User talk:Atsme/Archive 19

Archive 15

←

Archive 17

Archive 18

Archive 19

Archive 20

Archive 21

→

Archive 25

My comment

I should not have made that comment, since we are not supposed to talk about other editors. But what I meant by it is that you have now told us that you have a strong POV here - that your edits and comments are aimed at trying to prove something. You are entitled to your beliefs - we all have them - but most of us try to do our editing from a purely encyclopedic viewpoint. (I personally have been accused of being both a Trump apologist and a Trump hater, which I assume means I have succeeded in keeping my editing neutral.) it can be helpful for others to know whether another editor is coming from a neutral or a POV angle. Anyhow, I was out of line to say that on a public talk page, and I have struck the comment. If you would prefer, I will delete it, along with our replies. --MelanieN (talk) 21:50, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

MelanieN, you are mistaken about me and how I have been responding as an editor. I'm old school journalism - actually did field production for CNN back in the day - and the way the news was reported back then is not at all like what we're seeing today. We weren't dealing with revenue streams generated by bait-click sensationalist headlines over the internet, or pundits reporting opinionated BS in lieu of reporting real news and real journalism, and I'm speaking generally, not politically. Journalists used to follow a code of ethics, [1] but the latter doesn't generate nearly as much revenue as sensationalism. Add to that, the intensity of the competition today, and we're seeing "no holds barred journalism" with a mindset of "we can always publish a retraction later". It's all about bait-click revenue. There are no legal consequences today to keep these publications/news sources ethical anymore - funny how money or the lack of it has a way of doing that from time to time. What we're dealing with now are pundits, not journalists or news anchors from the John Cameron Swayze, Huntley-Brinkley era. I can assure you that my background and experience in both television, journalism and publishing has a way of opening one's eyes. Others may differ - fine - but differ from a NPOV. I'm of the mind that the repeal of the Smith-Mundt Act caused ethical journalism to go to hell in a hand basket - it is now propaganda. We've gone from restricted broadcast licenses that were regulated by the FCC to a frigging free-for-all with all the propaganda and BS that goes with it.

WP PAGs are antiquated as a result - they have not kept up with the times (no pun intended). This isn't my first rodeo with WP editors trying to label me as something I'm not. I have been and will continue to be one of the most transparent editors on WP. My neutrality is 2nd nature when I login - I don't even have to think about it because I'm constantly looking at all angles. You could say I have a "common sense" bias and I won't object. My decisions are based on true HISTORY, accurate RESEARCH and COMMON SENSE. If, after years of trying to hang a crime or unethical behavior on someone, and after all that time there is still nothing produced to substantiate even one of the allegations, it's time to step back and reanalyze one's own position on the matter. I lean left on some matters and right on others - but it's old school left and right. That's as neutral as one can get because it's based in common sense. Regardless, this is WP, and when I login, I'm Atsme - a neutral, common sense editor. I strive for perfection - I look at each article as a potential GA - so if that makes me a bad editor, then go right ahead and label me "Atsme, the perfectionist." I won't object. ^{Atsme📞📧} 23:49, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

Continuation of "Could you contribute if you have time?" from Archive

I would like to get Fusion GPS to GA status too! That's a great idea. I noticed that you mentioned it in the article talk page. --FeralOink (talk) 05:42, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

FeralOink, I believe that as long as ALL editors follow PAGs, the articles will be of the quality demanded of this encyclopedia, and the project will maintain its integrity. I do believe this discussion belongs on the TP of, well...Fusion GPS? It needs more serious eyes on it than what it will get here since my TP is a happy place where editors make requests, poke fun, send reminders, and the like. While I'm involved in multiple topics, and rarely if ever edit political topics, I do take notice when information is being suppressed or if there is a blatant POV issue that doesn't belong, be it left or right. When you get this discussion moved to the article of your choice, I'll respond there. ^{Atsme📞📧} 13:19, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

Hi Atsme! I understand. I'll plop this in my sandbox for now, rather than cluttering up your friendly happy TP. I hope to work with you on articles of common interest in the future!--FeralOink (talk) 16:10, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

Userboxes

Hei! Um I feel as if my Userboxes are sorta all over the place and was wondering, if you don't mind, if you could organise them for me or tell me how I can myself? I want to keep them in the order they do going down so I don't want any side by side so can you tell me how? Dinah In Wonderland 13:22, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

Hi, Dinah Kirkland, I just used centered tables. See Help:Table, and pick the style you want. Hope that helps. ^{Atsme📞📧} 13:42, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

Si it does grazie! Dinah In Wonderland 14:07, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

BLPs, medical RS, and public figures

Re your question on Doc James' talkpage. I see exactly where you're coming from and I don't want to butt in there but briefly will say that I suspect a) he doesn't particularly want to get involved in US politics and b) it isn't a MEDRS question at all. The law has a concept where public figures are not protected by the same rules of privacy that most of us are, and this falls squarely in that category. It's not spelled out in the BLP guidelines but what I've seen is that articles on political and other public figures tend to follow the sources rather this way -- i.e. without restriction. If it is appropriate I may copy this comment back to his talkpage later. ☆ Bri (talk) 02:09, 8 August 2017 (UTC)

I disagree, Bri. A BLP is a BLP, regardless of whether or not they're public figures, a celebrity or famous serial killer. Furthermore, anything medical falls under MEDRS including energy drinks, psychotic behavior, GMOs, and insecticides if it medically affects humans in any way. At the very least, that article is riddled with blatant WP:SYNTH for the purpose of leading readers, not informing them by providing factual encyclopedic information. All one has to do is look at the section Explanation given by Donald Trump - and it's easy to see that the blatant noncompliance with WP:SYNTH is blinding. Several different sources were used to make a single event - an assertive handshake and a few jokes - appear abnormal using WP:SYNTH and combining variations of quotes from various news sources.

