Jump to content

User talk:Atsme/Archive 10

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 5←Archive 8Archive 9Archive 10Archive 11Archive 12→Archive 15

Ismah

With thanks, May I ask you to help us to copy-edit this articel?--Salman mahdi (talk) 08:10, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

Greetings, User:Salman mahdi. I began the copy-editing of Ismah this evening and will work on it again tomorrow. I also haven't forgotten the table for the Fourteen Infallibles, and will resume work on that as soon as I get a break from other projects. Atsme☯Consult 03:52, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
With my great thanks for your kindness.--Salman mahdi (talk) 07:39, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
Is it possible for you to continue copy-editing the article? Sorry and thanks.--Salman mahdi (talk) 16:44, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
Most definitely, Salman mahdi. I had to finish up a GA review and work on my essay but was planning to do more on Ismah today. Atsme☯Consult 16:47, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

User:The Herald/Taj for FA

Check this out..-The Herald the joy of the LORDmy strength 09:53, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

If its ready, I propose to move it to Architectural features of Taj Mahal. Shall I copy paste? We can make it better them by some maintenance tags. But, please... no hurry....WP:NODEADLINE :) -The Herald • the joy of the LORDmy strength 18:40, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
Hi, TH - it's not quite ready for the masses but when it is I'll create the spin-off under the title, Taj Mahal Architecture Taj Mahal architectural design. It flows better and will be easier to find in a Google search. In the interim, we need to start carving away the redundancy at the Taj Mahal and focus on getting it ready for the FA review. Did you get a chance to go through the citations to make sure they are all uniform? Date formats all the same - author names all the same - titles all title case - works properly cited, etc.? Atsme☯Consult 19:12, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

Uh oh, TH - we may have a problem - see Origins_and_architecture_of_the_Taj_Mahal. Atsme☯Consult 21:58, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

Oh! Christ..... what we gonna do? Well..lets just add
Main article: Origins_and_architecture_of_the_Taj_Mahal
 and let it hang loose. Abandon the ship, I mean the sandbox......-The Herald • the joy of the LORDmy strength 06:48, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

whatever bit of good will you had with me,

is now blown with your sniping at A1, following your sniping at ANI. You have clearly expressed ill will toward me, in matters that have no concern with you. I will be staying away from you, and look for the same. Jytdog (talk) 23:26, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

The ill-will is what you've been dishing out, Jytdog.Pssst...all of WP concerns me the same way it does you. Stop bullying and being condescending toward other editors. Stop whitewashing articles like you did at the EU banned Atrazine, and stop the OWN behavior wherever your reverts appear. You will be pleasantly surprised at the positive results of true NPOV collaboration. Atsme☯Consult 01:28, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Atsme. You have new messages at Wikipedia:Keesings.
Message added 20:05, 8 May 2015 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Actually, not exactly "new", but please respond anyways. Nikkimaria (talk) 20:06, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

Hello, Atsme. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

Nikkimaria (talk) 02:23, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

Taj Mahal

I have edited the Taj Mahal page and added a picture of the Yamuna as seen from behind the Taj Please do see if it is OK and can be retained --Arunshank (talk) 09:50, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Collect_and_others

This arbitration case has been closed and the final decision is available at the link above.

1. Collect is banned from any page relating to or making any edit about US politics or US political figures, in any namespace. This ban may be appealed no earlier than 18 months after its adoption.

2. Collect is indefinitely limited to one revert per article in any 24 hour period. This restriction excepts the reversal of unambiguous vandalism.

For the committee, Robert McClenon (talk) 01:51, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

Much respect

I really respect your response to the deletion of the COI Ducks essay. I'm sure it was a great loss to have it deleted--as I'm sure it is to many of us who wanted it to be saved--but not a complete loss as it was correctly identified as "good faith" and is kept in user space. David Tornheim (talk) 09:15, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

Test for archiver

To test the archiver

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Citing sources

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Citing sources. Legobot (talk) 00:06, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

Help me!

Please help me with...an unwarranted speedy delete

Atsme☎️📧 20:52, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

Requests for undeletion can be made at Wikipedia:Requests for undeletion. Pages currently marked for speedy deletion can be contested by using the button in the speedy deletion notice. PHANTOMTECH (talk) 21:27, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Wikipedia:Advocacy ducks

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.

You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

A tag has been placed on Wikipedia:Advocacy ducks, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G4 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be a repost of material that was previously deleted following a deletion debate, such as at articles for deletion. Under the specified criteria, where an article has substantially identical content to that of an article deleted after debate, and any changes in the content do not address the reasons for which the material was previously deleted, it may be deleted at any time.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. jps (talk) 20:48, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Wikipedia:Advocacy ducks

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.

