Jump to content

User talk:Atsme/Archive 9

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 5←Archive 7Archive 8Archive 9Archive 10Archive 11→Archive 15

Arbitration Case Opened

You were recently listed as a party to a request for arbitration. The Arbitration Committee has accepted that request for arbitration and an arbitration case has been opened at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Collect and others. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Collect and others/Evidence. Please add your evidence by April 7, 2015, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Collect and others/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, Robert McClenon (talk) 20:41, 24 March 2015 (UTC) Robert McClenon (talk) 20:41, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

American politics 2 arbitration case opened

Pursuant to section 3a of an arbitration motion, you were recently listed as a party to a request for arbitration. Please note: being listed as a party does not imply any wrongdoing nor mean that there will necessarily be findings of fact or remedies regarding that party. The Arbitration Committee has accepted that request for arbitration and an arbitration case has been opened at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/American politics 2. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/American politics 2/Evidence. Please add your evidence by April 14, 2015, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/American politics 2/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, --L235 (t / c / ping in reply) by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:57, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

You are right

Your comments on Collect in the arbitration case are excellent, thank you for that. In particular, the assertion that his essays are in some way evidence of malfeasance is utterly preposterous, a point you make well. So thank you for that contribution. Guy (Help!) 11:18, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

Thank you, Guy. That was sweet of you to acknowledge, and it is much appreciated. I just stated what I believe to be true. Collect is such a prolific writer, losing him would be a substantial loss to the project. I actually feel the same about you regarding your areas of expertise and abilities as an admin. Atsme☯Consult 20:28, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

COIDuck/Grant

It looks like the easier solutions offered at Sarah's are off to a good start. I wanted to see what you thought of the more in-depth approach she suggested, which I'll copy here:

I talked to someone recently who has experience of dealing with COI in publishing. Their advice was that the Foundation should be urged to set up a group of COI specialists who can topic-ban editors from articles where there appears to be control on behalf of financial interests.
But they might give a grant to volunteers – a group who would gather the evidence and propose topic bans to the community. It would mean a lot of work; see Grants:IdeaLab and Grants:Start. You would have to find editors who understand why COI is damaging ... and (with the grant) pay for some specialist help and pay yourselves for the research.

I'm intrigued by this idea - it seems a grounded way forward. Do you happen to enjoy grant writing?

Also I wonder how to approach the damage that has been done by the widespread misuse of MEDRS, and if it could it be addressed by this same group? The scope of the damage is mind boggling. I'm at a loss, frankly. petrarchan47tc 19:21, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

Petrarchan47, I actually have written grants (15+ years ago) but am willing to give it a try and see where it takes us. I do like the idea of a task force comprising editors who are in the trenches creating articles, reviewing and striving to get stubs and start-class articles promoted to GA & FA. A task force that can actually focus on one project could do wonders. As I'm sure we both agree, the issues go much deeper than simply creating an article for $$. It's the business of protecting, advocating and politicizing those articles that creates the problem because it defies compliance with NPOV. I find it rather disconcerting to think how easy it would be for governments to infiltrate our beautiful encyclopedia and feed propaganda to the masses, but it doesn't end there. What about the internet sites that may be poisoning the minds of our children and young adults? It appears to be bleeding over to WP because they probably have no clue what journalistic integrity is supposed to look like. What are they learning, and from whom? MSNBC, CNN, FOX, ABC, NY Times, Washington Post, Huffington Post, Breitbart? All pundits, opinion pieces, blogs and tweets that run rampant in today's cyberspace. I have lived to see the increasing decay in ethical journalism from the way it was in the 60s to the trade-offs we see today in exchange for the almighty $$. What truly defines a RS?
A focused task force will be able to dig deeper into cause & effect, and dig up the root cause of the behavioral issues rather than treating only the symptoms like what we're seeing today. Too many GF editors are getting tangled up in this seemingly infinite web of spurious allegations, POV battles, promotion and advocacy. It appears to be an even bigger issue than I first imagined, starting with the link you provided. You are absolutely correct about the widespread misuse of MEDRS in instances where guidelines were used to trump policy. However, I also believe it serves a purpose when applied properly as a content guideline. I am adamantly opposed to its use as a shield to censor information before the information is properly considered from a NPOV. I do like the way Alzheimer's_disease was formatted which includes sections on Hypotheses and Research directions. I consider that important information. We also have to keep in mind that yesterday's fringe is today's science so if an editor is applying common sense and adhering to policy guidelines, any attempt at enforcement of MEDRS, FRINGE/PS, and similar guidelines used to trump policy and push a POV is clearly a violation of WP:BS, a nonexistent policy which in southern belle terms equates into bull honky. I'm just trying to be polite. I believe you and I are on the same page with regards to the problems editors are facing, and I also believe it can be fixed. yes.
The root of the problem lies in how information is disseminated to the reader. More often than not, we're seeing dissemination with a slant, which is all the more reason I give special credence to FAs. I would support a policy that required admin candidates to have at least 2 FAs to their credit. Anyway, slant is not NPOV, nor is it balance. To answer your question regarding MEDRS, I have to respond with a conditional yes. If a COI arises (has arisen) as a result of MEDRS, a task force should be able to handle that as well, but of course each situation is different, and must be thoroughly evaluated to determine the root of the problem. An encyclopedia is a compendium of information, and in our open editing environment, it is still up to the individual editor to weigh and measure the notability, relevance, importance and amount of information they want to include. If a fair and balanced community disputes the inclusion, discussions begin. However, if an editor determines the community is not fair and balanced after they have evaluated how loud COIduckery is quacking, then the task force should be called in to decide. If the debates continue to escalate, then so be it - we have venues for that, too. However, I see the task force determination to be quite beneficial to admins and ARBCOM if the debate elevates. Atsme☯Consult 21:46, 31 March 2015 (UTC)
(Tiny, partial response) Regarding the issue of MEDRS used to protect special interests rather than human health, or otherwise improperly used, could you give me your views on this edit, which shows the removal of an addition I made to the Foie Gras article?
Petrarchan47, my views: unwarranted revert. The passage was RS with inline citations supporting the information you included. What he did was censor information because it was controversial to mainstream, and that is what I adamantly oppose. His edit summary stated: (→‎Controversy: rmv. improperly-sourced biomedical claims) which ironically explains exactly why it should have been included. Atsme☯Consult 00:18, 1 April 2015 (UTC)
You linked to Alzheimer's,. I skimmed it, seeing the section on amyloid disease, and remembered this edit (which resulted in an edit war, a trip to the MEDRS noticeboard, and loosing on all counts because MEDRS is being misinterpreted by everyone there). This edit is a good example, as is the ensuing struggle, of the problem of COIDuckery, it's relationship to MEDRS, and the use of a team of like-minded editors to control content - and what I'm trying to address. For whatever reason, oftentimes it is industry being protected by the guideline, not human health. On WP, "do no harm" has a totally different meaning. petrarchan47tc 00:49, 1 April 2015 (UTC)
I read your responses at the ANI about Jytdog's behaviour regarding MEDRS misuse, and it was the first time I had heard anyone define it so thoroughly and accurately... by a long shot. Would you feel to write up something to explain all of this to others who may not be aware of the problems? I'm not sure if it should be an essay, or just a response at Sarah's talk page, but it is something for which you are uniquely qualified and IMO, uber important.
...if an editor determines the community is not fair and balanced after they have evaluated how loud COIduckery is quacking, then the task force should be called in to decide. Yes! petrarchan47tc 22:06, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

