Hello! Voting in the2024 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 2 December 2024. Alleligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
TheArbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting theWikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to imposesite bans,topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. Thearbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
I was just wondering why you decided to nominate the article for deletion when it was already going to get deleted through the PROD system?DotesConks (talk)01:59, 23 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. I've no intention of returning to the level of editing I used to maintain - I just look in when I've got nothing better to do. Having some sort of ongoing editing presence (i.e. more than the minimum an admin would need to hang on to tools) is useful in that it annoys people (no names) who have this strange idea that only those 100% convinced that everything in Wikipedialand is wonderful should be allowed to participate.AndyTheGrump (talk)15:42, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Discuss on the talk page comments before closing a discussion
There is nothing to discuss. You cite absolutely no sources to back up your absurd ramblings regarding supposed 'Impersonation Scams and Name Jacking'. Wikipedia is not a forum, and nor is it a platform for toWP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS. I suggest you self-revert my hatting of the thread, before I decide to take this to ANI, proposing that at minimum, you be topic banned from everything related to Tesla the company, and Tesla the man. You should be aware though that given your block log, your very limited editing history, and your evident inability to understand what Wikipedia is for, that the community might very well decide that it would be simpler to block you from editing Wikipedia entirely.AndyTheGrump (talk)13:14, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I am going to make myself a cup of tea. If you have not restored my hatting by the time I'm done, I'm going to start a thread at WP:ANI, proposing you be blocked entirely, given the utter absurdity of claiming that Merriam-Webster can be cited as a source to supports assertions that an EV company founded in 2003 could 'impersonate' someone who died in 1943. You have already been blocked once for adding original research to articles, and if you are incapable of understanding why this stupidity is more of the same, that's your problem, not mine.AndyTheGrump (talk)13:32, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I see that ScottishFinnishRadish has closed the thread. In the interests of finality, I'll leave it at that. UniversalHumanTranscendence, you need to take note that if you start any more similar nonsense about this on Talk:Tesla Inc, or anywhere else I see it, I'm not going to hesitate before calling for your block. And please note that 'anywhere else' includes this talk page, so I'd suggest you think carefully before posting any response here. No response is needed, beyond finding something useful to do with your time.AndyTheGrump (talk)13:59, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I've blocked you for 31 hours for your acknowledged and deliberate personal attack on another editor during a noticeboard discussion:[2]. Doing so was disruptive and unhelpful; please don't do so again.Mackensen(talk)01:17, 17 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I’m not sure how to change it without it being original research, but I think the perspectives section in the zoophilia article is misleading when it references the psychologists saying stuff like animals can enjoy it. This suggests they actually studied the animals when instead they only got the information talking to the zoophiles who do it.
for example, Miletski actually writes in her book “my focus in the study was completely upon the human and his/her ‘desires.’ I am not a veterinarian; I work with and study humans. I do not know how to communicate with animals, and I do not know how to ask them about the very important issue of consent.” (Page 176)Delderd (talk)19:23, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
No problem, I was probably just as guilty. And unless BC Fourteen (or whoever is behind the Faktmagik account, in the unlikely circumstance that it isn't him) choses to participate in a constructive manner, which seems unlikely, the outcome is surely going to be the same regardless of when the AfD is run.AndyTheGrump (talk)21:33, 29 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Obviously I am not a suckpuppet or meatpuppet as you claim I am I just saw your edit to the Juest page from, the recent pages feed and that was why I intervened.Neogoodwriter (talk)22:31, 30 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yeh I mean I can help you, it is just that reporting me would be of no good cause clearly you do not read the sources well, I know some of the sources are not reliable but you are just clearing the whole page.Neogoodwriter (talk)22:36, 30 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
There are few things more pathetic than seeing some imbecile with less than twenty edits to Wikipedia trying to give lectures on reading sources. Go read up on policy, and come back in seven years, when you'll have half my experience.AndyTheGrump (talk)22:41, 30 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, Andy.I’m writing regarding your recent edit on the Expanding Earth page, where you removed a link to the Wikiversity pageCosmic Influx Theory under the "Contemporary" subsection. The edit summary used the phrase:“complete and utter bollocks uploaded to Wikiversity.”I understand that you may strongly disagree with the theory presented, and that skepticism about alternative views is warranted on Wikipedia. However, this kind of language — especially when referring to content hosted on a Wikimedia sister project — struck me as unnecessarily harsh and dismissive.The page I linked to was created in the spirit of open academic exploration. It includes a broad collection of observations and external references, particularly in Chapter 5 which discusses geological and planetary indicators related to Earth expansion — including new seafloor spreading interpretations and increasing volcanic activity.I kindly ask that future disagreements, even when firm, be phrased with a tone more in line with Wikipedia’s civility guidelines.I also hope that you will keep an open eye for emerging evidence or new interpretations that might one day contribute to a re-evaluation of expansionist ideas — especially in light of new planetary and geological data.Thank you.Ruud Loeffen (talk)09:18, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
What you presented on Wikiversity isn't a 'theory'. It is an incoherent, rambling mess, utterly devoid of meaningful content. A stream of disconnected assertions, unaccompanied by anything resembling evidence, and in as much as it claims anything at all, unfalsifiable. If Wikiversity considers hosting such nonsense a legitimate use of its resources, that's their choice, but nobody is obliged to pretend that it is anything more than complete and utter drivel. Or to refrain from describing such bollocks as bollocks. If you don't like criticism, don't publish bollocks, and then claim that it is science. Or 'educational'.
