User talk:Atsme/Archive 5

Archive 1

←

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

→

Archive 10

quick note

Per the warning I gave you, edit warring is wrong, no matter how right you believe you are. Jytdog (talk) 13:37, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

I wasn't edit warring. I was correcting a BLP violation with strict adherence to BLP policy. Atsme☯^Consult 13:42, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

I am glad you decided not to test that hypothesis. going to BLPN was the right thing to do. Thanks for that. Jytdog (talk) 13:51, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

with regard to MEDRS, it is hard for people to understand sometimes why we call for strong sourcing to support health claims. Please do read WP:MEDRS, with the care and sympathy that you read and use other policies and guidelines. If it is still not clear why it matters so much, you might want to try reading a draft essay I have been working on sporadically (it needs trimming and some more work) called Why MEDRS?. best regards Jytdog (talk) 15:19, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

Jytdog - My word - you've done quite a lot of work on that article. I glanced over it, but will take more time to read it this evening or early in the morning when things are much quieter around here. I agree with you in that WP needs a more detailed explanation of what constitutes RS, particularly MEDRS and the sciences. In most instances, there just aren't many (if any) 2ndary RS for research, so we end up having to depend on peer-reviewed journals and whatever else we have available, including primary and tertiary. Thanks for your help. Atsme☯^Consult 19:44, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

additional note. i looked through your contribs, and it appears to me that you have not been involved in many controversial articles here in WP, nor gotten into disputes much yet. I work on a lot of controversial articles. So if I may, please let me give you some advice...

read Wikipedia:Controversial articles, carefully. and please reflect on it.

stay calm. if you get upset, walk away, and come back. really important. working on controversial content is a test of your character. It is amazing to watch the spectrum of human behavior here in WP.

be super careful not to personalize anything. keep your attention and comments focused really clearly on content, sources, and specifics bits of relevant policies and guidelines (but avoid WP:Wikilawyering).

really listen and respond to other participants, and be mindful if they are doing the same. if something you write is not responded to, ask nicely for a response. listen to it. dialogue, don't declare. there are other humans involved who may see the world very differently from you, and who are as important as you.

Be very aware if a specific argument you are making is based on policy/guideline, or on your preference, and discuss accordingly. remember that your goal is persuade and be aware of how the consensus is going. pick your battles.

deal with bits of content, not the whole. bits are manageable, and can be worked on and improved. global statements about articles leave everybody with no where to go and nothing to actually do, and the goal of the discussion is action. focus on fixing. and focus. wallsoftext leave other editors with too much to think about and respond to, and are not productive.

that's all. good luck! Jytdog (talk) 16:25, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Good advice. -Roxy the dog™ (resonate) 17:17, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

warning

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on G. Edward Griffin. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Please be particularly aware that Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states:

1. Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made.
2. Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing.

Oh terrible, you are already over 3RR today. Please stop. Jytdog (talk) 15:44, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

Jytdog It is not edit warring when it involves blatant BLP violations. I am going to report the violations of the edit sanctions, as well as the inappropriate user conduct. I have already posted one warning to your talk page, consider this notice your final warning. I am taking this to ANI. Atsme☯^Consult 15:48, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

Really Atsme. Please listen. I have tried very hard to explain to you that you need to calm down and take it slow and really try to use the Talk page, which you still haven't done. Please hear me -- you are driving right over a cliff. You have so far only posted emotional, nonspecific posts on Talk. You went to BLPN and did the same. So far, no one else sees a BLPN problem - part of that ~might~ be because you are not calmly and carefully explaining the issue, but you have called a bunch of eyes to the article, and literally nobody else sees whatever is making you unhappy. At this stage, you really have three choices: 1) continue as you have been, and face a definite block for editing warring and if you continue past that, a topic ban; or 2) you can keep working on the article but change, and try to follow my advice above, or 3) just walk away from the article. But if you revert one more time today, I will bring you to 3RR and you will get blocked. There is no doubt about that. Jytdog (talk) 15:55, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

If you want to post at ANI, have at it, but you have not followed any of my advice, and you will not only go down in flames, but you will face WP:BOOMERANG and perhaps a topic ban. You have not used the Talk page well, you have not calmly stated specific objections and calmly tried to work through them with other editors, and this will be seen as WP:FORUMSHOPPING. Going to ANI is continuing to drive off the cliff. You will do as you will - maybe you just need to play this out and get topic banned. That is not a happy outcome, but if you will not change or walk away, that is what needs to happen. Good luck to you in any case. Jytdog (talk) 17:22, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

