User talk:Atsme/Archive 33

Archive 30

Archive 31

Archive 32

Archive 33

Archive 34

Archive 35

→

Archive 40

Insanity check

You do realize this website is overrun by insane people.--MONGO (talk) 09:46, 1 August 2019 (UTC)

😂 Never really thought about it. ^Atsme _Talk 📧 11:54, 1 August 2019 (UTC)

I was perfectly sane prior to 2004.--MONGO (talk) 15:34, 1 August 2019 (UTC)

[1]--MONGO (talk) 20:23, 1 August 2019 (UTC)

That Man Soap commercial is HILL-ARIOUS!!! ^Atsme _Talk 📧 22:33, 1 August 2019 (UTC)

How many featured level articles etc do you have? I'm too lazy to check myself.--MONGO (talk) 05:07, 2 August 2019 (UTC)

Nowhere near as many as you. As nom/silent nom 2 (American padddlefish - nom + Thunder (mascost) w/Montanabw-nom), 5 as reviewer. More GAs than FAs. Several FPs on Commons. See the boxes on my user page. ^Atsme _Talk 📧 12:10, 2 August 2019 (UTC)

I think I asked that wrong. It's not how many it is just that you can do it. Thanks.--MONGO (talk) 12:52, 2 August 2019 (UTC)

Oh, . I aspire to have more but advocacies/SOAPBOX/SJWs/COI editors/POV warriors have become an immovable obstacle. ^Atsme _Talk 📧 13:01, 2 August 2019 (UTC)

I think thats my point. The frustrations we experience is because the vast majority we run afoul of are either incapable, disinterested or here for alternative reasons than what our purposes were originally meant to be. Sadly, we have many in the admin corp that defend their misguided missions because they can't or won't write either, or they share the same view points. None of the articles these nonwriters attend to are within a million miles of the high standards expected at FAC...in fact, when I see some worried about minor issues like whether to capitalize the "t" in The" or similar while the rest of the article is a terrible mess, I just shake my head. Yet, when I offer advice I get told I should be topic banned and insulted. Are these folks mental or what?--MONGO (talk) 16:17, 2 August 2019 (UTC)

Occasionally misdirected, perhaps...but that's because we have PAGs that are malleable in their ambiguity - nothing is steadfast or truly stable, so gaining consensus is our only hope to achieve NPOV. Unfortunately, WP:GASLIGHTING, stonewalling and/or other forms of disruption, be it to preserve coatracks or whitewashed articles, are strategies used in an effort to prevent effective editors from gaining consensus. I see such disruption, and apparent confusion over NPOV as issues stemming from advocacies/POV warriors/COI editors. What I've learned about such behavior is that when effective arguments are gaining ground against a POV consensus, all sorts of bad behavior comes into play, particularly mind-gaming the system by the opposition to make it seem like something it's not. Admins do not delve into content issues; rather they see only the behavior and who is involved, and when diffs are taken out of context, it is not unusual for the wrong editor to end up with the block or t-ban. Whoever/whatever team launches the first set of DROPTHESTICK allegations gains advantage, depending on the POV of the AE admin when DS are involved and a unilateral action is taken.

MONGO, I agree that experience in promoting/reviewing GAs and FAs is valuable experience, and I take note of it during RfAs. It tells me the editor knows NPOV, OR, V, RS, COATRACK, WHITEWASH, DUE & BALANCE, and that they also know that a BLP is not the place to judge people or debate scientific theory or ideological beliefs. We simply write about what they believe and include what mainstream science says per DUE, and what others have said about that person using in-text attribution and high quality RS. We don't argue for or against their theories or ideological beliefs because such material belongs in the articles of the respective topics, not in the BLP. I believe we're on the same page in that regard. ^Atsme _Talk 📧 20:12, 2 August 2019 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Tony Russell (musician) has been accepted

Tony Russell (musician), which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.
The article has been assessed as Start-Class, which is recorded on the article's talk page. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

You are more than welcome to continue making quality contributions to Wikipedia. If your account is more than four days old and you have made at least 10 edits you can create articles yourself without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for Creation if you prefer.

• If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk.
• If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider .

Thank you for helping improve Wikipedia!

^Atsme _Talk 📧 17:13, 13 August 2019 (UTC)

Tony Russell

Thank you for reviewing my article on my father Tony Russell. Please, can you help me understand what I need to include in particular to get this article accepted for publication? The notable works in paragraph one are noted in the general press. 'The Matchgirls' was on in the West Ends Globe Theatre in 1965. Do you need a review from an old newspaper article to be added? The show is regularly performed by amateur dramatic societies today. Do you need proof? 'On The Buses'theme tune is played regularly when the show is reshown on the internet, and at times on the TV. "The Herbs" was a regular children series on TV in 1968 and it came out on DVD. The Russell Mass is played today by Descantas choir but it needs to be published. There are other songs and shows which I could mention. Unfortunately, my father died in 1970, he is noted in Johnny Dankworth band in articles as a trombone player in his big band.

