Jump to content

User talk:Atsme/Archive 43

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 40Archive 41Archive 42Archive 43Archive 44Archive 45→Archive 50

I don't know what to think

Wbm1058, in continuation of the thread you started above about COVID, this video is ... well ... I'm at a loss for words ... swimming in disbelief and concern. What I do know and can say with confidence is that it is a presentation by Dr. Richard Fleming, PhD, MD, JD. and an "OH, WOW!" kind of presentation. Watch it, and judge for yourself. O_O Atsme 💬 📧 14:33, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

(talk page watcher) I've only gotten through the first 1/2 hour so far - but it is some really scary info, Dawn of the Dead scary. Will watch it in full, but it may take a day or two. TY for posting this Atsme. — Ched (talk) 15:30, 7 June 2021 (UTC)
Ched, it may turn out to be a thank you with a twist now that MONGO has posted info about the doctor's past. Perhaps he (Fleming) has a vendetta against the government? One of the things I appreciate most about WP is the live feedback because it allows us to ask questions and get answers in real time. Atsme 💬 📧 20:31, 7 June 2021 (UTC)
[1]--MONGO (talk) 15:37, 7 June 2021 (UTC)
Thx, MONGO - good information to know. I don't think his 2009 case has a negative effect on the linked presentation, but it does shadow his reliability as a source, although he is still practicing medicine. His 2021 presentation is certainly convincing and supported by what appears to be factual information that viewers should exercise due diligence corroborating before making a determination. I don't believe Dr. Yan is a fraud - she risks disappearance - which makes me wonder what Fleming and Yan could possibly have to gain by spreading misinformation? A close look at the big picture begs the question, who among them - the Chinese government, the US government, Fauci, NIH, big pharma, etc. - has clean hands? I am open to whatever material my WP colleagues bring to light - it's how we learn things we're not aware of, which is what you just did. I've discovered early on that nearly everything COVID-related has holes in it somewhere, ranging from a single pinhole to canyon-size gaps, which is why I believe in transparency, presenting all substantial views, and doing what I can to remove the cloak that is concealing the truth, which has raised so many questions, doubts and concerns. Following is a summary of the charges to which Fleming pleaded guilty:

The health care fraud counts charged Fleming with submitting bills to insurance companies in 2002 for medical procedures, diagnostic heart tests, he had not actually performed. The mail and wire fraud counts charged Fleming with obtaining payment from a North Carolina soy food company in 2004 for product testing work he had not performed, and more specifically charged him with lying about whether he had performed the services he was paid for, and with creating and submitting false documents in order to cover up the fact that he had not done the work for which he had been paid. The case actually went to trial, which began on April 6, 2009, and the jury was deliberating on their verdict when Fleming pled guilty, admitting that he had committed both health care fraud and mail fraud.[1]

There is a lot of information to sort through, indeed. The mRNA approach in the presentation makes me think of GMOs, except humans aren't plants. Atsme 💬 📧 16:52, 7 June 2021 (UTC)
For anything this particularly important we will need the absolutely best sourcing. While Fleming may have answered to the earlier charges and paid his penalties, he is still a person with a "history" so I would not consider him to be reliable in this matter, since this issue is of paramount importance to get correct. We can only say what we know for sure, and we must always avoid speculative things and what ifs. Here's another issue:[2]--MONGO (talk) 18:43, 7 June 2021 (UTC)
Sources

