User talk:AndyTheGrump

What, again?

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

In appreciation

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

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)

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)

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)

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)

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

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

Good to see you back. TarnishedPath^talk 13:16, 29 March 2025 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Please refrain from ad hominem arguments during a discussion on Wikipedia. UniversalHumanTranscendence (talk) 13:25, 11 April 2025 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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

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)

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

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)

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)

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)

Bullshit. AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:34, 30 May 2025 (UTC)

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)

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)

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

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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

Regaring Deleting Evangelos J. Pistiolis article

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. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Margaretrt (talk • contribs) 08:18, 22 June 2025 (UTC)

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 read Wikipedia: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 meeting WP: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 puffery some 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 read Wikipedia:Conflict of interest, and possibly Wikipedia:Paid-contribution disclosure, and make the necessary declarations.

AndyTheGrump (talk) 10:38, 22 June 2025 (UTC)

Biographies of historical figures that fall into BLP territory

This might be a weird question, but how familiar are you to biographies on historical figures that impact living people to the present day?

I ask because I am working on a few biographies on historical figures that may fall into BLP area. CycoMa2 (talk) 08:31, 30 June 2025 (UTC)

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 the recently 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)

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 paper Who 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.

Just felt I needed to give more context about these individuals to understand the situation I am in. CycoMa2 (talk) 16:05, 30 June 2025 (UTC)

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 look when I have something concrete to comment on. AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:58, 30 June 2025 (UTC)

Removed edits

Andy the Grump, you reverted 3 edits that I made for British Pakistanis and Pakistani Americans, calling them garbage and not neutral. Can you provide substantial context that it's not neutral? Nuts5070 (talk) 01:57, 5 July 2025 (UTC)

@Nuts5070: Seriously, you think "pretending as Indians" is in any way appropriate? Acroterion (talk) 02:04, 5 July 2025 (UTC)

@Nuts5070: read Wikipedia:Reliable sources, WP:SYNTH and Wikipedia: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)

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)

That's not an excuse for your conduct. Acroterion (talk) 15:57, 5 July 2025 (UTC)

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)

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)

Get the fuck off my talk page. This isn't a platform for pig-ignorant bigoted scum. AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:00, 5 July 2025 (UTC)

ANI

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia: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)

Thanks. I'd already seen the thread. AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:10, 5 July 2025 (UTC)

Amos Yee

Hi Andy, would you mind having a look over this article to see if anything concerns you? It's currently at WP: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)

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)

Thanks Andy, this helps. Maybe surprisingly, GAs only have to have consistent referencing (e.g. Harvard/APA), to the point that your references can all be bare URLs (so long as they aren't deadlinks). Rollinginhisgrave (talk | contributions) 02:38, 11 July 2025 (UTC)

Akshay Nanavati

Why the vandalism? Did you even read the source/s? 2A00:F3C:1234:0:2C0D:567D:6753:541D (talk) 16:04, 15 July 2025 (UTC)

Yes. You clearly haven't. Stop adding unsourced information, if you don't want to be blocked from editing. AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:06, 15 July 2025 (UTC)

READ THE SOURCE!!!. It is spelt out in talk!2A00:F3C:1234:0:2C0D:567D:6753:541D (talk) 16:07, 15 July 2025 (UTC)

Stop reverting sourced info!2A00:F3C:1234:0:2C0D:567D:6753:541D (talk) 16:07, 15 July 2025 (UTC)

"When he isn't walking the world, Nanavati lives in the Basking Ridge section of Bernards 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)

@2A00:F3C:1234:0:2C0D:567D:6753:541D: You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war, see talk page. —HirowoWiki _{DM me on Discord at hirowo_.! | my contribs!} 16:10, 15 July 2025 (UTC)

BY someone explicitly not liking a source without discussion? Seek consensus then or delete the article.2A00:F3C:1234:0:2C0D:567D:6753:541D (talk) 16:13, 15 July 2025 (UTC)

It says what it says. What it doesn't say is when they married. It is nothing but trivia, anyway. Go away and get a life. AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:12, 15 July 2025 (UTC)

then seek wider consensus on what you perceive as noteworthy when the source is already RS.2A00:F3C:1234:0:2C0D:567D:6753:541D (talk) 16:14, 15 July 2025 (UTC)

Date removed (not added by me). Marriage is sourced to RS. Go away and get a life.' 2A00:F3C:1234:0:2C0D:567D:6753:541D (talk) 16:19, 15 July 2025 (UTC)

The guy is divorced (and no, we don't have a date for that either). [5] He no longer has a spouse. Trivia. AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:45, 15 July 2025 (UTC)

Do me a favor and keep an eye on me once in a while

Hey Andy, would you mind keeping an eye on me from time to time—especially while I’m working on this draft?

My dad recently showed me that he receives money from the U.S. federal government because he’s recognized as a descendant of the Cadottes.

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)

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)

For lurkers...

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)

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 the dog 21:12, 2 September 2025 (UTC)

Sorry to hear that, but glad to hear you're around to say it. As Roxy says, sage advice. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 21:14, 2 September 2025 (UTC)

Thanks both. I'll try to keep things updated. And no doubt be up to my usual mischief anyway AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:20, 2 September 2025 (UTC)

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. —  Salvio ^giuliano 21:19, 2 September 2025 (UTC)

Very sorry to hear it, Andy. Did you notice that Locke Cole's userpage has been devoted to fucking cancer for some time now? And to fucking Johnson & Johnson. Terrible story. Bishonen | tålk 21:44, 2 September 2025 (UTC).

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)

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 Weller talk 10:01, 3 September 2025 (UTC)

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)

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. - ZLEA ^T|C 22:57, 2 September 2025 (UTC)

Update

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 a PICC 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 on Co-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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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 a User 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.

If I've been in an unusually bold mood recently, its probably the painkillers... AndyTheGrump (talk) 13:46, 18 November 2025 (UTC)

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)

Probably for the best to leave it, since I've just had another stoma incident, and this one almost succeeded in grossing me 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)

You've got mail

Hello, AndyTheGrump. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template. Doug Weller talk 09:58, 3 September 2025 (UTC)

THANKS FOR YOUR INSIGHTS INTO WHAT I'M DOING.

