User talk:Atsme/Archive 11

Archive 5

←

Archive 9

Archive 10

Archive 11

Archive 12

Archive 13

→

Archive 15

July 2015

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on American paddlefish. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Please be particularly aware that Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states:

1. Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made.
2. Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. Binksternet (talk) 01:31, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

GA reassessment

Gabor B. Racz, an article that you or your project may be interested in, has been nominated for a community good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 17:16, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

COIN

The close over at COIN was changed. Some changes may come to the articles that were discussed there. So Review the close and don't get shocked at a revert.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 03:05, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

Notice of Conflict of interest noticeboard discussion

This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard regarding a possible conflict of interest incident in which you may be involved. Thank you. Jytdog (talk) 23:22, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

Gorski article

About this --

It appears that you have been canvassing—leaving messages on a biased choice of users' talk pages to notify them of an ongoing community decision, debate, or vote. While friendly notices are allowed, they should be limited and nonpartisan in distribution and should reflect a neutral point of view. Please do not post notices which are indiscriminately cross-posted, which espouse a certain point of view or side of a debate, or which are selectively sent only to those who are believed to hold the same opinion as you. Remember to respect Wikipedia's principle of consensus-building by allowing decisions to reflect the prevailing opinion among the community at large. Thank you. Jytdog (talk) 02:06, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

Solution to this COI issue

This COI issue has become nonsense. The only possible COI is in relation to you posting the earthwave site as sources and also as external links. Outside of those links you have no COI. If these links are compliant there's no real issue at all. There's a External links noticeboard WP:ELN and of course you are aware of the reliable sources noticeboard WP:RSN. They can review if the sources and external links present any issues with wikipedia policy.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 16:48, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

On the talk page template of the fish articles: A Wikipedia contributor, Atsme (talk · contribs), has declared a personal or professional connection to the subject of this article. Huh? I've been having a personal and professional relationship with alligator gar, paddlefish and sturgeon? Still doesn't change the fact that I've been retired since January 2014, and didn't start editing those articles until April 2014. And, SJP, what troubles me most is all the digging and probing into my RL. Can you imagine how you would feel? He even came up with some ludicrous GoDaddy site and posted it on WP. He also accused me of COI for the Gabor B. Racz article, and another article I had nothing to do with, and my goodness, where does it end? I feel like a peeping Tom has been staring in my bedroom window. The fact US citizens are now dealing with IRS, FBI, CIA and DHS probes is bad enough, but now we have to worry about WP editors?!! That is definitely an issue that must be addressed because he clearly stepped over the line regarding his responsibilities as a volunteer on COI - which is nothing more than a guideline, and not a big deal as you so wisely pointed out. His obsession over this broke the tilt meter. Imagine how dangerous it could be if he had OS rights. Well, I just look at my new Inca sun, and it makes all my troubles disappear. Atsme^📞📧 17:06, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

To state that you had nothing to do with the Racz article as you do above, is dissembling in the extreme. -Roxy the non edible dog™ (resonate) 17:11, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

Explain what you're talking about. Atsme^📞📧 17:14, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

"He also accused me of COI for the Gabor B. Racz article, and another article I had nothing to do with, and my goodness, where does it end?" -Roxy the non edible dog™ (resonate) 17:22, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

Uhm, do you see the comma after the word article? It indicates a pause, then the sentence continues, "and another article I had nothing to do with" which means there was another article I had nothing to do with that he accused me of COI. If you're from the UK, it may explain why the commas don't work the same way for you as they do in the US. I can understand your confusion, but my comment wasn't implying that I had nothing to with Racz. It was stating that I was accused of COI for an article I had nothing to do with in addition to being accused for COI on the Racz article where absolutely no COI existed. Does that help clarify? It's really kinda funny that we need translations for English between the US and UK. Yeah, yeah - I know the UK English came first. Atsme^📞📧 17:35, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

Ah. Then I apologise for my small comment above, caused by my misunderstanding. -Roxy the non edible dog™ (resonate) 18:22, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

Sturgeon

Moved to Talk:Sturgeon

 – Wrong venue.

Hello, I thought I ought to say hello and raise the matter of the sturgeon. From your marginalia, I get the impression that you deleted the section about some sturgeons posing a risk to humans because you think that that is a rare event. So did I, but after a some careful research, and much to my surprise, I learnt that this is not the case, and that the danger has been well known for a while and is material. That's why I made the entry. You have written nothing to indicate any concern that by having a paragraph on the risk that sturgeon can pose to people in some way threatens the sturgeon, but I get the feeling that one of the other contributors who immediately deleted this section may have felt that way. I love the sturgeon and am very much in favour of keeping the biosphere intact and fully populated by all species extant, but, counterintuitive as it is, the fact is that a great many secondary sources show that sturgeons are a material risk to human in some areas. That's why these few lines should remain in the entry - it's neutral pov, it's factual, and it's informative -- and it may just possibly save a human life, or a limb or two. I very much appreciate the effort and time you spend on Wikipedia, so I wanted to take some time myself to do you the courtesy of explaining this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by CourtCelts1988 (talk • contribs) 23:00, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

