User talk:Atsme/Archive 38

This is an archive of past discussions about User:Atsme. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 35

Archive 36

Archive 37

→

NPP school

Hello, i am Barris, i would like you to be my trainer at the NPP school if you have the time. I have finished my training at CVUA( awaiting results), and i would like to move to NPP. Regards Megan Barris (Lets talk📧) 15:23, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

Hi, ~~Barris~~ - absolutely. I will let you know on your UTP when the course is ready for you. Happy editing! ^Atsme _Talk 📧 16:16, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

Redo ping Synoman Barris - see above. ^Atsme _Talk 📧 16:24, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

Atsme, Thanks for accepting. Cheers Megan Barris (Lets talk📧) 16:26, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

Atsme, So I should read through the guidelines and then provide a summary of what I have learnt. Is that what you mean? Megan Barris (Lets talk📧) 16:33, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

Yes. ^Atsme _Talk 📧 16:46, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

Atsme, Hello, I will start the tasks as soon as possible, and may respond late, I am actually reassessing the Notability guidelines before I start, Hope there is no hurry. Megan Barris (Lets talk📧) 16:51, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

I have reassesed the sources mind taking a look? Megan Barris (Lets talk📧) 17:48, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

Ok - give me a little time. I'm deep in research right now. ^Atsme _Talk 📧 17:56, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

WP:POV creep defined

When an editor's views
are all (s)he spews
and the shit gets deep
it's called POV creep.
Burma-shave

^Atsme _Talk 📧 00:52, 26 July 2020 (UTC)

RfA Calculus

Today's fun fact .... if Red Phoenix gets 211615 more supports and no more opposes before the RfA closes, he will be in the unusual situation of having a not-unanimous RfA that still reads "100%" in the percentage column (because of rounding). Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 19:33, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

Good choice, Ritchie - hope it happens!! ^Atsme _Talk 📧 19:34, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

I'm perfectly willing to let all of my 16 socks vote. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:40, 27 July 2020 (UTC) ... but a good job they know nothing about Rounding Errors in Algebraic Processes.

Martin - what I wanna know is why you only have 16 socks - is it because you're not an admin?

^Atsme _Talk 📧 21:38, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

He has 16 feet. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:49, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

Yes it's true. I've actually got tons. Martinevans123 (talk) 15:42, 28 July 2020 (UTC)

I said 16 feet, not 16 inches! --Tryptofish (talk) 21:25, 28 July 2020 (UTC)

"Is it cos I is Dark Imperial"?? Martinevans123 (talk) 21:55, 28 July 2020 (UTC)

I wish you hadn't posted that. I really wish you hadn't. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:10, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

!Vote early, !vote often Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 20:44, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

So is this how someone becomes a well-rounded admin? --Tryptofish (talk) 20:45, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

Just like our gloriously rounded PM, Boris "Hey Fatty Bum Bum" Johnson. [1] Martinevans123 (talk) 21:01, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

What a bummer! ^Atsme _Talk 📧 21:06, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

BOGOF Boris! Martinevans123 (talk) 21:14, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

I can see right now that you guys need some of what we have - declare war on the Big Gulp. ^Atsme _Talk 📧 21:19, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

"Old Red" has now joined the 200 club, I see. Martinevans123 (talk) 15:40, 28 July 2020 (UTC)

Yup, 203/1/1 - 100% (broadly construed). Let's just hope he doesn't delete the front page and replace it with a picture of a dick. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 16:49, 28 July 2020 (UTC)

"Some Dicks are bigger than others." -- George Dubya Ladybush 123 (talk) 16:58, 28 July 2020 (UTC)

I've missed your sense of humour on my talk page, Martin. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 17:12, 28 July 2020 (UTC)

Ritchie333 - Red Phoenix 2 229 1 1 100 🥂🍾🎉🥳 ^Atsme _Talk 📧 12:15, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

I think you should run next, with EEng and Levivich as noms. People won’t know what hit ‘em. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 12:23, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

Horses are people too, you know. Martinevans123 (talk) 12:27, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

But Ritchie333 - I've been running...from the thought police!! 😂😂😂😂😂 ^Atsme _Talk 📧 12:29, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

p.s. I've tried put him off, he's just too forgiving. Although he'd be pretty robust with the tools, I'm sure. Martinevans123 (talk) 12:35, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

p.p.s. Only real vandals would get blocked, editors would end up laughing over their silly edit wars, the bouncing WP globe would represent joy and laughter and should be covered with laughing emojis instead of letters, and the "law of relatively" would prescribe Wikipedia:Atsme's Law as the prevailing law for the project. ^Atsme _Talk 📧 12:53, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

"Infobox, infobox, they've all got it in for box" Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 13:25, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