You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

A tag has been placed on Wikipedia:Advocacy ducks, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G4 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be a repost of material that was previously deleted following a deletion debate, such as at articles for deletion. Under the specified criteria, where an article has substantially identical content to that of an article deleted after debate, and any changes in the content do not address the reasons for which the material was previously deleted, it may be deleted at any time.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. (t) Josve05a (c) 20:58, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

Atsme, I went to Requests for undeletion. [1] AlbinoFerret 21:19, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

edit war warning

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Wikipedia talk:Advocacy ducks. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Please be particularly aware that Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states:

  1. Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made.
  2. Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. Jytdog (talk) 18:39, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

Be advised, you are the one who was disruptive and edit warring while I was in the process of moving an essay I authored. I have taken this issue to ANI. Atsme☎️📧 19:10, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

MfD nomination of Wikipedia:Advocacy ducks

Wikipedia:Advocacy ducks, a page you substantially contributed to, has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Advocacy ducks and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of Wikipedia:Advocacy ducks during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such a removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. Ca2james (talk) 01:26, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

my tp

Not your fault. It's too long. I know it doesn't work properly on phones, but yours is the first report that it doesn't work on a tablet. Could you see if you can reproduce the problem and, if so, please let me know (along with specs on the tablet) DGG ( talk ) 05:25, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

DGG I sent you an email. I took a screen shot of your page so you could see it, but have no way to attach it to the email. Other option would be to upload on Commons but there has to be a better way. Your page is like that all the time. I have to enlarge it and that's when I got in trouble because as I was going to click on the new section, it shrank tiny and my pen hit the edit source tab by mistake and when I tried to get out of there I accidentally hit rollback. Ugh. I am so embarrassed. --63.245.42.126 (talk) 05:30, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
PS -- and now on this iPad,, the server keeps logging me out so my IP shows .. gosh darn it. --Atsme☎️📧 05:35, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

The first Duck essay

Atsme, a link to the original COI Ducks essay, just before it was moved into mainspace might be helpful to the current deletion discussion at some point. Do you remember when that was and where to find it in history? AlbinoFerret 03:37, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

Those essays were deleted and I am in the process of archiving them in my user space. Jytdog has been editing them and I don't want him to be making any changes to drafts or archives in my user space. Why do you think they would be helpful now? --Atsme☎️📧 03:43, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
O, say if someone says its the same essay, that some parts have just been moved around. It might be effective to have a link handy to prove them wrong, the best link would be from history of the one in a sandbox, at the time and date of the move, because it cant be changed. AlbinoFerret 03:48, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
The best proof is in the essay TP now -- admittedly different essay with easy to access diffs --- I don't want the old deleted essays used because it would be like comparing apples and oranges. Let me finish archiving and I'll provide more info. Ok? --Atsme☎️📧 04:07, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
No problem on the wait, but the apples to oranges is what I am looking for. If someone claims that the essay is the same, and a link is handy showing it isnt, it may be helpful. AlbinoFerret 04:52, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
It's time for us to AGF and trust the improvements and drastic changes we made to the essay because there is far more positive feedback than before.. How could it not be?? It's a completely different essay!! Pat yourself on the back for a job well done. --Atsme☎️📧 05:03, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

Mustang Article

Saw you over there, then saw this on your user page: "Wikipedia:Ownership of articles is real and new editors are usually among the first to learn just how real it is. There are some pretty aggressive bullies out there who covet what they consider to be their articles." and had to laugh. Boy did I find that out the hard way too. She convinced an admin to block me for being a sock without filing an SPI. I managed to get it undone, and that admin was desyopped shortly thereafter. Not necessarily because of the abusive block, but I'm sure that was also taken into consideration. Anyway, I told her about the same thing you did: the reason the article keeps getting challenged is because there can be no civil discussion-it always devolves into personal attacks and accusations. Lynn (SLW) (talk) 17:05, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for sharing your experiences, LynnWysong. In a few days, I will share a link to an essay that may address such concerns and if you think of more you can add to it, please feel welcome to bring it up on the TP of that essay. While my laptop is in the shop, I am limited to what I can do on this antiquated iPad so feel free to add me to your watch list. --Atsme☎️📧 17:37, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
Watchlisted. Lynn (SLW) (talk) 17:41, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

What a proper cat looks like

This outstanding feline passed away in January, and event accompanied by the sound of great weeping and knashing of teeth among the crawling insects and small rodents of the Afterlife. Formerly 98 talk|contribs|COI Statement 22:47, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

Sorry to hear about the loss of a pet Formerly 98, it is never easy. AlbinoFerret 00:26, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
Beautiful cat. Glad you didn't include before and after pictures. --Atsme☎️📧 04:19, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

Have you seen?