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 LESS SELECTOR44 (talk) 22:00, 7 September 2025 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a platform for informing the world about your services. Read WP:PROMOTION. And please stop posting in all caps. AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:22, 8 September 2025 (UTC)

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. Peace SELECTOR44 (talk) 00:41, 8 September 2025 (UTC)

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 our notability criteria, as demonstrated through in-depth coverage in published 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 is not an article, is absolutely not intended to mimic one, and is liable to be deleted if it presents itself as such. AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:00, 8 September 2025 (UTC)

Duly noted SELECTOR44 (talk) 01:15, 8 September 2025 (UTC)

This section

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Killing_of_Charlie_Kirk#suspect_vs_perp

I agree with you and would support you taking it further (though I don't know how myself). That entire set of pages have been a BLP shit show. — Very Polite Person (talk/contribs) 16:21, 14 September 2025 (UTC)

Draft: Ronald Mann - comment

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)
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. Mann His 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 ? Regards Vaclav VaclavHumanAI (talk) 10:21, 12 October 2025 (UTC) Wikipedia is a tertiary source: an online encyclopaedia. As such, per policy, it bases articles around summarising published secondary sources: articles on the subject matter, written independently of the subject. It does 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 to find 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) 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 ? Look this side https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ella_Toone 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 ? Regards Vaclav VaclavHumanAI (talk) 07:34, 13 October 2025 (UTC) 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) 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)

Disambiguation link notification for October 19

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Board game record, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Go. Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, --DPL bot (talk) 07:53, 19 October 2025 (UTC)

Administrator notice

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. You can find it at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Repetitive Ad Hominem Attacks. The purpose is not to punish but to ensure we are all on the same page. Wikieditor662 (talk) 02:02, 21 October 2025 (UTC)

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)

Administrator notice

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. You can find it at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Hostile and Threatening talk page message from AndytheGrump following closed ANI. Wikieditor662 (talk) 12:30, 21 October 2025 (UTC)

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)

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 made a reply to your response to my edit request on Talk:Black people. 2A0A:EF40:135F:701:C3:524:386F:474A (talk) 13:11, 25 October 2025 (UTC)

I replied again. 2A0A:EF40:135F:701:C3:524:386F:474A (talk) 17:03, 25 October 2025 (UTC)

Thank you

		The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar
Thanks for your tireless efforts to improve and protect humanity's encyclopedia! Darouet (talk) 17:53, 4 November 2025 (UTC)

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)

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)

I replied

I replied to your response to my edit request on Wikipedia:Reference desk/Miscellaneous. ~2025-31483-72 (talk) 16:45, 5 November 2025 (UTC)

Reply

I replied to your response to my edit request on Talk:Black people. ~2025-32191-91 (talk) 21:56, 8 November 2025 (UTC)

I replied again. ~2025-32029-26 (talk) 22:58, 8 November 2025 (UTC)

You have been told repeatedly that we do not add unsourced content. Stop wasting my time. AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:11, 8 November 2025 (UTC)

Notice of Dispute resolution noticeboard discussion

This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Wikipedia: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!

LevatorScapulaeSyndrome (talk) 15:01, 10 November 2025 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of User:AndyTheGrump

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)

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 a WP:NOTHERE block is in order. BarntToust 02:18, 12 November 2025 (UTC)

I made that page as a joke lol WikiCommanderInChief (talk) 02:19, 12 November 2025 (UTC)

almost 23 Wikikids bullied off the platform by Andy btw. Also, he has been blocked before for attacking others. WikiCommanderInChief (talk) 02:21, 12 November 2025 (UTC)

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? BarntToust 02:25, 12 November 2025 (UTC)

Well, Wikipedia is no place for the pointless jokes of fools like you. Need an Admin here to issue a WP:NOTHERE indef for this Commander clown. BarntToust 02:21, 12 November 2025 (UTC)

Already indeffed. AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:26, 12 November 2025 (UTC)

Like BarntToust 03:31, 12 November 2025 (UTC)

happened not shortly after I made that comment. BarntToust 03:31, 12 November 2025 (UTC)

Your Party

I was only rewording what was already there. Don't blame me. ~2025-34032-39 (talk) 14:57, 16 November 2025 (UTC)

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)

Opinion

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.
I made a reply to your response to the second latest edit request on Talk:Black people, giving my opinion. ~2025-34214-98 (talk) 20:03, 16 November 2025 (UTC) I replied back. ~2025-34168-28 (talk) 00:03, 17 November 2025 (UTC) Please note that I have the article on my Watchlist. It isn't necessary to post here repeatedly. AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:01, 17 November 2025 (UTC) I replied again twice. ~2025-34367-23 (talk) 16:29, 17 November 2025 (UTC)

ArbCom 2025 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2025 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 1 December 2025. 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 2025 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) 00:32, 18 November 2025 (UTC)

Jp33442

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. :P Viva la horde, ~ GoatLordServant^(Talk) 15:03, 19 November 2025 (UTC)

JP is now cu blocked. Doug Weller talk 15:49, 19 November 2025 (UTC)

Wasn't expecting that. Viva la horde, ~ GoatLordServant^(Talk) 17:13, 19 November 2025 (UTC)

Please note

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)

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)

Here's hoping your situation improves and that you have less suffering in your future and more happiness. Viriditas (talk) 02:09, 25 November 2025 (UTC)

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)

Hang in there, Baby. (hopefully, you appreciate this kind of humor) Viriditas (talk) 04:00, 25 November 2025 (UTC)

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 seen WP: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.

Note to self: drink tea before gargling with mouthwash (prescribed for mouth ulcer). Mint tea is a thing, but this isn't it. AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:49, 26 November 2025 (UTC)

I learned the hard way never to let tea seep for more than three minutes! Viriditas (talk) 21:10, 26 November 2025 (UTC)

Justapedia

Reading again the panel number 2501 of xkcd, Average Familiarity, https://xkcd.com/2501/ , i wonder if you already know that i am the autor of the post at https://www.reddit.com/r/wikipedia/comments/zbfmvr/justapedia_a_farright_fork_of_the_englishlanguage/ Visite fortuitement prolongée (talk) 18:21, 26 November 2025 (UTC)

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)

wikiquote:Quentin Tarantino

• Why are you doing that?
• Because it's so much fun!

