User talk:Popish Plot

Hello Popish Plot (talk) 22:43, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome!

Hello, Popish Plot, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few links to pages you might find helpful:

You may also want to take the Wikipedia Adventure, an interactive tour that will help you learn the basics of editing Wikipedia.

Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or click here to ask for help on your talk page, and a volunteer should respond shortly. Again, welcome! — Arthur Rubin (talk) 02:07, 29 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

January 2015

Welcome to Wikipedia. Everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia. However, talk pages are meant to be a record of a discussion; deleting or editing legitimate comments, as you did at Talk:Circumcision, is considered bad practice, even if you meant well. Even making spelling and grammatical corrections in others' comments is generally frowned upon, as it tends to irritate the users whose comments you are correcting. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 02:07, 29 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The truth is I deleted one of my own comments on that talk page which was out of line and that I regretted! Popish Plot (talk) 20:12, 30 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That's totally fine; we appreciate your reconsideration. The above WP:Template was not very useful, then: Arthur shuold have pointed you to Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines#Own comments. That policy says that, in your situation, it's best to put <s>…</s> around the comments you'd like to ~~strike out of the record~~, and then put <u>…</u> around whatever you'd like to add, such as Sorry, I've reconsidered the above comment and no longer stand behind it. Edited ~~~~~. If you do that, other users will almost never hold the "struck" comment against you, and the conversation will remain intelligible. Arthur was probably confused because nat all the comments you removed were added by your logged-in username; another good reason to always log in if you can remember. Thanks, and welcome! FourViolas (talk) 11:25, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes one thing I keep forgetting is four tildes to put my name down. I see why that is a key thing. Popish Plot (talk) 13:51, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note to a new editor

FYI: Ordinarily, if an editor states or asks specifically that an editor not comment on his personal talk page, as Arthur Rubin has on his, you should not then continue to post on his or her talk page. It is considered uncivil. There is an exception to this for posting required notifications or warnings (e.g. about Administrative Noticeboards' discussions). That is to say, if you bring a complaint to the noticeboards you are required to alert the involved editor. Other than that it is best to stay off the personal talk pages of those who have stated that an editor's comments are not welcome at their personal pages. As a new editor I thought you should be alerted to this. Capitalismojo (talk) 16:46, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't post on my user talk page. :) Popish Plot (talk) 16:52, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

My, my Popish - you certainly are off to a good start.

I just dropped by to say "hi" and maybe welcome you to WP, but I see others have beat me to it. I read your response to me at Griffin, but thought it best to respond to you there just in case you issued a wiki-wide myTPBan (for which there is no such thing). Even if there was, it wouldn't include me though, would it? New editors are such fun. Happy editing! Atsme☯^Consult 22:37, 18 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

pleased to meet you Atsme Popish Plot (talk) 02:24, 19 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Discretionary sanctions notification - CAM

Please carefully read this information:

The Arbitration Committee has authorised discretionary sanctions to be used for pages regarding Complementary and Alternative Medicine, 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.

Referring specifically to the G. Edward Griffin article. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 00:27, 19 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

sounds like basically, don't mess around, don't go editing without reliable sources. Understood. Popish Plot (talk) 02:36, 19 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Callan has also placed the article under PP. Atsme☯^Consult 17:28, 19 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

what's that?Popish Plot (talk) 19:35, 19 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

See Wikipedia:Protection_policy#full You will also notice a lock on the article page - top right corner. It means you cannot edit the actual article without first getting consensus on the TP, then requesting the edit be made by an admin or editor who has the tools to do so. Atsme☯^Consult 21:28, 19 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hopefully that's lifted soon but till then I suppose there is no problem with just bringing a source to the talk page to discuss whether it is reliable or not. Some of that discussion I see is about some other sources that people say are no good but what I'm wondering if wikipedia should make it clearer on what makes a source reliable. I think a lot of times it's too confusing on purpose. Popish Plot (talk) 14:46, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, we have RS-N (Reliable Sources Noticeboard) for such discussions. I hope you don't mind, but I'm going to add a section to your TP which I hope you'll find helpful. You are asking many of the same questions I've asked in the past, and what many editors still ask and don't understand today. Atsme☯^Consult 16:39, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks!Popish Plot (talk) 01:55, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A few administrator interpretations of RS