I was wondering whether you had seen this.[2]DrChrissy (talk) 20:34, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

It is important that we do not go there and comment yet. There will be a better time for us to offer evidence against him, hopefully very soon, but not now. -A1candidate 21:31, 21 May 2015 (UTC)
AN, ANI and several other pages are on my Watchlist, so yes, I have seen it. I actually try not to get involved in such activities unless I can post something positive about an editor. When I cannot, then it's probably because there is not anything positive to say. At that point, I will only become involved if I truly believe it will help the project while also helping the editor(s) named in the incident to look introspectively and hopefully change their ways. --Atsme📞📧 22:46, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

Notice: I'm back on the iPad

Cheez, just when I thought everything was fixed on the laptop, it was "Shazam, Batman!" Same thing happened again. Will take it back to the fixer upper store and do what I can on this antiquated iPad original. Hopefully I won't leave too big a trail of "undos". --Atsme📞📧 10:16, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

Whats wrong with your laptop? AlbinoFerret 21:11, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

I think it may have something to do with the graphic card but the tech here on the island did something to the motherboard and temporarily fixed it for all of 2 days. Left side of the laptop gets pretty hot but I can't pinpoint why that is happening or if it's related. The problem is that the display becomes a split screen - the left side of the image moves almost all the way over to the right and and wraps over to the left with a blank space between the two halves. The cursor becomes a dotted line, and there is also a narrow band on the left side of the screen (21" Macbook Pro) that is wavy and distorted. I took it back to the "hospital" yesterday morning and they got it up and running again but wanted to keep it overnight before releasing it to my care. Sounds a little like the ER, huh? *lol* Hopefully it is something they can fix without having to replace a harddrive or expensive graphic card. --Atsme📞📧 14:44, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

Sounds expensive. I think I need coffee before editing. AlbinoFerret 15:05, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

Your comments

Please note that I don't specify my gender on Wikipedia so I'd appreciate it if you would refer to me as they or xie or xe instead of he or she. It seems to me that instead of responding to my comments or trying to understand what I was saying, you shifted into pointy attack mode by looking through my contributions and trying to draw some kinds of negative conclusions about my behaviour. You further expressed these as "concerns", which seems to me that you either didn't or don't want to understand what I was saying (which is that I thought there might possibly be grounds to challenge the close - that's all, and that's what I tried to express, and if I didn't express it clearly I'm sorry but that does not justify your comments). I commented at the teahouse? I tagged user pages for deletion because they didn't conform to Wikipedia policies? So what? If you think I've done something wrong or acted inappropriately, try talking to me, or take me to ANI, or do something other than make pointy comments like that. BTW this is preparation for the evidence I'm giving here, and it's allowed for that use. When the case is up I'll tag it for deletion as is appropriate. Ca2james (talk) 19:08, 23 May 2015 (UTC)

American politics 2 arbitration proposed decision posted

Hello. The proposed decision for the American politics 2 arbitration case, which you are listed to as a party, has been posted. Thank you, --L235 (t / c / ping in reply) via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 03:32, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Dates and numbers

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Dates and numbers. Legobot (talk) 00:01, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

Gossip and chat

Hi there. I seem to have accidentally stumbled upon your user page. I've read some of your articles and thoughts, and find them interesting. You write well: your observations are intelligent and pertinent.

I'm assuming you're a lady in America. I'm a Brit in Thailand. Have a great day! Singora (talk) 11:49, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

I have nothing to say

Better one

File:Peach Hibiscus detail.jpg.png

Enjoy your day! petrarchan47คุก 20:57, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

So sweet!! It brightened my day. Thank you, Petrarchan47. --Atsme📞📧 13:28, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

Threads at Dispute Resolution Noticeboard

GMO issue

When one responds to a thread that has not yet been opened at DRN, one should either be responding as a party or as a neutral volunteer. I struck the comments of SageRad entirely because a non-neutral comment was being offered by an editor who is not a registered volunteer. I ignored your suggestion to partially unstrike, because you weren't neutral in that conflict either. I am not criticizing you, because you weren't responding as a volunteer, but offering an off-line suggestion to me. SageRad could more reasonably have expressed an opinion as a party. I can see that you are neutral in Osgoode Hall Law School. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:39, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

Robert McClenon, thank you for the explanation and for recognizing that my suggestion/question to you was off-line as I intended. I hope you know that I would never impose on a case you had taken or were contemplating. I have far more respect for you and the process than to do something willfully stupid. I don't edit GMO articles so I perceived it as being neutral considering DR/N is about content, not editors. I enjoy collaborating with any editor who believes in getting an article right, and particularly with those who have the desire and staying power to get articles promoted to FA. When all is said and done, I realize we all have opinions, but the 30 years I spent in a career that demanded neutrality makes a big difference in how I view content. Personalities do not enter into the picture for me, and I don't hold grudges, although the latter could be the result of my poor memory. When the question was raised by the one editor about my presence at DR/N, I withdrew from any and all involvement in the case. I was obligated to defend myself against the unwarranted, unsupported allegations that continued after I withdrew. I haven't decided what to do about that just yet, or if I should do anything. I just hope you didn't accept their allegations at face value. As for the strike, you provided an answer, I thanked you and that was it. Happy editing! --Atsme📞📧 22:35, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

Osgoode Hall Law School

When you accept a case as mediator, please make the case header as Open to make it in progress. I have done that for you. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:39, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

Thank you - I pinged the acting coordinator thinking he was supposed to do that, but now I know it's my job.--Atsme📞📧 22:39, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

Accident Corrected

When you closed the Osgoode Hall Law School discussion due to no response, you accidentally put {{drn archive top}} at both the top and the bottom of the discussion, rather than putting {{drn archive bottom}} at the bottom. This had the effect of hiding all of the open cases after that case. I corrected your closure. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:03, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

