User talk:Atsme/Archive 7

This is an archive of past discussions about User:Atsme. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

←

Archive 5

Sources & stuff

(The following was copied from another Talk page for further discussion here...)

You left out important parts of what Guy actually stated - The text the source purports to support is: "Some of Emerson's statements and networks have been challenged as fomenting Islamophobia". It does not mention fomenting, and I don't see any such mention in the others either. The source is scarecely without an agenda, either, since it's written by academics on Islamic studies. So instead of nit-picking, how about finding a robust, independent source that actually supports the sentence, or modifying the sentence to something actually supported by the sources? He has been accused of islamophobia by islamists, would be entirely uncontroversial. You seem determined to go much further. Guy (Help!) 23:02, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

The sources in question are ^[1]^[2]^[3]^[4]

References

^ Hammer, Julie; Safi, Amid (2013). The Cambridge Companion to American Islam. Cambridge University Press. p. 8. ISBN 9781107002418. Retrieved 22 January 2015. Islamophobe[s] Steven Emerson (the discredited "terrorism expert" who falsely identified Muslims as being behind the Oklahoma city bombings committed by Timothy McVeigh)
^ "9 questions about Birmingham that Fox News was too embarrassed to ask". Washington Post. Retrieved 22 January 2015. Emerson has been accused of Islamophobia in the past.
^ Ernst, Carl W. (2013). Islamophobia in America: The Anatomy of Intolerance. Palgrave Macmillan. p. 86. ISBN 9781137290083.
^ Yazdiha, Haj (2014). "Law as movement strategy: How the Islamophobia movement institutionalizes fear through legislation" (PDF). Social Movement Studies: Journal of Social, Critical and Political Protest. 13 (2). Taylor and Francis. doi:10.1080/14742837.2013.807730. Retrieved 23 January 2015. "funding flows to the Islamophobia movement's 'misinformation experts' including...Steven Emerson of the Investigative Project on Terrorism

The Cambridge Companion to American Islam had passing mention, a very bigoted one at that - ...cited Islmophobes Steven Emerson (the discredited "terrorism expert" who falsely identified Muslims as being behind the Oklahoma City bombing committed by Timothy McVeigh) and the equally notorious Daniel Pipes as his sources.
The Washington Post included one short statement - However, Emerson has been accused of Islamophobia in the past.
Carl Ernst's Islamophobia in America: The Anatomy of Intolerance, also passing mention in a chapter titled "Women as Producers of Islamophobic Discourse" - Robert Spencer, Daniel Pipes, Newt Gin[g]rich, Steven Emerson, Glenn Beck, Frank Gaffney - many of the most prominent producers of Islamophobic discourse are male.
Law as movement strategy: How the Islamophobia movement institutionalizes fear through legislation - ...funding flows to the Islamophobia movement's 'misinformation experts' including...Steven Emerson of the Investigative Project on Terrorism.

All but one source represents an allegation, none of which are backed up by anything but biased opinion. Co-authors Safi and Hammer who wrote the Cambridge published book are the only ones who actually called Emerson an Islamophobe, and then cited a Think Progress article which incorrectly paraphrased an evaluation made by Emerson during a CBS interview 20 years ago, an evaluation that was supported by law enforcement. Emerson called it "a Middle Eastern trait" with no mention whatsoever of the word Muslim. WP should not be the forum for such unfounded allegations and echoing the bigotry shown by scholars of Islamic studies. Editors should be striving for accuracy and verifiability. If the criticism by Safi and Hammer are included, they don't belong in the lead, rather they belong in the section about the Murrah Bldg. The phrases were clearly cherrypicked to give readers the impression Emerson is "fomenting Islamophobia". Smells a lot like WP:SYNTH. Regardless, this discussion belongs on BLPN, rather than as a critical distraction to my RS questions to Guy. Atsme☯^Consult 00:28, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

Hi, Atsme. I seem to be hearing a lot of the same unpersuasive arguments. Sometimes there is a simple misuse of a word or phrase; sometimes the arguments have been completely refuted, yet they still crop up in discussion after discussion. Some of them are in your paragraph I copied just above. I'd like to break down and itemize what I see are some of the stumbling blocks in our discourse and see if we can maybe achieve some level of agreement and understanding. At the very least, this should clue you in to what I see as the biggest weaknesses in your assertions, and allow you to either adjust your argument or explain to me what I might be missing. Here goes (I apologize for the length)...