  1. ^ "Doctor Sentenced in Health Care Fraud Scheme". FBI. 2011-06-24. Retrieved 2021-06-07.
The virus itself contains mRNA (that's basically what viruses are made of). It sounds fancy because the process is new, but all they are doing is replicating a piece of the actual virus. Also, we have heard that it works from some very high authority. BD2412 T 17:58, 7 June 2021 (UTC)
Oh, that high authority. (~_~)...m( Atsme 💬 📧 19:38, 7 June 2021 (UTC)
Well, and on my own high authority. Let's just say I have been studying the issue intensely. Cheers! BD2412 T 17:59, 8 June 2021 (UTC)
O_O you sure have!! As we say at the ranch, good on ya!! Atsme 💬 📧 22:34, 8 June 2021 (UTC)
  • FYI, at 3:52:30 he mentions Wikipedia. I agree, MONGO - now I'm wondering if he is notable enough to have a WP article? People need to know his background, don't you think? History tells us that people like him are purposely targeted by corrupt governments but I'm not seeing any evidence of that in this situation, aside from the questionable activities around COVID origins. He is very convincing but there's no way on this earth that I would even consider citing him; however, my journalistic instincts tell me to verify/corroborate his information and follow those trails as well. Regardless, we need a WP BLP about him so that people are not blindly taken in by his sincerity. Atsme 💬 📧 19:04, 7 June 2021 (UTC)
    What does he say about WP? I met a lot of 9/11 truthers that were very convincing....even though they were all crazy.--MONGO (talk) 19:17, 7 June 2021 (UTC)
I'll queue it up in a sec, but first -- I agree with everything you're saying, MONGO - now I'm wondering if he is notable enough to have a WP article? People need to know his background, don't you think? History tells us that people like him (and by that I mean credible people, not people with backgrounds like his) tend to be targets of corrupt governments - and that's how it comes across at first - but I'm not seeing any evidence of government corruption in this situation, aside from the questionable activities around COVID origins & Fauci which is more political than scientific. My full disclosure - I am fully vaccinated for COVID which is part of what attracted my attention to this presentation (aside from it being held in Dallas). He is very convincing to the average person but there's no way on earth that I would even consider citing him; however, my journalistic instincts tell me to verify/corroborate his information - check to see if his story holds water - and also follow the money trail. Regardless, don't you think he needs a BLP? That was the first place I looked to get info about him - nothing else turned-up in my Google search. And I can understand how people can be taken in by his sincerity and credentials. Atsme 💬 📧 19:04, 7 June 2021 (UTC)
I do not think he is notable enough for a BLP. I would avoid creating one.--MONGO (talk) 19:37, 7 June 2021 (UTC)
It all falls in line with what Tryp was explaining to me yesterday. I have no desire to create his BLP or get involved in that mess. I'm just gathering info so that I will know how to properly respond to people who come at me with that material. Atsme 💬 📧 20:01, 7 June 2021 (UTC)
OK, I just spent some of my time (time that I'll never get back) looking into this, and here is my feedback. First, please don't anyone feel Dawn of the Dead scared about any of this, because there is no reason to be scared about it. Second, MONGO is correct about the quack nature of it. It's worth noting that the video is posted at highwire.com. This, it turns out, is not the same thing as HighWire, a perfectly respectable scientific information outlet. No, it's a website maintained by Del Bigtree. You can read our BLP about him, and I think it speaks for itself (make sure you don't miss the part about the attack at the Capitol).
I don't have the patience to sit through the entire video, so I kind of skipped from one part to another, just looking in briefly enough at each step to have an imperfect sense of what's going on. If I understand correctly, the main issues are that: (1) the US government is supposedly blocking physicians from using the best meds for people with severe COVID, because the government is in the financial clutches of the vaccine makers; (2) Fleming's own patented method is a good way to go; (3) mRNA vaccines are bad because they behave like prions and people who get them end up having immune responses to stuff other than the viral Spike protein, which is harmful. I don't think I need to explain (2), so I'll speak to (1) and (3). If there's something else that I missed, please feel free to ask me about that, too.