Furthermore, and perhaps more to the point, your posting of the link to your pseudoscientific word-salad on Wikipedia constituted a violation of several Wikipedia policies. It was grossly improper to use Wikipedia article space to peddle your personal deranged mumbo-jumbo. Wikipedia bases article content onpublished reliable sources - for scientific topics one expects reputable peer-reviewed journals and the like - and requires external links to adhere to a similar standard. This is an encyclopaedia, not a compendium of random bad ideas, and the community tends to take a dim view of those who treat it as a means to promote whatever half-baked sciencey-words-jumble they mistake for something worth reading. Feel free to complain about my language if you like, but don't be surprised if it rebounds on you. And please take note that any attempt to further this conversation with any sort of claim that your 'theory' has any merit - or even resembles science - will be responded to with a clear and unambiguous instruction to 'fuck off'. I have better things to do with my life than engage in pointless conversations with the chronically reality-challenged.AndyTheGrump (talk)12:36, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hello Andy, could you please explain to me why you keep deleting the article that i wrote for Evangelos Pistiolis? Dont say cause it was poorly soursed cause im sure you didnt read all the citation that i put otherwise you would have seen that all my statetements are completely accurate. If you dought the accuracy of the statements then next time please upload the specific arguments with proof that what im putting up is inaccurate or a lie.— Precedingunsigned comment added byMargaretrt (talk •contribs)08:18, 22 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
A few points:
Given the obvious differences between your writing here and in the article, I have to ask whether you are using ChatGPT or a similar LLM to generate article text? If so you need to readWikipedia:Large language models - there are multiple reasons why using such AI tools is unacceptable, and if you lack the skills to communicate in English without resorting to machine assistance, you shouldn't be contributing to an English-language encyclopaedia. Looking at the material I reverted in more detail, I am now 100% certain that it is LLM-generated.
Regarding the article, I'm not going to get into a debate over details - even if every source you cited was valid, and actually supported the text it was being cited for (it clearly isn't), the overwhelming majority of what you added cited nothing at all. The edit even acknowledged this, with the malformed '[citation needed]' tags included. If you know something needs a citation, you shouldn't be adding it without one. So no, I don't need to prove anything is 'inaccurate' - contributors need to provide the necessary citations to show that everything is supported by a source meetingWP:RS criteria. This applies particularly to anything that might be seen as promotional - which frankly includes most of your (or rather the LLM's) edit. It was machine-generated junk full of absurd statements about things 'reportedly' happening, and other obvious indicators of LLM output. Real, human, Wikipedia contributors don't write like that. If something is 'reported' we say who by. It was full of unsourced name-dropping (who cares whether the mayor of St. Moritz attended a horse race?). It is full of vacuous pufferysome industry sources informally referring to a distinctive style as the “Pistiolis design.” which even if it was supported by the source cited (it isn't) is vague, promotional, and entirely lacking any explanation as to what this 'distinctive style' might entail - meaningless puffery. Machine-generated garbage like this doesn't belong in an encyclopaedia.
Given that your entire editing history consists of adding promotional content to the Pistiolis article, I have to ask whether you are connected to Pistiolis, or his business concerns, in any way: if so, you need to readWikipedia:Conflict of interest, and possiblyWikipedia:Paid-contribution disclosure, and make the necessary declarations.
I'm not sure I entirely understand the question. Certainly, there are deceased historical figures who's actions still have impact on living people, but as far as policy goes, it is what we write about the living (and therecently dead to some extent) that is covered by WP:BLP. Beyond that, as a more general point about writing biographies of the deceased, any content regarding long-term impact, 'legacy' etc needs to be justified by significant coverage in RS, written long enough after the individual's death for such impact to actually be assessed.AndyTheGrump (talk)11:07, 30 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Well here is what I mean.
I don’t just mean in the sense that their actions impact modern people.
I mean they impact what benefits modern day people get, here in the United States (and I believe this is the same case in Canada)
Registered tribal members to Native American tribes get benefits from things such as: getting checks in the mail and potentially other things.(there is potentially other stuff.)
On one such individual I am writing about he was involved in some kind of land ownership controversy and when reading through some sources it appears this land controversy impacted his descendants decades after his death.
I don’t know if this land controversy is still important in the 21st century but I have seen an article written back in like 2002 on the matter title the paperWho owns Sault Ste. Marie?
(Haven’t finished reading the whole paper but it appears this controversy is still relevant to many people.)
Other individuals I am writing about were involved in some infamous family feud that lasted for decades during the late 1800s. But these 2 families only declared a truce in the 21st century. But I do believe I have seen some documentaries that shown there is still some controversies and anger among these 2 families even in the 21st century.
I still have no idea what you are trying to say. And frankly, I'm not interested in trying to answer poorly-explained abstract questions about hypothetical articles. Write a draft of your article. if you think there may be a WP:BLP issue with it, feel free ask me to take a lookwhen I have something concrete to comment on.AndyTheGrump (talk)16:58, 30 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Nuts5070: readWikipedia:Reliable sources,WP:SYNTH andWikipedia:Neutral point of view. Carefully. Very carefully. Because if I see anything remotely like your edit to the British Pakistanis again, I am going to report the matter, and call for you to be blocked indefinitely. You have already been reported at ANI once, and in my opinion got off lightly.[4] You have been given repeated warnings about adding unsourced content/personal opinion to articles. You have been notified of the 'contentious topics' status of the subject matter you have been editing. If you are actually incapable of understanding what was wrong with your edit to the British Pakistanis article, it would seem entirely reasonable to conclude that you lack the competence to contribute to Wikipedia at all.AndyTheGrump (talk)02:50, 5 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Speaking of incompetence, there are so many topics that are badly edited by many other users. Yet they do not get reported and often it has been observed.Nuts5070 (talk)15:53, 5 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, but even legitimate sources are removed in several edits. Tweets and YouTube videos may not be appropriate sources, but they have still been used as a legitimate source.Nuts5070 (talk)15:59, 5 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
And about British Pakistanis, there are so many sources where it has been fact checked that many pretend to be Indians. It is not appropriate for sure, but it is still happening.Nuts5070 (talk)15:57, 5 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Andy, would you mind having a look over this article to see if anything concerns you? It's currently atWP:GAN, but because the subject is a BLP minefield no-one has been willing to touch it and it has become the oldest outstanding nom. Thanks,Rollinginhisgrave (talk |contributions)23:44, 10 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I don't have the time or the inclination to look into this in depth. From a quick look though, the more significant details seem to be reasonably well sourced, but beyond that, I'll not comment beyond noting that quite a few of the sources aren't properly cited - they lack the name of the publication. I assume this would result in a fail in a GAN review.AndyTheGrump (talk)01:28, 11 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
"When he isn't walking the world, Nanavati lives in the Basking Ridge section ofBernards Township with his wife, Shruthi Nanavati. They plan to start a family' in the next year". What does that say, vandal?2A00:F3C:1234:0:2C0D:567D:6753:541D (talk)16:09, 15 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hey Andy, would you mind keeping an eye on me from time to time—especially while I’m working onthis draft?
