:::[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W0xf_0JKYjE Did you see THIS?????? Highly pertinent of course.]--[[User:MONGO|MONGO]] ([[User talk:MONGO|talk]]) 00:03, 26 August 2020 (UTC)
:::[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W0xf_0JKYjE Did you see THIS?????? Highly pertinent of course.]--[[User:MONGO|MONGO]] ([[User talk:MONGO|talk]]) 00:03, 26 August 2020 (UTC)
==Remember your topic ban? And your successful appeal?==
Atsme, it seems to me you have comprehensively backslid from the promises you made in [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement&oldid=885621487#Arbitration_enforcement_action_appeal_by_Atsme your successful topic ban appeal in February 2019]. The AE admins lifted the ban, but with a warning about backsliding. You said then, for example, that you had reflected and learned a lot: "I now see the biggest problem was my overzealousness to win the debates and gain consensus, showing little consideration to opposing views. The times my position did gain consensus were overshadowed by the inappropriateness of my persistence, and for that I apologize with a promise that it will never happen again". (A very different attitude from that which you showed in your reply to Soibangla on this page yesterday.[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Atsme&diff=974910901&oldid=974910822].) AFAICS, you have gone all the way back to inappropriate persistence and "overzealousness to win". In February 2019 you said "If I happen to be notified of an RfC, I will simply cast my iVote, state why, and move on to other areas." By contrast, this summer you posted some 75 times in the Fox News RFC. Please go back and re-read your own appeal, Atsme, and start living up to your promises, or I will consider reinstating the topic ban. [[User:Bishonen|Bishonen]] | [[User talk:Bishonen|tålk]] 09:59, 26 August 2020 (UTC).
If you came here to alert me to DS for post-1932 American Politics (AP2), climate change, BLP, GMO, or anything else included in the WP:Arbitration enforcement log, please be aware that I am PERMANENTLY AWARE - awareness is tattooed on my - so there is no need to post another DS alert.
Point to this notice to CYA.
Get your own Ds aware filter here!
Atsme has been cited or quoted in the following media outlets:
I'm leaving this link for any editor who may be feeling a little stressed on the job. It has a very calming effect. Relax - enjoy - and once your blood pressure is back where it should be, resume editing.
“Scientific results are always provisional, susceptible to being overturned by some future experiment or observation. Scientists rarely proclaim an absolute truth or absolute certainty. Uncertainty is inevitable at the frontiers of knowledge.”~ National Geographic Magazine
Atsme's contribution to science: Life is all about having fun so if you're not living, you're not having any fun.AtsmeTalk📧
The most useful used skill I've discovered for Alexa - Alexa, call me. Now, if I can only get it to work with my keys.
Autocorrect has become my worst enema.
On a sign at a restaurant in Texas: Treat your Mom to a Margarita! You're probably the reason she drinks.
Research reveals that people who drink heavily are much more likely to experience retrospective memory loss. Isn't that why we drink?
I can fix stupid, but it's gonna hurt.
I have never faked a sarcasm in my life!
I’m not insulting you, I’m describing you.
I have never let my schooling interfere with my education. (attributed to Mark Twain, but could have been Grant Allen)
Atsme is not just a writer, she's award winning...she won a place in the psycho ward.
When you're dead, you don't know you're dead. All the pain is felt by others.
Same thing happens when you're stupid.
How Do I Know?
I don’t know how much I don’t know because there’s no way to gage how much I don’t know when I don’t know what it is I don’t know, so stop telling me I should've known.
There has to be some merit to “ignorance is bliss" Atsme✍🏻📧
Words
People who confuse the words "burro" and "burrow" don't know
their ass from a hole in the ground.
Realization
And then comes the time when you finally realize that you don't know shit.
Snake in the Bullpen
"I come from an environment where, if you see a snake, you kill it. At GM, if you see a snake, the first thing you do is go hire a consultant on snakes. Then you get a committee on snakes, and then you discuss it for a couple of years. The most likely course of action is -- nothing. You figure, the snake hasn't bitten anybody yet, so you just let him crawl around on the factory floor. We need to build an environment where the first guy who sees the snake kills it." ~Ross Perot
Terms We Use
We need to rethink some of the terms we use in the English language.
"I'm sorry, but you two appear to be:
treating each other civilly
accepting the possibility that your own actions might not have been correct
trying to work out the best thing to do for the project without concern for you[r] own egos.
I don't know where you people think you are, but you definitely don't understand how WP:AN is supposed to work. Where's the disrespect? The attacking of each other's characters and motives? The entertaining temper tantrums? Please immediately review other threads on this noticeboard, so you can better participate in WP:AN. Right now you look like rookies.
I don't do AFD, so I have no opinion on whether to relist or not (couldn't hurt, tho, right?), but that's a good example of what should be going on here; useless babble without any helpful outcome. --barneca (talk) 9:57 pm, 16 September 2008, Tuesday (10 years, 8 months, 12 days ago) (UTC−5)[1]
Carrots may be good for your eyes, but booze will double your vision.
To say it in WikiVoice, or not??
While this list of sources is really good and does establish "commonly used by reliable sources" I think we should additionally ask ourselves - what added benefit is there to Wikipedia saying it "in our own voice" as against simply reporting in a neutral manner that it is common for his comments to be described as racist.
As of this moment, we are engaging in what I think is admirable short-term restraint. We say in the lede "He has a history of making controversial [weasel words] comments." That's fine as far as it goes, because 'controversial comments' is true, and is neither positive nor negative as an evaluation. Sometimes controversial comments are good, sometimes they are bad. Fine.
But we are at the same time here being too cautious, I think, in that we fail to inform the reader as to why the comments are controversial. Is he saying things that might be controversial in Iowa like "Gay marriage should be legal" or "Marijuana prohibition has done more harm than good"? No, actually.
So I think we should cautiously say something like "He has a history of making comments that have commonly been referred to as racist.[1][2][3][4][5][6][7][8][9]" Well, maybe 9 footnotes is excessive, but you see my point. We have more than enough to make the point that the reader needs to know, and I think the point is stronger than if we simply say, in our own voice, that he has a history of making racist comments. --Jimbo Wales (talk) 9:57 am, 19 June 2018, Tuesday (19 days ago) (UTC−5)
To include it in a BLP, or not??
