User talk:Atsme/Archive 39

Archive 35

←

Archive 37

Archive 38

Archive 39

Archive 40

Archive 41

→

Archive 45

Your GA nomination of Robert H. Boyle

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Robert H. Boyle you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Cwmhiraeth -- Cwmhiraeth (talk) 17:22, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Robert H. Boyle

The article Robert H. Boyle you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Robert H. Boyle for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already appeared on the main page as a "Did you know" item, or as a bold link under "In the News" or in the "On This Day" prose section, you can nominate it within the next seven days to appear in DYK. Bolded names with dates listed at the bottom of the "On This Day" column do not affect DYK eligibility. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Cwmhiraeth -- Cwmhiraeth (talk) 13:02, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

Congratulations! BD2412 T 14:21, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

A question

Editors who are elected to serve on ArbCom possess certain qualities that have garnered the community's trust, in part because they have demonstrated sound judgment, fairness and neutrality. Are you absolutely sure about that? Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 00:59, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

Kudz, all I can say:

We are never sure
that information is pure
because trust is earned
and I am concerned
that what we know
isn't always so.
Burma-shave

^Atsme _Talk 📧 23:14, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

A Life On Our Planet

My former role as an executive producer, etc. was more like David Attenborough Lite - I'm nowhere near his age (93yo) and I worked behind the camera, focused more on the US & the underwater world, but there is still a lot I can relate to in his adventures, and the educational element in his films; i.e., I call it didatic entertainment. I just watched his Netflix special - David Attenborough: "A Life On Our Planet" - trailer here - and was inspired to recommend it to my (talk page watcher). ^Atsme _Talk 📧 18:08, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

WTF? You're nowhere near as young as he is?^[hyperbole] --Tryptofish (talk) 19:02, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

😂 Ok, it could be what you said...depending on one's perspective, pessimist or optimist, which then brings up either , or so what?" ^Atsme _Talk 📧 20:18, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

I noticed you've been less active lately. I hope everything is alright. In these crazy times, I want you to know I'm very glad that we're on the same team. Cheers! BD2412 T 00:03, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for checking on me - I'm staying healthy. I just finished one Netflix marathon and started another - Schitts Creek. 😂 I've been making a few random comments here and there but mostly taking a break to recharge my batteries. I was very disappointed in the process of rating sources at RS/P and RS/N, got fed up with identity politics, and became frustrated over the list of fatal dog attacks because it is one policy vio after another. I needed to get away from it for a while and clear my head. Hope you're doing well, and getting through unscathed with all the sticky stuff you have to deal with as an admin. Be safe in RL, too!! ^Atsme _Talk 📧 00:41, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

Glad you're well (and taking it easy). I am pretending not to be an admin for a while, for much the same reasons as you're watching Schitt's Creek. BD2412 T 18:19, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

This is what it's like to be up Schitts Creek without a paddle...and with the most appropriate section title. 😂 ^Atsme _Talk 📧 19:52, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

What would we do without it?

Photography, that is...Small World Photo Awards. I was thinking maybe some of our WP editors who may be interested in hippocampal neurons would like to see them, but then, the images are so fascinating, I wanted to share them with my (talk page watcher)s.

Oh, and speaking of brains, I highly recommend The Social Dilemma. I've seen it twice now, and it validates so much of what I've tried to communicate over the past few years regarding our approach to opinion journalism, speculation, conspiracy theories, and media bias. My May 2020 Signpost Op-ed addressed some of it. Marketing 101 is still at the heart of it but with highly advanced tech solutions to marketing that involve shady manipulation and mind-altering techniques (subliminal data mining that produces the sought-after demographics). It also validates my concerns over the flawed rating system at RS/P (an unvetted, conflicting supplement to our RS guideline) that so many editors are taking far too seriously when they should be considering the actual RS guidelines, context on a case by case basis, NPOV and V policies. When did we start accepting essays & unvetted supplements over our long standing, tried & true PAGs? And I'm just as guilty as the next guy. Essays are fun to read, and a high percentage are truly helpful, but we should not blindly accept essays/supplements at face value, and certainly not in lieu of our PAGs. Atsme 💬 📧 18:02, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

Jimbo's talk page

Good writing. Seems to befit a journalist who has to put out quality work under a deadline. Bob K31416 (talk) 22:36, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

Thanks, Bob K31416 - I added a bit more information relative to choosing RS, and now I'm moving on to enjoy another hobby that is far less stressful and brings a great deal more fun into my life while I'm still mentally & physically able to enjoy paradise. 🏝😎🍹🤿 📸 Atsme 💬 📧 12:34, 22 October 2020 (UTC)

Talk:Hunter Biden

Hey, Atsme, I wonder if you'd consider rewording 'your false allegations...and btw, they're adding up' in pursuit of trying to raise the level of discussion at that page? Please realize I'm not saying this rises to the level of personal attack. I don't believe it does. I'm literally only trying to just thread the needle here, and trying to do it fairly is requiring me to reach for my 2.75 cheaters. —valereee (talk) 14:07, 28 October 2020 (UTC)

Hi, Valereee - looking at the edit history, I can see that he reworded his comment and removed another while I was still editing mine. I would not have known if you hadn't advised me, so thank you. I went ahead and removed it per your request.

