User talk:Atsme/Archive 29

Archive 25

←

Archive 27

Archive 28

Archive 29

Archive 30

Archive 31

→

Archive 35

You tried

I just read this [1]. It's always heartening to see editors make the attempt, even if we don't always succeed, so thanks for that! Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 15:16, 22 November 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for stopping in, Gråbergs Gråa Sång. I believe mentoring is a worthy effort. It’s as close as WP is going to get to a Human Resources dept. 😊 ^{Atsme✍🏻📧} 03:32, 23 November 2018 (UTC)

Happy Turkey Day!

	Happy Thanksgiving!
	Have a blessed and wonderful Thanksgiving day and make happy memories. dawnleelynn(talk) 17:50, 22 November 2018 (UTC)

I did!! Thank you, DLL!! Now I’m the one who’s stuffed!!! ^{Atsme✍🏻📧} 03:34, 23 November 2018 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar
	Your Golden Words and obvious dedication to the integrity of the Project are most appreciated. petrarchan47คุก 06:46, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

Atsme, did you ever get your answer, or was the inconvenient question you asked several times, "where does it say an admin can overrule a decision by ArbCom?", archived sans reply? I see no response. Perhaps it was unrealistic to expect one.

Thank you for saying this:

We are dealing with a rather important decision that was made by ArbCom and I see no justification for changing that decision....We cannot keep pulling these stunts - and yes, that's what I believe has happened here and it has a chilling effect. For one thing, it is not fair to the accused to be endlessly drug through the mud only to survive and have another admin with a different POV drop the blade on the guillotine. That's as close to double indemnity jeopardy as it gets and it's just plain wrong." - Atsme

Your words are golden. petrarchan47คุก 06:55, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for the kind words, Petrar. As you may have already determined, it was never my intention to relitigate your case, and I caution you to not trip or stumble and accidentally mention anything about it here. My main concern was getting clarity for what I perceived to be an out of process action but that didn't happen so in the spirit of peace and harmony, I'll close with the following quote: "Experience is what you get when you don't get what you want." —Randy Pausch. Happy editing! ^{Atsme✍🏻📧} 20:50, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

Wise words. I'll take them to heart. Thanks again, Atsme. You're a gem. petrarchan47คุก 04:47, 28 November 2018 (UTC)

Advice from the dreaded MONGO

You got to know when to hold them, Know when to fold them, Know when to walk away, Know when to run.--MONGO (talk) 14:37, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

Agreed. ^{Atsme✍🏻📧} 19:38, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

Between the overtly partisan admins that issue bans and blocks against those they have an axe to grind, to obvious POV warriors that want to toss excrement at everything their little hearts and minds despise, it is nearly impossible to find much sanity on this website. Arguing with total idiots is truly one of the worst ways to waste one's life. Having encountered two areas in the last week, I ran away from one screeching idiot (to their loss if I do not say so myself) and taunted the other rules mongering buffoon just for the fun of it. Best to simply deny recognition as much as possible.--MONGO (talk) 12:57, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

It makes me sad when I see editors, who have given so much to the project, year after year as you have, find themselves having to deal with such issues. I know how difficult it can be to turn the other cheek and move on, but there comes a time on Wikipedia when it's important to know when to stop arguing, and simply let them be wrong. Your words of advice have not fallen on deaf ears. 😊 Here’s a thought to ponder...when I volunteer to mentor editors, some of whom the community chose to, well....no longer deal with....I do so with cautious optimism. Regardless of the result, there are inadvertent benefits we tend to overlook, specifically that mentoring can also serve in an introspective way to bring clarity and resolution to our own conflicts, helping us achieve peace of mind. Granted, I haven’t been editing WP as long as you have, and I certainly admire what you’ve accomplished, and the quality of FA articles you have to your credit. It does make a difference, so despite the occasional distractions from a narcissist or bully - or perhaps they truly are acting in good faith but just go about it the wrong way - I believe we are quite fortunate to have a substantial number of thoughtful and highly capable admins who have earned our respect. While I’ve been in precarious situations, and have felt mistreated and misunderstood, the flip side is that I’ve also been on the receiving end of admin generosity and good will, as I’m sure you have over the years. I’m not going to let the unsavory encounters, past or present, taint my views or weigh heavily enough on my mind to interfere with the enjoyment I derive from editing WP. I will vent when the need arises - we all do - and then I’ll move on. Granted, there are certain aspects of WP that are clearly broken and need to be fixed, but I remain optimistic it will all come together in time. In the interim, I intend to take advantage of the high level of expertise that’s available to us in so many ways, including editors and sysops who work tirelessly in a thankless job to help keep the walls of WP from caving in, and doing what they can to make our time here enjoyable and worthwhile. I’m pretty confident you feel the same way, so with that being said, I thank you for all you do and have done for WP, Mongo - it is much appreciated. Feel free to come here and vent when the need arises. ^{Atsme✍🏻📧} 13:45, 28 November 2018 (UTC)

YAY!!!