I would find it so helpful if you could be specific about what I have missed in the article. At this moment we are publishing and getting put on some of Tony Russell's compositions which have been uncovered in our family garage. He was very much a part of the early Jazz world and people do remember him today. I feel he deserves a Wikipedia page. Please, can you give me guidance?

Thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by TracyRussell (talk • contribs) 03:31, August 7, 2019 (UTC)

Hi, TracyRussell, please read WP:MUSICBIO, WP:PERSON and WP:GNG as they are the guidelines we follow to establish notability. Significant coverage, not just passing mention or being associated with notable people. GNG states: If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list.
"Significant coverage" addresses the topic directly and in detail, so that no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention, but it does not need to be the main topic of the source material. Did he write anything that made the charts, or was he included on an album that did? I've recruited a bit more help to see if we can help you find what's needed to pass. ^Atsme _Talk 📧 12:58, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

AfD merge

Hello Atsme, the deletion discussion was a consensus to merge the article. The article is required to be merged. If you disagree you have to try and build a consensus, until then the breed will be merged as per the consensus. See, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bulldogge Brasileiro. Aquatastetalk 18:28, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

The consensus at the AfD was to merge; however, what actually gets included requires consensus at the article. One thing is for certain, the sources are not acceptable, so you can start an RfC at the article TP for more input. ^Atsme _Talk 📧 18:45, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

Results of Photo Challenge

Top 3 Winners announced in the [2] Geology Photo Challenge. ^Atsme _Talk 📧 04:27, 2 August 2019 (UTC)

WOW! Fantastic. Should be first! Gareth Griffith-Jones (contribs) (talk) 09:33, 2 August 2019 (UTC)

Nothing to do with geology, but I've been admiring this photo in your picture carousel. I could look at it forever. Bishonen | talk 16:32, 2 August 2019 (UTC).

Thank you. You've got a good eye for horses, Bish. ^Atsme _Talk 📧 20:42, 2 August 2019 (UTC)

Fiery Furnace – that sounds like it could be a metaphor for something on-wiki! Anyway, congrats, and well-deserved! --Tryptofish (talk) 21:18, 2 August 2019 (UTC)

Indeed it does! Thank you, Tryp. ^Atsme _Talk 📧 21:42, 2 August 2019 (UTC)

Thanks

	Input
	~ you Know ~ Your pretty cool ~ ~mitch~ (talk) 05:02, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

Awwwe, thx Mitch...not easy for anyone to be in 103º temps. 🥵 ^Atsme _Talk 📧 00:37, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

Texas

You know what Virginians say about Texans?--MONGO (talk) 22:43, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

Absolutely - they wish they were Texans. 😂 ^Atsme _Talk 📧 22:44, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

LOL...nope...they say "you're welcome".--MONGO (talk) 22:49, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

Remember the Alamo!!?? 😂 Ok, THANK YOU, VIRGINIA!! A little before my time. ^Atsme _Talk 📧 23:37, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

Some dudes named Austin and Houston too.--MONGO (talk) 00:16, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

A cup of tea for you!

Thanks for supporting my recent albeit unsuccessful RfA. Your support was much appreciated. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:24, 30 August 2019 (UTC)

Something about dogs

Hi Atsme. A bit ago you invited me to assist in editing an article and/or guideline about a dog breed/pedigree? For the life of me I can't recall the specifics exactly. I can't find the talk page section in your archives. I should have replied right away or made a note about it because I got distracted and then it slipped my mind for awhile. If you still need assistance, I am happy to help, although I might need a little guidance. At the very least, I didn't want you to think that I just ignored it intentionally. Hope all is well with you. I also have not heard about it from montanabw either. But I know she has been extra busy with her book schedule. Happy Trails! dawnleelynn^(talk) 18:57, 8 September 2019 (UTC)

Hi, dawnleelynn - I believe it was an invitation to join WP:WikiProject Dogs. ^Atsme _Talk 📧 12:08, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

Ah, ok. You know I think I will join dogs and cats. I never thought of it but they are both very interesting to me in my real life. And I have always had cats my whole life. And sometimes dogs. :)) dawnleelynn^(talk) 21:55, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

Would you be able to look into the state of an OTRS ticket?