With all due respect, Jytdog, I have already explained to you that the BLP violations at Griffin are unacceptable, and I cited the reasons straight from WP:BLP. You have ignored the sanction warning on the article's TP, and keep reverting my edits after I explained they were to correct the BLP violations. Your passive aggressive threats are duly noted. There's nothing more I can add in light of the fact you WP:DONTGETIT. I feel quite confident about my position because my only agenda is to get the article right, and take it in the direction of being a DYK, and eventually a GA candidate. I consult you to voluntarily recuse yourself from editing Griffin as it appears there may be a COI regarding your work as a biotech. Atsme☯^Consult 18:38, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

as you will. i don't know if you noticed, but Srich is doing the right thing - what you should be doing. You can see that or not. It is your wiki-life. Jytdog (talk) 18:47, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

Per WP:BLP - Contentious material about living persons (or, in some cases, recently deceased) that is unsourced or poorly sourced – whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable – should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion. Users who persistently or egregiously violate this policy may be blocked from editing. Jytdog, I consult you to pay very close attention to the last sentence of that policy. Re: Srich32977, I commend him for going beyond the call of duty. I am watching to see whether or not his efforts are falling on blind eyes. Atsme☯^Consult 19:09, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

at this point atsme, you have used up my patience. Any further comments I make about your behavior will be formal warnings or notifications. Again, good luck to you. Jytdog (talk) 19:13, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

Citation template

I'm scanning the different edits. If I'm spotting this correctly, it looks like you've added {{cite book}} at times and put the total number of pages in the "pages= " parameter. Actually that parameter is for the particular pages that are pertinent, not the total. Thanks (and thanks for the note you sent me). – S. Rich (talk) 16:37, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

Srich32977, you spotted it correctly, and I apologize for the inconsistencies. I actually do know better, but I'll plug away using a shameless excuse - the dog hit my elbow while I was typing. If that excuse works, I'll keep it, if not, then I'll simply say, Oooops. I will fix the errors ASAP provided the edit isn't reverted before I get the chance. Thank you for spotting it. Atsme☯^Consult 17:00, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

Discretionary sanctions notification - BLP

Please carefully read this information:

The Arbitration Committee has authorised discretionary sanctions to be used for pages regarding living or recently deceased people, and edits relating to the subject (living or recently deceased) of such biographical articles, a topic which you have edited. The Committee's decision is here.

Discretionary sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimize disruption to controversial topics. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to the topic that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behavior, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. This message is to notify you sanctions are authorised for the topic you are editing. Before continuing to edit this topic, please familiarise yourself with the discretionary sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions.

This message is informational only and does not imply misconduct regarding your contributions to date.

Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 05:00, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

Seasonal Greets!

Merry Christmas and a Prosperous 2015 !!!

Hello Atsme, May you be surrounded by peace, success and happiness on this seasonal occasion. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Sending you a heartfelt and warm greetings for Christmas and New year 2015. Happy editing, The Herald : here I am Spread the love by adding {{subst:Seasonal Greetings}} to user talk pages with a friendly message.

Talkback

Hello, Atsme. You have new messages at Northamerica1000's talk page.
Message added 00:07, 19 December 2014 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Seasonal Greets!

Merry Christmas and a Prosperous 2015 !!!

Hello Atsme, May you be surrounded by peace, success and happiness on this seasonal occasion. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Sending you a heartfelt and warm greetings for Christmas and New year 2015. Happy editing, NorthAmerica1000 00:07, 19 December 2014 (UTC) Spread the love by adding {{subst:Seasonal Greetings}} to user talk pages with a friendly message.

NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:07, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

Thank you!! Hope Santa treats you right!! Atsme☯^Consult 00:45, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

Merry Christmas

	Merry Christmas!!
	Hello, I wish you and your family a Merry Christmas and a very Happy New Year, Thanks for all your help on the 'pedia!    –Davey2010 Merry Xmas / Happy New Year 18:58, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

Thank you, Davey2010, and Merry Christmas to you and yours!! Also wishing you a happy, healthy and prosperous New Year!! Atsme☯^Consult 21:35, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

You're welcome, Arr thank you and a very Happy, Healthy and Prosperous New Year to you too :)

Have a great Christmas :)

Thanks, –Davey2010 ^{Merry Xmas / Happy New Year} 22:16, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

Best wishes for a happy holiday season

		Happy Holiday Cheer
		Season's Greetings! This message celebrates the holiday season, promotes WikiLove, and hopefully makes your day a little better. Spread the seasonal good cheer by wishing another user an Awesome Holiday and a Happy New Year, whether it be someone with whom you had disagreements in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Share the good feelings! Joys!Hafspajen (talk) 02:44, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

Thank you, Hafspajen - I am already into the "cheer" and spirit of the holiday season!! Wishing you a Joyous Holiday and Prosperous 2015!!! And THANK YOU for all the work you do on WP!! Atsme☯^Consult 03:08, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

Griffin, WP:FRINGE, etc.