I got all my wishes answered 2019 Wishlist Results - #1 on the list is the NPP improvements!! Good job, team!! ^{Atsme✍🏻📧} 21:02, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

DYK review

Hi. I am working today and I doubt I will have time to do much editing. If you are still interested, please do the review before it's too late. Otherwise it will be lost (but we could still work on other articles like Harry W. Anderson). Thanks.Zigzig20s (talk) 15:26, 1 December 2018 (UTC)

Zigzig20s, apologies for not getting on top of this right away - I've been distracted - but as I explained earlier, I'm pretty rusty doing DYK stuff. I reviewed this one today, but I'm not sure what else needs to be done after I cleared it as a Third Review, ready to go. BTW, our reviews don't have to be done before the article is nominated, so go ahead and nominate ours. ^{Atsme✍🏻📧} 19:10, 1 December 2018 (UTC) NOTE: I completed a review - you're good to go. 22:15, 1 December 2018 (UTC)

I don't have time to do the nomination right now. I will tomorrow, but it will be too late I think.Zigzig20s (talk) 22:43, 1 December 2018 (UTC)

Thank you.Zigzig20s (talk) 22:04, 2 December 2018 (UTC)

No problem, Zigzig20s - a funny thing happened on the way to DYK...the nom I chose to review for our QPQ wound up with me receiving co-creation credits thanks to Yoninah, a veteran editor I was honored to have the privilege of working with on the review. When I saw their user page I was awestruck...and still am. WOW!!! What a treasure! ^{Atsme✍🏻📧} 22:17, 2 December 2018 (UTC)

I know. By the way, I had some time today to expand Harry W. Anderson. I am not sure if you are interested in this?Zigzig20s (talk) 00:03, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for the offer Zigzig20s but I'm currently working on an article I created that involves a merge, another article is in the oven ready to be created, and I've been prepping a 3rd for GAN. If I get time, I'll take a look at it. ^{Atsme✍🏻📧} 01:30, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

A beer for you!

I don't know what time it is there in the Wild West (or Bonaire, duhh, I'm confused) but remember..it's never too damn late for a beer :D Simon Adler (talk) 05:08, 15 December 2018 (UTC)

NEVER!! 😂 🍻 As Buffet says, It's 5 O'Clock Somewhere! I'll even buy the round. ^{Atsme✍🏻📧} 15:40, 15 December 2018 (UTC)

Hello

I wasn’t block evasion but I was asking to unlock my account because therenotime didn’t unlock me since the retirement. I wish you can help me with this. Regard Benjaminzyg --2001:8003:DC1C:9E00:7508:FA3D:60D7:15AC (talk) 08:27, 17 December 2018 (UTC)

Benjaminzyg, Benjaminzyg9402, Benjaminzyg4903, Benjaminzygs - my advice is for you to read WP:VANDALISM and WP:SOCK. When you understand both quite well, then read WP:PILLARS and WP:CIR. Once you are very familiar with all of the aforementioned very important policies and guidelines, compose a convincing appeal to get your block removed. You should probably include in your appeal that you would like for a mentor to work with you for a few months if your block is appealed. ^{Atsme✍🏻📧} 21:14, 17 December 2018 (UTC)

On point

Your recent comment at AN goes to the heart of the original dialogue at Jimbo's page back in '09 that I re-posted, before all the digressions into revisionist historical viewpoints. You are so right. WP is not censorship. Blatant and tangible attacks against other editors, or articles are obvious block/ bans, but to block and editor for discussing (whatever their motivations) historical comments or ideas that are germane to the subject of an appropriate article is antithetical to dialectic inquiry.

I ascribe to the philosophy that as long as it is not affecting the article by pushing a bias, or inflammatory rhetoric by either or any side of contentious subjects and the material is historically significant, it stays. Based on consensus, of course (for what that's worth, on occasion.) My apologies for this intrusion, but as a nom-admin, I didn't want to clutter things up over there with a hat full of blue steam. Regards, Hamster Sandwich (talk) 21:16, 15 December 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for expressing your views. I said what seemed appropriate based on my limited research and the interactions I've had with that particular editor. I have long since learned when it's time to drop the stick - especially when it involves highly volatile topics like this one. It makes me sad to see editors who have made good contributions get piled-on over an issue that can only be judged by one's own individual experiences/perceptions/interpretations. But then, it's all about the democracy that WP is not. ^{Atsme✍🏻📧} 23:37, 15 December 2018 (UTC)

It seems that with some further reading- one, maybe two posts he has made recently seem to be gratuitous. He was trying to make a point by illustrating a (kind of) hypothetical situation, but I think his description speaking about the traditional "non-racist" use of a certain word went over the line... I suppose there are right ways and wrong ways to do things. He seemingly made a poor choice in words, at the very least. I have to- at this point- agree that a block was "righteous" move, but whether it should be indef. is another argument, for other editors to hash out. Regards, Hamster Sandwich (talk) 03:12, 18 December 2018 (UTC)

Precious anniversary

Precious

Four years!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:25, 24 December 2018 (UTC)

And the years keep flying bye, Ms Gerda! Thank you for all you do, you're a bit of the glue that binds. ^{Atsme✍🏻📧} 01:03, 27 December 2018 (UTC)

Invitation to join WikiProject Brands

	Hello, Atsme. You are invited to join WikiProject Brands, a WikiProject and resource dedicated to improving Wikipedia's coverage of brands and brand-related topics. To join the project, just add your name to the member list. North America1000 20:10, 4 January 2019 (UTC)

On a personal note

First, congrats on the above. I don't think I have your talkpage watchlisted, so I didn't see the Editor of the Week award until now.