What I posted on Griffin Talk, [1], is the result of knowledge I acquired after quizzing admins, reading questions and results at RSN, and thoroughly reviewing WP:V, specifically the NOTES section at the bottom of the article. I tend to think the latter is often overlooked, even by a few of our veteran editors, perhaps by design, but it is always best to WP:AGF. I also believe it is very important for new editors to acquire a thorough understanding of BLP policy which also relies on strict adherence to the 3 core content policies, WP:NPOV, WP:V and WP:NOR. New editors eventually come to realize that 3RR, ARB DS, and BLP violations are at the top of the list of priorities.

Another excellent explanation in less complex terms that helped me grasp the proper application of WP:RS was provided to me earlier this year at Wikipedia:RSN by admin TenOfAllTrades. [2] (my bold and underline for emphasis)

A common misunderstanding among editors who don't have a medical or scientific background is that PubMed is a 'source' or publisher; it is not. PubMed is just a really big index (sort of like a library catalog) that collects citation information for a vast amount of science- and medicine-related content from thousands of different journals. [Some] of this material is of high quality, some...not so much. For instance, the first "PubMed" link above (this one) is just a pointer to a catalog entry for a 2003 paper by Fukuda et al. published originally in Biological & pharmaceutical bulletin.
A second common misconception is that a source can be declared "reliable", and that declaration is a fixed, absolute judgement. Reliability depends both on the source itself and on how it is used. This board cannot provide a blanket approval that a source is reliable for all purposes. Some of the most important guidelines for evaluating the use of specific sources to support specific claims can be found in WP:MEDRS. (Of course, a source can be reliable for a particular claim and yet still be omitted from an article for reasons of (ir)relevance, undue weight, or to avoid implying conclusions not actually supported. The greater context of the article matters.) TenOfAllTrades(talk) 00:19, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

Hope this helps. Atsme☯^Consult 17:29, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No, it's not the reslt of knowledge, it's a result of studiously ignoring those who have sought to explain the problem to you. You've proposed conspiracy crank sites as sources. YOu simply don't understand what a reliable source is, you are weighin them by how well they support your agenda, not by actual quality. Guy (Help!) 00:19, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I do think once someone resorts to insults, they have been proven wrong. What is atsme's agenda? Popish Plot (talk) 01:33, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

To represent G. Edward Griffin's book World Without Cancer as something other than what it is - a book promoting the worst fraud ever perpetrated on American cancer victims; to represent his book The Creature From Jekyll Island as a work of legitimate scholarship, rather than what it actually is, a barely-coherent conspiracist ramble in support of the "hard money" fringe; to represent his self-published books and videos as works of critical scholarship, rather than what they are, conspiracist maunderings; and to make the article pass GA criteria by watering down critical responses to his nonsense. Along the way Atsme has proposed a variety of unreliable sources and in several cases has entirely misrepresented what other sources say (e.g. a book by Kissinger called New World Order presented as if it were an endorsement of the New World Order conspiracy theory which Griffin advocates. Atsme is a lovely person and up to now I think a very good editor, but she has acknowledged that she tends to settle on an angle and write from that perspective, and in this case the angle is simply wrong, and she can't seem to let go of it. Guy (Help!) 08:34, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Moreover, Popish, it is never OK to impugn the motives of other editors. Sooner or later, those who engage in personal attacks on WP end up with sanctions. Even if you see others misbehaving in that way, it is not OK to follow suit. SPECIFICO talk 13:05, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Really, SPECIFICO? And pray tell, what did Guy just do to me? Atsme☯^Consult 14:17, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ironic. But I do appreciate the response from Guy. Ok. So atsme wants to make the book about cancer and the book about Jekyl Island as "legitimate scholarship" and they are not? What's up with the current first sentence of the article: "G. Edward Griffin (born November 7, 1931) is an American author, lecturer, and filmmaker. He is the author of The Creature from Jekyll Island (1994), which promotes conspiracy theories about the Federal Reserve System.[1][2]