I see you have OTRS access. Would you be able to look into the state of Ticket#2019090910008764? https://ticket.wikimedia.org/otrs/index.pl?Action=AgentTicketZoom&TicketNumber=2019090910008764 ? This should be about releasing this picture

that I thought I had properly explained to The Relevant Parties how to release for Wikipedia use, but OTRS first wanted additional info, which The Relevant Parties sent, but haven't heard anything from OTRS since the 11th, which is almost 2 weeks now. --GRuban (talk) 20:13, 24 September 2019 (UTC)

GRuban - yes, will check to see what else is needed if anything. ^Atsme _Talk 📧 20:19, 24 September 2019 (UTC)

Er... OTRS template on the image? --GRuban (talk) 22:10, 24 September 2019 (UTC)

Slave driver! 😆 Y ^Atsme _Talk 📧 23:00, 24 September 2019 (UTC)

Thank you! --GRuban (talk) 14:09, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Staffordshire Bull Terrier

The article Staffordshire Bull Terrier you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Staffordshire Bull Terrier for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of FunkMonk -- FunkMonk (talk) 15:01, 24 September 2019 (UTC)

Thank you, FunkMonk. It was one endeavor we won't soon forget. Your patience, understanding and the fine work you did as a reviewer is much appreciated. I hope all who participated will proudly share the GA achievement on their UTP. ^Atsme _Talk 📧 15:30, 24 September 2019 (UTC)

Welcome, I look forward to working with you again under less heated circumstances! FunkMonk (talk) 14:05, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

I'll be sure to time my future GA noms for Fall and Winter. 😁 ^Atsme _Talk 📧 14:28, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard. Legobot (talk) 04:26, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

A survey to improve the community consultation outreach process

Hello!

The Wikimedia Foundation is seeking to improve the community consultation outreach process for Foundation policies, and we are interested in why you didn't participate in a recent consultation that followed a community discussion you’ve been part of.

Please fill out this short survey to help us improve our community consultation process for the future. It should only take about three minutes.

The privacy policy for this survey is here. This survey is a one-off request from us related to this unique topic.

Thank you for your participation, Kbrown (WMF) 10:44, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

Discussion at Talk:Sharyl Attkisson#RfC on self-sourcing

 You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Sharyl Attkisson#RfC on self-sourcing. Including you as a previous RfC discussion participant on/at Talk:Sharyl Attkisson and/or as a contributing editor to Sharyl Attkisson. Doug Mehus T·C 14:55, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

Thomas McGuane bibliography

I didn't delete it. I really don't see such bibliographies as promotional, except in the most general sense that any article about anything that might be seen by someone as good or interesting will inevitably have a certain tendency to promote it. But it is true that an over-detailed bibliography on a very minor author might seem excessive and promotional -- but this wasn't really excessive nor is he really minor. Anyway, when I've raised that argument over the years for what I consider ridiculously expanded bibliographies, I have never once obtained consensus. , DGG ( talk ) 23:52, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

Ok. One day the light will come on and I'll feel more comfortable about when to go with a G11 vs other options. A merge has been proposed since the biblio is already in the BLP. ^Atsme _Talk 📧 03:20, 11 October 2019 (UTC)

I knew it!!!

REST as it relates to brain activity (according to a Harvard study) may be linked to a longer lifespan. Does it suggest that we eat more chocolate, smoke more happy cigs, spend more time fishing - of course!!! What else? ^Atsme _Talk 📧 19:55, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

Well, you should know never to trust anyone from Harvard. But more time fishing? EEK! That might not lengthen the fishes' lives. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:26, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

But if the fish are heeding the advice, they'll never get caught. ^Atsme _Talk 📧 20:29, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

Well, you should know that no one from Harvard ever heeds anyone else's advice! --Tryptofish (talk) 20:34, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

• lol* I only know of one person like that - perhaps I'll meet more during the Boston conference. Lucky me. ^Atsme _Talk 📧 20:36, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

~ my wife ~

Atsme~ Good morning ~ Just to let you know I will not be making it to Boston ~ my wife ~ Cindy ~ passed away unexpectedly last Saturday, ~mitch~ (talk) 13:38, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

OMG, I am sooo sorry to hear that, Mitch. My heartfelt sympathies to you and your family. ^Atsme _Talk 📧 13:43, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

Deepest condolences. --GRuban (talk) 14:00, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

Yes, sorry for your loss, Mitchell.--MONGO (talk) 03:46, 25 October 2019 (UTC)

A reminder

As Samuel Langhorne Clemens once said, “Never argue with an idiot. They will drag you down to their level and beat you with experience.”--MONGO (talk) 03:47, 25 October 2019 (UTC)

+1 PackMecEng (talk) 04:22, 25 October 2019 (UTC)

Question about AfC

I figure you (and probably some of your talk page watchers) know more about AfC than I do, and I have a question about an odd situation that I just ran into. I've been helping a new editor work on Draft:Perfect Day (company). It was initially declined as being too promotional, and another editor and I have been helping fix those problems, and it is currently waiting for re-review. (I'm not asking here for anyone to review it!) But here's the odd situation. Another editor (someone previously uninvolved in the page, and who seems to have had a somewhat questionable editing history) has copy-pasted the draft into mainspace, so we currently have both an article and a draft of the same article. That seems to me to defy the whole reason for AfC. I don't see any CSD criteria that cover this situation. For the time being, I've PRODed the mainspace article, but I'm really unsure whether that was the best way to handle it. Any advice? Thanks. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:31, 26 October 2019 (UTC)