I am so sorry, Robert McClenon. Thank you so much!! I really do know the difference between up and down, and will exercise more caution in the future. Wow, I'm earning the label of dizzy blonde. *lol* That must explain the caution message I asked Keith about on his TP. --Atsme📞📧 20:36, 13 June 2015 (UTC)
Typos in the course of templates, such as closing templates, are common. I sometimes use the wrong number of curly braces { or }, or fail to hit the shift key at the beginning or end, which means that the template is incomplete because it has square brackets instead [ or ]. (I don't know what hardware you are using, but the curly braces are capital square brackets on a standard US PC keyboard.) Those look obviously wrong. You had the bad luck to do something unobviously wrong. Anyone can do that. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:55, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

Warning: Arbitration Enforcement may be imminent

With your edits in the general area of alternative health, lately found forcing their way onto kombucha, I am inclined to ask for an arbitration enforcement topic ban for you since the articles are under discretionary sanctions. If you continue playing WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT and summarily reverting everyone else's contributions, I will have no choice but to ask for your removal from this general topic area. Your editing history is already enough to demonstrate to administrators that there is a problem.

jps (talk) 22:58, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

I'm leaving this here for a little while because it proves you are aware of the DS at Kombucha. Also, be advised that this warning is an abuse of the warning and what I consider to be a threat. Alexbrn and you both have abused rollback rights so I'm adding that here as well so it's all neatly and easily referenced in one place. There is also a patterned behavior of harassment and incivility that clearly demonstrates ill-will toward me. Yes, I have the diffs. Atsme📞📧 04:52, 17 June 2015 (UTC)
I think the kombucha behaviour taken together with the past trouble there's been over amygdalin/laetrile w.r.t. G. Edward Griffin could potentially give grounds for an AE request, yes. Alexbrn (talk) 04:59, 17 June 2015 (UTC)
Yet another threat. Please stop threatening me, Alex. If you can't behave in a civil fashion, then please don't comment at all on my TP. This is my happy place, and I don't need it ruined by threats and unwarranted allegations. Atsme📞📧 05:27, 17 June 2015 (UTC)
(talk page stalker) I just wanted to point out that none of the Twinkle reverts would be considered abusive as they each included a specific, appropriate edit summary. Ca2james (talk) 05:30, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/American politics 2 closed

This arbitration case has been closed and the final decision is available at the link above. The following remedies have been enacted:

  1. Remedy 1 of the American Politics case is rescinded. In its place, the following is adopted: standard discretionary sanctions are authorized for all edits about, and all pages related to post-1932 politics of the United States and closely related people.
  2. Ubikwit (talk · contribs) is banned from any page relating to or making any edit about post-1932 politics of the United States, and closely related people, in any namespace. This ban may be appealed no earlier than 18 months after its adoption.
  3. MONGO (talk · contribs) is admonished for adding to the hostility in the topic area.

For the Arbitration Committee, L235 (t / c / ping in reply) via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 19:41, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

Discuss this at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard#Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/American politics 2 closed

Kombucha

You probably don't want to hear this, but I think you need to concentrate on making your case on the TP before you can make your text stick. I'm very reluctant to PP a page where there is edit warring (I didn't even do that on the dog article) because any claimed independence is compromised by having to favour one version of the other. Usually PP, other than preventing recreation, is only used to halt outright vandalism. I haven't followed every twist and turn, and I have zero medical expertise, but I think you need to clarify why antioxidants are a good thing, and whether that is currently accepted Jimfbleak - talk to me? 15:31, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

Jimfbleak thanks for your input, but it's too late for PP anyway considering the prevailing number of biased POVs, not to mention unwarranted threats of AE and blocks. I was somewhat disappointed by your reason for not PP considering it is a tactic often used by admins on articles subject to DS to prevent edit warring and allow time for editors to focus on TP discussion. Unfortunately all PP will do now is secure inclusion of the noncompliant material in the article. Oh, and if you get a chance, take a look at how quickly Mustang was PP after I added a passage. My work was quickly reverted, I undid the revert, and my undo was reverted again with an unwarranted accusation of edit warring by the warring editor. Ironic isn't it? An admin came in and immediately applied PP at the request of the warring editor who was blatantly demonstrating OWN behavior on the TP. [3]  And that is what I've been seeing in what appears to be a very disconcerting transformation of WP. I've already decided to take the POV issues to the noticeboard and am preparing the case now.  --Atsme📞📧 16:43, 18 June 2015 (UTC)
(talk page stalker) To clarify a couple of points.... when an editor undoes a revert, they are edit warring. Therefore, when you undo a revert, it's warranted for someone to say that you're egaging in edit warring. Also, the Mustang page was protected after a request for page protection was made; with that process, an uninvolved administrator evaluates the request and either applies page protection or not. Ca2james (talk) 20:08, 18 June 2015 (UTC)
It appears I'm not the one who needs clarification. FYI - simply undoing a single revert is not edit warring, it's a revert. 4 reverts violate WP:3RR. Also see Wikipedia:Edit warring. It becomes edit warring when editors who disagree about the content of a page repeatedly override each other's contributions. I made one revert - that is not considered "repeatedly". The other editor made 2 reverts which are repeated reverts, but not quite edit warring. I was open to discussion, the other editor was not, at least not at that time. The Mustang page was protected within minutes of that editor's request. You weren't involved, and it appears you didn't even properly analyze the situation, either. While I welcome clarification when it is needed, I would think the admin on the other end of my discussion would advise me. I do not appreciate unhelpful stalking of my TP or comments laden with misconstrued policy for the single purpose of criticizing things I say. I have done my best to AGF where you are concerned, Ca2james, but based on your past interactions with me and your most recent interactions, I am beginning to sense undercurrents of ill-will. Please stop stalking my TP, and in particular, stop interfering with my one on one TP discussions with an admin as you did here and on the TP of Doc James. It is beginning to take on the foul smell of hounding. Thank you. Atsme📞📧 21:08, 18 June 2015 (UTC).