BLPs wherein a subject's work, beliefs or ideologies are perhaps more controversial than the actual subject, should not become focused on bolstering and subsequently refuting the subject's views or theories rather than actually defining the subject. In many cases this may in fact be due to the subject trying to push their own ideas, while others work diligently to refute them, but many such cases involve editors who have no affiliation with the subject other than a personal belief/disbelief in their work. A person's biography is not a good place to debate scientific theory or ideological beliefs; such debates belong in the articles that focus on those topics. For BLPs, it is enough to simply state what their views are and link to the articles which expand on those views. (quote by Zaerethedited for brevity; Jimbo Walesagreed with Zaereth’s explanation.)
Politics, presidents and NPOV
I'd like to add that I don't mind a little bit of personal chit-chat here about politics, I'd like to always seek to tie it back to Wikipedia. We have chosen a very tough job: NPOV. Dislike for the President, fear about things that are happening in the world, may make it emotionally harder to remain neutral, but remain neutral we must. I happen to personally think that given the decline in quality of the media across the board (there are still fantastic journalists out there, but overall the landscape isn't great) the best way for us to help the world heal is neutrality.--[2] Jimbo Wales (talk)] 3:12 pm, 8 January 2019, Tuesday (UTC−6)
Writing for the opponent
"Writing for the opponent is an important trait of good editors. They must be able to divorce themselves from their own POV so much that they can bend over backwards to aid in the writing of content which documents views they do not like. They must never block the inclusion of content which opposes their own POV or political positions. If they cannot do this, they should recuse themselves from the topic and edit in other areas. Editors who are unwilling or unable to write for the opponent are incapable of truly understanding or abiding by the NPOV policy. As such they will always cause problems."
(see WP:NPOV means neutral editors, not neutral content)
Free thought isn't free anymore
“I have no beef with my colleagues, many of whom I admire and are friends,” Sullivan tweeted. “The underlying reasons for the split are pretty self-evident.” But he expressed solidarity with Weiss: “The mob bullied and harassed a young woman for thoughtcrimes. And her editors stood by and watched.” (Excerpt from The New York Times)
What Am I Doing Here...
Did you ever stop to consider that being equal may hold you back?
Do you want to make money from Wikipedia? It's easy! Log out and go to work!
For a lesson in the proper English application of the F-word see:this video
Is "group think" the academic version of "mob mentality"?Conformity!
Wikipedia: where anyone can edit and enjoy the benefits of income equality.
If my blood pressure is too low, I drink red wine.
For high blood pressure, I drink scotch.
When I have a cold, I drink schnapps.”
My friend asked, “When do you drink water?”
I replied, “I’ve never been that sick.”
My medical entrance exam:
When I was young, I decided to enroll in medical school.
On the entrance exam, we were asked to unscramble the letters...
PNEIS
...to form the name of an important human body part that is most useful when erect.
The students who answered SPINE are doctors today, and the rest of us are editing Wikipedia.
Four Worms
Four worms were placed in 4 separate test tubes:
1st in beer
2nd in wine
3rd in whiskey
4th in mineral water
The next day, the teacher shows the results:
The 1st worm in beer - dead.
The 2nd in wine - dead.
The 3rd in whiskey - dead.
The 4th in mineral water - alive and in good health.
The teacher asks the class:
What did you learn from this experience?
A student responds:
Whoever drinks beer, wine and whiskey does not have worms.
Wait! There’s more!
I know a guy who's addicted to brake fluid. He says he can stop any time.
I stayed up all night to see where the sun went. Then it dawned on me.
This girl said she recognized me from the vegetarian club, but I'd never met herbivore.
Atsme's Education
I was educated at MIT, then went to Harvard. After that, things got fishy.
If only...
...sarcasm burned calories.
...you knew, you would know.
...closed minds came with closed mouths.
...mosquitos sucked fat instead of blood.
...the good died young, we'd be here forever.
...my teeth were as white as my legs.
...more people were fluent in silence.
When A Grizzly Attacks
Hiker to park ranger, "Ranger, how does one survive a bear attack?"
Ranger replies, Easy...remove the "f" from the word "way".
Hiker responds, "There's no "f" in "way".
Ranger replies, "Exactly."
Thought Grenades...
It is much easier to ride a horse in the direction it is going. ~Abraham Lincoln
It gets late early out there. ~Yogi Bera
There comes a time on Wikipedia when it's important to know when to stop arguing with editors, and simply let them be wrong. Atsme📞📧
Nodding the head does not row the boat. — Irish Proverb
Make haste slowly. —Kikkoman
Be who you are, say what you mean, because those who mind don't matter, and those who matter don't mind. — Bernard Baruch
Experience is what you get when you don't get what you want." —Randy Pausch
I have made this letter longer than usual, because I lack the time to make it short. ~ Blaise Pascal
Patience is a virtue. Give karma a chance.
I may not be young enough to know everything, but I'm old enough to not believe everything.
A tip for longevity: Never believe the impossible can't happen to you.
“It is well known that human choices are affected by the way in which a question is phrased.” ~ Benedetto de Martino
Dear Karma, I have a list of people you missed. Don't sweat it! Karma's only a bitch if you're one first.
Who punched the spike?
Graphs are unavailable due to technical issues. There is more info on Phabricator and on MediaWiki.org.
”The encyclopedia’s reliance on outside sources, primarily newspapers, means it will be only as diverse as the rest of the media—which is to say, not very.” [1]
Re: the above Bloomberg article, "not very" is quite accurate, but I remain cautiously optimistic that once RECENTISM dies down, things will greatly improve.
"Since decisions are by those who participate in a localized discussion, leaving cedes the decision-making power to those willing to engage in the least logical and sane response. This incentivizes not just obsessive but also belligerent behavior and even harassment, and empowers those privileged with the time and resources to engage in this behavior. Minor quibbles about grammar is one thing, but these techniques are frequently used by political ideologues, ethnic nationalists, and conspiracy theorists. Professor Bryce Peake called this the “hegemony of the asshole consensus.” [2]
No need to elaborate further on that particular quote. Some will be able to relate, whereas others will find it insulting. For more info, see Wikipedia @ 20. You may decide to submit your own essay. AtsmeTalk📧 14:03, 23 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Putting things in perspective
I was reading Wikipedia:FRAMBAN in an attempt to improve my understanding of what happened. Lo and behold, nestled quietly in one of the comments was a wikilink to the essay, Wikipedia:Wikipedia does not need you. The following paragraph drew my undivided attention:
Should it happen that a cabal of admins, operating on the talk page of an article or the lion's den of AN/I, manage to block you on an invented charge, the world will continue to turn. The grass will grow, the birds will lay eggs, the number of Pokémon-related articles will still double every 1.7 weeks, and articles on weathermen will be brought to AfD. Sure, it won't be done as smoothly and as elegantly as when you did it, but it will be done. This encyclopedic project will continue to turn. Sad, but true.