Bringing attention to the safety hazard posed by only one species in an article that covers the entire family seems overly specific. I mean, wouldn't a shorter summary be more appropriate coupled with a link to gulf sturgeon?--Mr Fink (talk) 23:04, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

The short answer is that that's how it works for sharks on Wikipedia. Of course I see your point. So would you be OK with this section being moved to Gulf Sturgeon then? — Preceding unsigned comment added by CourtCelts1988 (talk • contribs) 23:06, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

Ahem... this material is already in the article on Gulf sturgeon. See here. However, I think there is a place for a short general entry on jumping behaviour across the various sturgeon species. This discussion should be on Talk:Sturgeon, not here. --Epipelagic (talk) 23:13, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

I see there is another thread at User talk:CourtCelts1988#Concerning Sturgeon! These threads would be better consolidated into one thread and moved to Talk:Sturgeon. --Epipelagic (talk) 23:38, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Library needs you!

We hope The Wikipedia Library has been a useful resource for your work. TWL is expanding rapidly and we need your help!

With only a couple hours per week, you can make a big difference for sharing knowledge. Please sign up and help us in one of these ways:

• Account coordinators: help distribute free research access
• Partner coordinators: seek new donations from partners
• Communications coordinators: share updates in blogs, social media, newsletters and notices
• Technical coordinators: advise on building tools to support the library's work
• Outreach coordinators: connect to university libraries, archives, and other GLAMs
• Research coordinators: run reference services

Sign up now

Send on behalf of The Wikipedia Library using MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 04:31, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

July 2015

Your recent editing history shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you get reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 17:40, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

Please trim your statement at arbitration case requests

Hi, Atsme. I'm an arbitration clerk, which means I help manage and administer the arbitration process (on behalf of the committee). Thank you for making a statement in an arbitration request at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case#Abuse of COIN. However, we ask all participants and commentators to limit the size of their initial statements to 500 words. Your statement significantly exceeds this limit. Please reduce the length of your statement when you are next online. If the case is accepted, you will have the opportunity to present more evidence; and concise, factual statements are much more likely to be understood and to influence the decisions of the Arbitrators.

For the Arbitration Committee, L235 (t / c / ping in reply) 01:38, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

To expand, the case request should only be used to state why the Committee should take the case, and extensions have never been granted at this stage, as far as I can remember. Additionally, may I ask why you did not include the several users you made accusations against as parties? L235 (t / c / ping in reply) 01:40, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

It involves 3 different major issues. Are you sure, User:L235? Seems like I remember an OP getting an extension. Atsme^📞📧 01:45, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

Hey, Atsme,
You need to notify all parties that you mention in your listing at Arbitration Case Requests so they are aware of your request and can provide a response. Some of your accusations are pretty damning and editors need to be aware of your request and be allowed to respond to your allegations. Thank you. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:47, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

That's what I was doing when you added this. There are a lot of them. Atsme^📞📧 01:48, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict)I don't think there was ever an explicit extension for any OP of any case request. Perhaps you're referring to the evidence phase of the case? Regardless, please trim your statement to the 500 (or a few more) words until/unless you receive an extension. Also, you make many allegations against Jytdog; is there any reason you didn't list them as a party? L235 (t / c / ping in reply) 01:50, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

Alright, that's fine, just make sure to get them up and make notifications ASAP. The template {{Arbcom notice}} can be used for that. L235 (t / c / ping in reply) 01:52, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

L235 Do I add all parties who are named? Some made comments at the articles in question but are not part of the ARBCOM. Atsme ^{01:54, 12 July 2015 (UTC)}

All people who would have a position in the case, and explicitly including anyone whose conduct [...] comes under scrutiny. L235 (t / c / ping in reply) 01:56, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

• Ahem... I had expected that you would read the documentation page on {{Arbcom notice}} before using it. Anyways, you should use {{subst:arbcom notice|Abuse of COIN}} ~~~~ instead of just sticking {{Arbcom notice}} there. Also, make sure to link to the notifications in the "Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request" section. Also, you are over 200% of the word limit - please trim. Respectfully - L235 (t / c / ping in reply) 02:21, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

@L235:, Huh? What are you talking about? Where did I stick the arbcom notice you're referring to? Atsme^📞📧 02:24, 12 July 2015 (UTC) ^Ooops Now what? Atsme^📞📧 02:26, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

Word limit at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case

As previously noted, the word limit for individual statements at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case is 500 words. Your statement was 2664 words, so (at the direction of the Committee) I have trimmed your request to the first roughly 600 words. You may, of course, reword your statement to include later entries without going over the word limit. Best regards - L235 (t / c / ping in reply) 16:29, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

L235I used "word counter" and my initial statement was only 1176 words. You must have counted my responses to the comments made after the initial statement. I was not aware later comments were included in the count. Atsme^📞📧 16:42, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

Arbcom case

Hello Atsme - I have received the message that you have initiated an Arbcom request about the specific situation in which we recently interacted. Having been an arbitrator for a few years in the fairly recent past (and indeed having initiated a case just a few months ago), I do have a fairly good idea of what will be involved in the coming months (yes, it will take months if the case is accepted). I have a few suggestions about what you might want to think about.