On the other thing, I'm sorry that you feel that way about my questions/comments. That was not the spirit in which they were intended. I was genuinely impressed by your appeal, and with the depth of introspection you showed in your initial statement I thought the rest of the unban was going to be a slam-dunk for you. That's why I was caught off guard when you started litigating and asking for diffs instead of answering my question, which is why I responded the way I did with the "disingenuous" comment. I'll back away from the AE thread for now, but if you want to discuss further I'm happy to do it here. I'll understand though if you don't want to do that right now. ~Awilley (talk) 02:42, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for commenting here. I'm feeling the pain of the pile-ons right now - do you have any extra Prep H? I believed that my years here as an editor would have at least earned some confidence in my abilities and enough trust in who I am that I wouldn't have to be subjected to such ridicule and distrust. I can assure you that I've thoroughly examined each and every diff that was used against me in the original t-ban - no diff was left unturned - and that is why I believe I did the right thing when formulating my appeal. It was broad in scope but it covered every aspect of what I believed would be considered t-ban worthy based on the diffs used against me. I will not allow myself to be subjected to aspersions - everyone has an opinion and not all will be favorable, much of it based on preconceived notions, or miscommunications or misperceptions of things that were said. It doesn't matter who imposed the t-ban, and I don't want that to take precedence over my actual appeal. I hope you understand why I feel the way I do. It's a matter of relevance. ^{Atsme✍🏻📧} 02:57, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

I imagine that you feel like you're being put on trial for your personal beliefs. ~Awilley (talk) 03:11, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

Somewhat, but more like I'm being punished because I'm not saying things the way I'm expected to say them. ^{Atsme✍🏻📧} 04:37, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

OK, I can see how you would feel that. I can't speak for others, but I felt like I asked a fairly clear question, and that instead of getting a clear answer I got a jumble of wikilawering in response. Looking at your first response you jump from demanding diffs, say I'm close to "casting aspersions", say that you aren't one to "spew nonsense" (I didn't accuse you of anything like that), link to other pages that show other people talking in general terms about news outlets (why?), go off on a tangent about DS sanctions and other editors like SPECIFICO, and appeal to Bishonen to support your point that other editors have been topic banned from AP2 (an uncontroversial point that exactly zero people dispute). None of that came close to answering my actual question, which was whether you think it's ok to dismiss mainstream reliable sources as "biased" and "propaganda" while saying things like Breitbart is is as reliable as any of the top liberal sites like the NY Times. (Yes, I get that that diff is from a RS/N board not an article talk page, and that it was something about Ben Shapiro that started the thread, but the question still stands.) Anyway, my main hang up is that you haven't answered my question, and I'm still happy to fully support the unban when I see an adequate answer. However I fear that others will see your initial long-winded non-responses as evidence that you have not abandoned the other behaviors that led to the topic ban. ~Awilley (talk) 14:25, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

My response would be what DGG said with regards to how sources are to be use per our PAGs and that is what I have always done. He said it all very eloquently. ^{Atsme✍🏻📧} 14:41, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

I would much prefer to hear your words, and not a trite "What DGG said". DGG made some great points (that I agree with), but it's also possible for different people to read different things into what others say. I'd like for you to make and own your own statement.

Also I want to stress that there's not a single right answer, and you're not on trial for what you personally believe. I'd be completely satisfied if you said something along the lines of

Personal experiences have taught me to be extremely distrustful of the mainstream news media, and I personally trust sources like Breitbart over sources I view as biased like the NYTimes. That said, I recognize that there is a proper venue for discussing the reliability of sources and that the community has decided that some sources are more reliable than others. Even though I am uncomfortable with the current practice of blacklisting certain sources while promoting others as generally reliable, I recognize that it is disruptive for me to re-litigate the issue on article talkpages. So even though I may disagree with something on a personal level I am committed to respecting community consensus and WP:Writing for the enemy.

Again I'm not trying to force feed you a proper response. I just want you to be sincere, to own the problem, and convince me that you know how to solve it. ~Awilley (talk) 15:47, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

I was actually trying to avoid the appearance of bludgeoning, and then when I do what I feel is my obligation to respond, I get accused of wikilawyering or something else. Forgive me, but the allegations made against me with regards to RS are simply false. I truly don't understand why you insist that I "dismiss mainstream reliable sources as "biased" and "propaganda" while saying things like Breitbart is is as reliable as any of the top liberal sites like the NY Times. It appears to be based on unsupported allegations or a misinterpretation, and it saddens me to be pigeonholed in that manner; i.e., as a Brietbart supporter, etc. - when that is not the case at all. Review the diff that was used against me - it was dated January 4 2015 - a comment I made at RSN about Breitbart a short 3 years after Andrew Breitbart died and the publication was still considered more reliable than what it devolved into under Steve Bannon after Andrew's death. Bannon turned it into the tabloidy internet click bait publication that it is today. Regardless, my position on RS aligns strictly with our PAGs - the update for Breitbart at RSN is here. Buzzfeed is certainly in the same ranking, yet it was used as the basis for an entire article on WP. All the allegations that I am unable to recognize RS are completely false, and if there is a diff out there somewhere that will prove otherwise, I welcome its publication, but to date, there has not been one diff presented that has confirmed otherwise. Whenever I've debated material cited to any source, I have always tried to provide additional sources for verifiability, and I also look for sources that publish both sides, which aligns with NPOV. I highly recommend that you read the following as it supports my position regarding my caution about NOTNEWS, BREAKINGNEWS, etc.: "Merchants of Truth: The Business of News and the Fight for Facts", by Jill Abramson, an exposé by the former editor of the NYTimes. WaPo also published something similar, criticizing their own reporting as well as the reporting of other news sources. Awilley, as I've said before, my area of expertise is journalism as a former field producer for CNN so it's possible that I'm aware of things that others aren't attuned to seeing. I realize expert opinions aren't given any consideration above the opinions of others, and I accept that fact, but I truly do believe I have successfully refuted the unsupported charges against me regarding RS. I should not have to continue doing so based on diffs that absolutely do not support the allegations. As my body of work will evidence, when I'm editing an article - any article - my primary focus is to get the article right. I strictly adhere to our 3 core content policies - NPOV, V and NOR - and if it's a BLP, then I tend to be even stricter, and that's what got me into trouble - not letting go. I promised to not make those mistakes again, and I hope you will find it in your heart to believe me. When I edit, I see every article as a potential FA - to a fault - and that is what led to my becoming overzealous and insensitive to the opposition. I do not profess to be perfect - we all make mistakes - but I am amenable and as I have demonstrated, willing to accept change. I've been accused on the internet as being a member of WP's far left cabal and then later accused as being an alt-right wingnut. I'm actually somewhere in between, but what I gleaned from the accusations is that it's coming from both sides which tells me I must be doing something right. ^{Atsme✍🏻📧} 17:29, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