Hello, i am Barris, i would like you to be my trainer at the NPP school if you have the time. I have finished my training at CVUA( awaiting results), and i would like to move to NPP. Regards Megan Barris(Lets talk📧) 15:23, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, Barris - absolutely. I will let you know on your UTP when the course is ready for you. Happy editing! AtsmeTalk📧 16:16, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Atsme, So I should read through the guidelines and then provide a summary of what I have learnt. Is that what you mean? Megan Barris(Lets talk📧) 16:33, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Atsme, Hello, I will start the tasks as soon as possible, and may respond late, I am actually reassessing the Notability guidelines before I start, Hope there is no hurry. Megan Barris(Lets talk📧) 16:51, 22 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Martin has 16 feet - he's a Caterpillar. 🦋 AtsmeTalk📧 22:01, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply] " Alice does not like the Caterpillar when they first meet, because he does not immediately talk to her and when he does, it is usually in short, rather rude sentences, or difficult questions"<—Martinevans123 Dear Alice, the Caterpillar uses a hookah.AtsmeTalk📧 16:42, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]Some Dicks truly are bigger than others. Ah sheesh, lol! Faith Evans 123
Today's fun fact .... if Red Phoenix gets 211615 more supports and no more opposes before the RfA closes, he will be in the unusual situation of having a not-unanimous RfA that still reads "100%" in the percentage column (because of rounding). Ritchie333(talk)(cont) 19:33, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Good choice, Ritchie - hope it happens!! AtsmeTalk📧 19:34, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
p.p.s. Only real vandals would get blocked, editors would end up laughing over their silly edit wars, the bouncing WP globe would represent joy and laughter and should be covered with laughing emojis instead of letters, and the "law of relatively" would prescribe Wikipedia:Atsme's Law as the prevailing law for the project. AtsmeTalk📧 12:53, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
You might want to chime in there, a new editor, probably a breeder, judging by the name, has popped up to claim that we have it all wrong. Low-population breeds tend to attract very personalized accounts and points of view, and this one is no exception. Acroterion(talk) 00:30, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hello Acroterion, I have just seen what has occurred on the page, and your interactions with the new editor on both of your talk pages. I added all of the information currently on the page, the page is reflective of both sources. I agree completely with your assessment, these low number breeds often attract quite aggressive attempts by those associated with them to remove sourced content and include unsourced content. When (if) the user comes to the TP I will open dialogue with them. If possible, can you maintain a periodic watch? Often these interactions turn very ugly very quickly. Kind regards, Cavalryman (talk) 01:23, 28 July 2020 (UTC).[reply]
I'm trying to maintain a little distance so I can do the admin thing if needed, but I've encountered editors like this before - and I've shown dogs (a skill I didn't know I needed and don't expect to need again), so I know how, erm, passionate, people can be in matters like this. Acroterion(talk) 01:27, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Absolutely - having a kennel name as one's user name is a dead giveaway. AtsmeTalk📧 01:29, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oh my! These afterthoughts have got to stop. Is there a vaccine for BOREDOM-2020? I tested positive.AtsmeTalk📧 16:28, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Levivich - I'm a breeder and my guess is that 99.9% of WP editors are breeders...and that's all I'm gonna say.[FBDB]AtsmeTalk📧 12:39, 30 July 2020 (UTC) Afterthought to prevent potential misunderstandings - I was joking by using the general sense of the term "breeder". It's only as dirty as the soil in which a seed is planted.🌾🌲🌱 16:18, 2 August 2020 (UTC) Oh my goodness, on 3rd thought, I'm not helping am I? AtsmeTalk📧[reply]
Certainly, that's why I gave them a COI notice. That doesn't preclude editing, and I'm taking their name as what amounts to a COI declaration in the name of not coming don too hard on a new editor. Acroterion(talk) 16:22, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
NPP School
Please enroll me in your NPP School. Minimoto (talk) 15:03, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, Minimoto - you need at least 90 days experience and at least 500 not-deleted edits to mainspace to qualify for NPP. See Wikipedia:New pages patrol/Reviewers, and feel free to explore all the different tabs. AtsmeTalk📧 19:38, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Yikes!! Thx for your diligence, GN. I hope we're not seeing an upswing in what appears to be questionable intentions for working AfC and NPP where potential COI editors may gain advantage. AtsmeTalk📧 21:07, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Request for a quick look over a page before going to GA
Hey Atsme, hope you're doing well. I spent some time last month expanding Shooting of Greg Gunn and would like to take it to GA. Would you mind casting your experienced eye over the page when you have some time and letting me know if you see any major problems or missing content? I'd really appreciate it. GeneralNotability (talk) 21:01, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I am doing well GN, thank you, and will be happy to peer review that article for you. AtsmeTalk📧 21:10, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Atsme, thank you for the GA review! Now that you don't have to be super-impartial...did you see the tidbit I added at the end about Smith being released on an appeal bond in March? Found out about that last night and I was just disgusted. GeneralNotability (talk) 15:34, 5 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I did - excellent find. Keep an eye on that article so you can update it as more information is published. AtsmeTalk📧 15:36, 5 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The Photographer's Barnstar
The Photographer's Barnstar
We may not always agree, but I want you to know that you are appreciated in many ways, not the least for your amazing photos. Keep up the good work! -- Valjean (talk) 00:53, 5 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Awwww...how sweet of you!!! Thank you, Valjean! AtsmeTalk📧 00:57, 5 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
NPP school
I want to enroll for this school. Already gone through the note.Tbiw (talk) 16:32, 5 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, Tbiw - thank you for your interest in the NPP school. Please allow me a day or two to evaluate your contributions so I'll know how advanced you are in understanding notability, article creation, and Wikipedia:Core content policies. AtsmeTalk📧 19:12, 5 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I firstly have poor article creation.Tbiw (talk) 20:07, 5 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I've seen that during my review process, but do you understand why it's poor? That may be a good place for you to start because you are not ready for NPP, which requires an almost administrator's level of understanding about certain policies. Spend some time at the WP:Teahouse, and ask lots of questions. Study the reasons the reviewers have been rejecting your articles because that's the best way for you to learn, along with asking questions at Teahouse. AtsmeTalk📧 20:29, 5 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Rosguill - please feel free to share your thoughts. AtsmeTalk📧 15:19, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with your assessment. Another place to seek help would be Wikipedia:Adopt-a-user; I think that could be especially helpful if Tbiw can find an editor with experience writing articles about actors, as I think they could use some coaching in identifying the difference between WP:ROUTINE and significant coverage in that field. signed, Rosguilltalk 15:31, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