The kinds of meds he talks about for acute treatment of people who are in very bad shape with COVID are not particularly unreasonable. He recognizes that hydroxychloroquine needs to be supplemented with something else, and the "something else" is probably giving most of the benefit. So far, OK, except that it would be better to prevent the disease than to get to the point where you have to give a pile of medicines in an acute care setting, to keep the person breathing and not-inflamed. But the stuff about the government tying physicians' hands is wacko. (His hands might be tied by law enforcement, but that's something else.) All the drugs he talks about are FDA-approved for other stuff, and in the US any doctor is free to prescribe them "off-label" for any reason they want. So no doctor is being blocked by the Feds from giving these things to patients. But they're still early-experimental for this use. And it's a red flag when he talks about not using beta-1 drugs because they make people's hearts race, and that beta-2 drugs need to be used instead. That sounds very scientific. But it's something every first-year med student learns. Docs use beta-1s if they have to jolt the heart of a patient in cardiac arrest, but they all know to use beta-2s to open up the breathing pathways. It ain't breaking news.
As for mRNA vaccines causing bad stuff via gain-of-function, nope. (I've had the Pfizer vaccine, was happy to get it, and am just as fucked-up as I've ever been.) There are now millions of people who have had the Pfizer and Moderna vaccines, and the evidence for them making good antibodies against the viral Spike protein is very strong, and the evidence for them making bad antibodies against the other things that are in the vaccines is vanishingly insignificant. And this video was posted on an anti-vax conspiracy theory website.
There are good reasons why Wikipedia has WP:MEDRS requiring review articles and not single primary-source studies. It's easy to get alarmed by one guy saying dubious stuff in a dignified and seemingly reasonable and expert way. But wait and see if other medical scientists evaluate the literature in a topic and decide whether or not that single claim has held up. Please don't anyone here get worried about what's in that video. Just laugh it off. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:36, 7 June 2021 (UTC)
Ack!! And that's why I posted it here - the input is priceless. Thank you to an incredible cast of characters: MONGO, the investigator, Tryptofish, the scientist (great catch on the highwire look alike), and BD2412 who brought us revelations of high authority. Whadda Team!! Maybe it wouldn't be a bad idea to have a Debunkerpedia? Atsme 💬 📧 22:43, 7 June 2021 (UTC)
Priceless, huh? I'm sending you my bill! Although, admittedly, that's not a Debunker Hill that I'd want to die on. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:57, 7 June 2021 (UTC)
Hey, we have matching vaccines so play nice. Did your's come with a rash? Atsme 💬 📧 23:09, 7 June 2021 (UTC)
No, no rash for me. The injection site was very slightly sore, almost insignificant, and that was it. More recently, I got my ten-year booster for tetanus and diptheria, and that made me feel a little sicker. But a few years back, I got the shingles vaccine, and that was horrible. I ran such a high fever that I went an entire night without sleeping, and then felt lousy from the lack of sleep – twice, for two shots.
Something else after an ec, I re-read what I wrote, and I want to be a little over-picky, and modify something I said. What I said was correct, about the mRNA vaccines not leading people to develop antibodies against the other ingredients of the vaccines. But since there are also other kinds of vaccines (such as the Astra-Zeneca one) that use an inactivated adenovirus as a carrier in the vaccine – the kind of vaccine that's been in use for all kinds of diseases for a long time, as opposed to the newfangled mRNA vaccines – it's actually the case that everyone who gets those vaccines becomes immune to both the COVID virus and the modified carrier virus in the vaccine. So that's a case where you do become immune to something else. But it's not a problem, because it's fine to be immune to another virus, and we are able to keep the vaccines working by making small changes in the inactivated carrier virus for each new vaccine. Just felt I should correct that. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:24, 7 June 2021 (UTC)
PS: No need to worry about that rash, so long as it went away within a couple of days. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:36, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

