User talk:Atsme

Keesings Query

Hello, Atsme. You have new messages at WP:Keesings.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Your GA nomination of Alligator gar

The article Alligator gar you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Alligator gar for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Cwmhiraeth -- Cwmhiraeth (talk) 18:42, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

For your information, your chain moray eel image is now in The Signpost. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 18:57, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

Cwmhiraeth, thank you for the update, and congratulations on your accomplishments!! Atsme☯^Consult 03:59, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

Gabor B. Racz

Thought of complimenting you for this article. A good one mainly in terms of prose quality. Best --PeterCRames (talk) 19:20, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

What a nice compliment. Thank you, PeterCRames. Atsme☯^Consult 03:50, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

DYK for Alligator gar

Gatoclass (talk) 05:37, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Atsme. You have new messages at Matty.007's talk page.
Message added 06:52, 24 July 2014 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Matty.007 06:52, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

GA review Gabor B. Racz

May I review this article for you? If you don't mind. It would be my first. In case you want it to be reviewed by experienced reviewers, I assure you it's okay with me. --PeterCRames (talk) 13:24, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

PeterCRames Please do. We all have to start somewhere, and I think the Racz article is a great place for you to begin. Atsme☯^Consult 03:59, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

A kitten for you!

Great works!! You have improved a lot....Keep up....

The herald 15:33, 27 July 2014 (UTC)
The Herald - how sweet - thank you!! And thank you for being so patient and giving of your time. I'm pretty excited about a couple new projects I'm working on offline, and also trying to improve a very inaccurate "start" article that relies heavily on self-published sources, and original research. Atsme☯^Consult 16:13, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

WP:JSTOR access

Hello, WP:The Wikipedia Library has record of you being approved for access to JSTOR through the TWL partnership described at WP:JSTOR . You should have recieved a Wikipedia email User:The Interior sent several weeks ago with instructions for access, including a link to a form collecting information relevant to that access. Please find that email, and follow those instructions. If you were not approved, did not recieve the email, or are having some other concern or question, please respond to this message at Wikipedia talk:JSTOR/Approved. Thanks much, Sadads (talk) 21:06, 5 August 2014 (UTC) Note: You are recieving this message from an semi-automatically generated list. If you think you were incorrectly contacted, make sure to note that at Wikipedia talk:JSTOR/Approved.

Your GA nomination of American paddlefish

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article American paddlefish you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of FunkMonk -- FunkMonk (talk) 01:00, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

Thank you, User:FunkMonk. Atsme☯^Consult 03:53, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of American paddlefish

The article American paddlefish you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:American paddlefish for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of FunkMonk -- FunkMonk (talk) 00:42, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

Collaboration for Investigative Project on Terrorism Foundation

Greetings. I am responding to your request for collaboration to the Investigative Project on Terrorism Foundation article on Wikipedia. Thank you for the work you and others have put into trying to make the article contents adhere to Wikipedia writing policies. I am willing to share my thoughts and perspectives on any issues that come up on the article's Talk Page, unfortunately I do not have much time for much beyond that. Feel free to reach out to me anytime in the future. Thank you. Djrun (talk) 15:17, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

Djrun Thank you for your response. I would very much appreciate your input regarding the sandbox article I included in my initial text to you. Thank you again. Atsme☯^Consult 21:45, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

Hello again. In response to the merge request, I did not propose closing the request. What I attempted to communicate was to allow a set amount for editors to provide adequate references to make the article meet Wikipedia's notability requirements before making a final decision on merging. I did not check back on the discussion since posting my comment; do you know what came out of it?Djrun (talk) 15:09, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

Djrun The merge request was actually a remnant of a merge-delete request I proposed back in June. See explanation here: [1]. The request was originally closed in July, Talk:Steven_Emerson/Archive_3, so it was never actually a proper request. There is now an active ARB regarding the article(s) here: [2]. Atsme☯^Consult 00:40, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

ARBCOM

You are involved in a recently filed request for arbitration. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case#IPT and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. Additionally, the following resources may be of use—

• Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests#Requests for arbitration;
• Wikipedia:Arbitration guide.

