User talk:Atsme/Archive 23

Archive 20

Archive 21

Archive 22

Archive 23

Archive 24

Archive 25

→

Archive 30

Plea

Atsme, please consider taking a break from the politics articles. You're close to getting shown the door IMO and it really would be better if you voluntarily withdraw for a while and come back with a fresh outlook. SPECIFICO talk 03:07, 17 March 2018 (UTC)

In other words she disagrees with yours and similar opinions about how these articles are focused an has voiced concerns about bias an a the violations of undue weight and NPOV so she is not welcome since she has a different opinion.--MONGO 03:54, 17 March 2018 (UTC)

Noop. SPECIFICO talk 03:56, 17 March 2018 (UTC)

No I completely agree with Mongo, the hostility on anything even remotely connected to the current USA administration is appalling. Prince of Thieves (talk) 04:03, 17 March 2018 (UTC)

I think what I and many other editors are patiently awaiting is "the awakening" that will occur in March-April, and will hopefully inspire a major clean-up. We're already seeing the beginning stages with the firing of Andrew McCabe on Friday. More corruption is coming to light as IG Horowitz uncovers rather damning evidence of bias and bad actors in the FBI, including concerns about the FISA court and the judge who recused himself after the Flynn case...the Strzock-Page fiasco...Bruce & Nellie Ohr's connection to Fusion GPS...the leaks by Comey...and so much more. Time will tell...and once again we will be reminded why editors should pay closer attention to RECENTISM and strict adherence to NPOV...a policy that is non-negotiable, and the principles upon which it is based cannot be superseded by other policies or guidelines, nor by editor consensus. ^{Atsme📞📧} 10:47, 17 March 2018 (UTC)

Atsme, consider the nature of evidence. Even if all your conspiracy theories were true, western civilization has developed a remarkable legal system based on adversarial examination of evidence. Have a look. At this book. https://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/fre . Whiny complaints stop at the courthouse door. Unless, of course, the investigation gets shut down before there's any finding of fact. Anyway, next time a conspiracy theory pops into your head, go back to the bible and think about how the facts are determined in the US. And remember, some Mexicans are good people, I assume. https://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/fre . I'm done. Good luck.

SPECIFICO talk 15:40, 17 March 2018 (UTC)

I'm beginning to worry about you, SPECIFICO. Facts are not conspiracy theories - McCabe actually was fired. You're conflating facts with the left's conspiracy theories about Russian collusion, the laughable dossier with its unverifiable allegations...and on and on. I'm beginning to believe there really is such a thing as Trump derangement syndrome. When I log in to WP, I'm wearing flame-retardant underwear and bias repellent. I think it would do you a world of good if you'd try a bit of research diversification so you're not reading the same fake news over and over - maybe take some time off to clear your head...and lay off the Koolaid and laetrile that keeps you hopping - the toxic affects are irreversible. ^{Atsme📞📧} 16:09, 17 March 2018 (UTC)

Out of curiosity, could you please explain to me your understanding of why Andrew McCabe was fired? MastCell ^Talk 19:26, 17 March 2018 (UTC)

Hi, MastCell - I've been outside enjoying 80 degree temps, and the smell of fresh cut grass. Let's see...McCabe...my understanding is that he was not "forthcoming" (which I think means he lied either by omission or fudging) during an internal investigation. If my memory serves, it was related to the way he handled the Clinton investigation and his responses to questioning. The FBI recommended firing, and passed the baton to Sessions. Knowing how cautious Sessions is about everything (mostly protecting his own reputation), the fact that he actually took action leads to all kinds of speculation, and plays right into the hands of RECENTISM; therefore, any material that is added should be limited to statements of fact with inline citations, and let things cure for a while. I'm sure MSM will have a field day with it and I hope editors will be patient and not start adding a bunch of POV accusations and speculation based on journalistic opinion and what they "think" happened. ^{Atsme📞📧} 21:03, 17 March 2018 (UTC) For your reading pleasure, if you haven't read it already. It kinda lays the foundation. 22:17, 17 March 2018 (UTC)

MSM, really? Facepalm. However, the DAB page MSM offers some entertaining alternatives. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:58, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

Really! Listen in...an AP report just hit the "wires". ^{Atsme📞📧} 20:32, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

I understand, of course, that you are making a friendly joke, but the "mainstream media" thing really does bother me. I'm happy to agree that editorial or opinion pieces should not be cited as facts, even when in mainstream outlets, but mainstream news reports? Those are WP:RS, and we give the mainstream WP:DUE. The phrase "mainstream media" is often used by right-wing fringe sources to self-justify and to attempt to discredit factual information that they find inconvenient. I really do not like to see the phrase used pejoratively in content discussions here. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:42, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

Tryp, I'm not referring to the reporting of factual news, like Florida_International_University_pedestrian_bridge_collapse...I'm referring to political pundits and POV journalists. Anonymous sources...unidentified informants...deep seated hatred for a political opponent...the self-serving political establishment fighting for its life...corruption, gossip, disinformation...shucks, our own policies warn us about issues with news sources. Grab a beverage, find a comfy chair, and read what some of the news sources have written about themselves...Politico, Patrick Maines, Tom Basile, Assange, Gallup, Matthew Ingram (almost a mirror image of what I've tried to relay about the baitclick challenges), The Guardian, Prof. Piers Robinson, BBC...and on and on. You can't make this stuff up. While I may indulge in on my TP, I have occasionally tried to explain some of the more important issues when the opportunity presents itself. Sensationalism is alive and well in MSM, as is propaganda and media bias and no, I'm not joking.

