Jump to content

User talk:Atsme/Archive 6

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1←Archive 4Archive 5Archive 6Archive 7Archive 8→Archive 10

Happy New Year Atsme!

Happy New Year!

Atsme,
Have a prosperous, productive and enjoyable New Year, and thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia. Hafspajen (talk) 10:54, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

Send New Year cheer by adding {{subst:Happy New Year 2015}} to user talk pages.

Thank you, Hafspajen!!! Happy New Year to you, too!!

Comma bonds

I hadn't considered UK/not variations (except the Oxford list variety); it's the obvious silly ones that trouble me. As for the article, thx, I think we do agree there (",there"? ;p ). Lou Grant I hate spunk 19:18, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

Trekphiler, agree, I think, "there?" Atsme☯Consult 21:48, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

Happy New Year Atsme!

Happy New Year!

Atsme,
Have a prosperous, productive and enjoyable New Year, and thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia. NorthAmerica1000 10:34, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

Send New Year cheer by adding {{subst:Happy New Year 2015}} to user talk pages.
Sent using Mass message sender. To opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself from User:Northamerica1000/Mailing list.

Thank you, Northamerica1000 - I wonder how many celebrators are awake this morning at 7:00?

Happy New Year Atsme!

Happy New Year!

Atsme,
Have a prosperous, productive and enjoyable New Year, and thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia.
–Davey2010 Merry Xmas / Happy New Year 12:18, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

Send New Year cheer by adding {{subst:Happy New Year 2015}} to user talk pages.

Happy New Year to you, too, Davey2010!!! Celebrate safely and have fun!! Don't forget the black-eyed peas for good luck. Atsme☯Consult 12:27, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

Arr thank you, Haha I was at home so I was safe as can be , But I hope you have a great time and a great 2015 :) –Davey2010 Merry Xmas / Happy New Year 12:51, 1 January 2015 (UTC)


Question

Have you read WP:MEDRS? Am really interested to know. Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 00:31, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

Yes, I have read them. Has nothing to do with Griffin's BLP. Are you planning to slap the PS/Fringe bullcrap on every BLP that says vitamins may be good for you and here's why, and then they suggest further research? You're going to wear yourself out. My reference to Natural News was relative to their references about Griffin's occupation. You really need to cool your heels on the PS/Fringe stuff, and stop being presumptuous. Your POV is showing. Atsme☯Consult 01:21, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
just curious. I will be interested to see what content you propose about laetrile. good luck! Jytdog (talk) 01:43, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
My only focus is getting the article neutral and policy compliant. I have only one goal here, and you should have figured that out just reading my User Page. I could use some collaborative help which would serve a much greater purpose than a watchdog. Hint, hint.
We have different goals with respect to our work here, and different views on PAG I don't care at all about "gold stars" like GA/FA or DYK (I just want to create and maintain good content in WP, per PAG, as I see it) and those seem important to you. We clearly see PAG differently. We see the article differently too. It is OK to me, based on PAG and my standards for quality within PAG. Not perfect, but OK. Based on what you have written so far (which is a lot - I am not presuming much), you think it needs dramatic revision and I don't share the vision you have described, for where you want the article to go. Like I've said you are free to try to move the article in the direction you want. We'll just have to work it out, as you go. I suggest you propose draft article content expressing your vision on the Talk page while the article is locked down. There is no reason to not start now, if you really intend to try to rework it; and proposing content is the most efficient way to get to consensus (or lack thereof) for the specific proposals. Jytdog (talk) 02:24, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for reaching out, Jytdog. I provided links to a couple of GAs that I plan to use as models for consistency, and I hope you will help me make that happen. Did you get a chance to look at them? Whenever I focus on an article, my plan is automatically to make it a GA. I believe if given the time and attention by good collaborators, almost every article on WP can be a GA. If an article cannot grow beyond stub or starter, then it probably needs to be modified for Wiktionary, not left as clutter for Wikipedia. If an article doesn't pass the smell test for NPOV, then it belongs in a tabloid or on some partisan website somewhere, not in Wikipedia. I am not here to advocate anything except good writing, and I'm not promoting anything except good articles. That's pretty much it in a nutshell, even though I know how much you love reading my walls of text.
Based on the great deal that you have written, our ideas about the world, and the epistemologies that we use to try to grasp what in the world might be true, are so different that I very much doubt if you and I will end up pulling in the same direction on any content. (I am willing to be pleasantly surprised....) And really, I don't share your vision for content in the Griffin article and cannot help you move it in the direction you want to take it. But I appreciate the desire to collaborate. I like to collaborate too! Good luck with your efforts. Jytdog (talk) 17:19, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
Not very encouraging, but I do understand your perspective if for no other reason than the differences that separate the way men and women think. I also believe in unlimited possibilities as presented in quantum theory. You apparently believe in limits and the finite. Good luck with that, and happy collaborating!! Atsme☯Consult 17:39, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
oh please don't ascribe our differences to gender! oy. Jytdog (talk) 17:47, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