Visite fortuitement prolongée (talk) 11:12, 28 November 2025 (UTC)

Also:

• the Justapedia user StopAntisemitism2015 is the Reddit user StopAntisemitism2015
• they endorse the Cultural Marxism narrative https://reddit.com/r/JordanPeterson/comments/1jctqlf/antonio_gramsci_the_godfather_of_cultural_marxism/
• they are monitoring this thread https://reddit.com/r/KotakuInAction/comments/1p8iosh/petition_demand_accountability_from_wikipedia/#:~:text=Justapedia%20has%20been%20a%20target%20of%20power

Visite fortuitement prolongée (talk) 11:12, 28 November 2025 (UTC)

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 is those 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 demographic is 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 to replace 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)

I'm getting Conservapedia flashbacks... Blue Sonnet (talk) 16:21, 28 November 2025 (UTC)

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)

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.

Thankfully the number of editors who know what admins do and care enough to vote on his petition is negligible. Blue Sonnet (talk) 17:32, 28 November 2025 (UTC)

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)

Talk:Claims to the first airplane flight

Re: Santos-Dumont... I believe you meant to write 1906, not 1606. Cheers, Carguychris (talk) 17:08, 25 November 2025 (UTC)

Oops! AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:20, 25 November 2025 (UTC)

Trolling or just stupid

Regarding this, I reverted similar edits on Talk:Donald Trump and Talk:Jeffery Epstein, so I believe trolling. – Muboshgu (talk) 15:07, 6 December 2025 (UTC)

Yeah. – Muboshgu (talk) 15:24, 6 December 2025 (UTC)

I blocked a similar TA a little while ago that was doing the same thing. They look like they're resetting cookies and using proxies [9] Acroterion (talk) 16:03, 6 December 2025 (UTC)

RfC - Airport destination lists

Hi, for your information, as you were involved in the previous discussion at Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)/Airport destination lists or the RfC on consensus of WP:DESTNOT at WT:NOT, I wanted to let you know that the discussed broader RfC has been opened at WP:VPP#RfC - The inclusion of destination lists in Airport articles. If you wish to contribute, please feel free. Many thanks! Danners430 _{tweaks made} 20:39, 7 December 2025 (UTC)

I think you mistakenly/erroneously reverted my updates to Family Constellations

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)

There was no 'mistake'. I explained my revert in my edit summary, and asked you to discuss it on the article talk page. I suggest you do so, after first reading Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources (medicine). AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:28, 13 December 2025 (UTC)

Merry Christmas!

	A very happy Christmas and New Year to you!
Have a great Christmas, and I hope 2026 brings you joy, happiness – and no trolls or vandals! Cheers SchroCat (talk) 09:54, 21 December 2025 (UTC)

Season's Greetings!

		Season's Greetings
Wishing everybody a Happy Holiday Season, and all best wishes for the New Year, medically & otherwise! The The Dream of Saint Joseph (1640s) by Philippe de Champaigne is my Wiki-Christmas card to all for this year. Johnbod (talk) 17:36, 19 December 2025 (UTC)

God Jul!

Hello AndyTheGrump: Enjoy the holiday season and winter solstice if it's occurring in your area of the world, and thanks for your work to maintain, improve and expand Wikipedia. Cheers, Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 13:22, 22 December 2025 (UTC)

Spread the WikiLove; use {{subst:Season's Greetings}} to send this message

Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 13:22, 22 December 2025 (UTC)

Holiday wishes and a happy new year!

	Infinite Possibilities
Is this real life? Yes! Is this going to be forever? No! Elvis is getting ready to leave the building and 2026 is about to be born, kicking and screaming. They say nothing gold can stay, but I say, don't listen to them, stay golden all the same. Here's to a new year of infinite diversity and beautiful combinations! Viriditas (talk) 21:52, 23 December 2025 (UTC)

Thanks to all for the Seasons Greetings above

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)

Happy Holidays!

Hello AndyTheGrump: Enjoy the holiday season and winter solstice if it's occurring in your area of the world, and thanks for your work to maintain, improve and expand Wikipedia. Cheers, Iljhgtn (talk) 18:40, 24 December 2025 (UTC)

Spread the WikiLove; use {{subst:Season's Greetings}} to send this message

Iljhgtn (talk) 18:40, 24 December 2025 (UTC)

Merry Christmas, Andy!

We wish you a Merry Christmas,

We wish you a Merry Christmas,

We wish you a Merry Christmas,

And a Happy New Year!

May your holidays be filled with peace and joy. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Happy New Year! Thedarkknightli (talk) 12:41, 25 December 2025 (UTC)

Adapted from {{Xmas6}}. Spread the cheer by adding {{subst:User:Altamel/Christmas}} to their talk page. Thedarkknightli (talk) 12:41, 25 December 2025 (UTC)

Happy holidays

		Hi Andy Season's Greetings and all the best for 2026
Wherever you are and whatever you believe in (or don't), reach out for peace on this little planet of ours! HAPPY HOLIDAYS 🥳 Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 23:28, 25 December 2025 (UTC)

Many thanks for the further greetings above

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 blue scrubs 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)

You sure have a sweet tooth! Viriditas (talk) 00:07, 26 December 2025 (UTC)

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)

A pie for you!

Merry Christmas Andy. I hope your holiday was restful and happy. Insanityclown1 (talk) 23:54, 27 December 2025 (UTC)

Thanks. Mostly, I'd say. Hope yours was the same. AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:04, 28 December 2025 (UTC)

Happy New Year, AndyTheGrump!

Happy New Year!

AndyTheGrump,
Have a prosperous, productive and enjoyable New Year, and thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia.
Volten001 ^☎ 06:31, 1 January 2026 (UTC)

   Send New Year cheer by adding {{subst:Happy New Year fireworks}} to user talk pages.