Tryp, the first issue is the creator's COI, which was properly disclosed but you probably know they should not be editing articles where there's a COI. I'm not sure about the editor who made the bold move - it doesn't appear that they have a COI so in an odd way, it was a helpful move. It appears the editor who moved the page works in AfC from time to time. My recommendation would be to have the editor who created the draft request a speedy delete as the creator. Go ahead and remove the prod and leave the article in mainspace. The next review will be by a NPP, and they will either mark it as reviewed, (possibly tag it if there are any issues), or they will send it back to draft or recommend deletion. Hope that helps. ^Atsme _Talk 📧 03:59, 27 October 2019 (UTC)

Thanks so much for the reply. Something that occurred to me later is that the copy-paste has the effect of obliterating the edit history, obliterating the edits by everyone who came before. For that reason, I think that the only reasonable way to move into mainspace would be to do a housekeeping-only delete, and then move, not copy, the draft into mainspace. But I think there needs to be a consensus that the draft is ready for mainspace, and I don't see that yet. You are of course correct about the COI issues, but I've been guiding the editor through this, and they have indeed made all the proper disclosures. Policies and guidelines don't say that a COI editor may not edit about it at all, only that they have to disclose, so I think that deleting the draft would be a bad idea, also because of the edit history problem, and that CSD criterion (as creator) can no longer apply because other editors have also edited it. So I think I'm going to leave the PROD as is. But nonetheless I really do appreciate your feedback – thanks! – because it helps me feel better that I wasn't simply missing some procedure that applies automatically to drafts, which I had been concerned about. --Tryptofish (talk) 01:07, 28 October 2019 (UTC)

Tryp - WP:REPAIR in lieu of prod. Tag the copy/paste article with {{histmerge}}. It's not unusual for a draft to be cut/pasted - we even have a page for it. ^Atsme _Talk 📧 12:52, 29 October 2019 (UTC)

Thanks again, but subsequent events are making it pretty close to moot, whether we histmerge or delete-move, as the editor who made the copy-paste is now working with other editors and is not challenging the PROD. So I think we are moving towards a resolution that will be OK with all involved. And I really do see value in having the AfC review happen on its own time course before we decide whether or not to go to mainspace. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:00, 29 October 2019 (UTC)

Okey dokey...or is it okie dokie -- Y ^Atsme _Talk 📧 22:02, 29 October 2019 (UTC)

Well, in the end, I was wrong and you were right. But I think nonetheless that everything worked out well, ultimately. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:56, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

Poopers - well, that’s one of those times I would have welcomed being wrong but as long as it worked out for you, I’m happy. As my Dad used say...”It will all come out in the wash.” 👍🏻 ^Atsme _Talk 📧 22:50, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

And let's all hope that the poop comes out in the wash! (Sorry!) --Tryptofish (talk) 19:05, 2 November 2019 (UTC)

Response to those who have asked me a question

Time to close - big week ahead. Atsme Talk 📧 04:08, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