My former career as a CNN field producer affords me a tiny bit of inside perspective. In fact, my last job was field producer for CNN Headline News (Health & Environmental Unit) back when George D. Lundberg, former editor of AMA's flagship journal, was in the hot seat for publishing a politically charged article about whether or not oral sex was the same as "having" sex. Thank you, Bill Clinton. (I voted for him!) It was a real eye opener. I was old school journalism (integrity, neutrality, yada yada). I was thinking healthy sex while my producer was thinking politics. She had already shaped the story with her line of questioning and people we'd be interviewing - all 100% supportive of Clinton...Lundberg was just a prop. Thank goodness the AMA stood their ground, and didn't let the news or politics influence their decision. The integrity of the AMA was first and foremost - Lundberg was fired. Fun times, lemme tell ya. There were a few other times when I was exposed to high profile political situations, a few I was not expecting. It didn't take long for me to figure out what was going on, and I didn't like it, so I changed direction. In retrospect, I was on the cusp of a paradigm shift in news reporting. In fact 2 years earlier, I had written a craft improvement article for the June '97 issue of Outdoors Unlimited, the flagship magazine of the OWAA. The article was titled "A Tapeless Future" - (excerpt) As we approach a tapeless future, are we also approaching a paperless future? It is worth pondering. We already are seeing magazines and newspapers betroth the web, making increased usage of the Internet imminent as more computers are integrated into consumer households. (yada yada) Here we are today - the transition is almost complete - and my, oh my, how things have changed. Tryp, you can't blame either right or left-wing fringe...they are all after the same $$$...it's about survival in a highly competitive arena. I'm not saying they're all corrupt, but the majority are tinged, even if it's just a sensationalized headline, or a bit of fudging about the facts - all inject their own POV. They are more relaxed about making mistakes because it's easy to publish a retraction now that everything is digital. That's another reason WP editors should exercise good editorial judgment when dealing with politically charged news.

I commend all the authors of our WP:PAGs for having the foresight to have written NOTNEWS, NEWSORG and RECENTISM, to name a few. They still fit today. I think the biggest problem is misinterpretation of policy, and the occasional disregard for NOTNEWS and RECENTISM. Wasn't it EEng who tried to get something going on his TP along that same line? Well, we can only do what consensus says we can do, and try to avoid causing our admins unnecessary nail biting. In the interim, we wait patiently for all the breaking news, conspiracy theories and unfounded allegations to subside - hopefully before we need yottabytes of storage for just the Trump-related articles. We just need time for the historians and academics to author the RS we need to create and maintain quality encyclopedic material. I do wish WikiTribune would take-off so the bulk of the news articles will migrate over there, but I'm not too optimistic. We're probably going to be stuck with encyclopedic content like Donald_Trump_in_popular_culture#Hair, and List of things named after Donald Trump for a while. ^{Atsme📞📧} 02:54, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for that comprehensive reply, all of which I read with great interest. I've got no quarrel with anything you said there. I myself have occasionally referred to the "Higher Education Industry" in a sarcastic but I'm-entitled-because-I've-been-there sort of way – but nobody at Wikipedia is getting agitated about how we cover money and universities (at least not yet!). On the other hand, it's obvious that political recentism is a minefield here, and I want to advise you against careless use of phrases like "mainstream media", because other editors will construe that as POV pushing. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:06, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

...hoping I'll never be too crusty or crabby to learn. ^{Atsme📞📧} 20:17, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

Good! Soft-shell and soft-sell can never be a bad choice. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:19, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

Ha! Tempted to insert a seafood joke here... Prince of Thieves (talk) 20:29, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

Read the edit view banner, Prince of Thieves...while temptation knocks, opportunity more often rings the bell. 🛎 Ring away...anything is possible! ^{Atsme📞📧} 20:52, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

Maybe a Crabb massacre followed by a banquet attended by foreign dignitaries such as President for life Putin and President for life Xi, all food provided free by Homeless Joe? -- Prince of Thieves (talk) 21:10, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

Odd...but the image of the pie crust crab made me think of an article in Fortune for some bizarre reason I simply cannot explain. ^{Atsme📞📧} 21:26, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

Could be this or this. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:32, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

All bow down to the king of the pagan hermit crabs, lest you receive the wrath of the crab gods, or worse, the Attack of the Crab Monsters! -- Prince of Thieves (talk) 21:49, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

Good 'un! ^{Atsme📞📧} 22:04, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

BBC news (Not American, less likely to be biased perhaps)
FBI ex-deputy director Andrew McCabe sacked days before retirement
Former FBI deputy director Andrew McCabe has been sacked days before he could retire with pension rights. He was fired by US Attorney General Jeff Sessions, who said an internal review found he leaked information and misled investigators.