RfA sig
Hello, Atsme! I've been waiting for an excuse to post to your talk page, but boringly all I have to say is I added the unsigned template to your comment at RfA. Rgrds. --Bison X (talk) 03:58, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
RfC for CNN and RfC for MSNBC at WP:RS/N
Both were snow closed the very next day. AtsmeTalk📧 20:35, 17 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Of course they were.--MONGO (talk) 20:39, 17 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
If Trump wins the election, the theme will be it is because Americans are either/or: illiterate, bigots, racists or misogyists. If he wins it will also be because some other entity "stole" it for him, or mailboxes were removed, or Putin did it. Or because climate change forced everyone near the ocean to swim to the polling locations.--MONGO (talk) 20:49, 17 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Mmmmm...forgive me, but I don't care about the election. I'm on Bonaire enjoying the Caribbean and whatever happens, happens - que sera, sera. What does concern me now is the rating process and how editors are using WP:RS/Perennial. It is a process I have opposed from day one that was created by a few individual editors without getting community wide acceptance via proper procedures, you know...like presenting a well-thought out plan. That never happened. I've been trying my best to AGF and work amicably within this process, as I know you & others have tried to do as well, but this latest action only serves to further support the validity of our concerns. In fact, it speaks volumes to WP:POV creep, and now we have seen it. I'm getting the vibe that our policies and guidelines no longer matter, depending on whose POV gets priority, and it is not unlike the feeling one gets when watching anarchists destroy other people's property, when in reality they are only shooting themselves in the foot and don't have the common sense to see it. Duh...let's destroy this business over here...this one, and this one...light it on fire because, uhm...we don't have jobs and business owners are bad people, and America sucks!! Jiminy Cricket!! AtsmeTalk📧 21:06, 17 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
OK...buh bye then.--MONGO (talk) 21:32, 17 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
As someone trained in the sciences, I will say that in reality, none of these cable networks are truly encyclopedic in the same way that peer reviewed scientific journals are...but that should be no surprise. They are all out for financial gain and in most cases, sensationalism and a rush to print simply render them as little more than junk designed to feed their fan base and therefore attract advertising dollars. The ultimate reality is that Wikipedia leans left, especially by American standards, and with consensus, and less so rational arguments, being the basis of many determinations as to what is a RS, these outcomes are unsurprising to me.[4] I have little faith that recent BLP subjects or events can be truly neutral when all we have to back up the claims is the least reliable and most partisan sources.--MONGO (talk) 23:17, 17 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Just stopping by to say thanks...
Hello Atsme, I was granted temp. NPP Rights. I have reviewed a total of ten articles since being granted. I made sure to follow the steps in the NPP flowchart, add Wikiprojects, stub sorting and add some categories. Thank you for your training! Cheers Megan Barris(Lets talk📧) 11:49, 20 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Now this is the kind of message I love to see on my TP! It's a great way to start the day! You are very welcome, Megan. Keep up the good work! AtsmeTalk📧 13:21, 20 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hello... if you have time
I have been working on the Cleavage (breasts) article for some time now, and I believe the article is in quite a good shape these days. I am still working on it. But the article has a very flimsy lead, hardly summarizing the scope. I happen to be a very poor lead writer, and I found you to be a member of LEADTEAM who is willing to work on any subject. May be you could help me to get the article a proper lead. This article I plan to elevate to a GA, and if possible, an FA status. But, given the risque and "unimportant" nature of the article it is not easy to get help for it. Aditya(talk • contribs) 11:28, 22 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Wow! You are already there!
While there, you must have noticed how the lead keeps repeating the same stuff, and how it utterly fails to summerize the article. I gave it a thought and couldn't decide which parts need to be in the summary. All of it looks precious to me, a side effect of living with the article so closely. Also, crips writing is still way beyond my capacity (I haven't given up yet). BTW, I will try to be with you at every step, if you require anything from a poor lead writer.
Y Here. Let me pour you a cup of tea. It's better than beer, you know. Aditya(talk • contribs) 12:12, 22 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, Aditya - your timing was perfect as I was taking a break from tweaking one BLP and creating a biography. It was a refreshing break, and thank you for the tea. I am now taking a short break from that lead, and will come back to it a bit later with fresh eyes to see what more I can do. Feel free to edit, or offer suggestions for improvement - collaboration is a good thing. 😊 AtsmeTalk📧 12:30, 22 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. I promise to bug you collaborate as much I can. Meanwhile I will try to summerize the article to the best of my abilities. Cheers. Aditya(talk • contribs) 13:00, 22 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you two for improving that article! - MP 24 August has one of "my places" (click on August) pictured. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:54, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Awww...thank you, Gerda. Aditya is an excellent writer. Wow. I was quite impressed. AtsmeTalk📧 22:09, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I remember saying that I don’t think the lead image is appropriate, and whoever is posing in the photograph probably did not intend to be a major advert (for want of a better word) for boobies on a major part of the internet. Ritchie333(talk)(cont) 22:16, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It's cleavage, anatomically correct, a long way from being porn, and the way the article is written makes it scientific. AtsmeTalk📧 22:32, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I can assure you that “nice cleavage ma’am” is not generally considered a polite remark. Ritchie333(talk)(cont) 05:08, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
For what it's worth, speaking as a man, my criticism is that the caption is too trenchant. If the File's existing description were to be added, High angle photo of a woman's cleavage, Ritchie's valid denunciation might be appeased. Gareth Griffith-Jones (contribs) (talk) 12:03, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I prefer that headless photo much to what we had until recently (which made me disconnect a link via redirect from Décolleté, something different anyway), and think the title (of the article) might as well be Cleavage (anatomy) or whatever. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:19, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It's one of life's mysteries. A woman puts a picture of herself showing off her legs and cleavage (or whatever) on social media, 20 female friends all immediately shout "wow, gorgeous", "you go girl", "very nice", "you look great", "wow, stunning" because they all want to show appreciation and lift self esteem. A male friend has to tread carefully making the same comment for fear of being shot down over .... ulterior motives. Ritchie333(talk)(cont) 13:23, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Looking at the discussions below I see how busy you are at the WP. But despite that, I hope you have time to take look at the trimming work I have done to the lead-in-progress, though I have not got around to adding to the lead yet (still adding to the article itself).