Hi, Xenophrenic - my responses follow each of yours with my sig inserted at the summit.

(1) The Cambridge Companion to American Islam had passing mention...

Actually, it didn't have "passing mention". The sentence describing Emerson as an Islamophobe and discredited expert was actually cited to an external source and had a brief parenthetical justification. These two facts mean that the description was absolutely not a "passing mention". Perhaps you meant to express concern that there was but a single sentence describing Emerson as a matter of fact, without further elaboration? You can try to advance that argument, but to do so you will need to provide a reliable source which directly mentions the Cambridge University book, and then refutes that sentence. Otherwise, by default, the description is considered reliably sourced.

Incorrect per WP:PAG.  Passing mention is not significant mention, and in Emerson's case, the source is cited for nothing more than a cherrypicked contentious statement with a footnote to a biased article by Think Progress, a project of CAP which is a biased think-tank.  At the very least, it requires in-text attribution but I question its inclusion in the lead because of the sources' advocacy for and promotion of a religious ideology which creates UNDUE.  [1]  I am not alone in the belief that it fails the smell test as contentious material per WP:BLP, WP:ONUS, WP:EXCEPTIONAL, WP:UNDUE, WP:ADVOCACY.

From both a legal and ethical standpoint it is essential that a determined effort be made to eliminate defamatory and other inappropriate material from these articles
Beware of claims that rely on guilt by association, and biased, malicious or overly promotional content.
...significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources. The book is about American Islam, not Steven Emerson, or his work regarding Islamic terrorists. The contentious material occurs in the introduction of the book, and its only purpose is to discredit Emerson. ^{sniff, sniff: stinks}

The description of Emerson is not a "passing mention" because it is supported by not only a parenthetical example, but is also cited to an article containing additional substantiation and source citations to an additional dozen sources (including Emerson himself), and those sources further contain another 30+ sources. You claim my explanation is "incorrect per WP:PAG", which is a dead link. I await your substantive argument as to why you keep mislabeling this citation as a "passing mention". And please support your argument with specific Wikipedia policy. (I'll respond to your unsupported accusations that a "biased article by Think Progress" is "a project of CAP" (not), is biased (not), is a "cherrypicked" statement (not) in sections 6, 10 and 12 respectively, already covering those, as they don't address the "passing mention" mischaracterization.)

(2) a very bigoted one at that.

No; describing someone as an Islamophobe is not a "bigoted" description. It's a description of a bigot.

Perhaps you misspoke and intended to say that the book was describing Emerson as a bigot (Islamophobe); well, yes, it did describe him as such. Are such descriptions prohibited on Wikipedia? No, but they must be accompanied by high-quality reliable sources.

Incorrect.  My statement reads...(the book) had passing mention, a very bigoted one at that - bigoted - (adj) having or revealing an obstinate belief in the superiority of one's own opinions and a prejudiced intolerance of the opinions of others: a bigoted group of reactionaries; a thoughtless and bigoted article.  mention - (noun) a reference to someone or something.

See where even your definition describes "opinions", not assertion of fact. What was cited was not opinion, but substantiated fact. Note also that the 20 presenters of that fact, as vetted by an academic oversighter, did not express "a prejudiced intolerance of the opinions of others" in that statement, and to the contrary, took all opposing opinions into consideration of their assessment. That's what high-quality reliable sources do. Claiming the description of Emerson as a bigot (and factually challenged) is itself bigoted is amusing, but incorrect.

(3) The Washington Post included one short statement...

Yes, it did. It stated as a matter of fact that Emerson has been accused of Islamophobia, without further elaboration. To refute that fact, you will need to provide a reliable source which directly mentions that WaPo article, and then refutes that sentence.