I think it is strongly implied that this was because he "leaked information and misled investigators", although this is something McCabe denies. Prince of Thieves (talk) 19:33, 17 March 2018 (UTC)

Thanks, but I’d like to hear Atsme’s answer. MastCell ^Talk 20:04, 17 March 2018 (UTC)

Think that will just highlight natural differences in view points and will thus, be both non productive nor enlightening to understanding the current situation. --Aspro (talk) 22:24, 17 March 2018 (UTC)

MastCell I didn't record it so I hope you're ok with reading it instead of hearing it. ⬆

Hieroglypichs in front of one of the Temples near the Giza Pyramids in Egypt. Notice the uncanny resemblance of "you know who" in the circled image. 🤔

• Feel compelled to encourage people to take their focus off 'individual' movers-and-shakers and their hiring and firing. Take a step back and look at the bigger picture. You will then find you can see through the scales of misinformation which constantly pumped out to keep the Hoi polloi in the dark. Forget about the 'individual' named Andrew McCabe. If the post had been held by someone else he would have probably been fired as well. We are in the part of the Kondratiev wave were we have World political instability once more. This diagram shows how political instability and wars occur around the peaks and troughs [1]. There are going to be more even more hiring and firing, as politicians strive face up to each other with more 'yes men' behind them. Some might think this is a load of piffle but I have history on my side right back to the ancient Egyptian empire - human nature hasn't changed. --Aspro (talk) 22:27, 17 March 2018 (UTC)

Oh my, Aspro. I didn't realize you were that old... ^{Atsme📞📧} 22:31, 17 March 2018 (UTC)

My birth certificate is written in medieval Latin and my Social Security Number is written in Roman numerals. Also, my grandchildren are convinced I am an old fossil because I don't have a Facebook page. You can't get older than that ! ;¬ ) --Aspro (talk) 12:19, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

Aspro, you win that argument, but I'm close. The part I like most on the linked page begins..."When he realized that Atsme had been right..." ^{Atsme📞📧} 19:12, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

• It's certainly quite ironic, or maybe just a demonstration that neither of us is a POV-pusher, that we have each taken the positions that we have about the April 1 DYK. One might have expected the exact opposite! --Tryptofish (talk) 18:13, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

Agreed - there's obviously something wrong with us...is being a pragmatist the worst?...maybe we're humorists?...there has to be an "ist" that f-ists us. Lorty...what would the opposition do if they can't call us something? Think about it...we definitely need an "ist" that will fit into a user box. Let's see...

I have 2 doctorates:

Dr.This user is a Doctor of Acnestis.
(Scratch my back, I'll scratch yours.)

PffTThis user is a Doctor of Everything.
(All their work has been doctored.)

Maybe MjolnirPants can help with an "ist" template...💭🗯...would you like to be known as a neutralist (even though nudist is more fun but not very practicalist)? How about "don't give a shitist"...nope, wrong caliber ^{hope to hell that doesn't get the gun debatists on my ass-ist.} We don't dare say we're neutral because that's a sure giveaway that we're not. , 💭🗯...so how about...uhm...whatever works bestist...nope, terrible...definitely need your help...ooooh...does that make me a needyist, or a collaboratist or a definitivist? I would settle for ooohist, but wouldn't that make me a wouldist? Right now, I'm a confusist ^{Spellchecker has abandoned me, which makes them an abandonist. Atsme📞📧} 21:05, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

I'm an editor-ist. But you can call me "hey you". --Tryptofish (talk) 22:28, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

Shouldn't that be Dr. Hey You? ^{Atsme📞📧} 04:51, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

Yes. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:20, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

Why pay for adult channels....

when you can watch Anderson Cooper interviews with Stormy Daniels for free? ^{Atsme📞📧} 02:09, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

Did she say how big his hands are? --Tryptofish (talk) 22:29, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

It's okay to not like things!

.