Volten001 ^☎ 06:31, 1 January 2026 (UTC)

ANI notification

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Systemic bias on "Genocide of indigenous peoples". It was started by DaRealPrinceZuko, but they failed to notify you. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 01:40, 3 January 2026 (UTC)

Be civil please

This is in regard to a comment you made, which began with Can I ask why the fuck anyone should think... Please be WP:CIVIL. It is not enjoyable to converse with someone speaking that way. Alexandraaaacs1989 (talk) 23:22, 13 January 2026 (UTC)

An excellent question Andy, people like this should get a thicker skin imho. - Walter Ego 23:35, 13 January 2026 (UTC)

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)

Andy, we clearly disagree as to whether the policy was ill-thought-out. That's why I went to the Wikipedia: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 with why 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)

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)

Notice of noticeboard discussion

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Incivility from another editor. Alexandraaaacs1989 (talk) 01:48, 14 January 2026 (UTC)

Happy 25th Anniversary of Wikipedia!!

Feel free to read my story at User:Interstellarity/My Story and join in for some Wikipedia-related fun. I hope you like it. Interstellarity (talk) 22:17, 14 January 2026 (UTC)

Can you please quit communicating to me?

I am under no obligation to discuss this with anyone but Bluerasberry, and I do not think it would be helpful to do so at this point.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
I asked you privately by email if you would please quit communicating to me? Your reply was to request that I make my request public on wiki. User_talk:Bluerasberry#Please_note_that_I_do_not_reply_by_email_to_matters_which_are_better_discussed_on-Wikipedia. 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 an interaction ban, or are you able to please do this voluntarily? Thank you. I emailed you privately to be respectful when I say that I do not to wish for you to seek communication with me. Thank you. Bluerasberry (talk) 21:13, 19 January 2026 (UTC) 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) To add to the above, When someone sends me an email that ends with a question, I tend to assume they are expecting a response. AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:31, 19 January 2026 (UTC) What started the entire dispute? And is there any way to draw up a peace plan? Viriditas (talk) 23:19, 19 January 2026 (UTC) 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) 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) Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Request_interaction_ban_-_AndyTheGrump Bluerasberry (talk) 00:01, 20 January 2026 (UTC)

A small question

Was this comment intended as a reply to BD2412's initial sub-proposal or as a reply to my comment? Just wondering. SuperPianoMan9167 (talk) 01:49, 20 January 2026 (UTC)

Oops, I've messed up indentation yet again, haven't I? I'll fix it. AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:53, 20 January 2026 (UTC)

SuperPianoMan9167 (talk) 01:54, 20 January 2026 (UTC)

Regarding...

This,[10] wasn't there a similar question asked recently by a temp account? (And possibley then blocked, but I'm not finding it at the moment.) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:14, 22 January 2026 (UTC)

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)

Somebody asked what's the difference between conventional news and social media, or something like that. Like asking to compare a raven and a writing desk. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:14, 22 January 2026 (UTC)

@Baseball Bugs: this is (probably) an lta who asks inane questions like this, see Wikipedia:Long-term abuse/ChronicleBooks885. ltbdl (scan) 00:34, 23 January 2026 (UTC)

That looks like the one. And it was social media vs. books. Really an apples-and-bananas question. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 04:16, 23 January 2026 (UTC)

And a user named Asilvering has taken care of it. Thank you all! ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 04:27, 23 January 2026 (UTC)

Notice

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Spectritus (talk) 17:06, 25 January 2026 (UTC)

Yawn... AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:13, 25 January 2026 (UTC)

What would we do without our fans? :) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:02, 25 January 2026 (UTC)

Edward de Vere

Hello! I hope you're doing well today. Just a quick question about a small matter. Did you mean to revert my minor 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)

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)

ANI

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Noorullah (talk) 19:45, 8 February 2026 (UTC)

Edit of German Worker's Party

Hi,

Would you be able to tell me what exactly you have edited on the page and wether its regarding me?

Sincerely, Toms. TomsJanbergs (talk) 19:45, 5 March 2026 (UTC)

I reverted your edit, as unsourced (it is also very poor English). Read Wikipedia:Reliable sources and Wikipedia:No original research. AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:48, 5 March 2026 (UTC)

Alright, poor English is one thing. But you have claimed he joined the DAP due to the fact it was small and he can become the leader, which is just factually incorrect. He himself writes in Mein Kampf that he has other reasons. Would you like me to give you a page number, would that help you with your ''source''? TomsJanbergs (talk) 19:49, 5 March 2026 (UTC)

I am not going to engage in pointless discussions with you. If you wish to contribute here, you will have to comply with Wikipedia policies. This is not open to debate. AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:52, 5 March 2026 (UTC)

Soham Reverted Edit

Hey Andy, I'm relatively new to making edits on Wikipedia so apologies if there's a way to question your revision privately, but you reverted my edit on the Soham Murders page for being off topic (regarding Arnold Baxter). Would it not be relevant to round off that section with the eventual outcome of that lead (albeit briefly)? The reason I made the change in the first place was seeing the line that there were no further developments, so when I searched online and saw that the suspect in those cases was caught a couple of years after those original edits were made, I thought it'd make sense to add it.

Now that the suspect was confirmed not to have anything to do with the Soham Murders the entire paragraph is off-topic really, but it was a key part of the investigation, so surely it makes more sense to add a line to explain the outcome of that case (rather than making a whole new page for it)?

I genuinely do think it's an important detail. I just didn't want to just revert your deletion without checking. Thanks :-) Burnitslowly (talk) 12:06, 8 March 2026 (UTC)

Wikipedia is a collaborative project, and accordingly discussing edits privately isn't the best way to do things: other contributors may wish to comment too. Accordingly, content issues are best discussed on the article talk page. I suggest you start a discussion there, and I'll have my say. AndyTheGrump (talk) 13:11, 8 March 2026 (UTC)