"

This has two sources. This: http://mediamatters.org/research/2011/03/26/who-is-g-edward-griffin-becks-expert-on-the-fed/177986 and this: http://web.archive.org/web/20071016170111/http://www.usadaily.com//article.cfm?articleID=63368 Read these. The first says it is a wild conspiracy theory but the second doesn't. But this is also a discussion of a proposed edit atsme made in a sandbox. Atsme still has this in the draft: However, Sean Easter of Media Matters For America wrote a review that was critical of Beck's interview, stating "Griffin has an extensive history of promoting wild conspiracy theories."[8]"

That second citation, to USA Daily is not RS as to the statement in the lede and that source should be deleted. If you have some knowledge of USA Daily that you believe proves otherwise, please share it on the article talk page. Thanks. SPECIFICO talk 15:53, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Specifico thanks! So maybe the article should be unlocked for just a second to take that out? What about these other sources for the jekyl Island part of the article: "He has opposed the Federal Reserve since the 1960s, saying it constitutes a banking cartel and an instrument of war and totalitarianism.[17] Griffin presented his views on the U.S. money system in his 1993 movie and 1994 book on the Federal Reserve System, The Creature from Jekyll Island.[6][note 1] The book was a business-topic bestseller.[2][18][19] The book also influenced Ron Paul when he wrote a chapter on money and the Federal Reserve in his New York Times bestseller, The Revolution: A Manifesto.[20]

Edward Flaherty, an academic economist writing for Political Research Associates, characterized Griffin's description of the secret meeting on Jekyll Island as "conspiratorial", "amateurish", and "suspect".[21] Griffin responded that "until specifics [of error] are brought to my attention, I stand on everything I have written. ... There is nothing about my work that merits being classified as a conspiracy theory.[22]"

Here, the 2 source is the usa daily one that should be taken out but that was just to say it was a bestseller. Other sources also say that.: 18.Jump up ^ "Bestselling business books". Calgary Herald. 2006-07-04. p. F5.

19.Jump up ^ "Best-selling business books, April 14". Rocky Mountain News. 2007-04-14. Archived from the original on 2008-09-27. Retrieved 2008-02-29. "10. The Creature from Jekyll Island: A Second Look at the Federal Reserve: G. Edward Griffin. American Media. $24.50. ..."

Is Ron Paul a reliable source? I do think he lies a lot but that is my political opinion. Is it correct to have Griffen's rebuttal to those who said it was it was bad? Also, should this entire discussion be moved to the griffen article talk page? Popish Plot (talk) 16:12, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Of course Ron Paul isn't a reliable source for what constitutes a neutral view of economics. And Amazon categorises homeopathy and other quackery under health books: being classified as a business book doesn't make it a business book, still less a reliable or factual book. This is just WP:SYN, basically, and it's done because the vast majority of reliable independent sources completely ignore Griffin, because he is so obviously a crank. Guy (Help!) 22:53, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I will clarify: Atsme will, of course, reject my reading of her agenda. It is, nonetheless, my understanding of what she is trying to do, and I have given extended reasons why this is the impression she gives. If it is not her intention, then she is doing something very badly wrong, because that's exactly how it looks to me. Guy (Help!) 16:19, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I think you should assume good faith unless you have specific proof of an agenda here. How can the article be improved? Specifico just showed me it has a non reliable source in it right now. Popish Plot (talk) 17:19, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

