User talk:Atsme/Archive 41

Archive 35

←

Archive 39

Archive 40

Archive 41

Archive 42

Archive 43

→

Archive 45

Arbitration Case Opened

You recently offered a statement in a request for arbitration. The Arbitration Committee has accepted that request for arbitration and an arbitration case has been opened at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/RexxS. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/RexxS/Evidence. Please add your evidence by March 13, 2021, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/RexxS/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, SQL^{Query me!} 04:50, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

You got Something

		The Signpost Barnstar
		for Dr. Seuss's Guide to Wikipedia. Smallbones(smalltalk) 18:20, 4 February 2021 (UTC) ]]) 18:14, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

Awww...that is so sweet of you, Smallbones, but most of my stuff was censored, and ended-up on the cutting room floor. 🙈🙉🙊 I did contribute a little dab here and there, but mostly shook my pom-poms and assumed the role (or "roll") of cheerleader. It was clearly a labor of love for Lev and EEng, both of whom were reliving their respective childhoods, although few would have noticed the difference. 😂 Atsme 💬 📧 22:17, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

US presidential election article

I know, I normally discourage you from getting involved in US political articles, especially given the recent presidential election. Yet, I couldn't resist this one. It's about a perennial candidate. Take a look at Draft:Cthulhu for President. --GRuban (talk) 18:00, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

• OMG!! I love it!! I just learned something new. It needs a baby balloon like what Trump had!! Atsme 💬 📧 19:13, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

Here's a joke for ya, GRuban... *lol*

Trump dies from the virus and goes to Hell where the Devil is waiting for him.
"I don't know what to do," says the Devil. "You're on my list but I have no room for you. You definitely have to stay, so I'll tell you what I'll do. I've got three people here who weren't quite as bad as you. I'll let one of them go, but you have to take their place. I'll even let YOU decide who leaves."
Trump thinks that sounds pretty good so he agrees.
The devil opens the first room. Inside is Richard Nixon and a large pool of water. He dives in and surfaces empty-handed repeatedly, such is his fate in Hell.
"No!" Trump says. "I don't think so. I'm not a good swimmer and I don't think I could do that all day long."
The Devil leads him to the next room. In it is Tony Blair with a sledgehammer and a room full of rocks. All he does is swing that hammer repeatedly.
"No!, Trump says. I've got a problem with my shoulder. I would be in constant agony if all I could do was break rocks all day!"
The Devil opens a third door. Inside, Trump sees Bill Clinton lying naked on the floor with his arms staked over his head and his legs staked in spread-eagle pose. Bent over him is Monica Lewinsky, doing what she does best.
Trump looks at this in disbelief for a while and finally says, "Yeah, I can handle this."
The Devil smiles and says, "OK Monica, you're free to go!"

Atsme 💬 📧 19:33, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

No worries.

I always wondered what Ph'nglui mglw'nafh was the sound of... --GRuban (talk) 21:27, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

I would be in so much trouble if I responded to you with the humor that quickly came to my mind - sad but true - but hey, when it comes to politics, WP:IDGAF. <-- truth!! I'm good with sitting back and letting the ≤55 worry about it. Atsme 💬 📧 22:35, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

What you're not seeing

Hey-hey! So, it's about the specific WP:APL#Article sourcing expectations requirement, which I believe is unique to that Arbitration case (and WP:MEDRS, in a sense, I suppose). Kind regards, El_C 20:47, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

• El C the more I think about this, the more it concerns me - not anything you've done, of course, but ArbCom's role re: article sourcing. I'll open a discussion at WP:VPP and see where it goes. Thanks for all you do!! Atsme 💬 📧 13:58, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

Atsme, are you referring to yesterday's painful exchanges? Because, if so, I don't really want to talk about that here, beyond perhaps saying that I feel that have more than proven as both an editor and an admin, in many ways and in many topic areas, that I can keep my biases in check without being unduly influenced by them —or some wild offsetting thereof or whatever— in my own decision-making. So, yes, I of course am saddened and hurt when a trusted contributor makes arguments to the contrary seemingly on the basis of incomplete or otherwise distorted evidence. (Sarah, as mentioned, I don't wish to discuss this here, but out of courtesy, and I would also hope to say, friendship, I'm just letting you know about this comment.) Anyway, Atsme, I've concluded my presence in that AE thread (at least, I sincerely hope so!) with a comment which I titled reflections (diff). It's likely as painful to read as it was to write. Yours, El_C 14:45, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

El C, I wasn't talking about content bias, but about your involvement (for the want of a better word) with those individuals. I respect your desire not to discuss it, but I have to make that clear. SarahSV ^(talk) 03:45, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