• What would you consider the ideal outcome of the case? A good outcome? A satisfactory one? One that would be awful?
  • If you are able to make clear what you wish to see right now even before a case is opened, it may be possible to find a solution short of having to spend a lot of time, energy, frustration and worry during an actual case. Are you looking to have someone "topic banned" from conflict of interest discussions/activities? Blocked from any Wikipedia participation? Administrator permissions removed from one or more administrators you've included as parties? (Note - Jytdog is not an administrator.) Are you seeking to see the Arbitration Committee interpret the English Wikipedia COI policy, probably in a particular way? Like anything else in life, knowing what your objectives are is useful and may help to reduce stress. Arbcom cases are not fun, and their outcome can be unpredictable.
• Please be prepared for any edits you have made that are not deleted (and perhaps even a few of them) to be presented in evidence, if the case is accepted. I realise that's a little bit "kill the messenger", but it's what happens. When the Arbitration Committee accepts a case, it will examine the behaviour of all the parties as applicable, and as a major party, your own edits and behaviour will be included in the review.
• Please be open to trying other means of resolving this situation, even if the result isn't everything that you'd want.

Just some thoughts from me. I am very, very strapped for time this week and may not get as far as commenting on the RFAR (I am traveling in a few days), but I'll try to keep my eye on it. Risker (talk) 03:20, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, Risker - I really do wish there was an alternative, but what you haven't seen are the private emails which will demonstrate the COIN action was punitive. The editors named do not have clean hands, and some accusing me of a COI over fish articles have done far worse. The behavior, the PAs, reverting my edits on almost every article I edit including an essay I created has to stop. It's not just me who has been abused by this cabal-like behavior - it's clearly patterned behavior by the same group of editors over and over and over. If ARBCOM will actually review those diffs, they will see the abuse. What happened to me was uncalled for and if they want to dredge up edits I made that date back 7 or 8 months, I'm ready for that, too. I don't care if they delete all the articles I ever edited. It doesn't hurt me - it hurts the encyclopedia. Besides what good does it do to let it go when they are the ones who won't let it go. I'm weary of the reverts and criticisms wherever I go no matter what I do. I gave this a great deal of thought before I took action, and if the unpredictability of ARBCOM gives them a free pass and me a block or ban, then at least I'll know where WP stands and I can move on to bigger and better things. I can't edit now as it is without being reverted so what difference does it make either way? Atsme^📞📧 03:38, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

That's entirely fair, Atsme, and I can understand your frustration. I know that this is not an isolated incident. I'm not particularly tuned-in to what Arbcom is and is not likely to accept as a case, and it might be difficult to pull it all together, but perhaps some others will also help out, if this is accepted. This will likely be a pretty big battleground if the request is accepted. Risker (talk) 04:04, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

And I thought retirement would be fun. Atsme^📞📧 04:07, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

It's a pride thing

It's common to men and women. It's common to all races. It's common to gays and straight. It's common to people with Gender issues. It's pride. Everyone has it and it can be stubborn.

Honestly the whole thing was really mishandled. It is really a minor COI. The main thing the wikipedia community really needs to be sure of is that you aren't improperly trying to plug that organization. Really and again that can be done by checking to see if those links and sources attributed to that website meet wikipedia policies. Then asking you to avoid posting them. Instead they are acting like you are Madoff coming to wikipedia to clear his name. Seriously, a connected contributor to an Alligator gar? Do they think you watched it evolve? Even the Racz situation is obvious and it's also clear there's no COI. This whole thing has solely been done to be punitive it seems to me.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 01:43, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

Oh my! Watched it evolve? Now I really feel old. It was punitive but some good came of it. The Racz article did need better sources. I wasn't aware of MEDRS last year and I'm developing a much better understanding of it. I see where a lot editors including myself can get confused over MEDRS because they're not used consistently, and then I recently learned they are malleable, depending of the situation of course. It also gave me a chance to tighten up the prose a bit. There was a comment you made last year that impressed me, so I kept it in my quote folder. You were polite and succinct, Just a fair reminder to all of you biologists. Your expertise is prized and valuable and thank you so much for taking part in wikipedia, however your expertise doesn't amount to a trump card. I loved it. I would have included it on my user page but I didn't because you seem to be very private person. Atsme^📞📧 02:11, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for all you do! Jusdafax 01:50, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

Thank you, Jusdafax. If I am to be condemned for contributing freely as a volunteer to enhance public knowledge in an online encyclopedia, only to be ganged up on and treated like I've done something wrong, then we all need to step back and analyze what WP is becoming and what it was actually intended to be. We are at a crossroads and it will be our choice to allow the bullies to take over and censor everything that goes into WP, or we can take a stand and support freedom of speech and full dissemination of RS information to our readers. As the saying goes, we either stand for something or we'll fall for anything. That's where we are at this point in time. Atsme^📞📧 03:15, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

I agree that Wikipedia is at a crossroads, but in my view there are trucks of corporate and military/intelligence owned editors barreling down on concerned unpaid editors from all directions. The 'pedia is increasingly functioning as corporate/political PR, and those in the way are targeted, just as Scientologists target "Repressive Persons." There are times I can't believe my eyes and have to walk away. I salute your willingness to engage. Jusdafax 12:26, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