Where is the stand alone article about Hillary's fainting spells, her head injury and multiple falls? Look at the Charles Manson article - it is written far more dispassionately and in compliance with NPOV. Show me the Analysis section in the Manson article. Show me where synth was used to spin his craziness. Do you see a separate article about his haircut or tattoo? How many times do you see the words "swastika tattoo" in that article; the tattoo in the middle of the guy's forehead? I think it's mentioned once! Look at Hitler and tell me what you see there and how it compares to what's being written on WP about this particular president. I consider it an embarrassment to WP that such nonsense was even allowed. ^{Atsme📞📧} 03:13, 8 August 2017 (UTC)

Manson is interesting because the article does talk about "mental health issues" and is categorized as such. Which is relevant given the extensive media coverage as a disordered person. My point is that we have two competing guidelines: follow the sources and protect BLPs. My observation merely is that we push the needle closer to one side or the other subjectively, as we do in virtually all cases where there are imperatives in tension. There is no hard and fast rule for all articles. Understanding this and trying to nudge the community is probably more effective than saying "this article breaks an absolute rule and must be corrected". In the AfD close that you are challenging, the community has explicitly stated its preference, so you are fighting an uphill battle if you take it as an absolute.

I think, realistically, the best you can hope for here is not deleting the article outright, but 1) making sure the article echoes exactly what reasonably believable people say in RSes and 2) characterizing their opinions as such, not as WP's voice. This is probably something that consensus would endorse.

Here's another tack. You might have a wedge if you can pin some of the analysis on fringe theories. Graphology, voice stress analysis, and other "scientific" analyses that supposedly reveal purpose, personality or other inner thoughts are treated fairly harshly by WP. Behavioral Analysis Unit § Criticism and Offender profiling § Problems might give some clues on where to start.

One final avenue that might be fruitful is picking apart individual references. E.g. The Independent is judged by WP to be a paper with a particular political bent (described in its infobox). Perhaps the psychologists they consulted were cherry picked to align with this? Perhaps generic psychologists aren't qualified to do detailed psychiatric-style profiling? Even if they were see above re lack of consensus on effectiveness of profiling. The least you should expect is cooperation on including criticism of such profiling into the article.

Anyway, hope this is a positive experience for you, I sense that you are frustrated. Working with a mostly anonymous community can be like that. It's like driving a supertanker sometimes trying to get things to change, which is why I'm trying to point out ways you could make an effective argument in this case. Not beat your head against a wall like claiming MEDRS coverage, and just ending up more frustrated. ☆ Bri (talk) 04:25, 8 August 2017 (UTC)

The point I was trying to make about Manson was that he was a convicted murderer and was incarcerated. He was under the care of medical professionals and various other experts, not journalists, and his article reflects more NPOV than the article in question - and look at the length of it which covers the man's entire life vs the length of a stupid noncompliant article about a handshake. I'm done for tonight - thanks for your suggestions. Tomorrow's another day. ^{Atsme📞📧} 04:44, 8 August 2017 (UTC)

Drop the Stick

You really should drop the stick now on Jared Taylor. Power~enwiki (talk) 17:27, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

Value-laden labels—such as calling an organization a cult, an individual a racist, terrorist, or freedom fighter, or a sexual practice a perversion—may express contentious opinion and are best avoided unless widely used by reliable sources to describe the subject, in which case use in-text attribution. You are entitled to your own opinion, but you are not entitled to your own facts. ^{~ Daniel Patrick Moynihan} And that's all I have to say. ^{Atsme📞📧} 17:31, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

Is that really all you have to say? Because it seems like every time you say that (and it's been several times), you end up saying more. So it sounds pretty hollow the tenth time. Rockypedia (talk) 23:48, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

Your veiled threats against me

You've been threatening me and other editors for days on the Jared Taylor talk page, in an obvious attempt to intimidate, without cause. I don't know what your endgame is and I don't care. Either report me and every editor you've threatened to a neutral administrator, or knock off the threats. The third course of action, which is to continue your veiled unfounded threats, is what I fully expect you to take, because your agenda in supporting the whitewashing of a white supremacist's article is obvious, and the MO of online anonymous supporters of white supremacists matches your recent actions exactly. Time to put up or shut up. Rockypedia (talk) 23:47, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

Clinton tarmac meeting

Your edits to that article are clearly not NPOV. Discuss it before reverting again. Rockypedia (talk) 01:14, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

Question

Since you obviously have a lot of experience with wikipedia, I'm curious if you know: Is it against wikipedia rules to repeatedly accuse someone of being a "sockpuppet" without proof, as Rockypedia has been doing with me simply because he doesn't like my opinions? 24.178.250.78 (talk) 02:21, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

I'm not pointing out that you're a sockpuppet because of your opinions. I'm pointing out that you're a sockpuppet because you're editing without a registered account, and because you're a sockpuppet. Clear? Rockypedia (talk) 02:31, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

I'm not a sockpuppet, and I noticed you have accused everyone on the Jared Taylor talk page who disagrees with your ridiculous claims of being a "sockpuppet." Clear? 24.178.250.78 (talk) 02:56, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

I only pointed out that you're a sockpuppet. No one else. Rockypedia (talk) 03:06, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

Oh, yeah? I think Pingu4581 might have something to say about that. 24.178.250.78 (talk) 03:17, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

He'll be busy for a while at 3RR. ^{Atsme📞📧} 03:00, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

No, I really won't be; in fact I'm already done there. But I have a feeling you might be busy explaining your blatant advocacy for Jared Taylor, once an admin looks at your edits and the spurious RfC that's being rejected roundly. Rockypedia (talk) 03:06, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

You're scaring me, Rockypedia - your comments and disruption, your trolling me, your accusations against other edits - I'd prefer it if you'd keep a safe distance away from me. You are not welcome here. ^{Atsme📞📧} 04:11, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