Incorrect - WP:VALID Conspiracy theories, pseudoscience, speculative history, or even plausible, but currently unaccepted, theories should not be legitimized through comparison to accepted academic scholarship. We do not take a stand on these issues as encyclopedia writers, for or against; we merely omit this information where including it would unduly legitimize it, and otherwise describe these ideas in their proper context with respect to established scholarship and the beliefs of the wider world. [2]

WP:SUBSTANTIATE Biased statements of opinion can be presented only with attribution. For instance, "John Doe is the best baseball player" expresses an opinion and cannot be asserted in Wikipedia as if it were a fact. It can be included as a factual statement about the opinion: "John Doe's baseball skills have been praised by baseball insiders such as Al Kaline and Joe Torre." Opinions must still be verifiable and appropriately cited. See WP:BURDEN The burden of RS and V falls on the editors who want to include contentious material.
WP:EXCEPTIONAL - Any exceptional claim requires multiple high-quality sources. and also challenged claims that are supported purely by primary or self-published sources or those with an apparent conflict of interest;

I caught you. You seem to have accidentally omitted a salient sentence when citing WP:VALID, so I took the liberty of inserting it into your quotation for clarity. WP:VALID doesn't apply to the WaPo statement, as it isn't a "conspiracy theory"; it was an assertion of fact. WP:SUBSTANTIATE doesn't apply, as the statement wasn't given as an opinion. WP:EXCEPTIONAL only says that you can argue that additional mainstream sources be provided that say "Emerson has been accused of Islamophobia", which is fine -- there are a gazillion of them which note that Emerson has been so accused. (And no, WaPo doesn't have a conflict of interest, so that isn't applicable.)

(4) Ernst's Islamophobia in America: The Anatomy of Intolerance, also passing mention

No, also not a "passing mention", as Emerson was also mentioned and described before that in both chapters 1 and 2, and there are citations to external sources in support. In one instance, he's described as a "professional Islamophobe".

See above regarding inline text citation

I looked for it, but I don't see where you have made a cogent case for requiring inline citation for any of the passages in Ernst's book. Could you summarize your argument here, noting how it specifically applies to Ernst?

(5) All but one source represents an allegation...

This is not correct, as none of those cited sources use wording that indicates they are only giving an opinion or "alleging" what they are saying. They are clearly giving those descriptions as assertions of fact. That means it must be you who is characterizing these descriptions as mere allegation, right? That argument won't get you very far. If an academic book by a reputable publisher contains a sentence which says "water is wet", you can't claim that is just an allegation. Unless you can produce reliably sourced information showing that water is not wet, or that the assertion is at least disputed, people will assume you are just objecting to what you personally do not want to hear. If you do produce reliably sourced content to the contrary, then there may be a case for offering both 'realities' with attribution.

Incorrect - your analogies do not represent the current situation.

"Emerson has been accused of Islamophobia..." clearly an accusation/allegation.
"many of the most prominent producers of Islamophobic discourse are male." Opinion - "Biased statements of opinion can be presented only with attribution. For instance, "John Doe is the best baseball player" expresses an opinion and cannot be asserted in Wikipedia as if it were a fact. It can be included as a factual statement about the opinion: "John Doe's baseball skills have been praised by baseball insiders such as Al Kaline and Joe Torre." Opinions must still be verifiable and appropriately cited." [3]

Wow...no. You can argue that the statement "Emerson is an Islamophobe" is an allegation/accusation. You can not argue that it's not a fact that he has been so accused. For instance, CAIR accused him of it. That's a fact. It's a factual statement that he has been accused.

As for the "many of the most prominent producers of Islamophobic discourse are male" part of the sentence, the "many are male" assertion may indeed be opinion as that is a subjective statement, but that isn't the part being conveyed in our article on Emerson. If we were to add the "many are male" argument to an article, you could successfully argue that it should be attributed; but we aren't And I think you already knew that, since you cleverly omitted the salient part of the sentence that cannot be confused as "allegation".

(6) none of which are backed up by anything but biased opinion

See argument #5 just before this. Since the descriptions of Emerson come from quality sources, with cited external sources and research, and vetted by stringent publishers with reputations for fact-checking and accuracy, your personal exclamation that statements of fact are instead statements of opinion won't fly. No source is 100% infallible, of course; but you've produced nothing from other reliable sources to challenge the ones presented thus far.