Thanks, and thank you for clearing me up on the history of Breitbart. I realized the diff was old, but I didn't realize that Breitbart had at one point been more reliable. By the way, I did read the NPR interview you linked above. Interesting stuff. I don't know that I'm going to go out and buy the book, but it was an interesting read. Definitely made me more aware of some of the problems news orgs have been facing lately.

It still seems like your response to the problem about calling mainstream sources "propaganda" and such is to insist that the problem never existed in the first place, which doesn't really square with diffs like these (emphasis mine):

• Show me verifiable statements of fact, not opinions, rumor or propaganda like that which is being force-fed to the public by propaganda machines, bait & click news orgs and political pundits.
• if you don't live along a southern border in the US, or within 100 miles of it, you can't possibly know what really goes on. If you think leftist MSM is going to tell you, think again. I have close friends who own land along the border - I lived a short 300 mi. from Brownsville - ask the people who live along the border what the real issues are as the drug cartels and smugglers go about their business in human trafficking and weapons trade. Texas doesn't have the resources to stop it. You say self-delusion, and that a wall is a categorically false claim - that tells me MSM has done a great job with their open border propaganda and keeping the American people uninformed via ommission.

• It's pretty sad that MSM is reading a lot like The Daily Mail

• How can anyone not see that bias is a factor?...Laws are laws - enforcement of those laws has obviously become politicized and sensationalized by clickbait media, most of which are proven to be 90% negative toward Trump. Ironically, some of the very same media who attempted to circulate images of children in fenced cages, blamed Trump when the images were actually from the Obama administration...In the interim, enough already with the back and forth here, all of which is based on biased media reporting to appeal to human compassion (more like propaganda), none of which to date is supported by factual evidence

• No, they (the sources) are not clear, they are spinning the truth, playing on human emotion and are not properly presenting the actual facts, which includes purposeful child endangerment by the parents who are being arrested for not entering legally via ports of entry and by adults who are trafficking children, etc.

• What I'm seeing is propaganda spreading like wildfire by fake news...If you want to label a president, start with Obama who was president in 2014 when that last photo originated

• Show me one instance in the Trump presidency that supports white supremacy other than the spin by biased media, and I will be expeditiously change my position about the topic...I'm ok with the questioning but I'm not ok with the media creating their own facts after the questions have been answered.

• The argument for including this propaganda (just because it's in the news) has got to be among the weakest arguments and biggest time sinks I've seen yet. WP:SOAPBOX, WP:ADVOCACY, WP:NPOV. Politicized spin focused on emotional reactions and crying children doesn't even come close to "dispassionate tone". (On whether the "Immigration" section of the Trump article should include a short mention of the "zero tolerance" immigration policy that separated children from parents)

Sure, each diff is cherry picked out of its larger context and backstory, but can you at least understand why people think there's a problem, and why you need to address that problem head on? ~Awilley (talk) 18:56, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

My comments were supported by citations to RS. I'm not going to go over each one of your cherrypicked diffs - all of which are taken out of context. The ones you chose happened to be leftist views. I have also criticized alt right and right wing, but you didn't include any of those comments and I don't expect you to. For the sake of brevity, I will quickly point out the last diff because the 2 preceding paragraphs are relevent to context. My reference to propaganda was directed to the insistence of a few editors who, in that RfC discussion, wanted to include the audio of a baby crying in that BLP. Of course, it was not included which was the appropriate action. I stand by my argument as presented but I regret the way I presented it, and that is the crux of my appeal and what I vowed to change. A t-ban is supposed to be about behavior and disruption such as TE. It should not be about a editor's views or their perspective but rather how they present those views. I think you have wandered a little off-track as to what actions should be taken against me and for what reason. If you expect me to become an editor who will agree 100% with a single perspective, or that I will blindly accept whatever an internet source publishes in violation of NOTNEWS, BREAKINGNEWS, and other related guidelines, it simply isn't going to happen. I am not going to change who I am, or my position regarding the need for factual information that is verifiable, and if it's opinion, it needs to include in-line text attribution per our PAGs. Read the top of my TP regarding inclusion of material in a BLP. It also represents my position. I think it's best to conclude our discussion here lest I be wrongfully be accused of violating my t-ban. Follow your heart, AWilley, and thank you for your consideration. ^{Atsme✍🏻📧} 19:55, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

The diffs say what the diffs say, and I simply pulled them from the list of diffs in evidence.

People reading the diffs will interpret them through their own filters and will form a corresponding opinion of you. You can't change that.

Right now you are under a lot of scrutiny and this presents a great opportunity for you to publicly disavow the incorrect assumptions that others have made about your character and make a clear (and preferably concise) statement of what you actually stand for.