Since you are quite evidently interested in pushing pseudoscience on Wikipedia, specifically by obfuscating (e.g. on the Griffin article) the fact that laetrile is a bogus "treatment" for cancer, I'd like to suggest that you voluntarily recuse from editing in this area in the future. Any chance of convincing you that this is the right way forward? Nomoskedasticity (talk) 23:32, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

I was thinking about asking you the same thing. Since I have no agenda or POV to push other than making Griffin a GA candidate, unlike what it appears may be the case with you and a few others, I am wondering if there may be a COI considering the backgrounds of a few involved editors. Griffin is not an article about pseudoscience - it is a BLP. I have been through several GA reviews and an FA review, so I kinda have an idea regarding what is and isn't appropriate in a BLP article. How many have you been through? You could even say I probably have decent credentials with regards to writing prose. THAT is my purpose here on WP. What is yours? Atsme☯^Consult 00:25, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

COI? What sort of COI do you think I might have? Or rather, what sort of COI is there evidence of? Nomoskedasticity (talk) 13:35, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

Did I specifically mention you as having a COI? You certainly stated that I am interested in pushing pseudoscience. Perhaps that statement is what we need to focus on. Atsme☯^Consult 13:39, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

Griffin

You mentioned it in response to a post I made; it was a reasonable inference that you had me in mind. If you didn't, then fine. Your clear implication that I am POV pushing is of course unwarranted as well. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 13:48, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

Griifin

Please be aware that the last warning I posted was actually a warning and not some "test". If you don't want to hear that some of your behavior is problematic then that's the bed you'll lie in, but warnings are attempts to make you aware of those problems so that you can fix them. Also, please refrain from abusing templates for warnings on my user talk page as you did here [1]. It's against policy you know. :)

Either way, that post seems pretty indicative of further battleground behavior, especially against users who aren't even involved directly in your content dispute. Strange appeals to authority when someone says something you don't agree with [2] and focusing on how much an editor does here [3] is not keeping in line with the policies you like to cite. That kind of behavior isn't justified by any reason. Knock that and the sniping off and you'll get at bit more traction in discussions. Kingofaces43 (talk) 17:44, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

Talk:G. Edward Griffin

Please revert this addition, adding a question to the top of the RfC after discussion and a survey have started is disruptive to the discussion. You can, however, add it in a subsection and ask for input. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 10:57, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

Callanecc, I followed WP:RfC precisely per Suggestions for responding which states If you feel an RfC is improperly worded, ask the originator to improve the wording, or add an alternative unbiased statement immediately below the RfC question template. I did not see where the guidelines state that there's a time frame or deadline for adding the alternate question. Please point that out to me so I won't make the same mistake twice. I just posted notice of the RfC at the NPOV-N which is when it dawned on me that Jytdog's lead question makes it appear as though "WE" refers to all involved editors. I am not one of the "we", and wanted to get the RfC neutral before the comments started coming in from NPOV-N. He also included a list of irrelevant unreliable sources to further weigh his POV which is against what the guidelines suggest: Statement should be neutral and brief. Would you please ask him to remove his list of unreliable sources, remove the "we" in his lead sentence, and neutralize his comments? I will do as you request and add a subsection. Thank you for your time. Atsme☯^Consult 12:19, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

And you are welcome to suggest the (minor) change to him (or in a comment in the RfC). It is a minor change as "we" can (and I would contend is) interpreted as being Wikipedia editors so there is no real need to it to happen quickly (and hence generate animosity from those involved by changing the question). If you think that the question as currently written will not result in the best outcome then (given the high tension in the article) it is best to bring up that issue and ask for input (maybe from Jytdog on their talk page first). Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 02:09, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

Thank you. Atsme☯^Consult 14:48, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

I went ahead and changed "we do" to "the current article does", here. Jytdog (talk) 15:32, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

Sint Eustatius

What gives you the notion that the abbreviation is official and the full name is not? It most certainly is "Sint Eustatius", as the source I included indicates. It isn't at all incorrect to use the real name: see Sint Eustatius, for example.—Kww(talk) 02:25, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

Hi, Kww, the government site is what we use for the formal names - see the cited ref. at Bonaire. We cannot mix the two languages - Dutch and English. Sint is Dutch for Saint. You are editing the English Wikipedia, so the word is Saint (abbr St). Hope that helps. Atsme☯^Consult 02:28, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