Elsevier access

Hello, Atsme. 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 remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

Chris Troutman (talk) 00:14, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

January 2015

Information icon Hello, I'm Coffeepusher. I noticed that you made a comment that didn't seem very civil, so it has been removed. Wikipedia needs people like you and me to collaborate, so it's one of our core principles to interact with one another in a polite and respectful manner. If you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. Coffeepusher (talk) 21:35, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

Please comment on the content, not the user. Characterizing the editors edits as "venting frustrations" is in fact a personal attack. Cheers! Coffeepusher (talk) 21:37, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
Coffeepusher shucks - you know not to template the regulars, don'cha? Please calm down, and worry less about criticizing my clean up of a BLP violation, and focus more on the PAs against Emerson. His article was stable until he made that stupid blunder on FOX so it's pretty obvious what was happening when his article fell under attack. Surely you realize the statement I reverted in the lede was defamatory, don't you? Atsme☯Consult 21:47, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
I'm simply reminding you to comment on the edits not the editor so that you can refrain from making further personal attacks. Cheers! Coffeepusher (talk) 21:59, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
as for statements regarding the content in the article itself, could you please make those on the talk page of the article. We can continue that discussion there. cheers!Coffeepusher (talk) 22:00, 12 January 2015 (UTC)


North American Piedmontese cattle

What I am proud of is that we made this article twice as big as Piedmontese cattle. Quite an accomplishment.
As an aside, I find that one should be especially careful about not changing the substance of the article. This is a technical article, and it's one thing to edit and format it; but one should go slow, particularly when there is technical jargon. As some of the recent edits prove, there are those of us who are editing above our knowledge and understanding. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 14:30, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

Total agreement here, User:7&6=thirteen. Something similar happened with Paddlefish and American paddlefish. In the beginning, I wanted to merge the two, but my request was denied. [1] As a result, I decided to focus on improving/expanding the stub, American paddlefish [2]. End result: article was nominated for DYK, made it to GA, and was eventually promoted to FA. . The original Paddlefish remains the same which is kinda sad, but some editors are of the opinion that not all articles are intended to be GA. My thinking is that if articles are not intended to be GA, they belong in Wiktionary, not in the encyclopedia. Another aspect I find quite puzzling is the fact that I've encountered at least 3 stub/starter articles that could be improved/expanded, but the resistance was over the top. The debates are quite tiresome, but it is the project that suffers in the end because they who oppose the loudest do nothing to improve or expand the article, thus the article remains a stub or starter. I'm beginning to believe the latter is the intent WP:COATRACK. Perhaps WP needs to create expansion/improvement teams to work on such articles, including special NPOV teams to work on POV articles where edits have been determined by consensus (which side attracts the most participation) instead of policy. (PS: can you show me how to style your user name so I can ping you instead of using brackets?) Atsme☯Consult 14:43, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
Very perceptive. Those are several of many reasons why the encyclopedia is so wildly uneven. Fortunately for me, I tend to posthole in articles that nobody else cares about. Including edits before I took on this user name, one of my very first was Outhouse, which is quite metaphorical and really is my article. Likewise, Three hares and Barber pole. You can find out more in those articles than you probably ever wanted to know. I also ran into all kinds of insuperable problems on the DYK in Turtling (sailing) because I refused to dumb the article down and make it conform to their policy. I've run into similar problems where I had tried to simply put in better forms of citations into a few GAs. NIH, and WP:Own; it was like I had done something heretical. Won't do that again. Stay in touch. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 14:52, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