WP:AGF is not a suicide pact. And actually I believe that Atsme is entirely sincere - just badly wrong. Guy (Help!) 18:28, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Not a suicide pact ok but just good advice. If wrong, in what way? Being wrong is not the same as having an agenda. And if entirely sincere, that is opposite of having an agenda right? You had said "Atsme will, of course, reject my reading of her agenda." There is a lot of rude, unecessary insults going. Let's go back to just discussing the article. Popish Plot (talk) 18:51, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Being wrong is allowed. Being wrong, admitting you were wrong, and then coming back and reasserting your wrongness, repeatedly and determinedly, is more of a problem. You might want to start here, I am not exactly inexperienced in disputes. Guy (Help!) 22:50, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Popish, the fact that various editors have come here, to your talk page, demonstrates our interest in helping you to acclimate yourself to Wikipedia. You're going to have a much quicker and more productive learning curve if you take time to review all the talk page archives on Griffin and any other articles you're engaging. Any time you see an editor cite or link to a policy or guideline, please take the time to read those pages thoroughly and give some thought as to their applicability to specific editing issues and interactions. If you dive into complex discussion threads before you can refer to their history, you're not likely to get much reaction from other editors, and other editors won't feel that it's appropriate for them to repeat themselves when a newcomer arrives and has not gotten up to speed on difficult threads. Good luck. It will be worth the effort. SPECIFICO talk 23:03, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I did review that talk page and it was a lot of arguing over nothing. So I wanted to just ask you what the problem was and you were non responsive at first which made it hard to assume good faith but then you finally did answer. Truth is I have been lurking wiki for years and just recently decided to make a username and edit so I am aware of the rules. One of them being that you should be civil. Popish Plot (talk) 03:46, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Guy, wrong in what way? I'm trying to steer you away from generalities and towards specifics. Popish Plot (talk) 03:50, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Griffin

Popish, in response to your request that I state all of the issues and WP policies to which I referred you on the Griffin talk page: I don't think that it's likely that I or any other editor will invest the time and effort to bring you up to speed on this. I would like to see you participate and I would like the group to have the benefit of any informed views or suggestions you may wish to offer there, however I think it is up to you to invest the time and energy to contribute constructively there. I hope you'll do so. SPECIFICO talk 20:37, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It's ok I figured it out, angry pov pushers, not wanting to discuss because they knew they were wrong. Popish Plot (talk) 01:28, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A kitten for you!

Imagine this little kitten purring beside you. Happy thoughts!

Atsme☯^Consult 03:43, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

RS for Griffin

Hello, Popish. Atsme has archived my reply to your recent post on her talk page, so I'll paste it here: If you have indeed located "plenty of reliable sources" for comments (pro or con) about the book, then you may propose them and the associated article text on the article talk page. Before you do so, please check whatever you find against proposals, e.g. the Forbes blog piece, that have already been proposed and rejected. SPECIFICO talk 21:43, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

What "blog post" in Forbes, and who rejected it? Atsme☯^Consult 07:57, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure what Guy meant I looked thru the talk history and saw talk of different forbes articles. Anyway, this is 2015, you'd think we'd be past the old saying a blog is no good excuse. Popish Plot (talk) 13:28, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Edit summaries

Popish Plot,
I have noticed that you often edit without an edit summary. Please do your best to always fill in the summary field. This is considered an important guideline in Wikipedia. Even a short summary is better than no summary. An edit summary is even more important if you delete any text; otherwise, people may think you're being sneaky. Also, mentioning one change but not another one can be misleading to someone who finds the other one more important; add "and misc." to cover the other change(s). Thanks! 220 of ^Borg 16:45, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the good tip, I see why that is important. I have been trying to make a comment on the talk page to say what the dit was but that is not as clear is it? Popish Plot (talk) 17:42, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, just something to indicate what the edit is about. No need to be as verbose as I am though. 220 of ^Borg 17:48, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Well you'd think a Borg would not be so verbose but I remember the borg queen had a lot to say and not to mention 7 of 9 although at that point she was embracing her humanity a lot more! :) Popish Plot (talk) 17:54, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent edits

Hello and welcome to Wikipedia. When you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion (but never when editing articles), please be sure to sign your posts. There are two ways to do this. Either:

Add four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment; or
With the cursor positioned at the end of your comment, click on the signature button ( or ) located above the edit window.