Belated reply Atsme. I got your ping when you started this section, and started watching the video. About 20 minutes in, after hearing him play some annoying audio about "blue pills" and "red pills", I fell asleep, and then got called to take care of some personal business. Happy to see all the responses here when I found time to come back to this. A little, but not too, surprised at the responses. I recall some months ago someone sent me a link to an interview on Fox, I think it was Tucker Carlson interviewing some woman in Hong Kong. About how the virus was created in a Wuhan lab. My reaction to that was similar.

If "the ground began to shift on May 2" when Nicholas Wade published his lengthy essay, the earth is now in major tremors with the June 3 publication in Vanity Fair The Lab-Leak Theory: Inside the Fight to Uncover COVID-19’s Origins.

"Steve Bannon... joined forces with an exiled Chinese billionaire named Guo Wengui to fuel claims that China had developed the disease as a bioweapon and purposefully unleashed it on the world. As proof, they paraded a Hong Kong scientist around right-wing media outlets until her manifest lack of expertise doomed the charade." Yeah, that's the woman Tucker interviewed, I'm sure.

It's a shame that with the Peter Daszak-led "MEDRS cartel" on one side and the right-wing propagandist nut jobs on the other side sucking all the oxygen out of the media-space, the DRASTIC researchers have struggled so hard to be heard, but I think they've finally broken through. Witness the Origins of COVID-19 case request by team Daszak before ArbCom now. The earthquake is happening, this is their last-ditch attempt to defend the status quo. I predict they're going down. – wbm1058 (talk) 00:18, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

@Wbm1058: I'm unaware of an editor involved with MEDRS who goes by that name, nor am I aware of a "cartel" here. And I don't see anyone by that name listed as a named party at the ArbCom case request. Please clarify where that name came from, and whether any editor here has voluntarily posted that name on-wiki. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:54, 8 June 2021 (UTC)
Tryptofish, Peter Daszak is one of the scientists who was involved in the WHO investigation that concluded that a zoonotic origin was most likely.
P.S. I very much enjoyed reading your response to that video, above. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 18:08, 8 June 2021 (UTC)
Thanks. I know who Daszak is, but it sounds like he may also be an editor. Did I misunderstand the references above to Daszek leading an MEDRS cartel and leading the team filing at ArbCom? It sounds like he is an editor doing those things, but perhaps the intended meaning was that editors here support the sources that include Daszak's real-life work. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:13, 8 June 2021 (UTC)
I had the same thought when I first read wbm's comment; that it really reads like they're talking about an editor, else the MEDRS reference doesn't really make sense. But I gave up a long time ago on trying to make sense of everything people say, so I just assumed they meant the "MEDRS cartel" was being led or inspired off-wiki by Daszek. It's just not that easy to communicate via plain text.
Well, unless we agree on an emoji lexicon and make liberal use of it, but that's a fate worse than death. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 18:29, 8 June 2021 (UTC)
Rather than continuing to speculate, I'd like wbm1058 to clear that up for us. Oh, and . --Tryptofish (talk) 18:34, 8 June 2021 (UTC)
Smileys and emoticons are -by dint of coming into use when I was still young enough to care about appearing cool to other people on the internet- morally and practically acceptable in ways emojis will never be.
Damn kids these days with their stupid eggplants and lips and water drop- Oh wow, I just figured out what that means... ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 18:43, 8 June 2021 (UTC)
--Tryptofish (talk) 19:01, 8 June 2021 (UTC)
I sense that bloomer britches may have an issue with emojis. Understandable for a Picard fan to neither understand nor appreciate facial expression and voice inflexion like what magically & dramatically materializes in the golden throat of Captain Kirk. It's one of the most important aspects of intelligent communication. Atsme 💬 📧 21:19, 8 June 2021 (UTC)
[sips earl grey tea (hot) and stares balefully] At least Picard got his own series. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 21:34, 8 June 2021 (UTC)
[savors the fruitiness of a strawberry daiquiri, and winks over reading glasses adorned with Swarovski crystals] Patrick Stewart executive produces the series and stars as Picard. Fifty Shades of Ego Gray. Atsme 💬 📧 22:00, 8 June 2021 (UTC)