Excellent choices for articles, and well-written. Here's a little something that might interest you. --Atsme☯Consult 16:38, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

An outhouse display in an old west setting on a Colorado ranch
Very good picture. Would be a good addition to the Outhouse article if it were in Commons. I appreciate your comments on the articles. I was trying to write a really comprehensive and more or less definitiv3e article, which should give a reader a good place to start their own research. I tend to put in way more sources than is typical. As you know, we put them in, and rarely get feedback (except now for "Thank"s, which is at least something.) Ciao. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 18:41, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
It is in Commons. You're welcome to use it. Atsme☯Consult 18:44, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
I'll add it. Somebody may not like it, as there already are a lot of pictures in the article. But it is artfully done, and I like it. Better to put it ih and let somebody else challenge it. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 19:19, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
Put picture in. Take a look. May have to tweaked for placement and size. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 19:23, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
Nice! And here we are talking about outhouses. . If I may make a suggestion - my personal preference for adding photos when there are too many to line-up left or right can be seen at Alligator gar. Scroll down to about mid-page. You can add quite a few pictures that way. Atsme☯Consult 19:28, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

I agree. Good suggestion. Would you mind doing it? A fresh perspective and a new set of eyes on Outhouse would benefit the article, I'm sure. I've grown jaded. As I said, I did a whole lot of edits before I became 7&6=thirteen and even more after. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 19:33, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

Certainly - it will be a good break for me while still staying on topic with another project I've been involved in. Atsme☯Consult 19:42, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
Thanks. I'll keep an eye out. I appreciate the extra set of hands, too. All of my edits on that page are close to 500, well over 40% of the total edits to that page. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 19:48, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

Template:Did you know nominations/Osama bin Laden (elephant)

We need your tick. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 14:29, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

I saw your support. Thanks. However, I meant the confirmatory symbol. It's DYK thing. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 14:44, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

DYK for North American Piedmontese cattle

Harrias talk 12:01, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

11,777 views - not so bad for a lot of bull. Atsme☯Consult 19:32, 7 January 2015 (UTC)


Please read edit notes and sources

Please read edit notes and sources before restoring content that had been removed because it was not about the topic in question. Megajeffzilla (talk) 23:36, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

Please read talk pages

Please read talk pages before making edits or reverts and engage in the discussion going on their. Megajeffzilla (talk) 23:52, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

References

We at Wikipedia love evidence-based medicine. Please cite high-quality reliable sources. We typically use review articles, major textbooks and position statements of national or international organizations. A list of resources to help edit such articles can be found here. The edit box has a build in citation tool to easily format references based on the PMID or ISBN. WP:MEDHOW walks through editing step by step. We also provide style advice about the structure and content of medicine-related encyclopedia articles. The welcome page is another good place to learn about editing the encyclopedia. If you have any questions, please feel free to drop me a note. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 23:53, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

By the way NSAIDs have been discussed here Alzheimer's disease research Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 23:56, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

:

Sign it for you, the nom. Hafspajen (talk) 19:28, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

TY - you are so good!!

Notice

Information icon This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Guy (Help!) 18:07, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

Jiminy Cricket. Now you're trying to pull me into a PS-Fringe debate that has nothing to do with me. You people need to cool your heels, and AGF. This is getting obsessively ridiculous! Atsme☯Consult 20:07, 15 January 2015 (UTC)


Steven Emerson debacle

Good afternoon. I've been reading the Talk:Steven Emerson , and I'd like to warn you that you come off as extremely partial. Your comment starting "Pour the liberal Koolaid down the drain..." (please also look up the definition of "liberal") is a clear violation of the terms you claim to hold so dear. I'll be keeping an eye out for more of this, and I think you should also heed the comment from Sjö above this. I will be reporting you if those kinds of attacks or edits happen again. Murdockh (talk) 15:05, 19 January 2015 (UTC)