Awww, El C, my heart hurts for what you've been through, and I'm sooo sorry that discussion evoked such painful memories. There have been some ugly, ugly times in our world's history...unconscionable deeds that demonstrated the kind of inhumanity most thought as inconceivable! There is credible evidence that the atrocities of genocide may still be taking place in the world today. But in an effort to not become depressed or totally consumed by such horrific thoughts, my former professional career has preconditioned me to focus on things from a very pragmatic POV; i.e., the relentless issues of AE/DS and the burden it places on admins and editors alike. It has become a bureacratic nightmare that is ripe for WP:POV creep and WP:NOTADVOCACY, when it's original purpose was to simplify. For me, it's not about any particular topic or article; rather, I see AE/DS as an ongoing problem, not a remedy. It appears to me that AE is the result of ArbCom throwing the ball back into the court of individual admins and to the community, despite the fact that the reason ArbCom got the case to begin with was because individual admins & the community were unable to resolve the issue. I'm not pointing fingers - several Arbs did their damndest best, and I'm very appreciative of their hard work. They also had to struggle with opposing views among themselves with no other place to go for relief!! But back on point, there are numerous reasons that AE/DS is not fair to admins and editors alike but I won't go into that right now. Of course, things are always fine when it works in one's favor, but when it doesn't, well...we've seen quite a few disgruntled editors pick up their toys and leave the treehouse to never return (at least not using the same identity). Regardless, my concern is not focused on that one article or topic area per se - it just happens to be the basis for the ArbCom remedy I'm questioning. Having said that, I definitely want to add that I have high expectations, and alot of faith and trust in our recently elected ArbCom (despite missing DGG) because of their fresh, neutral approach, (which I also see in you, El C), their thoroughness (from when they were admins), and their willingness to tackle the tough cases, which doesn't rule out compromise. The aforementioned are things I recognized about them before they even became admins. They will invest the time it takes to come up with the best workable remedy, and that is encouraging. That is exactly how I see it, and what I choose to believe. Happy editing!! Atsme 💬 📧 17:59, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

Let's create some funny words/terminology

• Create a word or short phrase to define or point out the omission of a word in a sentence because your typing is guided by conscious thought, not the subconscious, which is faster than you can type.
  1. Quantum mechanic needed for quantum misfire. Create a quantum mechanic needed template symbol for inline use. Atsme 💬 📧 13:45, 9 February 2021 (UTC) ^{This, when I could be sitting by the ocean.}

Fugetaboutit - I'll make it a user box. Atsme 💬 📧 13:15, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

Crapgap, Brainsplain, Dasher Dixon's Dilemma! InedibleHulk (talk) 20:15, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

Peer review

Hello Atsme, apologies for this random message. I came across your profile on the new page patrol page, and noticed that you have written several FAs. I wanted to drop by and ask if you'd be willing to leave comments at Wikipedia:Peer review/Lights Up/archive1? The article passed GA two weeks ago, and some reviewers have made comments on how to improve the page, which I've implemented. I would really appreciate if you could provide advice and suggestions on how to improve the article further. Thank you. --Ashleyyoursmile! 19:04, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

Yes, of course - I'm happy to help, Ashleyyoursmile. Atsme 💬 📧 19:15, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

That's very kind of you, thank you very much. Ashleyyoursmile! 19:16, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

Hi Atsme, I was wondering if you would be willing to mentor me for new page patrol. I am mostly active in CSD tagging, and review drafts at AfC while also occasionally participating in AfDs (but only in music and film-related deletion discussions). I'm not very confident in areas that I'm unfamiliar with. I am interested in learning more about notability and deletion processes. Ashleyyoursmile! 17:45, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

Hi, Ashley - absolutely. I'll ping you to the site when I've got everything set up for you to begin. Atsme 💬 📧 17:48, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

Thank you very much. Ashleyyoursmile! 18:20, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

Ashleyyoursmile - ok, start with User:Atsme/NPP training Atsme 💬 📧 18:56, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

Pier review.
😂 Home Sweet Home! Atsme 💬 📧

What do you think of this one? BD2412 T 18:06, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

Hey, BD, whassup? If you're referring to the GA article, see my review. I focused mostly on the lead. 😂 I didn't see the image. 😂 ^{18:41, 15 February 2021 (UTC)} Atsme 💬 📧 18:39, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

Given how things have been outside Dallas the past few days I have to say that is a pretty nice looking pier! PackMecEng (talk) 19:02, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

Well, thank you for that pier review, PME! Atsme 💬 📧 19:04, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

A kitten for you!

You are most welcome .

Fylindfotberserk (talk) 06:12, 19 February 2021 (UTC)
Awwwwe, how sweet of you, thank you Fylindfotberserk. I just wanted you to know that I absolutely appreciate all of your hard work. You are clearly an asset to the project...and I'll add, a very kind and thoughtful editor which is an added bonus. Happy editing! Atsme 💬 📧 12:53, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

Thanks sir. Thanks for these beautiful words . - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 14:38, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

Fylindfotberserk, "Sirr"!? Wrong sex.
Gareth Griffith-Jones (contribs) (talk) 15:30, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

Oops!...my bad . Sorry ma'am. I didn't see this. My apologies.. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 15:33, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

Thanks Gareth Griffith-Jones. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 15:33, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

New page patrol school

Hi, I’m leaving a message here to request that you accept me for the new page patrol school? I have already complete the CVUA course so I understand it may not be appropriate. The reason for my request was having limited experience with AfD, PROD and CSD. Thanks, Skingo12 (talk) 18:07, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

Apologies, Skingo12, I don't do well with acronyms - what is the CVUA course? Atsme 💬 📧 21:17, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