My dad recently showed me that he receives money from the U.S. federal government because he’s recognized as a descendant of theCadottes.
I know I’ve been talking about this up a lot lately. But finding out that my dad actually receives federal benefits due to his ancestry is exactly why I felt it was important to declare a conflict of interest.CycoMa2 (talk)15:41, 17 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'll keep an eye on draft if you like. That's an unusual conflict of interest, if it is one (I'd say it was minimal, if there is one at all, unless there is ongoing controversy about this?). No harm in declaring it anyway. Looks an interesting subject, and you seem to have found some decent sources.AndyTheGrump (talk)16:44, 17 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I've been absent from WP for a few days, and thought maybe someone might be curious. Not going to be too specific - awaiting further info - but here's some thoughts:
1: Fuck cancer
2: Men in particular are sadly all too capable of finding good reasons to ignore the obvious - don't. I did. For a very long time. A very poor choice, but so it goes.
3: Bill (hypothetical) for over a week in surgical ward, keyhole surgery colostomy, camera up arsehole (there's a med term, I forget .. ), biopsy, two CT + 2 MRI scans + PET scan to come, full medical care, food, etc, including future treatment, currently indeterminate: £0.00. Since it is inappropriate to discuss politics, I won't.
4: Not discussing politics, so won't for one moment suggest that the NHS might be worth defending by any means necessary...
5: Again, no politics, so I'll refrain from suggesting that those across the pond even think about any of this - please erase from your minds.
6: Fuck cancer. And don't be an idiot like me. Don't let the fucker take advantage of denial, or other stupidities. Fuck it at the first opportunity.
Anyhow, that's a sit-rep, and several policy violations, from an old grump with an entirely new arsehole substitute for company. I won't pretend not to be looking for sympathy, but that's not my sole reason to write. If just one of the miscreants who lurks hereabouts heeds the sage words of an idiot (isn't hindsight wonderful), I'll be more than happy. Fuck cancer early. Fuck it before it knows what it is. Fuck it.
Hopefully I'll be around to make a nuisance of myself for a fair bit yet, so don't let me keep you further from doing whatever it is that brings you to this bizarre exercise in anarchobureacratic encyclopediatry.
(Special thanks to the contributors responsible for CT, MRI & PET scan articles - a useful distraction from feeling sorry for myself, and written at a level where I can pretend to understand the physics more than l do, actually understand why I needed the ear protection for MRI, and be a little more prepared for having radioisotopes pumped into me to do weird quantum stuff for the third magic doughnut inside inspector machine.)AndyTheGrump (talk)19:49, 2 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Sage advice. I've been grateful for what the NHS does over the four courses of chemo over the years. Please keep us informed as much as you care to, many many of us will be supporting you. -Roxy thedog21:12, 2 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
My wife has been cancer-wife for a few years now, but it's been a complicated journey. Fortunately, the NHS was there to cover the costs so, at least, we didn't have to worry about that as well... So, I've got a lot of sympathy for what you're going through. Stay strong, Andy. — Salviogiuliano21:19, 2 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Wasn't aware of LC's user page specifically, I'll take a look.
As for cancer, l suspect it'll try to do the dirty on a good few of the older Wikipedian crowd, per simple statistics. Hence the message from an idiot. Or part of the message anyway. The other part - the bit about the £0.00 bill - was actually written by my colostomy bag, gurgling against my new smartphone, honest. Let's see anyone at ANI prove otherwise, next time I'm hauled up for incivility or whatever ..AndyTheGrump (talk)22:03, 2 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Very sorry to hear this. The NHS has been great, although I gave up chemo a year ago. Just keep fighting. If you can do anything physical, do it/ My gym level treadmill gets a lot of use,. and I'm binging on NCIS!Doug Wellertalk10:01, 3 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure about NCIS (don't like its politics, though the plots can be fun, if you ignore the ridiculous tech), but exercise is definitely on the menu, as I attempt to get my strength (and weight) back up. Starting with things I was happy with a few months ago, like walking 15 min each way to the shops. Can't see myself subscribing to a gym any time soon. Or finding a gym that would want to see my scrawny bag of bones on display for that matter. Anyhow, fight on, Doug, and I'll do the same...AndyTheGrump (talk)08:48, 5 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Our history aside, I'm glad you caught it. My granddad didn't find out he had cancer until it was far too late. As you certainly already know, earlier you find it, the better. I wish you a quick and easy recovery. -ZLEAT|C22:57, 2 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I thought I might as well give an update, now that things have settled a bit. After a whole slew more of tests, some head scratching by the medical team as they collectively decided what, when, and how (no doubt complicated by all the data they were getting) and another CT scan yesterday just to give them a baseline image for the tumour so they can see how anything is going, I'm finally starting chemotherapy on Monday. They've put in aPICC line, for long-term two-way access to my circulatory system, and to enable me to go home with a pump attached to continue the chemo for a couple of days after each session (I'm getting one a fortnight). It'll be nice to not have people poking holes in me quite as regularly, though fortunately I don't have an issue with needles like some people do, and the medical staff seem to like my veins - easy to locate and get into, apparently, even without the ultrasound scanner they used to check the PICC going in. It's nice to have lots of technology to distract me while being treated, and the PICC-insertion doc didn't seem overly fazed by me asking dumb questions about my circulatory system while he was looking for his target. Got to love the NHS. Not just free treatment, but a free medical education! Well, not quite, but they seem to see the benefit of explaining what they are doing, and why, even if a lot of it goes over my head. The trick is to nod knowingly, and look it up on Wikipedia afterwards. Again, thanks to those responsible for the medical content I've been swatting up on, even if I did find the article onCo-codamol slightly off-putting with its apparent over-emphasis on side effects: probably for the good, since the codeine in it isn't something one should ever get too friendly with.