No-go area

I've already said at Talk:No-go area#Contested deletion that you were coming close to disruptive editing. I think that you have crossed that line now with this edit where you deleted an addition with 30+ sources as unsourced. Please acquaint yourself with Wikipedia procedure and rules before making any more edits that might be controversial. Thank you. Sjö (talk) 06:23, 19 January 2015 (UTC)


Updated conversation on Talk:Steven Emerson

Hey there, I hope you're having a good weekend. It felt rude to resume the discussion we were having on Mr Emerson's Talk: page without drawing your attention to my new comments, so that you can take a look and share your thoughts. All the best! — OwenBlacker (Talk) 16:39, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Biographies

Hello! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Biographies. Should you wish to respond, your contribution to this discussion will be appreciated.

For tips, please see Wikipedia:Requests for comment § Suggestions for responding. If you wish to change the frequency or topics of these notices, or do not wish to receive them any longer, please adjust your entries at WP:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:05, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

arbcom business

If you haven't done it before, i encourage you to read through some Arbom Enforcement cases, to see the kind of stuff that people say and the kinds of things that get acted on. There are always a few active cases, and loads in the archives. I sometimes read AE cases, and drama boards, like a novel or better, a play. It is amazing, really amazing, to see how blind some people are to their own behavior even in front of arbcom, and it is always heart-warming when you see somebody who is really a model wikipedian staying very calm, saying just enough (not too much), citing PAG appropriately, etc. Most folks are of course in the middle. And so interesting too, to see the kinds of things that Arbcom latches onto and the measures they take to stop disruption of the project. And of course... it is all real. But such amazing literature... such a stage on which to view humanity in all its ugliness and glory. It's all [[3]]. Jytdog (talk) 00:52, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

Thx, Jytdog. I'll give it a read. Atsme☯Consult 00:56, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
OK, you are not going to like this, but I have a hard time watching people drive off a cliff. You have been making a case that the use of laetrile to treat cancer is legitimate, and so far I have not seen a) that any other editor supports you in that (other than Pekay who is brand new and doesn't understand WP yet); nor b) any MEDRS sources that supports that view. Other editors and the MEDRS sources point in the other direction, that this is pseudoscience/quackery. Your position and the opposition to it is easily supported by diffs; I am not presuming anything. With the DS in place on this issue, I urge you to walk away from that position in your editing on Griffin, and generally within WP. If (and it is a big if) you really do insist on persisting, I urge you to calmly and gently (not fiercely) propose edits about laetrile on the Talk page (don't actually try to edit that view into the article) and really listen to the feedback you get. If your proposed edit doesn't get consensus, then walk away. Maybe (and again, calmly and gently, as this is really pushing it) you could try an RfC on the language you want, but there would need to be a significant split in reactions to your proposal on the Talk page. But no more.. no forum shopping. At some point you would need to show that you are aware of consensus and can yield to it, and are not blind and deaf to the community. If you try in that way and in that spirit, you can ~probably~ avoid sanctions. I'm not saying anything about what you think or do outside of WP, of course. But it is different in here. And of course, you are free to ignore this. I just don't want to see you or anybody else get topic banned and I think you would be sensitive to that stain on your record here. Selfishly, I don't want to get sucked into the drama of that either. Anyway, good luck. Jytdog (talk) 17:50, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
That is not my claim, Jytdog. That is what Griffin states in his book, for Pete's sake. My approach was entirely NEUTRAL, and if you read my suggestion you would have seen that. Are you suggesting we simply ignore what was stated and what current research indicates? If so, then why do we even have to mention the book in his article? I could care less, and would actually prefer if it were given far less attention - as in inclusion of books he has written without a section on Psuedoscience, etc. You guys are the ones who added the PS section against my better judgement. Please stop trying to make it appear as though it is my claim. It's about the BOOK. Why is that so difficult to understand, and why in the hell am I being falsely accused of having that positio? I'm not a doctor, or a scientist - I AM A WRITER - and I prefer to keep it that way. I cited RESEARCH, Jytdog, because you guys added the frapping section to the article. If the section stays then it warrants the minority view. Are you saying I cannot cite RESEARCH? Is MSKCC suddenly not an acceptable RS? Atsme☯Consult 20:02, 15 January 2015 (UTC)