No problem, it's the Counter Vandalism Unit Academy, part of the Counter vandalism Unit. Here is my course if you are interested. Cheers, Skingo12 (talk) 22:02, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

Okie dokie, Skingo12 - when do you want to begin? Atsme 💬 📧 22:41, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

Well I am in the GMT timezone, however sleep is for the weak, so whenever is most convenient to you :-). Skingo12 (talk) 22:46, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

We're on - you can start here - become familiar with it, which should take you about a day to review, but if you need more time, that's ok, just tell me. In the interim, I will set-up your course, and ping you when it's ready. We have no deadlines - work at your own pace. Welcome aboard!! Atsme 💬 📧 22:52, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

Thanks Atsme, I have now read the first part of the tutorial (I assume the policy link are for later). Thanks, Skingo12 (talk) 13:35, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

I pinged you to the training session. Good luck!! Atsme 💬 📧 14:30, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Original Barnstar
	Atsme, this is to thank you for the guidance and support throughout the training. This is to let you know that I really appreciate your work and have learnt a lot from you. Ashleyyoursmile! 04:20, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

• Awwwe, thankyou sweet Ashleyyoursmile, an appropriate user name, indeed. Your kind words are very much appreciated. I was happy to help, and was duly impressed by your thoroughness and attentiveness to the job at hand. Best wishes for many years of happy editing! Atsme 💬 📧 14:36, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

  Atsme, thank you for the kind words as well. Ashleyyoursmile! 15:30, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

Noting spammage!

User_talk:Mitchellhobbs#Texas_freeze! El_C 23:07, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

- think...when hell freezes over! Atsme 💬 📧 23:13, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

To that, noting disinformation from the left, for the record. El_C 23:17, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

That goes to show you how much I know about what's going on in Texas, much less with Texas politicians. Consider my UTP a seance, and I'm the channel to Will Rogers:

1. "Things will get better -- despite our efforts to improve them."
2. "When I was a kid I was told anyone could become President. Now I'm beginning to believe it."
3. "Ancient Rome declined because it had a Senate, now what's going to happen to us with both a House and a Senate?"
4. "And the thing about my jokes is, they don't hurt anybody. You can take 'em or leave 'em - you can say they're funny or they're terrible or they're good, or whatever, but you can just pass 'em by. But with Congress, every time they make a joke, it's a law! And every time they make a law, it's a joke!"

And there you have it! Atsme 💬 📧 23:34, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

Hey, no woman is an island (even and especially when on an island), Atsme! Damn, them are some gems (noting for further plagiarism!). El_C 23:39, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

Some early Texas snow for you! Martinevans123 (talk) 23:45, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

What happens when you're on YouTube; you drift. Atsme 💬 📧 00:52, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

I submit to you that today is Gooby Day! — Enjoy! El_C 04:12, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

"I used to be Snow White...". Martinevans123 (talk) 11:12, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

Uhm, excuse me...we can't both be her. Perhaps one of the Snow White characters would be a better option for you? Just a wee suggestion. Atsme 💬 📧 14:58, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

Atsme, you can thank me as many times as you want, but if you think that it in any way diminishes from either your Gooby or Hot-Dog Park obligations, you are in for a rude awakening! You have been warned. El_C 17:58, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

Your wish is my command, Oh Grand Master of Gooby Ceremonies. See my UP - oh, and I posted a notice on your UTP. Atsme 💬 📧 18:04, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

Seems like this has evolved into something of a grim conclusion, or should that be grimage? Cheers to all|
Gareth Griffith-Jones (contribs) (talk) 10:39, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

Or Grumpage. Six out of seven dwarfs aren't Happy. Martinevans123 (talk) 12:03, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

Thank you ...

... for improving articles in February! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:01, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

Thank you, Gerda - your acknowledgement is very kind and much appreciated. You have always been a shining light of encouragement and inspiration for me. Atsme 💬 📧 11:38, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

Thank you, blushing a bit. What do you think of the Mathsci situation? Our content is free to be reused, but ... --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:05, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

I'm not familiar with that topic. Got links? Atsme 💬 📧 12:13, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

It's his user name, and I don't want a ping, he's stressed enough. Short (pointy) version: blocked for a month, because of having reverted the (useless) "in use" template of an editor with whom he's under an iban. That editor used the time to take Mathsci's baby, Clavier-Übung III#Reception and influence (56k+ chars of prose, images, refs) and make it a new article, Reception of Johann Sebastian Bach's music, making it look to everybody who doesn't look very closely at the initial entry which says it's a "merge" as if that beauty was his work. While admins tell me that's formally ok, and the "attribution" enough, I feel it's not decent, anytime, but especially while the other is blocked. - I'd expect some editor who feels a need for the Reception article to approach the author of Clavierübung and say, hey, you created exactly the content we'd need for Reception, what can WE do about it. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:29, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