This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is necessary to allow other editors to easily see who wrote what and when.

Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 19:58, 31 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Oh man thanks Sinebot why do I keep forgetting that!!! Sorry! Popish Plot (talk) 19:59, 31 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Just saying....

I think you can probably relate to what I'm about to say even if it's irrelevant but maybe not. I think it's sad when an individual thinks they have all the answers, and that their POV is the right one and everyone else is wrong. It's arrogance. “A solid answer to everything is not necessary. Blurry concepts influence one to focus, but postulated clarity influences arrogance.” ~Criss Jami Maintaining flexibility and an open mind is equally important to achieving success and maintaining it. In fact, it's a key ingredient. Politically based attacks can be overwhelming, especially when you don't care about politics, but I think the former is changing world-wide thanks to self-sufficient, intelligent people who have grown weary of the ignorance, and have the common sense to know better. Overly zealous political advocates who push their POV on others will wither away, especially those who think they have all the answers and want to impose their beliefs on others while telling them how to live. It's a form of censorship and an enemy to freedom. Atsme☯^Consult 05:37, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I don't pretend to know all about anything. So I got attracted to Wikipedia in the first place since it was a collection of knowledge. And they do have the transparent editing system. Is it perfect no but neither is encyclopedia Britannica or something like that. I looked at your essay and was surprised to see so much anger. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Miscellany_for_deletion/Wikipedia:Conflict_of_Interest_ducks I have been surfing around wikipedia clicking on links that spread out from where this whole controversy started. Lot of interesting debates and arguments going and I bet it won't end here. I think you're right that eventually overzealous folks will wither away. How could conflict of interest eventually be solved as a problem? I don't know. That wifone person who ran a school in India got trusted with years of good edits and being polite. What did him in was not lack of reliable sources, it's that he went too far being rude to people. Popish Plot (talk) 12:38, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

