User talk:Atlantictire

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Question regarding Roland Space Echo and Echoplex[edit]

Are they just capable of analog delay and tape echo or is there more to it than that? Do they come with reverb? What are the differences between the two units? Whathitz (talk) 07:58, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

They're delay and echo, but they're not capable of reverb. I don't know enough about the two units to tell you what the specific difference is.--Atlantictire (talk) 19:26, 15 May 2011 (UTC)


So can the difference between delay and echo be compared to that of overdrive and distortion? Silly question I know. Whathitz (talk) 06:23, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Not sure. I they're essentially the same thing, although there may be more time variability with delay. Don't quote me on that.--Atlantictire (talk) 18:00, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Audio EQ & linear filter[edit]

Hi, I've had too much other work and haven't had time to do any work on the article (but saw a few things that I needed to deal with, beyond the additions I already had in mind). But I have a bit more time and will get back to it now. You asked:

"is it overly simplistic/wrong to say that the parameter (amplitude, frequency, phase) modified by a linear filter is directly proportional to that of the input?"

Well amplitude and phase are varied, but when talking about spectrum or transfer function, frequency is an independent variable (that is, it doesn't have a specific value but any value you choose to consider). So it would be more correct to say that the amplitude at any frequency is multiplied by the frequency response at that frequency (thus directly proportional to the input amplitude, as you say) and the phase varied by adding the phase of the transfer function at that frequency. I could try to write something in the article to that effect but will word it more simply. In fact I could easily make a diagram showing the spectra of the input, output and transfer function. But I haven't (yet) had any experience in uploading images (I just look for ones already present) but need to learn to do that sooner or later anyway.

On a similar subject, I would consider it useful to upload some audio files, as are present in some articles, with a short sample of music before and after particular filters. Again, I have no experience uploading those. Furthermore before making those (which won't be hard) I need to figure out what I can use that wouldn't pose a copyright concern. Would taking a 10 second clip from a pop song be considered "fair use?" Or do I need to find a musician to do an original performance and get a release statement? -- Interferometrist (talk) 12:54, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

Re fair use: I know you're allowed to upload snippets of copywrited song to articles about the songs, but I don't know if you could, say, use a 15 second sample of "Living On a Prayer" in the Talk Box article. My best guess would be you can't.

Actually I didn't find the audio clip in the Talk Box article but only in the article for the song itself (which didn't contain the talk box segment but I listened to the whole song elsewhere to refresh my memory!). And by the way, a talk box, come to think of it, IS an example of audio filtering (yes, a linear filter!) where the filter consists of the person's mouth cavity (like the jaw-harp). But anyway, if you don't think use of a song clip in this manner would be legal then it shouldn't be hard to get a musician to produce such a clip and then it could also be more directly suited to illustrate what the article is trying to say. I'd pass the sound through a few different filters (which I could implement on the computer) showing those filter's frequency responses (and specifying their parameters). I have written a quick draft of such a section (but without the figures that I would add after obtaining the music file) which I uploaded to my subpage: User:Interferometrist/AudioFilter. Finishing the audio and image files will take a bit of work but I'd probably have time later next week or so.

So I guess I should ask you: are you a musician? :-) Or at least in a position to play a few notes (perhaps on a piano, say) and sing something (sounding much better than I would!) that could be used?

Ok, so a basic linear filter used in audio equalization is just something that determines the frequency response of a signal

I would say that it modifies the frequency content of the signal, as explained in what I wrote (tell me if it makes sense to you, and to the average reader).

(i.e. how loud the sound is at a given frequency). It sounds like either dB or frequency can be independent variables.

Uh, no.... I don't know if you really want a mathematical explanation of terms. But an "independent variable" is something that you just specify as you please in order to find out what the dependent variable is at that point. For instance, if you are measuring altitude above sea level, your independent variables would be latitude and longitude, and at every specified location, you have a particular altitude (the dependent variable) which corresponds to that position. Most of those don't apply to Joe who is at point A, but setting the independent variable to point A will give you Joe's altitude. Thus setting the frequency to 440Hz will give you the amplitude of the middle A (perhaps zero, until someone hits that note on the piano) and the value of a filter's frequency response (dependent variable) AT 440Hz will tell you just how much that note will be boosted or attenuated when it is played through the system. Likewise for every other frequency that could be played (including the harmonics of those notes, so that the filter also changes their sound -- I would have said "tone"). Does that make sense? -- Interferometrist (talk) 21:02, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

Why is Harmonizer redirected to PitchShift ?[edit]

A Harmonizer is a 19" rack mounted effects unit manufactured by Eventide Clockworks Inc., NY, USA in the early 1970's. The Eventide Harmonizer H910 includes two digital delays and an Anti-Feedback channel. http://www.eventide.com/Home/Eventide/AudioDivision/Products/PlugIns/H910H949Video.aspx (roll video forward to 00:55) I wondered why Harmonizer has been redirected to Pitch Shift, because it does much more than just pitch shift. 82.11.121.200 (talk) 08:01, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Because it's a kind of pitch shifter.--Atlantictire (talk) 22:38, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for November 28[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited List of Middle-earth wars and battles, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Isildur's Bane (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:51, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

Admin[edit]

Replying to your comment on my talk page. I am not an administrator. I closed that deletion discussion AFTER an administrator had deleted the article, because he neglected to close the AfD after doing so. I have looked at the articles you mentioned. I don't see either as qualifying for speedy deletion as advertising, but they possibly could qualify for regular deletion under notability. I would just let the normal deletion process run its course. Safiel (talk) 20:56, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

A barnstar for you![edit]

Original Barnstar Hires.png The Original Barnstar
Thank you for standing requesting the deletion review of the odious accents article, and standing your ground against inclusionists prepared to accept any sort of tripe as encyclopedic. Drmargi (talk) 18:08, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

ANI[edit]

Information icon There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. --PRODUCER (TALK) 21:49, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

March 2014[edit]

Stop icon This is your only warning; if you make personal attacks on other people again, as you did at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2014 March 14, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Comment on content, not on other contributors or people. Besides your comment being a pretty blatant personal attack, it totally does not pertain: deletion review is to discuss whether a particular discussion was closed properly, not whether some article strikes you as wrong. Drmies (talk) 23:25, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

Stop icon with clock
You have been blocked from editing for a period of 24 hours for taunting, personal attacks, suggestions of antisemitism aimed at specific editor. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the following text below this notice: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. However, you should read the guide to appealing blocks first.  Drmies (talk) 14:43, 16 March 2014 (UTC)
  • Please see this article Jewish Bolshevism. It is clearly marked as Antisemitism. How does it differ from Jews and Communism, and why in the world that second article should have been written in the first place? BTW surprise, surprise the very same PRODUCER calls it "nonsense" that Jewish Bolshevism is tagged as a part of a series on Antisemitism. Please make no mistake the article written by PRODUCER is antisemitic, just as youtube video is, and in case you doubt what kind of people write such articles and upload such videos, please take a look at the first video by the same user. That Youtube user is worse than just a bigot, he is the Holocaust denier. 50.174.101.232 (talk) 18:23, 16 March 2014 (UTC)
I think we're going to need to have a wider discussion, because this does seem to me like it's really about bigots getting crafty and exploiting the rules. I'm not Jewish, but I do use the internet, and am unfortunately more familiar with the Zionist Banker Jew Communist conspiracy theories than I would like to be. It is absolutely not ok for someone to create a page called Jews and Communism, whose primary purpose seems to be to advance the idea that Jews dominate communist movements. I've never accused anyone of anti-Semitism on Wikipedia before, so I have no idea how else you talk about patent anti-Semitism than to call it what it is. Drmies care to comment?--Atlantictire (talk) 19:10, 16 March 2014 (UTC)
I block you for referring to editors as bigots, and you respond by calling editors bigots. This doesn't need a wider discussion--"the bigots getting crafty and exploiting the rules". Who was that you were referring to? Drmies (talk) 21:13, 16 March 2014 (UTC)
Drmies, initially I was referring to whoever created the Jews and Communism article. The content is familiar to anyone who has had the misfortune of encountering Jew Banker Zionist Communist conspiracy theories. As the anonymous poster on my page pointed out it's ugly ugly stuff, and with a side helping of Holocaust denial. The people who advocate this are bigots and they should not be welcome here. If PRODUCER created that page then he is a bigot. No one should be punished for saying that.--Atlantictire (talk) 21:25, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