These bits of truth are so unbelievably rare around here, I'm going to have to do it again, JDF. At the very least, it's cathartic to know that even one person is acknowledging this and taking it seriously. petrarchan47คุก 19:45, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

re-ping petrarchan47คุก 19:48, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

Well, thank you both then. I'm very troubled, as I say, by my editing experiences of the past six years. I'm flattered by your kind words and thoughts. I don't think the answer to the concerns is to go to off-wiki communication, but Wikipedia has indeed become a battleground, and the fight may be unwinnable. Blessings to those committed to the concept of an encyclopedia over a "spin machine." Jusdafax 23:23, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

People with no conscience, likely compensated, molesting Wikipedia? I don't see it coming to an end either; those in positions of power have been made aware and have given their tacit support through inaction. petrarchan47คุก 03:22, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

I'm pleasantly surprised to see the open dialogue. I agree with you in that off-wiki is a dead-end and I also see exactly where Petra is coming from regarding the "bits of truth." What needs to be said and done can/should be discussed openly on WP without fear of retribution. Quite a few editors are frustrated with the goings on. Without intending to simplify a major concern, it really all boils down to NPOV and control of articles, WP:OWN, which is sustainable because of the cabal-like behavior (tag-teaming) and large numbers that can effect community consensus. It's a "majority rules" frame of mind but it isn't supposed to be about a !vote count. If an article is in compliance with WP's 3 core content policies, I don't see how spam, advocacies, COIs, or anything else could create anything but minor issues. If it's spammy, whitewashed, undue, derogatory, soapbox, not properly sourced - it goes right back to the 3 core content policies. Perhaps we need a Policy Interpretation Task Force? Based on what I've experienced and what wise admins have relayed to me, the issue really isn't about who is editing as long as the edits are in compliance with policy and improve the encyclopedia. Like quicksand, we tend to get bogged down in personalities and childish games and completely overlook what actually serves to benefit the encyclopedia. It causes us to adopt too narrow a focus which causes us to lose our peripheral vision. It doesn't matter what POV is being pushed - if there are opposing views that are being omitted, what you're left with is not NPOV. I do take issue to censorship. Atsme^📞📧 00:22, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

Arbitration case request declined

The Arbitration Committee has declined the Abuse of COIN arbitration case request, which you were listed as a party to. For the Arbitration Committee, L235 (t / c / ping in reply) 16:14, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

Apology

I owe you an apology for trying too fiercely to get you to acknowledge your COI in the discussions after I filed the COIN case and especially at Risker's page. I am sorry about that - I lost my head and acted in an ugly way toward you. I am not apologizing for trying to get your COI managed, by first posting here and then bringing the initial case at COIN - I am only saying that because you have made it clear that you thought that was wrong. We differ there. But I am sorry for what I did afterwards. Jytdog (talk) 23:17, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

Jytdog, before I respond to your apology, I need to know if you read my post at the top of this TP titled, Allegations of COI and the COIN fiasco and if you are aware of my declarations on the TPs of sturgeon and paddlefish? Are you also aware that the declaration remained on the TPs of those articles for two years (and are still there) before I edited the first sentence in any of the fish articles after my retirement in 2014? How is what I did in October 2011 and when I came back in 2014 not managing even the slightest resemblance of a possible COI? Atsme^📞📧 00:42, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

I've read it now. So good, it was partially on those two articles. I guess it came as a surprise to both you and me, since you initially were very clear that you had done everything you could to scrub any disclosures you had made. But yes I missed the disclosures on those two articles - I am sorry for that and for my part in the ensuing drama. Jytdog (talk) 01:36, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

Your apology is accepted, and I thank you for the courtesy and courage you've shown. Yes, it did come as a surprise because I really never gave it much thought. I actually do learn from my mistakes. I'm quite the "goodie-two-shoes" when it comes to the honor system so if I take a coke from the break-room fridge, I'll put a $1.00 in the jar - it's automatic. I probably won't remember doing it a year or two later which is why I'm incapable of holding grudges. You also have to keep in mind that I don't volunteer my time on WP to promote "me" so I don't see a COI. I'm long past that phase of my life. Now it's about philanthropy - giving back - teaching and sharing some of my experiences - winding down and enjoying life while staying sharp mentally. I need to work a little harder on the physically. I've published/written 100s of tv episodes, 1,000s of articles, shot 100s of hours of footage (much of it u/w, some of it rare) and I've shot 10-20,000 photographs (probably more but those are the keepers), founded several nonprofits, had my work honored at the Carnegie Wildlife Film Festival, in Booklist, at the GOLEM Film Festival, at Cannes, and the list goes on. I don't mean to come across like I'm bragging - I just want you to be at ease about my purpose on WP. I'm also not implying that my ability as a writer or anything else is a trump card because (1) I don't believe it, and (2) there are editors on WP who are extremely talented writers and I am honored to be able to collaborate with them. Anyway, Jytdog, just be kind...have patience...and don't assume. You'll have far less drama in your life. Atsme^📞📧 02:55, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for accepting. Jytdog (talk) 03:24, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