Adding: His unsupported aspersion: Your consistent disagreement with consensus on source reliability notwithstanding..., is a false allegation and undeserved criticism that attacks my character as a responsible editor. It's a dig at me, and it needs to be addressed because I've learned from my past experiences that he can be relentless. Valereee, his aspersions actually do cause harm to editors because those diffs are used in a fabricated demonstration of "long term patterns", all taken out of context. For example, the included diff will be the actual aspersion, not actual evidence of the behavior. It's gaming via out of context diffs and the omission of substantive evidence. Also see WP:POV railroad. Atsme 💬 📧 15:23, 28 October 2020 (UTC)

Hm. I'm not sure I agree it's a dig. Let me ponder on it a while, but at first glance, in context, that wording struck me as a fairly neutral and not-uncivil statement of long-term disagreement in how a particular policy is interpreted rather than as a casting of aspersions. I'll try to watch for bludgeoning. —valereee (talk) 15:57, 28 October 2020 (UTC)

Trolls

The best response to an internet troll is usually no response. Don't feed the trolls--MONGO (talk) 06:33, 28 October 2020 (UTC)

I spewed my drink!!

Too, too funny!!!! Atsme 💬 📧 19:14, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

OMG, those are great! —valereee (talk) 19:27, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

October harvest

thank you --Gerda Arendt (talk) 23:02, 30 October 2020 (UTC)

You're welcome as always, sweet Gerda. I'm at a loss for what I did to deserve it. Atsme 💬 📧 11:59, 31 October 2020 (UTC)

you wished RexxS well ;) - for treats (pumpkins, popcorn) see my talk today --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:44, 31 October 2020 (UTC)

❤️ Atsme 💬 📧 11:21, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

Appeal

There is Template:Arbitration_enforcement_appeal you should use anyhow you should show the good work that you did in that year and I am sure you did a lot --Shrike (talk) 16:17, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

• Thank you, Shrike!! It's Saturday morning - the morning after Friday night? What can I say? Partying is not exclusive to the 30 & under crowd. Atsme 💬 📧 16:24, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

Interwiki links

What makes you keep removing from military of Hong Kong an inter-wiki link to a corresponding article in another language version of Wikipedia? Or just that you keep removing it because you don't know what that is? 210.0.147.24 (talk) 10:30, 25 December 2020 (UTC)

Merry Christmas

File:Christmas tree in field.jpg	Merry Christmas Atsme
	Hi Atsme, I wish you and your family a very Merry Christmas and a very happy and prosperous New Year, Thanks for all your contributions to Wikipedia this past year, like this tree, you are a light shining in the darkness. Onel5969 TT me 12:07, 22 December 2019 (UTC)

New lesson - never assume

I was indifferently teasing someone I thought was a WikiFriend, but I was obviously wrong. Wow. I wouldn't have teased someone who lost a game. Know what I mean? Atsme 💬 📧 19:46, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

I still am your Wiki-Friend, but this is still a topic that sits on fraught nerves. If I didn't think it was funny, you can imagine that others would find useful diffs to use against you. And I didn't think it was funny.

But thank you for clarifying that you meant it in a friendly way. I apologize for not getting that. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:50, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

😢 sniff, sniff...ok. 🤧 I feel better. But it's pretty obvious that he walked away with it. I thought you knew me well enough by now to know that I tease about all politicians - and I take it more than I give it. Hell, my life on Bonaire is all about celebrating and living life to the fullest, and I'm planning on celebrating this announcement, thinking about where I'm going tonight and how much fun I'm going to have...somewhere. Atsme 💬 📧 20:02, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

Naked truth coming out of her well to shame mankind

OK, there's some sniff sniff going on on both sides now. (It could have been worse. I briefly considered "Good riddance motherfucker" instead of "Facts still matter". Seriously, that's my mental state, and I really did, briefly, think that. But it's important that I didn't go with my first impulse.) But Bonaire must surely be lovely. I own (inherited) a place on Sanibel Island Florida, with a gulf-side beach view, and I haven't been there in a long time (using it as an income property). Have a Pina Colada on me! --Tryptofish (talk) 20:10, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

That Pina Colada will have a much better effect if it's in you, although on you does have its possibilities. 😂 Atsme 💬 📧 20:16, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

You do remember what plant I grow, right? 😂 --Tryptofish (talk) 20:33, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

Was that a roach I saw by your aquarium? 😂 🚬 Atsme 💬 📧 20:35, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

There's a reason why marine aquarists are called reefers. 😂 🚬 --Tryptofish (talk) 20:38, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

Tryptofish, Wow. Using a personal joke on a user talk page as an example of wrong think to try and stop an unrelated topic ban appeal. What a petty and shitty thing to do to a friend. PackMecEng (talk) 19:06, 10 November 2020 (UTC)