Drmies, like the offending Wikipedia article Jew Watch aims not to investigate communism as a movement which has historically appealed to impoverished and oppressed people, which early 20th century Jews admittedly often were, but to give the misleading impression that it has a specifically Jewish character or somehow appeals more to Jews than other communities of humans. http://www.jewwatch.com/jew-communists.html

Disambiguation link notification for March 20[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Jews in Croatia, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Avars and Dalmatian (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:52, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

March 2014[edit]

Hello. There is currently a thread on WP:ANI that may concern you. Regards, -- Director (talk) 21:55, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

Stop icon with clock
You have been blocked from editing for a period of 72 hours for personal attacks, accusations of sock puppetry, WP:POINT, and generally conduct not conducive to building an encyclopedia. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the following text below this notice: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. However, you should read the guide to appealing blocks first.  Bbb23 (talk) 00:49, 21 March 2014 (UTC)
File:Orologio rosso or File:Orologio verde DOT SVG (red clock or green clock icon, from Wikimedia Commons)
This blocked user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy). Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Atlantictire (block logactive blocksglobal blocksautoblockscontribsdeleted contribsabuse filter logcreation logchange block settingsunblock)


Request reason:

I'm actually not going to ask to be unblocked but to have my account closed permenantly. The fact that PRODUCER/DIREKTOR succeeded in having me blocked means he's won. You have an Anti-Semite you can't call an Anti-Semite and a sockpuppet you can't call a sockpuppet. It was very important to me to not allow anti-Semitism to go unchallenged, but I see now that you have to be nice to it and afford it the courtesy you would an honest well-intentioned person. And believe me,it will constantly remind you of this and report you the second you don't.Atlantictire (talk) 01:22, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

Decline reason:

No action will be taken to "close" your account. You can simply stop coming to Wikipedia to work whenever you want, and no one here will force you to come back. Jayron32 03:07, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired.

Your account can't be closed permanently. Some administrators will indefinitely block a user in response to their request. You can, of course, just stop editing here. You might also look at WP:VANISH, but given that you would be leaving not "in good standing", a request to vanish would probably be denied. There may be other options I'm either unaware of or are not coming to me at the moment. Other administrators who pass through here may have views on the issue.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:30, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

No Bbb23, I'm not going to be polite about this. I'm required to be nice to someone who when you plug their quotes from their source material into Google you get hits for David Duke's book and white supremist sites. I'm not gonna call that something other than what it is. Fuck that. It's only going to get more prissy, more entitled and more arrogant.--Atlantictire (talk) 01:37, 21 March 2014 (UTC)
Be careful with your comments here, or I'll revoke access to your talk page. This is not a platform for you to continue your crusade.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:42, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

Guess what Bbb23. Eat my fuck. You enable Anti-Semites.--Atlantictire (talk) 01:44, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

  • I've increased your block to an expiration of 10 days from now based on probable sock puppetry.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:15, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

Life lessons[edit]

Atlantictire, fighting battles is a very noble cause. If you wish to do that, first, you have to stay alive. Hope to see you around.

Signed
Your sock puppet, USchick (talk) 16:47, 21 March 2014 (UTC)
I wouldn't want this to come back to bite you in the future. The "sock puppet" is an inside joke. USchick is not admitting to sock puppetry.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:57, 21 March 2014 (UTC)
WOW, people sure do take things seriously around here. Thank you Bbb23! Holy cow.......  :-) USchick (talk) 23:06, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

March 2014[edit]

Hello. This is to inform you of an WP:SPI report that may concern you [1]. Regards. -- Director (talk) 08:32, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

Apologies for the reversion[edit]

I wasn't sure if it was your IP account or not, I think from your recent edits it may have been. Either way, I'm sorry for the reversion --Drowninginlimbo (talk) 11:22, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

Fetishistizing Wikietiquette[edit]

I fully intend to be impolite about the kind of fetishizing of wikietiquette and making a show of "assuming good faith" that has enabled racist editors to proliferate and manipulate the entire project.

Given the kind of judgment admins have been exercising of late, I fully expect to be sanctioned for it. Consider this an experiment. How long until yet another racist tattletale succeeds in having me blocked? Go!--Atlantictire (talk) 21:08, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

Great, just what the situation needs...[edit]

I know that you think that your are protecting the integrity of the project, with actions like this and this, but the truth is you are only giving camouflage to the very contributor you are lambasting, who can now legitimately claim that he has faced personal attacks of equal seriousness to those he has dished out, which previously was a hyperbolic argument, and in so doing needlessly and significantly complicated the effort to restrain his problematic behaviour. These, frankly childish, histrionics are going to have no positive benefit whatsoever. Again, I know you believe you are making a principled stand against racism -- frankly your motive, as reflected by comments on this page and elsewhere, seems to be at least as much about your personal vendetta with Director, but let's assume for the moment that's not the case -- but all you are doing is complicating the mature, genuine, and tactical efforts of other editors that actually have real and practical benefits for curbing the inclusion of such material. Right now you are a liability to the effort to keep racist material off of Wikipedia, not the champion of that cause you, in your flayling and combative mindset, perceive yourself to be. Please remove or strike any personal attacks directed at Director, or the editors you feel are failing to bring him to task in a manner to your liking, from the AfD talk page or I will blank them myself as unambiguously disruptive and of no value to the project and be the "tattle-tale" who makes sure your behaviour goes up for review right next to Director and Producer. I certainly don't relish the thought of further complicating that debate and giving either of them cover for their incivility, but you have proven yourself to be an equally disruptive influence to this project (and much faster than either of them did, I might add) and we cannot turn a blind eye to this. Snow talk 20:45, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