BLPN discussion

Please note that I have started a discussion about an issue with which you have been involved:

Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard#AVDUCK_defaming_an_entire_public_services_union

jps (talk) 16:40, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

August 2015

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Gabor B. Racz. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Please be particularly aware that Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states:

1. Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made.
2. Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing.
Please resolve disputes on the Talk page rather than re-reverting. Alexbrn (talk) 03:54, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

Request for copy editing

Hello Atsme this is Singhaniket255 ...well as i am a beginner on wikipedia.....so i would like work with you..or need some help to ...improve the page "SLIET" that is Sant longowal Institute of engineering & technology. As i hav some of my contribution to wikipedia but with good..but..im facing problen with this page..so..i u can put some of your effort or guide me how to do it the it will be a great help..thnk you!!!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Singhaniket255 (talk • contribs) 17:23, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

Hi, Singhaniket255 I'm happy to help. Please give me some time to read and research and then I will discuss the article with you on the article's TP. Ok? Atsme^📞📧 17:28, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

SLIET again

Hello Atsme this is Singh.. SLIET.. well thanks for the support..as before..i have not any idea of working on wikipedia...and was having problem with references and making verification...so yeah imean i can do..it and will on SLIET..and yes i'll look on those preferecence of Virginia Tech and University of Houston or any other University.

Thanks Atsme... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Singhaniket255 (talk • contribs) 16:18, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

Hi Singhaniket255, the SLIET article will be a good one for you to learn on. I'll be watching as you work and will help with the copy-editing. Don't hesitate to ask questions if you hit a road block. I'm happy to help. Atsme^📞📧 19:58, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

thanks a lot Atsme it'll be a great respect and experience working with you!!

WP:Don't template the regulars

Templating regulars with user warnings that are unwarranted is an abuse of their intended use, and may be construed as WP:Uncivil or WP:harassment. It is always better to WP:AGF and write a polite warning advising that editor of the problem. Templates are not a requirement for blocking disruptive behavior. It is also not wise to use templates or written warnings, polite or otherwise, as a ploy to game the system in an effort to distract from your own noncompliance with WP:PAG, such as WP:edit warring or WP:OWN behavior. Sticking to "did you know we had a policy here" mentality tends to be counter-productive in resolving the issue, as it can be construed as being patronising and uncivil. Atsme^📞📧

Actually for stuff like edit warring templates are prefered as they are standardized and reduce confusion. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 07:45, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

Yes they might avoid confusion, but they can be very scary to receive until you know what is going on. Some editors use these deliberately to harass others, a behaviour which I believe should be prevented somehow.DrChrissy ^(talk) 11:52, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

That's interesting Doc. Of course the real answer is to avoid behaviour that leads to templating in the first place. You and Atsme both know this. -Roxy the non edible dog™ (resonate) 12:03, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

Removing noncompliant material is not edit warring. The editor who starts reverting the work of others with invalid edit summaries is the one who is edit warring. Instead, we're seeing one editor being ganged up on which actually stems from WP:OWN behavior at an article where a particular POV is being pushed and information is being suppressed. NPOV is one of our core content policies and the passage I removed and expanded had been disputed as noncompliant with NPOV and MEDRS. No RfC was called to keep the noncompliant material, therefore, since it was disputed as noncompliant, I had every right to remove it and make the lede compliant. Any editor who wanted to restore the disputed noncompliant material must do so via consensus. Each time my edit was reverted, it was to remove compliant material and restore disputed noncompliant material. That is edit warring. The onus to replace noncompliant material is on the editor who wants to restore it. Read the PAGs. I agree that we know what edit warring is, but it appears you don't. Atsme^📞📧 17:15, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

Reverting one edit as I did here is not edit warring either, but I received a template for it. I am sure the Project Medicine crew have no problem with this, or anything certain privileged editors may do, based on what I have observed. IMO, this favoritism is non-neutral and is very destructive to the project overall. petrarchan47คุก 19:02, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

Here's a suggestion: since Atsme has stated this is going to ArbCom (which hopefully will settle the issue once and for all), we all stop telling each other that none of us understands policy, and let ArbCom sort it out... AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:15, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

How 'bout leading by example? petrarchan47คุก 19:44, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

I have yet to see a single editor read WP:DTTR and then WP:TTR without concluding that TTR has a far better argument. --Guy Macon (talk) 21:03, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

Guy Macon, this discussion is a couple of months old. I can't archive it while on this block so I ask that you respect my TP and please limit your comments to the appropriate block discussion below. Atsme^📞📧 21:07, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

You have guts

Please don't take my decisions personally. It's just based on what I see and understand. Everyone has their own point of view. I came here to say that I admire your gut. You have the courage to stand up to admins. I have always been afraid because they can pull up any WP policy/guideline and take a millisecond to hit that block link. I admire that quality of yours. You don't see that around. I, as editor, feel discouraged and give the impression that admins are high superiority and there's nothing you can do to fight that fight. I am not sure if I am the only one feeling this way. That's it. Just a little words of encouragement, if you will. Fight that ANI report of yours. At least you will know if it was worth fighting that battle. Bye (: Callmemirela {Talk} ♑ 00:05, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