Atsme, I know you must be pissed at me, and I understand that. But I'm not pissed at you, and I'm prepared to go back to normal whenever, if ever, you want to. And that painting of me is really nice. It captures just what I look like, whip and all. Further information here. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:26, 11 November 2020 (UTC)

Appeal at AE

Hi Atsme. Your AE appeal for the removal of your antifacism topic ban was declined see here. With apologies for the late notification. --RegentsPark (comment) 17:47, 12 November 2020 (UTC)

Not very SPECIFIC. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 20:36, 12 November 2020 (UTC)

But, but Sir Joseph...it is specific in its lack of specificity. 🦮 <-- how do you like my new harness? Sit, stay, fetch, speak, hush!! Do you believe in Karma? I'm pretty sure I've paid my debt, and should have a standing credit. Atsme 💬 📧 21:28, 12 November 2020 (UTC)

O? PackMecEng (talk) 21:27, 12 November 2020 (UTC)

Following guidelines

Contributions have been made to this article, Japan Crude Cocktail, and I would like to ensure they follow the wikipedia style guidelines. Popdmas43 (talk) 03:52, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

Hi Popdmas43 - I'll give it a look in the morning. Atsme 💬 📧 03:54, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

Leave Me Alone

My, my doesn't page watcher @Atsme: get around. Showing up on Soibangla's talk page, and again offering "a bit of friendly advice". You are being disingenuous. I feel that you are stalking me. You have made an annoying and unwanted contact. Calling your interaction "Friendly Advice" does not mitigate your offensive action. Please quit.

You are making a nasty accusation. I am not canvassing nor recruiting anybody for anything. Seems that you can't read with much comprehension. I was initiating a conversation out of curiosity about why I was thanked for applying a DS Alert on PackMecEng's talk page. Sometimes a simple "you are welcome" is simply a "you are welcome". Seems you have been living the shadows of Wikipedia too long and are suspicious of the slightest pleasant and most innocuous comment. Yes, I told my story, I was curious whether Soibangla had had some similar bullying interaction with PackMecEng. What I said is all fact, there is no canvassing nor recruitment involved, and I am pretty sure you knew that.

Somehow you think that you can just interject yourself in a conversation (Ok, you were mentioned in my story, and evidently you think that justifies your action, but it doesn't.) I think you were stalking me. That is not how polite people behave. But that is apparently how you do things on WP. Why did you do this, accuse with no proof, do you really need attention?

If you should happen to again appear and again take the cover of offering "friendly advise", please note "editors who engage in harassment are subject to blocking and banning."

Osomite ^hablemos 23:34, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

PackMecEng (talk) 23:37, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

Scrolled through your talk page and laughed my ass off.

Lots of good stuff up there. Thanks for making posts! jp×g 11:47, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

Thank you, glad you enjoyed it, JPxG! You're welcome back anytime. Atsme 💬 📧 11:56, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

I say, surely you meant to write arse ? Cheers to you both!
Gareth Griffith-Jones (contribs) (talk) 14:40, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

Gareth, having gained a few COVID lock-down pounds (not the British kind), I would be laughing all day every day if I thought it would reduce the size of my !! Atsme 💬 📧 15:09, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

Your ACE questions

Howdy hello Atsme! Thanks for the questions, but just wanted to clarify: do you have specific cases in mind here? Without some background info about the questions you propose I can't give more than a general answer :) CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 20:04, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

Hi, CaptainEek - keep it general, focus on DS-AE and the power ArbCom has authorized to individual admins when ArbCom itself must act as a committee, not individually; they are the collective judge and jury. ArbCom only hears cases after all other avenues of DR have failed. Once a case is accepted at ArbCom, certain procedures are followed, and thorough reviews by the arbs are expected in an effort to reach an equitable conclusion. Relying on a single admin to carry out arbitration enforcement tells us ArbCom did a half-assed job resolving the problem in the first place, and threw the ball back into the court of admins via DS-AE but with the bonus of absolute power; i.e., sole discretion to take unilateral actions that cannot be overturned, and that is the crux of the issue - it doesn't matter who is in the hot seat or why. I did clarify my questions a bit on Primefac's question page, if that helps. Atsme 💬 📧 21:59, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

Note: CaptainEek - I added some clarity to question 2 but it also applies to question 1. I regret that I did not think to add it in the beginning so that all candidates could have seen it. I was shooting for brevity, and it always trips me up. Atsme 💬 📧 00:13, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

In the news

Did I see you at Capitol Hill yesterday? I'm not sure;) -Roxy the inedible dog . wooF 18:16, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

I don't think it's fair to Atsme to imply, even in jest, that she was in any way connected with the unlawful rioting or sedition that occurred. That was awfully serious, even deadly, stuff, and we should be trying to lower the temperature. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:33, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