Yikes. Well, unfortunately or fortunately, depending on which side of the argument you stand, there is WP:NOATT, and copying from one source to another. While it may not be ethical to merge the work of an original author/editor who is actively involved, there is not much else one can do beyond making sure relative guidelines were followed when merged, and that attribution was executed properly. It can be a sticky situation, especially considering WP:OWN. We all know that WP is the encyclopedia anyone can edit, and that we give freely of our time and our work. It's sad that as a result, we sometimes feel mistreated and become the target of a block for objecting, but admins have to do their job. I trust El C's judgement - he's as fair and neutral as they come. One other thought to consider about the in-use tag: I use it for justified reasons when there is a collaboration in process so that we are not stepping on each other's toes as we upgrade to improve an article, or perhaps while I'm working NPP and see where an article can be saved or improved upon but it takes some time, and I don't want another NPP reviewer tagging it for AfD before I finish the updates. I can sympathize somewhat with Mathsci but as a pragmatist, we do have PAGs to follow. Perhaps it would be a worthy endeavor to propose some updates to those guidelines? Atsme 💬 📧 14:39, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

That problem is actually underway to solution! - Today, we have a DYK about Wilhelm Knabe, who stood up for future with the striking school children when he was in his 90s, - a model, - see here. - Thank you for your position in the arb case request, - I feel I have to stay away, but there are conversations further down on the page, in case of interest, - in a nutshell: "... will not improve kindness, nor any article". - Yesterday, I made sure on a hike that the flowers are actually blooming ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:45, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

Today, we have Doris Stockhausen on her 97th birthday ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:29, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

Admin term limit survey

If you haven't seen it already, the survey is open to the community for discussion - Wikipedia:Request for comment/Adminship term length Atsme 💬 📧 13:24, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

Regarding this draft

Hi Atsme, hope you are well. I came across Draft:Colossal Media (Company) in the AfC queue. I found the article interesting and thought of checking the sources. The sources used in the article are reliable, analyse the subject in depth, and do have a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. Also, there are multiple such sources. My only query is whether these sources are completely independent of the subject. The Wall Street Journal, CBS News, and The New York Times have great editorial insight, and the authors have no-connection to the organisation. Although these articles provide commentary on the subject, the sources also include relevant portions of interviews with the CEO of the company, so I'm not completely sure if these can be considered independent. On the other hand, Business Insider, Billboard Insider, and Adweek discuss the subject and their works non-trivially, although I'm unsure about how reliable these sources are and whether they can be used to establish notability. Is it possible for you to take a look? Apologies for the inconvenience. --Ashleyyoursmile! 08:28, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

Hi, Ashleyyoursmile - good question! Ok, so consider this...I drink orange juice for breakfast. Does that mean I am not independent of Tropicana, one of several manufacturers of orange juice? On the other hand, I own the company that puts the labels on the orange juice bottles for Tropicana. Am I independent? Some questions to ask yourself - are any of the people with the RS you mentioned affiliated with Colossal Media? IOW, do they sit on an advisory board, or work in any capacity for Colossal Media? Do they collect ad revenue or other forms of compensation from Colossal Media? WP:RS states that "Independent of the subject" excludes works produced by the article's subject or someone affiliated with it. For example, advertising, press releases, autobiographies, and the subject's website are not considered independent. An online advertisement about Colossal Media would not be independent, and neither would a press release generated by/for them, etc. Per WP:IS (a supplement to PAGs) - Using independent sources helps protect the project from people using Wikipedia for self-promotion, personal financial benefit, and other abuses. Reliance on independent sources ensures that an article can be written from a balanced, disinterested viewpoint rather than from the subject's own viewpoint or from the viewpoint of people with an axe to grind. Hope that helps clarify it for you. You are doing an excellent job - keep up the good work, and happy editing! Atsme 💬 📧 11:10, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

Atsme, thank you very much for clearing my confusion. I try to to be extra careful while reviewing articles on companies so that I do not overlook anything. I have accepted the draft. :) Ashleyyoursmile! 11:54, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

Kindly help review

Hello Atsme. Thanks for all you are doing for Wikipedia. If you can, kindly check out my draft article (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Emmanuel_Wabwire) and offer your thoughts. I have been editing on here for a while but this is my first ever article to write. Thank you.

PS: I take all criticism in good faith Jkb2017 (talk) 10:59, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

Hello, Jkb2017 - I did some copy editing (ce) and markups on your draft. I started a discussion on the TP of the Draft. Atsme 💬 📧 12:31, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

Oh, thank you a lot Atsme! You have been very helpful - and I have definitely made reforms according to your guidance.

Thanks again. Cheers! Jkb2017 (talk) 03:43, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

Request for NPPS

Please accept me for New Page Patrol School! Thanks! Mr. Heart ^(talk) 02:35, 20 March 2021 (UTC)

Good morning, HeartatSchool. Thank you for volunteering to take a NPP training course. I am happy to accept you as a trainee. Please allow me a bit of time to create the training pages, and I will ping you from there. Atsme 💬 📧 12:32, 20 March 2021 (UTC)

WPM

My concern about deleting this article would be that editors would then take that as an excuse to dump content from the article into the individual articles on the individuals mentioned in the article. In fact, that's exactly the reason I created Demographics of the Supreme Court of the United States many years ago – people kept adding conspiratorial material to other articles about the number of Catholic justices; now it's all in one place, explained in context, and does not clutter up biographies or other pages on the court. BD2412 T 19:23, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

The possibility exists, and of course, we're constantly faced with the hegemony of the asshole consensus, so what are the options?

