User talk:Atsme/Archive 4
 | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
| Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 | Archive 6 | → | Archive 10 |
February 2014
Keesings Query
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
Collaboration for Investigative Project on Terrorism Foundation
Greetings. I am responding to your request for collaboration to the Investigative Project on Terrorism Foundation article on Wikipedia. Thank you for the work you and others have put into trying to make the article contents adhere to Wikipedia writing policies. I am willing to share my thoughts and perspectives on any issues that come up on the article's Talk Page, unfortunately I do not have much time for much beyond that. Feel free to reach out to me anytime in the future. Thank you. Djrun (talk) 15:17, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
- Djrun Thank you for your response. I would very much appreciate your input regarding the sandbox article I included in my initial text to you. Thank you again. Atsme☯Consult 21:45, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
- Hello again. In response to the merge request, I did not propose closing the request. What I attempted to communicate was to allow a set amount for editors to provide adequate references to make the article meet Wikipedia's notability requirements before making a final decision on merging. I did not check back on the discussion since posting my comment; do you know what came out of it?Djrun (talk) 15:09, 1 October 2014 (UTC)
- Djrun The merge request was actually a remnant of a merge-delete request I proposed back in June. See explanation here: [1]. The request was originally closed in July, Talk:Steven_Emerson/Archive_3, so it was never actually a proper request. There is now an active ARB regarding the article(s) here: [2]. Atsme☯Consult 00:40, 2 October 2014 (UTC)
- Hello again. In response to the merge request, I did not propose closing the request. What I attempted to communicate was to allow a set amount for editors to provide adequate references to make the article meet Wikipedia's notability requirements before making a final decision on merging. I did not check back on the discussion since posting my comment; do you know what came out of it?Djrun (talk) 15:09, 1 October 2014 (UTC)
Hello
An topic you recently edited or contributed to Talk discussion on is the subject of discussion, if you would like to participate: [3]. This is a blanket notice given to all editors. DocumentError (talk) 03:19, 1 October 2014 (UTC)
DYK nomination of Bowfin
Hello! Your submission of Bowfin at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! AshLin (talk) 17:22, 1 October 2014 (UTC)
bowfin
Hi, I added some more comments and an a-okay to the DYK nom. They aren't showing up on the main template page, though. Can you take a look. Nice article —Gaff ταλκ 14:43, 2 October 2014 (UTC)
"2014 Interventions in Iraq"
I like your idea of "2014 Interventions in Iraq." ([4]) I had proposed this merge myself but it was shot down. I would support re-nominating this for merger, if you want to float that idea. I'm not trying to shuffle off work on you, I just don't feel I can right now as I've been nominated for a topic ban for suggesting it previously. Anyway, just wanted to let you know I think it's a great suggestion. DocumentError (talk) 01:48, 4 October 2014 (UTC)
Arbitration case request
Hi Atsme, I have removed an arbitration case request in which you were named as party as it has been withdrawn by the initiator and declined by the Committee as there are other steps in the dispute resolution process which should be used before a arbitration case request. For the Arbitration Committee, Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 07:49, 4 October 2014 (UTC)
Hey
I got your message and I completely understand. I tried replying directly but received a bounceback. DocumentError (talk) 02:12, 5 October 2014 (UTC)
- For anyone reading this, to clear any misperception in advance, the email in question was in reference to the idea of floating a merge proposal as detailed two threads up from this, in respect to 2014 Iranian-led intervention in Iraq, and was not a WP:CANVASSING action. DocumentError (talk) 05:03, 6 October 2014 (UTC)
IPT
This matter is actually coming to an end. Ultimately it can end in two ways. We can talk or I can take it to RFC/U. RFC/U won't result in ban. But at the slightest action after that RFC/U that seems remotely tendentious I will take back to arbcom. They will review it. The choice is yours. If you would like to talk it would be a very good idea at this point for us to seek out a neutral party to mediate. I would suggest seeking out medcom for assistance in this regard.Serialjoepsycho (talk) 04:33, 5 October 2014 (UTC)
- I have never resisted intelligent, civil collaboration but first you must stop maligning me to other editors with innuendoes that I'm racist. It couldn't be farther from the truth. You and I both are entitled to express our views and do whatever we think is necessary to maintain the integrity of WP as long as we respect policy and guidelines. The fact that my views sometimes differ from yours is not justification for you to malign and taunt me or harbor preconceived notions about me. You know as well as I do that IPT has issues that must be resolved. Other editors, admins and reviewers have pointed that out to you on multiple occasions, particularly the BLP and NOR issues. You need to broaden your focus and realize what's at stake here. What you may or not be considering is the fact that my user name is shown as having the most edits for IPT, and yours is shown as reverting the corrections I've made for accuracy, neutrality and reliable sourcing. Think about that for a minute and try engaging some foresight. If for some bizarre twist of fate civil litigation ensues over the issues I've tried to correct, guess who will be subpoenaed? Considering the IPT Foundation's line of work do you really believe they won't be able to trace user names to real IDs? Try reading the following WP litigation experiences: [5], [6]. Keep in mind that WP has no financial obligation to any editor to cover their legal expenses. If you don't think it can happen, think again. Anyway, back on point - I agree that it's a good idea to get medcom involved. I will support such an action. Atsme☯Consult 12:44, 5 October 2014 (UTC)
There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.