Thank you! Burnitslowly (talk) 17:09, 8 March 2026 (UTC)

diliegro

This conversation is closed. Read the linked policies and guidelines, and then take it to the talk page if you insist.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
}} hello. I simply reverted the deletion of quotes that have lived on this page for the last three years. this is not vandalis. additionally, trachetenberg IS an individual commentator on diliegros performance. please revert. thank you Cheerwine53 (talk) 19:03, 13 March 2026 (UTC) No, I am not going to revert your restoration of promotional content to the biography, regardless of how long it had been there. There have been recurring issues with such content, including a great deal from an account which later self-identified as the subject, in violation of WP:COI policy. Wikipedia bases content on what independent sources have to say, not promotion by involved parties. And note that I made no comment about 'vandalism' in my edit summary. AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:10, 13 March 2026 (UTC) there is nothing promotional about fully informative, completely substantiated and cited by credible source refrences. this is fact and rock solid. including these quotes expands and adds to the information behind diliegro's performance and provides additional information. please note that this page is for dane diliegro, not dan trachtenberg, which would include him as an independent source. there is no promotion going on here. Cheerwine53 (talk) 19:14, 13 March 2026 (UTC) Can I ask how a contributor who has currently only made 8 edits to Wikipedia (all incidentally relating directly or indirectly to Dane DiLiegro) can be so confident about Wikipedia policy on appropriate content? AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:27, 13 March 2026 (UTC) Forgive me if this has already been addressed, but are there any rules about editing a specific person’s page or about how often someone can submit edits? My understanding is that Wikipedia is open and collaborative, and generally available to anyone who wants to contribute. Also, have I said anything that would suggest I’m against providing strong independent sources? My intention has been the opposite—to ensure that the information added is supported by credible, well-substantiated references, which only provide helpful information to the article. Cheerwine53 (talk) 19:32, 13 March 2026 (UTC) Your understanding is wrong, for multiple reasons: Wikipedia is (subject to certain restrictions: i.e. blocks/bans) open to collaborative editing. But only in accordance with policies and guidelines arrived at by the community. And since I can see no merit in engaging in further conversation with someone who thinks it appropriate to deliver lectures on Wikipedia policies they clearly have next-to-no understanding of, I consider this discussion closed. Take it to the article talk page if you must, after reading WP:COI, WP:NPOV, WP:BLP, WP:RS, WP:VANDAL (per your comment above), and no doubt other policies that don't immediately come to mind. AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:41, 13 March 2026 (UTC) Thank you for explaining your concern. My reason for restoring the material was that the quotes appear to be attributed to independent, published sources commenting on Dane DiLiegro’s performance. Because they are cited and sourced, I believed they met Wikipedia’s standards for verifiability and reliability. My intention was not to add promotional content, but rather to retain sourced commentary that provides additional context about the performance. Since the article is about Dane DiLiegro, I understood commentary from independent commentators or creators discussing the performance to be potentially relevant when properly cited. If there are specific concerns about the reliability of the sources, the wording of the quotes, or how they are presented in the article, I would be happy to review and discuss them so we can ensure the content aligns with policies such as WP, COI...etc. Cheerwine53 (talk) 19:54, 13 March 2026 (UTC)

A cup of tea for you!

A mild stimulant may be useful after having tried to give reasonable advice that was ignored by someone who preferred to take bad advice. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:49, 22 March 2026 (UTC)

Yup. An object lesson in how to make a simple content dispute needlessly complicated. AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:14, 22 March 2026 (UTC)

Please remember to assume good faith when dealing with other editors. Thank you. Orientls (talk) 02:46, 26 March 2026 (UTC)

I do not 'extend good faith' to those who post deliberate falsehoods in 'contentious topics' discussions, [11] and then post a 'contentious topics' template on (and only on) a contributor they are in disagreement with. AndyTheGrump (talk) 05:12, 26 March 2026 (UTC)

Introduction to contentious topics

You have recently edited a page related to the region of South Asia (India, Pakistan, Afghanistan, Sri Lanka, Bangladesh and Nepal), broadly construed, including but not limited to history, politics, ethnicity, and social groups, a topic designated as contentious. This is a brief introduction to contentious topics and does not imply that there are any issues with your editing.

A special set of rules applies to certain topic areas, which are referred to as contentious topics. These are specially designated topics that tend to attract more persistent disruptive editing than the rest of the project and have been designated as contentious topics by the Arbitration Committee. When editing a contentious topic, Wikipedia's norms and policies are more strictly enforced, and Wikipedia administrators have an expanded level of powers and discretion in order to reduce disruption to the project.

Within contentious topics, editors should edit carefully and constructively, refrain from disrupting the encyclopedia, and:

• adhere to the purposes of Wikipedia;
• comply with all applicable policies and guidelines;
• follow editorial and behavioural best practices;
• comply with any page restrictions in force within the area of conflict; and
• refrain from gaming the system.

Additionally, you must be logged in, have 500 edits, and have an account age of 30 days in order to make edits related to two subtopics: (1) Indian military history, or (2) caste-related topics in South Asia.

Editors are advised to err on the side of caution if unsure whether making a particular edit is consistent with these expectations. If you have any questions about contentious topics procedures, you may ask them at the arbitration clerks' noticeboard or you may learn more about this contentious topic. You may also choose to note which contentious topics you know about by using the {{Ctopics/aware}} template.

Orientls (talk) 02:46, 26 March 2026 (UTC)

I am well aware of both 'contentious topics' in general, and of the scope of this one. I do hope your use of this template can be shown to be appropriately non-partisan: i.e. applied to all who have contributed to the discussion which has clearly motivated you to place it here. AndyTheGrump (talk) 04:39, 26 March 2026 (UTC)

Evidently my hopes were misplaced. Duly noted. AndyTheGrump (talk) 04:44, 26 March 2026 (UTC)

March 2026

Please do not attack other editors. Comment on content, not on contributors. Personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you. Segaton (talk) 05:18, 26 March 2026 (UTC)

Oh look, it's another bullshit warning. Nice bit of tag-teaming there. Here's a little advice: I don't respond to intimidation by kowtowing to individuals who resort to it. AndyTheGrump (talk) 05:35, 26 March 2026 (UTC)

Turbo cancer

Sorry Andy, I reverted the TA post not realising you had already replied to it. If you think it more appropriate, you are welcome to restore the post and your reply.-Gadfium (talk) 20:24, 8 April 2026 (UTC)

No problem. It's always a bit of a toss-up as to whether posts like that are worth responding to, or deleting. I was in a generous mood... AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:15, 8 April 2026 (UTC)

