User talk:AndyTheGrump

What, again?

What, again? Sorry to see this, Andy. Bishonen | tålk 18:27, 3 November 2024 (UTC).[reply]

In appreciation

		The Surreal Barnstar
		Pure wildcard energy. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 12:40, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitration case request declined

Hi AndyTheGrump. The Wikipediocracy-related conduct case request has been declined. While the arbitrators were closely divided, there was not an absolute majority to accept the case. For the Arbitration Committee, SilverLocust 💬 06:39, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2024 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2024 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 2 December 2024. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia 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 impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2024 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:23, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

RFC Notice

Hello, this notice is for everyone who took part in the 2023 RfC on lists of airline destinations. I have started a new RfC on the subject. If you would like to participate please follow this link: Wikipedia talk:What Wikipedia is not § RfC on WP:NOT and British Airways destinations. Sunnya343 (talk) 01:16, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

PROD to AFD?

Hey Andy,

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]

The prod was declined. [1] AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:06, 23 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@AndyTheGrump Oh ok DotesConks (talk) 03:17, 23 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Good to see you back. TarnishedPath^talk 13:16, 29 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

Before closing a discussion that has been open for many months, describe why the topic is being closed instead of closing it before discussion. UniversalHumanTranscendence (talk) 13:02, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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 to WP: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]

Merriam-Webster is cited as a source. This is a discussion, and there is a user who thinks we should replace tribute for reference that we continue to discuss. UniversalHumanTranscendence (talk) 13:23, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Please refrain from ad hominem arguments during a discussion on Wikipedia. UniversalHumanTranscendence (talk) 13:25, 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]

Blocked

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]

Whatever. AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:22, 17 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Perspectives on zoophilia

Hi.

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]

I'll take a look. AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:35, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Accidental foot-stepping

I was in the middle of a WP:BEFORE and so didn't see that you'd opened an ANI discussion or I would have held off on the AfD, apologies. fifteen thousand two hundred twenty four (talk) 21:21, 29 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]

Just stop

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]

Bullshit. AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:34, 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]

@AndyTheGrump, I wonder if this is related, adding unrelated references. Pre madago Knitsey (talk) 22:42, 30 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Can't see why. I think it most likely that this is autobiographical - the article creator, User:Making it now is now blocked, after messing around with redirects to draw attention to the page. AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:45, 30 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Zoophilia - Religious perspectives

Not sure what you expecting? What need to do? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Diff/1292891697 Tyachi (talk) 09:30, 1 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

What you need to do is read Wikipedia:No original research. And only then, if you can come up with secondary published reliable sources which discuss the content you have been adding and indicate why it is relevant to the article subject, begin a discussion on Talk:Zoophilia, where other contributors can comment. AndyTheGrump (talk) 11:26, 1 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding edit summary on Expanding Earth

Hello, Andy. I’m writing regarding your recent edit on the Expanding Earth page, where you removed a link to the Wikiversity page Cosmic 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 on published 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]

Entirely off-topic link I have accidently posted here for no good reason: [3] AndyTheGrump (talk) 14:52, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]