Mrandrewnohome

Mrandrewnohome, you are invited to the Teahouse

Hi Mrandrewnohome! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia. Please join other people who edit Wikipedia at the Teahouse! The Teahouse is a friendly space on Wikipedia where new editors can ask questions about contributing to Wikipedia and get help from peers and experienced editors. I hope to see you there! Ryan Vesey (I'm a Teahouse host) Visit the Teahouse This message was delivered automatically by your friendly neighborhood HostBot (talk) 02:13, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Solar flare

Your Featured picture candidate has been promoted Your nomination for featured picture status, File:Magnificent CME Erupts on the Sun - August 31.jpg, gained a consensus of support, and has been promoted. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 20:35, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

Reference desk

Please read WP:NOTFORUM. The reference desk is intended as a means to ask questions: "We don't answer requests for opinions, predictions or debate". If you persist in posting political rants on the page, you are liable to be blocked from editing. AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:39, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for June 19

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Jiaxing-Shaoxing Sea Bridge, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Longhai (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article 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) 11:06, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

Ways to improve Jiaxing-Shaoxing Sea Bridge

Hi, I'm Sulfurboy. Mrandrewnohome, thanks for creating Jiaxing-Shaoxing Sea Bridge!

I've just tagged the page, using our page curation tools, as having some issues to fix. /

The tags can be removed by you or another editor once the issues they mention are addressed. If you have questions, you can leave a comment on my talk page. Or, for more editing help, talk to the volunteers at the Teahouse. Sulfurboy (talk) 08:35, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

British Empire Recording

Hello, I just noticed your recording for the British empire page; I don't know how you had the patience to do that for an hour and a half but I though it was a brilliant idea. Just wanted to say thank you! ツStacey (talk) 11:32, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

Welcome to The Wikipedia Adventure!

Hi Mrandrewnohome! We're so happy you wanted to play to learn, as a friendly and fun way to get into our community and mission. I think these links might be helpful to you as you get started.

• The Wikipedia Adventure Start Page
• The Wikipedia Adventure Lounge
• The Teahouse new editor help space
• Wikipedia Help pages

-- 22:08, Friday, June 26, 2015 (UTC)

Mission 1	Mission 2	Mission 3	Mission 4	Mission 5	Mission 6	Mission 7
Say Hello to the World	An Invitation to Earth	Small Changes, Big Impact	The Neutral Point of View	The Veil of Verifiability	The Civility Code	Looking Good Together

Get Help

About The Wikipedia Adventure | Hang out in the Interstellar Lounge

ANI

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing because it appears that you are not here to build an encyclopedia. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the following text below this notice: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.

You were warned repeatedly to drop it and that no one was interested in engaging in a debate about your actual intent here. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 01:54, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

• With all due respect, I was being personally attacked, and have made positive contributions to wikipedia. I was asking a legitimate question. Although I used a source that may have been considered objectionable, I believe I gave an appropriate account of why I acted in the way I did. You seem to be continually failing to acknowledge that andythegrump made several attacks against me by suggesting that I was a racist and by calling me stupid. Why should I be blocked for attempting to defend myself. --Andrew 01:56, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

• You were also the first person to do so. I was asked to provide an explanation which I did, and it was a cogent and reasonable one. People continued to antagonise me, so I continued to provide an explanation. I didn't see your message until after I had sent the one you blocked me for. Either way an indefinite block seems to be unduly harsh, clearly I was reacting in the heat of the moment, and a cooling off period would be more reasonable --Andrew 02:28, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

Unblock request

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who accepted the request.

Mrandrewnohome (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

I was responding to a personal attack made against me by AndytheGrump, which after a thorough explanation of my upload of an image, he persisted in calling me stupid and insinuating that I held racist beliefs. The user who blocked me had posted a message which attempted to defuse the situation; however, as I was busy responding to AndytheGrump I was unable to see it at the time Andrew 02:18, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

Accept reason:

The prior discussion has been closed and the editor has acknowledged WP:NOTFORUM. Ricky81682 (talk) 22:41, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

Will you agree to drop the entire issue then? If so, I think we can release the block immediately as it's not meant to be a punishment. I understand the heat of the moment can get to you but I don't think anyone cares about debating whether you hold racists beliefs or are merely asking questions like someone who holds racist beliefs anymore as it's not productive here. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 05:56, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

• Anyone considering this matter should realize that this is a long-term problem, not a one-time event. Consider this exchange from two years ago diff:

Asking for reasons and quotes as to why political leaders ignore the feelings of their electorate with regards to the EU is a legitimate question and not a debate. Just because it's a contentious issue with differing viewpoints doesn't mean it has to descend into chaos. You might be an unquestioning Europhile but I'm not and neither are a lot of other people --Andrew 2:40 pm, 30 May 2013, Thursday (2 years, 2 months, 18 days ago) (UTC−4)

I'm a what? --Jayron32 2:46 pm, 30 May 2013, Thursday (2 years, 2 months, 18 days ago) (UTC−4)

Why else wouldn't you want legitimate questions about the European Union posted on the ref desk. What I asked for where facts, quotes ascribed to national leaders as to why they continue to promote the EU against the wishes of the people who elected them. That isn't a request for debate, it's asking for quotations. If it descended into a debate, that isn't my problem. --Andrew 2:53 pm, 30 May 2013, Thursday (2 years, 2 months, 18 days ago) (UTC−4)