Petra, my views are unambiguous, once you get past the ambiguities, mm. Seriously....think compendium of information, NPOV, BALANCE, UNDUE, but above all apply COMMON SENSE. With regards to the diff you included above, part of my history is ranching, livestock, raising hay & oats, top quality Quarter Horses, AKC show dogs, and show cattle. My niece was Miss Texas Angus several years ago. That's all I'm going to say without "outing" myself. Few believe the scope of my resume, including me!! How can anyone have done so much at only 38 years of age? %Þ. Hey, listen up all you Trekkies - I spent 2 weeks with Cpt Kirk at his Belle Reve Ranch in Kentucky! I'm a Trekkie of sorts, and proud of it. He fed his horses Kentucky blue grass - no chemicals, no insecticides. We did the same in Texas for our bermuda grass pastures, never fed our livestock anything but natural grasses and natural grains. I actually did try Round-Up in a Diesel mix to kill Johnson grass from my hay fields, but it was a spot application, not broadcast. I'm still here to talk about it, and no cancers developed in me or my family as a result.

I also used insecticides as needed in the past to reduce the damage of swarming grasshoppers, but I used it sparingly. My babies were more important to me than exposing them to insecticides so I could have a pretty garden. Also wanted to mention that growing up in Houston as a kid, I used to run behind the mosquito trucks when they were spraying mosquito repellent in a huge cloud of smoke. It didn't kill me, (or do much harm to the mosquitos), and so far, I don't have any lung diseases, or other forms of cancer (knock on wood), but I do eat a lot of almonds and apricots.:-D

Over the past couple of years, my ranch manager switched from treating our hay fields with organic horse stall cleanings to a natural bacteria that I believe is called - Bacillus subtilis - but I'm not sure if that's accurate so don't cite my TP as a RS. All I know at this point is that our coastal fields are flourishing as a result. It's one thing to be a "scientist" in the laboratory, but guess what? We helped Texas A&M figure out how to do successful embryo transfers in horses many years ago...in the field, on location, and in our lab. Am I a scientist? No, but I respect scientists and hold them in high regard. I also have quite a few friends who are medical practitioners and specialists who come to the island and dive with me. They also believe in proper nutrition. I'm a writer - scientists are scientists, and doctors are doctors. I've worked with enough scientists and biologists over the years to know they do excellent work and are brilliant at what they do, but for practical application and being able to write about it? Different story. I trust the reality of real world applications of science, including in-the-field results, and I'm smart enough to know you are what you eat. Do I trust government? HELL NO! Do I trust big pharma? HELL NO! Do I trust what my body tells me? HELL YES! Do I trust what I read? HELL NO! Do I trust what I see with my own eyes? PARTIALLY. Do I trust what I hear? PARTIALLY. Do I trust what I experience first-hand? Yes, and when I'm out checking cattle all day, and inadvertently squat on bull nettle by accident, next time I make it a point to look before I squat. I strongly advise my cowboy friends to not squat wearing spurs. Same difference. Atsme☯Consult 00:34, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