Good way to deliver bad news

		The Civility Barnstar
I was pretty excited about my list idea which is more suited to a blog. I think you phrased the news nicely. Allthemilescombined1 (talk) 10:11, 15 April 2026 (UTC)

Confused

Never mind, you clarified it for me. Thanks. Texascowdude (talk) 17:48, 15 April 2026 (UTC)

Texascowdude, why not clarify for us - what is your previous account? GiantSnowman 19:05, 15 April 2026 (UTC)

If you don't want to discuss things with Texascowdude on your own talk page, I'd prefer you didn't do it here. AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:37, 15 April 2026 (UTC)

Fair enough, apologies. GiantSnowman 20:33, 15 April 2026 (UTC)

Blocked as a sock, btw. GiantSnowman 21:05, 15 April 2026 (UTC)

Guy Macon's screed (that's not a good word for it)

(Moving convo here to avoid being warned again about using ANI as too much of a forum) I didn't realise that actually. Probably because I don't believe I've clicked on his page that often (or been here that long), and Roxy's I click on quite often. Cheers, (Stay good and grumpy, man!) 🚂ThatTrainGuy1945 ^{Peep peep!} 22:18, 16 April 2026 (UTC)

Macon's essay is at User:Guy Macon/Yes. We are biased. It gets edited quite regularly, and accordingly is probably better linked than copy-pasted. It's not really that relevant to our 'bias' against inadequately sourced articles, though. Or our bias against vaguely-legalistic waffle.

As for 'good and grumpy'? Not a combination often recommended, but I am what I am, and I'd say that summarises my state right now pretty well, given grumpiness-inducing side effects of medications (including medication given to counter side effects of the earlier ones - the pharmaceutical industry knows when it is on to a good thing), and what seems to be good news about it all working well enough that I won't need it much longer, though they will probably have to to zap me with a death ray first, just to be sure. No doubt I'll find something else to grump about afterwards though. I am what I am... AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:42, 16 April 2026 (UTC)

Nonsense?!

The true: The your revert is nonsense in tomato juice – I want fix the map. ~2026-24074-82 (talk) 15:30, 19 April 2026 (UTC)

If you want to discuss article content, don't post off-topic gibberish on talk pages. AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:32, 19 April 2026 (UTC)

I will say to you – The request is fix the map from Equal map to the previous map. ~2026-24074-82 (talk) 15:34, 19 April 2026 (UTC)

I'm not going to discuss this here. If you can give a clear explanation on the article talk page of what you want, and why, we can consider it. AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:38, 19 April 2026 (UTC)

April 2026

You need to learn when to walk away from a conversation. This comment and edit summary are completely unacceptable and you should know better by now. --tony 21:06, 21 April 2026 (UTC)

As the recipient of their insult, I think that you and the other editors are giving them excessive flak, at least for that incident. While I don't appreciate being treated that way, I think that you all are being unfair to them. If I were @AndyTheGrump, I might have cursed at someone in an argument too (though I certainly don't endorse anyone doing that). I'm sure that they just need a break to calm down. GrinningIodize (talk) 22:36, 21 April 2026 (UTC)

April 2026

Please refrain from making abusive or otherwise inappropriate edit summaries or comments, as you did to Wikipedia:Village pump (policy). Your edit summary or comment may have been removed. Please communicate with civility and refrain from making personal attacks. Thank you. sapphaline (talk) 21:12, 21 April 2026 (UTC)

An editor clearly expresses their frustration at a situation and you think that throwing a template up on their talk page, wagging your finger at them, is the best move to descalate the situation? When another editor, who at least had the courtesy to write out a message, had already commented on the situation directly above your message? I'm not looking for a reply, just maybe think about the purpose of providing "warnings" in the first place and ask yourself if one is either helpful or needed before acting.-- Ponyo^{bons mots} 21:24, 21 April 2026 (UTC)

A warning is just a note that what the user has recently done or what they're currently doing isn't appropriate and they should stop; therefore it's on them to deescalate after being given one. sapphaline (talk) 21:51, 21 April 2026 (UTC)

If you don't understand how escalating a situation while simulataneously calling for deescalation is wrongheaded and illogical, you probably shouldn't be in the business of policing other's edits. -- Ponyo^{bons mots} 21:55, 21 April 2026 (UTC)

I 100% concur with Sapphaline. Over the course of years, Andy escalates every situation. Calling out unnecessary escalation is not escalation itself. Alexandraaaacs1989 (talk) 21:56, 21 April 2026 (UTC)

Did you actually read my message? Like, any of it? The part about templating vs. talking, or the part about someone else having already warned over 5 minutes before the unnecessary templated warning? If you believe that sapphaline's edits would do anything but poke someone who was admitedly already extremely frustrated, then you're incorrect. I can attest to it by looking back at nearly 20 years of dispute resolution on the project. -- Ponyo^{bons mots} 22:07, 21 April 2026 (UTC)

I think that Sap was simply trying to affirm she viewed this editor's behavior as crossing a line. I am sorry but I don't sympathize with Andy's frustration more than the people telling him he's out of line for cussing someone out. Alexandraaaacs1989 (talk) 22:11, 21 April 2026 (UTC)

ANI notice

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is AndyTheGrump told an editor to "fuck off". Alexandraaaacs1989 (talk) 22:05, 21 April 2026 (UTC)

Sorry

Sorry. I've accidentally deleted one of your comments. I'll try to fix that as soon as possible. RandomPerson238 02:48, 22 April 2026 (UTC)

It should be fixed now. RandomPerson238 02:49, 22 April 2026 (UTC)

Thanks. The thread is a total train-wreck, and it isn't surprising things got tangled. AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:50, 22 April 2026 (UTC)

What the fuck

• Diff/1298821834

What the fuck did I just read? What an awful day to be literate. --Gurkubondinn (talk) 04:51, 22 April 2026 (UTC)

(Checking in after the AnI thread) Yikes. I really do think that sometimes it's a net positive for the project if editors who try that sort of thing get cussed out (though, I think some flavors of bigotry fall under WP:DENY). MEN KISSING (she/they) Talk to me, I don't bite! - See my edits 07:38, 22 April 2026 (UTC)

Indeed. Toxic bigotry of the worst order. And I get told off for reacting to it. Mostly by people who evidently don't consider watchlisting such pages worthy of their time, I suspect. That article has 177 watchers. Bart Simpson has 335... AndyTheGrump (talk) 11:43, 22 April 2026 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#AndyTheGrump's pattern of personal attacks

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. sapphaline (talk) 09:06, 22 April 2026 (UTC)

That went down well, didn't it... AndyTheGrump (talk) 11:48, 22 April 2026 (UTC)

Something of a post mortem here [12]. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 12:21, 22 April 2026 (UTC)

A post mortem seems unnecessary. The horse is most definitely dead... AndyTheGrump (talk) 12:56, 22 April 2026 (UTC)

Fuck cancer, once more...