Oh really. I haven't filed any kind of report against you, while you filed a frivolous 3RR report against myself and another editor, the results of which were: "Frivolous report, which is only tenuously connected with edit warring of any kind and not in the required format. Please don't misuse our boards." You don't seem scared. If you don't want to deal with responses from other editors, don't threaten them in your efforts to whitewash the Taylor page. Really easy. Rockypedia (talk) 12:54, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

A friendly note

As a friendly note regarding, but unrelated to your recent post at WP:DRV, I found an animated GIF regarding Trump here. Also, I don't mind that you brought the discussion to DRV, just so you know. Just some humor here... Regards, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:06, 10 August 2017 (UTC)

Northamerica1000 I hope you know that I hold you in the highest regard, and that the review I requested did not stem from distrust or concern over your judgment - I have had my days in the hot seat as an equine competition judge where substantial amounts of money were at stake and know the pressure of a judgment call full well - and I believe with all my heart that you did what you felt was the right thing, and I respect your decision even though I may have disagreed with it. Thank you for all you do, for your courage and integrity, and for your refreshing sense of humor. 🤗❤️^{Atsme📞📧} 13:15, 10 August 2017 (UTC)

BLP

Good work on Talk:Jared Taylor. The folks over there just keep claiming that if it's in a RS, it belongs in the article. They don't accept that opinions and facts are different things, or that BLPs have strict requirements for fairness. Such a pity. Lou Sander (talk) 23:01, 10 August 2017 (UTC)

Thank you, Lou...I hold your words in the highest regard. Collaboration and honoring PAGs are of the utmost importance in my book, as it appears it is for you as well. ^{Atsme📞📧} 23:08, 10 August 2017 (UTC)

Hello - you both have far more Wikipedia experience than I and I am posting here strictly for the purpose of understanding why the recent Nblund & Grayfell edits made to the Jared Taylor article were improper and deemed "crap". I read the edits in question as well as WP:BLP and it seems to me that the best result would have been a combination of what was there previously with some of the edits in question. Again, just attempting to learn here - Thanks. airuditious (talk) 19:52, 12 August 2017 (UTC)

Hi, Aleding - the cited source used to make a derogatory claim about a WP:BLP was The Guardian ("The newspaper's reputation as a platform for liberal and left-wing editorial has led to the use of the "Guardian reader" and "Guardianista" as often (but not always) pejorative epithets for those of left-leaning, earnest or politically correct tendencies". per WP). While we don't discriminate against sources that are biased we must be careful about opposition politics, and the article's motive being that it was written in Aug 2016 in the middle of the US presidential elections. The left was attacking the right quite handily with political bias and used unsupported claims of racism to denigrate the opposition and its followers. The comment was added as a factual statement in Wiki voice, and that violates WP:BLP, WP:NPOV and WP:LABEL. I have grown weary of repeating the same WP:PAG over and over again at that BLP and at WP:RS/N. The last RfC that was held for that BLP was closed as "no consensus", so the disruption continues. I don't really care what people think off-WP. They are entitled to their opinions, but when they're here editing, they have to leave their biases at login. I have pointed to samples of good articles that are encyclopedic the way they are written, and we should be striving for conformity, quality and integrity in our articles. See Charles Manson and Hitler. BLP requires multiple high quality sources and even then, we use in-text attribution which means we don't label people, we quote or summarize that others do and cite it inline to RS. Hope that helps. ^{Atsme📞📧} 20:23, 12 August 2017 (UTC)

THANK YOU - you have no idea how informative that was...can I feel free to post questions here from time to time? I promise to first research policies and not to abuse... airuditious (talk) 20:27, 12 August 2017 (UTC)

Certainly! ^{Atsme📞📧} 21:21, 12 August 2017 (UTC)

Atsme, it sounds like you objected to the lack of in-text attribution. I think you might be able to make a case for in-text attribution, but you reverted everything and called it "crap" - which doesn't give me a lot to work with in attempting to forge a compromise.

I feel like I should note: Hitler's entry describes him as a dictator who promoted antisemitism and conspiracy theories and Charles Manson is described as a cult-leader who believed in an impending race war. None of these are given in-text attribution, even though they have negative connotations. Nblund ^talk 22:00, 12 August 2017 (UTC)

Nblund, let's look at the lead sentence in Hitler:

"Adolf Hitler (German: [ˈadɔlf ˈhɪtlɐ] (About this sound listen); 20 April 1889 – 30 April 1945) was a German politician who was the leader of the Nazi Party (Nationalsozialistische Deutsche Arbeiterpartei; NSDAP), Chancellor of Germany from 1933 to 1945, and Führer ("Leader") of Nazi Germany from 1934 to 1945. As dictator, he initiated World War II in Europe with the invasion of Poland in September 1939, and was central to the Holocaust.

Now compare it to Jared Taylor's lead sentences:

Samuel Jared Taylor (born September 15, 1951) is an American white nationalist and white supremacist. He is the founder and editor of American Renaissance, a magazine often described as a white supremacist publication.

Taylor was hit 3 times in the first two sentences with derogatory labels stated in Wiki voice as factual information when they are actually the opinions of detractors or his opposition, if you will.

Back to Hitler, the article doesn't say in Wiki voice that Hitler was a murdering anti-Semite and a white supremacist who promoted conspiracy theories, does it? Those are tabloid labels, not academic or encyclopedic and not even close to ethical journalism.

• Fact - Hitler was a dictator.
• Fact - Hitler did promote antisemitism - he murdered millions of Jews (The lead terms it "central to the Holocaust" but I think that is probably overly cautious.)
• Fact - Hitler did promote conspiracy theories - he denounced international capitalism and communism as being part of a Jewish conspiracy per the WP article.