April 2015

Please stop using talk pages such as Talk:Elizabeth Warren for general discussion of the topic. They are for discussion related to improving the article; not for use as a forum or chat room. If you have specific questions about certain topics, consider visiting our reference desk and asking them there instead of on article talk pages. See here for more information. Thank you. - CorbieV^☊☼ 19:07, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ok sorry.Popish Plot (talk) 19:08, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You're still doing it. Your edits[3] are making it clear you are not paying attention to the discussion, or simply trolling. The effect is the same. Others are working on improving the article while you keep trying to derail. To badger other editors then suggest they are "mad" and should take a break is a violation of wikiquette. I strongly suggest you stop this. - CorbieV^☊☼ 19:53, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Why do you think that is trolling, or off topic, or a disruptive edit? I haven't edited the article and have just posted on talk page and on this specific topic, and it doesn't have consensus yet. Popish Plot (talk) 19:56, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Popish, you give editors the same impression on other articles. Nobody else is going to do the work it will take for you to get up to speed on WP. It's great to bring enthusiasm and to want to contribute, but several editors have asked you to review policies, refrain from personal remarks, and read the history of discussions and the various views and concerns that have previously been worked through on the pages you want to edit. There's no way around it, really. SPECIFICO talk 22:00, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I did read the history of the issue and I don't think asking questions is against policies? I don't think the issue has been previously worked out, or why is it a dispute and doesn't have consensus? Popish Plot (talk) 22:11, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This is the time I'm going to try to help you: Half a dozen experienced editors have advised you that your interactions are not constructive. You should review all your talk page interactions and consider the advice of other editors. This has nothing to do with the issues in any discussion. It has to do with your approach, style, and efforts to collaborate as a productive contributor here. SPECIFICO talk 22:18, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Oh ok. I think I know what you mean. First thing I learned in wikipedia is if it's in here, it needs a reliable source. Also is it notable? If it's notable, how much weight to give it? How is all this decided if people disagree? Talk it out on the talk page, stay on topic, and try to get a consensus. I get all this. If you look at my talk history I'm sure you will see me missing this in February and March but I think as of recently it's ok? Right now it would help if you could be more specific about what I'm doing wrong. Popish Plot (talk) 22:24, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No, it's not OK. It's not OK at all. You have already been provided with specifics, and you have just ignored them. Multiple editors have cautioned you about this just in the past few days. I warned you three times today, and you immediately returned to the talk page in question and posted yet more derailment. You repeatedly ask the same questions that have already been clearly answered for you by other editors. Experienced editors have explained things to you personally, and provided links that detail the relevant policies. Which you apparently don't bother to read. People have spent their valuable time helping you when that time could have been spent improving the 'pedia. They do all this for you and then you come back and ask the same questions again. As I said earlier, it's insulting to the community of editors as a whole. At this point you are giving quite a few editors the impression you are only here to disrupt the 'pedia and waste our time. Once you've been warned multiple times about disruption, but refuse to change, it doesn't matter what your intent is. And if you respond to this with "what's disruption?" someone is going to block you, sooner rather than later. - CorbieV^☊☼ 23:04, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Whoa. Ok. This is why I thought you were mad. You do see why if I ask you what the problem is, and you don't say what it is, it's hard to assume good faith? I don't want to disrupt. Ok no more questions. But please see where I found a new source that's related to this Elizabeth Warren topic. I think it helps support your view. Please see it on the talk page. Popish Plot (talk) 23:22, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The biggest problem I see with what you're doing is questioning the liberal perspective on the TP of a BLP of an idolized Democrat who believes she has Native American ancestry. Harmless. You would probably get an even worse reception if you tried to add something positive showing support of a libertarian or conservative. I think you may have seen some of that play out at Griffin. Also, just wanted to mention that the sum of an editor's edits doesn't tell you how that editor accumulated their edit count. I saw where Guy asked you if you checked his contribution history. Best way to see what an editor actually contributed in the way of writing prose, and/or creating articles is to go to their user page, and click on user contributions in the left margin. At the top of the page you will see (talk | block log | uploads | logs | filter log). At the bottom of the page you will see Subpages User rights Edit count Edit summary search Articles created Global contributions / log SUL / accounts. Click on Edit Count. At that page you will see graphs, and a detailed summary of what kinds of articles, edits, etc. For example, you get the following page after clicking on Edit Count: [4] You can click on Articles created to find out how many articles that editor created, etc. You can find out more detailed information clicking on the articles page information. There's lots to learn by navigating the left margin and bottom margin of a page. Have fun!!!Atsme☯^Consult 04:31, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That's a lot of info, thanks. I can see where something politically related will have a lot of anger involved whether liberals or conservatives. I think Corbie was just having a bad day. It happens. I think Guy wanted me to see he has been here for a long time. I think it's still possible he misinterpreted the suicide pact thing though. And assumed bad faith on me by mistake. And specifico assumed bad faith by mistake here but then realized he was wrong so just told me to look at my hsitory. Hard to do if no one tells me what I did wrong so what should I be searching for? Popish Plot (talk) 14:06, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It is always wise to self-analyze and make sure your actions are on the correct side of PAGs. Seek a third opinion. We can certainly have different interpretations but when it comes to BLP policy, strict adherence is a requirement. One of the policies I find rather confusing and possibly even at the root of many a dispute is WP:IAR. The policy claims it is a widely accepted standard that all editors should normally follow. The problem I see with it is the fact that common sense isn't so common anymore. Also keep in mind that there are instances, although rare, when the results of WP:CONSENSUS can also be in violation of BLP policy or the results can be unclear or nonspecific enough that it requires a decision from ARBCOM, the latter of which is evidenced at Griffin. [5] The hardest part of all is when advocacies get involved to sway consensus, the latter of which happens but is rather difficult to prove and usually ends up at ARBCOM. In closing, ARBCOM is a long and arduous process, and there are no guarantees. Editors who have volunteered to serve on that committee deserve our utmost respect, regardless of the outcome. It is always better to try to work things out and reach a compromise before initiating an ARBCOM but there are occasions when advocacies are pushing a POV so hard they end up being noncompliant with NPOV, therefore violative of BLP policy. Repeated policy violations and over-the-edge behavioral problems are when ARBCOM becomes the only road to resolve. Atsme☯^Consult 17:02, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, very informative. I didn't know what it meant by "assume good faith is not a suicide pact". Clicked on that and found it was a paraphrase of "ignore all rules". Didn't know what that meant either but I saw on the page there is an explanation. I think it might be similar to the saying "if you see a bad law, break it" although it's not saying the rules are bad, just that in some cases within certain contexts they may not apply. I see it says there is no common sense. I think being polite is common sense but no that's not a rule anyway so ignore all rules wouldn't apply. I do think if I break a rule, please tell me what one, Wikipedia is good in that it's relatively easy to get links to specific edits and comments. Popish Plot (talk) 17:28, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Atsme What does "PAGs" refer to? Popish Plot (talk) 20:31, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:PAG Atsme☯^Consult 20:59, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"Tortitude"