Thanks, Serialjoepsycho (talk) 14:11, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Bowfin

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Bowfin you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Chiswick Chap -- Chiswick Chap (talk) 09:40, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

Greetings, Chiswick Chap. Thank you for the generous contribution of your time and expertise. I will be paying attention in the event additional editing is required of me. Atsme☯^Consult 14:24, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Bowfin

The article Bowfin you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Bowfin for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Chiswick Chap -- Chiswick Chap (talk) 18:43, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

Hello

An topic you recently edited or contributed to Talk discussion on is the subject of discussion, if you would like to participate: [3]. This is a blanket notice given to all editors. DocumentError (talk) 03:19, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

DYK nomination of Bowfin

Hello! Your submission of Bowfin at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! AshLin (talk) 17:22, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

bowfin

Hi, I added some more comments and an a-okay to the DYK nom. They aren't showing up on the main template page, though. Can you take a look. Nice article —Gaff ^ταλκ 14:43, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

• Never mind. FIxed. —Gaff ^ταλκ 14:46, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

"2014 Interventions in Iraq"

I like your idea of "2014 Interventions in Iraq." ([4]) I had proposed this merge myself but it was shot down. I would support re-nominating this for merger, if you want to float that idea. I'm not trying to shuffle off work on you, I just don't feel I can right now as I've been nominated for a topic ban for suggesting it previously. Anyway, just wanted to let you know I think it's a great suggestion. DocumentError (talk) 01:48, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

Arbitration case request

Hi Atsme, I have removed an arbitration case request in which you were named as party as it has been withdrawn by the initiator and declined by the Committee as there are other steps in the dispute resolution process which should be used before a arbitration case request. For the Arbitration Committee, Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 07:49, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

Hey

I got your message and I completely understand. I tried replying directly but received a bounceback. DocumentError (talk) 02:12, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

IPT

This matter is actually coming to an end. Ultimately it can end in two ways. We can talk or I can take it to RFC/U. RFC/U won't result in ban. But at the slightest action after that RFC/U that seems remotely tendentious I will take back to arbcom. They will review it. The choice is yours. If you would like to talk it would be a very good idea at this point for us to seek out a neutral party to mediate. I would suggest seeking out medcom for assistance in this regard.Serialjoepsycho (talk) 04:33, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

I have never resisted intelligent, civil collaboration but first you must stop maligning me to other editors with innuendoes that I'm racist. It couldn't be farther from the truth. You and I both are entitled to express our views and do whatever we think is necessary to maintain the integrity of WP as long as we respect policy and guidelines. The fact that my views sometimes differ from yours is not justification for you to malign and taunt me or harbor preconceived notions about me. You know as well as I do that IPT has issues that must be resolved. Other editors, admins and reviewers have pointed that out to you on multiple occasions, particularly the BLP and NOR issues. You need to broaden your focus and realize what's at stake here. What you may or not be considering is the fact that my user name is shown as having the most edits for IPT, and yours is shown as reverting the corrections I've made for accuracy, neutrality and reliable sourcing. Think about that for a minute and try engaging some foresight. If for some bizarre twist of fate civil litigation ensues over the issues I've tried to correct, guess who will be subpoenaed? Considering the IPT Foundation's line of work do you really believe they won't be able to trace user names to real IDs? Try reading the following WP litigation experiences: [5], [6]. Keep in mind that WP has no financial obligation to any editor to cover their legal expenses. If you don't think it can happen, think again. Anyway, back on point - I agree that it's a good idea to get medcom involved. I will support such an action. Atsme☯^Consult 12:44, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.