Snow Rise, Director and I are separate issues. See my response to him regarding my sockpuppetry. If you still think I'm a problem, you are more than welcome to strike, burn, blank, whatevs.--Atlantictire (talk) 21:02, 15 May 2014 (UTC)
I wish you were separate issues, but it's not the case. You do understand what I meant when I said you were providing him camouflage, correct? Putting aside the issue of his intent with regard to the content, Director can still be called to account for his lack of civility. But now you've inoculated him against that argument by giving him a battleground scenario he can point to as cause for his own excesses and plead that he's just defending himself against personal attacks. What does it matter if he is blocked for promoting antisemitism, if he is blocked for incivility, or if he just voluntarily pulls away from the subject, so long as the material is removed and steps taken to make sure it does not return? For that matter, he may have learned a genuine lesson from all of this and acquired a more measured attitude concerning editing, had the personal combat between him, yourself and a handful of other editors not been rekindled. That was possibly an unrealistically hopeful attitude, that he would make such a change in approach, but we'll never know now that he's been given an excuse (both with regard to community discussion and his internal thinking) to frame the situation as the result of battleground behaviour to which he was just one more party and no more at fault than anyone else.
The point is, if your priority is really about preventing such material on the site, then fixation on seeing that he pays a price for perceived transgressions is a serious miscalculation on how to get that done. He's already under intensive scrutiny for his actions on that page and, for the record, having observed this situation and him for a while now, I'm fairly well convinced he is not an antisemite, just a very, very myopic and authoritarian contributor. We can and will deal with those traits when they become a problem to the project, just as we can and will remove racist original research, no matter how much effort it takes. But you're not serving either of those ends by accusing him of having an antisocial personality disorder, by proclaiming that anyone who doesn't want to see him punished in the most visible and unequivocal way possible is working with him, and especially not by making broad accusations that a large number of editors are excusing or apologizing for racist material, especially in light of the fact that involved editors were overwhelmingly opposed to that material and said as much in the strongest possible terms. Snow talk 21:49, 15 May 2014 (UTC)
Atlantictire, you sound like a reasonable and kind person. I have no idea what country you're from, but is it reasonable to say that you're not from Europe? And that you haven't spent a lot of time in Europe? Wherever you were raised, tolerance and acceptance was the norm. And you are outraged at people who don't subscribe to this idea. Well, people in Europe have a very different take on things. They have been fighting wars for no apparent reason for thousands of years. They have memories about their neighbors that span generations and they talk about recent wars by bringing up what happened in the 1500s. They look for people to blame, and sometimes it's the Jews. Any war torn country in Europe has a lot of things to say about the Jews, who in reality, fled from that country several generations ago. There's a lot of propaganda in war torn countries, and people who believe it come to Wikipedia and write articles about it because that's the only reality they know. It may not be your reality, but it's their reality. So the people who assume good faith have a reason for doing that. Please respect that. Europe is not the only continent where this is happening. Another one is Africa. The two editors in question come from a very troubled past in recent history of their countries. Who knows what kind of trauma and propaganda they have internalized as being normal. If you can't assume good faith, maybe you can think about what I'm saying. I agree with Snow that you're not helping at all. Peace. USchick (talk) 21:54, 15 May 2014 (UTC)
I also have to add that I would really prefer it if you removed the cartoon image from the AfD talk page. I don't believe the editors here need it to illustrate their point and such an image is also offensive to a second group of people to those who may have been hurt by the article. I know your argument is that the article itself was equally crude and I concur, but seeing the results of uninvolved editors in the dispute I really don't think it is necessary --Drowninginlimbo (talk) 22:02, 15 May 2014 (UTC)
I've already removed the entire hatted discussion, as per WP:NPA. As to the image itself, it needs to be nominated for deletion. The only reason I have not done so myself was to come here to give Atlantictire the opportunity to do it himself. Atlantictire, I'm not sure to what extent you are actively baiting a block as a form of social protest, but assuming you don't want to be blocked, you need to nominate that file for removal yourself. As per our Image policies, any file which is likely to be found offensive can only be added if it is to be utilized for illustrative purposes within an article. The file is located at commons, and I don't know if their rules have changed in recent times, but traditionally their criteria have been much more strict than en.wikipedia's, so I assume they would view this as a disruptive addition. Regardless, it is not fit for use here and if you have any desire to reverse this situation from the direction in which it is heading, that request for speedy delete should be your first act. Snow talk 22:24, 15 May 2014 (UTC)
I nominated it myself, there really isn't any need for this and I think it could cause harm to the eventual review of the AfD --Drowninginlimbo (talk) 23:03, 15 May 2014 (UTC)
Agreed, and in light of his most recent comment, it seems Atlantictire was not likely to remove it himself, nor that he is likely to amend his approach in any significant way. I advise all editors who have found their way here over this affair not to waste too much time trying to convince him of the pointlessness of his current activities. He seems more than aware of the likely consequences of these actions and we already have our hands full with short-sighted and counter-productive editors with regard to the article. An un-involved admin will surely be along shortly to indulge his martyr complex with a block. Snow talk 23:17, 15 May 2014 (UTC)
That's a good point, I always find these sorts of things unconvincing. You can do a hell of a lot more good on the website unblocked --Drowninginlimbo (talk) 23:27, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

Atlantictire, perhaps I'm being paranoid. But given that your contributions are so utterly unhelpful, so completely counterproductive, would you forgive me for suggesting that your intent is to ensure that this article is kept? Am I offbase here? I can see no other purpose in what you are doing. Coretheapple (talk) 22:27, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

You put it on Commons?!??!?!? Well, it's been nice knowing ya! lol USchick (talk) 22:29, 15 May 2014 (UTC)
Was I not supposed to do that? See, I don't know these things.--Atlantictire (talk) 23:34, 15 May 2014 (UTC)
You're doing a lot of things right now, sabotaging not just yourself, but the combined effort of the community. Can you please wait until the nomination is closed? Then do whatever you want. USchick (talk) 23:50, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

Guys my intent is to say that the only reason this article is headed for deletion is b/c someone found concrete proof that it was plagiarized from an Antisemitic thingamijiggy. There's a lot of people who should feel pretty terrible. Not just Director and his merry band of allies. All of you have lost your minds. :-)--Atlantictire (talk) 22:40, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

Alright folks. Seriously. Do whatever you want. Just friggin' reading Jews and Communism was not enough for this community to delete it, and now it's focusing on me because I'm mocking you for yet again getting in a tither about all the wrong things.--Atlantictire (talk) 23:41, 15 May 2014 (UTC)
The situation is focusing upon you because A) you're launching highly personalized attacks, and have uploaded racist imagery to assist in this purpose, neither of which are acceptable under any circumstances, B) you're making yourself as big an obstacle to removing this content as the parties who authored it in the first place and defended it to the hilt utilizing disruptive tactics, and C) through your own disruptive behaviour, you're complicating the discussion on sanctions against said editors, meant to address the issue and keep it from recurring. And then you have the gall to call out editors who have made substantive efforts using policy and process to remove this content simply because they do not support your wholly counter-productive personal attacks, even as they come here to make a good-faith effort to prevent you from getting yourself blocked again, which you show neither appreciation of, nor any effort to contribute to. In short, you are clueless as to how to combat racism and disruption on Wikipedia, and unwilling to listen to other editors when they try to explain how you are only adding fuel to the disruption. Don't worry though, I for one am done commenting here and wholeheartedly encourage all the others who have commented thus-far to abstain from further comment as well, since you are clearly not welcoming of that advice. Please bear in mind that, as this is your user talk space, you can ask any party not operating in an official administrative capacity to go fly a kite and take their advice elsewhere. But -- and I'm dubious this is going to get through, but I'll make one last effort -- I would seriously consider re-reading everything that has been said here and considering how you can reform your approach, since admin involvement is inevitable at this stage. Snow talk 00:12, 16 May 2014 (UTC)
Let me remind you when I said that this article had obviously been created by an antisemitic crank, I was scolded for personal attacks and blocked. So Snow Rise, you're really not doing a very good job convincing me that this community knows how to distinguish between "personal attacks" and "noticing racists and racism." In normalworld, racists and racism are noticed, and not just when you make a cartoon to mock the over-enthusiastic Wikietiquette fans.--Atlantictire (talk) 00:54, 16 May 2014 (UTC)
In normalworld racism exists. This is reflected on Wikipedia. Throwing a hissyfit will get you thrown in jail in the real world and blocked on Wikipedia. USchick (talk) 01:08, 16 May 2014 (UTC)
"Hissyfit." Thanks.--Atlantictire (talk) 01:10, 16 May 2014 (UTC)
You're welcome. :-) USchick (talk) 01:15, 16 May 2014 (UTC)
This is not about "etiquette", it's about consequences. Your personal attacks accomplished nothing, except to get in the way of the grown-ups who were doing the actual heavy lifting of removing the content and undermine their efforts at preventing its return. As if that weren't disruptive enough, you vandalized the project by adding a picture of blackface, a universal symbol of hatred, and stuck some racially offensive language next to it just for extra emphasis, all solely for the petty purpose of furthering those character attacks. And you did this in the name of keeping racist content off the project. I cannot fathom anything more un-self-aware or more selfish. You clearly thought you were making an ironically poignant statement, but the truth is you tried to leverage the history of hate attached to those images and words for the purpose of scoring points in a personal dispute, and to criticize the community at large for failing to castigate the editor who you perceive as having gotten you blocked (though the truth is, as it almost always is in these cases, that you did that yourself with your own lack of self-restraint). Between this self-serving vandalism and your complete and utter inability to even begin to question or check your own actions, you have proven pretty thoroughly that you cannot be trusted to edit on this project, and you did so in a manner that is just light years beyond anything that ever came out of Producer or Director. I'll be gobsmacked if you don't get an indefinite block for this. Congratulations Atlantictire, you are now the most disruptive editor to be attached to the Jews and Communism article. Quite the accomplishment. Snow talk 02:36, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

Ok, I'm gonna assume good faith here and say you missed where I explained that I used that image because it would be every bit as horrible for an editor to accuse someone of bad faith for calling that racist as it was for editors to defend the hateful Jews and Communism article. Do you disagree?-Atlantictire (talk) 02:53, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