Hi, I have answered now at talk:Tortoiseshell cat. I still believe in it. My cat was truly a red-headed tempered feline. I took ten days strong antibiotic for a ferocious bite on my hand. My vet called me once to get Fearless out of the cage because she was lashing out at all of them. lol. I wish you happy editing. ツ Fylbecatulous talk 16:12, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A remarkable debut

Popish Plot, I am awed by the panache and speed with which you have figured out the ropes of edition Wikipedia. It almost feels as though you already knew how to do this well from a prior experience with Wikipedia. Did you use to edit under a different name? Or take some sort of how-to-edit Wikipedia course?E.M.Gregory (talk) 12:08, 14 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No I have used Wikipedia for years though and used to lurk. Then I made this official name recently I believe in march 2015. I did have some views about a couple Wikipedia articles that were controversial, but all I did was go read Wikipedia policies and guidelines. I like to use common sense though, and check those reliable sources. I think that is the best approach. Popish Plot (talk) 12:58, 15 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment on Eric's talk page

Hi PP,

I removed your comment on Eric's talk page, and I apologize if that annoys you (it is sort of out-of-order to do so). The problem is, Eric is under a Sword of Damocles regarding gender-related stuff like this, and no matter how he answers you, there are people who would use it as a pretext to go after him. It's not really fair to say things on his page that he can get in trouble for answering. Hope you understand. --Floquenbeam (talk) 15:31, 12 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

ummmmm yikes. Rethink that please. Popish Plot (talk) 17:33, 12 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

What do you mean? --Floquenbeam (talk) 17:35, 12 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ummmm reread your post. Or not. Popish Plot (talk) 17:50, 12 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I was wondering what you've been up to!!

Christmas tree worm, (Spirobranchus gigantic)
	Time To Spread Some Happy Holiday Cheer!!
	I decorated a special kind of Christmas tree* in the spirit of the season.* What's especially nice about the digitized version is that it doesn't need water, and it won't catch fire.
	Wishing you a joyous holiday season... ...and a prosperous New Year!! 🍸🎁 🎉
	Atsme^📞📧 20:39, 23 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]	Pure pun-ishment. [6]

yeah wiki is no good but I checked in today just to say merry xmas to you. :) Popish Plot (talk)

I'm honored, and very appreciative. Atsme^📞📧 20:57, 23 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Season's Greetings

File:Xmas Ornament.jpg

To You and Yours!
FWiW Bzuk (talk) 16:21, 25 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]