Those are all provable facts. The events actually took place and are documented in multiple history books and magazines with photos dating back when journalism followed a code of ethics unlike the political pundits, propagandists and bait & click authors of the internet generation. That's why editors should excercise caution when editing a BLP and finding RS to cite. Manson is the same way, so no need to dissect it.

The 2016 political campaign brought a lot of negativity. Those who stood to benefit politically and financially from race baiting, took advantage of it. The SPLC & ADL aren't immune from such antics, and neither are academics. See the last paragraphs in the Britannica, [2]. They simply don't pass the acid test for us to use as statements of fact in Wiki voice. For example, Leonard Zeskind, a lifetime member of the NAACP, is cited as a RS in the article. Biased sources can be RS, but not for this BLP. Carol M. Swain is also cited and she wrote an op-ed in WaPo "calling for the Republican Party to offer a formal apology to American citizens of African descent for the institution of slavery." Does she represent NPOV, or do you think there might be some bias involved there, too?

One sentence using a value-laden label one time in an article does not a white supremacist make. One quote I remember seeing was that Taylor believes some races excel in areas where others may not. <----is that proof that he's a white supremacist? I also read where he believes Japanese excel in math. Uh oh, what does that do to white supremacy? Maybe you should read this article in The Atlantic. Should we now label The Atlantic a white supremacist publication, or do we excuse them for that one time, or heck, maybe the article is informative and factual, then what?

Also check out WP:PSCI if you're proposing inclusion of anything pseudoscientific in the article, and don't be surprised if we suddenly find that article under DS for both BLP and PSCI - and it won't be my first rodeo. Editors should look at every article they create or edit as being representative of the quality and integrity people expect from a world renowned encyclopedia. WP isn't a soapbox or a place to right great wrongs. We're here to write factual information and opinions that we can attribute to RS, and when the time comes that a statement or the whole damn article is controversial and will ultimately be challenged, why not prepare in advance by using in-line text attribution while making sure our sources are of the highest quality for a BLP, and that the information is verifiable in the sources we're using? Why not? It's just that simple. ^{Atsme📞📧} 00:19, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

Tea

A nice cup of tea.

I noticed the 3RR thread. Please keep it cool in relation to the Jared article. When consensus isn't on our side it can be frustrating. Sometimes it's good to let the spice (and tea) flow a bit... You seem to be a reasonable person and experienced editor and I liked reading the sensitive yet convivial thread at Mjolnir's talk page, so I know you've not lost your calm yet. Just a friendly reminder and encouragement to keep it despite the tribulations . Have a good day, —PaleoNeonate – 11:57, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

Thank you, PaleoNeonate - that was very sweet of you. The Taylor article is a nightmare, no doubt. I never imagined there'd be so much push-back over adding a simple inline text attribution to assure compliance with WP:LABEL - the push-back is what speaks volumes as does the defense of it. What takes the cake, though, is when an editor tries to influence the outcome of an RfC by removing parts of another editor's comments! When that kind of behavior is excused, and the editor who is following protocol gets the warning instead - it's pretty obvious something is wrong - makes me think of Berkeley. Worse yet, it extends beyond Taylor to an article I created approx. 2 days ago that was descended upon by editors who are also participating at Taylor. Coincidence? Yeah, right. I see it as retaliation, and one of the revert comments supports my contention, yet I got the warning. Sure smells like an advocacy at work, and that's sad. Have you seen this 2014 Harvard report about Wikipedia bias? How about their 2012 report. I am appalled by Bishonen's threat to TB me from American politics because of the disruption of other editors at an article I created 2 days ago. I believe it was my first article that has any hint of politics broadly construed because I actually was focusing on the DOJ and their alleged collusion with MSM. The DOJ is not supposed to be political, but a politician is what inadvertently set the stage leading up to the emails between DOJ & MSM. I hope some neutral admin eyes are reading this page and can see what's really going on. It's a travesty. Happy editing! ^{Atsme📞📧} 17:57, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

Please note warning

Please note my warning on my page, in response to your own post, that you may be topic banned from American politics if you persist in disruptive behaviour in the area.[3] Bishonen | talk 15:03, 14 August 2017 (UTC).

Yes, and please note my response to you at your TP. I think this entire case may need some neutral eyes on it because I truly believe your actions are the result of your bias against me. And now you are threatening me with TB because I followed protocol. This is a sad day for WP. ^{Atsme📞📧} 16:41, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

Politics and Wikipedia

I chimed in on your comment at Kudpung's talkpage but thought it deserved more explanation. Over time I've decided not to become involved in WP pages about subjects I feel especially strongly about. In some cases I've even decided to back off from certain areas of my own volition after I realize it is too close to me. This includes US politics in general. It's a tough thing and also over time, I've seen other editors get burnt out with involvement in the arena of politics. Just a word of caution, not trying to steer you in any particular direction at all. ☆ Bri (talk) 22:47, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

Hey, Bri - actually, that article wasn't intended to be political. It was supposed to be about the DOJ which represents the law enforcement branch of government, and the 400+ emails they turned over after being sued under FOIA by Judicial Watch. The ACLJ published those emails and the poop hit the fan with allegations of collusion between the DOJ and MSM. And that is the heart of the story, not the actually meeting on the tarmac which is secondary to it all. ^{Atsme📞📧} 01:01, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

Not sure I completely understand what you intended this to become, and as you said, yout got kind of bushwhacked before it was really ready to go. This is an unfortunate consequence of our anything-goes collaborative model which can leave one feeling beat up (been there, done that). Next time – if you intend to try again – you might want to do a WP:Userspace draft, where there's mega latitude on content, freedom from interference, and pretty much all the time you need to finish construction. I usually have several of them going in my own userspace. Good luck and if you want to discuss more just ping me. ☆ Bri (talk) 14:01, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

Panda for you

🐼Look at that face! Your argument is invalid.