I didn't watch the full interview, but I heard she gave him a big hand 👏👏👏👏. ^{Atsme📞📧} 00:10, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

Oh my, Tryp...someone just informed me that I misunderstood what I heard, and that a big dick with small hands was not meant to garner applause. ^{Atsme📞📧} 13:12, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

Or a hand job. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:36, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

Yes, Dr. Hey You. ^{Atsme📞📧} 22:57, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

In Ghostbusters, Bill Murray memorably said: "Back off, man. I'm a scientist." --Tryptofish (talk) 21:02, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

At 5:24 into the program Sturgeon: Ancient Survivors of the Deep, Bill Murray memorably said to a large group of international scientists/ichthyologists: "I know that some of you, in your fractured English, are saying 'What he doing here?'...I am saying what I doing here?" Remind me to tell you that story over a 🍺 or two at the next Wikimania we both happen to attend. 😂 ^{Atsme📞📧} 21:49, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

you asked: why pay for adult film channels. (Which interestingly has the acronym AFC)... do you really want to miss out on the upcoming Trump Kim menagerie?! I’m pretty sure it’s going to be pay per view. Edaham (talk) 00:58, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

FYI if you think the Stormy Daniels jokes were funny but the Trump/Kim ones aren’t, it means you’re body shaming me. Edaham (talk) 00:59, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

probably they’ll have Stormy along for some Bi-partisan action!!! woaaaah! I did it! Edaham (talk) 01:02, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

Input sought

Hi Atsme. Regarding your comment at talk:Donald Trump, do you have any thoughts on a better title than List of senior Trump administration people who quit or were fired for that list article? You also commented that it would be BORING. Any thoughts on how to spice it up? Perhaps a screen cap of Trump doing his signature hand gesture when he says "you're fired"? - MrX 🖋 13:56, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

Clever photo idea, MrX...provided we have such a photo. From what I understand, his hands are so small, a macro lens is required which results in serious motion blur. As for title choices...first thing I did was look for similar articles (prior administrations) for consistency and to see if any included reasons for resigning/firing, but I couldn't find any. Then I went online to see how media labeled staff changes, and found Obama's WH "exodus". I also looked to see if there were any comparisons between administrations, and media didn't let me down: Politifact. During that same search, I came across this HuffPo article, which describes staff upheavals as normal. I consider the normal course of business BORING, but then I'm retired so certain words/phrases/terminology put me to sleep. Perhaps a better term would be not notable. It might be wise to avoid WP:RECENTISM, allow time for him to complete one term to learn the ropes well enough so he can pick his own staff instead of letting others do it for him (as what happened in the beginning), and then consider creating a list of administration staff changes for all administrations, if you think it's notable enough to get through an AfD. ^{Atsme📞📧} 16:16, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

You slay me Atsme. As it happens, there is already such an article: List of Donald Trump dismissals and resignations and also List of short-tenure Donald Trump political appointments, so I won't be pursuing the creation of yet another Trump article.- MrX 🖋 16:44, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

Well, zippity doo dah then and such great additions to this fine encyclopedia endeavor. I do have a suggestion for a category though Category:Wikipedians that suffer from Trump Derangement Syndrome. Even negative obsessions could be seen to be a form of flattery though...albeit, somewhat sick and deranged, but well, everyone needs a hobby. TDS...another one even better for while this person talks about TDS, he demonstrates he is fully a sufferer, so sad. Every week or two I check out the Youtube videos that show the media pundits before and as the election results unfolded. Its absolutely hilarious to watch them. To see the smugness and arrogance of them smashed is priceless. And all this time the CNN and MSNBC "news" people and other pretenders were pretending to be neutral...cat was out of dah bag that night huh? Neutrality...that was no longer evident when we get pouting faces. Its the pouting that was most evident...the evening started with glee and cheer and as the results came back in, those "neutral" faces on those "neutral" newscasters got longer and longer and more sullen and then, as it was evident Trump would win...shock! Their faces went to shock! Mouths agape...in some cases tears. Such neutrality! And then pouting! Pouting! Waaaaahhhh! Some looked like the devil bit them on the keister! OMG...how could this terrible event have happened!!! It is a nightmare!!! LOL!--MONGO 12:28, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

Oh look, someone transcluded Breitbart's comments section onto Atsme's talk page. Neat trick. - MrX 🖋 13:53, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

Hail to the cheese.
— Preceding unsigned comment added by MrX (talk • contribs) 4 April 2018 (UTC)

When you’re a star, they let you do it. You can do anything!
— Preceding unsigned comment added by MrX (talk • contribs) 17:07, 4 April 2018 (UTC)
Disclaimer:The caption in no way indicates envy of anyone's financial or political status.^{Atsme📞📧} 18:48, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