Instead of taking that opportunity you seem to be litigating at every turn, accusing everybody of cherry picking, arguing about minor details, and going so far as to suggest that I'm trying to get you to "blindly accept whatever an internet source publishes" or to change your views, when I have been very clear that that's not what this is about. I'm very sympathetic to your concerns about the "MSM" and I'm legitimately trying to help you, so it kind of burns to be accused of bad faith like that. ~Awilley (talk) 20:33, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

Apologies - not my intention. Neither editor nor admin who volunteer their time here should ever have to experience such burns. I know you are genuinely trying to help me. What I'm trying to get across to you is that my statement in my appeal came from the heart - I am being sincere about what I've said I will do. You will never have to use your admin tools to stop any disruption caused by me in the AP2 topic area if my t-ban is lifted. I have explained what I believe will be the extent of my involvement. You can choose to believe me, or not. If I don't do as I said I would, you have the ban hammer. It's just that simple. ^{Atsme✍🏻📧} 21:34, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

Another personal note

Good luck on getting those diffs from MastCell. He's kind of notorious for making accusations, refusing to back them up, and then enlisting the help of his politically like-minded colleagues like Floquenbeam, EdJohnston, Boing! and TonyBallioni to make excuses for not providing the diffs ("This is about you, not MastCell. Stop wiki-lawyering.") These people aren't even operating under the pretense of being "fair, impartial, objective" adjudicators. MastCell doesn't believe you support late-term abortion, so he's not going to vote to repeal your fraudulent topic ban. Drmies is regurgitating Don Lemon's talking points on the page, screaming about "innocent toddlers torn from their arms of their loving mothers, and locked into cold steel cages under this racist, xenophobic president!!!" rather than addressing the baseless nature of your original topic ban from resident Jimbo confidant Bishonen (who is now laughably trying to unilaterally decline your appeal based on some obscure mention of Trump on your talk page made long before your ban). But of course, Drmies would never, EVER go against the mighty Bishonen under any circumstances, so his "vote" was never in doubt. Might as well cram a little leftist propaganda in there since nobody actually believes that he's in any way "neutral." Don't mention the fact that Obama did the same thing, playing pool as children died, or the fact that the illegal alien children had PlayStations, museum trips, and soccer games while their parents awaited hearings for their crimes. That'll only make him more enraged at the outcome of the 2016 election and continue to take it out on you. I would just ignore his silly soapboxing, since he's just trying to get a rise out of you and make the whole denial process go smoother. In a true objective environment, you would be an admin and Drmies and Bishonen would have been indeffed years ago.

As usual, the "statements" (advocacy screeds) are breaking down party lines. Who can get more people to the WP:AE board? Liberals or Centrists/Republicans? I wonder who can get better turnout on the objective, impartial, non-partisan encyclopedia (with a grand total of two moderate/conservative administrators, who are only still around because they don't dare voice their concerns and only rarely make statements at WP:AE). You didn't ask for my advice, but if you did, I would say just leave these people to their misery while you find a more productive hobby. Trump-Russia dossier got 9 views yesterday. Nine. Special Counsel investigation (2017–present) didn't even crack 6,000 views. It's not worth your time! After they deny your appeal (for failing to "see the light" and embrace liberal ideology over the past 7 months), come back after Trump easily wins re-election next year and watch them furiously smear the president and everyone who's ever met him and embarrass themselves as they argue how “reliable” and “objective” CNN, the NYT, and WaPo are (MastCell again). All the while as they turn red behind their keyboards and fight back tears. That's true satisfaction.

One other thing. You really have to love how a few of the liberals who are weighing in on your no-brainer appeal are joyously proclaiming how much more peaceful political pages are now. Groupthink is really something, isn’t it? It’s amazing what the absence of dissenting viewpoints and advocating for careful editing, rather than furiously scrambling to copy-paste mainstream media advocacy “journalism,” can do for a talk page! How lovely it is to only have devout liberals editing pages, who all think CNN is a reliable source. Yes, good thing we got rid of Atsme. How oblivious these people are. You deserve better. 2600:1012:B043:D141:CCEB:1A98:DD67:E687 (talk) 16:49, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

Moderation

The below story aligns with my own feelings would you care to comment ?

https://news.sky.com/story/olivia-colman-reveals-battle-with-wikipedia-over-her-age-11619990 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dr Nobody (talk • contribs) 08:22, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

Hi, Dr Nobody. I researched the edit history for Olivia Colman and it is my determination that it was either vandalism at play, or as a long shot, some bizarre publicity stunt. The latter came to mind after I saw this cited source. The article criticizing WP was publicized rather quickly but it was not reported as vandalism. The author of the article was Olivia Colman, so it's highly possible that she simply doesn't understand how WP works. Once an admin was made aware of the edit warring, the BLP was semi-protected. I'm not sure there is adequate proof that the IPs who were focused primarily on her DOB were socks that may warrant an investigation - Berean Hunter?? - but it was rather strange for such an extensive amount of back and forth regarding a long standing stable DOB (infobox added in 2006) that led to criticism of WP in Sky News, authored by the BLP herself and published within a day or two of the aggressive focus on her DOB by IPs. ^{Atsme✍🏻📧} 17:10, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

I'm not seeing what has been alleged concerning the birth date at all. I would need to see diffs. I did find where someone was removing Olivia as a birth name, two accounts...this and this. That would be an issue where someone might ask about a birth certificate in OTRS if they had been written to but she would have had to authenticate herself somehow and that doesn't sound like it happened. That issue is the only thing that even slightly looks related.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 18:37, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

Ewwww...lotsa diffs, BH...beginning 27 January but most on 28 January 2019 within 1 to several minutes of each other throughout the day.