Alapaha Blue Blood Bulldog

You might want to chime in there, a new editor, probably a breeder, judging by the name, has popped up to claim that we have it all wrong. Low-population breeds tend to attract very personalized accounts and points of view, and this one is no exception. Acroterion (talk) 00:30, 28 July 2020 (UTC)

Hello Acroterion, I have just seen what has occurred on the page, and your interactions with the new editor on both of your talk pages. I added all of the information currently on the page, the page is reflective of both sources. I agree completely with your assessment, these low number breeds often attract quite aggressive attempts by those associated with them to remove sourced content and include unsourced content. When (if) the user comes to the TP I will open dialogue with them. If possible, can you maintain a periodic watch? Often these interactions turn very ugly very quickly. Kind regards, Cavalryman (talk) 01:23, 28 July 2020 (UTC).

I'm trying to maintain a little distance so I can do the admin thing if needed, but I've encountered editors like this before - and I've shown dogs (a skill I didn't know I needed and don't expect to need again), so I know how, erm, passionate, people can be in matters like this. Acroterion (talk) 01:27, 28 July 2020 (UTC)

Absolutely - having a kennel name as one's user name is a dead giveaway.

^Atsme _Talk 📧 01:29, 28 July 2020 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Does a breeder have a COI from editing the article about the breed? Levivich ^{[dubious – discuss]} 16:13, 28 July 2020 (UTC)

Levivich - I'm a breeder and my guess is that 99.9% of WP editors are breeders...and that's all I'm gonna say.^[FBDB] ^Atsme _Talk 📧 12:39, 30 July 2020 (UTC) ^{Afterthought to prevent potential misunderstandings - I was joking by using the general sense of the term "breeder". It's only as dirty as the soil in which a seed is planted.🌾🌲🌱 16:18, 2 August 2020 (UTC)} Oh my goodness, on 3rd thought, I'm not helping am I? ^Atsme _Talk 📧

Certainly, that's why I gave them a COI notice. That doesn't preclude editing, and I'm taking their name as what amounts to a COI declaration in the name of not coming don too hard on a new editor. Acroterion (talk) 16:22, 28 July 2020 (UTC)

NPP School

Please enroll me in your NPP School. Minimoto (talk) 15:03, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

Hi, Minimoto - you need at least 90 days experience and at least 500 not-deleted edits to mainspace to qualify for NPP. See Wikipedia:New pages patrol/Reviewers, and feel free to explore all the different tabs. ^Atsme _Talk 📧 19:38, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

Also, you need to not be a blocked sock. GeneralNotability (talk) 20:59, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

Yikes!! Thx for your diligence, GN. I hope we're not seeing an upswing in what appears to be questionable intentions for working AfC and NPP where potential COI editors may gain advantage. ^Atsme _Talk 📧 21:07, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

The Photographer's Barnstar

		The Photographer's Barnstar
		We may not always agree, but I want you to know that you are appreciated in many ways, not the least for your amazing photos. Keep up the good work! -- Valjean (talk) 00:53, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

Awwww...how sweet of you!!! Thank you, Valjean! ^Atsme _Talk 📧 00:57, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

Request for a quick look over a page before going to GA

Hey Atsme, hope you're doing well. I spent some time last month expanding Shooting of Greg Gunn and would like to take it to GA. Would you mind casting your experienced eye over the page when you have some time and letting me know if you see any major problems or missing content? I'd really appreciate it. GeneralNotability (talk) 21:01, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

I am doing well GN, thank you, and will be happy to peer review that article for you.

^Atsme _Talk 📧 21:10, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

Atsme, thank you for the GA review! Now that you don't have to be super-impartial...did you see the tidbit I added at the end about Smith being released on an appeal bond in March? Found out about that last night and I was just disgusted. GeneralNotability (talk) 15:34, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

I did - excellent find. Keep an eye on that article so you can update it as more information is published. ^Atsme _Talk 📧 15:36, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

NPP school

I want to enroll for this school. Already gone through the note.Tbiw (talk) 16:32, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

Hi, Tbiw - thank you for your interest in the NPP school. Please allow me a day or two to evaluate your contributions so I'll know how advanced you are in understanding notability, article creation, and Wikipedia:Core content policies. ^Atsme _Talk 📧 19:12, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

I firstly have poor article creation.Tbiw (talk) 20:07, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

I've seen that during my review process, but do you understand why it's poor? That may be a good place for you to start because you are not ready for NPP, which requires an almost administrator's level of understanding about certain policies. Spend some time at the WP:Teahouse, and ask lots of questions. Study the reasons the reviewers have been rejecting your articles because that's the best way for you to learn, along with asking questions at Teahouse. ^Atsme _Talk 📧 20:29, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