Starship.paint - re: your question - and those editors (whose user names I can’t recall at the moment) who are expecting me to answer your questions - I don’t want you to think I am purposely being rude by not answering but I am feeling the weight of oppression under the very profound and rather confusing draconian measures that are being imposed on me and other editors in the AP2 topic area, not to mention the HOUNDING, and what I consider an abuse of authority and POV creep under the guise of AE. The pending threat has had a chilling effect as it stifles diversity, free thought and the civil exchange of ideas. Such measures are the exact opposite of everything that helps us achieve NPOV through consensus and chips away at the core of what makes WP the sum of all knowledge. I am currently focusing my time and energy on happy thoughts, and the upcoming Boston WikiConference, which is only a week away. I may try to help out a bit at NPP, AfC and Commons if time allows. Happy editing! Atsme Talk 📧 10:48, 30 October 2019 (UTC) No offense taken, Atsme. Please take all the time you need. I hope the conference goes smoothly. starship.paint (talk) 05:16, 31 October 2019 (UTC) Starship.paint, I found a bit of spare time to respond to your question and provide RS that support the leaker angle, NPR, Politico, Rolling Stone (the latter not the best but as a 3rd source, it works ok). The main reason I brought it up was to demonstrate why I felt RECENTISM was at play; i.e., everything is still in a state of flux, and as such, we should not rush to judgement, especially considering that we are dealing with a stark partisan divide, and the POV of the House majority is what is now being published. The final decision is up to the Senate if the case advances, and considering we are dealing with a political divide, the Senate outcome is somewhat predictable but nothing is for certain; therefore, we cannot say in good conscience that either side is a fringe view. (Can't remember where I saw mention of the latter). Anyway, thank you for your patience and I hope I've brought a little more clarity to my earlier statement. Happy editing! Atsme Talk 📧 15:20, 2 November 2019 (UTC) Atsme, thanks for getting back to me. I'm afraid your sources do not support the leaker angle. Source #1 (NPR) quotes Donald Trump in saying the whistleblower isn't a whistleblower at all. Trump then says there may be somebody else, a leaker or spy, feeding information to the Trump whistleblower. So firstly, Trump wasn't calling the whistleblower a leaker, he was referring to someone else. Second, NPR doesn't call the Trump whistleblower a leaker, in fact NPR calls the Trump whistleblower a whistleblower 15 times. Source #2 (Politico) states that five whistleblowers in 2007 had officials at the inspector general’s office itself apparently identified them to the Department of Justice as potential leakers. It then states Chelsea Manning, who leaked reams of documents to WikiLeaks, former CIA employee Jeffrey Sterling, who was accused of leaking documents. Politico calls the Trump whistleblower a whistleblower 5 times, in fact its whole article is discussing whistleblowers. Source #3, (Rolling Stone), an opinion piece, argues that the Trump whistleblower isn't a real whistleblower because of the lack of backlash. But then, the piece doesn't say the Trump whistleblower is a leaker either. The only mention of leaks is this statement: "It took me and my lawyers a full year to get [the media] to stop calling me ‘CIA Leaker John Kirakou". Therefore, all 3 sources do not support your statement. starship.paint (talk) 01:48, 3 November 2019 (UTC) No problem - I thought I answered your question which was basically to back up with RS the whistle-blower, who may actually be a leaker and not a whistle blower. I provided RS that led to my understanding of it but keep in mind that I also said everything is still in a state of flux. It appears that you wanted me to cite RS as if the material was to be included in the article itself rather than simply discussing the merits of it on the TP. My focus is on the "may actually be" scenario that is currently surrounding the mystery whistleblower. We don't know who it is beyond media allegations - at least not to my knowledge. We have not seen any transcripts of the testimony, either. If you want more RS that actually state the words, they are available but keep in mind, it is still unconfirmed/unverifiable material: LA Times quoting Sen John Cornyn: “Is it a whistleblower or leaker?” asked Sen. John Cornyn (R-Texas), a member of the Senate Intelligence Committee. “I don’t know which. I just don’t think we know enough information.” Mother Jones (RS??) states: White House officials have already attempted to paint the whistleblower as a politically-motivated leaker, despite Maguire’s contention to House Intelligence Committee members during a Thursday hearing that he does not know the person’s identity. Press Herald states: Asked about Cornyn’s dismissal of the whistleblower as a “leaker,” Sen. Chris Murphy, D-Conn., responded with exasperation. I'm of the mind that "when in doubt, leave it out" or use in-text attribution per our PAGs if it must be included, or we can simply wait until the published material can be corroborated by factual documents/transcripts/evidence. Atsme Talk 📧 03:38, 3 November 2019 (UTC) Atsme, you provided RS that Republicans are calling the Trump whistleblower a leaker. But the thing is that, the reliable sources themselves are calling the Trump whistleblower a whistleblower. I thought you had RS that called the Trump whistleblower a leaker, it seems that you do not. Our mission is to reflect reliable sources in Wiki-voice. My point is that reliable sources themselves don't seem to leave much doubt whether the Trump whistleblower is a whistleblower. starship.paint (talk) 06:25, 3 November 2019 (UTC) Yes, SP, I did. We are dealing with partisan politics. Democrats have been pushing for Trump’s impeachment since he was elected, and his administration has consistently denied each charge, up to and including the Mueller investigation, all of which have been defused. Unfortunately, Trump keeps providing his opposition with more ammunition. As editors, we must remain neutral, even when RS are not. We present facts without the “spin”, and include all relevant views. If the material is controversial or contains value laden labels, we use in-text attribution; we don’t censor material simply because we don’t agree with it, and we don’t advocate for or against a political position. With the latter in mind, we would typically include what the opposition says as published in RS, (Trump said, “xxxx”, or Cornyn said, “xxxx”) using in-text attribution. Again, I am more inclined to adhere more closely to RECENTISM - a wait and see position when there is an over-abundance of opinion/speculation/allegations, especially when there are ongoing investigations. Quality RS typically publish all views; however, new trends in contemporary media (opinion intertwined with journalism) make it difficult to distinguish between the two. Jimbo actually spoke to the latter rather well - I share the same view and included his quote near the top of my UTP, see Politics, presidents and NPOV. 😉 Atsme Talk 📧 14:45, 3 November 2019 (UTC) Neutrality doesn't mean WP:FALSEBALANCE. We reflect the majority viewpoint with more weight than the minority viewpoint. Consistently denying some thing doesn't make it false. Among the ammunition you mention are effectively admissions - here's what the Trump White House has said [3]. starship.paint (talk) 01:55, 4 November 2019 (UTC) When the accused denies partisan-based allegations, it is not a minority view. See WP:PUBLICFIGURE - If the subject has denied such allegations, that should also be reported. Monday is almost upon us and I have important matters that need my full attention tomorrow, so I’m going to hat this discussion and call it a night. Happy editing! Atsme Talk 📧 04:08, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

arbitrary break to separate unrelated discussion below

Atsme, You need to adopt the wording I use in my field...."I can tell but then I'd have to.....you"--MONGO (talk) 16:18, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