You replied to me, and included questions in the reply, and then archived. Were those actual questions, or rhetorical ones? (actual question) Thanks Jytdog (talk) 22:31, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

I had so many different things going on today, I archived our thread without thinking. Sorry. I brought them back here. Please proceed. Atsme☯Consult 22:58, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
ok :)
So you ask "Are you suggesting we simply ignore what was stated and what current research indicates?"
Answer: Not at all. The article currently recites what Griffin stated ("what was stated") and because Griffin's claim is FRINGE, we follow FRINGE and provide the scientific consensus on Griffin's claim. I know that you think that doing this violates BLP, but as far as I can see (on the article Talk page, at the FRINGE noticeboard, and at BLPN) support for that interpretation is minimal. We could possible pursue this through an additional RfC when the current one is over....
You ask: "Are you saying I cannot cite RESEARCH?"
Answer: We cite research on health-related content per MEDRS. So we use the best sources we can as described there.
You ask: "Is MSKCC suddenly not an acceptable RS?"
Answer: Do you mean this? If so... First of all, it is doubtful if their website would be considered a reliable source per MEDRS. That is not a review published in the biomedical literature, and MSKCC is a single cancer center and is not a "major medical or scientific body" (by which MEDRS means things like the NHS, the NIH, the American Cancer Society, etc). Secondly, that source is overwhelmingly negative about amygalin/laetrile - it states that it is not a vitamin, not an effective cancer treatment, and has caused harm. I do acknowledge that currently there is a statement on that website that "there is renewed interest in developing this agent as an anticancer treatment" but you will notice that there is no citation for that and there are no clinical trials listed for it at clinicaltrials.gov. (I doubt that any competent IRB would allow a clinical trial for amygdalin/laetrile to go occur - I recognize that this is my view). here is a search of pubmed for reviews of laetrile or amydalin in cancer. Please review them, and let me know if you think the scientific consensus is anything other than something like: "laetrile is not a safe and effective treatment for cancer, and is likely harmful". (and that, by the way, is how we are meant to generate content in WP - you read the relevant literature as defined by the relevant guideline, and generate content that reflects the mainstream/consensus view.) Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 18:42, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
Jytdog, thank you so much for such an intelligible response. Please know that your efforts are truly appreciated. I think perhaps my intent for what should be included has been misunderstood. I simply suggested inclusion of the content per the book - IOW, what was actually written in the book. I am agnostic with regards to the information because I don't think it is my job to either debunk it or support what is written by BLP. My job is to write about it, and provide the basis for why that BLP believes what he wrote. My approach is strictly from a writer's perspective regarding Griffin as an author of controversial topics and the inclusion of his most notable works in the BLP. I don't think the laetrile argument should even be mentioned in the lede because it's a small part of his entire body of work. I suggested the following MOS/layout for consistency with other BLPs:
I will not belabor the discussion we've already had on the lede. Let's focus on the article sections to achieve NPOV and consistency with other biographies in WP. Suggested section titles:
  • Early life and education - needs to be expanded to include more biographical information. See the biography of Murray Rothbard; a GA which I think is very well written.
  • Career - should include more information about his early days in radio, and what led him to writing, producing and lecturing.
  • Literary Work - see Julia Alvarez for consistency - another GA that is very well written. This section should include his top 2 or 3 best selling books, and some mention of the DVDs (films) he produced.
  • Activism - neutral, dispassionate summary of his views on politics, and various other activities he is/was involved in.
For example, under the Literary section we list his most notable titles. We write about them in a dispassionate tone, such as Griffin wrote "xxxxx". His belief was based on "xxxxx". With regards to his book, World Without Cancer, we most definitely cite what conventional/orthodox medicine has published about the topic, but I believe the latter needs to be updated so that it does not rely so heavily on what was written over 30 years ago. The update naturally brings into play the article at MSKCC with regards to their statement about renewed interest, but their interest is based on cited research that is published in Biol Pharm Bull., World J Gastroenterol, and journal.pone.0105590. Therefore, the sources pass the smell test for WP:MEDRS. It must certainly be stated as hypotheses - no argument there - and for certain that based on NHS, NIH, ACS, its efficacy is unproven per cited RS. I never disputed the inclusion of such valuable information. What I take issue with is the use of contentious labels and pejorative terminology in a BLP, and also WP:NPOV and WP:UNDUE.
One other question - a highly reputable and rather notable doctor in Italy provided updated information (October 2008) in relation to what Griffin wrote in his book. Are you saying that doctor and his book are unreliable sources? If so, are you sure your opinion isn't even a tiny bit weighted since his book also disputes GMOs? The book to which I'm referring was authored by Giuseppe Nacci, M.D., 500 pgs from EVIDENCE BASED MEDICINE: 1,700 official scientific publications 1,750 various bibliographical references with particular emphasis on pgs 17-25, and pgs 159-166 (which includes mention of Griffin, and documented case histories)? [4] As I stated on Griffin Talk, Nacci is a specialist in nuclear medicine, and he published the book, Diventa Medico di Te stesso (Become your own doctor), which was awarded "Best Scientific Book of Year 2006". Thanks. Atsme☯Consult 20:21, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for talking. I have never heard of Nacci, so I am as unaware of his views on GMOs as I am of his views on laetrile. So he has no bearing on what I think. My thoughts about amygdalin/laetrile were formed entirely by reading the most recent reviews produced by the search I linked to above, which is what editors in Project Medicine typically do when they want to work on content. The publications cited by MSKCC that you mention, are all PRIMARY sources and we don't cite primary sources when discussing health-related issues in WP, per MEDRS. Jytdog (talk) 20:29, 18 January 2015 (UTC)