Rosguill - please feel free to share your thoughts. ^Atsme _Talk 📧 15:19, 7 August 2020 (UTC)

I agree with your assessment. Another place to seek help would be Wikipedia:Adopt-a-user; I think that could be especially helpful if Tbiw can find an editor with experience writing articles about actors, as I think they could use some coaching in identifying the difference between WP:ROUTINE and significant coverage in that field. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 15:31, 7 August 2020 (UTC)

RfA sig

Hello, Atsme! I've been waiting for an excuse to post to your talk page, but boringly all I have to say is I added the unsigned template to your comment at RfA. Rgrds. --Bison X (talk) 03:58, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

RfC for CNN and RfC for MSNBC at WP:RS/N

Both were snow closed the very next day. ^Atsme _Talk 📧 20:35, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

Of course they were.--MONGO (talk) 20:39, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

If Trump wins the election, the theme will be it is because Americans are either/or: illiterate, bigots, racists or misogyists. If he wins it will also be because some other entity "stole" it for him, or mailboxes were removed, or Putin did it. Or because climate change forced everyone near the ocean to swim to the polling locations.--MONGO (talk) 20:49, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

Mmmmm...forgive me, but I don't care about the election. I'm on Bonaire enjoying the Caribbean and whatever happens, happens - que sera, sera. What does concern me now is the rating process and how editors are using WP:RS/Perennial. It is a process I have opposed from day one that was created by a few individual editors without getting community wide acceptance via proper procedures, you know...like presenting a well-thought out plan. That never happened. I've been trying my best to AGF and work amicably within this process, as I know you & others have tried to do as well, but this latest action only serves to further support the validity of our concerns. In fact, it speaks volumes to WP:POV creep, and now we have seen it. I'm getting the vibe that our policies and guidelines no longer matter, depending on whose POV gets priority, and it is not unlike the feeling one gets when watching anarchists destroy other people's property, when in reality they are only shooting themselves in the foot and don't have the common sense to see it. Duh...let's destroy this business over here...this one, and this one...light it on fire because, uhm...we don't have jobs and business owners are bad people, and America sucks!! Jiminy Cricket!!

^Atsme _Talk 📧 21:06, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

OK...buh bye then.--MONGO (talk) 21:32, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

As someone trained in the sciences, I will say that in reality, none of these cable networks are truly encyclopedic in the same way that peer reviewed scientific journals are...but that should be no surprise. They are all out for financial gain and in most cases, sensationalism and a rush to print simply render them as little more than junk designed to feed their fan base and therefore attract advertising dollars. The ultimate reality is that Wikipedia leans left, especially by American standards, and with consensus, and less so rational arguments, being the basis of many determinations as to what is a RS, these outcomes are unsurprising to me.[2] I have little faith that recent BLP subjects or events can be truly neutral when all we have to back up the claims is the least reliable and most partisan sources.--MONGO (talk) 23:17, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

Nomination for merging of Template:Hyper

Template:Hyper has been nominated for merging with Template:Intentional hyperbole. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Thank you. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 19:31, 3 October 2020 (UTC)

Just stopping by to say thanks...

Hello Atsme, I was granted temp. NPP Rights. I have reviewed a total of ten articles since being granted. I made sure to follow the steps in the NPP flowchart, add Wikiprojects, stub sorting and add some categories. Thank you for your training! Cheers Megan Barris (Lets talk📧) 11:49, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

Now this is the kind of message I love to see on my TP! It's a great way to start the day! You are very welcome, Megan. Keep up the good work! ^Atsme _Talk 📧 13:21, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

Thanks...

"What would Ozzy do?"

"Sharon? SHARON? How do I fucking edit this fucking page on fucking Wikipedia? It can't be this fucking complicated! **SHARON?**"

...for the kind words at BLPN. Coming from you, I'll take that as a great compliment.

I really had no plans of commenting on the article's talk page. When I first started here, I dove into the deep end by working behind the scenes on the Sarah Palin article. I never actually edited the article. It started as a fascination with the sudden interest in my homeland, which became quickly apparent that none of those editors had ever been here nor had a clue what they were talking about, but it became a huge learning experience, especially about policy. The one thing I learned is that I want nothing more to do with political articles, if at all avoidable.

If I get some time I will try to dig into this deeper, but I really need to see al the history, diffs, and sources to make an informed decision. At BLPN I was speaking in more general terms, as in "What would I do in this situation?", or more importantly, "What would Ozzy do?"

The thing I really hate to see is when people begin an article, "So-and-so is a politician who was alleged to have committed some crime in August of 2020. The alleged crime happened in 1985 when the victim reportedly yada yada yada. So-and-so worked for such-and-such a newspaper, had these other high profile jobs, and was an advisor to the President..." The problem here is that's delivering the info all backwards. You have to begin an article with the foundation, then the wall, before you can put up the roof. The article should begin by stating first what the subject is. Even if this sort of thing is lede material, it's very rarely first paragraph material. Does that make sense?