1. Jan 27 2019 mobile IP 2a02:c7f:2856:8600:bdc3:500c:3d3b:a753 changed long standing stable DOB to 1966.
2. self-reverted to 1974
3. IP 82.129.51.115 changed back to 1966
4. Sam Holt reverted IP
5. Next day (28 January) IP 90.254.161.135 changed to 1964.
6. IP 151.229.18.181 reverted to 1974
7. IP 86.146.218.114 changed to 1979
8. mobile IP 2a02:c7d:1aa:b600:85b0:dd83:5383:65f6 changed to 1960.
9. mobile IP 2a02:c7f:d222:8600:adae:9fb4:7f33:e56f reverted to 1974.
10. contiguous change to lead by mobile IP 2a00:23c7:681:5400:ecb9:85a9:dbb5:8545.
11. IP 86.30.177.101 reverted to 1964
12. same IP 86.30.177.101 self-reverted to 1974.
13. IP 86.181.187.69 cited Sky News for battle over DOB.
14. mobile IP 2a02:c7f:4812:b000:5516:3011:262b:fbb8 changed DOB to 1954.
15. IP 79.64.221.200 changed to 1904.
16. IP 129.12.169.187 reverted to 1974.
17. IP 88.87.15.23 changed to 1937.
18. IP 86.152.145.132 reverted to 1974.
19. mobile IP 2a02:c7f:4812:b000:5516:3011:262b:fbb8 changed to 1924.
20. IP 86.152.145.132 reverted to 1974.
21. IP 195.12.22.35 changed to 1966.
22. mobile IP 2a00:23c4:4c94:5a00:9d22:df75:d8a7:645a changed lead to reflect 1966.
23. reverted to 1974 by Martinevans123.
24. IP 86.174.111.8 changed it to 1954.
25. IP contiguous change of lead
26. reverted to 1974 by Horst Hof with edit summary (age vandalism reverted).
27. IP 87.102.30.60 changed to 1965.
28. IP 197.221.253.12 changed lead to 1965.
29. Martinevans123 reverted to 1974.
30. IP 87.102.30.60 changed it to 1899.
31. reverted to 1974 by Anr.
32. IP 87.102.30.60 changed it to 1550.
33. page protected by Samsara.
34. correction to 1974 by Gothaparduskerialldrapolatkh.

Did I miss any? ^{Atsme✍🏻📧} 00:51, 29 January 2019 (UTC)

You missed where "Colman said it happened "years ago" and that she gave a nickname to disguise her identity." She isn't talking about the recent vandalism which seems to have started Dec. Jan. 14 and the recent spate of vandalism in January is because this podcast was published. The diffs that you have are all within the last several couple of weeks, right? She and those newspapers caused that. The situation that she describes never happened.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 09:46, 29 January 2019 (UTC)

I agree with your analysis Berean Hunter. How very odd. Martinevans123 (talk) 10:52, 29 January 2019 (UTC)

Odd that you would agree with my analysis?
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 11:01, 29 January 2019 (UTC)

Haha, in fact not. Just the lengths to which folks will go to promote a new podcast! Martinevans123 (talk) 11:11, 29 January 2019 (UTC)

BH, please re-read my reply to Dr Nobody above. I simply brought your attention to this issue for validation and possible action for what I thought had caused the disruption; i.e., "either vandalism at play, or as a long shot, some bizarre publicity stunt. I know what she said in the article did not happen - I went to the trouble of researching the diffs, and stated in my reply above that the correct date has been long standing. I wasn't sure what, if anything, could be done to prevent it in the future, short of PP. I'm now wondering if you possibly misunderstood my reason for pinging you? ^{Atsme✍🏻📧} 18:02, 29 January 2019 (UTC)

Note

[2] Happy editing. At some point I hope you will take some time to carefully re-read the comments of those who had concerns about the ban being lifted. We all have blind spots, and I think that making an honest effort to understand where they are can help us avoid getting tripped up. ~Awilley (talk) 06:03, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

What a pleasant surprise to see upon wakening. Thank you, Awilley. You can rest assured that I not only read each comment as they were posted, I have re-read them several times over. It isn't difficult for editors to be critical of their opposition; what's difficult is to be critical of oneself and perhaps even more difficult for some is to see the good in people, not just their flaws. Editing in highly controversial topic areas where emotions tend to run high may not be suitable for all editors, I will certainly measure my time there, but I strongly believe the quote by Jimbo Wales titled "Politics, presidents and NPOV" that I just added near the top of my page speaks volumes. I also believe that JFG has been a shining example of excellence in the AP2 topic area, so I have adopted him as my mentor - he just doesn't know it, yet. 😇 And one last thing...I'm going to add a quote by Diannaa that GRuban referenced in his comment during my appeal. There's room for improvement in all of us. ^{Atsme✍🏻📧} 14:01, 1 March 2019 (UTC)  

Ooh, now I know. I feel very honoured. Welcome back! At the risk of being tarred and feathered for canvassing, I'd love to see your reaction to today's shitstorm at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2019-02-28/Humour. Such a lovely day… — JFG ^talk 14:21, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

• Welcome back! May God have mercy upon your soul. PackMecEng (talk) 13:53, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

Thanks, PackMecEng! I'll just say one thing - POLITICS. 😇 ^{Atsme✍🏻📧} 14:01, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

Now that is strong language. --GRuban (talk) 14:59, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