I saw all the past discussions so I'm giving you this panda I made. If you don't mind me asking what exactly happend? Dinah In Wonderland 17:25, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

🤣😆🐼 - it's unbelievable, Dinah. Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Edit_warring#User:Fyddlestix and User:Rockypedia reported by User:Atsme (Result: Declined.) Editors are like a Bic lighter...disposable - toss 'em when their usefulness wears out or if they accidentally wander into forbidden territory and try to remove some of the weeds. If you see a Wikipedia:Attack page or WP:Coatrack enter at your own risk, even if you see blatant noncompliance with BLP which is a policy that says one thing, but if you do it, your ass may end-up being blocked for edit warring, even if you're not. You'll find that some articles have a high level of immunity, so unless you agree with what you're seeing on the page and want to add more derogatory information, no problem, you'll probably be welcomed there. I highly recommend that you spend some time at The Museum where you can stroll the long halls of parody lined with lots of pictures and witty captions. Enjoy. ^{Atsme📞📧} 18:25, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

Ah thanks. Don't undertsand much if what you said (Just got up Not to long ago) but when I do I'll need your warning and read through all of them. Dinah In Wonderland 18:28, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

Btw I'm thinking of changing my signature from Dinah In Wonderland . Any suggestions? Dinah In Wonderland 18:30, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

Make it simple - one word is best - easier to ping (and remember). ^{Atsme📞📧} 18:32, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

Hm cool. I kinda want mine to be purple any suggestions on how to do that? Dinah In Wonderland 18:34, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

There's your user name: User:Kewl Talk Email or User:Kewlness Talk Email - you already know how to set it up in preferences, right? I'm just showing you color, not the code you would use in preferences. Suggestion: Find a style and color you like in someone else's sig, and use the same code for your name, or ask one of our high tech editors to help you code it. Good luck! ^{Atsme📞📧} 18:45, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

Thanks and I found one! How's ♠Dinah♠ ? Dinah In Wonderland 18:48, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

But I need something for my user talk... I thought about using the Italian flag but it didn't Look right per say... Dinah In Wonderland 19:28, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

Try pasting one of these symbols and don't use text: Talk: 🗣 or 📞 or 🎤 or 🗨 or 💬 and for mail: 📨 or 📩 or 📪 or 📧. ^{Atsme📞📧} 20:19, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

Thanks! Dinah In Wonderland 20:27, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

I do believe this works si? ♠Dinah♠ 🎤 20:35, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

✅ Sure does! ^{Atsme📞📧} 20:38, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

And uh no need for me to paste it. I use mobile view so I can just type it up. Thanks for your help. ♠Dinah♠ 🎤 20:40, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Google's Ideological Echo Chamber

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Google's Ideological Echo Chamber. Legobot (talk) 04:23, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia:Village pump (policy). Legobot (talk) 04:24, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

my tone

I hardly ever use emoticons, or even joke around when I'm engaging in a discussion that captures my interest. I just want you to know not to take that as evidence that I'm getting upset or annoyed. In truth, the more polemical and humorless I appear to be, the more I'm enjoying myself.

That's probably the reason why all my buddies in the Army thought I was a total masochist: I only ever joked around when we were doing something with an extremely high pucker factor, or that just plain sucked. Or when we were bored, a habit that caught me no end of grief from our CO. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 23:05, 12 August 2017 (UTC)

MjolnirPants, I've always thought of you as one who appreciates mind-stimulating discussions . I hope we'll have more. (I'm bad about using emojis) ^{Atsme📞📧} 00:30, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

RFC...

Hi, Atsme,

I hope you don't have any major problems with this revision. In future, please be sure to propose RFCs as neutrally as it could be executed. After-all the Comments & Discussion section exists for your views on the topic!Cheers:)Winged Blades ^Godric 11:35, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

Not at all - good job, Winged Blades of Godric! Thank you! 🤗 ^{Atsme📞📧} 00:21, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

Underwater diving at FAC

Hi Atsme, In case you are interested. Cheers, • • • Peter (Southwood) ^(talk): 10:02, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

Of potential interest...

Random Nerds. Nikkimaria (talk) 18:48, 7 August 2017 (UTC)

Question

I'm about to turn in For the night but I wanted to ask; what do you do when if you ask a question and a random editor brings up some mistake you made in the past on the wrong page instead of awnsering your question? I didn't want to bring this to a other admin but I'm just wondering. Dinah In Wonderland 21:27, 12 August 2017 (UTC)

Well, Dinah Kirkland, if it's a 1st time occurrence, I just ignore it. If it happens again, I'll ask politely for them to please not do it again. One has to have thick skin to be a WP editor but you'll get used to it, and eventually meet like-minded editors who'll make collaboration fun. Just come on over to my TP whenever you have a question, and I'll try to answer it for you. If I can't, then one of my (talk page stalker) probably can. Nighty-night! ^{Atsme📞📧} 00:41, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

Ah thank you! That helped and I'll keep it in mind! Dinah In Wonderland 13:02, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

Labels essay

Hi Atsme, I've noticed on the endless debates about labels that you're taking a strong stand for neutral language. I'm trying to prepare a wikipedia essay right now along these lines. The goal is to coalesce the argument for avoiding subjective labels in wikivoice even when widely used by RSes.