My apologies for not providing a direct link. Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Legal_threat.3FSerialjoepsycho (talk) 21:37, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

This is ridiculous. You have taken my comments completely out of context. It's pretty obvious that you don't understand WP:BLP. Such material requires a high degree of sensitivity, and must adhere strictly to all applicable laws in the United States, to this policy, and to Wikipedia's three core content policies... The policy itself mentions applicable laws in the U.S., and all I did was mention some prior cases in an effort to help you understand the policy. Read the policy, Joe, and while you're at it read Litigation_involving_the_Wikimedia_Foundation, and [[7]]. There is no doubt that BLP violations are a serious matter, and as I stated above, you have been advised by other editors, admins and reviewers about potential BLP and NOR issues with the IPT article. I even filed a BLPN because of a poorly sourced comment that I deleted and you kept reverting. There is still question regarding whether or not that comment belongs in IPT. Instead of hounding me, why aren't you at least trying to fix what is wrong, or don't you know how to edit prose, Joe? Does that go beyond your area of expertise as a Talk page stalker? My main concern is that MY name is on the line as having the most edits for IPT, and it certainly justifies my concerns that these issues are not being resolved. Atsme☯^Consult 23:01, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

I think we are having a different discussion. I'm talking about your conduct. I don't actually care one way or another what actually happens to the IPT article. I don't care if the Islamophobia template is eventually removed. That's where we differ. You were on a crusade to WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS before I was ever involved in the dispute. Anjem Choudary or SIOA, ring a bell? You have been in battleground mode the whole time. You have unquestionably shown bias the whole time. You don't even a consistent position. Your position changes to suit the process you try to bludgeon. Your effort to merge, delete, and recreate was even contradictory. You constantly misrepresent another editor position to promote a position. When called on it you either ignore what's going on like it didn't happen or you argue with the editor telling them what they really meant. That BLP/N you opened came after Me suggesting multiple times that you take it there. Actually dispute resolution doesn't seem to be popular with you. I open an RFC you do nothing but complain because noone coming to it to support you. And here's a glaring and ever shining hint bright as day: That person who closed your merge and delete discussion, What they were getting at in their close is that other dispute not related to the merge were not resolved in the discussion. Some of the ARBCOM members mentioned BLP but alot of it had a N after it. They were suggesting you take it to BLPN. This collaboration thing that you say support, getting a consensus is a part of that. Those dispute resolution processes are for that. You don't canvass individuals with a campaign message to get a consensus. You don't make a group think you have dropped the stick and revisit the issue after you know one of the involved editors is on vacation. You don't remove content there is a consensus to keep while leaving an edit summary suggesting that you are removing something else. You especially don't do that after a failed long and contentious effort to remove that content. And as far as racist. I didn't call you racist. I called your comments racist. You are the one who suggested that Islamophobia doesn't exist because Boko Haram kidnapped Nigerian school girls. I call that racist. The 1950's called though. It seems we don't live in a black and white world. There's gray to apparently. If people were racist because they made racist comments the majority of people would be racist. If not racist, then homophobic, and if not homophobic the insert what ever other term here. I don't know you. I can't say that you are racist. If you don't like your comments being called racist it would be in your interest to not make racist comments. What ever. This bullshit and it's tiresome.Here is my offer: 1)You will not improperly canvass any further for editors. 2)You will seek a consensus using one of the available dispute resolution methods, instead of whatever half thought out, convoluted, and contradictory scheme like your merge, delete, and recreate scheme. 3) Any edits that you make to IPT that do not involve any of the current contentious material will be reflected in your edit summary. No more opps. You do not remove content there is a consensus there is a consensus to keep and leave an Edit summary that suggests you did something else. 4) No more battleground. Content only. It's very simple. If you agree besides indicating it what I would suggest is collecting your thoughts and then taking the matter of the Islamophobia template to the BLP/N.Serialjoepsycho (talk) 02:28, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

ANI

A topic in which you may be involved, is the subject of discussion at ANI here. DocumentError (talk) 21:11, 5 October 2014 (UTC)