You have character, Callmemirela, and I truly appreciate it. I thank you and respect your courage. Let's keep improving the stubs and do what we can to expand them to GAs and FAs. That's why we're here!! Maintain neutrality, make your content informational and encyclopedic but keep the prose engaging! We want people to read what we write! Collaborate with editors who are experts in their field - respect the project teams - ignore the disruption the best you can, and keep moving forward to build WP into an encyclopedia students and teachers will respect as a RS. Happy editing!! Atsme^📞📧 00:24, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

Thanks

i just wanted to say that i enjoyed reading the article WP:AVDUCK. Thanks for creating it. One of the crucial issues your article highlights is that one has to be frankly political if one wishes to be a successful editor on WP. One problem that can arise, and that your article does not deal with, is if a new or relatively new editor confronts a duck or a flock of ducks who may also have the support of an Admin or a few Admins. (Such support may consist of an Admin building a tool to invite new editors who are having serious problems with a senior editor to offer criticism of that senior editor on a pseudo complaint page--the objective being to protect the senior editor from being repeatedly taken to ANI or Dispute Resolution, and also when new editors make their serious complaints on the pseudo complaint page it would be easier to tackle them through banning or blocking--away from the public eye of ANI and Dispute Resolutions.) Invariably the new editor is pushed into a corner and demoralized by the flock of ducks with their Admin allies (who are armed with tools like WP:ARBIPA); the new editor may stop editing on WP or if he continues he will no longer do any bold editing. A third, and most unfortunate possibility is that if the new editor is blocked, then he/she may resort to vandalism on WP (including showering abuses at the blocking Admin and/or others) through anonymous socking. Sure, ANI, dispute resolution, and ArbCom exist but first they are often very time consuming and secondly in my experience if you are taking on a flock of ducks (who moreover may have the support of a few Admins), then you will almost always lose the argument unless you have sufficient number of allies to support you on boards like ANI on WP (which is unlikely if you are a new or relatively new editor on WP).

I think one key reform that needs to be implemented to strike at the root of this problem is getting rid of 'bad' Admins; and giving incentives to retain 'good' Admins on WP. I don't know the details of how this should be done though, particularly since WP is understandably uncomfortable with getting rid of any Admins unless there is a strong reason to do so in view of the drop in people willing to be WP Admins. Soham321 (talk) 21:32, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

Hi, Soham321, I think I'm too disheartened about the ANI process and the biased responses of a couple admins, one of whom I once held in high regard, to respond with any sense of neutrality, so I'll just say "yep" and leave it at that. Thx for your comments - they are food for thought. Atsme^📞📧 17:54, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

kindness and respect

I've been here to long. I don't even remember my first account name. Hell I've used a few Ip's before this account and I've used a few when i forgot I even made this account. You know I had to argue the case that the state of Hawaii is not currently under military occupation. I'm sure you are aware there are a number of secessionist movements in the United States. You may or may not be aware that there are a number in Hawaii. These are fringe movements with low followings. It's necessary as you can understand to not give these movements any weight. We can't be the ones to legitimize these movements. They have to do so on their own. But the individual in question they didn't understand that their small movement was fringe and that would be wikipedia legitimizing it if we included it. I think it took a month to deal with them. Needless to say I was reaching the extent of my kindness and my respect.

You're tired Atsme. You're worn down. Why did you open a GA review right after that one closed? Honestly was it anything more than stubbornness? The prior one had just closed after sitting still for days. Was the way that went down wrong? Yes I will agree that it was. I've said that it was and prior I've made my opinion about this loud and clear. You were there. And because it was wrong in that GAR I asked some things of the individuals there. I asked them not to close that GAR themselves. They did so. I asked them to wait a few days before seeking an official close and they gave more than a few. You didn't, it seems, even attempt to address the highlighted problems. as my aunt would say, they pissed in your doll house. But even though pissed in your dollhouse the question becomes about the legitimacy of their content complaints. I view them myself and I see legitimacy. I ask you now if you have viewed them or have do you still see how they pissed in your dollhouse. If you are still seeing how they pissed in your dollhouse then really just have to walk away until you don't see it. You can not be mad and do this work. I've seen you try but it doesn't work out. This is however my opinion of what I've seen.

You now have grounds to go to ARBCOM. On the situation you just took to ANI. I recommend against it. You do have the grounds it seems. But ask you what is necessary for you to calm down and de-escalate. For you to be less emotional right now so that you can take a moment and make a clear decision of the best choice for you? Slow down and think about your next move.