We have the exact same behavior, the assumption of facts not in evidence in support of a controversial issue, the pretense that what is being looked for is not debate, but "facts" (in truth, a debate by proxy), a refusal to admit the problem, and then a full blown attack on an admin as being one of "them", given the admin refuses to play this editor's game. μηδείς (talk) 18:25, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

• Given that the issue you're referring to was never raised an incident requiring administrative intervention, I fail to see why you're making the point. Two years ago, and issues which were in the public interest at the time. I never asked for a debate by proxy in either debate, I asked for quotations as to why, when the majority of the public have expressed Eurosceptic opinions, politicians continue to insist on remaining a part of it. Given that you seem insistent on doing so, and intent on proving that I'm a rabble rouser, allow me to provide an explanation. I like to ask controversial questions - particularly ones that receive attention from literally tens of millions of people. Given the rise of UKIP within the UK at the time, and the very public debate about the nature of the European Union in the UK at that time, it was an entirely legitimate question. The fact that the reference desk seems to attempt to stifle users who ask difficult questions isn't my fault. Give me what I asked for - quotes - and there wouldn't be a debate. If the answerers on the reference desk insist on making it one, I'm really not sure how that's my fault. Lets face it, if Jayron32 hadn't needlessly erased a legitimate question, that exchange would never have happened --Andrew 18:49, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

• I have no memory of the above exchange. --Jayron32 23:51, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

That's two years ago. The bigger concern is WP:NOTFORUM. The reference desk doesn't exist to engage in arguments. Your actual editing work is fine, that's not problematic but stop it with the controversial questions here. I'm telling you this as a "I may unblock you but don't be surprised if another admin blocks you on your next question" response. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 20:59, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

• • It won't happen again --Andrew 22:17, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

Great. I've unblocked you. Just be aware that "being controversial" for the sake of controversy doesn't accomplish a ton. There is a Wikipedia:Systemic bias project if you want to channel some of those thought into finding sources and bringing opinions like that into articles (which is a productive use of time). -- Ricky81682 (talk) 22:41, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

ANI

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. μηδείς (talk) 02:04, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

It seems like there's some concerns over your requests at the reference desk. As I noted there, there are links to a professor at Calvin College who seems to have studied this material in depth. I'd suggest contacting him via email if you need more specifics than what he's posted (and it's quite many examples). I'll note that you should be aware that directly quoting the Nazi works is going to be highly questionable (see WP:PRIMARY) in contrast to quoting someone like Professor Bytwerk. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 06:34, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

Notice

I realize this incident happened in early November, and that you have not engaged in any disruptive behavior since the discussion occurred, but a request at the administrator's noticeboard was made to review this discussion involving your conduct over at the reference desk. Based on the reported behavior and the consensus of editors there, you are topic banned from asking questions on the reference desk related to narrow topics of Jewish persons, Nazism, or the Holocaust. You're still welcome to use the reference desk for questions on other topics. You can appeal this topic ban at the Administrators' Noticeboard at any time. I, JethroBT ^{drop me a line} 08:25, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

Reference desk issues

I feel I should advise you that your recent behaviour on the reference desks is approaching the limits of acceptability again, and this posting is in violation of your editing restrictions. I would prefer not to have to make this official, but please be aware that further sanctions are available, if necessary, to prevent disruption to the project. Thank you. Tevildo (talk) 00:20, 25 June 2016 (UTC)

• With all due respect, I really dont think that it is given that it had nothing at all to do with the Holocaust itself, rather than the German military strategy. It also has not let to any controversy at all. I'm fine not posting questions that can be seen as anti-Semitic but there is no way that question could be construed as anti-Semitic and I went to great pains to avoid mentioning Jewish people in my wording --Andrew 00:35, 25 June 2016 (UTC)

Your restriction is on "questions specifically related to Jewish persons, Nazism, or the Holocaust", and it might be argued that questions about the military strategy of the Third Reich fall under "Nazism". However, I'm more concerned about your recent posts regarding the referendum - the reference desks are not (on paper) a place for us to express our political views, but (ideally) to give referenced answers to legitimate questions. I admit that not everyone meets this ideal, but departures from it are still not something we should encourage. I'd like to emphasise again that this isn't official - if you stay within the guidelines and the terms of your restriction, there won't be any problems. Tevildo (talk) 01:02, 25 June 2016 (UTC)

• Thank you for your advice and I will refrain from asking questions about Nazism in the future. Regarding the referendum I don't think I've posted anything politically controversial, other than stating the obvious by mentioning that the polling data is highly likely to be inaccurate. I'm not sure I've expressed a view either way on the outcome of the referendum, although I am pleased we have voted to leave --Andrew 01:05, 25 June 2016 (UTC)

• I can see how my description of the pollsters as being highly irresponsible could be construed as political, but given the nature of the debate statistics that don't stand up to verification and facilitate the creation of political division is irresponsible. Like I said, however, I see how it can be construed as a political opinion and I wont advance that argument any further --Andrew 01:08, 25 June 2016 (UTC)

Thanks. I hope your helpful contributions (of which, for the benefit of any outside observers, there are plenty) will continue. Tevildo (talk) 01:16, 25 June 2016 (UTC)

Tudor sexuality

You might be interested in the work of Kit Heyam, e.g. here. Carbon Caryatid (talk) 18:19, 4 July 2016 (UTC)