Exactly; you vandalized Wikipedia with that filth...to form a rhetorical device so you could try to win an argument. You started out in opposition to an example of latent racism on the project and you ended with adding overt racism in order to a win a personal battle. I know that you're not capable of seeing this, and maybe never will be, but I'm going to say it anyway and tell you I think everyone else observing this affair would agree with me -- that image wasn't added to protect Wikipedia. It wasn't added to combat racism. How could it ever serve either of those two purposes? No, it was added to serve your pride. To give you a means to lash out at someone you thought had wronged you, and the community you felt turned its back on you when your temper and lack of restraint landed you in trouble. People with priorities like that are not a part of the solution when it comes to either combating racism or protecting the integrity of Wikipedia. They are in fact a part of the problem. Snow talk 03:28, 16 May 2014 (UTC)
If you say so. Or maybe it was an attempt to make people outraged about something they ought to feel outraged about. Or a giant fuck you to complacency. The argument I'm trying to win here is that it is absolutely not ok to treat people who are openly, unapologetically racist as welcome in your community. You oppose a topic ban for Director for Jews, correct. I could speculate on your motives for being so upset with me, but unlike you I'm not psychic, so I'll just say I think that's incredibly misguided and wrong.--Atlantictire (talk) 03:59, 16 May 2014 (UTC)
I can say with absolute candor that am not upset with you. What possible use would that serve? I imagine from your behaviour that it is genuinely a confusing concept to you, but many who edit on this project simply don't generally personalize opposition in the way you can't seem to avoid. More so than this, in your case in particular, I frankly and honestly feel that you have so little understanding of how this project works (and why it works), and so little internalization of its core principles, that I can't view you as entirely...socially developed within this context, I guess is the only way to phrase it. I'm not upset, I'm bemused that you think the answer to disruption is more and greater disruption. Or that racist symbolism is a valid tool for fighting racism. I think you have a complete lack of perspective here and that you've conflated your own self-image with the good of the project in a way that just leaves us at all at a loss to find some way to explain to you why your behaviour is such a problem in a manner that you won't immediately just gloss over with jingoistic claims that your incivility and graceless character attacks (which are aiding the parties you direct them at rather than mitigating their influence) are justified by your cause.
You seem to think that after weeks and months of struggling with that article, and hundreds of posts in discussions and oversight, the rest of us just don't see what's going on. We know what's going on, and all of us are trying to tell you, you are making the situation worse. You are part of the problem. That was why you were blocked. That is why we all had to take significant time out of our day to deal with you here. But there's no anger there. Just confusion, and a quick evaporation of any remaining trace of expectation that you will ever get the points others editors have tried to stress for you here. By which I mean, ever; that you'll get it before you're blocked it beyond unlikely. But I certainly don't need to take guff from you vis-à-vis Director; while you were cooling your heels in your block and accomplishing nothing, because you couldn't conform yourself in even a minimal fashion to our civility standards, as you still can't, it was the rest of us dealing with him and his incivility. You don't see it, but your just the flip side of the coin to him. And that's sad. Yes, that's what the word I've been searching for in response to your implication that I'm upset. I'm not -- not in the sense of anger or even aggravation. But your inability to confront yourself and face the possibility that maybe the issue is with you, and not the entirety of the rest Wikipedia, instills in me a sense of lingering hopelessness. And that's my final word on you and your campaign of personal attacks. The responding admin can deal with you. You drew me back with a ping, but you won't the next time; I've no intention of empowering you with the same kind of argument of victimhood with which you have gifted Director. I'm truly sorry I failed to reach you. Goodbye. Snow talk 05:33, 16 May 2014 (UTC)
Right. Who has a massive ego (sorry, "pride") and needs to win arguments? Am I coming to your talk page to accuse you of things and give you "guff?" I've tried to respond to you as tersely as possible because I don't find this all that productive but you just keep going. Let me just point out you are defending the continued participation of someone whose behavior has been aggressively, openly and unapologetically racist and as far as I'm concerned that's extremely not ok. You don't have to understand how that's upsetting.
PS For any of you who agree with Snow, may I remind you: the culturally normative stance on Wikipedia, right now, is that allowing Director to continue to edit articles on Jews is an act of "good faith." How could anyone possibly see this as dangerously complacent and something to feel terrible about? Call me paranoid but I'm starting to wonder if this place has a critical mass of editors who don't really believe that people are really offended by racism. It's just a tool for the greedy and the lazy to get things they don't deserve. Maybe don't start with that "victim card" shit if real racism has not only really occurred but been tolerated, because people might mistake you for an insensitive jerk.
And for the last time, I picked that image because this community has been having real difficulty recognizing racism when it sees it, so I wanted to use something it might actually understand.--Atlantictire (talk) 10:20, 16 May 2014 (UTC)
Director is probably not going to get any kind of penalty because he has handled the matter with great aplomb, apologized in a limited way, and voluntarily declared a "self-ban" on articles related to Jews. Had this gone to Arbcom, that is probably the most that would happen anyway. The other editor "retired" as you know. So that has pretty much defused the whole situation. Yes, there ought to be a topic ban anyway, but editors on Wikipedia tend to shift into "forgive and forget" mode when editors apologize, no matter how conditional and limited the apology. What concerns me about your tactics is that 1) The article in question appears on its way to deletion, thanks to overwhelming sentiment in the AfD and 2) The editors who defended the article are going to stay away from the subject matter. Yes, it can and probably will be re-created in some form, so vigilance will be necessary that there is no "Son of Jews and Communism" article created. Since things are improving, it's really important that editors not engage in tactics that are counterproductive. That's why people are here, not because they enjoy yelling at you. Coretheapple (talk) 13:42, 16 May 2014 (UTC)
I'm not worried about people yelling about me. No offense, but what you've just said about this community's tolerance for Director sounds really, really, really insane. It says you can aggressively defend something like Jews and Communism and not suffer consequences for it because you made a show of contrition. Is that healthy or do people start to get confused about right and wrong and what constitutes good and bad conduct, and does it create a precedent where the only way to positively identify something as racist cant is to prove that it was plagiarized from a hate group's website (otherwise, you're acting in bad faith and making personal attacks)? If you think this is unlikely, read the justification for my first block. I'm not the only one who had trouble editing it because correctly identifying it as racist was bad form. I was just the biggest loudmouth.
Anyway, I'm tired and probably not making much sense, but let the record show: I disagree!--Atlantictire (talk) 14:04, 16 May 2014 (UTC)
You're absolutely right: you're making no sense at all. Everybody in this discussion has been fighting that article, except you. In fact, I don't believe you even formally weighed in on the AfD, if I'm not mistaken. Coretheapple (talk) 14:07, 16 May 2014 (UTC)
Yeah, for once. But this article was first nominated for deletion in early March. I first became aware of it at the deletion review. It's going to be deleted because of the plagiarism, not because of the outstanding discernment of the wikicommunity.--Atlantictire (talk) 14:11, 16 May 2014 (UTC)
Haven't you been reading the debate? Plagiarism is just icing on the cake. It's being deleted for a mountain of reasons. I'm actually not sure plagiarism would even stick if the original wording was fixed, which is possible. Dozens of editors have commented on how the article violates a host of policies, some of which frankly I wasn't aware of (such as the one prohibiting propaganda: WP:PLUG). These are valuable tools to use in the future as a practical way of ousting such crap from the encyclopedia. I think your bitterness over being justifiably blocked on a couple of occasions has blinded you to what is going on. Coretheapple (talk) 14:22, 16 May 2014 (UTC)
Yes, I've been reading the debate. Dozens of of host policy violations which were plainly evident from day one. Funny how it took a screenshot of Metapedia for people to suddenly notice all these violations. Funny, or incredibly frightening! :-)--Atlantictire (talk) 14:28, 16 May 2014 (UTC)
Yes, that's correct. Unfortunately, the first AfD debate was really amorphous, unfocused, with limited participation. This is why it's important to stay focused. Try to make it simple for people. Attacks, cartoons etc. divert attention. That's all I'm saying here, guy. Coretheapple (talk) 14:34, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

Preemptive Apology[edit]

I've put words in your mouth, or rather put conjectural motives behind your words, in the current discussion at WP:ANI. I may well have erred in this; your intention might not be the one I have ascribed to you. I don't know that you have an intention at all. But I do think there is method here -- not to say that you are not very angry indeed -- and that Wikipedia admins should pause and think before acting reflexively. If I am mistaken, I suggest that you simply add a short note to the effect that User:MarkBernstein is entitled to his opinion, but doesn't speak for me. I've tried to make that clear myself.