Yes, I said 'fuck' again. Get over it. Nothing in Wikipedia policies says I have to be civil to a tumour in my arse.

Anyway, given that it's about six months since I started chemotherapy, and I've just had a phone conversation with one of the doctors over what comes next, I thought I'd post a bit of an update for any talk page lurkers who are still interested. It seems the chemo did its job, in as much as its basically put a stop to the bastard spreading and arse-tumour has seemingly shrunk somewhat, but I'll definitely be getting more treatment to hopefully kill it off entirely. The exact details are still to be worked out, but it seems I'll be continuing with some chemotherapy, along with radiotherapy, directed at both a suspicious lymph node and the main tumour. I can't say I'm exactly enthused over continuing chemotherapy, in that the cumulative effects have definitely been building up, and one of the drugs, Cetuximab, has been playing havoc with my skin over the last few weeks: dermatitis along with cracked skin on my fingertips that won't heal. Not to mention the stuff I probably shouldn't mention leaking from various orifices, which may or may not be a drug side effect, or at least exacerbated by them. Oh, and insomnia, which definitely is. And mood swings. And a general feeling of having spent six months being fed poisons...

So yeah, I'm in an extra grumpy mood, despite all the reasons for optimism. Grumpy because the drugs work: if I wasn't feeling crap after all this, the dose wouldn't have been high enough. A little sympathy might be appreciated, but don't overdo it - as I said at the start of it all, it's my own fucking fault for ignoring obvious symptoms for far too long. So like I said before, fuck cancer. Fuck it early. Don't ignore symptoms, unless you want to be like me and enjoy the dubious benefits of chemotherapy and a substitute arsehole for company.

Finally, another reminder to keep an eye on what Doug Weller has been up to - considering what he's been going through he deserves sympathy a heck of a lot more than I do. He's obviously finding things hard, but he's still at it. And without the sweary stuff I seem to need as therapy or something. That's because Doug is Doug, and a damn fine Doug at that. AndyTheGrump (talk) 11:30, 22 April 2026 (UTC)

Thanks for the update, and it's good to hear that there is good news buried in there. Look after yourself. And yeah, Doug is amazing too. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 12:20, 22 April 2026 (UTC)

@AndyTheGrump You actually wrote a pretty nice post there! Have you considered writing a blog of these? GrinningIodize (talk) 12:29, 22 April 2026 (UTC)

It's not really blog material: likely to be too repetitive, and I'm not sure it would achieve much. What I really want to do at some point is to see if I can sneak a blatantly off-topic essay into Wikipedia space somewhere, on on the advisability of contributors not damaging their editing capacity by dropping dead from things they could have had treated. As I note above, I'm in a much worse position than I needed to be, due to the far-to-common ignore-it-it'll-go-away attitude to obvious ill-health symptoms that men in particular seem to be prone to. If I get away with it, it'll be more than I deserve, and the least I can do is to try to encourage others not to follow on with the same idiocy. Simple demographics say that a lot of contributors are liable to be in a similar position at some point, and if I can encourage just a few to fuck cancer (or any other treatable health issue) early, I'll maybe have salvaged some good out of it. AndyTheGrump (talk) 12:40, 22 April 2026 (UTC)

Alright, that's your loss then, but I think that your writing's beautiful enough that it shouldn't be wasted on Wikipedia: pages. GrinningIodize (talk) 12:43, 22 April 2026 (UTC)

Thanks. I don't write a great deal, but it has occasionally spread beyond Wikipedia (and Wikipediocracy, though maybe that's best not mentioned around here). Just don't ask for links, because you won't get any, self-doxxing not really being my thing. AndyTheGrump (talk) 12:54, 22 April 2026 (UTC)

Understood. GrinningIodize (talk) 12:58, 22 April 2026 (UTC)

I can think of some shortcuts for that now. WP:RBD (Ring the bloody doctor) or WP:NOTTOOSOON (oh wait, that's taken). Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 12:46, 22 April 2026 (UTC)

RBD is pretty catchy. GrinningIodize (talk) 12:50, 22 April 2026 (UTC)

WP:DONT'TWAIT is available. Thryduulf (talk) 12:55, 22 April 2026 (UTC)

I would argue for the more memorable Wikipedia:DONTWAIT instead, because that's composed entirely of letters and no symbols. GrinningIodize (talk) 12:57, 22 April 2026 (UTC)

Sympathies. I remember my mum, when she was going through it, would describe chemo as the doctors trying to poison you enough to kill of the bad cells, but not enough to actually kill you. But barely; to work through it, my sister and I ended up making a giant metaphorical sandcastle 'lump' at the beach and kicking it down. Happy the chemo seems to be working (knock on wood).GreenLipstickLesbian💌🧸 15:45, 22 April 2026 (UTC)

Amen. GrinningIodize (talk) 15:48, 22 April 2026 (UTC)

That is very kind of you. Very sorry to hear about your cancer. I didn’t know. Glad to hear there is some reason to be optimistic. I was getting free bowel cancer tests for a while due to being over 70 but they stopped. If I had bought some after that, I might have avoided years of operations and chemo. Wouldacoulda. My wife still thinks I’ll outlive her, but as she a healthy 80 that’s nonsense. Doug Weller talk 16:02, 22 April 2026 (UTC)

Yeah, sadly provision for such checks seems to be somewhat arbitrary. As for your wife's comments, she sounds like someone good to have around. A little stubborn optimism can go a long way into making things easier. AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:57, 22 April 2026 (UTC)