Wow! Full disclosure, lol. Nice to meet you! Thank you for laying that out. I'm certainly not anti-science or anti-doctor. I am anti-advertising. I grew up in the time of thick shag carpet and can vividly remember sitting on it with the entire set of Encyclopedia Britannica strewn around me in a semi-circle: my best friends. I knew them intimately, and it's from this place that my objections to the spin-doctoring arise. Ads, even subtle ones, really stand out to me, especially when they occur on an "encyclopedia" page. A true encyclopedia does not have ads; it defines but does not judge, promote or censor. Ideally, it should be a refuge from all the b.s. that surrounds us online and in media. petrarchan47tc 01:10, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for Wikipedia:Conflict of Interest ducks

Hi. I wanted to let you know that I have just read Wikipedia:Conflict of Interest ducks and think it is one of the best essays I have read on the project. What I find extraordinary is that several of the opposers are the very same people that targeted me on Foie gras which eventually led to my raising an ANI and an editor being warned for incivility! By the way, it seems ironic that here in England, we say that ducks produce a "QUACK"; In France, they produce a "COIN"! Keep up the good work.__DrChrissy (talk) 16:47, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

What an interesting essay. Have you tried submitting it to Wikipediocracy? It's much more their style than ours ! -Roxy the dog™ (resonate) 12:10, 5 April 2015 (UTC)
Thank you, Roxy, but I have enough to do without worrying about multiple submissions. Have you and the others whose POV you support tried to make WP:MEDRS a policy? Perhaps you should exert some effort in that direction. Atsme☯Consult 12:30, 5 April 2015 (UTC)
No problem. I do think that MEDRS works quite well without my interferance. NPOV is probably my favourite, FRIND is good and useful, and I particularly approve of ELNO; but I agree with you, there are far too many COI eds around pushing their POV. We're on the same side. (I also wonder if you could ask A1c to stop hounding me by deleting my edits?? - that would be nice) -Roxy the dog™ (resonate) 17:17, 5 April 2015 (UTC)
I gave your essay a brief read. It does have some good points which should apply to all sides of any debate. Skepticism without a solid foundation is merely ignorant prejudice, which is a COI in its own right, and a violation of NPOV. You're welcome to use anything I posted on the naturopathy talk page, but I'm not going down the whole rabbit hole of getting into a debate about the broader issues with wikipedia. These issues are common knowledge in academia, and things which only Jimmy Wales and others at the top can rectify. A few public exchanges I've read on the matter are rather interesting. Gudzwabofer (talk) 20:57, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

Clarification please

Hi again. I'm not exactly sure what you are wanting me to quack ;-) Are you wanting me to make statements such as "I being taken to ANI by a very experienced editor after just 3 comments - an action which felt very much like WP:BULLYING, "Multiple similar comments and reversions felt like it was the target of a WP:TAGTEAM" "A very experienced editor involved in a discussion with me (prematurely) hatted sections that they were involved in, contrary to hatting policy" ...is this the type of issue you would like me to raise?__DrChrissy (talk) 15:26, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

Hi. I noticed that a response to my message above caused you to delete another editors comments. I would like to make it totally clear to All that this posting and the one I made above on your TP were made totally by my own motivation. You publically invited me to make a response on another page and any other editor could have read that invitation and responded. It was totally my motivation to contact you here on your TP and other editors should not waste your time trying to accuse you of this. i apologise if this has caused you any problem.__DrChrissy (talk) 16:45, 5 April 2015 (UTC)
drchrissy please note that what i wrote started with "With regard to this". it was not about what you wrote. Jytdog (talk) 16:52, 5 April 2015 (UTC)
No problem, DrChrissy. Jytdog's accusation of canvassing was inappropriate and certainly unwarranted. He apparently has a skewed interpretation of WP:CANVASSING, a behavioral guideline. While researching various articles and interactions to make the DOIducks essay better, I invited another editor for input which was perfectly inline with the canvassing guideline:

Appropriate notification (section)

On the user talk pages of concerned editors. Examples include:

  • Editors who have made substantial edits to the topic or article
  • Editors who have participated in previous discussions on the same topic (or closely related topics)
  • Editors known for expertise in the field
  • Editors who have asked to be kept informed
Jytdog doesn't seem to understand how close he is skimming the edge of incivility with his hounding behavior and inappropriate warnings. Atsme☯Consult 17:02, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

Discussion of editor behavior on article Talk pages

Better I think to move that comment here. Thanks. Formerly 98 talk|contribs|COI statement 20:31, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

I'm quite confused by exactly what you consider to be a COI that is in that statement. thanks Formerly 98 talk|contribs|COI statement 20:32, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

Here is how Wikipedia defines COI (WP:COI)

  • Paid editing
  • Paid advocacy, public relations, and marketing
  • Legal - If you are involved in a court case, or you are close to one of the litigants, you should not write about the case, or about a party or law firm associated with the case.
  • Political- Editors should not edit articles in which they have a political conflict of interest.
  • Campaigning - Activities regarded by insiders as simply "getting the word out" may appear promotional or propagandistic to the outside world. If you edit articles while involved with campaigns that engage in advocacy in the same area, you may have a conflict of interest.
  • Writing about yourself and your work - You should not create or edit articles about yourself, your family, or friends. If you or they are notable enough, someone else will create the article.

You may well perceive my editing as biased. I certainly perceive the editing of many of the people who participated in writing the essay that way. But WP COI explicitly states that "Conflict of interest is not simply bias.[7] Beliefs and desires alone do not constitute a conflict of interest.