[guzzles a beer and burps] --Tryptofish (talk) 22:13, 8 June 2021 (UTC)
LaughingOutLoad Atsme 💬 📧 22:31, 8 June 2021 (UTC)
I just noticed: File:LaughingOutLoad should be LaughingOutLoud, unless there's a joke that I'm missing. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:59, 8 June 2021 (UTC)
Good catch - you don't leave any stone unturned! Maybe the creator is Canadian and spelled it phonetically, or there is already a file using loud? Atsme 💬 📧 23:07, 8 June 2021 (UTC)
Or any tern unstoned, or something. I had assumed without looking that it was one of the files you created, because you've created so many like it. But I looked now, and it's actually somebody's file at Commons, so there's no point in starting a requested move here. Just lol and forget about it. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:16, 8 June 2021 (UTC)
One of my creations:
This user is a quantum mechanic specializing in quantum omissions and exhaustive misfires in the WP article engine.
Atsme 💬 📧 23:22, 8 June 2021 (UTC)
"Executive producer" is an honorific title for the star of a series, one that's essentially de rigeur when dealing with the original actor portraying a character as flawless, timeless, and peerless as Admiral Jean-Luc Picard.
Speaking of vanity projects... Isn't that the one where they met god and shot him with phasers? Oh wait, no, it wasn't god. It was a grumpy wizard of Oz. My mistake. ;) ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 22:44, 8 June 2021 (UTC)
His real vanity project was A Celebration of Horses: The American Saddlebred - he didn't earn any money at all for it. He was the star, it was his farm, and featured him showing his horses. His real-true self showed through like no other TV show he's been in, aside from guest appearances as himself, but even then, he's guarded. The horses are his passion, so he actually loved being part of that PBS special - he's the one who called me, and invited me to do it. The movies & TV series are his bread & butter - no vanity - it's all about the money and preserving the Star Trek legacy. It's a different world, indeed. And let's not forget, Bill's looks didn't hurt his career. Atsme 💬 📧 23:45, 8 June 2021 (UTC)
Atsme, So that's why you're a Kirk fan. It's all about younger Bill's good looks... and.... Dramatic.... Charisma.
I can forgive you for that. While I'm not attracted to the male figure myself, I am given to understand that he was considered quite the hunk in his day.
Of course, I much prefer someone with some real wit to them. A Shakespearean actor with the ability to swing from high drama to lowbrow humor and handle either with amazing aplomb and skill is more interesting to me than a guy with a chiselled jaw. I can see that in the mirror every morning.
If I shaved off my giant prospector beard, that is.And had a chiselled chin. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 14:52, 9 June 2021 (UTC)
^_^ I'm sure that when we're young & impressionable, looks may influence what we think about someone - relative to a relationship for me, otherwise it's inconsequential. I have many beautiful friends, but not necessarily physical beauty. Age changes how we see people and the characteristics we appreciate most about them. For me, humor is a 5+; being a good communicator, kindness, consideration & understanding - all are a 10+; intelligence w/common sense (not just booksmart) is a 7+; good health (not perfect health because we're not in the same body we had at age 21) is a 5+ maybe a bit more. It's remarkable how maturity affects our perspectives. I remember when my priorities were much different and that being a good dancer was a 10+, an accomplished equestrian a 20+, desire to travel a 10+, but none of that matters anymore. I'm quite happy to just sit on my terrace by the ocean with an afternoon cocktail and listen to the subtle slap of the waves against the rocks below. It allows me to filter out the trials and tribulations of the day, and just relax. Life is good, and I intend to keep living it. Atsme 💬 📧 15:54, 9 June 2021 (UTC)
"The Early Bird Catches the, um, Worm": an example of what can go wrong if you chase chicks! --Tryptobird
Atsme, I'm right there with you. I'm too old to chase after hot chicks, and even if I weren't, my wife is plenty hot, as far as I'm concerned. I used to care quite a bit about what music a woman listened to, and how she felt about the military (for obvious reasons, that), but truth be told, my wife dislikes more of my favorite songs than she likes, she has gotten far more dove-ish since we met, and none of that bothers me one bit.
She sits with me on the porch in the evenings as we listen to the crickets chirp and talk about retiring in the mountains. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 16:55, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