1. Ignore the article's failure to satisfy GNG and let it succumb to being a coatrack for political reasons, or
2. Eliminate the noncompliant BLP issues per WP:GUILT?

I started a discussion at WP:BLPN, and will accept whatever consensus brings. Atsme 💬 📧 20:34, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

NPP School Offer

When an Aspirin just isn't enough. Atsme 💬 📧 23:44, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

Hi Atsme, thank you for your kind NPP Training offer which for sure I love to accept. CommanderWaterford (talk) 23:01, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

You're quite welcome, CommanderWaterford. I will prepare your NPP course tomorrow and when it's ready, will ping you to start the course. Good luck! Atsme 💬 📧 23:04, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

Ready when you are. Already read WP:NPP entirely this morning (afterwards 1 Aspirin). CommanderWaterford (talk) 23:09, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

😂 But wait...there are special meds for WP editors who experience stress, vandalism, severe cases of WP:CIR, and the occasional WP:PA. You'll have to click on the image to enlarge it so you can read the fine print. There is a lot to take in, literally. I pinged you to your training session. You may begin. Atsme 💬 📧 23:44, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

-) :-)

Strange, I did not get any ping... but I will take a look on it today, seems to take while. CommanderWaterford (talk) 07:51, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

Atsme is such a pill! --Tryptofish (talk) 18:15, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

NPP Course

Greetings, I come to know about this course, how to join?? Sonofstar (talk) 20:23, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

Hi, Sonofstar, you can learn more about NPP training and available trainers at Wikipedia:New pages patrol/School. Atsme 💬 📧 20:27, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

March flowers

Today: Carmen for TFA (on my request), with Bizet's music "expressing the emotions and suffering of his characters" as Brian worded it. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:34, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

today (IWD): MMMM with a reference to Carmen again --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:35, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

(how about deleting the thread above?) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:36, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

Gerda Arendt, good job!! Oh, and what thread above? 😊 Atsme 💬 📧 01:13, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

an empty line is much cleaner --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:28, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

Today Bach's cantata composed for today, - perhaps listen. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:39, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

music blossoming and Yoninah's obituary with the beginning of Passover --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:47, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for what you said for RexxS --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:53, 31 March 2021 (UTC)

Today: an article about music significant in my life, Bach's motet Jesu, mein Freude, with a long way from the start in 2006 to the Main page today ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:15, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

DS reform

Hi Atsme, you may have seen this since you have CENT on your talk page, but given your questions to me during the recent ArbCom election, I thought you might want to chime in on DS review at Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions/2021 review/Consultation. --BDD (talk) 18:35, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

Thank you, BDD - I have been snowed under^[hyperbole] in RL and on en.WP and Commons, so I have not had a chance to look at CENT. I'm headed to that discussion now, and again, thank you! Atsme 💬 📧 19:13, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

DS2021 comment

Hi Atsme. I was wondering how your comment at DS2021 would change, if at all, after consideration of my answer to the second question at Wikipedia:Arbitration_Committee_Elections_December_2020/Candidates/L235/Questions#Questions_from_A7V2. I understand that your point probably goes beyond just that example, but if this is the example you think most exemplifies your point, I just want to be sure we're on the same page. Best, KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 23:54, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

Hi, Kev...well, I agree it's not the best example, and I don't want it to seem like I'm supporting what the articles say 100%. I will add a few links that demonstrate the generalities and breadth of the issues, not just AP2. For example, Wired, this Stanford article, and Investor's Business Daily, if you think it would help bring clarity. I also thought about adding this one, although the updates stopped in 2017 when that editor left the project. I didn't intend to make it just about AP2 because it involves so much more than that topic area. I do so want us to be on the road to resolution so editors can present their arguments collegially without fear of being t-banned or blocked by surprise for some ridiculous reason. Atsme 💬 📧 00:41, 30 March 2021 (UTC)

DYK for Cake and Cunnilingus Day

On 1 April 2021, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Cake and Cunnilingus Day, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that 14 April is Cake and Cunnilingus Day? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Cake and Cunnilingus Day. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, Cake and Cunnilingus Day), and if they received a combined total of at least 416.7 views per hour (ie, 5,000 views in 12 hours or 10,000 in 24), the hook may be added to the statistics page. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

Gatoclass (talk) 00:02, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion

An article you created or have significantly contributed to has been nominated for deletion. The article is being discussed at the deletion discussion, located here. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:40, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

Got me!! Atsme 💬 📧 19:48, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

Oh lord, that is pretty funny :) CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 03:19, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

Since you found this relevant

Since you found my mention of the chilling effect of interest, here is the context that made me think about it - my practical experiences in a particular TA which is affected by DS and which I believe is increasingly impacted by this phenomenon. Have you noticed this in any other TAs? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:23, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

Clarification and diff request

You posted to my talk page to say that I'd "restored challenged edits" to the leads of World Patent Marketing, and to accuse me of violating site policies. Because you didn't provide any diffs, and because I have no idea in which edit I might have restored the material you're concerned about, I asked for a clarification and diff on my talk page. You haven't responded, so I'm asking the same question here. Which of my edits restored challenged material to the lead of the article in question? MastCell ^Talk 18:33, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