Seriously, there is quite an interesting dichotomy between partisan views of media's performance, and it is clearly weighted to be anti-Trump. There is little doubt the issues began with the transition from print to online baitclick media, and the mix of journalist opinion with news. The line between an op-ed and a news piece is blurry and forces one to at least look for the "opinion" designation, not that it really matters in today's online news. The public is also having to deal with misleading headlines like "Texas Democrats Surge to Polls, in Show of Anti-Trump Sentiment" - NYTimes! 😂 That's expected news knowing how media pushes an anti-Trump agenda. Factual news without the propaganda would read more like, Texas Democrats Surge to Polls Only To Be Defeated By Republican Turn-Out, and then the article would weigh toward why the Republican vote won Republicans won voter turn-out.^{18:14, 5 April 2018 (UTC)} Instead, they published a misleading, sensationalized headline weighted to the left, and added a short paragraph about the win: Yet even as Democrats in the state’s biggest cities came out in large numbers, Republicans still cast more ballots over all thanks to their rural strength. Once all the hype dies down, WP's Trump-related articles will balance out. Right now, they give weight to the misleading sensationalist aspect of the article - basically the "fringe view" - while labeling the actual facts as fringe because of the way media weighs it. While it's expected of media, it's not ok for an encyclopedia that is supposed to publish a NPOV and get the article right using sound editorial judgement...and therein the problem lies. I came across an interesting article - highly recommended reading because if we delve into the results of TBs & blocks over the past year, we'll probably find a high number of center-right leaning editors on the list - probably all behaviorial issues but a review would be interesting. I've long since learned that Trump supporters are not the poor, ignorant voters some on the left tend to believe, and their growing distrust in media is real and justified in many instances. WP's political articles cite those same questionable, left-leaning sources - the balance is off the charts - so a legitimate question is what will eventually happen to the confidence level of our readers? I recently commented on a Sign-Post article the other day about a questionable article published by SPLC with input from some of our own editors. Surprisingly 😂 the article lump sums right-wing with racist, etc. I was hoping to see more diversity and common sense responses to my comment but that hasn't happened so far. ^{Atsme📞📧} 16:14, 4 April 2018 (UTC)  

"and then the article would weigh toward why the Republican vote won" - uhh... you do know that this wasn't a contest between Republicans and Democrats but rather each party held their own primaries, so it's sort of nonsensical to say "Republican vote won"?Volunteer Marek (talk) 20:29, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

Oops - I got lazy. I should have said why Republicans won voter turn-out. ^{Atsme📞📧} 00:31, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

Yeah the current state of the news media in the US is a disaster for a variety of reasons reflective of American society. It's what we have though, and once you strip away the hyperbole, clickbait, and punditry, you're still left with facts. The facts are intrinsically anti-Trump because of who Trump is. He lies almost constantly. He's a demagogue of the highest order who manipulates his base with romantic images of white, post-war, isolationist, blue-collar prosperity. He's astonishingly incompetent in his current role. He has few, if any, leadership qualities. He has badly damaged foreign relations, environmental protections, and consumer protections. He will probably bring the economy to its knees. His suits don't fit, he's cheated on his wives, and he has terrible taste in decor. But yeah, it's the liberal media's fault.- MrX 🖋 17:07, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

Must be something about power! But least Billy had his wife, the now twice losing presidential candidate, cover for him. I think the décor issue is a definite impeachable offense...lets get ahold of Maxine and have that added to her other brilliant impeachment rationales! That is if she can figure out the difference between Korea and the Crimea!--MONGO 17:30, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

MrX, I'm seeing it strictly from years in the trenches guided by ethical journalism. While it may indeed be a fact that a particular statement was published, and it may also indeed be a statement of fact in that someone actually said what they said, but that alone doesn't necessarily make what was said a "statement of fact" like what we'd expect from proven formulas, or that the earth is round, or that person was charged and arrested. It may also be that POV influences the sources we choose, and the statements we use, which also does not automatically equate into NPOV, see the NYTimes article above. I don't see that as being reflective of American society, rather it could be reflective of baitclick propaganda, a journalist's POV, and talking points that support a particular agenda, the latter of which is responsible in part for the improper weight given to the anti-Trump resistance. It's fruitless to deny it because the facts prove otherwise: Part I, Part II:"The far-left media, and these days that includes most of what was once called the "mainstream media," despise Trump and his deeply American brand of capitalism and it shows in their biased coverage." Can't make this stuff up...and so we wait until after the 2018 midterms and see what happens. ^{Atsme📞📧} 20:08, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

Actually, you are making it up.Volunteer Marek (talk) 20:32, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

😂 You wish. My Dad used to tell me, "Wish in one hand and spit in the other, and see which one fills up first." ^{Atsme📞📧} 20:50, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

So how did that turn out? SPECIFICO talk 21:32, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

Both hands full of spit, and my siblings wouldn't let me use theirs. ^{Atsme📞📧} 00:42, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

Oh dear Atsme, did you really just cite a survey, an editorial, an opinion piece, and Tucker Carlson as factual evidence that the media has lost its collective ethical bearings? While I will concede that the news media is fixated on sensational headlines and gossipy details because clicks/eyeball = revenue, when you peel that back and actually examine the serious news reporting, you can't conclude that the media is being unfair to Trump. Trump is receiving exactly the kind of scrutiny from the press that keeps democracies alive. He hates it and his hardcore fans hate it, but truth will out.- MrX 🖋 21:10, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

Did somebody say Tucker had moral bearings? SPECIFICO talk 21:31, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