• User:Nanite/Labels_essay

I invite you to feel free to jump in and edit. --Nanite (talk) 20:44, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

Headings in FAC

Thanks for trying to help with headings in Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Underwater diving/archive1, but I've had to revert your changes. The page is transcluded onto Wikipedia:Featured article candidates as a third level section, so your level 3 headers all appeared in the TOC of WP:FAC as if they were other candidates. Because screen readers really need headings to be level 1, 2, 3, etc. to be usable, in the case of pages that are transcluded into a subsection of another page, there's simply no scheme that meets the requirements of WP:Manual of Style/Accessibility #Headings. --RexxS (talk) 14:05, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

RexxS Uh oh...I speak Texican, so please bear with me...are you saying the level 2 headings I originally attempted to add for edit convenience are unacceptable because of the transclusion, as are the level 3 headings that another editor updated them to? ^{Atsme📞📧} 14:27, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

The language is no problem: I speak Black Country, an unintelligible dialect from England, so I do my best to translate where I can. If you have a look at the page Wikipedia:Featured article candidates, you'll see in the table of contents under 2.4 that the entire review actually appears on that (huge) page in a level 3 section (just between 2.3 Ben Affleck and 2.5 Nodar Kumaritashvili). In fact, all of the currently open reviews appear on that page, because they are transcluded there. The consequence of that is that FA Candidate pages have to begin with a level 3 header, which immediately puts a spanner in the works, because pages are meant to start with level 2 headers. If you then add further level 3 headings to sections of the FAC page, they will show up in the table of contents of the Wikipedia:Featured article candidates page as if they were separate candidate pages (e.g we had a candidate called "2.5 Accessibility review", etc.). Ian tried to fix that by lowering the level 3 headings (=== ... ===) that you made to level 4 (==== ... ====), but that may make it even worse for folks using screen readers (or it might not - I haven't tested enough screen readers to be certain), but it's safer to simply leave out any more proper headings from FA Candidate pages, which has been the general convention for some time. Does that make any more sense? --RexxS (talk) 14:44, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

Well, poopers. So is there any other option for smart phone editors so they're not scrolling miles to find an edit point?^{Atsme📞📧} 15:28, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

Actually, yes: there is the possibility of using something like <noinclude>=== Accessibility review ===</noinclude><includeonly>==== Accessibility review ====</includeonly> as the heading, which would render as level 3 in the FAC page, but as level 4 in Wikipedia:Featured article candidates (which wouldn't show in the TOC as it's limited to showing no more than level 3). We'd probably want to kludge the main header as well in a similar way: <noinclude>== [[Underwater diving]] ==</noinclude><includeonly>=== [[Underwater diving]] ===</includeonly>, but most folks won't want that degree of complexity just to add a few comments. I've done a demo of that at Special:Permalink/796883646. Maybe Ian's fix represents the best compromise between semantic breakage (with possible accessibility issues) and convenience for mobile phone users. I'll restore that version while I have a think about it. Cheers --RexxS (talk) 16:47, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

(watching:) I've seen level 4 headers, which supply a (wanted) TOC --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:49, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

New Page Reviewer Newsletter

Hello Atsme, thank you for your efforts reviewing new pages!

Backlog update:

• The new page backlog is currently at 16,991 pages. We have worked hard to decrease from over 22,000, but more hard work is needed! Please consider reviewing even just a few pages a a day.

Technology update:

• Rentier has created a NPP browser in WMF Labs that allows you to search new unreviewed pages using keywords and categories.

General project update:

• The Wikimedia Foundation Community Tech team is working with the community to implement the autoconfirmed article creation trial. The trial is currently set to start on 7 September 2017, pending final approval of the technical features.
• Please remember to focus on the quality of review: correct tagging of articles and not tagbombing are important. Searching for potential copyright violations is also important, and it can be aided by Earwig's Copyvio Detector, which can be added to your toolbar for ease of use with this user script.
• To keep up with the latest conversation on New Pages Patrol or to ask questions, you can go to Wikipedia talk:New pages patrol/Reviewers and add it to your watchlist.

---

If you wish to opt-out of future mailings, go here. TonyBallioni (talk) 20:33, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

A very sad day...

Tryptofish made us aware of potentially sad news about DrChrissy. I have since confirmed it...RIP DrChrissy. It is with a heavy heart that I am signing off for now. ^{Atsme📞📧} 22:50, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

Is there anything you can tell us. :O((Littleolive oil (talk) 01:10, 25 August 2017 (UTC))

Littleolive oil, he passed July 18, 2017 - I posted dates on his TP. Since Tryptofish first notified us with his concern and mentioned he would create a RIP page once he was able to confirm, I was waiting for him to take the next step. I don't know if it's appropriate for me to publish the link to his Tribute because of identity issues. If someone knows the answer to the latter and confirms approval, I will provide more info. Perhaps Drmies or Awilley can advise. ^{Atsme📞📧} 01:38, 25 August 2017 (UTC)

Thank you Atsme, and yes so sad.I hope Drmies can advise.(Littleolive oil (talk) 01:42, 25 August 2017 (UTC))

I'm sorry to hear that. I'd say it's probably best not to WP:OUT them without permission from someone in their family (and I'd be hesitant to ask for that right away). It would be appropriate to place Category:Deceased Wikipedians on their user page if you are certain. ~Awilley (talk) 01:50, 25 August 2017 (UTC)

Oh, that's terrible. But Tryptofish will know the ins and outs too, I imagine. We need a solid sort of confirmation, yes--someone who knows them, for instance. Don't link it yet, please. Drmies (talk) 02:12, 25 August 2017 (UTC)

This is awful. 😭 I worked with them on several articles. White Arabian Filly ^Neigh 15:49, 25 August 2017 (UTC)

Am I really reading this? I have never interacted with him, but it really hurts. I have read about him and seen his talk page, and while I was reading, I literally was crying seeing that the same editor would never edit again. Whatever was written was the last I could see what he had written. I am not feeling good at all. I hope we honor him and make special mentions and special pages for him. Adityavagarwal (talk) 16:10, 25 August 2017 (UTC)

I share your feelings, Adityavagarwal. Chris was a big part of what made being a member of this community worth every minute of it. ^{Atsme📞📧} 16:51, 25 August 2017 (UTC)

I'll also miss him at WP:RD/S where he was a participant. —PaleoNeonate – 17:48, 25 August 2017 (UTC)