Thanks again for your help in all this. MarkBernstein (talk) 15:19, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

No worries. I do think Director made a tacitcal apology, and I want to know what's going to happen the next time a racist conspiracy theory with lots of footnotes is posted, only this time its origins are better disguised and there's no screenshot to produce. What then? Not sure this is Kobayashi Maru but it deserves some serious consideration. Also, what are the potential consequences of continuing to treat as community members in good standing people who abuse the admin process and aggressively defend racist material in the manner that Director did? I only wish I had your patience with this.--Atlantictire (talk) 17:15, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

Defender of the Wiki Barnstar[edit]

WikiDefender Barnstar Hires.png The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar
Dear Atlantictire, it was your moral outrage early on directed at the outrageously shabby and hateful "Jews & Communism" article that has been vindicated with its deletion and demise. "The Defender of the Wiki may be awarded to those who have gone above and beyond to prevent Wikipedia from being used for fraudulent purposes" and you certainly have done so. Keep your passion for the truth going strong! Best wishes, IZAK (talk) 21:16, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

Aw, thanks IZAK. I've always wanted to be part of the Global Zionist Conspiracy. Tell the Rothschilds they can leave the money in the vault where King Ethelberht's Staff of Wôdan is kept. That line of warriors shall NEVER return! Bwahahahaha!--Atlantictire (talk) 00:04, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

  • Talking of which, a long time ago I was very active in editing articles relating to Israel and Zionism, and facing off against some nasty types there. But unfortunately those areas are now so thoroughly infested by Jew-haters, antisemites of all stripes, self-hating Jews and Israel-bashers of all types, that it gave me too many headaches and I have focused on improving articles relating to Jews and Judaism. That is why I was so alarmed when I saw that now even the latter have become fair game and hunting grounds for the same Jew-hating and Israel-bashing types who went on a fishing expedition to test out the waters. They were pushed back this time, but I daresay they will not give up until they can get their evil POV based on the mindset and outlook using Mein Kampf as the new "touchstone" for all things Jewish, as if Hitler's acolytes took on themselves to define what is and isn't "kosher" about Jews, Judaism, Israel and Zionism. Seems that sometimes the new digital age without adult supervision is not much different to the old dark ages. Scary! Keep your eyes and ears open. Thanks again for all your efforts. All the very best to you. Your sincerely, IZAK (talk) 11:07, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
Well, this was definitely a much-needed bright spot in what has been a very dark few weeks. السلام عليكم. In friendship :-), Azita.--Atlantictire (talk) 11:21, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

Talk page guidelines and WP:CIVIL[edit]

Per this set of edits, #1 Do not modify my talk. #2 I don't know if you are being honest or refusing to "get the point" on purpose re: talk page guidelines and policy. Please read the last sentence of that guideline. Civility is a Wikipedia policy and not following it has sanctions. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 00:46, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

Fountains of Bryn Mawr, you know what, this is why I am trying to tell you that I am becoming very frustrated. If you know an edit will be controversial I would like for you to state your intention to make it on the talk page and wait for a response, just as everyone else is doing. If I have first posted word for word an edit that I intend to make, I would like for you to not revert my edits if you have choosen not to give your input. It gives me the impression that you are waiting for me to edit so that you can revert. I feel as though you are playing word games, such as repeatedly insisting that you are using reliable sources when it has been indicated to you, numerous times, that you have in fact have used a number of dubious sources such as websites, juvenile nonfiction and handbooks.
I think it would do wonders in terms of repairing our relationship if you would simply agree to do what everyone else is doing... discuss edits and wait for consensus. If an edit has been proposed on the talk page and others have endorsed it, voice your opposition before reverting it.
I do lose patience, which is why I intend to seek mediation soon if this continues. It wears me down. Keep in mind I have not succeeded in making a single edit to the actual article, and this is because of your reverts. You, on the other hand, have been editing Nikola Tesla for years. I'm sure you know what WP:OWN is and I'd like you to not do that.--Atlantictire (talk) 01:29, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

A kitten for you![edit]

Young cats.jpg

I hope you will consider continuing to help improve Nikola Tesla, but without comments like this, which make things difficult for everyone. I, and others, value your contributions, but try not to take things personally. Good people can disagree.

Please think of the kittens!

- MrX 20:08, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

Well our fine friend Fountains has finally managed to write something more or less NPOV. Round 19:00 Wikipedia time, matter of fact. He was being a massive jerk to other editors, and there does come a time when you have to say "stop the bullshit now." People had been asking nicely for years. I think my work here may be done, but I'll check in now and again to make sure he's not turning the page back into edisontechcenter.com.--Atlantictire (talk) 20:49, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

A barnstar for you![edit]

Original Barnstar Hires.png The Original Barnstar
For participating in variety of discussions and issues around en.wikipedia and attempting to resolve disputes. OccultZone (TalkContributionsLog) 10:22, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

June 2014[edit]

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Nikola Tesla may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:
  • School, followed by the "Lower Real Gymnasium" or "Normal School."<ref name=Tesla-Timeline />]
  • people, such as when he fired a secretary because of her weight.<ref name=Cheney />{{Rp|110}}> He was quick to criticize clothing. On several occasions, Tesla directed a subordinate to go home

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 12:59, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

I think you're right TParis, which is why it is probably time to give up on Wikipedia. That's what the people I respect generally seem to do. It's all yours, Reddit. Maybe I'll read about you in the Guardian sometime .:-)-Atlantictire (talk) 22:43, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

More about Tesla, not from Bracketbot[edit]

"If you wanted evidence that Nikola Tesla and not Galileo Ferraris invented the first practical AC induction motor, I could give you five books printed by some of the English speaking world's most reputable academic publishers in less then 10 minutes." Yeah! And not only books printed by academic publishers, but the great Oatmeal also! You probably know all about that… but in case not, here are some relevant webcomics:[2][3][4]. Bishonen | talk 15:10, 26 June 2014 (UTC).

Bishonen, Oh please come help out with the Nikola Tesla article! I've been trying to expunge the anti-Tesla revisionism from it. It would be nice to finally have some help!--Atlantictire (talk) 15:13, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
I'm not really knowledgeable about things technical, and all I know about Tesla is what The Oatmeal's told me, sorry. I'll ping RexxS and AndyTheGrump for you. Not sure either of them is into Tesla, but it's worth a try. Bishonen | talk 15:21, 26 June 2014 (UTC).

fringe[edit]

Hmm. I wonder if anyone else in the world agrees with your interpretation of Jones' work as fringe. Let's see: Adam Jones: [5], with an h-index of 16 (whereas the average in the social sciences (according to wikipedia) is from 2.6-8), so not bad for a professor, with a net total of 1105 citations to his work. His paper on gendercide and genocide has been cited by 79 other publications, and he was apparently published as one of the "50 key thinkers about genocide". Why is he fringe? You haven't provided any evidence yet, nor have you provided evidence that any of the literature I provided links to was problematic or fringe. @TParis: so he knows I resopnded here instead of at ANI.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 22:25, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