No, it doesn't help at all. You've chosen one web page as the basis for using a name, insisting that the normal name is somehow wrong. See http://www.government.nl/news/2013/07/13/prime-minister-rutte-visits-caribbean-part-of-the-kingdom.html http://www.government.nl/news/2013/02/01/new-deputy-member-of-the-joint-court-of-justice.html http://www.government.nl/government/documents-and-publications/press-releases/2010/10/08/judiciary-appointments-aruba-sint-maarten-and-the-bes-islands.html for example: same site, English language pages, official Kingdom documents.—Kww(talk) 02:33, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

Incidentally, I am an English- and Dutch-speaking former resident of Bonaire that still has business holdings in the Caribbean Netherlands. There's no need to "educate" me on the meaning of "Sint".—Kww(talk) 02:36, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

I am a resident on island now. None of that matters. Let's move this to the article TP, please. Atsme☯^Consult 02:39, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

Vandal?

No, the 46.*.*.* IP appears to be a German IP attempting to correct the article. Please stop edit-warring. I'm too involved to block you myself, but I can assure you that this will not go well for you, and you will wind up in your account being blocked for edit warring if you change it again. If you really want to continue, the next step would be an RFC. It does seem strange how eager you were to use official sources until I demonstrated you were misreading them. Once you stopped that argument, you tried to compare us to Britannica, until I pointed out you were misreading that. Now, you have a random hodgepodge of sources using an unofficial name, but haven't stopped to consider that your base argument, that "Sint Eustatius" is somehow wrong or not used in English, is without foundation. At the most, you've demonstrated that "Saint Eustatius" isn't 100% wrong, a result which I am surprised by.—Kww(talk) 13:31, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

Thx. Maybe I'll see on you Bonaire some time. Atsme☯^Consult 22:20, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

Piedmont cattle

In the context of this article, can we change female to "heiffer" or "cow"? Animal husbandry is not my specialty, and I don't want to put in something that is inappropriate in context. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 22:48, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

Earwig went from 44% possible to 36% unlikely. Good job. Didn't take much. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 22:57, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

Actually, female is the appropriate word because heifer refers to a female that has never calved, and cow refers to a female that has calved. I haven't found any RS that provides the distinction. Perhaps we could call them Ms? Atsme☯^Consult 23:04, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

PS - since the registry section actually states the Association's registration requirements, we should probably leave it worded as is, or we may risk making inadvertent changes they may not appreciate. <--- referring to the section on NAPA and the closeness of terminology Atsme☯^Consult 00:26, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

User:Atsme, Understood. We have one paragraph without a citation (I ignored it for now), but it has got to be corrected PDQ. Otherwise you and I both will have trouble. Thanks. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 01:53, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

No problem - working on improvements now. Atsme☯^Consult 02:04, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

I'm done with your review. Review Now its up to a higher level than me. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 02:19, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

As the names of the breed stock are taken directly from the registry, I suggest they should be in quotes. In fact, you should directly put in a statement that "according to the registry", etc. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 02:36, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

User:7&6=thirteen - I am on it, may take me a while to get the citations done, but all will be repaired tonight. Thank you for generously sharing your time. Atsme☯^Consult 02:46, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

Well, FWIW, my concept of DYK is that it is more than just a review. I think it is fundamentally not adversarial, and should be a collaboration to get the article and the hook up to speed. We've worked well together. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 03:00, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

I just did an edit which adds another dimension to the article. If you don't like it, feel free to undo it. Its just a suggestion. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 03:11, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

I like the concept, and can certainly see its potential. However, in this particular situation, I think it is important to acknowledge for historical value that the foundation of the breed comprises those specific individuals. Their names are as notable to the breed as the names Bodacious and Bushwacker are to bull riding. Question - if we did decide to use it, the same would have to apply to the following list of names, correct? Atsme☯^Consult 04:41, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

Good job, User:7&6=thirteen. It makes it much easier to read. Question - it seems like we're missing punctuations before superscript letter. Yes - No?

Discretionary sanctions notification - Pseudoscience

Please carefully read this information:

The Arbitration Committee has authorised discretionary sanctions to be used for pages regarding pseudoscience and fringe science, a topic which you have edited. The Committee's decision is here.

Discretionary sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimize disruption to controversial topics. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to the topic that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behavior, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. This message is to notify you sanctions are authorised for the topic you are editing. Before continuing to edit this topic, please familiarise yourself with the discretionary sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions.

This message is informational only and does not imply misconduct regarding your contributions to date.

I'm alerting you about these discretionary sanctions as I want to move away from the BLP issues at G. Edward Griffin. Apologies for the double notification regarding the same article. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 01:10, 29 December 2014 (UTC)