Additional note to the discussion above. When a page is protected due to edit warring, editors are meant to use that time to work out the dispute on Talk (please see Wikipedia:Protection_policy#Content_disputes). That is policy. Because it is my understanding that you have not been involved in a serious content dispute in WP before, and the page is under DS from Arbcom, I've tried to warn you to use this time well, since you might not be aware that this is important. Here are some of the diffs where I or others have advised you to suggest content on Talk now, while the page is locked down:

If, when the article is unlocked, you start to attempt to edit-in content that is likely to be contested, and you didn't try to work the content out on Talk when the article was locked down, this will look very bad if there is ever an AE or ANI action about this article, in which you are involved. So if you remain committed to changing the article, please do use this time well per Wikipedia:Protection_policy#Content_disputes. Best regards. Jytdog (talk) 19:31, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

In response to your unwarranted "additional note", may I remind you that I began editing Griffin on 10 December 2014 to correct BLP violations, but my edits were wrongfully reverted citing highly unreliable sources, a problem which you and a few others have consistently ignored. [5][6] [7]

  • I was the one who requested the first PP.
  • Your actions to stop the disruption created by Guy and a few others were well-received, and for that, I thank you.
  • Your spurious allegation that I "didn't try to work the content out on Talk when the article was locked down, this will look very bad..." is not true and casts an unwarranted aspersion on me. The following diffs demonstrate how hard I've worked to be policy compliant, and include the suggestions I've made and relentless attempts to improve/expand the article despite the WP:PA and WP:SQS:
  1. [8]
  2. [9]
  3. [10]
  4. [11]
  5. [12]
  6. [13]
  7. [14]
  8. [15]
  9. [16]
  10. [17]
  11. [18] <---which is where we're stuck now because of all the criticism and PA against me.
  • FWIW, WP:Consensus: Consensus among a limited group of editors, at one place and time, cannot override community consensus on a wider scale. For instance, unless they can convince the broader community that such action is right, participants in a WikiProject cannot decide that some generally accepted policy or guideline does not apply to articles within its scope. (See also Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Guide#Advice pages.)
  • It will come as no surprise if your non-neutral statement in the RfC generates a questionable result since you used "refer to" rather than "as a statement of fact in Wiki's voice" and included a list of references (all favorable to your POV), most of which do not pass the smell test for RS, a serious problem that still exists today. I added an Alternate question per WP:RfC with accompanying RS for balance, [19] but was asked by Callanecc to revert with a suggestion to add it further down on the TP. I did what he requested out of respect (even though I initially followed guidelines), so please do not mistake my respect for Callanecc as an admission to anything, or that I believe the RfC was presented in a neutral manner because that is not the case. The bottomline either way, consensus does not eliminate the fact that the BLP violations I pointed out actually do exist.
  • Every single one of the diffs you listed above are irrelevant, and prove nothing but the fact you're really good at giving irrelevant, unsolicited advice. Those diffs are representative of a pattern that was established to avoid directly responding to my suggestions in a positive, collaborative way - WP:SQS - which begs the question, where are YOUR suggestions for improvement/expansion of the article? All I've seen are unsolicited, unwarranted bits of irrelevant advice such as the following:
  • 20:48, 9 January 2015 - {{xt"oh for pete's sake another wall of text. TLDR. Please stop filling this page with walls of text. Please. More to the point - this is not the place to discuss whether RT is a RS generally. Please propose some content that you want to source from some specific RT article, and you can see if it will fly. It is unlikely to fly, but you are certainly free to try."}} Excuse me, but the walls of text you keep referring to included my proposals for content, at least when I wasn't being forced to defend against WP:PA, and other spurious claims. FYI, the TP is the place to discuss whether RT is a RS which was attacked when I proposed it under the section, Onward to NPOV and UNDUE in the article where I proposed consistency in the layout and section titles.
  • It took over 30 days to get you to agree to correct the BLP violation in the infobox which stated Griffin's Occupation: Conspiracy theorist. <---more WP:SQS, and not one iota of progress has been made since. The article is inundated with advice, criticism, and spurious PA against me and others who oppose your POV, and that doesn't include WP:BULLYING both on and off the TP.
  • If your intention is to contribute GF collaboration then let's see some suggestions for improvement and expansion of the article. If the latter is not your intention, please voluntarily recuse yourself and those of us who want to improve/expand it do our job.
  • Your last diff above, 18:22, 18 January 2015 (ditto from Guy) is another PA against me that is not supported by one diff or RS, including Guy's statement that "Atsme already proposed content that was in blatant violation of policy." and "because we already know that what Atsme wants is virtually the entire article refactored into a presentation of Griffin's ideas without reference to the fact that they are conspiracy theories, and wrong." which are a violation of the prohibition against casting aspersions on others per WP:NPA.
  • Direct future comments to Griffin Talk. My TP is not the place for it. I just wish you had stopped before the "additional note". Thank you, Atsme☯Consult 01:12, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Atsme. You have new messages at The Herald's talk page.
Message added 15:13, 16 January 2015 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

 - The Herald (here I am) 15:13, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

What you may not know

Before I was an admin, I took on (and was viciously attacked for taking on) the biography of a scientist that was being turned into a hatchet job by cranks - and this played no small part in the request for adminship. My email discussions with Jimbo at that time pre-date the status of WP:BLP as policy. In addition to early edits of WP:BLP and debates around its elevation to policy (which I supported) I also wrote the standard advice to article subjects who email the Foundation, and have helped a substantial number of people protect themselves against attack on Wikipedia both on-wiki and as part of the email volunteer response team.

You keep referring to WP:BLP, as if you have a unique understanding of it and as if I and others have a cavalier attitude to biographies. You may be able to guess, given the above, that this is rather offensive, and not a little silly.

You are of course at liberty to suggest a change to wording couched as "according to my understanding of WP:BLP, we should say this, and not that". You are perfectly at liberty to venture your interpretation of WP:BLP as it applies to specific text. Asserting your interpretation as absolute truth? Not so much.

Listen to Jytdog. He is an email response volunteer. Those of us who have done this work have a very clear understanding of how Wikipedia content affects real people's lives. Our advice by email is exactly the same: identify problematic statements, one by one, state why they are problematic, and identify reliable independent sources (stronger than the existing ones) that can be used to improve them. Do also remember that you have an uphill struggle with many of the statements to which you object: when someone is a truther, a birther, a chemtrailer and has asserted that the Protocols of the Elders of Zion, while fraudulent, documents a real situation, then that person is pretty obviously irrational. I understand you feel passionately about this, but banging your head against the wall is not going to work, whereas the approach recommended by Jytdog and me, may work. Guy (Help!) 16:10, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