Tell that to the republican Senator I have seen pics of encouraging the whole damn mess. I do know that Betty was not involved. -Roxy the inedible dog . wooF 20:35, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

Your reply to Trypto indicates the above remark is not "Friendly Banter". You need to strike and delete this crap. GenQuest ^"scribble" 20:47, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

NPP/S application

If you are available, I'd like to ask if you can be my NPP school mentor. JJP...MASTER!_{[talk to] JJP... master?} 19:57, 21 November 2020 (UTC)

Sure, JJPMaster - start by reading the instructions and NPP tutorial. I'll create your test pages first thing Monday morning, and away we'll go!! Atsme 💬 📧 21:00, 21 November 2020 (UTC)

Have you created them yet? JJP...MASTER!_{[talk to] JJP... master?} 18:23, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

Not yet - will ping you to the test page when it's completed. Atsme 💬 📧 18:35, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

ArbCom 2020 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. 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 2020 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) 02:31, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

Whispers Among Wolves

This is pretty good. Bus stop (talk) 23:41, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

Y Atsme 💬 📧 00:39, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

Y I think its meaning is open to interpretation. It seems carefully made. It seems nothing is left to chance. But its meaning is elusive, in my opinion. It is a "mature" film. Despite the drinking it is a "sober" film. Bus stop (talk) 04:34, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

Bus stop, my interpretation is that it's a snapshot of real life, especially after a few cocktails. I haven't had much exposure to the aggressive, outspoken female CEO types as portrayed in that short, but then I retired quite early. It must be a generational thing. Atsme 💬 📧 21:12, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

I don't know, it might be a metaphor rather than a snapshot. You are right that it is a "short". It is mercifully brief. Bus stop (talk) 21:46, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

ACE

Now that's interesting: No Wikipedian should be as a result of a sanction put in a position where they are unable to defend themselves against allegations of misconduct. I remember when I was dragged along Via Dolorosa, when I tried to defend myself I was told I was doubling down and that I should put up and shut up, so I did - only to be told later when I used my Miranda rights, that I was being disrespectful of the high and mighty Committee and I would be additionally sanctioned for doing just that. Double-barreled shit on shot at because there is no appeal for admins. Instead of an Arbcom election, the community should be running an RfC to get that institution and its AE-DS deprecated and replaced with something more equitable - and I'm not alone with that. Candidates like Kevin for all their good intentions, will never be able to change the Committee from within. Those members who have tried have exited with their tails between their legs and scrambled their passwords. But I'm retired and I don't give a hoot. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 06:08, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

Kudz - is that a quote from somewhere, or a proposal? Just found it. Ok - soooo...I'll have to review some diffs. Atsme 💬 📧 12:25, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

Hi Atsme, FYI, I've copyedited the answer a bit, but the substantive meaning hasn't changed. Best, KevinL (alt of L235 · t · c) 18:15, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

Y Atsme 💬 📧 18:23, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

Kudpung, I think the "word" is if you defend yourself, you're being combative and disruptive, which is proof of wrongdoing. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 19:38, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

@Sir Joseph and L236:, today's arbitration committees appear to not need much convincing for proof of wrongdoing. A couple of spiteful comments from the rank and file (and possibly former functionaries) or secret messages from the WMF are sometimes enough. It's getting debatable which is the rowdiest and most lawless place, ANI or Arbcom. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 10:01, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

To my TPWs

Located at the top of my UTP is the ACE guide with links to the various user guides which total 9 at this writing. Just click on "show" for the links if you're interested in the opinions of other users regarding the candidates. Kudos to all of the candidates for throwing their hats in the ring. Atsme 💬 📧 11:49, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

Atsme, I disagree with a couple of your choices, and overall think we have to pick through several terrible choices , and I think it might be best to vote no on most and suffer through some vacant seats. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 14:50, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

Actually, I can't entirely disagree with Sir Joseph. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 10:12, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now! Did you vote?

Interesting. However, from my perspective, attitudes and answers to specific questions weighed heavily on my selections, all of which were relative to NPOV and prejudices that lean toward auto-favoring admin actions or unblockable editors; not all cases are cut and dried, as we all know full well, but I also don't like the concept that an ArbCom case must end in a block or ban as the only remedy. I'd also like to see fewer formalities so that more attention can be focused on reading the diffs in context in an effort to determine the veracity of the allegations and plausibility of WP:POV railroad and WP:POV creep. I've seen some expertly crafted cases brought forward by editors who have long since figured out that some arbs probably don't read the diffs in context, if at all, and will simply take the accuser's allegations/arguments at face value, especially if the filer is an admin, or vice versa. Kudpung, if my memory serves, you mentioned something about veracity in your ACE guide, did you not? I tried to steer away from what I perceived to be a nonchalant or status quo response, and/or auto-favoring practices. Of course, I'm not perfect so I went with the candidates I've interacted with in the past and for whom I still maintain a high level of trust. I would like to have supported the neutrals as well, but we can only pick 7. The reality is that we're voting for people who are using pseudonyms in cyberspace, so it's kinda like pin the tail on the donkey and hope for the best. Atsme 💬 📧 15:21, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