It's never going to be unicorns and sunshine. Every job is important. We have people that just create stubs.Some people make GA's while others break them. There's people that just sit on the noticeboards. There's all kinds of things. Admins aren't more important than newbie editors. Nor are college professors or even Jimbo.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 06:42, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for sharing your wisdom, SJP. You're spot-on about tired and worn down. Just wanted you to know the GAN was made in GF based on the responses by Doc James, such as this edit summary. In retrospect, I think the following diff speaks volumes about his sudden interest and timing regarding the Racz biography, [1]. It's even more disheartening that he filed the GAR considering his position as an admin and functionary, and ignored the proper steps to take before doing so. In corporate speak we'd call it a hostile takeover. See the quote at the top of this TP because that's exactly what happened. Sorry, but I don't consider such an influence the perfect approach for biographies or for the project overall, even though certain aspects of it have merit. Certainly I welcomed what few improvements were made regarding sources and compliance with MEDRS. GF collaboration is always welcome and I expect the same in return. I also welcomed what little bit of copyediting and tweaks were needed in the prose but the remainder of what happened was unwarranted and based entirely on POV. Add to that, the PAs and incivility demonstrated by certain editors during the COIN fiasco, ARBCOM, Kombucha (which resulted in an unwarranted 7-day aBan against me by a biased admin), the attack on Racz, AVDUCK and the recent ANI...well, it leaves little to the imagination. The diffs will certainly provide substantive evidence of patterned behavior and motivation. As you correctly assumed above, the thought of ARBCOM entered my mind but I will heed your advice, contingent upon their future behavior and remain cautiously optimistic.

I don't know how closely you've followed the events as they unfolded, particularly here, [2]. Racz was the first article I created with help from Alf.laylah.wa.laylah. You know how our collaboration began at IPT, and while we all lost patience with each other from time to time, I truly appreciated Alf taking the time to understand the points I was trying to make. It all became clear to him when he started investigating the sources and realized the problem. I smile when I think back on those early experiences with you and Alf and how his advice had a calming effect. I miss him. He was patient and understanding but stern. He walked me through the creation of Racz, tweaked the prose as needed, helped me find sources and you both taught me things I needed to know about WP. Perhaps that's why Racz holds special meaning for me as does the Aztec sun on my TP. Alf nominated Racz for DYK, and showed me how to do the next one. When I nominated Racz for GA last year, it was reviewed by one of the best reviewers on WP. Racz has pretty much been stripped of its engaging prose and biographical content since then. In Doc's own words, In English their or boring words like "developed" and "designed" and promotional words like "pioneered" and "innovated". We should always be using the boring ones even if the sources use promotional language. It is mostly fixed aswell.[3] It is now focused on the medical procedures and treatments and as you will witness by comments on the TP, there is still unwarranted resistance for its promotion to GA. I've also studied the council guidelines for project teams and I am quite certain those guidelines are not being followed. It has caused disruption to the project, and while I have no problem keeping snake oil and crazy cures in their place and identified as such, I believe issues arise over NPOV on the opposite end of the spectrum regarding BLPs. There's also the malleability of MEDRS which is sometimes misused at the expense of NPOV. Kombucha is a pretty good example of the latter, and David Gorski is a good example of the double standard shown to BLPs. Atsme^📞📧 18:20, 5 August 2015 (UTC)^{added underlined text later today 20:54, 5 August 2015 (UTC)}

AAAS

You should have received an email from me regarding AAAS a few weeks ago - can you please fill out the form linked from that email? If you did not receive the email (check your spam folder), let me know. Thanks, Nikkimaria (talk) 17:14, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

Hi, @Nikkimaria: - I did receive the email on May 25th - Your Individual subscription has been successfully entered for Science Online. I tried it out, and was able to access what I needed. Hopefully it will stay that way!! Thank you so very much for making this happen. Atsme^📞📧 22:41, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

Hm - I think perhaps that's the Elsevier email? I was referring to one for WP:AAAS, which didn't launch until June...but I'm certainly happy you're enjoying Elsevier access as well. Nikkimaria (talk) 22:44, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

Nikkimaria The email I referenced issued an AAAS# - Science Magazine. I also have access to Science Direct (Elsevier) so I've got access to both. You did good!! Atsme^📞📧 22:52, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

Okay, interesting. Happy to hear that it worked out! Nikkimaria (talk) 23:45, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

Revenge PROD's

Hello. Until the recent ANI-discussion and the discussion on Wikipedia talk:Advocacy ducks our paths have never crossed, neither here on Wikipedia or anywhere else, and you have AFAIK never shown any interest in Wikipedia articles about rare species before, so would you mind explaining why you all of a sudden PRODded 14 well sourced and properly formatted stub articles about rare catfish species that I have created? Claiming that they don't belong on en-WP since species.wikipedia.org exist is IMO not a valid reason, especially not without discussing it with me on my talk page first. Thomas.W ^talk 11:36, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

• ... and now also nominating them for deletion. Thomas.W ^talk 11:39, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

The articles belong in Wikispecies. Actually I do have an interest in rare and endangered fish species. A better option would have been to list all 16 of the rare species since all are of the same genus, Glyptothorax, in a single article, not 16 different articles that are less than stub quality articles taking up unnecessary space when they are nothing more than dictionary entries. They would serve more benefit in Wikispecies which I recommended in the deletion request. Atsme^📞📧 12:00, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

Point me to where it explicitly says we can't have articles about rare and endangered species here on en-WP. The reason they're short is that there is very little information available about those species, other than that they exist, and are rare. Also point me to diffs or other proof for your previously shown interest in rare and endangered fish species, because your actions look very much like trying to get back at me for voicing an opinion that you didn't like. Thomas.W ^talk 12:09, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