COI is a very strong charge. You've asked. I'm saying none exists. Really the two appropriate choices at this point are 1) accept my word, or 2) take it to COIN. But I don't think you'll have much luck at COIN because 1) I've already been there, and 2) among editors who know my area of expertise (medicine), my work here is highly respected. This includes (to the best of my understanding) Doc James, who is no freind of the pharmaceutical industry by any stretch of the imagination.

Respectfully, Formerly 98 talk|contribs|COI statement 20:45, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

No, you're not getting my point. The way I interpret the situation, if an editor has a COI, regardless of what it is, it is still a COI. The essay does not define a particular area where a COI may apply, only that it exists and as a result of a COI - regardless of what it is - behavioral issues may or may not emerge. It is based on how each situation is perceived. Now then, according to what I've read at WP:COI - and I'm not proposing anything at the MfD other than the fact that the very nature of a COI brings in the possibility a COI exists - I think it is important for the closer of the MfD to know - after all the essay targets COI behavior, which is a generalization of it. See WP:APPARENTCOI. Any other editors who participated at the MfD should also make known that they have a COI statement on their user page. Atsme☯Consult 20:55, 6 April 2015 (UTC)
I still don't understand what you are trying to say except that maybe you are using "COI" synonymously with "bias". Conflict of interest means exactly that. You are charged with getting the best deal on widgets for your company, but the vendor is married to your daughter and will lose his job if they don't make the sale. Everyone has values and beliefs, and everyone appears biased to those whose own beliefs differ. Formerly 98 talk|contribs|COI statement 20:58, 6 April 2015 (UTC)
Atsme, what you say -- "if an editor has a COI, regardless of what it is, it is still a COI." -- is not accurate, as far as I understand it. Everyone has a potential conflict of interest about something. A COI only comes into existence if you actually work on a subject matter where your COI applies. Like - the head of PR for Houghton Mifflin would have a clear COI on article on his company or any books published by his firm or any authors. but let's say she likes to fix motorcycles, so is all over those articles. No COI there. A COI for some particular subject mattter, is not a scarlet letter every where you go. it is local. there are things i don't edit here, b/c i would have a COI if i did. Jytdog (talk) 21:01, 6 April 2015 (UTC)
If you had a horse, and there was a decision that needed to be made about whether or not pasture land should be turned into a shopping mall, or maintained as pastureland, you would be asked to disclose if you owned a horse. It doesn't matter if you own a Thoroughbred, a Quarter Horse, an Arabian, etc. Remember, it's a survey not a vote. A closer will look at the people responding to the survey. It's natural for the horse owners to want to keep the pastureland. Get my point? You have a COI statement, and probably hate the idea of possibly being lump summed as a COI duck. I would, too. Some of the other participants did make known they had COI statements. That's all. Just relax. I understand what you're saying. Try to understand what I'm saying. It's all good. Atsme☯Consult 21:09, 6 April 2015 (UTC)
Well, no, its not all good because you and your allies are continuously using the concept of COI in an attempt to invalidate my position. COI has a very concrete meaning. It means that Person A is responsible for making decisions that should be in the best interests of Person or Group B, but among the range of decisions is one or more that will bring tangible benefits to Person A. An apparent conflict of interest is a situation in which a reasonable person might believe that such a conflict exists. "Reasonable" means something more than "he disagrees with me, and I can't see how any reasonable person would".
What you need to accuse me of having a COI is to name both the horse (the financial interest) and the pasture (the material gain).
Respectfully, unless you have evidence that I will gain materially by writing about the subjects I write about in the manner in which I write them, you are engaged in defamation of character. You should really stop. Formerly 98 talk|contribs|COI statement 21:18, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

atsme, the mall thing makes no sense. you don't know how COI works in WP and you are just making things up on the fly. you are free to do so, of course. but really - read the delete !votes and look at the kind of people who are making them - people who have been here a long time, many admins and higher functionaries among them. not a single admin has supported the essay. you are way out of the mainstream on this; you don't understand COI issues in WP. Jytdog (talk) 21:22, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

Ok, this conversation's over. Thank you for your participation. Atsme☯Consult 21:23, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

Contact

Hi. Is there a way I can contact you privately? There are a couple of edits to talk pages I think you might find very interesting regarding TAGTEAM, but I do not want to post them on your Talk page in case I am in breach of some rule as it identifies editors. I'm not even sure if this posting is legal given the wiki-lawyering that goes on!__DrChrissy (talk) 13:43, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

Certainly. Atsme☯Consult 13:45, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

Hi. I thought rather than a private posting I would post the edits here but with names/pages/dates etc removed.

Curious "coded" edit used to change meaning of edit:

“username is at the thread you started at the talk page XXX, do you want me to answer her or do you”
Was edited to read-
“remembethe new Star Wars 7 trailer comes out in two weeks (a little change to agree with what you said below)—“

This rather unusual discussion thread talks of “watching backs” and being “careful of the pack thing”:

USER A just pinging you—USER B

you double-pinged me by writing here and using the echo!—USER A

remember the new Star Wars 7 trailer comes out in two weeks (a little change to agree with what you said below)—USER B

i already did! but thanks.—USER A

ive got your back too—USER B

USER A you talking to yourself again?? :)—USER C

funny USER C! that is very nice of you USER B - You have a good heart. i need to count on you always giving your straight opinion. I screw up sometimes and am always glad to get feedback, either way. The key thing is that everybody comes to each issue fresh. We humans do form "packs" but the encyclopedia is a better place if we fight that instinct, and come to every issue with fresh eyes, and start out saying what we think regardless if others agree (but always listening and eventually trying to reach consensus). I'll know you have my back, when you disagree with me in good faith and trust that everything will still be OK. I hope that makes sense. Thanks again! I am glad to be working with you.—USER A

got that – USER B

great. i really value you as a colleague here. but we never want people to feel ganged up on (or be ganged up on) and if user name (who likes you a lot) read what you wrote you above (and she may do.. i don't know if she watches my page or not) it would make her feel bad, even though you were trying to be good to me. and nobody deserves to be made to feel bad. i know you wouldn't want to make anybody feel bad. that's why we need to be careful of the "pack" thing and just be honest with each other. thanks again, it does feel good to know that you share the position i am taking in that specific thread.-USER A

Still, must make a nice change to have somebody getting your back, rather than getting on your back-USER D

I changed it (just in case)—USER B

you just made me laugh out loud. thx :)-USER A

__DrChrissy (talk) 14:39, 6 April 2015 (UTC)
for pete's sake that happened on my Talk page. a very well intentioned but inexperienced user wanted to be pleasing and wrote something implying GANG, and when i pointed that out to him, he got it and changed it. i knew somebody would bring that up in an ugly way. Jytdog (talk) 14:57, 6 April 2015 (UTC)
Jiminy Cricket, Jytdog, I wish you had not outed yourself. I have been trying to maintain neutrality - I don't want to know user names, just incidents so I can write a better essay. Shucks be diddle. ;-/ Atsme☯Consult 15:56, 6 April 2015 (UTC)
there was no COI there working with COI issues requires care and thoughtfulness; the opposite of that being proposed and your readiness to use it. Jytdog (talk) 16:30, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

Allegations

For the record, I've tried to open a discussion with you on this, and you seem to have closed off that discussion by archiving my commments, which were civil and to the point. Please think very hard about whether you want to continue down this road. Making allegations is a serious business, and I don't think you entirely understand the seriousness with which that is taken here. Formerly 98 talk|contribs|COI statement 21:33, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

For the record, I didn't make any allegations. You are making allegations now. You became threatening on my TP, and that is why I archived and ended the discussion. You clearly don't understand what I was saying. Continuing this discussion now in the same threatening manner you did before is not productive. You have your interpretation of what the essay I authored means - I wrote it and have a different interpretation. I don't see it as my problem. You initiated a MfD without discussion which is one of the guideline recommendations. You seem to pick and choose the guidelines you respect and don't respect. Please do not visit my TP again if your intent is to be confrontational. FFR, I cannot be baited, and it doesn't matter how sweet you are. I wish you the best, and happy editing. Atsme☯Consult 21:45, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

Griffin

I didn't inadvertently leave out alternative question 3. You'll notice that there is no Alternative question 3 in the alternative question section.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 12:22, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

Another beehive.

I now totally understand what you mean by the "beehive experience"! See here[1] All the best __DrChrissy (talk) 21:27, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

You're welcome....

....um...whaddit I do, though? Anmccaff (talk) 14:25, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

Quite frankly, I dunno 8-° but as they say don't look a gift horse in the mouth, whatever that means. I don't recognize the user name but I'm thinking perhaps it resulted from an inadvertent mouse click when I was perusing an edit history. The salt air tends to make my Mac trackpad do strange things from time to time. I've watched it take off on a tangent highlighting stuff, moving sentences, deleting things on its own, etc. Might be time for a cleaning to get it back on track, pun intended. ;-)
Ah, good. I'd hoped that I had an ally in my campaign against WikipsiCOIsis, a strange malady in which causes hallucinations of ducks, but I'll settle for trackballitis. Anmccaff (talk) 15:38, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
Anmccaff, I wasn't aware you had a campaign against COIsis. Could that be considered similar to COIphobia? :-) If so, I would like to discuss it with you in a few days but can't right now because of my concerns over being wrongfully accused of canvassing. I liken it to being sued - you still have to defend it whether you are guilty or innocent. Atsme☯Consult 15:54, 8 April 2015 (UTC) PS: I struck through the last comment for fear it may be misconstrued as a legal threat which was not my intention at all. It was a metaphor. It seems free speech often comes at a high price these days. Atsme☯Consult 17:17, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
Yeah, the Invisible Giant Ducks are often Canvasbacks. Later, then. Anmccaff (talk) 17:20, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

Today's articles for improvement

  • Hello Atsme:
Please consider participating in this week's vote for TAFI's upcoming Week 17 collaboration. Last week's voting did not receive many participants. Thanks for your consideration. North America1000 16:43, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

PLEASE COMMENT

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wikipedia (7th nomination)... Hafspajen (talk) 22:25, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

Ha!! I can always count on you for a smile, Hafs Atsme☯Consult 18:26, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

COI ducks

Nominated for deletion here. https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Wikipedia:Miscellany_for_deletion/Wikipedia:Conflict_of_Interest_ducks#.7B.7BConflict_of_Interest_ducks.7D.7D Formerly 98 talk|contribs|COI statement 02:43, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

I hope the closer realizes the importance of this essay as it relates to behavioral issues and remedy when confronted. 8-( Atsme☯Consult 13:27, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

The Fourteen Infallibles

Would please help us to copy edit this article, because we have nominated it for FA.--Salman mahdi (talk) 07:28, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