I'll maybe post another update once I've had my first chemo session, assuming the side effects aren't too bad. I'm not expecting it to be pleasant, but fighting Pain-in-the-arse (the tumour clearly needs a name, and I can assure you this is entirely accurate, and not just invective) is going to require a bit of unpleasantness, and possibly willpower, if it is to be beaten. Being an obstreperous old Grump may be to my advantage for a change...AndyTheGrump (talk)08:26, 24 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Andy, I'm sorry to hear this (and am glad you have a section for lurkers, this is all I do practically.) my brother is currently in chemo for re-emerged multiple myeloma and I'll be honest; your jab at how it costs 0$ hit me hard. It's being increasingly hard to be American, or at least to be proud of it :(. I wish you the absolute best!Hooples (talk)12:08, 29 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry to hear about your brother, myeloma sounds nasty, and having all the expenses piled on top of it must make it even more so. I hope I didn't come across as flippant when discussing (non)payment for treatment, that wasn't my intention. As for not being proud of being an American, I dunno, I'd say that the best sort of American (or Brit, or Lithuanian, or Congolese, or whatever) is one who loves their country (or its common people) enough to want to improve it, and maybe to argue that it needs fundamental changes. And, ideally, circumstances permitting, to do their bit towards making it happen.
As for the chemo, my metabolism/digestive system was all a little confused even before I started, as I'd just changed pain management medication, so one way or another I'm not sure whether I got any side effects from the chemo at all. Certainly nothing particularly uncomfortable, though as I understand it, it may get worse as I go through further sessions. Time will tell.AndyTheGrump (talk)12:38, 29 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
hope you're doing well! It has escalated to the point that my brother is just hoping to have Christmas with the family, I hope this is possible. Cancer... It's a horrible thing. I've been distracting myself lately with Wikipedia, looking for places I can be helpful. Asking you as a long time editor who I've grown to respect your bluntness: how do you, as they say, be BOLD? I find it hard to make edits, or find places to edit that are needed in the first place. I wish you the best of health!Hooples (talk)13:11, 18 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oh and I do not get offended at jokes about America/our healthcare system. At this point the jokes are well deserved! Hoping to get transferred to Dublin one day with my company.Hooples (talk)13:14, 18 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That has to be hard. I'm not sure what to say, beyond extending my hopes for your brother making it to Christmas. It's probably good to have some sort of objective in that situation - the interplay between mental state and physical health isn't something easily discounted, and while one can't think cancer away, one can certainly put oneself in a better position to fight it off for a bit. Or so they tell me.
As for me, I've been having my good days and my not-so-good ones, as the chemo side-effects start to kick in, but I'm mostly in good spirits. I could go into detail for one stoma-related reason for the not-so-good days, but it's a little on the gross side, and probably best suited for aUser Talk:AndyTheGrump/Yuk! Read at your own discretion! subpage.
As for being bold, or blunt, I am what I am. Evidently just about enough of the community find me just about tolerable enough to put up with it. It probably helps to be right about stuff, even as I'm rude about it, and somehow I seem to achieve that occasionally too.
I appreciate your time for a lurker. I wish you the very best, Andy! Also as someone with Crohn's I get the stoma talk... we'll leave it at that.Hooples (talk)21:59, 18 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Probably for the best to leave it, since I've just had another stoma incident, and this one almost succeeded in grossingme out, though it's actually a good sign...
Sorry to hear about the Crohn's, not sure I can offer much beyond sympathy: you probably need it, and maybe don't always get it because it tends not to be talked about as much as it should.AndyTheGrump (talk)23:02, 18 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'M JUST GETTING STARTED. LEARNING THE BEST WAY TO INFORM THE WORLD OF THE MUSIC AND DJ SERVICES THAT ARE WELL DOCUMENTED THAT I PRODUCE. THIS IS DAY ONE. SAY LESSSELECTOR44 (talk)22:00, 7 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Look here Andy. I just wanted to make myself researchable. I meant no disrespect. I'm not trying to advertise my services. I misspoke. I am an underground Producer/DJ. I felt my story and work should be documented. It's not that I'm looking for anything but to be remembered by the world. Sorry I came off like I was on Facebook. Like I said it's my first day. I was just setting it up and then I was gonna fall back and let the people I know take it from there. Please give the information a chance to prove its self. And if you don't I've spoken the truth then by all means shut it down. Sorry again. PeaceSELECTOR44 (talk)00:41, 8 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia is not a platform for making yourself 'researchable'. Nor is it a platform for you to 'document' yourself. It is an online encyclopaedia, with articles on subjects which meet ournotability criteria, as demonstrated through in-depth coverage inpublished reliable sources independent of the subject. Unless and until you receive such coverage, Wikipedia will not host an article on you. And in the event that you do receive such coverage, and an article is created, it will be based on what said independent sources say about you, and not on what you wish to say about yourself. You will be actively discouraged from editing it. And note that your user page isnot an article, is absolutelynot intended to mimic one, and is liable to be deleted if it presents itself as such.AndyTheGrump (talk)01:00, 8 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia policy on requirements that article content be based around published secondary reliable sources has been more than sufficiently explained. And given that my talk page is not a platform for the propagation of vacuous conspiracy-babble about intelligence forces supposedly attacking Wikipedia, this conversation is over. Keep adding your own personal analysis to articles, or continue with this paranoid bullshit about people conspiring against you, and I will call for you top be blocked from editing. Do not post on my talk page again.AndyTheGrump (talk)13:11, 13 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion has been closed.Please do not modify it.
Hello,You wrote to my draft
"I have no idea why there is a sentence about Tolkien in this biography. Is it supposed to be some sort of comparison? Regardless, Wikipedia articles don't include random comments on other subjects entirely"
The whole story is that there is a scholar called Ronald J. MannHis main competency was transactional law and bankruptcy.He suddenly turned out of his main area of interest and wrote about patents, technology and open source. However it proved his "random" writing about modern technology topic was more valuable than his previous standard bankruptcy & co writing.