- My apologies for not providing a direct link. Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Legal_threat.3FSerialjoepsycho (talk) 21:37, 5 October 2014 (UTC)
- This is ridiculous. You have taken my comments completely out of context. It's pretty obvious that you don't understand WP:BLP. Such material requires a high degree of sensitivity, and must adhere strictly to all applicable laws in the United States, to this policy, and to Wikipedia's three core content policies... The policy itself mentions applicable laws in the U.S., and all I did was mention some prior cases in an effort to help you understand the policy. Read the policy, Joe, and while you're at it read Litigation_involving_the_Wikimedia_Foundation, and [[7]]. There is no doubt that BLP violations are a serious matter, and as I stated above, you have been advised by other editors, admins and reviewers about potential BLP and NOR issues with the IPT article. I even filed a BLPN because of a poorly sourced comment that I deleted and you kept reverting. There is still question regarding whether or not that comment belongs in IPT. Instead of hounding me, why aren't you at least trying to fix what is wrong, or don't you know how to edit prose, Joe? Does that go beyond your area of expertise as a Talk page stalker? My main concern is that MY name is on the line as having the most edits for IPT, and it certainly justifies my concerns that these issues are not being resolved. Atsme☯Consult 23:01, 5 October 2014 (UTC)
- I think we are having a different discussion. I'm talking about your conduct. I don't actually care one way or another what actually happens to the IPT article. I don't care if the Islamophobia template is eventually removed. That's where we differ. You were on a crusade to WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS before I was ever involved in the dispute. Anjem Choudary or SIOA, ring a bell? You have been in battleground mode the whole time. You have unquestionably shown bias the whole time. You don't even a consistent position. Your position changes to suit the process you try to bludgeon. Your effort to merge, delete, and recreate was even contradictory. You constantly misrepresent another editor position to promote a position. When called on it you either ignore what's going on like it didn't happen or you argue with the editor telling them what they really meant. That BLP/N you opened came after Me suggesting multiple times that you take it there. Actually dispute resolution doesn't seem to be popular with you. I open an RFC you do nothing but complain because noone coming to it to support you. And here's a glaring and ever shining hint bright as day: That person who closed your merge and delete discussion, What they were getting at in their close is that other dispute not related to the merge were not resolved in the discussion. Some of the ARBCOM members mentioned BLP but alot of it had a N after it. They were suggesting you take it to BLPN. This collaboration thing that you say support, getting a consensus is a part of that. Those dispute resolution processes are for that. You don't canvass individuals with a campaign message to get a consensus. You don't make a group think you have dropped the stick and revisit the issue after you know one of the involved editors is on vacation. You don't remove content there is a consensus to keep while leaving an edit summary suggesting that you are removing something else. You especially don't do that after a failed long and contentious effort to remove that content. And as far as racist. I didn't call you racist. I called your comments racist. You are the one who suggested that Islamophobia doesn't exist because Boko Haram kidnapped Nigerian school girls. I call that racist. The 1950's called though. It seems we don't live in a black and white world. There's gray to apparently. If people were racist because they made racist comments the majority of people would be racist. If not racist, then homophobic, and if not homophobic the insert what ever other term here. I don't know you. I can't say that you are racist. If you don't like your comments being called racist it would be in your interest to not make racist comments. What ever. This bullshit and it's tiresome.Here is my offer: 1)You will not improperly canvass any further for editors. 2)You will seek a consensus using one of the available dispute resolution methods, instead of whatever half thought out, convoluted, and contradictory scheme like your merge, delete, and recreate scheme. 3) Any edits that you make to IPT that do not involve any of the current contentious material will be reflected in your edit summary. No more opps. You do not remove content there is a consensus there is a consensus to keep and leave an Edit summary that suggests you did something else. 4) No more battleground. Content only. It's very simple. If you agree besides indicating it what I would suggest is collecting your thoughts and then taking the matter of the Islamophobia template to the BLP/N.Serialjoepsycho (talk) 02:28, 6 October 2014 (UTC)