Peter Daszak stage-managed the Lancet statement that framed the gain-of-function accidental leak theory as a conspiracy theory to be ridiculed. If you trust the non-MEDRS sources as being nonetheless reliable. This opinion remains the basis for all of Wikipedia's MEDRS-based reporting. I don't know whether he personally edits Wikipedia or pays anyone to. Investigations into the origin of COVID-19#Proposed explanations still suggests that COVID starting from someone eating frozen food is still a viable theory (which strikes me as quite a stretch, i.e. highly unlikely) while stating as fact that "Deliberate bioengineering of the virus for release has been ruled out", which is a negative that cannot be proven. Deliberate bioengineering of the virus for accidental release certainly has not been ruled out. – wbm1058 (talk) 19:29, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

Wbm, thank you very much for clarifying that. My apologies for the misunderstanding. The way you worded the previous comment, it sounded to me like you were outing somebody, but I could not believe that you, of all people, would do something as clueless as that. So it was just a misunderstanding, and I'll happily move on. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:57, 8 June 2021 (UTC)
I watched/listened to some of it out of curiosity, skipping around a bit. It seemed to go from thought provoking at the beginning (history of gain-a-function research) to questionable (i.e. his statistics proving the vaccines were actually only ~1% effective) to wildly speculative (i.e. RNA outside cells produces prion disease) to crazy sauce (vaccines = gene therapy/biological weapon). I think there were a lot of instances where he'd say things that were true, but in a way and context that led the audience to interpret something else. Like showing an audience a video of Fauci saying that people who are vaccinated may still become infected but without showing symptoms, thereby proving to the gasping/laughing audience that the vaccines don't work. Or saying that the early vaccine tests didn't significantly reduce deaths (well yeah, the tests were on young, healthy people who were unlikely to die either way). I also didn't like the constant links to his own website/method.
He may be right on some of his claims. Maybe the virus was produced in a lab and accidentally released. If it came out tomorrow that's what happened it wouldn't bug me that the "experts" were wrong and had to change their story. That's how investigations work sometimes. And science. You have to be prepared for what you think you know to be proven wrong at some point. But in the meantime it's safer to give more credence to people/sources with a track record of reliability and that have gone through some kind of peer-review, rather than activists presenting their own theories to whoever will listen.
I wouldn't recommend creating an article...I have a feeling it would turn into an attack piece pretty quickly. ~Awilley (talk) 21:06, 8 June 2021 (UTC)
I agree with all of that. It sounds like you and I landed on different moments within the video, but everything you said makes sense to me and I think your analysis helps round out the things I missed.
As I see it, it's not even the case that the experts might (perhaps) have been wrong. More like "some of the experts". There has been so much political interference with scientific efforts to figure out where the virus came from – from the Chinese government, from the Trump administration and the far-right, and from the left seeking (often in good faith) to counteract the right – that the real science has been overshadowed. There is reasonable science supporting a zoonotic model, and there is reasonable science supporting a lab accident model. When the group of scientists went to the Wuhan lab, and were given access only to the Chinese government's propaganda, and when some US government officials tried to tamp down conspiracy theories, that created the optical illusion that scientists had settled on the zoonotic model, and that was that. But that was not what was going on within the scientific community. There's a very simple fact: we don't know yet. That doesn't mean that the conspiracy theorists should say "see! see!" (although they will). It just means that this is what happens when science confronts a new question and tries to get at the facts when the facts are proving difficult to sort out. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:11, 8 June 2021 (UTC)
We're all on the same page but I actually didn't bother to finish watching all of that video - it started sounding too David Icke-ish. Oh...and I just Googled the spelling of his name and stumbled across this article at PBS News Hour. And all this time, I thought my ancestors were orangutans. I am now of the mind that origins have no origins - they just are - and I am not comparing apples to origins. 🤯 Atsme 💬 📧 22:15, 8 June 2021 (UTC)
For me, the video was too icky-ish. No, only that higher authority is descended from orangutans. But doesn't Wikipedia have a policy about "no origins research"? --Tryptofish (talk) 22:22, 8 June 2021 (UTC)
I think the policy is more along the line of neither NOR, or is it either OR? Atsme 💬 📧 22:47, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

Loved his presentation

What Alcohol Does to Your Body. Q: So what did I learn? A: There is no real cure for a hangover. Atsme 💬 📧 22:55, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) No better cure than to never be sober but I typically leave that for Winter, which is an irony all its own. Maybe I'll write about that one day. I digress, I have been in the state that emoji depicts many times. --ARoseWolf 15:41, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

Unresolved issues at ANI

Hi. Please see this thread at ANI that you have been involved in. Thanks. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 16:46, 17 June 2021 (UTC)

June thanks

Thank you for improving articles in June, with some impressions of places, flowers and music for you. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:20, 20 June 2021 (UTC)