Ha! And whose mind is failing to such a degree they would even imagine such words coming from me? Never mind...I already know your answer...😂. ^Atsme _Talk 📧 17:49, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

Have a good time at the conference! --Tryptofish (talk) 22:10, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

Thx, Tryp - the hardest part of the trip is figuring out what to pack!! 💃 ^Atsme _Talk 📧 22:22, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

Dont forget to throw beer at them as I would.--MONGO (talk) 05:37, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

You are out of control, Mr. MONGO. 😂 I will be among lovely wiki friends, having a wonderful time as I did last year...and learning...and hopefully proving to be helpful in some manner. Chances are, they'll have me serving the beer...on a silver tray. It is MIT, after all. And not far from there is Hahvahd. I am aglow with excitement. ^Atsme _Talk 📧 16:52, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

O I have many issues. Firstly, I cannot make any friends. I managed to be thrown out of two usertalkpages in ONE day! I was merely trying to be friendly and they just upped and banned me for nothing!!!! As far as this MIT and Hahvahd stuff...are those bars? I heard Boston has decent pubs.--MONGO (talk) 03:32, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

Yes, they are. The booze is good, but the clientele are insufferable. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:06, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

Tryp, does your response somehow tie-in to the discussion above in the section titled, "I knew it!!!" ^Atsme _Talk 📧 22:19, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

--Tryptofish (talk) 22:24, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

Just a little pub-licity, I presume...^Atsme _Talk 📧 22:32, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/GRuban

Pudeo is not talking about the harassment incident, but about the email incident where GRuban yesterday revealed the private content of an email without permission in this RfA. SilkTork (talk) 10:24, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

Thank you, SilkTork. I wondered about that, and my initial thought from a female perspective is why on earth would someone who believed they were being stalked send a private email to the stalker? One other thing - if you were accused of stalking when all you were doing was collaborative editing, would you not be inclined to let people know you received an email from your accuser? Isn't that why we have the Ygm template, to let people know? ArbCom once told me we can share the gist of an email but not the exact wording. I've seen one exaggeration over the email already - referred to as doxxing. Truth be known, what we have is an exemplary editor whose words were taken out of context and exaggerated over an incident that took place nearly 2 years ago. WP is an open collaboration environment and we all have watchlists. Yes, I understand private emails - and this is an incident where a longtime admin shared a quote from a private exchange. That is not what GRuban did - the circumstances are much different. GRuban has been under attack by that same editor and his good name is being drug through the mud as a result, and it's just not fair. ^Atsme _Talk 📧 10:47, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

It's just a FYI. I'm not here to argue for or against either the harassment or the email issue. I think people should and will hold their own views, and should and will vote accordingly. It was just that your response was in regard to the harassment issue, while Pudeo was talking about the email issue. SilkTork (talk) 10:54, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

Thx again, SilkTork - it’s early morning here before coffee and I’m not thinking 100% so when I went back to correct it, I broke the number sequence. Can you fix it? Apologies! ^Atsme _Talk 📧 11:33, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

Atsme, maybe you wanted to see if the person had truly learned and would appreciate the opportunity to apologize but didn't want to reach out themselves to you because you'd told them not to contact you. Maybe you thought they still didn't realize just how badly something had affected you, and you hoped they'd take it to heart when you described all you'd been through and how it had affected you. Maybe you hoped you had misinterpreted their behavior and were trying to give them another chance before you voted on their RfA. There could be any number of reasons a woman would reach out to a man who had done something to hurt her. People are complicated. And the question of why on earth a womean would do this -- forgive me -- would, if I were that woman, be saying to me, "It can't have been that bad if you're willing to email him." Which is one of the reasons it isn't fair for someone to even mention the email, much less what was in it: because lots of people who have never been in those shoes don't understand how it feels to walk that mile and will make assumptions about what it means. I get that you've seen only good things from someone you like and respect a lot, and I'm very open to the idea that this is a person who is very well-intentioned and has made some bad moves through simple cluelessness. But I fear the person who has been affected the most and the worst by all of this is going to end up revictimized by the community. --valereee (talk) 19:12, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