• Congrats on your successful appeal! My opinion is your TBAN never should have been placed in the first place, given there was absolutely no reason to do so, but it's good to see that justice won out in the end despite the protests of those who harbor disdain for dissenting viewpoints. An interesting poll from the highly regarded Columbia Journalism Review was released during the appeal process (great timing!). They oversampled Democrats, as per usual, but a few of the more notable findings were party-specific: only 26% of Democrats have a “great deal of confidence” in the press, and most (58%) Democrats agree that the press is biased. When taking all respondents into account, it found that people trust the Executive Branch more than the press. Only Congress ranked as having less trust. Majorities of both parties also believe that reporters write articles before knowing the facts (Nathan Philips, anybody?) and more Democrats say that reporters “sometimes” double-check basic facts with multiple sources than believe they “very often” do the same. An extraordinary indictment and an ear-splitting bullhorn of vindication for your strict adherence to WP:NOTNEWS and WP:NORUSH policies and guidelines. Another telling point is that it found that the WSJ, CNN, New York Times, Fox News, and the Washington Post all share about the same levels of trust, although blatantly partisan organizations unsurprisingly enjoyed more trust from their “team” but saw an inversion of the trust/distrust ratio from the other side of the aisle. This obviously flies in the face of those who instruct you to exhibit unquestioning deference to the esteemed New York Times and WaPo, but treat Fox News as nothing more than "state-run TV." The chin-tuggers at The Atlantic are always happy to reassure their readers than the "right-wing echo chamber" is only pandering to the uneducated rubes in flyover country, with no interest in the truth.
• It’s informative to contrast the views of Americans overall with the views of Wikipedia editors, and in particular, administrators. Since many have tried to force you to believe what they believe, that is to say that sources which agree with their political opinions are “reliable” and “king on Wikipedia,” I thought it was noteworthy that these people are actually a tiny minority of people writ large. They just happen to submit successful RfA’s more often than those of the majority view, and are thus vastly overrepresented in Wikipedia’s admin corps. Unfortunately, failure to comply with the directives inevitably lead to you being called some kind of “-ist” or informed that there must be some other serious flaw in your intelligence or character. And of course, if anyone disagrees, they simply must not be able to see the “truth.” There is no “liberal” point of view, or “bias.” There is only the correct view, which will put you on “the right side of the history” and allow you to claim righteousness in a “post-truth world” gone mad and taken over by an antiquated electoral system. Anyway, glad to see you back and I wish you the best of luck. I certainly don’t need to tell you that there is now a sizable brigade watching your every move, just looking for an excuse to drop the hammer (Winkelvi can be used as a verb, in this instance). For the project’s sake, I hope that they can find a much more suitable nail next time. Selltherally (talk) 20:03, 1 March 2019 (UTC)
• Congrats. I'm glad. And please be careful. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:08, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

Never fear, Tryp. I keep my promises, although there is one I'm having second thoughts about - I once told my young daughters to not worry about Mommy - she's going to live to be 100. 😳 The things we say when we're young and think we're invincible. ^{Atsme✍🏻📧} 20:26, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

Free at last! Free at last! Thank God almighty, we are free at last! Or at least affordable. ―Mandruss ☎ 20:51, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

😂, yes to affordable! ^{Atsme✍🏻📧} 21:02, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

The secret magic

"On Wikipedia, it's important to know when to stop arguing with people, and simply let them be wrong. ~anonymous" - nailed it! THE NEW ImmortalWizard(chat) 21:29, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

I similar thought can be found among Ray's Rules. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:05, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

Notice

EDIT: I see the proper 2nd nom was listed, but was not present at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2019 January 16. Fixed it now. Jovanmilic97 (talk) 17:46, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

Thx for fixing. For some reason I thought our wishlist covered that fix - guess not. ☹️ ^{Atsme✍🏻📧} 18:16, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

Need help identifying an image

Gold medallion discovered by commercial diver while exploring a sunken ship in the Mediterranean

I would much appreciate it if a (talk page stalker) or expert(s) in whatever field this medallion would fall under could identify the symbols or language on the pictured medallion. ^{Atsme✍🏻📧} 04:58, 25 January 2019 (UTC)

It's not Greek or Egyptian. It looks a bit like Arabic to me. Perhaps a pre-cursor alphabet to it. Mr rnddude (talk) 17:19, 25 January 2019 (UTC)

You've captured my attention with this now. It's a very nice medallion. There's not too many symbols, and a few of them repeat (for example, reading in a clockwise direction, the 6 o'clock symbol is the same as the 11 o'clock (last) symbol, as are the two three o'clock ones). In total I see eight individual words(?) here. Now I want to know what it says. It's all entirely beyond my abilities. Looking at the Arabic alphabet, the first symbol looks to be made of three parts. Perhaps alif ṭāʾ alif (اطا) or lām ṭāʾ alif (لطا). I'm afraid that aside from the shadda (w) above two of the symbols, which appears in Allah, nothing is remotely familiar to me. Mr rnddude (talk) 18:48, 25 January 2019 (UTC)

Based on what I remember the diver told me, they found a small treasure box and quite a few remnants scattered throughout the wreckage. In retrospect, I should have been far more inquisitive when he gave me the coins. I just found the following website, and it lists some of the wrecks that were discovered in the Mediterranean and thereabouts. ^{Atsme✍🏻📧} 19:31, 25 January 2019 (UTC)

Adding - check out the symbols in The Fourteen Infallibles. Do any match? ^{Atsme✍🏻📧} 19:59, 25 January 2019 (UTC)