See my No. 5 above, and in particular, read the link provided in my No. 3

I looked for your evidence that the statements of fact from the above cited reliable sources were just "biased opinion", but you've produced nothing from other reliable sources to challenge the ones presented thus far. I checked you response to #5, and there is no evidence there. I looked at all four of the links you provided at #3, and those are all just links to WP policies, not to evidence about how or why these statements of fact are instead "biased opinions". Perhaps you misunderstood this issue? To clarify: If you are going to mischaracterize assertions of fact from reliable sources as "biased opinions", please cite your evidence.

Done *(7) Co-authors Safi and Hammer who wrote the Cambridge published book are the only ones who actually called Emerson an Islamophobe

Flat out false. The authors who wrote that book are: Sylvia Chan-Malik, R. David Coolidge, Edward E. Curtis IV, Nabil Echchaibi, Kambiz GhaneaBassiri, Zareena A. Grewal, Julie Hammer, Rosemary R. Hicks, Sally Howell, Amaney Jawal, Akel Ismail Kahera, Michael Muhammad Knight, Karen Leonard, Debra Majeed, Kathleen M. Moore, Amid Safi, Richard Brent Turner, Gisela Webb, Timur R. Yuskaev. Also, that is just one book (he's one of the "professional Islamophobes" in the Ernst book, for instance).

My misstatement about book authorship is duly noted.  Thank you for bringing it to my attention, and for making us aware there are several other co-authors of the book who apparently share a similar bias regarding a specific religion/ideology.  Correction: The book was edited by Juliane Hammer and Omid Safi.  The Introduction: American Islam, Muslim Americans, and the American Experiment was co-authored by Juliane Hammer, Omid Safi.  Is that better?

Since you've acknowledged your mistake and know understand that Hammer & Sufi are just 2 of the 20 authors of the academic textbook, and since you didn't dispute the fact that other books (like Ernst's) have described Emerson as an Islamophobe, I've marked this segment as "done". I saw your unsubstantiated "who apparently share a similar bias" silliness, which I expect you'll substantiate with evidence in section #10, where you've made similar unsupported pronouncements.

(8) and then cited a Think Progress article which incorrectly paraphrased an evaluation made by Emerson during a CBS interview 20 years ago

That argument will not fly. Unless you provide equally reliably-sourced refutation saying that TP misparaphrased, you are just spouting your personal opinion, and your argument will fall flat. The article posted at Think Progress has at least a dozen links to other sources in it (including to Emerson himself), and some of those links lead to sources with dozens more links. You really don't think the 20 authors of that book didn't pour through those sources to uncover the facts?

will not fly?  Perhaps you should watch the interview, or read the transcript. [4]  It is not OR, it is fact-checking RS which WP encourages using tertiary sources such as the following: [5] In 1995 he told CBS that the Oklahoma City bombing "was done with the intent to inflict as many casualties as possible. That is a Middle Eastern trait." Emerson says his remarks merely reflected the thinking of law-enforcement officials at the time, although he regrets the mistake. Do you see the word Muslim in that statement?  Biased critics distorted his statement to discredit Emerson who was referring to Islamic terrorists which does not comprise all Muslims.  The article needs to be expanded to demonstrate the difference between Emerson's analyses on Islamic terrorism and his unbiased acceptance of Muslims who are not terrorists, including his Muslim colleagues who help with translations, research and analysis.

Okay, I read what you called "the transcript" (your first link). It's not a transcript of his 1995 remarks. It's from 7 years later, and only conveys a little video clip excerpt - the same snippet as I've seen in dozens of other sources. It does not show the "inaccurate paraphrasing" you allege. In fact, the reporter in your link makes the very same paraphrasing in a follow-up question, and refers to "Muslims". So do you have an actual link to the actual interview or transcript? I also read your Brown link; same snippet - no transcript, and no evidence that there was any inaccurate paraphrasing. (I like that Brown BAM source, by the way, but it is very outdated ...it even mentions Emerson's lawsuit as pending, which he lost.) Still waiting for evidence that there was inaccurate paraphrasing, or your argument will not fly.

(9) Emerson called it "a Middle Eastern trait" with no mention whatsoever of the word Muslim.

