDACTED] editors violating the consensus. Is there a guideline somewhere called 'social guidelines for the inept' that these people are all following, the co-ordination seems to indicate as much. Penyulap ☏ 01:58, 17 Jul 2012 (UTC)

You are involved in a recently filed request for arbitration. Please review the request at Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests#Nenpog vs. Guy Macon, Doc James, and Yobol. and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. Additionally, the following resources may be of use—

• Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests#Requests for Arbitration;
• Misplaced Pages:Arbitration guide.

Thanks, — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nenpog (talk • contribs) 15:35, 18 July 2012 (UTC)