What was the incentive for standard scholar to leave safe harbour and write risky and not-well sourced area of patents and open source ?Should university students think about motivation of scholar ?
I have used comparison to the Tolkien as an example of scholar who left his safe area of interest and made an surprising attempt and such attempt made him famous as he would not been famous without it. Is such information and comparison important ?
Should I call Ronald Mann to ask him why did he leave his safe harbour to have such information source ? Would not it be invasion to his privacy ?
was my aim to make high quality encyclopedia article wrong intention ?
Wikipedia is a tertiary source: an online encyclopaedia. As such, per policy, it bases articles around summarisingpublished secondary sources: articles on the subject matter, written independently of the subject. Itdoes not include Wikipedia contributor's own personal comparisons to other subjects.
And no, you should not contact Mann. We don't base content on personal correspondence, making unsolicited contacts from Wikipedia contributors both pointless and potentially intrusive. What needs to be done with the draft is tofind the necessary secondary sourcing, and then rewrite it based on what such sources themselves say about Mann. Not on your personal opinions on how 'surprising' or 'risky' you think anything he does is.AndyTheGrump (talk)10:43, 12 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hello Andy,
What if, the secondary sourcing is missing due to lack of knowledge of social scientists in technology area ?
Should not I publish latest technological advances without secondary sources to offer scholars best current ideas ?
Is it not promotional ? there is marketing of YOuTube channel and marketing of personality own brand ET7 ? Do you fight against such handling of Wikipedia ?
Wikipedia covers topics through summarising secondary sources. If the sources don't exist, we don't cover the topic. This is core Wikipedia policy, and I am not going to explain it to you again. Material not directly supported by such sources will be deleted, per policy. If you persist in adding such material to articles, you may find yourself blocked from editing, per policy. If you want to 'offer scholars best currant ideas' based on your own analysis of Mann, start a blog somewhere.AndyTheGrump (talk)12:39, 13 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
But why you are not consistent ? I have a bad feeling some admin and users are targeting my articles and ignoring huge PR activity by others.
I am not sure why an article about US legal scholar has attracted huge attention and I think that the reason can be for example German and Italy intelligence forces attack on Wikipedia , what is much worse than violating policy...VaclavHumanAI (talk)13:06, 13 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently editedBoard game record, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation pageGo. Such links areusually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles.(Read theFAQ • Join us at theDPL WikiProject.)
You can be thankful your ill-advised attempt to stifle opposition to your relentless plugging of Sanger's 'theses' publicity-stunt was shut down before I saw it. As for 'ensure we are all on the same page', you have no right whatsoever to control discussions in such a manner, and if I ever see such abuse going on again, I can assure you that I will do my best to ensure that you are on the receiving end of any 'punishment' handed out.
Wikipedia has its fair share of absurdities (quite possibly more than its fair share), but this ill-considered attempt to manipulate discussion through facile Wikilawyering has to take the biscuit, given that amongst Sanger's rag-bag collection of criticisms of Wikipedia is one I actually agree with him on - That such Wikilawyering to win arguments is far too common. Sanger, like anyone else, is entitled to criticise Wikipedia - I do the same myself, frequently, and sometimes forthrightly - and if he expects to be taken seriously, he can expect in turn to have his criticisms, and his motivations for making them, looked at in turn. If there's a better word than 'disgusting' for your futile attempts to stifle dissent from your relentless theses-fanclub nonsense by mischaracterising legitimate commentary as 'personal attacks', I can't think of it. So no, I'm not on your page. I never will be. And nor, by all available evidence will the rest of the Wikipedia community, who are unlikely to be overly bothered by robust commentary regarding someone who routinely has resorted to much more questionable characterisations regarding Wikipedia contributors (see e.g.[6] as a relatively benign recent example) in his endless campaign to promote whatever (inevitably failing) Wikipedia alternative he latches onto next. If you want to control talk-page dialogue, go start your own online encyclopaedia. You could even ask Larry for guidance, since he's had so much experience at it...AndyTheGrump (talk)12:04, 21 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I see this second attempt to dictate how Sanger's stunt is discussed has been shut down already. For the record, here's the response I typed out, but was too late to post:
No, I didn't send a 'hostile and threatening message'. I responded, robustly, to Wikieditor662's disgusting attempt to Wikilayer away any form of critique of Larry Sanger's 'theses' that Wikieditor662 didn't like. SAnger is a critic of Wikipeda. So am I, on occasion. Both of us are fully entitled to our opinions. And both of us can expect our opinions, and our motivations for expressing the, questioned in turn. That's how criticism works. If Wikieditor662 doesn't like this, I suggest he trundles off to one of Sanger's many failed attempts to start a Wikipedia alternative - a few (barely) maintain a web presence, and will no doubt welcome new blood.AndyTheGrump (talk) 13:01, 21 October 2025 (UTC)
Please note that any more attempts to stifle me will be met more robustly, though exactly how will depend on circumstance. I may request a topic ban (I suspect the community might see merit in that, given your reluctance to listen to what a clear majority have been telling you), or maybe more given the utter inappropriateness of your behaviour. Or I might possibly just lose my temper and tell you to go fuck yourself, and give you something to really complain about. And then watch as you get told (more politely no doubt) that you had it coming. Do yourself a favour. drop the stick. Find something useful to do. Or something useless. Just as long as it doesn't involve Sanger, or doesn't involve posting the same repetitive fawning nonsense on Wikipedia.AndyTheGrump (talk)13:01, 21 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I see that failure to drop said stick has now resulted in a 24h block,[7] unassisted by commentary and/or advice from me. As the youngsters used to say years ago when I was still able to keep up with their idioms etc, ROFL.AndyTheGrump (talk)13:39, 21 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure I'm necessarily always out to 'protect Wikipedia'. I've got some pretty deep critiques of some of its fundamentals. Regardless, it (and a great many other venues of communication and or exchange of knowledge) merit defence from the systematic attacks from the politically-motivated vocal minority they are currently seeing. A flawed Wikipedia is better than one run to suit the interests of oligarchy, bigotry, and grift.AndyTheGrump (talk)18:00, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed on essentially all points. I work at a university where similar pressures erode free speech and scholarship. But as at Wikipedia, I will take solace where I see many people doing their best to uphold a rigorous standard of human knowledge — a candle in the dark — with all its ramifying consequences. -Darouet (talk)18:33, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at theWikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help this dispute come to a resolution.
Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you!
I have reasonable suspicion to believe that this user is simply attacking others and newbies for fun, so under Wikipedia's COC, I'm nominating this age for speedy deletion.WikiCommanderInChief (talk)02:15, 12 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
check WikiCommander's Wikipedia User page, it is a blatant hoax-y load of BS. They are acting weirdly and nothing constructive is happening because of their edits. Maybe aWP:NOTHERE block is in order.BarntToust02:18, 12 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Aha. Let me guess—you, mister "17 year Wikipedia veteran" (with an account created 4 days ago) who is a "founder" of Wikipedia and the Emperor of the CounterStrike Empire—you are a, let's see,sockpuppet of a troll who Andy blocked years ago. Now the prodigal troll returns, screwing around here again for god knows what reason?BarntToust02:25, 12 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not blaming you for anything. It is a normal part of the collaborative editing process to remove content if one considers it unmerited, and ask for talk page discussion. Doing so is no reflection on any one particular contributor.AndyTheGrump (talk)16:33, 16 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I have the article on my watchlist, where I will respond to appropriate requests, when supported by the necessary sources. DO NOT POST ON MY TALK PAGE AGAIN
The following discussion has been closed.Please do not modify it.
Hello! Voting in the2025 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 1 December 2025. Alleligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
TheArbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting theWikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to imposesite bans,topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. Thearbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
I see you've also interacted with the user now.This has been going on for a while now and since my last notice, their behavior has been identical. I don't know what to do with cases like this, haven't had any experience here, but I am confident the user is NOTHERE. I'm asking for help, I guess. :PViva la horde, ~GoatLordServant(Talk)15:03, 19 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Please take note that with regard to the current drama, and more specifically to Atsme's relentless and absurd insinuations that I present some sort of physical threat to her, I am unlikely to be able to respond for the next 20 hours or so at minimum. I should be in bed now, rather than checking in on this nonsense, and I'm apparently going to be hooked up to a drip via my PICC line for something like 6 hours tomorrow (including new medication - sounds nasty, but the stuff that works needs to be). Needless to say, this will be taking place in an NHS hospital in London, rather than on a plane to Texas, so there's no realistic opportunity for me to beat her around her head with the drip stand, even if I intended to. Which I don't, quite obviously.
I suspect this situation may well have resolved itself by the time I get back home. If not, my response may or may not be significantly delayed, depending on multiple factors. Worst case, I might not bother to respond at all. I really don't need this crap. Not at any time, but particularly not now. I'm not looking for sympathy (well maybe a little), but I'd prefer it for the 'community' (or at least those taking note of this bun-fight) to at least be aware of the circumstances.AndyTheGrump (talk)23:23, 23 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Update. New chemo seems (so far at least) not as bad as expected, and my largely sleepless night enabled me to doze quietly though most of the session. It may have even for the best that the upcoming appointment disincentivised me from commenting further. I'll let everyone know if I hear from T & S (which seems unlikely), or I find myself kidnappped by Texan agents so they can drag me off to the US to hand over to ICE to deport to Mexico...AndyTheGrump (talk)00:51, 25 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
As to whether the situation is capable of permanent 'improvement' in the sense of getting rid of it entirely, rather than having it find new places to create mayhem, with the best case-scenario then being try to slow it down, the jury is out - my own pig-headed stubbornness in refusing to act on obvious symptoms being almost certainly responsible for it getting as far as it did. (Which is one good reason I chose to discuss it in public, since learning from some other idiot's mistakes is generally preferable to learning from your own in such situations.) And as far as 'suffering' goes, I'm nowhere near say Doug Weller's situation, where pain is a constant, and anything 'normal' is an exception. If it ever gets to that, I can only hope I show Doug's resilience, though I'm not sure I can. Meanwhile, I am, beyond having to deal with the uncertainty, and the sort of problems that are generally more in 'fucking nuisance' territory than the 'writhing in agony' kind, in good spirits most of the time, and (for the moment at least) feeling fitter and possibly even more cheerful (on average - its erratic) than I have been since well before I ended up in hospital: though that might at least partly down to the more pleasant side-effects of an opiate painkiller, and from being forced to obey the strict instructions of the hospital dietician to eat cakes, chocolate, and ice cream (amongts other things) between meals...AndyTheGrump (talk)02:36, 25 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I've just taken a laxative, due to excess 'hanging on in there', and (warning - yuk factor) 'going in an unexpected direction'. Details best left to the imagination, or possibly not imagined at all. So fortunately, I'll laugh at almost anything right now. It may not be the best medicine (I've not seenWP:MEDRS for it anyway), but it serves to distract, as long as I don't go in for deep belly laughs, which might actually hurt.