In my initial post, I invited you to participate in the ongoing discussion at Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard#Matthew_Whitaker,_Ronald_Mallett,_WP:GUILT. That's where I'm directing you now, and where you should be asking questions. I pinged you at the subject noticeboard. I prefer not to use my UTP for lengthy discussions about issues with articles. Atsme 💬 📧 05:25, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

Test edit

Now is the time for all good men to come to the aid of the party. Atsme 💬 📧 14:22, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

Hmmm. The test worked, didn't it? Have a lovely Sunday!
Gareth Griffith-Jones (contribs) (talk) 15:23, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

I'm not sure if it worked or not, Gareth. So far, not one man showed up - I'm still waiting. ^{In person, that is.} 😂 Atsme 💬 📧 15:57, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

BLP violation warning

In going through edits and disputes related to World Patent Marketing, I noted that, in this edit, you linked Omar Rivero to the company in the lead of the article.

WP:BLP is very clear about the need for high-quality sources for negative material about living people. Specifically, it reads: "If an allegation or incident is noteworthy, relevant, and well documented, it belongs in the article—even if it is negative and the subject dislikes all mention of it. If you cannot find multiple reliable third-party sources documenting the allegation or incident, leave it out."

You did not provide any (much less "multiple") reliable third-party sources linking Rivero to the scam in question. You did cite a press release from the scam company itself, but hopefully I don't need to explain why press releases from fraudulent scam companies are not third-party reliable sources. If multiple reliable third-party sources link Rivero to WPM, then of course we should include his name, but I shouldn't have to explain to you that such sources are necessary.

Your edit was a clear and fairly serious violation of WP:BLP. Since it hasn't been repeated, I am coming here rather than escalating it, but given the foundational importance of BLP policy, your frequent invocation of it, and your continued references to Rivero in connection to the WPM scam, I'm asking that you stop, re-read WP:BLP, and acknowledge the key importance of third-party reliable sources in determining how and whether we mention potentially negative material about living people. MastCell ^Talk 19:03, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

You sure it's smart to give warnings and threaten admin action at an article you are so very clearly involved at? I would just move along if I were you, but hey what do I know. PackMecEng (talk) 19:15, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

He has clearly and unequivocally engaged in hounding for the past TWO YEARS, and has insulted several editors to the point even Jimbo said he needed to modify his approach. He just made a huge mistake with this warning. Atsme 💬 📧 19:20, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

MastCell, I have given some thought to your behavior toward me, and it's pretty obvious that it's HOUNDING by an involved admin; therefore, for my own well-being and peace of mind, I don't want you posting on my UTP again. I have muted your pings, and hope that you will show me the courtesy of voluntarily steering clear of me all together. I consider it to be the best option for both of us. Atsme 💬 📧 03:48, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

Copy editing Help

Hi Atsme! I saw your name on the Wikipedia:Peer review volunteers list and I was wondering if you're up for helping to edit and review Cueva de las Manos, an article that I've been working on recently, for spelling, grammar, and general copyediting. Thank you for your consideration!

Best,
Tyrone Madera (talk) 00:43, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

Hi, Tyrone - I'll look at it tomorrow. Happy editing!! Atsme 💬 📧 01:52, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

Thanks, you too!! Tyrone Madera (talk) 01:57, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

I've had some difficulty changing the format of the body to match that of the lead, primarily due to difficulties with paraphrasing. I'm also nervous about flow when it comes to the combining of sentences. I know the wording is choppy in areas and that combining sentences is probably the best way to fix that, but for some reason I have had a difficulty in doing that. I have, however, turned Carlos Gradín into a stub per the talk page, and I've also made some small changes. I haven't been very good at spotting the terminology differences either.

Thank you for your help; I think I'm ready to continue the review. Tyrone Madera (talk) 23:21, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

Also, do you think that I should get some prehistoric art history/rock art/archaeology experts from the volunteer list to look at the article? I don't know if there are any on the volunteer list, but maybe if not you might know some other users who are? Tyrone Madera (talk) 23:27, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

What you're doing right now is prepping for a peer review, so my suggestion is to simply post a request for collaborators to help prep the article, and post it on the relative Project TPs, then sit back and see what happens. After the article is prepped, then simply follow the instructions at Wikipedia:Peer review/guidelines. In fact, I'm pinging FunkMonk - maybe he can help because he is into art and dinosaurs, etc. Atsme 💬 📧 23:56, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

Looks interesting, I can sure give it a peer review, but have my hands a bit full when it comes to hands on article work. You can always list it at WP:COPYEDITORS if that's your main concern. FunkMonk (talk) 00:09, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

Perfect!! I tweaked the lead a bit but haven't done anything to the body text. My brain is fried tonight, so I might look at it in the wee hours of the morning. It will take me a couple of days of prepping and then I'll ping you again. Good to hear from you, FunkMonk!! Atsme 💬 📧 00:15, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