About his name, a very credible announcement from his university, [4], devotes significant text to his work as a Wikipedia editor and links directly to his contributions, so I do not believe that there are any outing issues here. There is no RIP page on WP specifically for him, but I entered him at WP:RIP for 2017 (and got full protection for his userpage, per the instructions there). I've already said all that I can say about my sadness, at his user talkpage and elsewhere, so I'll just repeat here that he is very much missed. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:51, 25 August 2017 (UTC)

I just looked back at WP:RIP, and realized that I failed to complete the process. Clicking on his link leads to a page where some information about him needs to be written. I'm simply too worn out and sad to do it now (I've been on an airplane for much of this day), so if anyone else feels able to get it started, please do. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:55, 25 August 2017 (UTC)

Likewise, I am not sure where to start. May I humbly suggest that we look towards How to Write and Give a Eulogy for some ideas. Eulogies are normally spoken at funerals and emphasize the persons character, rather than biographical list of achievements and 'personal family' details, etc. which are normally included in an obituary. Like most Wikipedians I did not know Chris personally, only indirectly, yet felt sure that if I had met him in the flesh we would get on really well. One senses that about certain people – you may not always see eye-to-eye on everything- but they open up a new world for debate and cross-pollination of ideas. Chris became so much a fabric of WP that his passing has come as a very sudden shock to all of us. So, think it would be fitting to formulate our tribute on Deceased Wikipedians along the lines of an eulogy rather than an obituary. Aspro (talk) 12:04, 26 August 2017 (UTC)

P.S. DrChrissy's spider and the web on his talk page. To all that are interested. I quite liked this background image that Chris included under his pseudonym of DrChrisy and maybe saw as a visual compliment to his talk page. May we have it back again... for who are 'we' to sanitize his talk page? Reaching out for a consensuses for reinstatement. Aspro (talk) 13:02, 26 August 2017 (UTC)

I agree, and I've put it back. But someone please check whether or not I got the formatting right – it was a bit confusing for me. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:23, 26 August 2017 (UTC)

Aspro, I created Chris Sherwin because of his research and influence as an academic, author, and for having greatly influenced his field of study regarding animal behavior and welfare. Many of us were unaware of the extent of Chris' influence - we saw him as another volunteer editor who made us smile. He has authored several scientific papers published by Elsevier and Sage. I invite all to help expand his biography. I also added his entry at WP:RIP. ^{Atsme📞📧} 15:49, 26 August 2017 (UTC)

Thanks very much for all of that. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:02, 26 August 2017 (UTC)

Yes, that is a nice balance Atsme. Precise and not over-wordy. Another thought is that whilst we don't normally solicit images, I wonder if one of his former colleges has a photograph of Chris that we can use on the new article about him? I normally shy away from this approach due to the necessity of making Creative Commons copyright clear to a newbie unloader. Yet who knows, Professor Michael Mendl who wrote his obituary on the universities' web site knew Chris was a secret WP editor (may be one himself) and knows how to upload a suitable image or two. Or knows of another WP editor who can do it. Doesn't have to be flattering – we can crop it. Shall we go the extra mile and ask? Nice to see the spider and web back. Aspro (talk) 19:49, 26 August 2017 (UTC)

Thank you, Aspro. I sent Mike an email request yesterday regarding a photo of Chris. Worst case scenario, we can upload the university photo under fair use, although I'd rather wait for a CC-BY-SA 4.0 license from the photog. It was probably a "work-for-hire" so it's highly likely the university can release it. Let's give it a week. Thank you for all your help. ^{Atsme📞📧} 20:01, 26 August 2017 (UTC)

• This idea is still in the embryo stage: I would like to add to Chris's biography that he contributed to WP rather than have this fact buried away in the references. That I think, should be easy as we have an independent RS -me thinks. However, it is against policy for WP to site itself as a reference, so therefore, all of his contributions here can not be listed in this biography . Having no knowledge of any precedent to such a similar situation where a deceased former Wikipedian has an article about himself, I don't know if it would be right-and-proper to add a link to his user-page which lists his contributions (which is not strictly RS, whilst never the less is verifiable via editing history) . Likewise, I don't know whether it would meet WP policy to say in the infobox that he influenced a very well known and much read encyclopedia called Wikipedia. This may very well set a precedent for other articles so I wish to tread carefully. As I say, this only my initial thoughts, which with some feed-back I might be able to turn in to a WP essay for others. After all, as WP grows there will be ever more cases where articles are created for notable deceased Wikipdians. Aspro (talk) 13:47, 2 September 2017 (UTC)

Aspro there actually is a bit more info available (with some digging online) that can be cited to expand his biography and speak more to his dedication and contributions to animal welfare without going into great length about his contributions on WP. For example, you could add a few factual statements or short paragraph indicating that he contributed to WP as an editor and content creator, and perhaps embellish it a bit more with how it was received according to his colleagues and/or the unveristy, etc. ^{Atsme📞📧} 14:11, 2 September 2017 (UTC)

Bill Shatner, aka Captain Kirk

Too funny...the host of the conference mentions Wikipedia... ^{Atsme📞📧} 00:13, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

You won't see any Wikipedia promotion from the likes of Picard ^{Atsme📞📧} 18:17, 2 September 2017 (UTC)

A tip about Happy Hour

After all these years, I 🤣 figured out why some of my Happy Hours are much happier than others. The answer is...(drum roll, please)...club soda or other bicarbonated mixer (although I never tried Alka Seltzer). For example, mixing with club soda or 7-Up...

1. doesn't require nearly as much alcohol to fill the glass; therefore, it is cheaper than a "double" with close to the same result, and
2. it helps make Happy Hour a lot more fun much faster.