In case you're wondering....

The laptop is back in the shop and I am once again confined to the very limited iPad (original). Ugh. --Atsme📞📧 12:35, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

June 2015

Stop icon

When adding links to material on external sites, as you did to Kombucha, please ensure that the external site is not violating the creator's copyright. Linking to websites that display copyrighted works is acceptable as long as the website's operator has created or licensed the work. Knowingly directing others to a site that violates copyright may be considered contributory infringement. This is particularly relevant when linking to sites such as YouTube, where due care should be taken to avoid linking to material that violates its creator's copyright. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators will be blocked from editing.

If you believe the linked site is not violating copyright with respect to the material, then you should do one of the following:

  • If the linked site is the copyright holder, leave a message explaining the details on the article Talk page;
  • If a note on the linked site credibly claims permission to host the material, or a note on the copyright holder's site grants such permission, leave a note on the article Talk page with a link to where we can find that note;
  • If you are the copyright holder or the external site administrator, adjust the linked site to indicate permission as above and leave a note on the article Talk page;

If the material is available on a different site that satisfies one of the above conditions, link to that site instead. You appear to be linking to illicit copies of Elsevier's copyrighted material.[4] Alexbrn (talk) 04:56, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

Alexbrn posting this template is a violation of WP:CIVILITY and may be considered harassment along with your 3 prior template warnings on my TP. If you are certain there is a copyvio regarding the url I cited at Kombucha, and you know full well I cannot edit that article because of the above sanction, then you are in violation of copyvio and harassment of a sanctioned editor. You posted the above template after Callanecc unjustly imposed an article sanction against me. These recent events have clearly gone over the top, and as soon as I pick up my laptop tomorrow, I intend to prepare a case for ARBCOM. You have demonstrated a pattern of disruptive behavior and harassment of me, and have now stepped over the line for what any reasonable editor can be expected to tolerate. Atsme📞📧 15:03, 21 June 2015 (UTC)
The violation has been fixed. Your appeal to civility misses the point: to quote the template: "Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously". That means you should too. Alexbrn (talk) 15:07, 21 June 2015 (UTC)
Yeah, well how are we supposed to know that? Show me how you found out so I and others who stalk my TP will know in the future. And stop templating me, especially if you cannot provide verifiable evidence of a copyvio. It also doesn't erase the fact that you did it after the unwarranted sanction was imposed. If ARBCOM takes my case, you explain your actions to them, too. Atsme📞📧 16:14, 21 June 2015 (UTC)
It's the other way around, Atsme: if you find someone republishing someone else's material, you need to assume that it's a copyright violation unless you can find evidence of licensing. Copyright is the default state under modern law: creators are no longer required to register them. Instead, if they want the material to be shareable, they have to explicitly say so.—Kww(talk) 16:24, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

Atsme, the template is not a punishment but a request & a warning. It begins "When adding links to material on external sites, as you did to Kombucha, please ensure that the external site is not violating the creator's copyright." Please do as it says. By and large if you come across copyrighted material from a major publisher on a file-sharing site like scribd.com, and the publisher is charging $41.95 for individual access to it[5] then it's not rocket science to work out it's a ripped-off copy. I find it astonishing and worrying you'd think otherwise. Alexbrn (talk) 16:39, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

@Alexbrn: shouldn't the revision be deleted?-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 17:13, 21 June 2015 (UTC)
What you mean oversighted? (it was removed from the article in the usual way when other editors reverted Atsme's edits). In my experience copyright violating links aren't oversighted, but I'd bow to a more experienced voice. Alexbrn (talk) 17:20, 21 June 2015 (UTC)
reading break

Thank you for the explanation, Kww. It is much appreciated. Working on this antiquated 256k iPad has been a nightmare, especially considering I'm accustomed to editing on a 17" laptop. I saw the OPEN ACCESS tag at Elsevier and made the mistake of assuming it was when I found the .pdf at a university [6], in scribd, and on kombucha share. I am guilty of AGF and not doing a more thorough investigation, and hope I won't make that same mistake again. What I should have done was simply not include the url and we would not be having this discussion.