- From an editorial perspective, I'm probably on your side. (I'm not 100% sure that I am as I haven't followed this issue closely enough to know, I'm just cuing in on a few key words here.) However, you are exhibiting an extremely confrontational tone that really can serve no purpose and has a somewhat threatening and intimidating quality to it that is not appropriate on WP. Save the ultimatums for Risk, not Wikipedia. DocumentError (talk) 04:50, 6 October 2014 (UTC)
- I think we are having a different discussion. I'm talking about your conduct. I don't actually care one way or another what actually happens to the IPT article. I don't care if the Islamophobia template is eventually removed. That's where we differ. You were on a crusade to WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS before I was ever involved in the dispute. Anjem Choudary or SIOA, ring a bell? You have been in battleground mode the whole time. You have unquestionably shown bias the whole time. You don't even a consistent position. Your position changes to suit the process you try to bludgeon. Your effort to merge, delete, and recreate was even contradictory. You constantly misrepresent another editor position to promote a position. When called on it you either ignore what's going on like it didn't happen or you argue with the editor telling them what they really meant. That BLP/N you opened came after Me suggesting multiple times that you take it there. Actually dispute resolution doesn't seem to be popular with you. I open an RFC you do nothing but complain because noone coming to it to support you. And here's a glaring and ever shining hint bright as day: That person who closed your merge and delete discussion, What they were getting at in their close is that other dispute not related to the merge were not resolved in the discussion. Some of the ARBCOM members mentioned BLP but alot of it had a N after it. They were suggesting you take it to BLPN. This collaboration thing that you say support, getting a consensus is a part of that. Those dispute resolution processes are for that. You don't canvass individuals with a campaign message to get a consensus. You don't make a group think you have dropped the stick and revisit the issue after you know one of the involved editors is on vacation. You don't remove content there is a consensus to keep while leaving an edit summary suggesting that you are removing something else. You especially don't do that after a failed long and contentious effort to remove that content. And as far as racist. I didn't call you racist. I called your comments racist. You are the one who suggested that Islamophobia doesn't exist because Boko Haram kidnapped Nigerian school girls. I call that racist. The 1950's called though. It seems we don't live in a black and white world. There's gray to apparently. If people were racist because they made racist comments the majority of people would be racist. If not racist, then homophobic, and if not homophobic the insert what ever other term here. I don't know you. I can't say that you are racist. If you don't like your comments being called racist it would be in your interest to not make racist comments. What ever. This bullshit and it's tiresome.Here is my offer: 1)You will not improperly canvass any further for editors. 2)You will seek a consensus using one of the available dispute resolution methods, instead of whatever half thought out, convoluted, and contradictory scheme like your merge, delete, and recreate scheme. 3) Any edits that you make to IPT that do not involve any of the current contentious material will be reflected in your edit summary. No more opps. You do not remove content there is a consensus there is a consensus to keep and leave an Edit summary that suggests you did something else. 4) No more battleground. Content only. It's very simple. If you agree besides indicating it what I would suggest is collecting your thoughts and then taking the matter of the Islamophobia template to the BLP/N.Serialjoepsycho (talk) 02:28, 6 October 2014 (UTC)
- This is ridiculous. You have taken my comments completely out of context. It's pretty obvious that you don't understand WP:BLP. Such material requires a high degree of sensitivity, and must adhere strictly to all applicable laws in the United States, to this policy, and to Wikipedia's three core content policies... The policy itself mentions applicable laws in the U.S., and all I did was mention some prior cases in an effort to help you understand the policy. Read the policy, Joe, and while you're at it read Litigation_involving_the_Wikimedia_Foundation, and [[7]]. There is no doubt that BLP violations are a serious matter, and as I stated above, you have been advised by other editors, admins and reviewers about potential BLP and NOR issues with the IPT article. I even filed a BLPN because of a poorly sourced comment that I deleted and you kept reverting. There is still question regarding whether or not that comment belongs in IPT. Instead of hounding me, why aren't you at least trying to fix what is wrong, or don't you know how to edit prose, Joe? Does that go beyond your area of expertise as a Talk page stalker? My main concern is that MY name is on the line as having the most edits for IPT, and it certainly justifies my concerns that these issues are not being resolved. Atsme☯Consult 23:01, 5 October 2014 (UTC)