This is your only warning; if you swear at cancer again, as you did on this page, you just might have to be cured without further notice. Oh that it were that easy. --Hammersoft (talk) 19:15, 22 April 2026 (UTC)

If. Thanks for the laugh, anyway. It's got medical properties I hear. AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:57, 22 April 2026 (UTC)

That's hilarious. I almost prepared to defend @AndyTheGrump before I realized that it was a joke. GrinningIodize (talk) 19:59, 22 April 2026 (UTC)

I think I'm still mostly capable of defending myself. Which reminds me, I must dig out my copy of Dangerous Visions, and re-read Norman Spinrad's Carcinoma Angels. Beating cancer by dropping acid and engaging in hand-to-hand combat with it is a very '60s idea, and probably won't work, but as ways to stop me feeling too sorry for myself, it sounds just about ideal. Wonder if I can get them to prescribe it to me? AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:16, 22 April 2026 (UTC)

If you live in the US and happen to be part of the Altman-Musk-Bezos technocratic wealthy class, possibly yes. Otherwise, maybe don't post about it on a public forum where everyone can see you. GrinningIodize (talk) 20:20, 22 April 2026 (UTC)

Nope. I'm in the UK, and thus enjoying the benefits of an actual health system. Not perfect, but something we should still be proud of. And defend to the death. Not a system that actually prescribes LSD though, so I assume people aren't going to take me seriously. Though that could be a double-bluff... AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:29, 22 April 2026 (UTC)

Good thing you're not in the US. If you were over here, I think that you would be driven broke of healthcare pretty quickly. I'm sorry that you're having to go through chemotherapy either way; I've never had it (thankfully!), but from your description, it sounds pretty terrible. I wish you good health and an optimal, quick recovery. GrinningIodize (talk) 20:50, 22 April 2026 (UTC)

Many thanks. And thanks too for your gracious comments regarding the less-than-civil response to you that led to the ANI thread train-wreck. I suspect you can figure out why I was in a stroppy mood, though I shouldn't use that an excuse. Or at least, not one that I shouldn't see as just as valid coming from anyone else. Sometimes we need to remind ourselves that we aren't just random dudes sitting at keyboards 'improving' Wikipedia - we've all got complex lives going on, and if these didn't lead to suboptimal behaviour sometimes, it would be most surprising.

With that thought, a radical suggestion for ANI comes to mind: except for things that are actually urgent (which this clearly wasn't - the filer was complaining that I'd been uncivil for years, and another day or two would make no difference), there should be a 24-hour cooling-off period after filing, for everyone to stop, think, and maybe deescalate a little. Is that wishful thinking? Or even outright hallucination caused by a combination of insomnia and co-codamol? I wouldn't be surprised if it was the latter, given my ramblings about Norman Spinrad, which seem to have come from nowhere. Have I got a Samuel Taylor Coleridge moment coming on? Am I about to lapse into opioid-influenced dreams, and subsequent bad poetry (Unlike Coleridge, I can't write good poetry, but the bad stuff isn't too difficult) If so please do not disturb. No men from Porlock welcome, I have caves of ice to ponder. And quite possibly an article or two on plagiarism. Yes, I'm most definitely hallucinating... AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:04, 22 April 2026 (UTC)

@AndyTheGrump If your idea was a hallucination caused by insomnia and opioid use, it's certainly quite a nice one. I don't mind your comment at the village pump; now that I know more of the story, I can understand why you were driven to say the things that you said, and in retrospect, it wasn't entirely unwarranted; I am known for being an obnoxious pedant, and I have chosen one too many hills to die on in my pursuits.

Do you mind if I propose your ANI idea on the village pump? I think that it's quite nice and many, many people could benefit from it. GrinningIodize (talk) 22:18, 22 April 2026 (UTC)

Go ahead if you like. It's clearly only half-thought-through though, even if it isn't opioid-induced, and I'd recommend giving it a bit more of a ponder first. No rush. AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:36, 22 April 2026 (UTC)

I'll think it over tonight. GrinningIodize (talk) 22:41, 22 April 2026 (UTC)

As for writing good poetry, you might consider looking into the 5-7-5 syllable pattern, which is an (somewhat-inaccurate) Anglophonic attempt at recreating the intent of Japanese haiku. The rules are very simple and you are explicitly discouraged from trying to rhyme stuff or use things like explicit metaphors. I like to write these poems on an old IBM typewriter at night, using my TI-83+ calculator to count syllables. GrinningIodize (talk) 22:22, 22 April 2026 (UTC)

See also https://www.graceguts.com/essays/urban-myth-of-5-7-5. GrinningIodize (talk) 22:25, 22 April 2026 (UTC)

I think I'll stick to prose: old dogs, new tricks etc. And if I'm going to embark on new projects (which I probably should, if I'm going to get a reprieve from the Reaper), I've got one or two in mind already. AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:36, 22 April 2026 (UTC)

Fair. GrinningIodize (talk) 22:39, 22 April 2026 (UTC)

Excuse me!

Did you skip over my Help Desk message without leaving a reply? Waiting for 4ish hours just for one, I even inserted a Help template in my talk page and no one came to reply, and I haven't got any still. Rioooooooo9 (talk) 07:36, 20 May 2026 (UTC)

As with everything else on Wikipedia, the help desk is run by volunteers. I'm under no obligation to look at the help desk at all, let alone reply to every question. And given the subject, I'm not sure I'd have been able to give a particularly helpful question anyway - image copyright issues can be tricky, and best left to those familiar with them. AndyTheGrump (talk) 14:24, 20 May 2026 (UTC)

You may be eligible to vote in the U4C election

I am contacting you because you previously voted in elections related to the Universal Code of Conduct Coordinating Committee (U4C). You may be eligible to vote in the current U4C election, which is open now and closes on 2 June 2026. You can find out more about the candidates and the election on the election page on Meta, and from there you can access the vote itself. Your participation in these elections is important to the governance of Wikimedia communities, and your time spent learning about the candidates and voting is appreciated.

-- In cooperation with the U4C, Keegan (WMF) (talk)

Keegan (WMF) (talk) 17:16, 20 May 2026 (UTC)