User talk:Atsme

en:User:Serialjoepsycho/sunshine/message

Push to post a message

Verifiability is a cornerstone of Wikipedia, and is one of the policies that has served as part of the bedrock of editing philosophy. "The threshold for inclusion on Wikipedia is Verifiability, not truth." While this simple and strict statement has been a source of derision by many newcomers, switching the focus from truth to verifiability is part of what allows Wikipedia to function. In an encyclopedia built by volunteers, in which no real vetting of an individual's expert status is feasible, this policy simplifies discussion greatly. Instead of relying on debate over the validity of a fact or viewpoint, the debate focuses on the easier to tackle issue of whether it is verifiable. Even if experts could be vetted, this philosophy is still preferable. Allowing experts to run the show would merely invite them to introduce their personal biases into articles. ~Someguy1221

Allegations of COI and the COIN fiasco

Except for my very first run of newbie stupid in September 2011, I actually did do what I was supposed to do regarding the fish articles. No reason to cry over spilled milk but at least now my mind is at ease knowing that I acted above board from day one. I did disclose/declare COI on the talk pages of both paddlefish and sturgeon before any edits were made to the fish articles in 2014. Oct 14, 2011, Oct 14, 2011

The only response I received to my posts on the TPs of those articles was made on the Paddlefish TP 2 years later from an editor who collaborated with me on all of the subject articles plus a few others:

I don't think any video showing people caught into questionable activities would fly here, unless the article was exactly about these questionable activity and those people. There would be concerns related to WP:BLP and privacy. About the documentary, that is probably a decent external link. By the way, why you editing the paddlefish article(s) would imply COI? Are you a paddlefish? --cyclopia^speak! 15:00, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

I'm a primitive species.  Self-trout I made the COI comment back in 2011 before I fully understood what it meant. Oh, and I'm still working on uploading some bowfin video. I also have some footage of a paddlefish filter feeding, which should probably go with the American paddlefish article, and not the paddlefish article, or should it? And what about the taxobox on both the American paddlefish article and Paddlefish article? The image is an American paddlefish which doesn't look anything like a Chinese paddlefish. It was confusing enough trying to keep the information in the article itself separated especially considering there are only two extant species with more differences between them than similarities. Anyway, look over it when you get a chance. Atsme☯
^Consult 05:53, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

Well, trout myself as well, I didn't notice it was a 2011 comment! I now still want to go ahead with the bowfin, but I'll have a look at the paddlefish situation when I can. --cyclopia^speak! 07:36, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

Also, same editor participated in the Alligator gar GA review and he knew about the COI as evidenced above. He had no issue with the inline citations to Earthwave. In fact, he insisted on keeping citations in the lede: [1]
Another  Self-trout for not remembering. I just hope what happened to me never happens to anyone else. Atsme^📞📧 03:16, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

Is self-trouting the latest wiki-sport? ;-) I don't know if you have noticed but the COIN editor claims they are taking a "time-out" for "feedback". What a shame that those editors who can perhaps offer the best feedback are banned from his Talk page!DrChrissy ^(talk) 12:22, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

Yes, but if you'll notice, my trouts are smaller than yours. This is one of those instances when smaller is better. Atsme^📞📧 12:32, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

Well that depends what you want to do with your trouts!DrChrissy ^(talk) 12:52, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

Grilled with a garlic butter lemon sauce over a campfire situated beside a beautiful mountain stream. Atsme^📞📧 13:01, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

BBQ-d in wood coals, wrapped in tin foil containing lemon and slices of sweet potato.DrChrissy ^(talk) 13:10, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

WP:Don't template the regulars

Templating regulars with user warnings that are unwarranted is an abuse of their intended use, and may be construed as WP:Uncivil or WP:harassment. It is always better to WP:AGF and write a polite warning advising that editor of the problem. Templates are not a requirement for blocking disruptive behavior. It is also not wise to use templates or written warnings, polite or otherwise, as a ploy to game the system in an effort to distract from your own noncompliance with WP:PAG, such as WP:edit warring or WP:OWN behavior. Sticking to "did you know we had a policy here" mentality tends to be counter-productive in resolving the issue, as it can be construed as being patronising and uncivil. Atsme^📞📧