And your point? Are you conducting your own original research here? That won't go over well, either. Following the links in the article at Think Progress, as if I were a University researcher, it's not hard to find numerous reliable sources supporting the paraphrasing. Or news sources and interviews where instead of challenging that he "didn't say Muslims!", he acknowledges it and says he has learned his lesson. He even whined that other news outlets who originally blamed Muslims were trying to make it seem that he was the only one to blame Muslims. (What an odd thing to say if you didn't blame Muslims in the first place.) The point: screaming that a reliable source is inaccurate will not advance your argument; you need equally reliable sources which refute it.

See my statements above.  There appears to be a problem differentiating between Islamic terrorists and all Muslims.  Perhaps the linked articles will help explain that there is a clear and precise difference: [6] [7]

Did you just shoot yourself in the foot? First, both of your links appear to be deadlinks. But I was able to read the opinion piece from Rizvi that you posted on the Emerson Talk page, and I was able to find the NYT book review with a Google search. Um, the NYT book review says, "This was especially true after the 1995 Oklahoma City bombing, which he initially suggested was the likely work of Muslim radicals." Were you linking that just to reinforce the fact that Emerson's accusation, when taken in context of the interview he gave in 1995, wrongly accused Muslims of terrorism? Anyway, I've read your two links, and also your "statements above", and I am still awaiting your actual evidence that Emerson apologized, and said he "learned his lesson", and promised never to accuse "Islamist terrorists" again, as you insist. (Instead of Muslims, as all these sources you keep producing say.)

(10) WP should not be the forum for such unfounded allegations and echoing the bigotry shown by scholars of Islamic studies.

You have not yet provided one piece of evidence showing any "unfounded allegations". As for the ridiculous "bigotry shown by scholars" silliness, you've just shown that you do not understand the definition of "bigotry". Describing someone as a bigot is not one of the definitions of bigotry.

Facepalm I really have no response for such baseless hyperbole.

It appears you may be emotionally involved which may explain the argumentum ad hominem and spurious claims. I know bigotry all too well, and your allegations are not helpful. The inclusion of contentious material in this BLP still remains unsupported which is your job to resolve considering the named sources have been challenged. In fact, we have provided a compendium of sources on Emerson's TP as well as on IPT yet you keep pushing the same few bigoted articles written by self-promoting proponents of religious ideology. The responsibility of providing RS to support the inclusion of contentious material rests with those who want to include it, and you have not fulfilled that requirement.

"It appears you may be emotionally involved..." LOL. I see where you tried that exact same chill tactic on some other editors just a few minutes ago here. Hysteria will not serve you will in this discussion. You seem to forget I've been around here for more than a decade, and won't fall for that ploy. So back to my question: Where is your evidence of "bigoted articles written by self-promoting proponents of religious ideology"? Just one little, teensy bit of evidence. Surely you can produce just one scrap from a whole 'compendium'?

Done *(11) If the criticism by Safi and Hammer are included, they don't belong in the lead, rather they belong in the section about...

Incorrect. Per policy, significant content, including critical content, will likely be in the body of the article as well as summarized in the lede.

Partially correct - yes, the lead summarizes the article, but the biased opinions of proponents who are paid to advocate for a religious ideology do not belong in the lead of a BLP per WP:ADVOCACY.  Emerson is about a guy who investigates Islamic terrorism, the same terrorism other Muslims fear.  Ethan Bronner of the NY Times said (my bold): Emerson may not be a scholar, and he may sometimes connect unrelated dots. He may also occasionally be quite wrong. But he is an investigator who has performed a genuine service by focusing on radical Islamic groups in this country.[8]  Further, none of the sources you've cited above qualify the bigoted opinion that Emerson is an Islamophobe.  His critics have sensationalized a few insignificant events, like the Emerson gaffe about Birmingham or an incorrect prediction that happened 20 years ago, and they've made a lot of other spurious claims.  It's a circle, traveling circus performing the same act round and round under the big top.  I agree that criticism should be noted in the body of the article as long as we avoid UNDUE, and it includes inline citations, and/or inline text attributions for contentious material resulting from biased opinions that remain evidentially and substantively unsupported.

Given your acknowledgement that the lead will summarize the article, I'll mark this as "done". Your unsupported personal opinions about what constitutes "biased opinions", "paid advocates", etc., appear to be reiterations of the stuff in #10, where we are still patiently waiting for evidence.