But before I can even determine where, how much, or even if it should be mentioned in the lede, I would first want to see how prominent it is in the body. Using the honey article as an example, I wrote nearly all the info on the physical and chemical properties. While valuable info to be sure, taking up a fair share of space, I wouldn't even mention any of that in the lede. I try not to think about it in those terms. I write the lede after writing the article, and then I just try to summarize the article in as few words as possible while thinking, "How can I define this subject as quickly and coherently for the reader as possible?" The average reader doesn't want a long lede. All they want is the gist of it; just the nitty gritty. The good majority of people who actually read the lede are only interested in finding out "What is this thing?" or "What does this word mean?" The vast majority of people who view any article won't even read the lede. They're just researching some question they want answered, and will simply skim through the article until they find it. It seems counterintuitive, but that's human nature; it makes the lede a terrible place for things like POV pushing, crimes, allegations, etc. --unless it takes up a good proportion of space in the body. It just is, and doing so tends to have the opposite effect that people who want it there intended.

Does that help explain my position? If I can scrounge up some spare time I'll try to dig deeper into this particular article, but right now I'm in a mad rush to get all my real-life work done before winter hits. If you'd like some more info, I wrote an essay on the matter that you can find at User:Zaereth/Writing tips for the amateur writer. I hope that helps. Zaereth (talk) 21:25, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

It makes perfect sense, Zaereth, thank you for your input. You already know my high level of respect for you. While we are basically on the same page, I see things from a slightly different perspective because of my years as a publisher/producer who had to pay the high cost of an errors & omissions/commercial general/personal and advertising injury policy. Ouch!! It hurts to even say it, not to mention keeping an entertainment attorney on retainer. Ouch-Ouch! I don't think it's realistic to think we could be overly cautious because there are loop holes where you least expect them, so if I'm guilty of anything, it's being overly cautious - err on the side of caution. The other thought that comes to mind is the diversity of our readers. My first instincts are to try not to offend anyone with ss (we need an emoji for that - maybe put a dunce cap on 💩). Our PAGs are pretty amazing, especially our core content policies...kudos to the editors who worked so hard to make them darn near all-encompassing. All we have to do is adhere to them - pretty simple. ^Atsme _Talk 📧 22:28, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

Burma Shave

I am looking for a "Burma Shave" that I saw recently?? somewhere, about Karma, llama, pharma drama, or some sort. I seem to remember that you were the author.... Can you help me locate it? I want to save it, for future enjoyment! Thanks so much! Tribe of Tiger ^{Let's Purrfect!} 23:00, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

PS: Your talkpage is a hoot! Will take the time to throughly enjoy it! Tribe of Tiger ^{Let's Purrfect!} 23:08, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

Tribe of Tiger, you may want to ask Levivich —valereee (talk) 00:01, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

Valereee thank you! Tribe of Tiger ^{Let's Purrfect!} 00:33, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

Ah, yes, Burma-Shave No. 643912⁄3, found here. Le v!v ich 02:09, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

@Levivich:, yes, that's it! Many blessings and may the wheel of your llama karma turn smoothly towards rebirth. Perhaps as a giraffe?

Perhaps a giraffe
might think it a gaffe
to turn on the wheel of karma
But a llama, it seems
is a long ago dream.
An effect of too much pharma?
Burma-shave

A first effort...Many thanks! Tribe of Tiger ^{Let's Purrfect!} 03:01, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

It's grrrrrreat! Le v!v ich 04:44, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

Wow! Thanks so much! I am quite gobsmacked...I had forgotten about the references, from my childhood, to "Tony the Tiger", which I shouldn't have, as it is my brother's name! Duhh. I am a "My Cat Jeoffry/Christopher Smart" - based tiger. Subconscious choice of username? Anyway, wonderful fun, being able to write "BS", and receive approval! Who wrote the "Sodomite" BS? I must start a file....Cheers, Tribe of Tiger ^{Let's Purrfect!} 06:13, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

Notifying the other Burma Shave pro in the event he missed this. Thanks for posting your ^^^prose^^^, ToT!