I am confused about the lead image, and since there was a suggestion to start a discussion about that one... shall start one at the article talk page, so you people can come and voice your opinions there? I would also like to invite Johnbod, Spicy and Calliopejen1, who were part of the last discussion about the lead image, along with Seraphimblade who put the current image back in there.
Y You are all invited to that tea party. Aditya(talk • contribs) 01:20, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks...
"What would Ozzy do?"
"Sharon? SHARON? How do I fucking edit this fucking page on fucking Wikipedia? It can't be this fucking complicated! SHARON?"
...for the kind words at BLPN. Coming from you, I'll take that as a great compliment.
I really had no plans of commenting on the article's talk page. When I first started here, I dove into the deep end by working behind the scenes on the Sarah Palin article. I never actually edited the article. It started as a fascination with the sudden interest in my homeland, which became quickly apparent that none of those editors had ever been here nor had a clue what they were talking about, but it became a huge learning experience, especially about policy. The one thing I learned is that I want nothing more to do with political articles, if at all avoidable.
If I get some time I will try to dig into this deeper, but I really need to see al the history, diffs, and sources to make an informed decision. At BLPN I was speaking in more general terms, as in "What would I do in this situation?", or more importantly, "What would Ozzy do?"
The thing I really hate to see is when people begin an article, "So-and-so is a politician who was alleged to have committed some crime in August of 2020. The alleged crime happened in 1985 when the victim reportedly yada yada yada. So-and-so worked for such-and-such a newspaper, had these other high profile jobs, and was an advisor to the President..." The problem here is that's delivering the info all backwards. You have to begin an article with the foundation, then the wall, before you can put up the roof. The article should begin by stating first what the subject is. Even if this sort of thing is lede material, it's very rarely first paragraph material. Does that make sense?
But before I can even determine where, how much, or even if it should be mentioned in the lede, I would first want to see how prominent it is in the body. Using the honey article as an example, I wrote nearly all the info on the physical and chemical properties. While valuable info to be sure, taking up a fair share of space, I wouldn't even mention any of that in the lede. I try not to think about it in those terms. I write the lede after writing the article, and then I just try to summarize the article in as few words as possible while thinking, "How can I define this subject as quickly and coherently for the reader as possible?" The average reader doesn't want a long lede. All they want is the gist of it; just the nitty gritty. The good majority of people who actually read the lede are only interested in finding out "What is this thing?" or "What does this word mean?" The vast majority of people who view any article won't even read the lede. They're just researching some question they want answered, and will simply skim through the article until they find it. It seems counterintuitive, but that's human nature; it makes the lede a terrible place for things like POV pushing, crimes, allegations, etc. --unless it takes up a good proportion of space in the body. It just is, and doing so tends to have the opposite effect that people who want it there intended.
Does that help explain my position? If I can scrounge up some spare time I'll try to dig deeper into this particular article, but right now I'm in a mad rush to get all my real-life work done before winter hits. If you'd like some more info, I wrote an essay on the matter that you can find at User:Zaereth/Writing tips for the amateur writer. I hope that helps. Zaereth (talk) 21:25, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It makes perfect sense, Zaereth, thank you for your input. You already know my high level of respect for you. While we are basically on the same page, I see things from a slightly different perspective because of my years as a publisher/producer who had to pay the high cost of an errors & omissions/commercial general/personal and advertising injury policy. Ouch!! It hurts to even say it, not to mention keeping an entertainment attorney on retainer. Ouch-Ouch! I don't think it's realistic to think we could be overly cautious because there are loop holes where you least expect them, so if I'm guilty of anything, it's being overly cautious - err on the side of caution. The other thought that comes to mind is the diversity of our readers. My first instincts are to try not to offend anyone with ss (we need an emoji for that - maybe put a dunce cap on 💩). Our PAGs are pretty amazing, especially our core content policies...kudos to the editors who worked so hard to make them darn near all-encompassing. All we have to do is adhere to them - pretty simple. AtsmeTalk📧 22:28, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
My screw-up caused confusion, I take full responsibility, also hatted at article TP AtsmeTalk📧 02:27, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Request for explanation
Could you please elaborate on what you meant by this edit? You initially posted to a discussion about Steve Bannon's arrest with the false, potentially defamatory, and irrelevant claim that former Attorney General Eric Holder had been indicted (your edit summary lectured others about WP:BLP; {{.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Steve_Bannon&diff=prev&oldid=974521134). Your false claim about Holder is a violation of WP:BLP, and presumably a knowing one; the source you cited in your post—which I assume you read before linking—made clear that he had not been indicted.
When I pointed out this false claim, you responded by attacking me via a series of unsupported aspersions ([5]) and then altered your previous post like so. I don't understand what you meant by this alteration. Are you claiming that the Eric Holder whose supposed indictment you referenced, was not the former attorney general but rather a different person with the same name accused of murdering a rapper? That doesn't make any sense in the context of your original post, which clearly referred to former AG Holder, so maybe I'm misunderstanding. Given that the matter involves false claims and a BLP violation, I'm asking for clarification before going further with it. MastCellTalk 07:20, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
"Attacking" you? Uhm, from my perspective, you're on my UTP HOUNDING while crying victim? Ok, I will AGF, yet again, and will attempt to clarify because you have afforded me the courtesy to provide an explanation. To begin, the diff you included to support your allegation You initially posted to a discussion about Steve Bannon's arrest with the false, potentially defamatory, and irrelevant claim that former Attorney General Eric Holder had been indicted (your edit summary lectured others about WP:BLP is not only misleading in the context of "initially", it simply isn't true. My initial post in context is in this diff, which is dated Aug 20, 2020. Your response the next day in that discussion was "Wait for what?", etc. to which others replied to you, and I also responded here. You came back with this, which is inline with the context for how it all began. I attempted to demonstrate why your demands for immediate inclusion in the lead were noncompliant with RECENTISM, NOTNEWS, DUE and WP:10YT.