Salman mahdi, I would be delighted to help. Atsme☯Consult 11:33, 7 March 2015 (UTC)
With thanks fore your great helps, just a question, is it finished?--Salman mahdi (talk) 06:42, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
@Salman mahdi:, I copied the your table to my Sandbox, and will try to make it work per the suggestions of other editors on the TP. I have a little time to do it now. I am pretty sure it will not pass a FA review as it appears now, so I am going to try Technical 13's approach, eliminate the numbers column and shrink the graphics to see how it all works out. No promises, but I am going to try. Atsme☯Consult 14:45, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

Infallible's table

I started a new table using all of the information you already had. I fixed a few of the problems you were having formatting the table. I removed from the captions and headings the CE and AH. I instead put this in the section below with wikilinks. It just makes the hearer look cleaner. I split off the date of death section and I combined the place of burial section. I moved cause and place of death to being a footnote before the source of the date of death. You can either finish my code if you like, change it as you wish, or adapt it into the table you already have. I posted my work in your sandbox.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 22:36, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

If you have any questions in regard to this code feel free to ping me.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 22:37, 23 March 2015 (UTC)
Thank you, Serialjoepsycho, wondering if you had a chance to look at the table Technical 13 proposed at the article's TP? Another editor also suggested that we eliminate the number column, and make the graphic 50px instead of 100px to accommodate cell phones and the like. They will be so happy to know the table issue may be resolved. More tomorrow. Atsme☯Consult 03:38, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
I did and started making one based off Technical 13 that cleaned it up more. Then I saw SchroCat comments. Since Schrocat is a delegate for the featured list director, he offers a pretty reliable view. I've asked him a few questions in regards. But here's what I did with technical 13's example User:Serialjoepsycho/sandbox/2. -Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 03:57, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
Sweet! Just one question, Serialjoepsycho - don't you think the caption Importance should be flush left like the way T13 had it? Atsme☯Consult 05:19, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
It was flush on my end of the computer. I posted a stripped down table to your sandbox. You will be able to maintain the current level of information but now most of it has been shifted to prose. The depiction has a section, all of the biographical details have one section except for the titles, they maintain their own section. This should render a clean and with a uniform aesthetic across devices and if should be universally accessible to all readers. This allow you to maintain the images at current levels. -Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 17:19, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

On the Basis of the current conversation with Schrocat and some of the previous conversation I really wouldn't consider removing the pictures. I removed the numbering in one example on your sandbox, I've removed the numbering an the pictures in another. Based off Schrocats comments however I suggest that you may consider forgoing the table altogether and switching to prose. It's something that you are more familiar with and with all of the information desired it would probably look better in the end.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 17:52, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

Good idea, thx. I'll give it a try as soon as I'm finished with a few other projects. Atsme☯Consult 18:33, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

Conflict

Things have become quite heated the last few days and I'd like to take this occassion to apologize for over reacting to some things. We clearly do not see eye to eye on a lot of things but I've been too harsh. Formerly 98 talk|contribs|COI statement 03:06, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

Thank you, Formerly - that was very kind of you. Atsme☯Consult 03:26, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

American Politics 2 arbitration evidence phase closing soon

As a listed party to this case, this is a notification that the evidence phase of this case is closing soon on 14 April. If you have additional evidence that you wish to introduce for consideration, it must be entered before this date. On behalf of the committee, Lankiveil (speak to me) 01:58, 12 April 2015 (UTC).

Evidence closed

The evidence phase is now closed on the American Politics 2 arbitration case, which you are a named party to. You are welcome to add proposals at the workshop. For the Committee, --L235 (t / c / ping in reply) using MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:16, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

testing code

hope it works. Yes, it did. Atsme☯Consult 18:28, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

Ok, hit and miss. I'll try it again.

  1. Show preview
  2. Edit summary
  3. Save page (w/o adding sig)
  4. Gave me a reminder
  5. added sig here Atsme☯Consult 18:57, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

PS: Not consistent. *sigh* It looked so promising, too. Atsme☯Consult 19:55, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

Autosig

You might want to go back and sign your post that the autosig code works. -- GB fan 18:00, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

relaunch of essay

Moving this discussion to User_talk:Atsme/sandboxCOIduckery where it belongs, so please respond there and not on my Talk Page. --Atsme☯Consult 16:45, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

COI duckery user page

I think identification of tactics used by COI editors, particularly SPA COI editors, would be useful. I also note that you have, unfortunately, blanked the user space essay. I'm not sure if you noticed the existence of User:John Carter/Self-appointed prophet, which is intended to deal with individuals who have a certain kind of COI, basically fanatical devotion to a theory or belief or whatever, but it is still in userspace, although there is an intention of moving it to wikipedia space shortly. If there are any particular additions you might like to make, particularly regarding tactics, feel free to do so. John Carter (talk) 16:22, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

Thank you, John Carter. I have the essay saved off-site. Would it be ok if I copied it back to my user space so our collaborative effort can get back to work on it? Atsme☯Consult 18:11, 11 April 2015 (UTC)
Sounds good to me. John Carter (talk) 18:30, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Atsme. You have new messages at Stifle's talk page.
Message added 14:47, 15 April 2015 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Stifle (talk) 14:47, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Atsme. You have new messages at Stifle's talk page.
Message added 10:12, 17 April 2015 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Stifle (talk) 10:12, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Atsme. You have new messages at Stifle's talk page.
Message added 15:44, 16 April 2015 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Stifle (talk) 15:44, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