I think that MrX is right about that. Atsme, please do keep WP:VALID in mind. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:36, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

Hi, Tryp - you're a bit late to the party, but glad you're here! There's plenty of beer iced down in the cooler, the babybacks are on the grill, I've already seasoned the collard greens, and made a fresh garden salad. While the ribs are cooking you can read my comment above (begins with "Seriously" and cites a NYTimes article) as it addresses the issue you raised, and shows how POV, agendas and/or baitclick punch holes in the "false balance" argument. ^{Atsme📞📧} 22:34, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

About the content stuff, whatever. Now as for that BBQ, that's something I'm interested in! As it happens, I cooked some ribs myself this past weekend, and overcooked them (a mistake I almost never make, but I got distracted), so I'm not sure whether I want to be reminded of that. But I'm heading for that cooler now! --Tryptofish (talk) 22:47, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

Not as morally "bearing" as Anderson Cooper, SPECIFICO. 😂 MrX, if the survey you're referring to is the Gallup poll I cited a few sections up, yes indeed, although here on my TP it probably doesn't measure up to Opinion polling on the Donald Trump administration . I also cited a reputable media fact check site; a Chicago Tribune commentary (reprint) authored by Gary Abernathy, publisher and editor of the (Hillsboro, Ohio) Times-Gazette and WaPo columnist; an interview with Brit Hume on Carlson's show, and an Investor's Business Daily two-part editorial that provided secondary source coverage of the highly credible Pew Research Center, Bob Schieffer's review on Face The Nation, and the Shorenstein Center results. Tsk, tsk...did no one bother to click the cited links at those articles to verify the information or did you simply write it off as unreliable polls/opinions/commentary? Our guideline WP:NEWSORG specifically states: When taking information from opinion content, the identity of the author may help determine reliability. The opinions of specialists and recognized experts are more likely to be reliable and to reflect a significant viewpoint.[notes 2] If the statement is not authoritative, attribute the opinion to the author in the text of the article and do not represent it as fact. Reviews for books, movies, art, etc. can be opinion, summary or scholarly pieces.[7][8] But then, the guideline is skeptical of quite a bit coming from news sources, especially when WP:RECENTISM is at issue. And therein the problems lie, yet again proving my argument...sorry, but I'm not the one misinterpreting PAGs, or pushing a POV and the sources I cite customarily cite/link to RS that actually do provide all views, not just one. ^{Atsme📞📧} 22:15, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

No gluttons for punishment or serial gluttons allowed

In case the natives get too restless Atsme, make sure you have some playdoh on hand so they can create some really cool figures and feel better about the state of affairs...sure beats pouting.--MONGO 23:38, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

CNN is fine if one lives in mommies basement and we all know why that channel is at many airports...CNN pays them to show it and the deal cannot be easily undone, plus they filter out violence, airplane crashes and show more weather and sports stuff than the regular CNN. God forbid they would have FoxNews on...it might offend some in their safe spaces and make them pout.--MONGO 22:44, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

MONGO, CNN is everywhere which may explain some of the perspectives about the US in foreign lands. For example, in late September 2016 I arrived on Bonaire, never expecting to see MAGA t-shirts & ball caps in the window displays in town, especially in a constitutional monarchy/parliamentary democracy, but there they were. The population on the island is about 18,000 and the diversity is remarkable. Tourism is vibrant, fed primarily by the US and Europe. I have permanent residency on Bonaire and typically spend anywhere from 6 to 9 mos. out of the year on island. It appears capitalism is growing as a driving force there, even though the very young and the elderly are highly dependent on socialist programs. I think Venezuela may have been the catalyst for young adults and middle-aged in the population to want change. ^{Atsme📞📧} 01:26, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

What is “mainstream media” anyhow? I know we have an article on that, which should be AfD’ed – but AfD nearly always results in no consensus these days. But, whenever I see it used, it seems to be a response to news that someone doesn’t like. The NYT, WaPo, etc. say something. Oh, we can ignore that because they are MSM. Basically, it is permission to call every RS non-RS when they say something one doesn’t like. (Read quickly as this edit will be deleted.) O3000 (talk) 22:25, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

No, not at all, O3000 - I try to avoid reciprocating in-kind because I don't harbor grudges...but as you've discovered, I will delete comments that appear to be made with ill-will. It has been said that I'm a glutten for punishment, and I've often wondered about that myself, but I do prefer learning, laughter and being happy, with occasional visits to the chamber of anything's possible. Bwahahahaha. ^{Atsme📞📧} 23:05, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

Re: "glutten". Maybe you're a glutton, unless you are one of those (redacted) who avoid gluten. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:09, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

Sorry, I realize that this is is small text, but therein lies the problem. Your use of “reciprocating in-kind”, “harbor grudges”, “ill-will”, “punishment”, suggest that you consider opinions with which you differ as attacks. That aside, I am a glutton for gluten. O3000 (talk) 23:32, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