It was a day to remember
a few days prior to September
a budding new poet wrote prose.
On his own he did write
a poetic delight
in a Burma Shave sign where it glows
Burma-shave

It's the burma shave crave!! ^Atsme _Talk 📧 18:11, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

Oh my, such an honor! Tricky rhymes! Neon lights! Thanks so much, and thanks for allowing me/us to hijack your tp. In hopes that you are a fan of the late, great, Tom Petty, here is a final BS to use if editors annoy you here on your “TP”. Such fun! Tribe of Tiger ^{Let's Purrfect!} 05:10, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

“Don’t come around here
no more”
Begone now
here’s the door
Your concerns are rather “Petty”
I’ll address them when I’m ready
Burma-shave

Very good, Tribe of Tiger! I'm wondering, in your last BS string, did you mean to say I'll address them when I'm ready? Also, I just learned you prefer to be addressed as "she", re: the Veteran Editor II service award at the top of your UP. ^Atsme _Talk 📧 14:30, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

Ah, 'tis a sad day, when one makes a typo on the Burma Shave sign! Fixed! Per "she", yes that is my preference, but I am not bothered either way.Tribe of Tiger ^{Let's Purrfect!} 20:05, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

Eric Barry Wilfred Chappelow

I have just put the finishing touches (I think) on this article, and am inspired by your pursuits to consider proposing it for GA review. What do you think? BD2412 T 22:12, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

I believe in GA promotion - it makes us strive to be better editors, and gets more eyes on the article. I glanced at Chappelow, and you've got the makings for a GA, but the first thing I noticed is that the lead is way too short. I can't overemphasize the importance of the lead. For example, when you ask Alexa a question - "Alexa, what is an American paddlefish?" - Alexa will read the first paragraph (or more) in the lead of that WP article, not beyond. When readers come to WP for information, they very rarely go beyond the lead. If they don't find what they're looking for quickly, chances are they'll find it elsewhere. Wikipedia is a fast food drive-thru - I want my burger and I want it now.

^Atsme _Talk 📧 22:39, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

Excellent point. How about now? BD2412 T 23:48, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

BD2412 - much better, but the article needs some grammatical vacuuming. For example, in the lead - but a blanket fastened around him with a belt, with the photograph appearing on the front page of a newspaper. I would make the part about front page news a separate sentence; fluidity is important. I'm happy to either (1) copy edit or (2) do the GA review when you nominate it, or (3) you may decide neither the former nor latter. It's up to you. ^Atsme _Talk 📧 16:52, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

Screwed-up the ping so...BD2412. ^Atsme _Talk 📧 16:53, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

I would love to have your copy edits, indeed. BD2412 T 16:54, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

BD2412, check what I did to the lead, and see if you would still love to have my copy edits.

^Atsme _Talk 📧 22:11, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

Definitely still love it. Thank you! BD2412 T 22:22, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

Question - should that be English poet or British poet? There was a discussion about that a while back but memory is faulty about the details. ^Atsme _Talk 📧 22:24, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

The category structure is for English poets, so I went with that. BD2412 T 23:11, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

Hello... if you have time

I have been working on the Cleavage (breasts) article for some time now, and I believe the article is in quite a good shape these days. I am still working on it. But the article has a very flimsy lead, hardly summarizing the scope. I happen to be a very poor lead writer, and I found you to be a member of LEADTEAM who is willing to work on any subject. May be you could help me to get the article a proper lead. This article I plan to elevate to a GA, and if possible, an FA status. But, given the risque and "unimportant" nature of the article it is not easy to get help for it. Aditya^{(talk • contribs)} 11:28, 22 August 2020 (UTC)

Wow! You are already there!

While there, you must have noticed how the lead keeps repeating the same stuff, and how it utterly fails to summerize the article. I gave it a thought and couldn't decide which parts need to be in the summary. All of it looks precious to me, a side effect of living with the article so closely. Also, crips writing is still way beyond my capacity (I haven't given up yet). BTW, I will try to be with you at every step, if you require anything from a poor lead writer.

Here. Let me pour you a cup of tea. It's better than beer, you know. Aditya^{(talk • contribs)} 12:12, 22 August 2020 (UTC)

Hi, Aditya - your timing was perfect as I was taking a break from tweaking one BLP and creating a biography. It was a refreshing break, and thank you for the tea. I am now taking a short break from that lead, and will come back to it a bit later with fresh eyes to see what more I can do. Feel free to edit, or offer suggestions for improvement - collaboration is a good thing. 😊 ^Atsme _Talk 📧 12:30, 22 August 2020 (UTC)

Thanks. I promise to ~~bug you~~ collaborate as much I can. Meanwhile I will try to summerize the article to the best of my abilities. Cheers. Aditya^{(talk • contribs)} 13:00, 22 August 2020 (UTC)

Thank you two for improving that article! - MP 24 August has one of "my places" (click on August) pictured. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:54, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

Spreading more shine: Rhythm Is It! - I expanded that stub on my dad's birthday because we saw the film together back then, and were impressed. As a ref said: every educator should see it. Don't miss the trailer, for a starter. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:55, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

Awww...thank you, Gerda. Aditya is an excellent writer. Wow. I was quite impressed. ^Atsme _Talk 📧 22:09, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

I remember saying that I don’t think the lead image is appropriate, and whoever is posing in the photograph probably did not intend to be a major advert (for want of a better word) for boobies on a major part of the internet. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 22:16, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

It's cleavage, anatomically correct, a long way from being porn, and the way the article is written makes it scientific.