Please see WP:SPECIESOUTCOMES. All correctly described species are considered inherently notable. I suggest you cease bombing these articles with PRODs.--Elmidae (talk) 12:18, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

Save your arguments for the deletion discussion. My suggestion to you now is to consider merging those 14 dictionary definitions into a single list if you want to keep them in mainspace without being challenged. I did not request an AfD for Glyptothorax_kashmirensis because it actually is a stub. Readers will actually benefit more from having all 14 species listed in a single article. They can grow into stubs from that list. Now please excuse me while I finish my work. Atsme^📞📧 12:35, 6 August 2015 (UTC) ^{added clarification 13:34, 7 August 2015 (UTC)}

I cannot see why these species or subspecies are not qualified to be separate stubs. They can of course be mentioned in a main article but even if they only have one ref, that is sufficient for a stub article.--MONGO 18:12, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a taxobox holder. The fish are all the same genus and the most beneficial thing to do for the sake of readers is add them to wikispecies, and create a list on WP. The same taxobox can be used in the article, up to the point of naming the species - leave that for the list. Was the intention of this author to create articles for 90 some odd species with 90 some odd taxoboxes? That does not qualify under GNG and there's not enough information in each stub to warrant an article. Common sense - organize - think of the reader and why they would come to WP to find a two sentence article with a taxobox about a fish they wanted to learn something about. At least with a list you give them more options all in one organized place. So much for the unwarranted revenge prod. And I get blamed for causing disruption. Please move along and continue your discussion on the TPs of the stubbies your so proud of. Atsme^📞📧 21:53, 6 August 2015 (UTC) ^{strike inappropriate comment}

Atsme, I'm not your enemy. I do not disagree that it would be great to have a featured list of all species in a genus so we can get that overview, but as is true with many lists, they are linked to specific articles that may be very short stubs. What is wrong with that? Take List of hiking trails in Grand Teton National Park...each linked trail has a linked stub article, where the details are slightly expanded. Do you think these stubs should not exist independently? I'm just trying to get your angle on this is all.--MONGO 05:21, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

MONGO First, I apologize to you for my out of character comment. It arose from frustration and disappointment. I understand your point and agree for the most part. The stub articles you mentioned about the trails are legitimate stubs and can actually be expanded including the addition of more images. The list is quite helpful for readers and actually demonstrates the point I was trying to make about the catfish stubbies. For example, [Glyptothorax chindwinica] - a species of catfish that was first described by Vishwanath and Linthoingambi 2007. Glyptothorax chindwinica is a species in genus Glyptothorax, family Sisoridae and order Siluriformes. IUCN categorise the species as least concern globally. No subspecies are listed in Catalogue of Life. That is the full text of the stub which is not much more than extended prose mirroring the taxobox. As I mentioned before, since all 15 species/subspecies are of the same genus and only one of the stubs is worthy of being classified as a stub, (the rest are definitions), they could have been merged into a single list. Then as more information became available, off-shoot articles could be created. It's actually better for WP because it creates more wikilinks and increases the number of times the name appears in the text which causes it to appear higher up in a Google search. The species I exampled actually does have more information available, [4], so with some time and a little effort exerted toward improving what we create, the project benefits. That less-than-stub sat as is for nearly 11 months. I'm not sure why the author portrayed it as a "rare" catfish when that clearly is not the case. Atsme^📞📧 13:34, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

I would prefer to see your block reduced, so how do we go about making that happen? I see your point but have to say that as an inclusionist, I would have probably voted to keep these articles. Is there still a way we can keep and still have have you make the list article your focus for now?--MONGO 17:00, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

Thank you, MONGO. You make a valid point, and your suggestion would certainly make the work much easier than my original approach. I must confess - I tend to be a clutter phobic, or what some refer to anecdotally as OCS (obsessive-compulsive spartanism), [5], but not as it relates to verbosity and I truly am working on the latter. The other issue about reducing the block is a head scratcher for me and I certainly welcome suggestions. If I'm going to apologize for something I've done that was so terrible it warranted a month-long block then I need a reference point (diffs) so I won't do it again and can provide a sincere apology. If the block is about the PROD activity I could certainly admit that I now realize a different approach would have been better (if that truly is the reason for this block), and offer up a sincere apology for creating a bit of a stir over it, but I don't want to use up the appeal process if my apology is based on the wrong reasons, therefore denied. Does that make sense? Atsme^📞📧 18:36, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

My postings here have been brought up by two editors on my talk page and the gist of what they are telling me is that I'm not helping things. Here is what I have learned on Wikipedia...of you post something at a noticeboard, there is a one in five chance it is going to be resolved to your liking. More often than not, it results in making everyone mad. I know you've been around here awhile, and I thank you for your FA and GA work and elsewhere, but we have to figure out why a half dozen editors have no interest in seeing you unblocked...and feel you need an extended break. Bishonen stated in the ANI thread she supported a three month block...but has since stated that she would not fight your unblocking. In the unlikely event that we can see your block amended, what steps do you think we need to do to get this to happen?--MONGO 22:44, 7 August 2015 (UTC)