@Obiwankenobi: Obi - you need to work on your delivery. Right or wrong, the way you've written it comes off as a fight.--v/r - TP 22:34, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
you're right, i've reworded some parts. Sorry I'm just feeling under assault today.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 22:38, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
My new fine friend Obiwankenobi! You seem to be confounding genocide research, which looks at gender specific effects, with gender discrimination! And I don't even care about this topic at all!
And don't worry, as my userbox says, I'm not an AN/I monster and won't take someone to AN/I for something redonkulous. I'm an old punk rocker and some of my heroes are great poets of incivility. The only thing that offends me is bullshit.--Atlantictire (talk) 22:44, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
but you seem to care you've spent a fair amount of time accusing me of POV pushing and calling my sources fringe. Yet, you've never said any more. Jones' work specifically looks at the intersection of genocide with gender, and other sources study the linkage between sex-selective massacres of males and sexual violence against males in conflict. Still don't understand why you think any of this is fringe.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 23:02, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
I just care that the culture of whatever this is is starting to affect my neck of the woods. Anyway go buy a Big Black album. Impress your friends. Moral clarity doesn't mean you have to stop hating hipsters.--Atlantictire (talk) 23:14, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
hmm. Noise rock? Not really my genre. More into classic rock, like Britney, backstreet boys, Alanis, etc.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 23:26, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZLr5EXyoQCE--Atlantictire (talk) 23:50, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

Just a quick note[edit]

Hi, Just to let you know, I agree with your recent assessment on ANI board regarding WP:PUSH, WP:CHERRYPICK, WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS, WP:NPOV and WP:VERIFY. I’ve seen all of that myself. I noticed a lot of the oppose people were acting like it was simply ridiculous, while at same time admitting they really hadn’t looked into what he’s been doing lately in topic area of violence against men/violence against women, so in that sense, I think a lot of the criticism of your proposed topic ban was unjustified. My only objection was proposal seemed slightly too stern, but I do agree he's getting there. --BoboMeowCat (talk) 13:28, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

If this really has something to do with muddying discussions about oppressing women, you will quickly find I have very little tolerance for it, regardless of the ways in which Wikipedia conditions you to think. Anyway, you should join the conversation on QTxVi4bEMRbrNqOorWBV's page.--Atlantictire (talk) 13:35, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
You're correct Bobo that I went too far and I've already apologized to you and am trying to behave differently. That said, I don't think that is a fair reason to delete a valid category, just because we have a dispute over some of the contents. If you look at the ~40 sources I've started to gather at User:Obiwankenobi/VAM you'll see that gender-based violence against men is indeed a topic of study. Thus far, I can see the literature studying violence against men in a couple of different ways:
  1. Domestic violence against men (there are ongoing media campaigns about sensitizing people to this, and we even have an article on same)
  2. Male rape - which is usually discussed separately from domestic violence, except in cases of homosexual relationships where partner rape can happen
  3. Violence against gay males/homophobia - some of the literature sees this as an intersection between gender-based violence and homophobia - for example, the massacre of gay men in Iraq was considered by NGOs working in the area to be an instance of gender-based violence against men because they were killed for failing to confirm to traditional gender roles
  4. Sexual and gender-based violence against men in conflict situations - here the literature groups both sex-selective massacres Androcide and sexual violence against males together in their analysis - I think the largest area of literature I've found is looking at sexual/gender-based violence against male civilians, lots of research coming out of DR Congo on such violence - it includes rape, but also genital mutilation (e.g. castration, penis removal, forced penetration, forced nakedness (famous from Abu Gharaib), being forced TO rape someone (like your family member), etc - and interestingly, according to one study, a larger percentage of perpetrators of such violence in the Congo are women (you also had women participating in gender-based violence against men and women during the Rwanda genocide), so the dialogue around gender roles is changing that previously had men as the aggressor and women as the victims, the reality seems to be more complex esp in conflict zones
  5. Finally, there is crime statistics literature that looks at men as victims of crime, but this is a separate area of analysis and isn't usually, except in a few papers, considered to be gender-based - it looks at males a victims of male-on-male violence, fights, murders, etc - but for the most part I don't think the literature considers this to be gender-based violence, it's more a gender analysis of the victims - so accordingly I don't think such elements would fit in the category, whose scope should properly be sexual and gender-based violence against men.
Given the accusations of agenda pushing, I've recently looked at what MRA's have to say on VAM (and what our old article used to say), and on that point I think they go too far, for example, considering military service or deaths of soldiers as violence against men, or considering the "women and children first" rule as an example of violence against men, both of which I disagree with and that's probably the reason the old article was deleted.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 13:59, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
Actually, that all sounds like instances of men being power tripping sociopaths. I'm not sure what you think the point of all of this is, and I'm not sure I want to find out.--Atlantictire (talk) 14:06, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
Obi, if you really care about the violence against men category, maybe you should back off a bit. You are coming across as overzealous here, and if you look over the delete votes, they all seem to be about you misusing the category. --BoboMeowCat (talk) 14:48, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
Perhaps, but that means it's a content dispute. You're throwing the baby out with the bathwater. That makes zero sense. There are enough eyes on this now that many people will be participating and we can easily come to a good consensus on contents. It would be like deleting an article because one user adds things you disagree with - it's nonsensical and has a terrible aspect of revenge to it -e.g. "I don't like what you added to this category nor that you have, for now, consensus for the things you added - THUS, I shall delete the category". --Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 15:10, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
Content disputes become a behavior issue once an editor who's long since run out of gas keeps arguing for junk content. See my comment on BMK's page. I dunno. This seems fairly obvious to me. Anyway, in case anyone thinks they're going to engage me in any tail-swallowing on my own talk page, it's not happening. Have a blessed day everyone.--Atlantictire (talk) 15:27, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
Obi, this isn't revenge at all. I didn't even vote to support your topic ban (although I agree you're heading in that direction and I'm baffled by your repeated lack of restraint here). I went out of my way to keep it out of ANI with discussing with Dennis first. IMO, he gave you excellent advice to just back away from the entire topic for awhile. I don't get why you can't manage this. Honestly, you appear out of control with respect to this topic area. This isn't really a content dispute for me. Personally, I don't think we should have a category that is as poorly defined as that one because people (ie you) have been using that lack of definition/inclusion criteria in a disruptive fashion. If the category is recreated with a precise inclusion criteria, that would prevent disruptive/inappropriate use of category, I'd support it.--BoboMeowCat (talk) 15:51, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
The inclusion criteria is "gender-based violence against men and boys" - which I think should be extended to "sexual and gender-based violence against men and boys", since the literature discusses these two things together as a group - it would also include things like domestic violence, honor killings, sexual trafficking of men and boys, and domestic violence and rape. See the new sources I added to the CFD page, where I broke them down thematically. What part of that inclusion criteria is lacking? In any case, if the category is kept, I'm all for having a community-wide RFC on a more detailed inclusion criteria for the category. Even if you're not out for revenge, a number of other editors seem to be, and I've endured a great many personal attacks as a result, including being called a misogynist for daring to try to populate a violence against men category. It's rather kafkaesque actually. I'd be happy to back away from the topic Bobo, but two of the categories I've worked to develop are up for deletion, and if they're deleted it will undo lots of work, so I can't just sit idly by; additionally I'm still under attack at a number of different boards, so asking me to walk away right now isn't fair. If you change your !vote and convince others to, I will stay away from VAW and VAM for a month (provided others don't gut the categories), and then will work with you on an RFC on the contents.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 16:04, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
BOR-RING. Please take this discussion someplace else, like Obi's talk page.--Atlantictire (talk) 17:16, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
Obi, I agree you’re in pretty deep and can understand desire to explain self and defend category you feel strongly about, but as far as I can see, seems to me a lot of the current mess could have been avoided, if you listened to Dennis a few days back. After gently being told that you’re over the line here, take a breather and go edit something completely unrelated for a little while, instead you escalated the mess in topic area by mucking up the categories. With respect to the category nominated for deletion, I don’t feel comfortable changing my vote, but I would support recreation of such a category in future if it included explicit language saying original research will not be tolerated (ie. you can’t go cherrypick quotes out of RS and then conclude: in my opinion, these quotes mean this is an example of gender based violence against men, when those quotes actually came out RS that in no way came to the conclusion that it was gender based violence against men)--BoboMeowCat (talk) 17:36, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
edit conflict - sorry Atlantictire, this is last I'll discuss this on your talk page.--BoboMeowCat (talk) 17:37, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
I know I just said I'd stop, but one quick question. Doesn't asking me to change my vote and asking me to try to convince others to change vote as wel violate WP:Canvassing?--BoboMeowCat (talk) 17:49, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
BoboMeowCat, are you talking to me? I don't give a damn how anyone votes. If someone wants to make themselves look like a jackass, that's their business. (also, I have no idea what either of you are talking about at this point, so "jackass" wasn't directed at anyone in particular. I know how touchy we can be around here.)--Atlantictire (talk) 17:51, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
Sorry Atlantictire, for not being clear, I was not saying you were trying to sway votes. I was actually just asking you or any talk page stalkers if it was canvassing when Obiwankenobi said above: If you change your !vote and convince others to, I will stay away from VAW and VAM for a month. Not that familiar with canvassing, but seems this might be an example and be a violation of policy. Sorry to have continued at all after request to take it elsewhere. I don't mind deleting my contribution on your talk page and won't be at all offended if you delete 'em.--BoboMeowCat (talk) 18:05, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
Yes that is definitely Canvassing. It's far out of line to try to bribe an editor to change their vote, let alone to try to get them to convince others elsewise. If you really think you not editing the category for a month is worth bartering with then there is something clearly wrong with how you are using it Obi --80.193.191.143 (talk) 20:48, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
Atlantic asked us to stop, but I just wanted to respond to this; I was trying to reach a compromise with Bobo because their support of the category is important to me. The reason I proposed a moratorium on me editing was since you, and several others, had considered that my edits were problematic, so it is a proposal for a sort of self-imposed topic ban in exchange for keeping the category and helping to derive consensus inclusion criteria. That is all. I'm sick of the fighting, it's draining.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 21:40, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