You know, MastCell, you could have simply asked for an explanation without the aspersions in your relentless attempt to discredit me, but it does serve in a rather sad way, as evidence of your ill-will and HOUNDING behavior. I am concerned that it is probably not going to end anytime soon, and certainly hope that I'm wrong, but your behavior as it relates to me has even garnered the attention of editors I know only in passing, per this diff in June 2019. There are many more, but I won't belabor that point. What I have noticed is that it has gotten worse as evidenced by the discussion on Jimbo's TP in July 2020 wherein you were making inuendos of racism, if not outright allegations, about editors who did not deserve such treatment from you, and neither did I, but I continued to AGF and approached you with all the best intentions on your UTP July 10 2020. To this day, you have not acknowledged my explanation on your TP but that's fine. I just came across this discussion, and your July 27, 2020 comment wherein you continue spreading misinformation about When editors deny or excuse even the most blatant racial slurs, that is a personal attack. At Jimbo's page, I asked you to not make it personal but you ignored my request, and yet again, I found myself in your pressure cooker. It was about adding material to the article of a dead president that was sourced to a much different time in our history, and that led to Old Billy Hell at Jimbo's TP. You even made false accusations against Levivich as evidenced here, here and here - and there were other innocent editors involved, none of whom deserved what you were dishing out.
And here you are now, screeching at me about one brief paragraph that I failed to properly format while attempting to demonstrate, under pressure from you, why we should wait before including the indictment in the lead. It couldn't possibly get any more trivial than that but you made that mole hill grow into a mountain. I can understand that the USA Today headline may be what confused you along with my ill-formatting: "Nipsey Hussle shooting suspect Eric Holder indicted for death of rapper, heads to trial" - please try to AGF - I certainly didn't create that headline but it truly does serve a multifaceted purpose relative to my point about NOTNEWS, BREAKING, & RECENTISM. We cannot trust headlines anymore than we can trust that an indictment is proof of guilt or that it is DUE in a lead just because the news media published it. I am guilty for forgetting to wikilink the article Nipsey Hussle, a famous rapper but not political, which supported my argument about the fuss over Bannon's indictment being politically motivated, and that it fails WP:10YT. The second Eric Holder in that paragraph is political. The comparison supports my position as demonstrated by the politically motivated edit warring and all the hullabaloo over his lead vs the rapper incident vs what we're seeing now at Bannon, which is not unlike the seemingly infinite back and forth in the edit history of the Holder article as evidenced here, and here, for example. Compare early on breaking news to today's #Operaton Fast and Furious and #Contempt of Congress. Also notice the big difference between the nonpolitical Eric Holder and the political Eric Holder, and convince me that it doesn't support the concerns I expressed here to which you responded here. The aforementioned is taken in proper context of my argument. I fixed what caused the confusion, it was a minor paragraph and I wouldn't care one bit if you wanted to delete it. It's just that simple. AtsmeTalk📧 17:40, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Atsme, there's something I'm confused about. If I understand correctly, there is a person named Eric Holder who is accused of murdering Nipsey Hussle, but that person is not the Eric Holder who used to be Attorney General of the United States: two different people with similar names. Is that your understanding, too? --Tryptofish (talk) 18:37, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, Tryp - one is political, the other is not, and the handling of each by editors is much different; the point being political motivations are where the problems lie when making decisions or interpretating WP:PAG and whether or not something should be included in the lead or not per DUE, and many other factors, of course. It's difficult to include all thoughts and still maintain brevity, and as sure I'm sitting here, someone will question the one thing you failed to mention - along a similar line to WP:ONEGOODGOOFDESERVESANOTHER. AtsmeTalk📧 18:46, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. Just looking at the dispute here from the outside, and just trying to find a way to peace, it looks to me like some other editors may misunderstand that you thought the two were the same person, or that you were trying to make it sound that way. If so, maybe there has been a misunderstanding. I hope I'm not putting my foot in it, but perhaps clearing up that misunderstanding could avoid escalation, so I hope my question and your reply will help with that. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:14, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, Tryp - MastCell used the diff before my final correction, which is here. Hopefully the proper formatting cleared it up, along with my edit summaries. AtsmeTalk📧 19:20, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I looked at that diff of the final correction, and my (perhaps naive) reading of it is that you were saying that AG Holder was the alleged murderer. Just looking at it from the outside, I can understand why MastCell interprets it that way. Again, I hope that clearing up a misunderstanding, one way or the other, is possible before there is further escalation. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:29, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
You just verified what I've said. You have forgotten the Eric Holder Not AG Holder indictment of Nipsey Hussle shooting suspect,[1] Fix formatting, add wikilink and properly cite source. 10:49 am, Today (UTC−4) and AG Holder's contempt of court Congress.[2] clarify AG Holder from other person 4:05 pm, Today (UTC−4) Correction Atsme Talk 📧 4:18 pm, Yesterday (UTC−4) Interestingly, the media scrubbed most of what went on, but even WaPo admits: Obama has certainly had his share of controversies, but some of the most-covered became murky or faded over time. Then all of a sudden in 2019 - CNBC. Misinformation does not belong in this encyclopedia. Atsme Talk 📧 10:29 am, 23 August 2020, last Sunday (2 days ago) (UTC−4) (reply)
C'mon, Tryp - AG Holder wasn't indicted for the death of a rapper - seriously - I make my share of mistakes, but Jiminy Cricket, I'm not a blathering idiot. Nobody remembers this stuff - WP:10YT was the point in question - it doesn't matter who is indicted - the murderer of a famous rapper or Bannon, but when its political, guess what? The article becomes a coatrack or its scrubbed and the edit wars begin. Leave it out of the lead. I cannot prevent editors from misinterpreting what a source says as everyone has done with the (not AG) Eric Holder indictment, and it also demonstrates why WP:GUILT is so important, and that we shouldn't purposely juxtapose other names in the content we're adding because it can tarnish an innocent person's reputation (by association). You are all making my point about why we should not do these things. I used the right sources but did not cite them formally - I fixed that. I saw the rapper article and in my mind, it fit perfectly to demonstrate my argument - I just f'd up the presentation. It was the perfect rebuttal to MastCell's commentPolitical material is judged by the same standards and policies as other material. Had I not been accused and singled out throughout that discussion and feeling very much under pressure, I would have presented it better. As you know brevity has never been my strong suit and when I try it, everything gets screwed up. AtsmeTalk📧 20:43, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
This is exactly what she tried to do - she tried to pretend that a person who was NOT "Eric Holder the Obama AG" was in fact one of "Obama associates" supposedly (according to her) "federally indicted". When she was called out on these shenanigans she responded by blustering and accusing MasCell of attacking her. Volunteer Marek 20:25, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I really don't think Atsme can reasonably be accused of thinking or claiming that former Attorney General Eric Holder shot Nipsey Russell. This seems like a misstep in communication rather than intent, and one best worth moving on from. BD2412T 20:39, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
