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)

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!!

Talkback

Hello, Atsme. You have new messages at Northamerica1000's talk page.
Message added 03:15, 19 July 2015 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:15, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Advocacy ducks

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Advocacy ducks. Legobot (talk) 00:06, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

A cupcake for you!

Have a nice day Atsme Govindaharihari (talk) 13:50, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

How sweet! Thank you, Govindaharihari. Your cupcake made it a nice day. Atsme^📞📧 14:20, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

Thanks

i just wanted to say that i enjoyed reading the article WP:AVDUCK. Thanks for creating it. One of the crucial issues your article highlights is that one has to be frankly political if one wishes to be a successful editor on WP. One problem that can arise, and that your article does not deal with, is if a new or relatively new editor confronts a duck or a flock of ducks who may also have the support of an Admin or a few Admins. (Such support may consist of an Admin building a tool to invite new editors who are having serious problems with a senior editor to offer criticism of that senior editor on a pseudo complaint page--the objective being to protect the senior editor from being repeatedly taken to ANI or Dispute Resolution, and also when new editors make their serious complaints on the pseudo complaint page it would be easier to tackle them through banning or blocking--away from the public eye of ANI and Dispute Resolutions.) Invariably the new editor is pushed into a corner and demoralized by the flock of ducks with their Admin allies (who are armed with tools like WP:ARBIPA); the new editor may stop editing on WP or if he continues he will no longer do any bold editing. A third, and most unfortunate possibility is that if the new editor is blocked, then he/she may resort to vandalism on WP (including showering abuses at the blocking Admin and/or others) through anonymous socking. Sure, ANI, dispute resolution, and ArbCom exist but first they are often very time consuming and secondly in my experience if you are taking on a flock of ducks (who moreover may have the support of a few Admins), then you will almost always lose the argument unless you have sufficient number of allies to support you on boards like ANI on WP (which is unlikely if you are a new or relatively new editor on WP).

I think one key reform that needs to be implemented to strike at the root of this problem is getting rid of 'bad' Admins; and giving incentives to retain 'good' Admins on WP. I don't know the details of how this should be done though, particularly since WP is understandably uncomfortable with getting rid of any Admins unless there is a strong reason to do so in view of the drop in people willing to be WP Admins. Soham321 (talk) 21:32, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

Hi, Soham321, I think I'm too disheartened about the ANI process and the biased responses of a couple admins, one of whom I once held in high regard, to respond with any sense of neutrality, so I'll just say "yep" and leave it at that. Thx for your comments - they are food for thought. Atsme^📞📧 17:54, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

AAAS

You should have received an email from me regarding AAAS a few weeks ago - can you please fill out the form linked from that email? If you did not receive the email (check your spam folder), let me know. Thanks, Nikkimaria (talk) 17:14, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

Hi, @Nikkimaria: - I did receive the email on May 25th - Your Individual subscription has been successfully entered for Science Online. I tried it out, and was able to access what I needed. Hopefully it will stay that way!! Thank you so very much for making this happen. Atsme^📞📧 22:41, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

Hm - I think perhaps that's the Elsevier email? I was referring to one for WP:AAAS, which didn't launch until June...but I'm certainly happy you're enjoying Elsevier access as well. Nikkimaria (talk) 22:44, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

Nikkimaria The email I referenced issued an AAAS# - Science Magazine. I also have access to Science Direct (Elsevier) so I've got access to both. You did good!! Atsme^📞📧 22:52, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

Okay, interesting. Happy to hear that it worked out! Nikkimaria (talk) 23:45, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

Please comment on Portal talk:Current events

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Portal talk:Current events. Legobot (talk) 00:04, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

You have guts

Please don't take my decisions personally. It's just based on what I see and understand. Everyone has their own point of view. I came here to say that I admire your gut. You have the courage to stand up to admins. I have always been afraid because they can pull up any WP policy/guideline and take a millisecond to hit that block link. I admire that quality of yours. You don't see that around. I, as editor, feel discouraged and give the impression that admins are high superiority and there's nothing you can do to fight that fight. I am not sure if I am the only one feeling this way. That's it. Just a little words of encouragement, if you will. Fight that ANI report of yours. At least you will know if it was worth fighting that battle. Bye (: Callmemirela {Talk} ♑ 00:05, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

You have character, Callmemirela, and I truly appreciate it. I thank you and respect your courage. Let's keep improving the stubs and do what we can to expand them to GAs and FAs. That's why we're here!! Maintain neutrality, make your content informational and encyclopedic but keep the prose engaging! We want people to read what we write! Collaborate with editors who are experts in their field - respect the project teams - ignore the disruption the best you can, and keep moving forward to build WP into an encyclopedia students and teachers will respect as a RS. Happy editing!! Atsme^📞📧 00:24, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

kindness and respect

I've been here to long. I don't even remember my first account name. Hell I've used a few Ip's before this account and I've used a few when i forgot I even made this account. You know I had to argue the case that the state of Hawaii is not currently under military occupation. I'm sure you are aware there are a number of secessionist movements in the United States. You may or may not be aware that there are a number in Hawaii. These are fringe movements with low followings. It's necessary as you can understand to not give these movements any weight. We can't be the ones to legitimize these movements. They have to do so on their own. But the individual in question they didn't understand that their small movement was fringe and that would be wikipedia legitimizing it if we included it. I think it took a month to deal with them. Needless to say I was reaching the extent of my kindness and my respect.