Very sweet - thank you, Gerda!! And the same back at ya for all you do to build the project, and for sharing your beautiful flowers, places and knowledge of music. Atsme 💬 📧 22:33, 20 June 2021 (UTC)
Thank you, and for what you gave ARoseWolf! I added to the above: missing SlimVirgin, and RMF festival opening - listen. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:03, 29 June 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for participating in my RFA

Your support and encouragement were very welcome and heartily appreciated. If I can be of any use or if ever I need trouting, don't be shy. BusterD (talk) 19:49, 15 July 2021 (UTC)

How lovely!

Must be this picture, which I see as representative of the thanks I've received for the time & effort I've invested helping to build the encyclopedia. ~Disincentivized -.-

GA Task Force seeks new members.
Must have GSOH. -- ME123

What a truly lovely picture of you, Atsme! I saw this and I thought of you! (... from 3:26 onwards, lol). Hope you are keeping well. Martinevans123 (talk) 18:00, 17 July 2021 (UTC) p.s. "Everybody must get editted", is seems

You are too sweet, Martinevans, thank you. Perhaps it was Joe's hairstyle that reminded you of me...or maybe the mouthpiece after 3:26? ^_^ Atsme 💬 📧 18:22, 17 July 2021 (UTC)
Deep lol-ness. We all get Wiki-seebs now and then, dearie.Martinevans123 (talk) 18:36, 17 July 2021 (UTC) p.s. guitar heaven!

File permission problem with File:Alligator gar fillets on the grill.jpg

Thanks for uploading File:Alligator gar fillets on the grill.jpg. I noticed that while you provided a valid copyright licensing tag, there is no proof that the creator of the file has agreed to release it under the given license.

If you are the copyright holder for this media entirely yourself but have previously published it elsewhere (especially online), please either

  • make a note permitting reuse under the CC-BY-SA or another acceptable free license (see this list) at the site of the original publication; or
  • Send an email from an address associated with the original publication to permissions-en@wikimedia.org, stating your ownership of the material and your intention to publish it under a free license. You can find a sample permission letter here. If you take this step, add {{OTRS pending}} to the file description page to prevent premature deletion.

If you did not create it entirely yourself, please ask the person who created the file to take one of the two steps listed above, or if the owner of the file has already given their permission to you via email, please forward that email to permissions-en@wikimedia.org.

If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Non-free content, use a tag such as {{non-free fair use}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:File copyright tags#Fair use, and add a rationale justifying the file's use on the article or articles where it is included. See Wikipedia:File copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have provided evidence that their copyright owners have agreed to license their works under the tags you supplied, too. You can find a list of files you have created in your upload log. Files lacking evidence of permission may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described in section F11 of the criteria for speedy deletion. You may wish to read Wikipedia's image use policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Sreejith K (talk) 19:41, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

Atsme, I reverted the tag made by the editor above, because I looked at the source webpage that is linked from the image page, and you indicate at the bottom there that you are the copyright holder – therefore, you have correctly provided the necessary permission for licensing. (I'm thinking a bit of WP:MALVOLIO here.) If you disagree with what I did, you may of course revert me and handle it differently. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:04, 20 July 2021 (UTC)
PS: you might want to edit the file page, to clarify the ownership. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:06, 20 July 2021 (UTC)
Thank you!! That was very kind of you. I will fix it. Atsme 💬 📧 22:13, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

NPP school

Good morning, Atsme. I found you listed on the NPP school page and I am definitely interested in signing up if you're available! To give a bit of background on myself, I have a some history on this site, doing mostly counter-vandalism work in 2012-2013 when I was just a kid. I'm easing into a return after a (very) long wikibreak, and I was digging through policy pages to get myself back up to speed when I found the NPP school. I figured it would be a good place to learn, and here I am now! Kevin12xd 12:42, 23 July 2021 (UTC)

Excited to get started, and will do! Many thanks for agreeing to take me onboard! Kevin12xd 16:16, 23 July 2021 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Atsme/Archive_43&oldid=1073329422"