I kid you not, at least not according to science, and health pubs (publications, not what you're thinking, although the latter could be considered a "form" of clinical trial). ^{Atsme📞📧} 18:13, 2 September 2017 (UTC)

As it happens, what you describe has long been well-known in science, and is very much for real. (Warning: scientific pomposity follows!) Carbonation is the effect of carbonic acid, which is, wait for it, acidic. And acidic solutions are more rapidly absorbed from the digestive tract than are other fluids (noted in your second source above). That's because protonated molecules traverse the lining of the digestive tract more easily than unprotonated ones. Cheers! --Tryptofish (talk) 23:19, 2 September 2017 (UTC)

Tryp, are you speaking organic chemistry? Cause if you are, it causes alkynes of trouble. ^{Atsme📞📧} 01:41, 3 September 2017 (UTC)

Well, now that Amazon bought Whole Foods, organics may get less expensive. But after logging off yesterday, I facepalmed myself for saying something stoo-pid to you here! Ethanol is always going to be protonated at any pH found physiologically (unless one swallows lye, which I do not particularly recommend), so what I said above about protons is bo-gus! (And to think I have a PhD in biochemistry! Never believe anything that the elites tell you.) This intrigued me, so I looked around, and the best that I could find is that the bubbles in carbonated beverages provide a greater surface area within the beverage for the ethanol to occupy, and that speeds up absorption from the stomach: [5]. I can't think of anything more credible than that. Interestingly, sort of, a lot of stuff attributed to carbonation is considered to be myth: [6]. So I guess it's hit or myth. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:58, 3 September 2017 (UTC)

😂🤣 Ok, admittedly, your "hit or myth" conclusion caused me to spew 🍷 all over my monitor...or for the sake of brevity...caused me to "wine", and I'm not a winer so please provide the 🧀 cheese, and do not cut it. Soooo...the science you cited stated, "Some surveys showed a weak association between carbonated beverages and gastroesophageal reflux disease; however, the methodology employed was often inadequate and, on the overall, the evidence available on this topic is contradictory." I get it!! ANNND...I'm reading this during Happy Hour, so consider me a member of your clinical trial. ^{I really do hope y'all realize this is , and that I rarely, if ever drink anything but water and milk...unless persuaded to do so (without a great deal of persuasion). Ima happy person regardless of time of day, so get used to it. Atsme📞📧 23:03, 3 September 2017 (UTC)}

Well, you certainly do have a bubbly personality! Cheers! --Tryptofish (talk) 23:18, 3 September 2017 (UTC)

WikiTigers Project

You seem like a kind, helpful editor! To continue on it seems as if you would fit perfectly in the newest Wikipedia animal! WikiTiger is a project to help out newcomers in need of assistance and some who have been on for awhile to. For more details and information see WTDB. ♠Dinah♠ 🎤 04:12, 3 September 2017 (UTC)

Good for you, Dinah! Looks like a fun and helpful project. I can certainly appreciate a tiger that doesn't bite, especially the newbies. I'll add the user box to that section on my user page - thx for the invite! ^{Atsme📞📧} 12:14, 3 September 2017 (UTC)

No problem and thank you to! ♠Dinah♠ 🎤 12:18, 3 September 2017 (UTC)

Btw I want to make a page like User:Dinah Kirkland/Wikipedia:WikiTigre, User:Dinah Kirkland/Wikipedia:WikiTigru, etc. For people who don't speak much English to be able to read it and join if they liked. How would I do that considering I'm on mobile and can't use a SandBox? ♠Dinah♠ 🎤 15:00, 3 September 2017 (UTC)

You actually can use your sandbox. In the search bar, type User:Dinah Kirkland/sandbox and create the page. ^{Atsme📞📧} 18:08, 3 September 2017 (UTC)

Oh okay thank you! And when you put the UserBox up I'll send you the WikiTiger Newsletter! ♠Dinah♠ 🎤 18:11, 3 September 2017 (UTC)

Ok ^{Atsme📞📧} 15:18, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

WikiTiger Newsletter

Welcome to the WikiTiger community! This newsletter is for all WikiTigers that have joined. What we WikiTigers aim to do is teach newcomers our policies, guidelines, dos and don'ts, etc. Our edits should always be in good faith and never direct anything negative towards another editor. Things that are looking to be made for the WikiTiger page are to make it more appealing to other editors so that they may want to join. At the end of each month at 00:00 every WikiTiger is looked over to see what awards they should receive and if they need to be warned for bad faith. You are also invited to share your ideas for this project here!: WP:WTDB You have received one award;

File:An Indian tiger in the wild. Royal, Bengal tiger (27466438332).jpg

WikiTiger joining award

♠Dinah♠ 🎤 00:53, 7 September 2017 (UTC)

Dinah Kirkland, when you add a userbox on a TP, you need to add {{clear}} after the last line of text that goes with it. ^{Atsme📞📧} 17:12, 7 September 2017 (UTC)

Oh sorry! ♠Dinah♠ 🎤 17:36, 7 September 2017 (UTC)

Paddlefish

Hi, I wanted to comment your changes to my edits. In my opinion, using sentence case makes titles easier to read, especially when some words are proper nouns (that should always be capitalized) while the others are not, like in "The Lorenzinian ampullae of Polyodon spethula". WP does not have a general rule here, but favors consistency within an article (not achieved here, neither before nor after these edits). In any case, scientific names are always capitalized as in Polyodon spethula, even when the specific name is derived from a proper noun (e.g., Paleopsephurus wilsoni)---this is the global convention. With German journal titles the situation is not clear. The German (original) style is not to capitalize adjectives ("mikroskopische" in the "Zeitschrift für Zellforschung und mikroskopische Anatomie"), but this is often done in WP. In this particular case, the original German style was used more often in WP, so I chose that one. Notice that there were two typos in that journal title. Cheers, Micromesistius (talk) 05:37, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

I responded on your TP and included relevant guidelines regarding how citations should be handled which includes an ArbCom decision. Happy editing! ^{Atsme📞📧} 18:32, 8 September 2017 (UTC)