(12) The phrases were clearly cherrypicked...

You are using that phrase incorrectly. Cherrypicked means you can produce contradictory or significant qualifying information from the very same sources, which you have not done (and I'd wager can not be done). I think what you meant to say is "Editors have produced sourced phrases which are unflattering or critical of Emerson", and indeed they have.

Incorrect.  While Wikipedia may consider a "source" to be just p. 32 of a certain book, to prevent cherrypicking you should consider a source in its larger sense.' Also Our concern within Wikipedia is about cherrypicking from within a source or closely-related multiple sources, and an editor should be careful in handling that.  The sources that contained only passing mention of Emerson were cherrypicked because the source in its larger sense did not focus on him or his activity.

"because the source in its larger sense did not focus on him or his activity" is not part of the definition of cherrypicking you just gave, nor of the one I gave. Did you mean to say "because the source in its larger sense contradicts or significantly qualifies the information that focuses on him or his activity? Now that would indeed be cherrypicking, but the cited source doesn't have such contradictory information.

{{done} *(13) the impression Emerson is "fomenting Islamophobia". Smells a lot like WP:SYNTH.

There is indeed some merit to the argument that using the word "fomenting" would require synthesis of the present sources. However, there is no synth required for the criticisms of Emerson's factually-challenged assertions or his Islamophobia. That's just a minor matter of word choice.

Read all of the above including the associated policies, take two aspirins, and get a good night's sleep. Happy editing!

Since you have not expressed disagreement, I'll mark this one as "done".

Best Regards, Xenophrenic (talk) 22:30, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

PS - I may move this to the Emerson TP as it doesn't belong on my TP. Atsme☯^Consult 04:08, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

You are welcome to copy the discussion to whichever forum you like, but you might need to reformat it to allow other editors to participate. I placed it here with the specific intent of allowing you to parse the hell out of it and respond to each individual point (as you have done) without the need to stick to the formalities of signing each interjection, etc. The goal is to reach agreements and understandings; not to argue endlessly. Xenophrenic (talk) 22:30, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

That is a good way to respond to such complex discussions - nice. And yes, less than a single sentence in a 300 page book is a passing mention. I cringe at anyone who says otherwise. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 04:13, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

Naw, because as I explained above, nobody cited "a single sentence". What was cited was a description of Emerson as an Islamophobe and discredited expert which itself was actually cited to an external source containing a dozen more referenced sources (including Emerson himself) and had a brief parenthetical justification. So you can cringe all you want, but that doesn't change the fact that a lot more than a "passing mention" was cited. The only people who will be fooled with the "passing mention" description are those who haven't actually read the cited source. Xenophrenic (talk) 22:30, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

George Edward Smith

I was surprised that you A3ed this, since it has non-Article Wizard content. I agree that the subject's notability is questionable, though, and better routes may be prod or AfD. All the best, Miniapolis 23:52, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Atsme. You have new messages at The Herald's talk page.
Message added 03:58, 7 February 2015 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

- The Herald (here I am) 03:58, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

BRD at Griffin, please

It's really better to stand back when your bold edit is reverted. I understand that you may feel that your text is an obvious improvement, but once a disagreement is evident, it is best to discuss it on talk. Please consider undoing your reinsertion of text. It would be a strong display of good faith in discussing things on talk. SPECIFICO talk 23:15, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

SPECIFICO, I've been discussing the same things repeatedly on Griffin Talk for 60 days, and the discussions have gotten us nowhere. Now Jytdog is WP:SQS, WP:OWN, WP:Tendentious editing and WP:Forumshopping. His behavior requires review by ARBCOM. I am currently reviewing the process for filing. But I thank you for your suggestion. My edits are fundamentally compliant, they are good edits, encyclopedic, and have improved the article. There was not one reason for Jytdog to revert the work I did. I have bent over backwards to appease the POV pushers, and I believe the diffs I have accumulated will establish what is necessary for an ARBCOM review. Atsme☯^Consult 23:30, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

It's fine for you to pursue whatever channels you feel are appropriate, but remember it's important to assume good faith. Calling other editors "POV pushers" here doesn't help resolve the matter, but it can be expected to inflame the interactions around this article. FYI, Arbcom is going to examine whether you have exhausted other remedies and Arbcom will not decide content-related issues, only behavioral issues. SPECIFICO talk 00:08, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

Griffin Edit Warring

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. 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:

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

In particular, editors should be aware of the three-revert rule, which says that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. While edit warring on Wikipedia is not acceptable in any amount and can lead to a block, breaking the three-revert rule is very likely to lead to a block. 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.