You're tired Atsme. You're worn down. Why did you open a GA review right after that one closed? Honestly was it anything more than stubbornness? The prior one had just closed after sitting still for days. Was the way that went down wrong? Yes I will agree that it was. I've said that it was and prior I've made my opinion about this loud and clear. You were there. And because it was wrong in that GAR I asked some things of the individuals there. I asked them not to close that GAR themselves. They did so. I asked them to wait a few days before seeking an official close and they gave more than a few. You didn't, it seems, even attempt to address the highlighted problems. as my aunt would say, they pissed in your doll house. But even though pissed in your dollhouse the question becomes about the legitimacy of their content complaints. I view them myself and I see legitimacy. I ask you now if you have viewed them or have do you still see how they pissed in your dollhouse. If you are still seeing how they pissed in your dollhouse then really just have to walk away until you don't see it. You can not be mad and do this work. I've seen you try but it doesn't work out. This is however my opinion of what I've seen.

You now have grounds to go to ARBCOM. On the situation you just took to ANI. I recommend against it. You do have the grounds it seems. But ask you what is necessary for you to calm down and de-escalate. For you to be less emotional right now so that you can take a moment and make a clear decision of the best choice for you? Slow down and think about your next move.

It's never going to be unicorns and sunshine. Every job is important. We have people that just create stubs.Some people make GA's while others break them. There's people that just sit on the noticeboards. There's all kinds of things. Admins aren't more important than newbie editors. Nor are college professors or even Jimbo.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 06:42, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for sharing your wisdom, SJP. You're spot-on about tired and worn down. Just wanted you to know the GAN was made in GF based on the responses by Doc James, such as this edit summary. In retrospect, I think the following diff speaks volumes about his sudden interest and timing regarding the Racz biography, [2]. It's even more disheartening that he filed the GAR considering his position as an admin and functionary, and ignored the proper steps to take before doing so. In corporate speak we'd call it a hostile takeover. See the quote at the top of this TP because that's exactly what happened. Sorry, but I don't consider such an influence the perfect approach for biographies or for the project overall, even though certain aspects of it have merit. Certainly I welcomed what few improvements were made regarding sources and compliance with MEDRS. GF collaboration is always welcome and I expect the same in return. I also welcomed what little bit of copyediting and tweaks were needed in the prose but the remainder of what happened was unwarranted and based entirely on POV. Add to that, the PAs and incivility demonstrated by certain editors during the COIN fiasco, ARBCOM, Kombucha (which resulted in an unwarranted 7-day aBan against me by a biased admin), the attack on Racz, AVDUCK and the recent ANI...well, it leaves little to the imagination. The diffs will certainly provide substantive evidence of patterned behavior and motivation. As you correctly assumed above, the thought of ARBCOM entered my mind but I will heed your advice, contingent upon their future behavior and remain cautiously optimistic.

I don't know how closely you've followed the events as they unfolded, particularly here, [3]. Racz was the first article I created with help from Alf.laylah.wa.laylah. You know how our collaboration began at IPT, and while we all lost patience with each other from time to time, I truly appreciated Alf taking the time to understand the points I was trying to make. It all became clear to him when he started investigating the sources and realized the problem. I smile when I think back on those early experiences with you and Alf and how his advice had a calming effect. I miss him. He was patient and understanding but stern. He walked me through the creation of Racz, tweaked the prose as needed, helped me find sources and you both taught me things I needed to know about WP. Perhaps that's why Racz holds special meaning for me as does the Aztec sun on my TP. Alf nominated Racz for DYK, and showed me how to do the next one. When I nominated Racz for GA last year, it was reviewed by one of the best reviewers on WP. Racz has pretty much been stripped of its engaging prose and biographical content since then. In Doc's own words, In English their or boring words like "developed" and "designed" and promotional words like "pioneered" and "innovated". We should always be using the boring ones even if the sources use promotional language. It is mostly fixed aswell.[4] It is now focused on the medical procedures and treatments and as you will witness by comments on the TP, there is still unwarranted resistance for its promotion to GA. I've also studied the council guidelines for project teams and I am quite certain those guidelines are not being followed. It has caused disruption to the project, and while I have no problem keeping snake oil and crazy cures in their place and identified as such, I believe issues arise over NPOV on the opposite end of the spectrum regarding BLPs. There's also the malleability of MEDRS which is sometimes misused at the expense of NPOV. Kombucha is a pretty good example of the latter, and David Gorski is a good example of the double standard shown to BLPs. Atsme^📞📧 18:20, 5 August 2015 (UTC)^{added underlined text later today 20:54, 5 August 2015 (UTC)}

Revenge PROD's

Hello. Until the recent ANI-discussion and the discussion on Wikipedia talk:Advocacy ducks our paths have never crossed, neither here on Wikipedia or anywhere else, and you have AFAIK never shown any interest in Wikipedia articles about rare species before, so would you mind explaining why you all of a sudden PRODded 14 well sourced and properly formatted stub articles about rare catfish species that I have created? Claiming that they don't belong on en-WP since species.wikipedia.org exist is IMO not a valid reason, especially not without discussing it with me on my talk page first. Thomas.W ^talk 11:36, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

• ... and now also nominating them for deletion. Thomas.W ^talk 11:39, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

The articles belong in Wikispecies. Actually I do have an interest in rare and endangered fish species. A better option would have been to list all 16 of the rare species since all are of the same genus, Glyptothorax, in a single article, not 16 different articles that are less than stub quality articles taking up unnecessary space when they are nothing more than dictionary entries. They would serve more benefit in Wikispecies which I recommended in the deletion request. Atsme^📞📧 12:00, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

Multiple PROD's

Really, Atsme. Don't you see anything wrong with prodding 14 pages created by Thomas.W within a few minutes, and filling User talk:Thomas.W with 14 bulky proposed deletion templates, without discussing the general principle with him first? Bishonen | talk 11:42, 6 August 2015 (UTC).