Ice[edit]

Your remarks on OWK's talk page are remarkably inappropriate. They must stop, now. Hipocrite (talk) 21:41, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

yessir. I will try to do better.--Atlantictire (talk) 21:44, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

AVFM Conference[edit]

Hello, I think you might be interested in the SPLCs write ups of the conference. I thankfully can't be half way across the world myself to be there but they have been quite interesting: [6] [7] --80.193.191.143 (talk) 19:37, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

We want to help boys stay in school so let's get mad about Hillary Clinton. Makes sense.:-)--Atlantictire (talk) 19:50, 29 June 2014 (UTC)
Yeah, they are largely inconsistent arguments but at least not as aggressive as usual. If this were how they were all of the time then I could probably just about ignore them --80.193.191.143 (talk) 19:52, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

::Applause::[edit]

Just wanted to drop you a note expressing a deep appreciation for your user talk comment of June 21st. Carry on, brave sir. (Beware! You have earned the admiration of an untrustworthy scoundrel!) Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 16:28, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

June 2014[edit]

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

Review[edit]

I really think you should consider your review a little better - particularly parts where you insinuate I am an antisemite. Then I think you need to review Obi-wan's edits because you've made a claim about him that cannot be substantiated; "but the bulk of his edits pertain to pet issues and causes of Men's Rights Activists". Then I think you should read WP:NPA where it says "Accusations about personal behavior that lack evidence. Serious accusations require serious evidence" and Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Manning_naming_dispute#Casting_aspersions, "An editor must not accuse another of misbehavior without evidence, especially when the accusations are repeated or severe. If accusations must be made, they should be raised, with evidence, on the user-talk page of the editor they concern or in the appropriate forums." Calling an editor a misogynist or antisemitic requires serious evidence. Furthermore, I do not get onboard popular platforms simply because they are popular. Wikipedia needs a lot less activism and more levelheads. Being passive is not at all a sign that someone doesn't support something, or that someone supports the opposite. I do not need to be actively engaged to support woman's rights and support closing the gender gap. Nor should any admin working in any topic area suggest they are one way or the other. Admins are expected to be passive and disinterested, per WP:INVOLVED: "This is because involved administrators may have, or may be seen as having, a conflict of interest in disputes they have been a party to or have strong feelings about." You really misunderstand the role of administrators if you think activism is an appropriate activity for an administrator.--v/r - TP 03:51, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