January 2015

Stop icon

Your recent editing history at Steven Emerson 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. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 16:00, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

Cheer up

Have you heard of Wikipediocracy? Their ranks are filled with some of the best and worst Wikipedia editors. Thankfully the former and not the later produce gems of criticism of great value to editors like myself. Wikipedia's failings include the problems with BLP articles. I've crossed paths with one of their more key members and came away a much better editor for the criticism they provided. I'd ignore that article and move on - I've warned two editors with the BLP sanctions, but you should not seek conflict and confrontation. The average respondent will not take the time to evaluate the finer points of esoteric or complex topics - something like calling someone a bigot or fomenting bigotry is not "clear cut" and requires actual investigation. The battleground behavior and utter lack of respect of the problematic editors usually gets sorted out with topic bans and site bans, but you are better of not involved with such rabble. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 22:50, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

@ChrisGualtieri: good advice, thx. I've often wondered what motivates such tenacity in some editors, so I started digging for answers. Of course, we have the usual argumentum ad hominem that's rooted in partisanship plus whatever else motivates WP:ACTIVIST, and WP:COATRACK. We also have our share of Trolls and Wikipedia is an MMORPG, but I'm concerned there's something far more sinister at play. My research churned up some rather incredulous results: [20]. Wikipediocracy isn't alone in reporting the problems, either. [21], [22]. Oh, and remember when I was mentioning reinstating my E&O policy? [23]. Sad. The almighty dollar still remains the most powerful religion of all. Ironically, the ones who scream the loudest against capitalism are typically the ones who benefit the most from it. --Atsme☯Consult 20:25, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
Ahem, this matter is not of any of those. The fact Wikipedia is potentially (and in Germany is) liable for content is a clear reason why even sourced information can be an issue. If you note the German ruling states: "The Wikipedia article was based on a newspaper article and the court noted that by reproducing it on Wikipedia, the allegations were spread... Wikipedia was responsible because it contained a defamatory allegation which was clearly false even though it was sourced and not the origin of the material. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 05:13, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
@ChrisGualtieri:, which is why WP:V is paramount. I think a major problem is the mindset that if something is written in a book, or they read it on their favorite news website, they can use it. Atsme☯Consult 08:25, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

just a friendly FYI

Hay, this is seriously a friendly message because I'm trying to look out for my fellow wikipedians. I just wanted you to know that you may have accidentally revealed your IRL identity on Wikipedia. It is not very obvious, and only experienced editors would ever be able to figure it out (I seriously stumbled onto it accidentally), but if you are concerned about your privacy then you can correct that fact and have an administrator delete this conversation so no one will find out who you are. I can walk you through the steps if you like. I have no interest in WP:OUTING you, and frankly really do want to protect your privacy. If you are interested in knowing where it is, simply let me know here, otherwise you can delete the message and no one will be the wiser. If I tell you exactly where it is, you will need to contact an Administrator to permanently delete this thread otherwise the location of your name will be logged in the history and anyone will be able to figure it out. Cheers! Coffeepusher (talk) 09:25, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

Coffeepusher, send me a private email with the information. Atsme☯Consult 15:42, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
Here is the problem with that, my email account for wikipedia was an old email address I lost access too (they started charging for hosting email and frankly it was too much bother). Unfortunately my other addresses are all tied to my real name and job, and I want to guard my privacy, not from you specifically but in general, I've seen too many people get attacked personally from their activities on wikipedia (especially by that wikipediocracy site mentioned above, that site is famous for outing and harassing wikipedia users on their site). So from my end that really isn't an option. You can file the WP:OS report and let them know there is an active conversation which you would like deleted after it is resolved. Otherwise, as I said, it isn't a particularly obvious reveal and from what I can see there is little to no damage to you by having your real name here (you aren't engaged in WP:COI editing from what I can tell, and honestly if someone screamed "Atsme is XXXXXX from XXXXXX!!!" no one would really care.) Forgive me for not agreeing to your solution, you have proposed the correct course of action, I hope you understand my position on the matter. Cheers miss! Coffeepusher (talk) 16:51, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Atsme/Archive_6&oldid=998514584"