I tend not to vote from my personal perspective or the answers to my questions, but more on some research and how I feel they will best serve the community - as I vote on RfA. Answering my questions the right way is not for getting my vote. My own voice among the hundreds of votes cast doesn't count much. This year I have really tried to avoid being biased by the way they adjudicated on my desysoping (and in any case one can't put that total mess of toothpaste back in tube), but naturally that's not easy and some will say it's showing through all the time, but that part of it really concerns mainly only one candidate. However, even there I have attempted to be fair in my voter guide. I've actually voted for three, but only one is a shoe-in for the job and among the others might even be one or two over whom I didn't come across as being overly favourable. All my other votes were tactical opposes and leaving some vacant seats might be a wake-up call.

As you say, arbitrators indeed do not always fully examine the evidence. Justice will be 'shown' to be done and the role of the Committee is more or less to rubber stamp the consensus of the participants and while some of them claim to carry out some examination, they provide long winded explanations to cover up their lack of engagement or expertise in order to sound intelligent and just. The more astute ones say a lot less and mean much more or just vote and don't say anything.

Some of this year's candidates have little experience in conflict management and were recently 'promoted' to adminship or returned from a very long editing hiatus or extremely sporadic participation. Unlike all other venues on the Internet, every Wikipedia user is able to be a 'governance obsessive' - as seen by the speed in which some newbies post the 'I wanna be an admin someday' userbox. ANI, the corps of a sysops, and the Arbitration Committtee are peppered with amateur litigators (fortunately there are sometimes some professional lawyers on the Committees) who like to feel important and will gladly issue a purely punitive remedy that has little to do with prevention. For some strata of users this is even without a course of appeal to the Arbcom and there is no higher instance - a true Supreme Court which would rule not only on the relevant policies, but also fully (re)examine the evidence and facts of a case. Indeed, one of the problems of Arbcom is that when faced with the complexities of some cases, any number of members can just recuse themselves or conveniently take a Wikibreak. This sometimes leaves the Committee with barely a quorum and those who are left over might be the hard-liners, and control freaks.

When a case is over some editors, particularly uninvolved ones, return to gloat "he/she got what he/she deserved" and if they are rightly blocked or banned they will do it on WO, but a they too did not follow the case in detail, and sometimes they may be of a mean-spirited character anyway, may have a permanent loathing of admins or other movers-and-shakers, and/or have a high opinion of their own work to boot.

There will be big changes in the Committee for 2021, so come January the community should brace itself for yet another round of quick-fire desysopings as the new group flexes its muscles. On the other hand, some of the candidates have some of the most fair-minded natures I have ever seen on Wikipedia so with a bit of luck you might be in for a pleasant surprise and there may even be a first-time Arb without Admin portfolio.Many editors and past, present, and future members of the Committee agree that there should be some radical changes to the way this Wikipedia is governed: Arbcom is a broken system which fails to do what it's meant to do and quite often sours and embitters those who become a part of it, even if they're decent people who only joined up with the best of intentions. – Iridescent, but no one knows precisely what and because nobody will take the risk to do something, it will probably never happen. A close look at any complex ANI case will show that the comments and claims come mainly from forum moderator wannabe's and the Arbcom members' non-transparent work load is such that when a rare, not-so-clear case comes up they will just not devote sufficient time to examine the the vicious, vindictive, and spiteful claims for veracity. As one user often says: "context matters". Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 01:31, 26 November 2020 (UTC)

I am sorry for interrupting Kudpung, but they did what??!! I have been out of the picture for over a year, and I was at a low activity level before that. Appalled. I am sorry Chris. Simon Adler (talk) 01:49, 26 November 2020 (UTC)

November

November

Thank you for article work in November! Welcome to the cabal of the outcast, - you sneaked in ;) - Look today at BB music, a little crusade of mine ;) - his birthday on St Cecilia's day, patron saint of music. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:59, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

Thank you, sweet Gerda!! Atsme 💬 📧 00:15, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

to be sung "happily" --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:05, 26 November 2020 (UTC)

Re: What's happening?