Well, it appears my play on words didn't work...I'm surrounded by perfectionists...^{Atsme📞📧} 00:04, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

I used MSM many times when dealing with 9/11 conspiracy theorists. The MSM would report that there were conspiracy theories, but they did not support them, or give them credence.--MONGO 22:36, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

•  Question: Can someone explain this Playdoh image to me? I think it's supposed to allude to something funny, but I just don't get it. Is it glutten related? - MrX 🖋 00:20, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

MrX - this article may help explain, although it's an opinion piece by Judith Shulevitz. ^{Atsme📞📧} 01:30, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

Or here where tissues were provided along with hot cocoa and maybe some hugs.--MONGO 01:53, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

I think they look like the smiley-like things that Atsme makes. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:41, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

Surely Tryp isn't referring to these smiley-like things that I make...💩💩??? ^{Atsme📞📧} 00:36, 7 April 2018 (UTC)

Oh, crap! --Tryptofish (talk) 17:06, 7 April 2018 (UTC)

I only have 2 things to say in response to that, Tryp...#1 - see #2.

Hadrut Province

Go ahead. I thought that you were trying to put it back to Hadrut Region. Sorry. Laurel Lodged (talk) 16:08, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

Hadrut Region → Hadrut Province

Hi, if you encounter this situation in the future, there's a CSD to specifically mark a page which is holding up a pagemove: {{db-move}}, which is under the G6 umbrella. Thanks! ansh666 18:36, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

ansh666 Thank you, thank you, thank you!!! I will keep this info in my notes. It has turned out to be quite a chore to get done. ^{Atsme📞📧} 18:43, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

Thanks

I'm most grateful for the support you gave, directly and indirectly, during that horrid affair that showed up how toxic the admin culture is. My very best to you! Tony (talk) 09:47, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

TONY!!! - YAAAAY!! 🎉🎊🍻 Great to see you back. I'm over here chugging along at NPP and wherever else I can contribute productively to maintain the quality and integrity of the pedia so if you need anything, don't hesitate to ask. ^{Atsme📞📧} 12:37, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

RfA?

Maybe I am missing something, but you must have been asked about RfA before, right? I can only assume you would have responded to such inquiries with utter contempt and disinterest... Alex Shih (talk) 16:36, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

*lol* Thanks for thinking of me, Alex, but I'm terrified of RfA. I have been asked by non-admins in the past but I've made a few mistakes along the way - learned from them - and feel that I've grown as an editor (especially in my hips, butt, thighs - must be the Cheetos). I've been doing a little editing on some Trump articles, seeing them more as a GA/FA reviewer would see them, but that was a no-no so I imagine more than a few folks might have formed the wrong impression of me. They'll figure it out on their own. I've learned that articles where emotions run high are not fun places to edit. Actually, I credit Tryptofish for his inadvertent mentoring over the past few years, and more recently MelanieN and NeilN for their guidance and patience in the political arena - tough, tough place to edit - but I've learned a great deal from them. MastCell, Montanabw, JzG, and Drmies are others I've learned from, and they too may have lost patience with me at one time or another. Who hasn't? 😂 I think maybe I'm too much of a softy for the mop - editor retention is a priority for me unless we're dealing with pure vandalism, socks or the like. When it comes to our regulars, I'd rather let them step back on their own - maybe vent a little on my TP first. People are still people, even if we can't see them. ^{Atsme📞📧} 19:00, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for the compliment, Atsme. I probably do a lot of things inadvertently. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:06, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

You could just get your Admin and try it out for a while. See whether you enjoy it. I say give it a try! SPECIFICO talk 19:28, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

And you would probably support it because you know it would get me out of your hair! ^{Atsme📞📧} 19:46, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

What have you got to lose? You're not the type to stick to old ideas and you never shrink from a challenge. SPECIFICO talk 19:50, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

• Support Would be a great addition to the Wikipedia admin team. A diversity of thought is always something to strive for in any organization. Mr. Daniel Plainview (talk) 20:16, 10 May 2018 (UTC)
  • I wouldn't start voting already. It's true that I can think of many superficial reasons to oppose, such as "Oppose Talks too much. Only 21% contribution to the article space", but I think a good speech and a good nominator (not me) would clear the obstacles. Alex Shih (talk) 00:25, 11 May 2018 (UTC)
    • Wait...”talks too much”...DS 1RR/‘’Consensus needed’’ made me do it. *lol* I do talk too much, and nowhere near ready to bear the pain...I’m thinking a team of medical professionals would have to be on standby before I entered that room, including a breathing coach 🙆‍♀️, a cardiologist👩🏼‍⚕️and an OB/GYN🤰🏻 to convince me that I’m not giving birth to an elephant in the room. 🐘. ^{Atsme📞📧} 01:41, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