Atsme, you are at 4RR on Griffin. This is further impeding progress there. Please step back. Things will get better. SPECIFICO talk 04:05, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

warning no personal attacks

With regard to this,

Please stop attacking other editors. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Jytdog (talk) 03:33, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

Also - someone who has more than twice your own edits is not a Single Purpose Account. I find making stubs to be worthwhile and helpful to growing the encyclopedia. I've expanded dozens of stubs to Good Article status and I only became aware of them because they existed in a poor state. I would have gone right past them otherwise. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 04:02, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you. Jytdog (talk) 05:22, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

and I had to add a redirect

I added the redirect for the "C C of N" as somehow the current Wikipedia editors seem not to have known it <g>. Howdy Doody was "first show of the evening" and had its very own test pattern. And the first Howdy had "plastic surgery" <g> due to a dispute with the puppet maker. I know - way too much trivia. Collect (talk) 14:45, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

@Collect: - Great trivia! Who can forget Doodyville?

Buffalo Bob: Who's the funniest clown in town?

Audience: CLARABELL!

Buffalo Bob: Who makes you laugh when you wanna frown?

Audience: CLARABELL!

Buffalo Bob: His feet are big, his tummy's stout, but we could never do without...

Audience: CLARA, CLARA, CLAR-A-BELL!!!

And then there was, Davy, Davy Crockett, king of the wild frontier!!! I had to have a coonskin cap. Too young to know who he truly was, or what he believed. [9] Another favorite, Have Gun — Will Travel Ha! Thanks for the memories....<---my salutation made me think of Bob Hope. Never ends, but that's a good thing - like what Steven Jobs said about on-off switches. Atsme☯^Consult 15:40, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

Phineas T. Bluster. Princess Summerfall Winterspring (definitely made an impression). Flubadub (who loved "meatballs and spaghetti") and so on. And of course, Clarabell's only spoken words. Collect (talk) 15:44, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

your user talk page

Is under your control -- those who seek to cow you by reverting your removal of material which is quite reasonably removed is improper. What you can not remove are block notices, until the block is resolved, and official posts by ArbCom and the like. Wikipedia:User_pages#Removal_of_comments.2C_notices.2C_and_warnings . Consult all you wish. Collect (talk) 13:30, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) what about people other than the "owner" of the talk page. I consult you to answer Collect -Roxy the dog™ (resonate) 14:00, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

All I noted was your revert - your proper course should have been to contact the one who deleted the post, not Atsme who bore no fault. My UT page, for example, asks others not to refactor it. Cheers. Collect (talk) 14:07, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

Would you consult me to do anything further? -Roxy the dog™ (resonate) 14:11, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

I consult you to stay off my TP and stop taunting me. Your disruptive behavior is a violation of WP:INCIVILITY. Atsme☯^Consult 12:31, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

Proposed lede

If you are accepting the changes I proposed you might actually change the model. Doing so will allow other editors to comment further on what is needed. BTW, I take issue on some items. For instance becoming a CFP is the essential encyclopedic info we want, not the motivation. Also his assistant station gig comes from his Whos Who profile (which I purchased) -- it seems to have been enhanced with time. His assertion about founding American Media is SPS, not backed by other sources, and involves a third party -- the corporate (non)-entity. I hope you'll consider my comments here. Later I shall post needed observations in the thread. Please keep up the effort. Thanks. – S. Rich (talk) 04:42, 6 February 2015 (UTC) Added suggestion: make the suggested changes and check off with {{Done}}. 04:50, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