Long, arduous, and now completed discussion Atsme 💬 📧 18:37, 28 November 2020 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
ALL news sources should be approached with caution because they all contribute to issues relative to RECENTISM & NOTNEWS. Journalists are not scholars. The alliances/loyalties that grew from some of the older news sources still remain, but now that we have the internet, more people are being exposed to the same facts but from different media perspectives. Some of the best journalists are scholars, and as data driven and evidence-based journalism grows, more journalists will write from their field of expertise. One obvious example is The Conversation: All of the articles that appear on The Conversation are written by academics, based on their area of research. The Conversation's editors commission and edit these articles to make sure that they are free of jargon and accessible to a wide audience. The stories published cover topics from politics and culture to health, science, and the environment. All stories are published under a Creative Commons — Attribution/No derivatives license, and as a result, are widely republished by news outlets from the ABC to the Daily Mail, and from Le Monde to the Washington Post. I don't believe there is any such thing as "different media perspectives". Just unreliable and reliable sources. The future of journalism is one where the university embeds itself in the media as an active participant. When Sagan first started doing this in the 1970s, he was excoriated by his colleagues for leaving the ivory tower and daring to mingle with the peons. That era is over. Viriditas (talk) 19:05, 25 November 2020 (UTC) Hi Viriditas! Glad you stopped by! Thank you for sharing the info about The Conversation! I will definitely keep it in mind. It's good to know better sources are becoming more readily available, especially in light of the growing number of paywalls that have made access to RS all the more difficult. I understand what you're saying re: journalists being scholars, but that's the exception, not the rule. See the article in Journalist's Resource, published by Harvard Kennedy School's Shorenstein Center and the Carnegie-Knight Initiative, which aligns closer to my perspective. Also see the quotes I keep on UTP by Jimbo because they are a bit more relevant regarding how WP editors use news sources: Politics and IAR. When it comes to reliable vs unreliable, of course context matters, and when ideological biases are at play, the sources we use can quickly become a heated topic, regardless of whether a scholar is wearing a journalist hat or not; scholars can be biased, too. There are different media perspectives, and that won't change until all news comes in the form of an algorithm but even then - who authored the algorithm? The latter is not unlike what's happening with fact checkers; i.e., who checks the fact checkers? Media perspectives (or basic research traditions), include cognitive-empirical, critical-speculative, cultural, and communication-technology. For more info see this study, and also see this Springer link to Media Use and Its Effects in a Cross-National Perspective which states: Increasing availability of data sources, advances in theorizing and facilitation of international research collaboration have contributed to an increasing application of cross-national perspectives in communication research. Again, thanks for stopping by and sharing! Atsme 💬 📧 22:03, 25 November 2020 (UTC) There are different media perspectives I don't see any evidence for such an idea. Can you give a specific example? Fox News, OANN, and Newsmax, for example, aren't offering a different "perspective", they are providing an alternative reality composed of propaganda and disinformation. Viriditas (talk) 23:22, 26 November 2020 (UTC) I have -0- interest in discussing political perspectives. Back on point to different media perspectives; i.e., journalists, newscasters, program producers, field producers, editorial boards, directors, etc. Read this if you want evidence. Also watch this (recorded at Davis Center for Russian and Eurasian Studies at Harvard), for more evidence. Atsme 💬 📧 01:40, 27 November 2020 (UTC) No worries. But, I'm still hung up on this part: more people are being exposed to the same facts but from different media perspectives. I just don't see that happening at all. There's been dozens of scholarly articles written during the last four years about how we are not being exposed to the same facts. Are you familiar with this literature? Viriditas (talk) 22:19, 27 November 2020 (UTC) Ok, that's one perspective - I don't doubt it - but how about sharing some links for context? When you ask if I'm "familiar with this literature" and don't provide a link to "this", I have nothing to go on. Atsme 💬 📧 22:51, 27 November 2020 (UTC) Adding some perspective: see this which involves stating facts with results from one perspective about those facts. Is it likely, or unlikely that everyone will agree with that perspective? (😂 It's a joke, of course - life's too short to be serious all the time). Atsme 💬 📧 23:17, 27 November 2020 (UTC) Thanks. It's a very large topic, and it explores a great deal of material, starting with the Soviet era of communist propaganda, working it's way into the post-truth era of Vietnam, the Koch libertarian, "dark money" era of media manipulation starting in the 1980s, the post-fact era of Rovian discourse in the post-9/11 era of the early 2000s, and the eventual development of the Fox News effect correlation in 2011-12 by Fairleigh Dickinson University’s PublicMind research center, leading to numerous studies over the years on the same subject, finding not only that Fox News viewers were the most uninformed in general, but more recently, discovering that on particular issues, such as climate change and COVID-19, Fox News viewers were repeatedly misinformed. Like I said, this is a huge topic, but there's clearly evidence that media outlets are not using the same set of facts. Viriditas (talk) 00:35, 28 November 2020 (UTC) Selected sources Science or Spin? Assessing the Accuracy of Cable News Coverage of Climate Science (2014) Let's compare the backgrounds of science writers for Fox and NPR (2015) How The Wall Street Journal Opinion Section Presents Climate Change (2016) Post-Truth, Complicity and International Politics (2017) How Right-Leaning Media Coverage of COVID-19 Facilitated the Spread of Misinformation in the Early Stages of the Pandemic (2020) Conservative Media Consumers Less Likely to Wear Masks and Less Worried About COVID-19 (2020) Viriditas (talk) 00:35, November 28, 2020‎ (UTC) This is not only a very large topic, it is a very deep one because of the political bent. Again, I'm not going to debate the politics or the science; rather, I will simply provide my perspective relative to journalism/reporting/media as it pertains to your last paragraph and choice of sources. NPOV clearly states that writing from a NPOV means representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without editorial bias, all the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic. Following is my analysis of your chosen sources: Your comment about Fox News viewers is based on an academic survey of about 1900+ people that is supposed to represent a fair cross-section of the millions of people who watch Fox News. You accepted what some in media have reported, re: "that Fox News viewers were the most uninformed in general". That particular media perspective focused on a single dubious result that fit their angle while omitting what didn't fit. Reason provides more detail. Have you read my Signpost Op-Ed? UCS vs different perspectives: see RealClear Science (ACSH teamed up with RCS to create this chart). Also see the article in Reason. UCS is an advocacy with an obvious political perspective. Comparing backgrounds of newscasters and pundits who report science news is, meh, an exercise in futility. AMA Journal of Ethics published a pretty accurate depiction, and so did Nature. WSJ opinion - we attribute. I'm curious about the source and author of that paper - I couldn't find it anywhere. Sidebar note: if you get a chance, see Life On Our Planet. I recommended it back in October. Post-Truth, Complicity and International Politics (2017) - authored by Philip Conway, a PhD candidate at Aberystwyth University in the Department of International Politics. Yet another perspective authored by a student who is asking the right questions and hopefully will find the right answers over time. Quoting from his 1st paragraph: "[R]elating to or denoting circumstances in which objective facts are less influential in shaping public opinion than appeals to emotion and personal belief." I agree, and it supports my initial statement: same facts but from different media perspectives, aka media spin. He called it "emotion and personal belief" with injections of his own perspective about politics. How Right-Leaning Media Coverage of COVID-19 - I paused at the following statement: our goal is to compare the volume of coverage of common misinformation about COVID-19 in two types of sources: right wing media and traditional, non-ideological news outlets. What? No left-wing? Their list of "non-ideological" is debatable, and includes NYT, WaPo, WSJ, USA Today, and Politico. Then they list "right wing sources" and cram Fox News together with its political pundit programming (not considered "news"), Fox Nation (also not news), and Fox Business. To make matters worse, they lump it together with the unreliable Breitbart, radio pundit Rush Limbaugh, and "other right-leaning outlets" based on "tweets" during the 2016 presidential campaign? From my perspective, that paper is not about COVID-19, it's about politics. See the following by Pew Research: In two countries – the United Kingdom and the United States – people are divided in their beliefs when it comes to rating their government’s performance responding to the coronavirus. These two nations also have high levels of political polarization on views of the government’s handling of this crisis. NYTimes has a pretty good handle on their local news, and then there's the 60 Minutes episode with Fauci and his controversial statement about masks. The blame shifting by media is off the charts, and ironically, most of the finger-pointers are equally as guilty - see the Harvard Gazette: Mainstream media coverage has added to the problem, analysts say. Does RECENTISM ring a bell, yet? In that May Signpost op-ed, I briefly touched on one of my assignments for the Health & Science division of CNN, re: George D. Lundberg and what he published in JAMA. I shot the interview, the news desk edited the footage, & the result was presented from the perspective of the news anchor (and what the producer & time allowed). I can say with clear conscience that things have only gotten worse with the birth of internet news and clickbait. We still have some high quality, ethical journalists, and our job as editors is to separate the wheat from the chaff. See AP News sums it up in a nutshell. Have a fun & safe weekend!! Atsme 💬 📧 14:59, 28 November 2020 (UTC) Your reply is very disappointing. Instead of addressing the data (and the dozens of sources cited by the authors to support their conclusions) you went straight into whataboutism and cited unreliable sources like the American Council on Science and Health. Like I said, very disappointing. Viriditas (talk) 18:14, 28 November 2020 (UTC)