^Atsme _Talk 📧 22:32, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

I can assure you that “nice cleavage ma’am” is not generally considered a polite remark. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 05:08, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

For what it's worth, speaking as a man, my criticism is that the caption is too trenchant.
If the File's existing description were to be added, High angle photo of a woman's cleavage, Ritchie's valid denunciation might be appeased.
Gareth Griffith-Jones (contribs) (talk) 12:03, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

I prefer that headless photo much to what we had until recently (which made me disconnect a link via redirect from Décolleté, something different anyway), and think the title (of the article) might as well be Cleavage (anatomy) or whatever. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:19, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

<—cleavage

^Atsme _Talk 📧 22:46, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

Was this about Grover Cleavage? --Tryptofish (talk) 22:53, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

It's one of life's mysteries. A woman puts a picture of herself showing off her legs and cleavage (or whatever) on social media, 20 female friends all immediately shout "wow, gorgeous", "you go girl", "very nice", "you look great", "wow, stunning" because they all want to show appreciation and lift self esteem. A male friend has to tread carefully making the same comment for fear of being shot down over .... ulterior motives. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 13:23, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

Interesting observation. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 16:50, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

Looking at the discussions below I see how busy you are at the WP. But despite that, I hope you have time to take look at the trimming work I have done to the lead-in-progress, though I have not got around to adding to the lead yet (still adding to the article itself).

I am confused about the lead image, and since there was a suggestion to start a discussion about that one... shall start one at the article talk page, so you people can come and voice your opinions there? I would also like to invite Johnbod, Spicy and Calliopejen1, who were part of the last discussion about the lead image, along with Seraphimblade who put the current image back in there.

You are all invited to that tea party. Aditya^{(talk • contribs)} 01:20, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

Hello... is the lead done? Or you done with it? I am still begging for that help. In return... I have more virtual tea, if you are interested. Aditya^{(talk • contribs)} 11:36, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

Aditya, no, not quite - my apologies, but I've been distracted. I do have a suggestion for you - the article is well-written but because of its length, it is unwieldy. One of two things needs to happen: either a substantial reduction by summarizing and eliminating some of the trivial detail, or you create a spin-off article. Please see WP:LENGTH wherein it suggests that an article > 60 kB should be divided. The length of the article now: Prose size (text only): 69 kB (11157 words) "readable prose size". I ask that you consider the following:

Move to change the current title to Cleavage (fashion), then create a spin-off article titled Cleavage (breast anatomy) making anatomy the scope of the latter.
Move all anatomically related material from Cleavage (fashion) to the new article, and make note in the edit summaries that it is copied from Cleavage (fashion) so that the original authors receive proper credit.
Keep the scope of Cleavage (breast anatomy) strictly anatomical (shapes, medical, augmentation, transgender, etc.) Change the section Lexicography to Etymology and summarize it as it relates only to anatomy. Replace the fashion history (dated timeline) with a succinct summary as it relates only to anatomy and point to Cleavage (breast anatomy).

If you do that, you will have 2 prospects for GA promotion, and 2 good candidates for potential promotion to FA. ^Atsme _Talk 📧 14:16, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

I know the perfect article to move the anatomical part to — Intermammary sulcus. Thanks. BTW, I was also thinking of creating "History of the cleavage" article, leaving a shortened version of the history at the parent article. In fact, with the Bikini article, I had exactly what you suggested. I started with one article and ended up with two GAs (including History of the bikini) and two more potential GAs (if I get around to them).

I would definitely drink to that (tea, not beer). Aditya^{(talk • contribs)} 01:06, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

^Atsme _Talk 📧 01:42, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

Boobies

Dear friend, woman to woman, could you please take a look at how and why I want to corrupt Wikipedia with lewd photos? See here [3]. Gandydancer (talk) 19:54, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

Luv, luv, luv you Atsme. This was the best of the best: "I don't think [men] quite grasp the concept of a woman's sense of self-esteem, much less fashion or what women consider beautiful in a broad sense (no pun intended)". Thank you so much for your input. Gandydancer (talk)

- I speak the truths we learn with age, as much as I hate to admit it. 👵🏻

Why on this page is there so much discussion about boobies etc ^[FBDB] Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 20:52, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

Only you, Emir.