Just a question

Moved to User_talk:Atsme/sandbox_Advocacy_and_COI_ducks

Please comment on Talk:Paul Singer (businessman)

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Paul Singer (businessman). Legobot (talk) 00:01, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

Application of WP:MEDRS

Hi. I taken a section of non-medical but scientific text and applied WP:MDRES to it here.[2] I have also applied overzealous WP:BRD to it, creating a third version. Could you take a look at it and give me feedback on whether this might be breaking some policy like, "incitement to cause riot in the dog pound" or perhaps more seriously, is it against any WP:policy or guideline to have something like this in my sandbox? All the best.DrChrissy (talk) 14:23, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

I am not an Atsme, nor do I play one on television, but I look at that with ambivalence. On the one hand, I agree that there are over-zealous persons abusively editing in the name of MEDRS (have you added an E above, btw?). On the other hand, I see a wide variety offenses against basic scholarship in many categories, not just medicine, that MEDRS, or guides like it, intelligently used, would help certain categories of editors avoid.
The same goes for the Ducks piece earlier; I have no problem seeing the frustrations with MEDRS badly used, but neither do I have any problem seeing why something like MEDRS evolved. Anmccaff (talk) 15:20, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
DrChrissy, Anmccaff - I posted a comment to the comment section at User:DrChrissy/sandbox2#Comments. Let's move this discussion over there. I'm going to archive this one. Thank you in advance...Atsme☯Consult 16:31, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

American politics 2 workshop phrase

Hello Atsme, the workshop phase on the American politics 2 arbitration case, which you are listed as a party to, has been extended to 24 April 2015. This is the best opportunity to express your analysis of the evidence presented in this arbitration case. For the Committee, --L235 (t / c / ping in reply) via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:07, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

Undue weight

Please put your Britannicas back in the bookshelf - things are heated enough around here! ;-)DrChrissy (talk) 00:07, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

You are too funny, DrChrissy. ^_^ Atsme☯Consult 00:08, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

Juniper Networks

I seem to remember we had an interesting discussion a while back about disclosure of a financial connection to readers. I thought you might be interested in the discussion here, where I have offered a draft article for consideration that includes such a disclosure. So far two editors have reviewed the article and suggested merging the draft into article-space. I think it would be interesting to see how the disclosure holds up through a GA review. CorporateM (Talk) 19:10, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

Hi, CorporateM! I'll be happy to review it first thing in the morning. Until then...zZz....Atsme☯Consult 04:18, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
Hey Atsme. Actually Guy Macon merged the draft into article-space earlier today and while you're welcome to review it again, it's had three pairs of eyes on it already. I just thought you might find the disclosure interesting. However, I do have three pages listed here pending review if you have time to pick one up. This one should be pretty easy, as it's been on the Talk page for a while without response and it's a small article on a fairly straightforward subject. CorporateM (Talk) 06:25, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
Thanks, CorporateM. I realized it went main-space when I checked the edit history for signs of stability. I think its a good article. I know how difficult it is to play down success in an effort to be compliant with NPOV in a dispassionate tone. Success in and of itself is often perceived as UNDUE by the less successful. It's the nature of the beast. ;-) Atsme☯Consult 13:26, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
Oh you meant a GA review. Yah, feel free. I figured this article would get plenty of attention, since it's the kind of topic our editor demographic has an interest in. I'm disappointed the financial connection disclosure was taken off, though mostly unsurprised ;-) CorporateM (Talk) 20:41, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

American politics 2 workshop phase closed

The workshop phase of the American politics 2 arbitration case, which you are listed as a party to, is now closed. For the Arbitration Committee, --L235 (t / c / ping in reply) via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 19:27, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

Discretionary sanctions notification - CAM

This message contains important information about an administrative situation on Wikipedia. It does not imply any misconduct regarding your own contributions to date.

Please carefully read this information:

The Arbitration Committee has authorised discretionary sanctions to be used for pages regarding Complementary and Alternative Medicine, a topic which you have edited. The Committee's decision is here.

Discretionary sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimize disruption to controversial topics. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to the topic that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behavior, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. This message is to notify you sanctions are authorised for the topic you are editing. Before continuing to edit this topic, please familiarise yourself with the discretionary sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions.

Realised you didn't have one of these, you are technically already "aware" given the similar areas clause but there's no harm in giving you this one to make it clear too. Regards, Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 06:05, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