Can we get back to discussing whispers among wolves?

Can we get back to discussing whispering and wolfing? Bus stop (talk) 23:51, 28 November 2020 (UTC)

Anytime...Atsme 💬 📧 23:56, 28 November 2020 (UTC)

Peer Review of Paper Mario: The Origami King

Hola! It seems that everyone appreciates you writing and editing, and I was wondering if you could help me out with something.

I'm trying to get Paper Mario: The Origami King to featured article status, as well as TFA. Before I nominate the article, I'm doing everything I can to make the process go smoothly, so I started a Peer Review.

So far, Spicy has started their review, and SandyGeorgia and PresN have agreed and are going to review it soon. It says on the peer review page you're good at copy-editing, and I'd appreciate some pointers and suggestions. I bet you have no knowledge of video games, but that what I'm looking for.

Le Panini ^Talk 12:44, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

Hi, Le Panini - I've started reviewing but you already have 3 excellent peer reviewers working on it. I'll try not to step on any toes and will focus on the lead first. See you over there! Atsme 💬 📧 16:07, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

Atsme, Wait, 2? Are you implying that 1 of these three aren't good? Le Panini ^Talk 16:19, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

Oops...my sincerest apologies - I didn't see the 3rd. I just saw the comments at the review by Spicy & SG. All fixed now. Atsme 💬 📧 16:23, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

Atsme, I'm probably gonna close the peer review pretty soon. If you wanted to add anymore comments over there, I'd be happy to address them (and count em' up, there are 7 reviewers now.) Le Panini ^Talk 02:58, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

Hi, Le Panini - I just provided my thoughts at the review. Good luck! Atsme 💬 📧 10:57, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

Nomination of American Dog Breeders Association for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article American Dog Breeders Association is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/American Dog Breeders Association until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article.