^Atsme _Talk 📧 22:20, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

Atsme, could you please look at the Maternity clothing article again. Now both the Victorian and baby bump photos have been removed and the Shankbone one as well. I just don't think this is reasonable since this is an article about fashions and how can one skimp on the photos? He keeps telling me to see MOS:SANDWICHING and I have looked at it several times. Frankly, the photos that they use in that section look more "sandwiched" than the maternity wear page to me. Do you think they seemed sandwiched? Slim seemed to think they were OK but maybe it had been altered when she looked at it. Gandydancer (talk) 15:11, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

Hi, Gandy - for consistency, images are default right. Depending on the size of one's puter monitor (size does matter) it may well create a sandwich effect. I agree that images are a nice touch; see MOS:Images. I have a few ongoing projects, and once I get them put to bed, I may have a little extra time to collaborate with you about clothing and images. ^Atsme _Talk 📧 16:58, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

About R or L placement, I noticed that it also said that it's best to have a photo of a person looking at the text (and I rather like that advice). OK, take your time and get back to me. I feel lucky to have such an experienced editor helping me. Gandydancer (talk) 18:00, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

Well Gandydancer, I fixed it so the person is looking at the text. I was already doing a bit of research on Commons so WTH, why not? ^Atsme _Talk 📧 18:12, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Nice work on Maternity clothes, Atsme. Cassianto^Talk 21:49, 7 September 2020 (UTC)

Thank you, Cassianto - it means a lot to me coming from you. Gandydancer contributed the most (22%) to that article as a single editor, and she did a fine job!! I focused only on the lead and images for balance.

Please Miss Atsme ... I cannot tell a lie .... I wrote some of the lead! Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 17:52, 8 September 2020 (UTC)

Good boy, Ritchie333. 🥇 👏👏👏

^Atsme _Talk 📧 17:56, 8 September 2020 (UTC)

Oh, Ritchie was involved! Well well, you are an eclectic mix of mystery, Mr333; British A roads, ice cream and now women's maternity clothing! Cassianto^Talk 19:35, 8 September 2020 (UTC)

You forgot batshit insane members of the House of Lords..... Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 19:39, 8 September 2020 (UTC)

Cassianto - Ritchie's impulses were the product of Couvade syndrome - he couldn't help himself. ^[FBDB] ^Atsme _Talk 📧 19:40, 8 September 2020 (UTC) ^{Added fbdb template to make sure humor is not overlooked, which happens from time to time. 16:15, 9 September 2020 (UTC)}

Reliance on DS

There was an interesting discussion at ARCA, but the comment that really hit home for me was the elaboration by DGG - in particular, what I just added to the top of my UTP because it speaks volumes in its brevity and neutrality. I hope there is at least one (talk page watcher) or ^{( Buttinsky)} who is willing to add to this discussion - sorry that it's a long one. I am certainly open-minded to what my colleagues have to say. I personally believe that DS are laced with WP:POV creep and I believe there is evidence that supports my concerns, but I remain open-minded and willing to be proven wrong. I will add that recently, I have noticed and appreciate the minor changes I've seen in DS/AE responses by admins - specifically, the absence of immediate actions against editors, and allowing discussions to continue in an effort to reach consensus/resolution - especially when content is the crux of the dispute. Unfortunately, some discussions have resulted in the casting of aspersions and false accusations, and that typically ends in a unilateral action that supports one POV over another, and a substantial number tend to align with Ideological bias on Wikipedia and/or Wikipedia:Systemic bias, and that is what we need to fix.

I'm of the mind that the only acceptable unilateral actions should be actions that combat vandalism, socking, threats, and obvious trolling, etc. I believe that prior to enforcing any action against a seasoned editor, it should be presented to a minimum of 3 to 5 uninvolved administrators for a final decision (noticeboard), and "uninvolved" should be broadly construed. For example, if an admin has demonstrated a strong dislike or advocacy for a political position, a form of government, or is motivated by RGW/social justice, etc. they should be considered "involved", or at minimum as someone with an ideological COI. Following are a few examples that come to mind relative to admin actions:

Responses or actions that extend beyond a pragmatic response in a specific topic area;
A history of repeated poor judgment - such as defending a sock while warning the editor who suspected sock activity, or HOUNDING editors who don't agree with that admin's POV;
Repeated unilateral actions against a single editor, as well as repeated threats/warnings that exhibit support of a particular POV in opposition to that of the targeted editor(s);
Polemic discussions, sub-articles on a UP, comments on the admin's UTP which demonstrates support of a particular cause or POV, and so on.