Srich32977 - please take a look at GA Murray Rothbard, under section title Life and work, subtitle Education - He attended Columbia University, where he received a Bachelor of Arts degree in mathematics in 1945 and, eleven years later, his PhD in economics in 1956. The delay in receiving his PhD was due in part to conflict with his advisor, Joseph Dorfman, and in part to Arthur Burns rejecting his doctoral dissertation. That article is in line with what I'm shooting for with Griffin and why I feel the explanations are important to the BLP. Atsme☯^Consult 05:16, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

But ... the Rothbard material you reference are in the article text, not the lede. Since the Griffen page is off of PP, you might make the changes in the sections. Remember, we want to keep the lede as concise as possible. Moreover you've got to get consensus for your proposed lede. The lede is the center of most of the contentiousness.. – S. Rich (talk) 05:26, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

I suggest you drop the "was honorably discharged" phrasing. Unless something unusual happens (such as a court-martial, or administrative board action) everyone leaves the military with an honorable discharge. Seeking to add the phrase is gilding the lily. – S. Rich (talk) 16:35, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

Srich32977 - I can't believe he lied straight up at 3RR. Talk about passive aggressive behavior. And of course, the team is on top of it. Atsme☯^Consult 07:36, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

Advice

I strongly advise you to drop your interest in the Griffin article. The AE request recently closed, includes a strong indication that an AE request against you would be merited. I think that if you carry on trying to edit that article, you will end up exactly there. You have, as you implied earlier, settled on a story, and angle, and it is absolutely not in line with Wikipedia policy. I do not want to see you starting to accumulate topic bans. Griffin is a Bircher, all Birchers are toxic for any editor who fails to understand and accept that members of the John Birch Society are usually extremists and very often completely unhinged. Griffin is one such. He is an advocate for a form of quackery long promoted by the society, and which has caused untold misery. Guy (Help!) 21:40, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

And what sort of "misery" has the JB society caused? -A1candidate 21:53, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

You got me there, I had thought that they were against things like health and safety legislation, and promoted cancer quackery. Oh, wait, I was right: they are historically against anything that controls the unfettered freedom of the individual, even when it is an essential part of civilised society. Guy (Help!) 18:12, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

Valentine Greets!!!

Valentine Greets!!!

Hello Atsme, love is the language of hearts and is the feeling that joins two souls and brings two hearts together in a bond. Taking love to the level of Wikipedia, spread the WikiLove by wishing each other Happy Valentine's Day, 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 love on the eve,
Happy editing,
- T H (here I am) 12:01, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

Spread the love by adding {{subst:Valentine Greetings}} to other user talk pages.

How sweet! Thank you, The Herald. I consider you and Hafspajen very special Wikipedians. Thank you both for being so kind, and for sharing your thoughts of kindness to others. Atsme☯^Consult 23:31, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

You've got mail

Hello, Atsme. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 07:30, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

This is your problem

You state: "I do not have a POV". That is ridiculous. Everybody has a POV in respect of everything. Your problem is precisely that you think your beliefs are not only neutral, but self-evidently true. That this is not so should, by now, be obvious to anybody who is competent to edit a contentious article. Your advocacy for the purported validity of Griffin's false opinions on laetrile is only one example of your having a POV, whether you admit it or not. Guy (Help!) 18:08, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

Not true. I have no agenda at Griffin except to make it a GA, and in order to do that, it has to pass a GA review. As the article stands now, it wouldn't pass a DYK review. I have tried my best to be accommodating to you but your aggressiveness toward me is not helping. Atsme☯^Consult 19:53, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

Sun!

		Sunshine!
		Hello Atsme! Bananasoldier (talk) has given you a bit of sunshine to brighten your day! Sunshine promotes WikiLove and hopefully it has made your day better. Spread the sunshine by adding `{{subst:[[User:Meaghan/Sunshine]]}}` to someone else's talk page, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. In addition, you can spread the sunshine to anyone who visits your userpage and/or talk page by adding {{User:Meaghan/Sunshine icon}}. Happy editing! Bananasoldier (talk) 08:35, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

Thank you, Bananasoldier, I've let the sun shine in!! Your thoughtful message is very much appreciated. Atsme☯^Consult 03:29, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

A beer for you!

Put a straw for it... - The Herald (here I am) 16:31, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

The Herald - That beer was quite refreshing!! Thank you! Atsme☯^Consult 03:31, 31 January 2015 (UTC)