Alex could have acted in GF and removed the url and made it a simple DOI reference which is what one expects in GF collaboration, but no, he had to come to my TP and harass me a little more with yet a 4th template knowing full well I couldn't edit the article - oh, but wait - the passage was reverted by project team member, Yobol, before anyone could do anything anyway. Instead of trying to be good collaborators, this bunch is too busy reverting, attacking other editors and looking for ways to get them blocked or banned so they can enjoy free reign to push their POV on WP. It is downright shameful. The beehive behavior on my TP - 6 freaking warning templates - and the discussion at the article TP provides the evidence I need regarding the behavior. Compare Red Bull to Kombucha and let me know what you think. Exposing this very disruptive "cabal-like" behavior at ARBCOM may well be worth the risk and the time it takes to gather the diffs because I've grown weary of being baited, harassed, politely hounded, ridiculed, reverted, and sniped at with snarky, condescending remarks....for what? A beverage that is being sold commercially world-wide and has been around for at least 2,000 years? After what this same group of editors put me through at Griffin, and again when I authored WP:AVDUCK, and now Kombucha, well...I think I've tolerated more than should be expected of any editor. Those diffs will also be included.

I just want this very aggressive, contentious, POV-pushing, disruptive, WP:OWN, advocacy-like, beehive behavior to stop. We've been losing editors faster than we can recruit them and what you're seeing here is one of the reasons why. I've dismissed all thought of it being gender related, but now I'm beginning to wonder. There may not be a better time than now for ARBCOM to do a thorough review of this highly disruptive, unwarranted behavior. If it turns out that I am indeed considered to be the problematic editor, then I will honor ARBCOM's decision. I just find it rather hard to believe that I have become the targeted editor for edit warring when it was I who contested the noncompliant material in the first place, contributed to the discussions for days and provided valid reasons on the article TP. So what happens? An editor shows who has done nothing but revert edits, has contributed dip-poopy to the article, and walks away free and clear. We all know the onus for restoring challenged material is on the editors who are pointing their fingers at me - not to mention 6 templates worth of BS. Atsme📞📧 20:40, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

Guess what? Apparently Beer has never caused a death nor does it have any negative health effects, according to the article's Lede. Whilst another fermented beverage, Kombucha, is downright dangerous. This is a biased pool of editors, my friends. Atsme, the way you describe the phenomenon we've been experiencing is just so well said. I support you in taking serious action, and will devote myself to helping you. petrarchan47คุก 21:18, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

Comment

I looked back through the history, and as far as I can see, the only admin who has edited recently was Doc Watson. Neither the admin who topic blocked you nor the the admin who protected it has edited the page at all AFAIK. If you feel that either has a conflict of interest, you should raise it at ANI. Jimfbleak - talk to me? 14:41, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

I think perhaps you're referring to Doc James but his bias isn't about me per se. The admin to whom I'm referring imposed DS against me without analyzing the situation or even considering the tag team effort that was deployed to revert my edits (same tactics that were used on other articles by same editors) in order to keep each other safe while restoring challenged material that is noncompliant with NPOV. It is typical tag-team behavior, and this isn't the first time I've been subjected to it. When an admin sits back and allows (by nonaction) PAs to continue against an editor and makes only token gestures to stop it, and then issues a ARB block warning against the targeted editor for something as ridiculous as a rogue emoji and harmless pun, makes that editor jump through hoops for a week to get it removed - that is bias. Hatting my requests for help and guidance, and then discussing ways to get me blocked or banned with the very editors who have been attacking me is also evidence of bias. It didn't end there, as evidenced now with this unwarranted AB. There are few times in my professional career that I have been more disappointed in the prevailing justice system. I'm at the point now that I just want the unwarranted attacks to stop and I will do whatever is necessary to make that happen. I cannot possibly function as a productive editor under the current circumstances. Atsme📞📧 20:13, 21 June 2015 (UTC)
Atsme I've been following the Kombucha issues for the last couple of weeks, and for what it's worth as an outside observer the bias you're describing is quite obvious. I have my own scepticism around Wikipedia based largely on its propensity to this kind of bias, but more importantly on a human level I can certainly see why you've become increasingly frustrated about something you're trying to make a genuine contribution to. I have no useful advice to offer other than, as my father would say, don't let the buggers get you down ;) 129.31.25.242 (talk) 16:01, 24 June 2015 (UTC)
I think it's time to take this to ArbCom. petrarchan47คุก 21:34, 24 June 2015 (UTC)
I wish you all the best Atsme, but I won't be holding my breath for a fair fight here. When it comes to anything related to natural methods of healing the Wikipedia deck is stacked against you. If I would have continued to attempt to argue this issue I would have become exhausted and would have had to leave our encyclopedia a long time ago. Instead I have come to accept that the worse they are, the better...and they're pretty bad. I think that the lack of women editors has a lot to do with it. Gandydancer (talk) 21:53, 24 June 2015 (UTC)
Petrarchan47, I'm working on it, but the presentation to ARBCOM requires a far better prospectus than what I've been able to gather on my crappy iPad original over the past month. lol Now that I finally have my laptop back, the real work begins. I have accumulated some of the evidence I need to prove the allegations are not a figment of my imagination. All my page watchers and "stalkers" need to read the information I posted to the top of this TP because it speaks volumes to the issues. The patterned behavior is clear and when all is said and done, my only desire is that our 3 core content policies will finally prevail.
Gandydancer, thank you. I have seen your work and can say with clear conscience that you, like Petra, are assets to the project. I hope you never leave. Bullies are the worst kind of editors, but I still have faith in the system. There are far too many credible admins and 10x as many GF editors to allow such a travesty to happen. I also maintain faith that our PAGs will prevail over the POV pushers and the behavioral descriptions that have been included in WP:AVDUCK despite the ill-will attempts to get that essay deleted. Atsme📞📧 22:17, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