Cavalryman (talk) 04:39, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

• Oops - mistake, nom withdrew. Archive this one. Atsme 💬 📧 17:05, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

How to protect an article

Hello Atsme, I'm a semi new editor who has come to an article that has been recently vandalized several times, and will most likely continue to see vandalism as the subject of the article is a polarizing figure. I have made a request on the talk page for a semi-protection request but have gotten zero responses over the span of a week (in which time more vandalism has occurred). Is there a special template or any special steps needed for this to move forward? I've never done this before, but would like to learn the proper channels.PrecociousPeach (talk) 21:51, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

(talk page watcher) The best place to report it is at Wikipedia:Requests for page protection. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:16, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

Thank you Tryptofish, I believe another user who was worried about the vandalism just got the semi protection approved. But now I know where to go for future reference. I appreciate your help! PrecociousPeach (talk) 23:36, 14 December 2020 (UTC)

I'm happy to help! --Tryptofish (talk) 20:00, 15 December 2020 (UTC)

warning

Welcome to Wikipedia. Although every user is expected to be civil, it seems that you are being too friendly. Please use Jimbo Wales' user page for any test "friendliness" you might have, and our guideline to when you have to be serious, even when sleeping. Thank you No problem. JJP...MASTER!_{[talk to] JJP... master?} 16:07, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

Seems like a frivolous warning to me. No one can be too friendly. Politrukki (talk) 16:15, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

😂 Wikipedia:Atsme's Law - what can I say? Atsme 💬 📧 16:54, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

Welcome to Wikipedia. Although every Wikipedia user is permitted to do as they wish for up to 24 hours, it appears that you have gone more than 24 hours without pissing anyone off. This violates our policy requiring that everyone piss off everyone else at intervals of not more than 24 hours. Please use User talk:Jimbo Wales to test any ideas that you have for pissing off Jimbo Wales.

Each month, one editor is awarded the Award for having pissed off the largest number of other editors. Please nominate qualified editors here. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:37, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

Whaaaat how have I not won this award yet. Levivich ^harass/_hound 22:29, 15 December 2020 (UTC)

@Tryptofish: I just turned your message into a template: {{Uw-pissoff4}}. JJP...MASTER!_{[talk to] JJP... master?} 19:40, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

Atsme 💬 📧 20:19, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

Well now, you've both gone and pissed me off! Well done! And now, let's start an office pool over how long it will take for some idiot to nominate the template for deletion. My bet: within the next 7 days. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:59, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

I've linked it from Silly things so someone will probably find it in the near future. JJP...MASTER!_{[talk to] JJP... master?} 22:15, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

I've, um, beautified it further (as in, I have too much time on my hands...): [1]. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:42, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

It's Friday night - put that spare time to good use! Go out and paint the town...dance & be merry, and cause just enough trouble that you'll be considered the life of the party and not get arrested! 💃 🎉🍾 Atsme 💬 📧 22:56, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

Screen grab of References at Wikipedia:Atsme's Law
Levivich, is listed as a generally unreliable source. 😂 Atsme 💬 📧 21:46, 15 December 2020 (UTC)

I think I'm gonna be finding excuses to use this one. I edited it to make the image fit inline. jp×g 13:50, 14 December 2020 (UTC)

And the way that you did that pissed me off. (So I fixed it!) --Tryptofish (talk) 20:59, 14 December 2020 (UTC)

It appears to me that jp may have inadvertently earned the award. Oh, btw - I cropped the original image to focus more on the award, and take up less horizontal space on the page. I also tweaked the skyline tone & alignment. Atsme 💬 📧 11:26, 15 December 2020 (UTC)

Yes, that's much better. So I'm further pissed off. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:00, 15 December 2020 (UTC)

My time on WP taught me that improvements tend to do that every now and then! Atsme 💬 📧 20:10, 15 December 2020 (UTC)

Now it's my turn - but I'm not pissed-off; rather, I'm LMAO!! See image (right).

The Wikipedia Pissoff Award

Welcome to Wikipedia. Although every Wikipedia user is permitted to do as they wish for up to 24 hours, it appears that you have gone more than 24 hours without pissing anyone off. This violates our policy requiring that everyone piss off everyone else at intervals of not more than 24 hours. Please use User talk:Jimbo Wales to test any ideas that you have for pissing off Jimbo Wales.

Each month, one editor is awarded the Wikipedia Pissoff Award (shown at right) for having pissed off the largest number of other editors. Please nominate qualified editors here.

--Tryptofish (talk) 21:04, 14 December 2020 (UTC)