Please feel free to provide your input. I'm of the mind, and obviously not alone, that irreversible unilateral actions that are taken at an admin's sole discretion have failed. Those of us who have had to deal with POV warriors/edit warring and other forms of TE/POV warriors know full well the root of the problems, and while being WOKE per groupthink is considered a good thing (as long as it supports the majority POV) it is not embraced when opposing views are being silenced/censored. It is up to editors to provide all substantial views and let our readers make their own determination. It is not our job to convince them one way or the other; rather, our job is to present well-sourced material from a NPOV, and to do that, we must select the sources we use from a NPOV which means presenting all substantive views. ^Atsme _Talk 📧 00:03, 12 September 2020 (UTC)

Happened to see this while on my watchlist and was curious. I'm not sure we align politically, but we agree on on this. For seasoned editors, input from multiple admins is generally advisable absent unambiguous vandalism or abuse. I think it common sense not to DS a veteran editor without checking in first with AN. EvergreenFir (talk) 00:11, 12 September 2020 (UTC)

^{( Buttinsky)} Desperate shortage of commas, EvergreenFir. Please amend. Makes no sense at present.
Gareth Griffith-Jones (contribs) (talk) 10:07, 12 September 2020 (UTC)

Atsme, if any of the above is intended for me to take on, all I can say is that I'm trying my best to be balanced and even-handed with the tools available to me. I am always looking to find ways to improve and value your input, always. Kind regards, El_C 00:39, 12 September 2020 (UTC)

Oh, definitely not, El C. There is no finger pointing or targeting of any particular administrator. My approach here is a generalization based on an accumulation of issues over 8+ years, and it includes cases at ArbCom, ARCA, AE, ANI & AN - some of which may have been influenced by what I've seen happen to newbies, editors I've mentored, cases I've been made aware of, and some of it involves my own experiences - but most of which have occurred in controversial topic areas where DS reside in general. Please feel free to express your views, even if it means being critical of my actions!! ^Atsme _Talk 📧 02:15, 12 September 2020 (UTC)

Ah, okay, cool. I thought this was maybe prompted by my latest DS action at Turning Point USA. Glad to learn this isn't the case. El_C 04:36, 12 September 2020 (UTC)

Hi Atsme. Here's my take on it. Obviously, this sort of thing depends a lot on the administrator: some do better than others with making unilateral actions. My biggest area of personal experience was with the GMO topic area, and it leads me to a very different conclusion than yours. As you and I both remember, the actual ArbCom case about it was... less than ideal. But they enacted DS for the topic area. There were several editors who, in one fish's opinion, were making a lot of trouble in the topic area, and ArbCom hadn't done anything about them. (Most probably, you will disagree with me about those individuals.) But in the months that followed, AE proved to be pretty effective at dealing with those editors. And it wasn't typically because a consensus of AE admins emerged after discussion. It was more like a succession of battleground-y discussions where, after a bit of time, one admin decided to step forward and do the right thing. (There have even been cases where one admin closed the AE with no action, then another challenged the close and enacted a unilateral topic ban, and the unilateral actor was, imo, right.)

Something that neither ArbCom nor AE could deal with was a content dispute about a central matter of long-term disagreement. After some pushing for an enforceable RfC by yours truly, a few admins decided to take the DS authority for all it was worth, and set up WP:GMORFC, which led to a community consensus that has held remarkably solidly for four years. In my opinion, the result of all of this has been to transform the GMO topic area from a battleground nightmare into a peaceful, almost sleepy, topic area. Of course, there are other editors who will disagree very strongly with my take on it: they would say that I and some other editors played wiki-politics skillfully and managed to lock out editors who disagree with me/us and that WP is censored and so forth.

But that may not extrapolate across all topic areas. From what I've seen looking on from a distance, DS aren't working very well in American politics. And it remains to be seen how they will work in medicine and drug pricing. (I suppose I might even think that in the latter, some other editors played the system to lock out some people I respect a lot, so maybe that's my own comeuppance, as it were.) Anyway, those are my thoughts. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:45, 12 September 2020 (UTC)

Thanks, Tryp - this one is a toughie because when it works, it's a good thing but so is utopia, which is where I want to live, so what's the address? ^Atsme _Talk 📧 21:47, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

Sorry, we're all filled up here. I'll let you know if there's a vacancy. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:53, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

I understand, but not quite what I had in mind. ^Atsme _Talk 📧 22:11, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

Q: How do you know when you're old? A: When someone offers you super sex, you request the soup. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:34, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

OMG - I spewed my soup!! ^Atsme _Talk 📧 22:36, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

While we're still on the topic of age and biology

If you are a (talk page watcher) and happen to be a paleontologist, anthropologist, scientist, or have an interest in microscopic organisms, evolution or are just plain curious about ostracods - and of course, I cannot forget our humorists - you have gotta see this article: "100-million-year-old giant sperm trapped in amber is world's oldest". ^Atsme _Talk 📧 18:58, 16 September 2020 (UTC)