My sincerest apologies if I came across as unsympathetic, Valereee; that was not my intent. I have been bullied and stalked on WP, and in RL, and the latter is far more chilling than the former. My initial response was to seek help on WP but in RL, I also carry protection. It is possible that, over the internet, I might be inclined to be more bold and perhaps even confrontational toward a suspected stalker than I would be in RL (predator-kind), and that’s where I’m having difficulty understanding how anyone could see an apologetic and kind editor such as GRuban as a stalker. My perception may be a bit more sensitive toward the terminology because not that long ago, I truly believed I was being gaslighted (in the WP sense), and sought help to make it stop. In the interim, the editor apologized and we were just beginning to collaborate when an admin took action against me over my use of the term. Come to find out, the admin misinterpreted WP:GASLIGHTING and thought it to mean Gaslighting. Admittedly, I have been in a state of flux trying to understand how best to respond and what exactly I should do about it, but that’s all I can say about it. I saw a parallel between the term stalker and gaslighting because both are based on one’s definition of the term. Are we using “stalking” in the predator sense, or stalking in the WP (talk page stalker) sense, the latter of which we all are/have been at one time or another by the sheer existence of our watchlists. As an aside, the opportunity came along for me to create a humorous template to replace the stalker template; thus, we now have ^{( Buttinsky)}. ^Atsme _Talk 📧 20:54, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

Hey, I resemble that template. :) --valereee (talk) 21:03, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

Just to show appreciation ...

... here's a piece of Sachertorte to thank you for all the good sense that you impart.
All the best!
Gareth Griffith-Jones (contribs) (talk) 16:28, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

And here's a charming seventh-century Anglo-Saxon ornament from me. Martinevans123 (talk) 16:33, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

You never fail to make me smile, Martinevans! ^Atsme _Talk 📧12:46, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

Looks a bit deflated, doesn't he. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:12, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

Where to get a 6" Italian B.M.T

How to get there.

This editor is overwhelmed by the wonderful surprises. You’ve filled my day with warmth and sunshine. Thank you, Gareth and Martinevans. Your kindness is very much appreciated. I will add that the WCNA-Boston has been absolutely amazing!! I’ve learned quite a bit while here, and have engaged in some enlightening discussions with many wonderful Wikipedians, some of whom I met at last year’s conference in Columbus, OH. I even learned about the subway - most importantly, that it’s not a 6” Italian B.M.T. on toasted white bread. Oh, and when I leave MIT, I will attend Harvard. When all is said and done, I will say farewell to the hallowed halls of Harvard with a well-earned degree in difficulty. ^Atsme _Talk 📧 18:59, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

Good for you Atsme! Great to hear you've had a good time there. Your sincerity, good-humour and enthusiasm always shine through! Just remember, there's "no rest for the wicked" .... nor for the Wikipedian. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:07, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

Phew! Acronyms flourish. I had to Google BMT ... thought it stood for Bone Marrow Transplant ... I am so pleased you enjoyed yourself so much. Gareth Griffith-Jones (contribs) (talk) 11:40, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

😀!! Apologies, Gareth...I didn’t think to prepend the acronym with “Italian” so it would have been easier to find in the event some readers were unfamiliar with the menus at Subway. It’s fixed now. ^Atsme _Talk 📧 12:44, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

Strictly a BLT man myself. Martinevans123 (talk) 12:48, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

Some years ago, on April 1, I proposed renaming WP:BLP to WP:BLT. (Unfortunately, I failed to provide a reliable sauce.) Seems to me that, since then, the average WP sense of humor has unfortunately given way to increased grumpiness. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:17, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

😂 ^Atsme _Talk 📧 04:18, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

R&ROFL. LOL!!! Martinevans123 (talk) 13:56, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

Welcome back!

Sounds like you enjoyed the Wiki Conference; I'm glad! I watched all of your film above. (I wonder, does she have prior experience in production?? Sure looks like a professional job.) And it's nice that you also got to the MFA and NEAQ (if you look very closely at the latter, that's me swimming by, along with the Hippocampus). --Tryptofish (talk) 21:23, 18 November 2019 (UTC)

Thanks, Tryp - I did!! It was quite the adventure!! I've got several more aquarium pictures to upload so I'll be busy for a while. ^Atsme _Talk 📧 00:01, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

New message from Winged Blades of Godric

Hello, Atsme. You have new messages at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Eisenhower Fellowships.
Message added 16:48, 23 November 2019 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

∯WBG^converse 16:48, 23 November 2019 (UTC)

I said what needed to be said, and I'm not going back to that AfD. I cast my iVote, added a few brief thoughts about a notable subject in a poorly written/poorly sourced article. The NYTimes is clearly a RS and it establishes historic significance. The others, I just grabbed because they're academic notices and a good place to start a search for quality RS. I would think newspaper archives would be a good place to start. I'm spending the bulk of my time on Commons, and occasionally checking in here for NPP, AfC, AfD. ^Atsme _Talk 📧

You never did...