I can see little point in arguing the political stance of Justapedia on Reddit. You are unlikely to encounter anyone there who doesn't already have a fixed opinion.AndyTheGrump (talk)18:31, 26 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Typical obscure Reddit thread junk. Type, don't think. Larry Sanger's petition is an utter irrelevance. Given the publicity he's been getting for it, 3,743 signatures (half of which are probably invalid) is nothing, and the WMF is under absolutely no obligation to take any notice of it. What these imbeciles don't understand is that it isn't the rules of Wikipedia that determine the content. It isn't the WMF. It isthose who chose to edit it. Contributors, as far as the English-language Wikipedia is concerned, from all over the world. So of course they won't reflect the right-shifted narrow political bias of the US (or rather, they won't, as much as those with this agenda would like them to). It's reasonable to assume that the contributor demographicis skewed compared to the readers' but there are several factors that may work against each other. It is clearly male dominated. Contributors, particularly the more dedicated long-term ones tend to be well educated (which skews to the left because actually having a clue about things usually does, morons of Reddit). Beyond that, there are contributors from parts of the world that either don't particularly like the US for long-term political reasons, or have taken an intense dislike to the orange kleptoclown's behaviour. Who exactly is going to edit a Wikipedia that is forced (by what? ICE agents turning up at your door?) to match Sanger's transparent agenda? Anything that actually succeeded in enforcing a right-wing content shift (along with any other externally enforced changes - the contributors like making their own rules regarding what they do with their own fucking time, morons of Reddit) would inevitably lead to a decline in contributions. And no, they won't be replaced by new so-called 'conservative' (i.e. fascist) contributors, because there are fuck-all of them about that would be both capable and interested. There are very few from that crowd that want toreplace Wikipedia anyway - what they want to do is eliminate it. Which they can't since the contributors could simply fork it to somewhere beyond US control.
The facile 'make-shit-up-as-you-go-along-and-say-the-exact-opposite-later' propaganda of the US right simply isn't compatible with a Wikipedia-style medium. It maintains a record of content. It updates too slowly to keep up with X posts and Fox-droppings. And working for free is anathema to most of the right anyway. All this has been amply demonstrated by the failure of Justapedia to attract significant numbers of the sort of contributor they need (or any other sort for that matter). It's dead in the water. Atsme's poor choices (particularly mass forking of Wikipedia, which Google etc picked up on and reacted appropriately, since almost everything on the site is still just years-old WP content) didn't help, but it was doomed from the start. Musk's bullshit-bot-generated Grokipedia won't have helped either. It isn't a serious competitor to Wikipedia, but it was never intended to be. It won't destroy Wikipedia (it is so transparently full of crap), but it's quite possibly finished Justapedia off as collateral damage (more so since Atsme's decision to encourage bullshit-bot-generated articles). So carry on editing Justapedia if you like you brave half-dozen, but don't try to kid yourself that Atsme/Justme's mysteriously actual-numbers-free claims about increasing readership mean anything. They don't. 'Justapedia, the right-only write-only encyclopaedia' isn't going anywhere, because nobody wants it. Nobody but a few people with long-term personal grudges against Wikipedia, and a few random's who clearly enjoy writing for the sake of it, and don't actually care if it gets read. I'm sure they feel right at home on Reddit...AndyTheGrump (talk)13:12, 28 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Different times though. Schlafly had much more chance of being noticed, given the relative scale of Wikipedia then, and he wasn't competing with endless prior Wikipedia forks and half-baked 'competitors'. Plus he was aiming at a fairly narrow audience, evangelist Christians, which made it easier to focus on the sort of content that mattered to them. Conservapedia did quite well, in terms of Schlafly's objectives. A generalist alternative to Wikipedia nowadays simply isn't viable. Not if you are looking for actual contributors, rather than bullshit-bot drivel. Is this a good thing? I'd say no. Having alternatives is good, but not when they are being driven by individuals with dubious objectives. Not that most of them get far, since they don't have Musk's publicity machine behind them, and they tend to be started by individuals with delusions of grandeur. Wikipedia is flawed, quite deeply in some ways, but given the competition I'd say that it needs defending against anything of real significance. Which doesn't mean uncritical adulation. It needs honesty, and a willingness to listen to external critics - but in doing so, one needs to concentrate on what they are saying, and on whether they understand how Wikipedia actually works, rather than on the 'founder' status that Sanger loves to exploit so much.AndyTheGrump (talk)17:05, 28 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Totally agree!
I've heard that Conservapedia is pretty dead now, basically a homeschool repository of his students homework, although it's been a little while since I last looked at it.
RationalWiki might be borderline trolling but at least it's fun to read! Especially their historical articles of Schafly - it's so strange to read about that sort of fundamentalism from a non-US perspective.
I mean, the whole "show me the data, no I want your literal notepad" thing was just incredible.
Since they're using Grok for Grokpedia and it's been given instructions that don't make logical sense (and lead to MechaHitler) it's going to crash and burn eventually. Hopefully it'll be entertaining. They're forcing me to use AI at work and it's literally just screwed up a complaint letter I wrote a few hours ago. But the managers want their money's worth...
Sanger is really interesting coming in cold & looking from the outside. He's so sure that he's right and is so secure & protected in his first-world bubble that he really can't see what would happen if he got his way and all admins were outed. The gain would be tiny and the risk immense. It's borderline green ink with a huge dose of argument from authority.
Meanwhile, back at Justapedia, a new contributor is happily beavering away violating the Creative Commons license by making unattributed copies of multiple Wikipedia articles.[8] If it wasn't for the risk of being accused of hiring a hitman or something, I'd let Atsme know, since as far as I'm aware they have now got a policy against copying Wikipedia content, even with attribution. Given that isn't an option, I'll report it here instead, if I can figure out the appropriate place.AndyTheGrump (talk)18:20, 30 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hey AndyTheGrump - I believe you mistakenly/erroneously reverted my updates to Family Constellations page. I don't know much about Wikipedia editing process and correction of these sorts of errors, but I hope you & the team fix this mistake so we have accurate and useful information for folks interested in using Wikipedia to learn. Thank you.Waltersjoe86 (talk)22:23, 13 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not really doing much in the way of celebration this year, due to practicalities concerning the rectal cancer I discussed above (got to have a take-home chemo pump unplugged tomorrow, which is an odd sort of way to spend Christmas Eve) but I appreciate the thoughts, and it's beginning to look a little more positive than it could have been - the umpteen blood tests I've been getting seem to be trending in the right direction, and I'm mostly feeling fairly fit. I'll be getting another scan (CT I think) in the next two or three weeks, which should give further indications of what the tumour has been doing, beyond some fairly obvious indications that it has shrunk which I won't go into detail here (yuk factor, or fortunately declining yuk factor). There's still the possibility that said tumour has sent off scouting parties elsewhere, though as I understand it, the chemo will attack them as well, and blood tests for cancer antigens are supposed to pick up evidence of this too. The hospital sends me all the blood test results, fortunately with enough information to figure out which way they should be moving, so I can at least pretend I understand them. Or failing that, look at an online encyclopaedia of questionable repute, and learn a little more about why I'm never going to understand it all. The human body (or indeed, the body of your average nematode worm, let's not get cocky) is a complicated thing, and that it all works together at all says something about something-or-other, depending on your opinions regarding evolution, supreme beings and the like...