Feedback Request Service/RFC

@Atsme: As you probably know there is a robust discussion continuing at the Talk:CNN article, where you started a survey for us. Regrettably it's still just three of us and we're not getting much in the way of a diversity of opinions to move the discussion along. I noticed that there is a "feedback request service" for requests for comment, to possibly get other editors to join in the discussion, but couldn't figure out how to use the system. I am wondering if converting the survey to an official "RFC" would help bring consensus to the lede of the article. Sorry to bother! I see you are busy with a number of other matters. Mr. Daniel Plainview (talk) 21:41, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

Let the local consensus run a few more days Mr. Daniel Plainview. See my response on your TP. ^{Atsme📞📧} 22:38, 12 April 2018 (UTC) ^{Well, forget that...a new another editor just started an RfC, and instead of a neutral presentation, pointed to the survey. Not how it's supposed to be done. I shy away from impatience. 22:44, 12 April 2018 (UTC)}

Speaking of orange creatures...

Atsme, it's me, do-ba-dee-doo
I've got a perfect puzzle for you:

Q: What does the Wikipedia logo and the Trump/Russia/Cohen/Hannity topic area have in common? - MrX 🖋 17:32, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

😂 Too funny, MrX. Here's one for you:

A lil ole lady calls her next door neighbor and asks for his help with a very complex puzzle she's unable to assemble. Friend asks her what the puzzle is supposed to be. She looked at the box, and said "A rooster". Friend decides to go over and help with the puzzle. She lets him in, and shows him the puzzle spread out all over the table. He looked at the pieces...then looked at the box...then looked back at her and said, "First of all, it doesn't matter what we do, there is no way we can assemble this puzzle to look like a rooster." He takes her hand, "Secondly, I want you to relax, so let's have a nice cup of tea...and then", he said with a deep sigh, "let's put all the corn flakes back into the box."

^{Atsme📞📧} 18:27, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

Now that's funny! 😂 - MrX 🖋 18:38, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

Could have been worse... She could have said the puzzle was of a bald man with an earring and crossed muscular arms. Now that would have been a mess to clean up! --Tryptofish (talk) 22:47, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

He has a nice tan though.- MrX 🖋 22:59, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

Don't you find that rather puzzling? ^{Atsme📞📧} 23:21, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

But he might well be a good role model for hairstyling. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:29, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

Picture

I’ve been coming on for a little while trying to start a big article of my own, but completely forgot how to upload a picture. (Silly me) A little help? Thanks! Horsegeek^(talk) 17:46, 19 April 2018 (UTC)Horsegeek

Hi, Horsegeek - look in the left margin under Tools - upload file. Follow the instructions. ^{Atsme📞📧} 17:52, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

On the Press

I thought you might find this article interesting [2]. Are you familiar with the author? James J. Lambden (talk) 20:56, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

James J. Lambden, I was not familiar with him. I found Michael Scott Doran and quite a bit of other info on the internet. I'm thinking we're probably in store for a political boomerang, or at least the signs point to it (provided one is paying close attention). Either way...I think it's best to not get in a hurry and wait for it - referring to verifiable facts. It's not that I don't trust media - it's simply that I require more substantiated evidence, beyond baitclick headlines and speculation, to be convinced. I'm not one to fall for conspiracy theories. ^{Atsme📞📧} 23:35, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

I'm a big fan of "wait for it". I looked at the source, and it's entirely possible that Doran is presenting a conspiracy theory himself. Or not. It's in the National Review, which has a clear editorial point of view. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:01, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

And then there's this! Oh, my head, my head!! Wait for it...more is yet to come. Quel che sarà sarà...I have bigger fish to fry (no disrespect, Tryptofish). ^{Atsme📞📧} 00:51, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

Sensible comments. It's practically theater at this point. Typically I watch PBS NewsHour, sometimes Al Jazeera English or BBC World News, and what strikes me when I watch "cable news" is how little of it conveys fact and how much is opinion and speculation. It's unfortunate. A functional press is critical to the operation of a country. Witness: [3] [4] James J. Lambden (talk) 01:04, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

Wow! They're treating people like meatpies. Personally, I prefer moonpies. ^{Atsme📞📧} 01:21, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

Clueless

I could understand a newbie, but when someone proclaiming to be a seasoned veteran is so clueless I am amazed. I might as well be talking with a Wookiee! All I get are grumbles and growls. It's even funnier when they read me their wiki resume as if that will impress me?--MONGO 14:56, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

Not sure why, but whenever I see the word clueless, I think of this. ^{Atsme📞📧} 16:25, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

Or me enduring water torture by those that despise me!--MONGO 20:32, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

😂 MONGO - that clip definitely needs the attention of EEng. It fits perfectly in his Museum...just not sure which section. ^{Atsme📞📧} 01:03, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

Meh..not sure they need another link...that page already locks my system up almost.--MONGO 01:40, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

Answer...

...to this question: Nobody knows. ^{Atsme📞📧} 02:26, 22 April 2018 (UTC)