I never said you were antisemetic. I said your insensitivity in certain matters is unbecoming of an admin and not conducive to promoting diversity within the project. I think you should have the humility to think about this.--Atlantictire (talk) 08:15, 2 July 2014 (UTC)
Let me ask you something, what would you suggest to someone who was hypersensitive to various types of diversity and discrimination?--v/r - TP 17:04, 2 July 2014 (UTC)
You 're gonna have to tell me what that means.--Atlantictire (talk) 17:07, 2 July 2014 (UTC)
Google definition: "abnormally or excessively sensitive, either psychologically or in physical response."--v/r - TP 18:27, 2 July 2014 (UTC)
TParis, I'm sorry you feel that way. This isn't really "over-sensitivity" so much as wondering how this project will survive if it continues to alienate its feminists and academics. Wikipedians in Residence may not be enough to reverse this trend. I actually think you have a part to play here. "Sensitivity" doesn't necessarily mean buying a pair of skinny jeans and an acoustic guitar. It means having some awareness of the impact of your actions.
You really don't want articles on feminism to start reading like they were written by some of those guys over on the Manosphere talk page. Contrary to what some here might think, that won't bring about a techtonic socio-philosophical shift on the order of the Enlightenment. It will just discredit Wikipedia.--Atlantictire (talk) 19:38, 2 July 2014 (UTC)
I neither said you were hypersensetive nor said anything about wanting MRM folks to write articles. In fact, my point had nothing at all to do with you. My reason for asking how you'd address those who are hypersensitivity is that there is a great deal of hypersensitivity on Wikipedia and I think there needs to be calm rational voices calling for moderation and logical non-emotional thinking (me - usually, I think anyway). As far as articles on feminism, it would be scary if MRM activists got a hold of those. More than just discrediting Wikipedia - it will bring a giant battlefield here the likes of which will disrupt any effort to actually build an encyclopedia. WP:V and WP:WEIGHT are still our guiding principals.--v/r - TP 19:48, 2 July 2014 (UTC)
Yeah, it can sometimes take some trial and error to find the line between over sensitivity and normal reaction to grossly offensive content. Maybe I'm giving myself too much credit, but an article affirming Hitler's reasons for killing Jews was grossly offensive. I know it's hard for some to believe but people truly are actually deeply offended by racism and misogyny. Most smart, productive people aren't going to want to swim in it all day long. I mean do what you want, but know how it looks to someone like Mark Bernstein when an admin appears to be helping and consoling Director. He's got better things to do than fight on the internet. So does Morwen. You don't see Phil Sandifer begging to be unblocked. All those other guys are still here, and may always be.--Atlantictire (talk) 20:10, 2 July 2014 (UTC)
There are plenty of people to carry the torches and condemn others. If you spent a minute reading my userpage, you'd see where I come from. I don't play 'devils advocate', but I do expect us to behave rationally on this project and rational thinking requires us to fully comprehend an issue before addressing it. I ask questions, dig, and poke where necessary to get at the truth. The dispute you're referring to had a lot of calls for heads to roll and very little effort to get at the truth. Saying something is "obvious" or "blatant" or "grossly offensive" is not a substitute for the truth. They are calls for emotional-thinking. It's important to me that Wikipedia gets it right - not just gets it. Making the right decision for the wrong reasons is still wrong. We do not want to come off as a mob even if we come to the right decision. We want to be seen as thoughtful and academic and we need to approach these issues in thoughtful and academic ways.--v/r - TP 20:18, 2 July 2014 (UTC)
Yeah, I dunno. The Manning thing was a bunch of people being offensive all day long, and other editors being expected not to react to it. To me that's a little cruel. I supposed instead of reacting they could have just quit. Oh wait.
What I'm saying is let's think about who will have the upper hand in an environment where no one is allowed to have an offended response to something offensive. I'm sorry but I think the current state of Wikipedia is your answer. I know. You can always just leave. I guess that's why people are leaving?--Atlantictire (talk) 20:32, 2 July 2014 (UTC)
This is an academic project. Responding to offense with offense is not at all academic. If that's not clear to you, you really need to follow your line of logic and figure out where it is going to lead. Rational humans are going to be offended and respond with a retort - I get that. That doesn't make it right. On an academic project, we need to be better than the average person in how we conduct business. We have a central goal here: building an encyclopedia. Our response should be to oppose any behavior that doesn't contribute to that goal whether we agree with the behavior or not. An academic interested in the truth will oppose calling editors names no matter their affiliation or 'side' and will only be interested in academic argument and scientific fact.--v/r - TP 20:37, 2 July 2014 (UTC)
Ah, T. I'm typing on my phone. There's being an academic and then there's being a willfully ignorant troll. Or a bigot. See, now I'm gonna get in trouble for name calling. Wikipedia requires you to reject that anyone who edits here could be a bigot or a troll. Who do you think's gonna love that environment? Who's gonna hate it: actual academics. As someone once said, it's a "techno-libertarian fantasy."--Atlantictire (talk) 20:46, 2 July 2014 (UTC)
I whole heartedly agree. But calling someone a bigot or troll and proving someone is a bigot or troll are entirely different. It is way too easy to call someone a bigot and it has become socially normal to do so. I oppose this. Wikipedia requires us to first prove someone is a bigot or troll - with diffs - and then to block them. This requires both diffs of the behavior and diffs of counter behavior. Proving something is true includes questioning whether the opposite is true. (sigh) I'm just not sure I'm getting anywhere with you. I feel you believe that any logical person should have their blood boil and raise arms in a heroic battle against what is evil and anything less than that must be support of the opposite. Anything less than the temperature of your blood being on the verge of burning through skin must be indifference. Demonstrating to you that we need less angry reactions and more passive analysis comes off to you as treason against victims. I see it as getting to the truth. Unfortunately, I don't think we can come to an agreement. I see it as a virtue to avoid getting involved when my blood boils, and it does indeed boil on issues you accuse me of being indifferent to, and I only engage (especially with the bit) in things that I can contribute to with reasoned argument. If you feel there are any situations that reasoned argument can be skipped, then I do not think we could ever agree.--v/r - TP 20:57, 2 July 2014 (UTC)
TParis, do you really think it's reasonable to expect someone to sagely present arguments and sources for 3 months to someone who is deaf to argument, indifferent to sources, and playing wordgames instead of honestly engaging? I'll answer that for you. It isn't. People quit or explode. I think you think this never happens here. Actually it happens all the time. It's the norm now.--Atlantictire (talk) 21:29, 2 July 2014 (UTC)
Not everyone quits or explodes. Some people persevere. (sorry for butting in!) USchick (talk) 21:37, 2 July 2014 (UTC)
I know you enjoy fighting on the internet with cranks and IDHTs, but it makes me feel ridiculous. I'd rather just edit with people. These nasty disputes do seem to lose us the smart, reasonable people more often than the people who have nothing better to do than win the internet. USchick likes to think otherwise, but what can you do. Not everything should feel like editing a Balkans article!--Atlantictire (talk) 21:58, 2 July 2014 (UTC)
(talk page stalker)Given the gender gap on Wikipedia, with only about 10% female editors, I do suspect far too many just disappear, and while I’m sure there are many reasons for this, I think Atlantictire brings up some good points, that it would be good for all admins (not just TParis) to hear. --BoboMeowCat (talk) 22:05, 2 July 2014 (UTC)
@Atlantictire: I think you think you're fighting these folks - but that behavior only attracts them. When people think something is owned by radicals, it attracts radicals of the opposite side. You're attracting the type that are comfortable arguing like you do. It's easy to argue like that - anyone can do it and that attracts anyone who wants to. When you raise the argument, you set yourself on higher moral and intellectual ground that is harder for uneducated bigots and ignorants to achieve. In attempting to raise themselves to that level, they'll have to educate themselves and thus they learn what uneducated bigots and how ignorant they were. @Bobomeowcat: It's a mistake to think that lowering ourselves to name calling is the only way to fix the gender gap. I'm not suggesting we tolerate bigotry or misogyny at all, I'm saying we need to be academic in our approach to dealing with it. (smh) I really cannot understand how anyone can defend name calling so vehemently. You should find pride in using morally higher methods of fighting bigotry and misogyny that doesn't put you on the same level of those doing it. I'm utterly dismayed that you believe calling other people bigots is the only approach. Further, I'm dismayed that you have so little respect for yourselves that you wouldn't want to take a morally higher road than your opponents. It just makes me all the more disturbed.--v/r - TP 22:30, 2 July 2014 (UTC)
@TParis, There seems to be some confusion. The good points I was referring to were regarding how reasonable editors often end up leaving because they get fed up with IDHT and wp:battleground disruption, which unfortunately seems particularly rampant on pages/topics related to women’s issues & sexism. I think this is one of the reasons for the extreme gender gap on WP (only about 10% female editors). Personally, I’ve never called Obiwankenobi, or any other editor, a misogynist, but apparently others have counseled Obi that his edits may come off that way , including this very level headed seeming admin (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AKevin_Gorman&diff=614583182&oldid=614581454). Anyway, above you seem to refer to complaints of disruption in topic area of women’s issues/sexism as hypersensitivity. Could you please provide difs for such complaints which you think may illustrate hypersensitivity. --BoboMeowCat (talk) 16:58, 3 July 2014 (UTC)
I've not referred once to a single incident of hypersensitivity at all in any topic area. I said this project runs rampant with it and my evidence is the Manning Arbcom case where several editors were topic banned for casting aspersions. We agree that reasonable editors face IDHT and disruptive behavior. This project is infested with ignorant behavior or just plain hateful behavior. What I'm saying is I don't want the rest of us dragged down to their level of behavior. Is that asking too much?--v/r - TP 17:26, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

I think you're right TParis, which is why it is probably time to just give up on Wikipedia. That's what the people I respect generally seem to do. It's all yours, Reddit. Maybe I'll read about you in the Guardian.:-)-Atlantictire (talk) 22:46, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

A disappointing response. What I read there is that you believe yourself incapable of doing it. You're argument amounts to it being too much work and I say that's a poor argument. I think I've said all I need to say, it's clear that society has stalled. Great minds who have stirred great movements have been overrun with those willing to let name calling serve as their vehicle of change. I don't think there is anything left to be said.--v/r - TP 22:51, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

Invitation to WikiProject:Gender Gap task force[edit]

Mind the gap1.png

We invite you to join Gender Gap task force. There you can coordinate with users who are trying to identify gender bias on Wikipedia (including gender bias in articles, in editor interactions, policies and implementation of policies) and take steps to counter it. If you would like to get involved, just visit the Gender Gap task force. If you have any questions, feel free to contact me or other members of the task force.Happy editing, ~~~~--BoboMeowCat (talk) 21:04, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

(Anyone who suggests essay WP:MANSPLAINING deserves an invite. :)

As I promised[edit]

As i promised you I will deal in the most egregious way with Director. He is removing my sourced edits without any reason. I have posted an ANI at [[8]] and will continue with an RfC. I have posted legitimates edits and now he starts again his technique of very long posts explained why my sources are not good. Usual technique... do you think it will work again? Silvio1973 (talk) 20:57, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

It did not. I reported him for 3RR. Silvio1973 (talk) 12:18, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

September 2014[edit]

Copyright problem icon Your addition to User:Atlantictire/Sandbox has been removed, as it appears to have added copyrighted material to Wikipedia without permission from the copyright holder. If you are the copyright holder, please read Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials for more information on uploading your material to Wikipedia. For legal reasons, Wikipedia cannot accept copyrighted text, or images borrowed from other websites, or printed material without a verifiable license; such additions will be deleted. You may use external websites or publications as a source of information, but not as a source of content, such as sentences or images—you must write using your own words. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. Material copied from https://www.eventide.com/About/History.aspx Whpq (talk) 03:49, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

email[edit]

I would like make email to you regarding this project: may you insert your address in preferences? RegardsSghezza (talk) 11:15, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open![edit]

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 14:27, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open![edit]

Scale of justice 2.svg Hello, Atlantictire. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)