Sunshine

Here's an alternate Sun.

-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 22:04, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

Hey, Atsme, I told you that zit would get bigger! -Roxy the non edible dog™ (resonate) 22:27, 20 June 2015 (UTC)
Lol but it's not red and inflamed.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 22:32, 20 June 2015 (UTC)
LOL. Rox, it wasn't a zit that got bigger, it was the beautiful sun and now the clouds are gone. It actually looks alot like the Inca sun pendant I acquired during my month long adventure into the Andes Mountains. Thank you, Serialjoepsycho. Atsme📞📧 22:37, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

June 2015

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Kombucha. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Please be particularly aware that Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states:

  1. Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made.
  2. Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. Ca2james (talk) 01:04, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

I consider this warning to be a violation of WP:CIVILITY and it also appears to be associated with patterned behavior and group harassment by the same editors who have repeatedly reverted my edits and/or demonstrated ill-will toward me, both recently as well as in the past. I am preparing a case for ARBCOM. Atsme📞📧 14:48, 21 June 2015 (UTC)
I'm saddened, but not surprised, that you feel this way. You appear to think that any editor who disagrees with you is demonstrating ill-will. I have been nothing but civil towards you and it is perfectly acceptable to provide notice that you were edit-warring. Clearly you believe otherwise, but your beliefs are unsupported by policies and guidelines. Good luck with your arbcom filing. Ca2james (talk) 14:59, 21 June 2015 (UTC)
I am saddened even more by your behavior, and somewhat disappointed in myself for not being wise to your polite disruptions which are even more disconcerting because I consider them deceitful of one's true intentions. Your passive aggressive behavior toward me has become quite noticeable and now that I am aware and can evidence your patterned behaviors with diffs that span several months, I intend to move forward with the DR process without further delay. I also want you to stop stalking me, stop the gang-like harassment of me with your tag-team members, and stop commenting on my TP unless it is a 'warranted notice unlike the notice you posted above. I have grown weary of your harassment, so consider yourself warned of incivility. Atsme📞📧 16:06, 21 June 2015 (UTC)
I am saddened to see all of this harassment on your talk page, Atsme. There is a certain handful of "medical editors" here who believe templates are an appropriate form of communication. I can tell you, I spent a few years here in some very contentious debates involving BP and the Gulf oil spill, and never was taken to a noticeboard or received a template on my page, not until editing the "March Against Monsanto" page, where I met this small group. Still today, on pages other than medical-related ones, people leave polite messages on personal or article talk pages: "hey, you've already reverted three times today, better cool it". Only when a true vandal is at large do we take action. Otherwise we treat people like adults, like friends. The fact that there is a group who've decided to play nasty games is the reason my longtime WP buddies such as Coretheapple, Gandydancer and Buster7 stay far away from areas where MEDRS comes into play, which is reasonable but also creates an uneven playing field in these topic areas where this childishness seems the norm. petrarchan47คุก 18:30, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

Notice that you are now subject to an arbitration enforcement sanction

The following sanction now applies to you:

Article ban from Kombucha (you may still edit the talk page and are encouraged to do so) until 23:59, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

You have been sanctioned as this is second time you have edit warred on the article in the past week so this sanction will stop the edit warring and encourage discussion.

This sanction is imposed in my capacity as an uninvolved administrator under the authority of the Arbitration Committee's decision at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Acupuncture#Final decision and, if applicable, the procedure described at Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions. This sanction has been recorded in the log of sanctions. If the sanction includes a ban, please read the banning policy to ensure you understand what this means. If you do not comply with this sanction, you may be blocked for an extended period, by way of enforcement of this sanction—and you may also be made subject to further sanctions.

You may appeal this sanction using the process described here. I recommend that you use the arbitration enforcement appeals template if you wish to submit an appeal to the arbitration enforcement noticeboard. You may also appeal directly to me (on my talk page), before or instead of appealing to the noticeboard. Even if you appeal this sanction, you remain bound by it until you are notified by an uninvolved administrator that the appeal has been successful. You are also free to contact me on my talk page if anything of the above is unclear to you. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 03:37, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

Conflict of interest in Wikipedia - Earthwave, Gabor B. Racz, WP:SELFCITE

Hi Atsme. As you know, I work a great deal on conflict of interest issues in Wikipedia.