BD2412, I just noticed the name you used - it should be Nipsey Hussell - see how easy it is to f-up? 😂 AtsmeTalk📧 22:56, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Tell me about it! BD2412T 22:58, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Wow...VM's a mindreader - maybe we should give the Amazing Randi a call to check it out. AtsmeTalk📧 20:45, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
First of all, Atsme, that photo of a butterflyfish I just saw at the top of this page is awesome. But, instead of c'mon-ing me, please realize that it was the way it sounded to me, and I can understand how it sounded that way to others. And at the same time, I absolutely could not believe that you meant it that way, because yes, I do give you credit for not being a blathering idiot. When I read the most recent comments here by other editors, (1) I think I should go back to staying off WP entirely, and (2) it becomes very, very obvious to me that what we have here was a failure of communication, and that everyone needs to calm the f'k down. Taking a comment that was "f'k-ed up" and using it as a reason for everyone to retreat to their respective corners in The Great Wikipedia Battle Over US PoliticsTM isn't doing anyone any good. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:22, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) Thank you, Tryp - I've got some interesting stories that go with all those photographs. I agree with everything you said, and I do realize (and have repeatedly admitted) that I screwed-up, no question about it, but I fixed it, didn't I? I don't know what more I can say or do, short of lying, and I won't do that. It is embarrassing but at the same time very disconcerting to think I was feeling so pressured in that discussion that I f'd up a perfectly good presentation in that one brief paragraph as badly as I did. That is so not like me. COVID made me do it. Allow me to take it back a little further in time because what hurts most is the fact that I once considered MastCell a Wikifriend, and to this day, I don't know or understand why that changed but I refuse to sit back and quietly be bludgeoned with accusations of things I didn't do by people hiding behind the protection of anonymity while my RL identity is known to the world. I realize that trying to be compatible with every editor on WP is impossible - I get that - but I have never, in my entire life (short of an abusive 1st husband) been treated with such disrespect...and it has consistently been by the same few individuals. Maybe some day a bright light will shine on that dark corner, and maybe it won't, but I will say quite frankly that were it not for our little group of "humourists", and the editors I consider "special" as both WikiFriends and collaborators, I would be long gone. I just completed rigorous training of an NPP student, have been working on an article lead, created 3 articles this week, and this is how I can expect to be treated? I understand where you're coming from, Tryp - it's a pretty sad state of affairs. AtsmeTalk📧 22:06, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Of course Atsme knew that former AG Holder hadn't been indicted for murder. That's a red herring. My point is that when her error about former AG Holder's contempt charge was pointed out, she neither acknowledged nor corrected it, but instead concocted this bizarre, elaborate lie that she was actually talking about the other Holder in her initial comment. That's an obvious, transparent lie to avoid responsibility for one's edits, not a "failure of communication". Trypto, the reason I'm following up is that I take WP:CIVIL seriously, and central to any grown-up definition of civility is that you take responsibility for your words, own your mistakes, and don't lie to and gaslight people. Dismissing this as a simple political disagreement is, frankly, beneath you. MastCellTalk 22:03, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, I keep thinking that editing Wikipedia is beneath me. I did not see any of the earlier parts about the contempt charge, so I was unaware of that until now. Apparently, a failure to communicate to me. I had understood this dispute to be about the claim that she was treating the two Holders as one. Anyway, I don't see how anyone would want to edit in that topic area. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:14, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
MastCell said "My point is that when her error about former AG Holder's contempt charge was pointed out, she neither acknowledged nor corrected it,..." See the diff yesterday @15:02 MastCell mentioned the contempt (I accidentally said contempt of court when I meant contempt of Congress. At 15:18 - 16 minutes later - I corrected it, and my edit summary states: (→Addition of Aug 2020 arrest to lead: correction - sorry, was thinking faster than I was typing). WTF is he talking about that I didn't correct it? AtsmeTalk📧 22:31, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I've tried to go back over the discussion, and my head hurts. Atsme said at one point that Mueller found no collusion, and I've got a big problem with that, but I don't want to argue about it here – I'm just trying to be an equal-opportunity scold. It looks to me like editors were discussing Bannon's arrest, and the discussion turned to whether or not Obama-did-it-too, which makes me glad that I don't edit there. Facepalm. Atsme cites a Politico source that does indeed say that AG Holder was held in contempt of Congress over something or other. If the issue was over saying "court" instead of "Congress", it looks to me like Atsme has already clarified that. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:51, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I fixed it, but Tryp, I promise - it wasn't about an Obama-did-it-too scenario. That was not my intention or the reason I brought any of that up. My intent was to demonstrate how charges and arrests/indictments can easily become dismissals/not guilty or guilty verdicts, and the O administration was the most recent that provided a decade's worth of changes, and I could actually recite some of the names from memory but not the details. The nonAG Eric Holder article fell right in my lap which meant I didn't have to spend time hunting down an indictment case to use as an example - but then I saw it as the gift that kept on giving if I played my cards right. The phone would ring, I'd get sidetracked, always something - I go back and lose my place. That's all it was - a simple f'up - nothing nefarious. I couldn't remember even 1 indictment to be quite frank and that was the whole point of WP:10YT - that plus MC's political comment (see the diff) and the mistaken belief that we handle all articles the same (which would be a dream come true). Political articles are a mine field, there is bias, and POV warriors and everybody knows it which is why they don't want to go there. In a nutshell - I was demonstrating why we should WAIT in response to MC's "Why wait?" Hell, the indictment is in the body text, and the TOC directs readers to the proper section. SIMPLE. And that's all there is to it. AtsmeTalk📧 23:50, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
If you have nothing productive to say here, go away. Your hands are far from clean and I don't need you dancing atop a 2 year action that was questionable from the get-go. Stop dredging up the past. Your allegation of an "egregious BLP vio" is in itself an offense considering I cited sources and corrected the formatting error as evidenced here, which of course, MastCell did not acknowledge. Formatting errors are not disruption, for Pete's sake. AtsmeTalk📧 19:04, 25 August 2020 (UTC) NOTE: Soibangla's potential motivation: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1041#Proposal for 6 mos. t-ban 19:15, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Atsme, this is disappointing. It's clear that in your initial comment you were referencing former AG Holder, not some other Eric Holder accused of murdering a rapper. That is obvious from context (you were responding to Soibangla's comment that no Obama-era officials had been indicted by naming one such official whom you believed, incorrectly, to have been indicted), and from the link you cited, describing former AG Holder's contempt-of-Congress finding which you incorrectly presented as an indictment. You additionally claimed that "the media scrubbed most of what went on", which again reinforces that you were referring to AG Holder and would make no sense if you were talking about an unrelated murder case. Finally, it is completely implausible that you intended to make a point about "the handling of each [of the two Eric Holders] by editors", as one doesn't even have a Wikipedia article and they have literally no commonality except for their given names.