Actually for stuff like edit warring templates are prefered as they are standardized and reduce confusion. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 07:45, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

Yes they might avoid confusion, but they can be very scary to receive until you know what is going on. Some editors use these deliberately to harass others, a behaviour which I believe should be prevented somehow.DrChrissy ^(talk) 11:52, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

That's interesting Doc. Of course the real answer is to avoid behaviour that leads to templating in the first place. You and Atsme both know this. -Roxy the non edible dog™ (resonate) 12:03, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

Removing noncompliant material is not edit warring. The editor who starts reverting the work of others with invalid edit summaries is the one who is edit warring. Instead, we're seeing one editor being ganged up on which actually stems from WP:OWN behavior at an article where a particular POV is being pushed and information is being suppressed. NPOV is one of our core content policies and the passage I removed and expanded had been disputed as noncompliant with NPOV and MEDRS. No RfC was called to keep the noncompliant material, therefore, since it was disputed as noncompliant, I had every right to remove it and make the lede compliant. Any editor who wanted to restore the disputed noncompliant material must do so via consensus. Each time my edit was reverted, it was to remove compliant material and restore disputed noncompliant material. That is edit warring. The onus to replace noncompliant material is on the editor who wants to restore it. Read the PAGs. I agree that we know what edit warring is, but it appears you don't. Atsme^📞📧 17:15, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

Reverting one edit as I did here is not edit warring either, but I received a template for it. I am sure the Project Medicine crew have no problem with this, or anything certain privileged editors may do, based on what I have observed. IMO, this favoritism is non-neutral and is very destructive to the project overall. petrarchan47คุก 19:02, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

Here's a suggestion: since Atsme has stated this is going to ArbCom (which hopefully will settle the issue once and for all), we all stop telling each other that none of us understands policy, and let ArbCom sort it out... AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:15, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

How 'bout leading by example? petrarchan47คุก 19:44, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for all you do! Jusdafax 01:50, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

Thank you, Jusdafax. If I am to be condemned for contributing freely as a volunteer to enhance public knowledge in an online encyclopedia, only to be ganged up on and treated like I've done something wrong, then we all need to step back and analyze what WP is becoming and what it was actually intended to be. We are at a crossroads and it will be our choice to allow the bullies to take over and censor everything that goes into WP, or we can take a stand and support freedom of speech and full dissemination of RS information to our readers. As the saying goes, we either stand for something or we'll fall for anything. That's where we are at this point in time. Atsme^📞📧 03:15, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

I agree that Wikipedia is at a crossroads, but in my view there are trucks of corporate and military/intelligence owned editors barreling down on concerned unpaid editors from all directions. The 'pedia is increasingly functioning as corporate/political PR, and those in the way are targeted, just as Scientologists target "Repressive Persons." There are times I can't believe my eyes and have to walk away. I salute your willingness to engage. Jusdafax 12:26, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

These bits of truth are so unbelievably rare around here, I'm going to have to do it again, JDF. At the very least, it's cathartic to know that even one person is acknowledging this and taking it seriously. petrarchan47คุก 19:45, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

re-ping petrarchan47คุก 19:48, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

Well, thank you both then. I'm very troubled, as I say, by my editing experiences of the past six years. I'm flattered by your kind words and thoughts. I don't think the answer to the concerns is to go to off-wiki communication, but Wikipedia has indeed become a battleground, and the fight may be unwinnable. Blessings to those committed to the concept of an encyclopedia over a "spin machine." Jusdafax 23:23, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

People with no conscience, likely compensated, molesting Wikipedia? I don't see it coming to an end either; those in positions of power have been made aware and have given their tacit support through inaction. petrarchan47คุก 03:22, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