Atsme & FunkMonk: Awesome, and thank you both!!! I've just finished up posting a request for collaborators on each of the article's WikiProject's TPs, so we'll see who else decides to come in to help prep. Thanks again to both of you for your willingness to help :) Tyrone Madera (talk) 22:25, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

Re: Pkeets

I am puzzled by your statement. With another editor, and other issues, this would be a solid and sensible re-statement of basic principles. But in Pkeet's case, they are adopting a threadbare sham of a pretense, disingenuously posing as a genuine querent who honestly thinks that James O'Keefe's latest fraudfest is a reliable source for impeaching some of our most solid (not perfect, but solid) sources. --Orange Mike | Talk 01:51, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

• Hi, Mike!! How have you been? Ahhh, my statement...sometimes my statements puzzle me. I have not kept up with the O'Keefe drama. It's pretty recent, right? I thought O'Keefe was debunked a long time ago. Anyway, I'd like to see stricter adherence to RECENTISM, and let Wikinews handle all current affairs and breaking news. Our encyclopedia isn't dependent on political articles, and I think it's safe to say, they aren't bringing home any bacon, either. I'm not all that familiar with Pkeet, but I did take a look at some of his history. I supported his first t-ban, obviously with good cause but if my memory serves, it was a behavioral issue. I'm not seeing good cause at AE this time around, and I did mention it to the OP suggesting that he bring us better diffs if he wanted a different result. I'm of the mind that all news sources should be approached with caution, and that editors should not automatically take everything they read at face value (except maybe the Sports section) without at least doing some research to corroborate the material, making sure it extends beyond the echo chamber, and aligns with one's common sense...and use in-text attribution. Atsme 💬 📧 05:11, April 20, 2021

ANI Notification

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. ThadeusOfNazereth^{Talk to Me!} 00:09, 19 April 2021 (UTC)

Just a little note so my (talk page watcher)s won't think I got dragged to the drama board. I had reservations about a close, notified the closer ThadeusOfNazereth about my concerns, and we engaged in a thoughtful and polite discussion. I was still left with questions and felt admin input was needed. Thadeus was amenable, and without hesitation took the review request to ANI. When I received this notice, I suggested the move to AN. Thadeus was not only courteous throughout, I will add knowledgeable and highly ethical, showing no reluctance to have their work reviewed. I was quite impressed by their behavior - definitely a future prospect for our admin corps. However, I was quite surprised by the reception I received at AN - nothing short of chilling because of a few, not the many. No editor should be subject to PAs as I was for (1) discussing a close with the closer, (2) having more trust in the judgement of our admins to close a controversial discussion, or (3) requesting a review of a non-admin close. Thadeus also expressed concern over the reception I received. What I experienced at AN serves to further validate my position and support of a mandatory 10 year admin evaluation. Behavior that violates WMF's Code of Conduct should be addressed expediently. Our current system is definitely flawed, and I am grateful and optimistic that some of our new Arbs are aware of those flaws, and are seeking a long term remedy. I wish them luck and hope they can bring about this much needed change. Atsme 💬 📧 10:41, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

Chilling atmosphere here of late... GenQuest ^"scribble" 20:19, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

McCarthyism comes to mind...and then there's this which sounds great in theory, but in practice? No-workie according to Forbes but definitely "hip and trendy". The explanation - gotta love how they show the higher gross wages without mentioning how much the government takes from that wage - typically 40% to 70% so they end-up with far less. It's basically inflation at it's finest - wages go up, and so does the cost of living. The wage-earner is back to square one. But then, there's this to wet one's appetite. Atsme 💬 📧 12:40, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

The behavior towards you was at times well past the line. One person practically called you a racist, yet admins didn't seem to care about that. It's why I'm taking steps back from this place, nothing is worth the hassle and headache of this place. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 19:07, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

I didn't see that comment before you pointed out. And there it was at AN. The admins must've been busy like me and overlooked it. I just posted a warning on their UTP. I don't even want to think about it at this point. I'm not going to be bullied off WP - oh no - I've got a much better plan. The bullying, rude and radical behavior will come to an end...eventually. WP has no deadlines. Atsme 💬 📧 21:13, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

That's very disappointing. In fact, quite unpleasant. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:22, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

😢 Yes, indeed. Atsme 💬 📧 21:46, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

Ah, just boogie on, reggae Atsme! Martinevans123 (talk) 22:06, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

❤️ Love what they did to that arrangement!!! Lifted me right up and I started dancing. 💃 Thank you, Martin! Atsme 💬 📧 22:10, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

Like ... but the very beginning reminded me of old Peter Frampton on steroids .. lol. — Ched (talk) 20:39, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

lol. "I'm swimming in a circle. I feel I'm going down". Martinevans123 (talk) 21:08, 22 April 2021 (UTC) ... but all hail the the Wong Father!!