You never did clarify what conspiracy theory you were referring to. Guy (help!) 18:02, 20 November 2019 (UTC)

Guy, this is what happens to me when I attempt to engage in civil discussion. My apologies for not elaborating further - I'm not intentionally being rude - but until the issues that plague my ability to think and speak freely without concerns of a ban hammer suddenly and without warning ending my participation, I've decided to spend a bit more time on dog & horse articles, at NPP and AfC, and on Commons where my work is utilized and my input is appreciated. Quite frankly, I don't even recall our discussion and prefer to not be reminded of it as I have long since adopted WP:IDGAF as my MO. Can you believe it's already Wednesday!!? 🐫🐪 ^Atsme _Talk 📧 21:49, 20 November 2019 (UTC)

I came here just to say that I was rather shocked to find you were under any form of editing restriction. I consider you to be one of the best-tempered users on the site, and I think the hostile treatment you received runs counter to pretty much everything I would've expected.
Additionally, seeing this comment made me instinctively cringe. I still have trouble believing that my single addition of content sourced by tweet would have such long-lasting effects. I still feel rather unintentionally responsible for Wumbolo's article ban. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 03:26, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for your thoughtful reply, MJL - it is much appreciated. I cannot speak to the mentioned topic but I can say that I hope you continue being true to yourself.

One who faces and who fears the right things and from the right motive, in the right way and at the right time, possesses character worthy of our trust and admiration. – Aristotle

Happy editing, MJL! ^Atsme _Talk 📧 12:05, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

Atsme, that doesn't answer the question though. Guy (help!) 20:53, 22 November 2019 (UTC)

December events with WIR

December 2019, Volume 5, Issue 12, Numbers 107, 108, 144, 145, 146, 147 Check out what's happening in December at Women in Red... Online events: New: Parliamentarians / Classical musicians / 2019 deaths / Geofocus: Arab world Continuing: Suffrage / #1day1woman / Stub Contest Editor feedback: Check out the conversation regarding: Disappearing articles Help us plan our future events at the Ideas Cafe Join the conversations on our talkpage Social media: Facebook / Instagram / Pinterest / Twitter Stay in touch: Join WikiProject Women in Red / Opt-out of notifications

--Megalibrarygirl (talk) 18:42, 25 November 2019 (UTC) via MassMessaging

Wikipedia:New pages patrol/School/New page patrol peer review cohort November 2019

Hey Atsme, just checking to see if you were going to participate in this? Onel5969 ^{TT me} 18:45, 28 November 2019 (UTC)

I would participate, Onel5969 but I’m having a bit of trouble figuring out what to do first. I get that I’m supposed to list 3 articles I reviewed but the lead sentence states: ... each participant will review two other 5 of another participant's recent patrols. Perhaps it should be review 2 out of 5 of another...??? Any clarification you can provide will prove most helpful. ^Atsme _Talk 📧 20:30, 28 November 2019 (UTC)

Hi there. The way it looks is that you select 3 articles from those you have reviewed, then two other editors select another article each. After the five have been selected, the other two editors review all 5 and leave comments. You also select an article which has been reviewed by Barkeep and Rosguill, and add it to their lists, then review all 5 of the articles of both of those other editors. Let me know if that doesn't make sense.Onel5969 ^{TT me} 20:48, 28 November 2019 (UTC)

ArbCom 2019 election voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2019 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 on Monday, 2 December 2019. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2019 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:14, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

My dear WikiFriend, Tryptofish, calls the Wikilink to his Arb selections self-promotion, and that's ok even if I don't see it quite the same way; rather, I consider it sharing knowledge and, in a roundabout way, it helps others. Put simply, it provides a circular benefit: User:Atsme/ACE2019. ^Atsme _Talk 📧 12:17, 19 November 2019 (UTC) ^{adusted per following comment 18:58, 19 November 2019 (UTC)}

Actually, I was just self-promoting (on my user talk page) the existence of my guide, as opposed to the candidates I support. And everyone knows that my recommendations are far, far wiser than yours. Not to help you misinform the community any further, but you might, perhaps, also want to list yours at Template:ACE2019. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:25, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

^^^Far wiser = wise guy.^^^ Now that is shameless self-promotion. 😂 Thx for the tip, regardless of the wrapper. For some reason, I thought just adding {{ACE2019}} to the top of my candidate page was all that was needed. Maybe Enterprisey (one of my wise arb picks) can make that happen. ^Atsme _Talk 📧 18:58, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

So much for free and fair elections. Oh, and I said far, far wiser. So that makes me a wise, wise fish. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:31, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

Ok, Be not afraid of greatness: some are born great, some achieve greatness and some have greatness thrust upon them. I feel thrusted upon. 😂 ^Atsme _Talk 📧 20:02, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

I'll avert my eyes! --Tryptofish (talk) 20:05, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

^Atsme _Talk 📧 20:09, 19 November 2019 (UTC)