I didn't expect that it'd help me, but it did. I believe the six o'clock symbol is لسّلطا. I couldn't identify it before because I couldn't find the squiggly looking bit of script, but it appears in nearly every name on that list. The thing with Arabic, and many other scripts, is that the much of the alphabet will modify when going from standalone to cursive script. I'd need to know which bit of alphabet is being modified and what it's modified form looks like. There's also the matter of a calligraphic stroke looking distinct from a keyboard one. I wouldn't trust any translation from GT for this, but I'm using it as a basic Arabic keyboard and it translates the symbol as "For authority" or "To Salta". Might be a ruler's seal? or perhaps a reference to godly authority. I note now that there is a difference between the six o'clock and eleven o'clock versions of this symbol. The later version has a ن cutting through it's top with a large ° underneath it. I don't know what that is or how to replicate it. Do let me know if you find out what it says. Mr rnddude (talk) 20:44, 25 January 2019 (UTC)

I got distracted by reading that I actually forgot to answer your question. On first inspection, I'm not seeing anything similar. That said, the names are very artistically presented, so maybe some visual modification has been done. Your best bet is to have someone familiar with Arabic or Persian look at it. Mr rnddude (talk) 21:09, 25 January 2019 (UTC)

Coin

The larger Arabic coin is approx. 1¼ in.

Each side of each coin has a different inscription

Hi Atsme it's Islamic text, that means representation of Arabic coin possibly from 800-1000 AD Kalogeropoulos (talk) 17:13, 25 January 2019 (UTC)

Oh, ok - thank you Kalogeropoulos...so it's not an Arabic coin - it's a representation of one. Interesting. Do the 2 coins have any monetary and/or historic value? Is there a story or message in the text/symbols/inscription? ^{Atsme✍🏻📧} 19:12, 25 January 2019 (UTC)

"Legal for all debts public or private. In Allah we trust." ? --GRuban (talk) 21:56, 25 January 2019 (UTC)

I asked a coworker who reads Persian and Arabic to take a look. She didn't get it all, but says that on File:Side_1_Arabic_coins_259A7230.jpg,

One of the words in the middle : قسطنطنیه Constantinople (is the English translation) Part of the text : محمود خان ابن السلطان عبد الحميد Mahmud khan ebne al sultan abdo al hamid

Maybe refers to this : Mahmud_II

--GRuban (talk) 17:29, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

Verrrry interesting. Thank you! I wonder if enhancing the images or shooting better ones would help? The pieces are very thin but not too pliable. They've been underwater for a long time, and I'm afraid to clean them with anything harsher than toothpaste. I can't tell by the color if it's gold or some other metal. Do you think there is a venue equivalent to the Smithsonian Institute for Islamic artifacts/coins/jewelry I could contact? Wouldn't it be cool if these 2 pieces are all that's needed to solve a historic puzzle, or maybe complete a necklace or family heirloom? ^{Atsme✍🏻📧} 18:04, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

My new article Land of Maidens would make use of a better version of the header painting

"Before" 1,600 × 659; 251 KB

"Larger" 2,713 × 1,200; 768 KB

"Larger, cropped" 2,640 × 1,096; 741 KB

Something like https://theartstack.com/artist/edwin-austin-abbey/castle-maidens but not cropped. I'm not even sure where is it physically located or anything. SNAAAAKE!! (talk) 11:40, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

GRuban once provided links to the "getting place" for such images...all I need to remember is when and where but hopefully he will help us again, and this time I'll file the links in a place that's easier to remember. ^{Atsme✍🏻📧} 14:00, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

Hmm. Yes, maidens are hard to find nowadays, and even harder to land. Though, honestly, the image you already have isn't that small resolution, and, reduced to display in the article the difference will be hard to see to all but the most discerning. But I did find something maybe half again larger in each dimension, see if you like. Unfortunately this one comes with a white border that isn't strictly rectangular, so cropping it off either leaves in some border or loses some painting, you call as to which is better, or if you like you can try to recrop. Also I removed an "of" from the Commons category name. --GRuban (talk) 15:51, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

Aha. It seems to be at the Boston Public Library. I guess we could send someone there with a good camera, or … wait … https://www.digitalcommonwealth.org/search/commonwealth:sq87dv20r … --GRuban (talk) 15:53, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

Yup. That link there will take you to a noticeably higher resolution version. That would be the holy grail, no doubt. A few issues, though.

1. There seem to be two column tops occluding the lower corners.
2. Downloading won't be trivial, since the higher resolution version is not sent as a single image, but displayed on a canvas, quite likely a block at a time.
3. The website apparently has limited capacity; as I was trying to debug exactly how that image was displayed on the canvas, it started sending a usage message.

So if you really, really want a higher resolution image, all that can be overcome, but only with effort. Perhaps the images I uploaded already, above, will suffice? --GRuban (talk) 16:06, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

SNAAAAKE!! - he came through for us again. I must remember to simply search his user name in my archives (and vice versa) to find his pearls of wisdom but then I thought maybe he needed the exercise to maintain freshness...you know, use it or lose it. ^{Atsme✍🏻📧} 17:25, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

Ah, pearls you want now? In this case, the pearl diving was by doing a bit of Google Image Searching.

1. First, Google Search-By-Image (I use a Commons gadget that makes it easier, https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/MediaWiki:Gadget-GoogleImages.js, but you can also just go to http://images.google.com, click on the gray camera icon in the searchbox, and paste in the image URL - note you want the URL of the actual image, not of the Commons page that happens to host the image)
2. Then after reading a few of the results, one of them mentioned the Boston Public Library, so I did another (either image or standard) Google search on "Castle of Maidens Boston Public Library" and found the DigitalCommonwealth links among the first few results. --GRuban (talk) 17:47, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

Thanks! [3] is great but I think "date" should be rather for when the painting was made. (Also only now realized [4] has been there all the time.) There are other images of notably poor quality like [5] or [6] (the latter in use for Galahad anyway at Blanchefleur now.). SNAAAAKE!! (talk)