You now claim that you were referring to the indictment of accused-murderer Eric Holder all along and that you simply made a "formatting" error. Please don't insult my intelligence by expecting me to believe that, as it's an obvious lie. Nipsey Hussle's murder had absolutely nothing to do with the discussion at Talk:Steve Bannon, even by six-degrees-of-separation free association. Again, your initial comment was obviously aimed at AG Holder and not accused-murderer Holder. The most plausible explanation seems to be that, when told you were mistaken about AG Holder's indictment, you Googled the terms, found that someone who shares Holder's name had been indicted in a totally separate apolitical crime, and are now gaslighting me by pretending that you meant to refer to the second Holder all along. WP:AGF isn't a suicide pact, and it doesn't mandate that we swallow any fabricated explanation, no matter how far-fetched, for inappropriate behavior.
It's OK that you made a mistake about Holder. I make mistakes all the time; we all do. But if someone shows you that you've made a mistake, you can just acknowledge and correct it. Instead you've constructed a ridiculously implausible excuse and are aggressively trying to convince me that I'm somehow in the wrong for pointing out your error. The term "gaslighting" is overused in the post-2016 world, but this is gaslighting. I don't view this as "trivial" or a mountain-from-a-molehill—posting false claims and partisan misinformation poisons the collaborative atmosphere and strikes at this project's core mission, and lying and gaslighting are fundamental violations of our civility policy. It's not so much about Eric Holder; it's about disruptive behavior (sidetracking policy-based discussion by injecting unrelated dubious or false partisan talking points), about refusing to acknowledge error and instead making up a ridiculously far-fetched excuse about a "formatting error", about attacking the person who pointed out your mistake rather than correcting it, and about why you think these behaviors are acceptable or justifiable. I don't have anything further to say here and will consider whether and how to follow up elsewhere. MastCellTalk 19:10, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It's really not funny or snarkworthy PackMecEng. The example by MastCell here, and some of the comments by Atsme at talk:Steve Bannon#Video are chilling, not only because of her false claims, but because she doubles down when they are pointed out to her. If this were just on a talk page it would be disruptive, but when falsehoods are used as justification for removing properly sourced material from an article,[6] it's actually quite damaging. - MrX 🖋 20:15, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nah it is funny and very snark worthy. You all are going too far again. PackMecEng (talk) 20:16, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comments like that don't help your credibility. - MrX 🖋 20:22, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I would appreciate it very much if you would refrain from offending guests on my UTP. Thank you very much. AtsmeTalk📧 20:58, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Cool story, bro. Ha I mean honestly, how can I take something like that seriously? PackMecEng (talk) 21:00, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Atsme, could you please just admit that you made a mistake in conflating two people with the same name, strike the talkpage comment, and we can all move on? ~Awilley (talk) 23:31, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Yes - do it for me, please, or tell me what I need to strike. I'm afraid to move right now, and have sought solace in talking to Tryptofish. Awilley, I don't care about the politics involved - only the technical editing part (PAGs), and I managed to screw that up pretty good, too. I'm going to focus on the Cleavage lead for a while - where in the hell can that go wrong (nevermind, don't answer) - and my new Capt. Don article. AtsmeTalk📧 23:55, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Doesn't my edit summary count? (→Addition of Aug 2020 arrest to lead: correction - sorry, was thinking faster than I was typing). And how about "I make my share of mistakes, but Jiminy Cricket, I'm not a blathering idiot." Does that count? AtsmeTalk📧 00:01, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Awwww...I love happy endings. AtsmeTalk📧 00:06, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Remember your topic ban? And your successful appeal?
Atsme, it seems to me you have comprehensively backslid from the promises you made in your successful topic ban appeal in February 2019. The AE admins lifted the ban, but with a warning about backsliding. You said then, for example, that you had reflected and learned a lot: "I now see the biggest problem was my overzealousness to win the debates and gain consensus, showing little consideration to opposing views. The times my position did gain consensus were overshadowed by the inappropriateness of my persistence, and for that I apologize with a promise that it will never happen again". (A very different attitude from that which you showed in your reply to Soibangla on this page yesterday.[7].) AFAICS, you have gone all the way back to inappropriate persistence and "overzealousness to win". In February 2019 you said "If I happen to be notified of an RfC, I will simply cast my iVote, state why, and move on to other areas." By contrast, this summer you posted some 75 times in the Fox News RFC. Please go back and re-read your own appeal, Atsme, and start living up to your promises, or I will consider reinstating the topic ban. Bishonen | tålk 09:59, 26 August 2020 (UTC).[reply]
- so there is no need to post another DS alert.
.jpg)
-3580144.png)
.JPG)
Ah sheesh, lol! Faith Evans 123
Atsme Talk 📧 21:38, 27 July 2020 (UTC)
Atsme Talk 📧 21:10, 3 August 2020 (UTC)
Atsme Talk 📧 21:06, 17 August 2020 (UTC)
Here. Let me pour you a cup of tea. It's better than beer, you know. Aditya(talk • contribs) 12:12, 22 August 2020 (UTC)
Atsme Talk 📧 22:32, 24 August 2020 (UTC)
<—cleavage 