- My apologies for not providing a direct link. Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Legal_threat.3FSerialjoepsycho (talk) 21:37, 5 October 2014 (UTC)
ANI
A topic in which you may be involved, is the subject of discussion at ANI here. DocumentError (talk) 21:11, 5 October 2014 (UTC)
I moved those links to the talk page because they're not appropriate as external links. External links are supposed to be the organization's official website(s). --108.176.24.195 (talk) 04:39, 10 October 2014 (UTC)
BLPN banner
While it's closed the banner isn't needed. If you get it reopened then put it back up.Serialjoepsycho (talk) 22:42, 10 October 2014 (UTC)
I can see that you're actively editing the article in response to points raised at the FAC. I've just posted a contradiction to some of the advice that you've received with regards to removing date information, but don't rush in to make any changes just yet, wait for some discussion. I could be wrong, but I don't think I am. Neil916 (Talk) 16:56, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
RFC/U discussion concerning you (Atsme)
Hello, Atsme. Please be aware that a user conduct request for comment has been filed concerning your conduct on Wikipedia. The RFC entry is located at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Atsme, where you may want to participate. Serialjoepsycho (talk) 22:18, 24 October 2014 (UTC)
Nice pictures
Nice pictures at the top of your user page! Which one is Roscelese and which is Psychojoe? (You have my sympathies.) --71.178.50.222 (talk) 02:51, 25 October 2014 (UTC)
- Thx for the drive-by, User_talk:71.178.50.222. I just posted my response. Right now I feel like a chihuahua trying to ward off 3 great danes.
Halloween cheer!
Hello Atsme:
Thanks for all of your contributions to improve Wikipedia, and have a happy and enjoyable Halloween!
– NorthAmerica1000 09:49, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
Halloween cheer!
Hello Atsme:
Thanks for all of your contributions to improve Wikipedia, and have a happy and enjoyable Halloween!
– The Herald 12:04, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
Halloween cheer!
Hello Atsme:
Thanks for all of your contributions to improve Wikipedia, and have a happy and enjoyable Halloween!
– –Davey2010 • (talk) 15:28, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
Talkback
Message added 05:02, 28 October 2014 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
NorthAmerica1000 05:02, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
Talkback
Message added 16:54, 28 October 2014 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
Not sure if you use notifications, so placing this TB to my talk page. NorthAmerica1000 16:54, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
Hi Atsme, Regarding your request at the Guild of Copy Editors Request page here, I've opened up a discussion here to decide whether the request should be declined. Your input is invited. Cheers, Baffle gab1978 (talk) 23:16, 31 October 2014 (UTC)
Abuse of warning templates...
You previously issued a warning to Roscelese regarding abuse of warning/blocking templates. Can you please take a look at her activity since then? In the past 24 hours, she's reverted two POV labels for matters that had been under discussion on the POV disputes page for less than a day, and where multiple editors have expressed conflicting views. She left "disruptive" warnings for the same edits. She's also edited her own talk page to delete the warnings left for her, as well as comments that express disagreement with her actions. There seems to be a rather pervasive and longstanding problem of abusive and biased editing here.
Djcheburashka (talk) 22:43, 9 November 2014 (UTC)
Thank you for your consult. Can you point me to the block logs you're referring to? It seems like this is an ongoing issue, but there are a small number of editors who share her political agenda and it therefore hasn't proceeded to a broader block. Djcheburashka (talk) 05:12, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
Djcheburashka See Help:User_contributions. Another useful tool for GF editors is the editor interaction tool at [8].
Does this count as canvassing?
See https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3ASerialjoepsycho&diff=633692517&oldid=633686453 Djcheburashka (talk) 08:45, 15 November 2014 (UTC)
- (talk page stalker) Certainly not WP:CANVASSING. --The Herald 14:59, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
Emails
User:Atsme I've been getting a bunch of e-mails from different e-mail addresses all purporting to be you. I don't know which (if any of them) are you, but it seems like someone may be trying to impersonate your wikipedia username.
None of this makes even the slightest sense to me, but in any event if any of them are you, pls find some way of letting me know which.
Thanks, Djcheburashka (talk) 19:15, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
I have no clue..
I have no clue what exactly it is that you assume that I think of you. What ever it is it doesn't sound pretty. Peoples imagination tend to go beyond reality. Actually I don't think much more than you are a new user that still has abit to learn.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 23:05, 21 November 2014 (UTC)