Way back in Sept 2011 you started by adding a bunch of links to Earthwave Society and edit warring over them...

list of some sample difs
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

And earthwave.org was posted for spam blacklisting but was for some reason not acted on.

You soon went to WP:ELN where you disclosed the following:

I added an external link from Wiki's sturgeon page to Earthwave Society's sturgeon page in an effort to enhance the Wiki resource. I serve as Exec. Director of Earthwave Society (EWS), and had authority to do so. I did the same for the Wiki gar page, and paddlefish page by adding external links to corresponding species pages at the EWS website. Over the years, EWS has accumulated valuable information and rare footage on some of the primitive fishes. I produced several of the first video documentaries ever produced on gar, the 7 North American species of sturgeon, and the paddlefish. PBS initially aired several of the primitive species documentaries, and received excellent ratings. We also allowed the public to come in and view the documentaries at our Texas location. Of course, not everyone can travel to Texas to watch the programs, so we made them available at the EWS website for a small donation which includes the cost of duplication, shipping & handling. There are also several reviews and testimonials at the EWS website from students, teachers, and researchers who appreciate the excellent resources at the EWS website.

That whole thread is here. There is no consensus in that thread to include those links, per WhatamIdoing's last remark, which you seemed to accept at that time.

You left for a while between Oct 2011 and Jan 2014 and when you came back, you worked over many of those articles you had originally edited, and went right back and added a bunch of cites to earthwave. You didn't re-disclose your relationship with earthwave this time.

Today there are 21 links to Earthwave in Wikipedia, some on talk and other pages. Here are the instances in article space:

  • in Sturgeon there are 2 links in ELs (which goes against consensus established earlier)
  • in American Paddlefish there are 7 uses (most cited ref) of this ref: Betty Wills (2004). "Paddlefish". Earthwave Society. Retrieved October 3, 2014. and an EL to a youtube instance of an earthwave video
  • In Paddlefish there is one EL to earthwave and there are 3 uses of this ref: B. Wills (1993). "Paddlefish (Polyodon spathula)". Earthwave Society. Retrieved June 9, 2014. and a youtube instance of an earthwave video
  • In Ambush predator there is 1 use of this ref: Wills, B. "Alligator Gar". Earthwave Society. Retrieved April 14, 2014.
  • In Alligator gar there are 9 uses (most cited ref) of this ref: B. Wills. "Alligator Gar". Earthwave Society. Retrieved April 14, 2014., and and EL to earthwave, and another EL to a youtube instance of an earthwave video

As you are executive director of Earthwave and you are citing yourself, this is all undisclosed COI editing. As you know there are some among us who think self-citation should be banned in WP. That is not my stance, but it is not good that you went ahead and added all those citations to earthwave after folks said "no" at ELN. Would you please add a disclosure of your COI to your Userpage, and refrain from citing your organization going forward?

I don't know what the relationship is between Gabor B. Racz and your or Earthwave, but for some reason there is a posting on the earthwave facebook page that his WP article is complete, which you have worked on quite a bit. Is he perhaps on the Board of Directors?

I am providing you with formal notice of our COI guideline, just in case you are not aware of it. I am also tagging articles and their Talk pages where you have edited with a COI.

Information icon Hello, Atsme. We welcome your contributions to Wikipedia, but if you have an external relationship with some of the people, places or things you have written about on Wikipedia, you may have a conflict of interest or close connection to the subject.

All editors are required to comply with Wikipedia's neutral point of view content policy. People who are very close to a subject often have a distorted view of it, which may cause them to inadvertently edit in ways that make the article either too flattering or too disparaging. People with a close connection to a subject are not absolutely prohibited from editing about that subject, but they need to be especially careful about ensuring their edits are verified by reliable sources and writing with as little bias as possible.

If you are very close to a subject, here are some ways you can reduce the risk of problems:

  • Avoid or exercise great caution when editing or creating articles related to you, your organization, or its competitors, as well as projects and products they are involved with.
  • Avoid linking to the Wikipedia article or website of your organization in other articles (see Wikipedia:Spam).
  • Exercise great caution so that you do not accidentally breach Wikipedia's content policies.

Please familiarize yourself with relevant content policies and guidelines, especially those pertaining to neutral point of view, verifiability of information, and autobiographies. Note that Wikipedia's terms of use require disclosure of your employer, client, and affiliation with respect to any contribution for which you receive, or expect to receive, compensation.

For information on how to contribute to Wikipedia when you have a conflict of interest, please see our frequently asked questions for organizations. Thank you.

Summarizing the requests here:

  • Would you please add a disclosure of your relationship with Earthwave on your Userpage?
  • Would you please refrain from citing Earthwave and yourself going forward?
  • Would you please disclose your relationship with Gabor B. Racz?

Thanks, and best regards, Jytdog (talk) 22:50, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Atsme/Archive_10&oldid=1144280840"