I think Cher's audio mixer-effects person probably toyed with some digital effects (ever so slightly) in this song. I think Frampton & Cher are about the same age so isn't that close to the time those types of digital effects were gaining in popularity? Of course, Willie Nelson has his own sound effect - they're called vocal chords. 🤣 Atsme 💬 📧 21:51, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

Yeah Cher's Auto-Tune electronic trick was pretty en vogue. But the Talk-box is pretty analogue! Martinevans123 (talk) 22:14, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

Well, I'll be dipped! I didn't notice that tube. Learn something new everyday!! Atsme 💬 📧 22:28, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

Music I composed just having fun! Atsme 💬 📧 22:34, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

I hadn't heard of of the term "lawfare" until the other day but that makes me think of real-word "Wikilawyering". Interesting there's a section discussing whether lawfare's a positive or negative term. I think "Wikilawyering" is generally viewed negatively but maybe if we took a more nuanced view then maybe being accused of doing something like that wouldn't be viewed as a personal attack.

Regarding "mandatory 10 year admin evaluations", 10 years is a long time to go before an evaluation. I just had my 10-year anniversary as an editor nine days ago, but nobody noticed! It will be four+ more years before I've been an admin for 10. I think we have about the right amount of appropriate desysops, and there's already plenty of drama associated with them. I'd hate to create more drama by making these public reviews mandatory for everyone. But it would be nice if there was a better way to head off bad behavior before it escalated to the ArbCom case level. The drama boards aren't the answer. Just a thought, maybe reviews could be done more like in the real world. Whoever had their job-performance reviews conducted in a conference room filled with all their co-workers? Maybe a review could be conducted by having editors submit their comments in confidence to ArbCom or some other group trusted with the task (Trust & Safety) with the comments then being summarized and packed into a private email back to the admin being reviewed. Possibly the reviews could include a numerical performance rating with the average rating of all reviewers being shared, and this would create a positive incentive for admins to compete to try to become the highest-rated admin. And give the highest-rated tier of admins bigger pay raises LOL – wbm1058 (talk) 21:19, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

As long as the lowest-rated tier of admins got sacked, I wouldn't be too bothered. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:23, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

It is the judgment of this court that you must wipe up the drink that you spewed. --Judgefish

"nice wig, shame about the sceptre"

No judging, Martin!

How your adversaries see you!!

Unfortunately, Judgefish arrived late - the hangin' is at eight AM.

I pictured Tryp to look more like this.

Nope, Atsme, I'm much better looking than that. See what nice teeth I have? --Tripp

That's an interesting concept, wbm. Where did you come across the word "lawfare"? As for the evaluations, we need a way for editors to express their concerns without raising more concerns because of alliances, or feeling intimidated that if they do say something, they'll be targeted. It's a toughy, for sure. We're only human, so we're quicker to dismiss violations by wikifriends than we would be for someone who demonstrates a completely different POV, or someone we don't know (unless Tryptofish is judging, and then everybody's fair game 😂). I won't deny that I would be hesitant to throw a wikifriend under the bus, so I'd probably recuse, unless it was such an egregious offense that they lost my trust as well. And really, that's the only time an admin needs to intervene anyway. I am far more lenient when it comes to the grey areas, like "bludgeoning" which is malleable - it's just too easy to accuse someone of bludgeoning and make it stick. The only times I've seen it used was to game the system, and I would rather see it disappear all together because we all know the bludgeoning allegation tends to rear its ugly head when there's bias or concern that the accused bludgeoner will actually win the argument. I've only seen one instance in the past decade of real bludgeoning (not to be confused with tl;dr) - and it was a newbie, but that can be fixed. It takes two to Tango, so there can't be bludgeoning unless others are dancing with them. Bludgeoning is a contradiction of WP's no deadline - discussion is far more important, and if you can't reach a decision (consensus) locally, take it to the wider community. Most of our PAGs don't need admin intervention - except for threats, blatant PAs, vandalism and, and...well, what else requires admin intervention? Atsme 💬 📧 22:24, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

That's right: I'm equally nasty to everyone. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:31, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

🤣 I spewed my drink. Atsme 💬 📧 22:35, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

Hanging at eight? As long as it's after Happy Hour! By the way, I don't look anything like that caricature, but just maybe I wear that kind of wig. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:52, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

Whatever floats your boat, it's ok with me! Atsme 💬 📧 23:38, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

Sorry Atsme, I can't recall where I ran across "lawfare". I've been working the linked misspellings beat you've occasionally helped with, and maybe I noticed it in one of those articles. I "bookmarked" it and by the time I got back to that tab I forgot where I was when I'd saved it. I guess my short-term memory isn't what it used to be. Right, I don't like to use that word that literally means "An assault with a club or similar weapon". I think the essay might be more effective if it didn't use that term. It does link to "tendentious", which is a guideline supplement that should carry more weight than an essay. wbm1058 (talk) 03:18, 23 April 2021 (UTC)

Well, Wbm1058 I can certainly relate to the open tabs/memory issues. I also agree with the rest of what you said, and thank you for your input! One of these days, I'd like to go back to working with misspellings but I've already committed to a pretty heavy workload as it is with NPP training, and working permissions over at Commons. I'd also like to get some of the kinks worked out of our RS rating system...which just reminded me to start a new section. Atsme 💬 📧 19:38, 24 April 2021 (UTC)

Tryptofish...sorry for the delayed response to your new image but as hard as I tried, I just couldn't sink my teeth into it. Atsme 💬 📧 23:56, 24 April 2021 (UTC)