Wonderful - now I have a complete set of 3 - BLP, Pseudoscience, and now CAM - all on the same article. Thank you, Callan. I can't think of a better incentive for encouraging editors to improve articles or for recruiting new volunteers to our wonderful encyclopedia. Oh, I read your STICK comment which was clearly directed to me, and made note of it. [3] I thought the following was pretty interesting, too: Wikipedia:Why_is_Wikipedia_losing_contributors_-_Thinking_about_remedies. But hey, look at the bright side - WP won't run out of editors, at least for a while anyway. Outfits like Guerrilla Skeptics are busy recruiting new advocates editors every day: [4] [5]. I think SlimVirgin is well aware of what's going on, and I commend her efforts for actually trying to keep a handle on things.
It's pretty obvious why big $$$ has such an intense interest in WP - [6] I can't think of a better place for them to peddle their wares, and that includes all aspects of it from mainstream to fringe. In the interim, editors will keep being cautioned (intimidated, actually) to not say anything negative about mainstream and they'll be kept in line with multiple DS notices advising everyone to mind our Ps and Qs while the travesties continue and those we once looked up to turn a blind eye. [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [12]. The sad part is the fact that the hands of conventional or orthodox whatever you want to call it are not clean, either. [13] [14] [15] [16] [17]. Yet, your biggest concern is over a little old BLP about an author who tried to expose the corruption. Has anybody noticed how much money FDA approved meds and treatments take in while they criticize alternative (now integrative according to Mayo), calling them quacks and charlatans for scamming people out of their money? [18]. Me thinks the lady doth protest too much. Atsme☯Consult 18:50, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
Comments like that, plus this kind of crap, suggest to me that you are losing it. You are now in full-on Big Pharma conspiracy theory paranoid rant mode, and that is a very bad place to be, because however good youare as an editor and however much we might like you, that kind of attitude represents a pressing problem and consistently leads to topic bans and even site bans. I mean, have you not noticed how insane some of these sites you quote actually are? Have you stopped to consider for a moment how many people would have to be involved in the "conspiracy"? A conservative estimate puts it in the millions in countries ranging from the United States to Cuba and all political points in between. Do you honestly think that the Cuban health ministry are colluding with the FDA in order to suppress natural cures, when they could, if they worked, score another massive propaganda coup as they did in Moore's Sicko? You don't strike me as irrational, so you need to stop quoting irrational people and making irrational claims.
The important thing to remember is that problems with medicine validate quackery in precisely the same way that plane crashes validate magic carpets. The most effective criticism of "big pharma" comes from scientists and doctors. Do read Bad Pharma, and look up the AllTrials initiative. Skeptics led the campaign against the Saatchi Bill, which would have robbed patients of protection against maverick doctors, and drove the libel reform campaign which has done away with a law that allowed a device manufacturer to try to bully Dr. Peter Wilmshurst into submission. Guy (Help!) 20:56, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
You obviously have not read Bad Pharma in its entirety, because if you had, you would have realized the extent of harm caused by Bad Pharma that far outweighs the dangers posed by Bad Science: Countless lives have been lost, countless doctors have been misled into making incorrect therapy recommendations, and countless patients have been deceived by a flawed system. Not even the Mother of all Quacks have managed to pull of something similar Please, Read the book and don't pretend that you've read it when you obviously haven't . -A1candidate 21:50, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
Yes, I have read it, the day it came out. And Bad Science, and I Think You'll Find It's A Bit More Complicated Than That, and I know Simon Singh and David Colquhoun and I've met Edzard Ernst. I played an active role in getting a quack convicted under the Cancer Act last year, and another quack is likely to surrender his medical license as a result of a complaint I made in 2013 (the GMC moves slowly).
The crucial difference between us is that I understand that problems with medicine do not validate quackery, because the very same techniques that show up the problems with medicine (the real problems, that is, not the ones invented by crackpots) also shows alternatives-to-medicine don't work either.
It's like the cancer quacks who use one study of chemo as an adjuvant in one type of cancer to claim that chemo is only 2% effective, whereas in reality it effects a 90% core rate in children's Hodgkin's lymphoma. Medicine is complicated because human physiology is messy and often only partially understood. We know, though, that when someone comes up with a genuinely accurate new model of a disease, it doesn't take long to become accepted.
Some quacks spin a narrative of medical inertia pushing back against Marshall and Warren, but Marshall himself says that the initial skepticism was right, they had not provided crucial supporting evidence. Petri dish to Nobel in 23 years compares well to, say, the failure to eliminate homeopathy over a century after it was definitively refuted. It took just over a decade to move from the initial discovery to a usable treatment, despite the fact that along the way they first had to prove that bacteria can even live in an acid environment. That's what happens when you have robust evidence, rather than the endless litany of inconclusive "meh" studies used to prop up SCAM.
The scientific method is the most reliable method yet devised for separating truth from delusion. Pseudoscience is the worst enemy of humanity. And I'm a bit of a student of the history of science (I ahve rare books on Robert Hooke for example). The time from development of the first transistor to the development of the first supercomputer was very much shorter than the time from the invention of the Newcomen engine to Locomotion No. 1. That's the scientific method for you. Guy (Help!) 22:49, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
Now thats funny!! AlbinoFerret 22:27, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
Does it work with feathers? ;-) DrChrissy (talk) 22:43, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

Atsme, here's an article on a hero of mine: Peter Wilmshurst. Feel free to improve it. You generally write well. Guy (Help!) 22:49, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

T13 Question

Hey, T13 - I'm trying to get a quote box (letterhead style) aligned left in the section where the centered "prettyquote" is now. I want the text to flow right of the quote box. When I insert the code and preview, it's positioned perfectly. When I save, it is moved down above the 1st image gallery. Here is the code:



Should guilty seek asylum here,
 Like one pardoned, he becomes free from sin.
Should a sinner make his way to this mansion,
All his past sins are to be washed away.
The sight of this mansion creates sorrowing sighs;
And the sun and the moon shed tears from their eyes.
In this world this edifice has been made;
To display thereby the creator's glory.

Any idea why it won't stay where I put it? I must be doing something wrong because whenever I add images to a certain section so that it coincides with the text, it's a crap shoot as to where the image will end up on the page.

Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Atsme/Archive_9&oldid=1094731115"