I'm pleasantly surprised to see the open dialogue. I agree with you in that off-wiki is a dead-end and I also see exactly where Petra is coming from regarding the "bits of truth." What needs to be said and done can/should be discussed openly on WP without fear of retribution. Quite a few editors are frustrated with the goings on. Without intending to simplify a major concern, it really all boils down to NPOV and control of articles, WP:OWN, which is sustainable because of the cabal-like behavior (tag-teaming) and large numbers that can effect community consensus. It's a "majority rules" frame of mind but it isn't supposed to be about a !vote count. If an article is in compliance with WP's 3 core content policies, I don't see how spam, advocacies, COIs, or anything else could create anything but minor issues. If it's spammy, whitewashed, undue, derogatory, soapbox, not properly sourced - it goes right back to the 3 core content policies. Perhaps we need a Policy Interpretation Task Force? Based on what I've experienced and what wise admins have relayed to me, the issue really isn't about who is editing as long as the edits are in compliance with policy and improve the encyclopedia. Like quicksand, we tend to get bogged down in personalities and childish games and completely overlook what actually serves to benefit the encyclopedia. It causes us to adopt too narrow a focus which causes us to lose our peripheral vision. It doesn't matter what POV is being pushed - if there are opposing views that are being omitted, what you're left with is not NPOV. I do take issue to censorship. Atsme^📞📧 00:22, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

Request for copy editing

Hello Atsme this is Singhaniket255 ...well as i am a beginner on wikipedia.....so i would like work with you..or need some help to ...improve the page "SLIET" that is Sant longowal Institute of engineering & technology. As i hav some of my contribution to wikipedia but with good..but..im facing problen with this page..so..i u can put some of your effort or guide me how to do it the it will be a great help..thnk you!!!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Singhaniket255 (talk • contribs) 17:23, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

Hi, Singhaniket255 I'm happy to help. Please give me some time to read and research and then I will discuss the article with you on the article's TP. Ok? Atsme^📞📧 17:28, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

SLIET again

Hello Atsme this is Singh.. SLIET.. well thanks for the support..as before..i have not any idea of working on wikipedia...and was having problem with references and making verification...so yeah imean i can do..it and will on SLIET..and yes i'll look on those preferecence of Virginia Tech and University of Houston or any other University.

Thanks Atsme... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Singhaniket255 (talk • contribs) 16:18, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

Hi Singhaniket255, the SLIET article will be a good one for you to learn on. I'll be watching as you work and will help with the copy-editing. Don't hesitate to ask questions if you hit a road block. I'm happy to help. Atsme^📞📧 19:58, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

thanks a lot Atsme it'll be a great respect and experience working with you!!

Apology

I owe you an apology for trying too fiercely to get you to acknowledge your COI in the discussions after I filed the COIN case and especially at Risker's page. I am sorry about that - I lost my head and acted in an ugly way toward you. I am not apologizing for trying to get your COI managed, by first posting here and then bringing the initial case at COIN - I am only saying that because you have made it clear that you thought that was wrong. We differ there. But I am sorry for what I did afterwards. Jytdog (talk) 23:17, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

Jytdog, before I respond to your apology, I need to know if you read my post at the top of this TP titled, Allegations of COI and the COIN fiasco and if you are aware of my declarations on the TPs of sturgeon and paddlefish? Are you also aware that the declaration remained on the TPs of those articles for two years (and are still there) before I edited the first sentence in any of the fish articles after my retirement in 2014? How is what I did in October 2011 and when I came back in 2014 not managing even the slightest resemblance of a possible COI? Atsme^📞📧 00:42, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

I've read it now. So good, it was partially on those two articles. I guess it came as a surprise to both you and me, since you initially were very clear that you had done everything you could to scrub any disclosures you had made. But yes I missed the disclosures on those two articles. The whole thing got unnecessarily dramatic. I am sorry for my part in the ensuing drama. Jytdog (talk) 01:36, 17 July 2015 (UTC)