Anyway, thanks once again, and for anyone that hasn't, be sure to send Doug Weller your thoughts - he needs them a heck of a lot more than I do, and he's showing remarkable resilience.
I'll sign off now, since it's time for a further ordeal, as ordered by my dietician, who insists (yes, really) that I need to eat cake, chocolate and ice cream between meals, to put on weight. The horror of it all!AndyTheGrump (talk)22:27, 23 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
My dietician (see earlier comment above) will probably be happy I've eaten too much, but I'm not sure my stomach is. One the whole though, that's probably breaking even, which is one up on my usual Christmas exercise in over-indulgence, so mustn't grumble.
Here's hoping that the rest of you haven't overdone the Turkey, Christmas pudding etc (or whatever you have to celebrate whatever you do, if anything) too much either, unless you are also being pursued by a young lady in bluescrubs carrying a chocolate cake and a strawberry milkshake. Or did I just dream that? It's all a bit of a blur sometimes...AndyTheGrump (talk)23:45, 25 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yup. Hence the absence of several of them. Probably at least partly the result of being a British kid born less than a decade after the end of the sweet rationing originally imposed in WW2. My parents didn't particularly see much merit in me buying a 1/4 lb of sherbet lemons and scoffing the lot in one session, but they tended to do much the same themselves, now they could. Sensible eating (unless being pursued by a dietician who had a medically-justified alternative opinion) came later.AndyTheGrump (talk)00:56, 26 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Well if you don't like it, I suggest you confine yourself to not making ill-thought-out policy proposals that actively encourage systemic bias in article content. That is a darned sight more 'uncivil' in my opinion, and utterly inappropriate. This is a global project, and we have enough trouble with external commentators of the likes of Larry Sanger trying to impose 'neutrality' according to narrow right-shifted US political discourse without Wikipedia's own contributors trying to impose US opinion poll data as some sort of 'objective' measure for determining appropriate content. This is just plain offensive, and contrary to core Wikipedia policy.AndyTheGrump (talk)23:40, 13 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Andy, we clearly disagree as to whether the policy was ill-thought-out. That's why I went to theWikipedia:Fringe theories/Noticeboard — to ask for help and feedback from other editors. While I was initially defending it to make sure the arguments in favor were clear to those stopping by, I am very open to changing or abandoning the proposal if that's how things turn out. I am often wrong about things, which I acknowledge. But that does not mean you have to use an aggressive tone because of opinions you have about an issue we happen to disagree on. Discussing disagreements is what talk pages are for.
And yes, the question you asked is a good question — but we also A) were still drafting the article, which was appropriately labeled as a draft, so I think that merits it some grace, and B) we had already discussed removing public opinion polls inside the talk page, meaning we were planning to get around to the point you raised anyway. So starting your question off withwhy the fuck conveys a lack of respect which I wish you had handled differently. There is no reason to disturb calm waters with an inflammatory tone.Alexandraaaacs1989 (talk)00:36, 14 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
if you are incapable of understanding why this obnoxious proposal got the response it did, that's your problem. Think first, then write. Anyone with an iota of common sense should have realised from the start why this was never going to be acceptable.AndyTheGrump (talk)00:42, 14 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Please, will you quit communicating to me? I would like for you to ignore my posts and forget about me. There is no reason for you to communicate with me. Would it be helpful if I requested aninteraction ban, or are you able to please do this voluntarily? Thank you.
If you don't seek communication, try not sending emails. And I have already made my position regarding an iban clear. I'm certainly not going to 'volunteer' to refrain from commenting on policy-related posts which involve ridiculous comments about 'forcing' contributors to abandon core Wikipedia policy on sourcing. If this upsets you, I suggest you refrain from posting such absurdities in the first place. You have no right whatsoever to dictate who responds on Wikipedia:Village pump (policy), or how.AndyTheGrump (talk)21:44, 19 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I see no reason whatsoever to go into any of that here. If Bluerasberry wishes to take further action, I will respond in the appropriate place. Beyond that, I have made my position clear.AndyTheGrump (talk)23:24, 19 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
That's fine, but I was trying to learn more about it because I don't know the backstory. For example, what did you mean by abandoning core policy on sourcing?Viriditas (talk)23:43, 19 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
There was a spate of 'what is the difference between two obviously different things' questions recently, and at least one was very similar, from what I remember. No idea about the block.AndyTheGrump (talk)20:18, 22 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Hello! I hope you're doing well today. Just a quick question about a small matter. Did you mean to revert myminor edit when you reverted the other major edits? If so, I'd be curious to hear why it's preferable to retain such a long sentence, when it could be broken up. Thanks for your time, and have a great day 😊OrdinaryOtter (talk)15:29, 7 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
To be honest, I don't think I did intent to revert that, though looking at it further I'm not entirely happy with the lede either way: it seems a little disjointed, and could possibly do with further work.AndyTheGrump (talk)15:47, 7 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
) is useful in that it annoys people (no names) who have this strange idea that only those 100% convinced that everything in Wikipedialand is wonderful should be allowed to participate.AndyTheGrump (talk)15:42, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
There is currently a discussion atWikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. I'm just leaving this notice because another editor seems to be having difficulties.Phil Bridger (talk)19:38, 5 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
LikeBarntToust03:31, 12 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
AndyTheGrump (talk)18:49, 26 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
_-_The_Dream_of_Saint_Joseph_-_NG6276_-_National_Gallery.jpg)
.jpg)
.jpg)
%2c_cropped.jpg)
.jpg)
